That’s an odd thing to say “Biden loyalists” when there’s no Biden running. There’s literally nothing to be “loyal” to.
But let’s separate this out, she brought on Obama campaigners because she needs the energy they brought to the election campaign. When it comes to her staffing the administration if she wins, I wouldn’t be surprised if she brings back many of Biden’s secretaries and other staff, who you would call loyalists but really are just good workers.
No offense but part of critical thinking is to not simply accept terms, portrayals, or ideas that others present. When you think critically about that term and portrayal, it falls apart because it’s essentially an oxymoron. Especially when you can replace it with a very easy and more accurate “Biden campaign staffers”.
You think people can’t understand “Biden campaign staffers”?
I think you just turned to personal attacks, so cheers. (But to respond, old terms are old terms. You use them in the old context, but this is the new context. Nor is this bittersweet, which honestly doesn’t make any sense and I think is a blind attempt to ‘rub it in’ in the hope that it hurts. Anyways cheers.)
For someone who is complaining this much about a term being misused in their opinion, you sure have a funny idea of what constitutes a personal attack.
We all understood what he fucking said. In context he could’ve said “got rid of Biden’s fuckers for Obama’s” and the rest of us would have understood while you requested proof none of them were virgins.
That’s an odd thing to say “Biden loyalists” when there’s no Biden running. There’s literally nothing to be “loyal” to.
But let’s separate this out, she brought on Obama campaigners because she needs the energy they brought to the election campaign. When it comes to her staffing the administration if she wins, I wouldn’t be surprised if she brings back many of Biden’s secretaries and other staff, who you would call loyalists but really are just good workers.
I can’t help what they’re called. Just do a search for “Biden loyalists.”
For example, from one day ago: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/08/02/kamala-harris-hires-new-senior-strategists-campaign-expands-portfolio-others/
You can use your own terms you know.
The term Biden loyalist is pretty much an oxymoron now.
I can, but I decided to use the term that people seem to agree upon so that I could be most easily understood.
I’m sorry you don’t like it because it isn’t literally true.
No offense but part of critical thinking is to not simply accept terms, portrayals, or ideas that others present. When you think critically about that term and portrayal, it falls apart because it’s essentially an oxymoron. Especially when you can replace it with a very easy and more accurate “Biden campaign staffers”.
And part of language is to use terms that people understand whether or not the term makes sense.
You must have a lot of trouble with people who say things are old news or taste bittersweet.
You think people can’t understand “Biden campaign staffers”?
I think you just turned to personal attacks, so cheers. (But to respond, old terms are old terms. You use them in the old context, but this is the new context. Nor is this bittersweet, which honestly doesn’t make any sense and I think is a blind attempt to ‘rub it in’ in the hope that it hurts. Anyways cheers.)
For someone who is complaining this much about a term being misused in their opinion, you sure have a funny idea of what constitutes a personal attack.
We all understood what he fucking said. In context he could’ve said “got rid of Biden’s fuckers for Obama’s” and the rest of us would have understood while you requested proof none of them were virgins.
Funny enough “fuckers” would be more accurate than “loyalists”.
You’re being an internet troglodyte. Let the Lemming use the words they want.