I wrote a thing I hope to turn into a postable graphic. It reads (current version):
Ken Paxton and James Talarico are running for US Senator of Texas. The race serves as a microcosm of what red-state Republicans have to decide in the 2026 midterm election:
Do you want relief from the bullshit and open corruption? Or do you serve and obey our Glorious Leader?
Are you tired of watching your family suffer? Or are you good with owning the libs some more, and maybe pushing trans folk back into the shadows?
Are you a communist and a terrorist, as defined by the US Department of Justice? Or do you cede your voice to the party that is actively trying to make elections irrelevant?
I was trying to point out the way the choice is framed by the massive oligarch-owned far-right propaganda machine. It’s not hyperbole that it asserts that just for voting against the GOP, someone is a communist, a terrorist and has committed treason.
It comes down to either deciding to make the prudent choice, as any responsible, thoughtful voter might, or hanging out with the cool kids (who are actually just rich bullies).
It’s not a surprise that Trump’s base is uneducated white men.
ETA: After the 9/11 attacks, use of the term terrorist expanded from the enemy what did that thing to us to include anyone who wasn’t part of the coalition of the willing, eventually to include anyone who dare would challenge the intents and methods of the Bush administration. (e.g. the use of PMCs, the CIA torture program, alleged WMDs in Iraq, etc.) By the 2010s, the term had been overused and jumped the shark, to the point that we were even reviewing its use regarding Islamist militants and wondering if they had a point, or at least a legitimate gripe. ( Narrator: Radical Islamist non-state actors did, indeed, have legitimate complaints regarding the their treatment and that of the peoples of the Middle East by western state interests)
Trust me, I’m sure I’m on (a) list(s) and I appreciate your framing. Just saying that if you want the message to resonate with more folks I’d probably not say that.
Edit: This is my rough pass at rephrasing.
Are you a communist and a terrorist, as defined by the US Department of Justice? Or do you cede your voice to the party that is actively trying to make elections irrelevant?
Are you standing for your Constitutional rights as a free person in pursuit of life, liberty and happiness? Or will you cede your voice to the party that is actively trying to make elections irrelevant?
I wrote a thing I hope to turn into a postable graphic. It reads (current version):
Ken Paxton and James Talarico are running for US Senator of Texas. The race serves as a microcosm of what red-state Republicans have to decide in the 2026 midterm election:
Do you want relief from the bullshit and open corruption? Or do you serve and obey our Glorious Leader?
Are you tired of watching your family suffer? Or are you good with owning the libs some more, and maybe pushing trans folk back into the shadows?
Are you a communist and a terrorist, as defined by the US Department of Justice? Or do you cede your voice to the party that is actively trying to make elections irrelevant?
I’d probably change the second to last line. Nobody really wants to be a terrorist.
But yeah I think November truly will decide the future of our country in a big way.
I was trying to point out the way the choice is framed by the massive oligarch-owned far-right propaganda machine. It’s not hyperbole that it asserts that just for voting against the GOP, someone is a communist, a terrorist and has committed treason.
It comes down to either deciding to make the prudent choice, as any responsible, thoughtful voter might, or hanging out with the cool kids (who are actually just rich bullies).
It’s not a surprise that Trump’s base is uneducated white men.
ETA: After the 9/11 attacks, use of the term terrorist expanded from the enemy what did that thing to us to include anyone who wasn’t part of the coalition of the willing, eventually to include anyone who dare would challenge the intents and methods of the Bush administration. (e.g. the use of PMCs, the CIA torture program, alleged WMDs in Iraq, etc.) By the 2010s, the term had been overused and jumped the shark, to the point that we were even reviewing its use regarding Islamist militants and wondering if they had a point, or at least a legitimate gripe. ( Narrator: Radical Islamist non-state actors did, indeed, have legitimate complaints regarding the their treatment and that of the peoples of the Middle East by western state interests)
Trust me, I’m sure I’m on (a) list(s) and I appreciate your framing. Just saying that if you want the message to resonate with more folks I’d probably not say that.
Edit: This is my rough pass at rephrasing.
Are you standing for your Constitutional rights as a free person in pursuit of life, liberty and happiness? Or will you cede your voice to the party that is actively trying to make elections irrelevant?