It was more like the mafia realized that if they could take over the labor unions, they could use them to bully and extort money from unionized businesses by threatening labor actions like strikes. And they knew that unions would have a hard time turning down muscle, so they would make union leaders “an offer they couldn’t refuse”. Also the mafia was way more likely to torture a union boss who realized it was a deal with the devil than use violence against a wealthy business owner.

Do you think that the more important the product is the less responsibility the marketing company has? Like if you’re trying to sell democracy instead of an air fryer, do you think that means that the marketing company for some reason should be held to a lower standard? Because I don’t know about you, but I think it should be easier to convince people of democracy than to buy an air fryer. So if your marketing company can’t even do that…

And you don’t think the majority of the fault lies with American voters?

I don’t know, did I actually say that anywhere or are you just assuming this?

What I think is that it’s extremely emotional and self-centered to be more interested in assigning blame than on figuring out where we can most effectively put pressure to actually make change happen.

I’m not telling you to not do that, and I think you should. It’s important. I just am trying to get you to realize that the person you’ve been responding to is not actually standing in your way at all, and in fact you seem to have at this point acknowledge what they’re saying, which is that the Democrats have constantly failed to successfully play the political game and all this person is saying is maybe we should demand more of them. But for some reason, even just saying that gets everyone to accuse you of a lot of horrible things even though literally all you want is for the people who are supposed to protect you to do a better job.

Like do you see how this is kind of like refusing to be angry at a fire department that just stood in front of your house while it burned down because technically they weren’t the ones that started the fire and then getting angry at people who are getting angry at the fire department on your behalf because you’re wondering why they’re not angry at arsonists instead? Have you considered that like you can be angry at a lot of different people all at the same time for a lot of good reasons and that being angry at a corporation though isn’t going to change anything but being angry at the Democrats might change the Democrats, so long people don’t literally resist trying to improve the Democratic Party and make it more effective at convincing people to vote against fascism

I’m just wondering, but do you think that a political party that is literally apparently unable to convince enough people to vote against a literal fascist sounds like they understand politics very well either?

I really just wanna point out that this person didn’t say anything other than criticize the Democratic Party for ineffectually marketing their ideas. If you hire a marketing company to advertise your product and their campaign spectacularly fails even though your product is obviously much better for consumers than everything else, would you be mad at the consumers for not understanding how your technology works or would you be mad at the marketing company for doing a very bad job at convincing the public of your very obviously much better solution?

Opinion: trying to teach tens of millions of people enough basic statistics and economics so that they understand that Joe Biden wasn’t actually as bad as they think is not actually a serious strategy for defeating conservative populism in elections