(this is a sarcastic post meant to highlight the absurdity of some of the “greater good” rhetoric we’ve been hearing, especially around leaving vulnerable populations like disabled people behind in case of revolution, basically accelerationism)
You must log in or register to comment.
I know that you’re really concerned about being stabbed with knives. But you just need to accept the Hard Truth that you not being stabbed with knives is losing political issue! Really, that’s why we’re losing elections. You can’t have everything that you want. And you need to see where the other side is coming from…
vs
I know that you’re really concerned about being stabbed with knives. One of these candidates is implicitly okay with you being stabbed with knives, and the other wants to personally stab you with even more knives. I recognize the injustice in this and will therefore vote for neither of them! (the worse one won and now you’re being stabbed with even more knives)
Who will win? (spoiler: I don’t know but certainly not you because you’re too busy being stabbed with knives)
Is that the youtube poop person?
No war but the class war. Everyone you disagree with is an ally in waiting except billionaires.
Until you somehow “deal” with the billionaires. Then you’ll all kill each other.
Lol humanity existed before oligarchs and kings.
It didn’t. Someone is always in charge.
A straight up Moldbug bootlicker. Get bent. No monarchies, no Kings, in America.
Lol, capitalist education system at work.
Hurdur. Name a period in time where people weren’t ruled. Either in a tribe or in an empire there is a leader or group of leaders in charge. There has never been a time when that isn’t the case. People naturally create governing hierarchies.
You know there is a difference between wise people being listened to because of experience or just because it’s been smart and suggesting rules everyone then agrees on and a feudal lord or class thereof that are exploiting a poorer majority with threats of violence and living a lavish lifestyle. There are still existing tribes in Asia or Amazonas that don’t even have words for mine and yours because the concept of owning is so foreign to them. Everything is shared. To say that they are being ruled comparably to medieval and modern systems just doesn’t make sense.
Essentially the ‘left’ on the topic of Palestine
“The left, american left, and right should join hands to fight american right”
looking at you, Sarah McBride 👀
Anything that gets you to target people with less power than you is a psy-op.
There is only one group of people to oppose. It’s a small group of extremely wealthy people. All their mouthpieces on the internet are irrelevant (and likely bots) and are best ignored/blocked.
There is one small, powerful group who are the only justifiable targets. Everything else is a distraction and likely a divide-and-weaken tactic.
One small group of powerful, wealthy people. That is the enemy. No one with less power than you is worth focusing on.
You’re absolutely right.
The billionaire owner class is at the root of all this. They own the politicians, they buy up the media outlets and bot farms to control the narrative, and they make our lives miserable in order to further pad their already incomprehensibly massive bank accounts.
Working class must look out for each other. We have so much more in common with our brothers and sisters across the aisle than we ever will have with these parasitic elites.
Difficult to raise this amongst friends but one 2022 story came to mind
https://www.vox.com/policy/385549/trans-sports-transgender-biden-harris-democrats-titleix
PS: obviously my conflict is about “fight for 1% of athletes vs. lose election to Hitlerguy and harm like 50% of the population”, to oversimplify greatly
reminds me of 2003, when the bush regime convinced everyone that their marriage would somehow be worthless if they let the gays get married.
and it worked, the stupid fucks bought it. iraq paid badly for it tho, whoo hoo…
Liberals will say shit like this and then be baffled why leftists don’t want to fall in line behind the party of moderate fascists.
You throw trans people under the bus and you also lose, or at least depress turnout, of everyone who supports trans rights. You also make it clear to every minority that if they’re in the crosshairs next, they’ll be sacrificed next for the same reasons of political convenience. Jews represented <1% of the population of Weimar Germany, and you may be familiar with a poem about what happened after they came for them.
Furthermore, by ceding ground to the Republicans on this you make them look correct and you discredit your own side for having previously denounced their position as bigoted, which makes people more likely to support Republicans. We saw this happen with the border, when the Democrats turned from “Building the wall is racist” to “We’re the ones who are actually going to build the wall,” they didn’t win over moderate republicans, instead they lost on virtually every demographic. The people who are pro-immigration hated it and the people who are anti-immigration saw their views as being validated and if they had any lingering reservations about voting Republican, those reservations vanished.
Framing politics as a Trolley Problem is extremely stupid, and fundamentally not how the world works, it’s liberal brainrot and one of the reasons Democrats are worthless. They literally did this “strategic” sacrifice with Palestinians and immigrants (and it’s not like they fully supported trans rights either) and they still ate shit with the worst electoral map since the Republicans took California. When throwing trans people to the wolves doesn’t work, which minority will you sacrifice next?
“fight for 1% of athletes vs. lose election to Hitlerguy and harm like 50% of the population”
Republicans who got on the “Freak out about transgender policy” lost their elections in droves in 2022. Several big swing Senate seats flipped because guys like Blake Masters and Herschel Walker couldn’t stop screaming slurs at campaign rallies. We’ve seen Republicans scrub out over and over again by downing too much of their own kool-aid.
Democrats didn’t lose 2024 because they were too nice to Transgender people. They lost because they were too nice to Liz Cheney. Harris made a big show of aligning with neoconservatives on everything from immigration and trade to military policies against Russia and China to the stubborn endorsement of the Palestine genocide. All of this shit polled worse than support for Transgender civil rights. Harris had no problem throwing the country in front of Hitlerguy to endorse the tear-gassing of Columbia University and the Kids In Cages on the Texas/Mexico border.
Even then… even if you can argue with a stack full of polling papers that Harris knew with perfect certainty and well in advance of the November vote that an impassioned speech in defense of transgender athletes would doom her campaign and subject the US to Hitlerguy, so what? She didn’t do this and she still fucking lost.
So she and the rest of her squishy latte liberal cohort threw away a big chunk of LGBTQ support for what? What did Dems gain by embracing reactionary policy?
On one hand I don’t fucking like Liz Cheney… on the other hand… I think you should welcome (almost) anyone against an enemy like Trump. I thought that at the time, and now with the additional information we’ve gained since then (and I personally learned) only reaffirm that to me. We don’t have to glorify Liz Cheney later.
But not voting for Kamala because the coalition allowed Liz Cheney in is probably just as dumb as not voting for Kamala because somehow… Trump isn’t WORSE on Palestine?
There is not a “single issue” that won for them beyond voter manipulation. They did the same thing as 2016 and did targeted ads and segmenting people on social media. Mass voter suppression in the south (Russian bomb threats in Georgia… the disenfranchisement across multiple states…etc) FB & Twitter owned by them. TikTok in question but absolutely started showing even more right wing content after the election. I’m sure one issue (or two) might be more influential, but that’s only because of the coordinated reach of their voter manipulation.
We have ALL been targeted with propaganda and segmented from each other. They continue to do it now. They lie and Fox News, which something like 60% of the country, carries their lies for them. Bots barrage social media every where. Tech-bro toelickers and tankies promote right wing, anti-globalist propaganda everywhere. (Anti-globalism is primarily right wing, Kremlin propaganda to disconnect The Americas (primarily US ofc) from Europe).
Be wary of bots that feel like they’re your ally, too.
"But the 63 per cent of the German people who expressed their opposition to Hitler were much too divided and shortsighted to combine against a common danger which they must have known would overwhelm them unless they united, however temporarily, to stamp it out.”
Excerpt From The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich Shirer, William
I think you should welcome (almost) anyone against an enemy like Trump.
I would much rather have the people who hate the Cheney’s guts in my coalition than have the Cheney’s. How many people do they even represent? Who doesn’t hate them, and with good reason?
But not voting for Kamala because the coalition allowed Liz Cheney in is probably just as dumb
First off they didn’t just “allow” Liz Cheney, they actively campaigned with her. But secondly and more importantly, it’s not about whether it was right or wrong for that to influence people’s decisions, it’s about the fact that it likely did. Call it “dumb” or “irrational” all you want, if voters were all rational and intelligent then maybe we wouldn’t have to think or care about messaging or image at all, but that’s not the world we live in.
The influence of “bots” is highly overstated and is basically just a way of dismissing legitimate criticism and preventing any kind of self-reflection or learning from mistakes.
It was a pathetic attempt to reach “middle of the ground” voters.
Did you not read that I opened with I hate Cheney? I suppose “don’t fucking like” may not have been forceful enough.
I agree they probably leaned too much into it. A “thanks for speaking Cheney.” is probably all I would have given her. If that’s your only point, fine I agree. But I wouldn’t exile her support entirely. If you’re mad about that instead of focusing on Trump, you’re losing sight of the problem.
I didn’t say it wasn’t influential. If you stopped responding emotionally or with the intent to derail and attack, you’d realize I literally said specific topics could be more important than others (once again, Palestine another highly controversial one I see you completely skip past). But it’s the reach and targeting of these messages to those they resonate most with that is why they are so dangerous. Peter Thiel; Trump investor & close to all the tech bros funding things; was the 1st outside investor in Facebook. It was never “liberal.”
Nothing I said implies we don’t think about messaging. By now the inaccuracy of your attacks come off as firehose of falsehoods.
Your dismissal of bots and propaganda is not only stupid, it’s dangerous. Propaganda has influenced EVERY democracy.
Tell me, which of these was not reportedly influenced and pushed by Russia or is not Russia friendly and has it pushed ties with Russia, both by propaganda & by literally influencing people with money? (Both people to lie for them in media, and politicians to vote for them)
MAGA/US, Brexit/UK, Marine La Pen/France, Bolsonaro/Brazil, AfD/Germany, Polliviere/Canada… the list goes on.
Are you blind? A bootlicker?
And absolutely nothing I’ve said has ever indicated we don’t have a lot to deal with internally. But to fail to acknowledge that we wouldn’t be here without our enemies helping these guys get here is to deny reality. I’d rather not drink the Kremlin Tea, thanks.
read the quote at the bottom of my first post again. That is the most important message anyone can take away from these posts.
Did you not read that I opened with I hate Cheney?
I never claimed otherwise? Very confusing reaction.
If you stopped responding emotionally
Excuse me? In what way was my response “emotional?”
or with the intent to derail and attack
By now the inaccuracy of your attacks
What “attacks” are you talking about? All I did was disagree with you on certain points.
Propaganda has influenced EVERY democracy.
They’ve got propaganda, we’ve got propaganda, everybody’s got propaganda, and always has. The Democratic party has plenty of money to get their message out, the problem is their message sucked and didn’t resonate.
MAGA/US, Brexit/UK, Marine La Pen/France, Bolsonaro/Brazil, AfD/Germany, Polliviere/Canada… the list goes on.
All of those were driven by material conditions, yes propaganda had an effect but the reason the propaganda resonates and has influence is because of people being dissatisfied with the liberal status quo.
Every statement you’ve made has been in bad faith, purely attempting to derail the argument and make readers glaze their eyes over.
You’re doing it now, even in this response.
You’re just hand waving things and saying all things are equal. I’m sure the $160 million from cryptobros and $250+? million from Elon made no difference at all. I’m sure Elon’s $1m fake-raffles to convince people to vote didn’t make a difference. Fox News is watched by 60% of the country. Got a similar stat for a “leftist” program you can show is like actually propaganda?
Bet you’ll argue that because we were imperial, we should let Russia and China be imperial and conquer Taiwan/Ukraine too?
No, the NEOliberal status quo. We have never been a leftist nation. Our Overton window is very far to the right. Bernie is like a single step to the left of the center. Check out any other major democracy.
Part of this entire argument we are having HINGES on the fact that many corporate donors are basically conservatives even if slightly “socially liberal”… cause their money comes first. That even, they too, focus on. Both the neocons and neolibs have maintained this order since the 60s until MAGA came along to reshape the presidency into a “CEO dictator.”
You’re basically telling me to choose MY words carefully. Right back at ya, buddy. Attacking "liberal"ism is straight kremlin propaganda.
You, the tech bros, and Russia get along well it seems.
The influence of “bots” is highly overstated and is basically just a way of dismissing legitimate criticism
Ah, bootlicker/propaganda bot it is.
Well, that didn’t take long 🙄
Every statement you’ve made has been in bad faith, purely attempting to derail the argument and make readers glaze their eyes over.
I love when people just say shit. Like, you haven’t pointed to any actual reason why anything I’ve said is “bad faith” or “emotional.” Really just rolling out all the go-to methods of categorically dismissing any and all criticism, huh?
Fox News is watched by 60% of the country
Lmao no it isn’t. You got a source for that number?
No, the NEOliberal status quo. We have never been a leftist nation. Our Overton window is very far to the right. Bernie is like a single step to the left of the center. Check out any other major democracy.
Yeah, no shit? Why are you telling me this as if I don’t already know?
Attacking "liberal"ism is straight kremlin propaganda.
Lmao. A liberal is a supporter of capitalism, as a socialist, of course I’m opposed to liberalism. I guess every socialist in the world is a “Kremlin propagandist” in your view.
Why do you think the right-wing, free market “Liberal Democrats” of the UK are called that?
Democrats didn’t lose 2024 because they were too nice to Transgender people. They lost because they were too nice to Liz Cheney.
This right here can’t be said enough. The problem isn’t policies that are too leftist. It’s the “liberals” that a working so hard to cozy up to conservatives. If we wanted moderate Republicans we’d vote for 'em. We want fucking leftists goddammit!!!
The problem with this is that it assumes Democrats have no agency. Democratic politicians have treated trans issues like those crusty old male Dems who don’t like saying the word abortion.
Dems have never provided loud and full-throated support to trans issues. Go watch the recent John Oliver video on trans sports. There are very very good arguments on why excluding trans people from sports is incredibly anti-scientific and just thinly disguised bigotry. But Democratic politicians have never bothered developing the talking points to defend trans people, like they have for other core issues.
Look at how Kamala responded when asked about trans issues. She didn’t provide full-throated support to trans people. Her reply was simply, “I’ll follow the law.”
Democrats have completely failed to defend trans people. They’ve quietly passed a few state level anti-discrimination laws, but in terms of rhetoric, they’ve completely ceded the space to conservatives. The only mainstream voices talking about trans issues have been the anti-trans bigots. The Democrats have instead just called the whole issue a distraction and hoped it would all just blow away.
They’re right that it is a distraction, an artificial one concocted by Republicans. But that doesn’t mean they can just ignore it.
Propaganda works. And if you don’t do the hard rhetorical work to fight it, it eventually does change public opinion.
Her reply was simply, “I’ll follow the law.”
Well, that’s more than she was willing to do for Gaza.
and now gaza is safe, and everyone clapped.
oh wait, no, trump wants to annex it.
along with greenland and canada and the panama canal.
something tells me these populations would have preferred the ‘I’ll follow the law’ candidate happily vs the ‘i’ll annex your country unilaterally’ shitbag.
but you don’t fucking care about any of them lol. you got your principled win, good for you, and now the trans folks will be persecuted actively, gaza will be torn apart and sold to the highest bidders, and american kids are going to die invading our former allies.
great fucking work, your principles are fantastic.
gaza will be torn apart and sold to the highest bidders
Sorry, now that’s going to happen? What the hell did you think was happening before?
Propaganda works. And if you don’t do the hard rhetorical work to fight it, it eventually does change public opinion.
yeah it never works on you, no sir… we’re all a lot better because everyone stood by their principles and punished the bad biden/harris team, yep, so much better.
those trans people, they’ll be safe now.
those kids in gaza, I’m sure now that trump’s won he’ll make sure they’re safe.
Yeah this all punishing those bad bad dems you’ll show 'em.
stupid fucking liberals, when will they learn their lesson.
working out great.
If you aren’t going to fight for that “1% of athletes” even though you think they’re right just because they’re too politically inconvenient then I have zero faith you’ll fight for me when I’m politically inconvenient and actually need you to
Is our president a political inconvenience?
I think the point there was reasonable disagreements exist amongst us allies so we can focus on the 99% where we agree entirely
I haven’t mentioned… today… how sickening this is. Sorry to be talking so GOPy. That ain’t me
I bet we could get even more of these conservatives on our side if we promised to repeal gay marriage. Let’s try that, too
Ooh, and we could get even more people if we promised to put the Jews in camps
more of these conservatives on our side
To clarify, screenshot quotes democrats
Trans folx in sports is the most narrow topic - I am discussing it as so. A very specific topic where not every ally is an agreement. A very specific topic that someone very orange did a great job of lying about constantly.
“Force humans into certain bathrooms” = different topic, for example
And democrats responded by breaking solidarity with a minority they consider disposable.
They sure got a lot of the republican votes they crave by showing simpering cowardice in the face of bigotry.
Once you make one unscientific concession to bigotry, you’ll make another. The problem with your strategy is that the opposition to trans athletes isn’t actually a good-faith attempt at securing fairness in sports. This isn’t some fair debate that reasonable minds can come together and hash out. If you surrender on this issue, the bigots just move on to the next one. And since you’ve already conceded to bigotry once, you’ve established the precedent that it is fine to pass laws based on pure unscientific bigotry. It starts with sports, but it doesn’t end there. Now people’s passports are being revoked because a bunch of cowards thought, “oh, it’s just sports, that’s not worth fighting over.” If you give these fuckers an inch, they’ll take a mile.
Do you think we would have won in 2008 if we made everything gay marriage all the time?
You wait for the right moment,with the right issues.
You think Trump won by running on sending US citizens to El Salvador?
This stupidity is why they always, always, always win,you fucking child.
You wait for the right moment, with the right issues.
MLK Jr. had a lot to say about this position. Desegregation and civil rights were once just as unpopular as trans rights are now. If you’re feeling impatient skip to the last passage, though that would be quite ironic given you are calling on trans people to be patient waiting for their rights.
While confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came across your recent statement calling my present activities “unwise and untimely.” Seldom do I pause to answer criticism of my work and ideas.
…
But since I feel that you are men of genuine good will and that your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I want to try to answer your statement in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms.
…
You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city’s white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative.
…
One of the basic points in your statement is that the action that I and my associates have taken in Birmingham is untimely. Some have asked: “Why didn’t you give the new city administration time to act?” The only answer that I can give to this query is that the new Birmingham administration must be prodded about as much as the outgoing one, before it will act. We are sadly mistaken if we feel that the election of Albert Boutwell as mayor will bring the millennium to Birmingham. While Mr. Boutwell is a much more gentle person than Mr. Connor, they are both segregationists, dedicated to maintenance of the status quo. I have hope that Mr. Boutwell will be reasonable enough to see the futility of massive resistance to desegregation. But he will not see this without pressure from devotees of civil rights. My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.
We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was “well timed” in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word “Wait!” It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This “Wait” has almost always meant “Never.” We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.”
…
I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
Jesus Christ.
Trans are less than 1% of the population, and as a brown person, we can’t hide what we are, even for a second.
But yeah, please tell me how trans is literally worse than the holocaust and slavery.
Btw, do you think civil rights would have gone better or worse if someone more closely aligned with Hitler gained power before WW2?
Trans are less than 1% of the population
And that makes protecting their rights unimportant?
But yeah, please tell me how trans is literally worse than the holocaust and slavery.
Did I say that, or did you imagine that I did?
Btw, do you think civil rights would have gone better or worse if someone more closely aligned with Hitler gained power before WW2?
I assume you’re saying this because you believe that Democrats advocating for trans rights cost them the election, giving it to Trump. The only way you could have come to this conclusion is if you heard it from some talking head and believed it without critical thought because it feels right to you. The thing is, it’s just completely false. The Democrats’ advocacy for trans rights has been lukewarm at best and overtly hostile at worst. Most of them have the same mindset as you, where they prefer to retreat from difficult topics like trans rights, ceding the narrative to conservatives while failing to create any consistent narrative of their own. That’s what cost them the election.
Ok, and who exactly do you think is making trans people’s rights a big issue?
2 groups:
-
Republicans
-
Trans people are fucking screaming like crazy too, don’t act like they aren’t, they literally leaning into every punch as hard as they can.
So the message is hijacked, and everyone is fucked by fascism, win/win for the other guys I guess.
So, your argument is that trans people should’ve shut up?
I see a couple of problems with this:
- You don’t control trans people. I don’t control trans people. The Democratic Party is already on your side here. They apparently didn’t think that trans issues were worth pursuing, because they were completely silent on the issue during the 2024 election.
This brings me to my second point:
- Where were you seeing these pushy trans people who were demanding their rights? Because I certainly didn’t see them.
You know what I did see? Republicans using trans rights as a wedge issue. And you’ve bought into it. That wedge is still working.
-
Referring to the cited source, the screenshot?
So, how large does a minority have to be before they are no longer disposable?
It’s possible to be willing to jump in front of a bullet to save a trans brother and loudly tell everyone to shut the fuck up about sports until we codify the right protections into the constitution etc.
Back channels baby! Back channel fights on controversial topics. Fox News can’t demonize what they’re ignorant of.
But this is assuming this topic is popular on the left and it’s reportedly divisive (again, amongst those who are not hateful scumbags)
Back channels! Where you can say you’re doing something but aren’t actually doing shit!
Back channels are the only place where democrats oppose genocide, support unions, try to keep abortion legal, and are diligently working to make cannabis legal.
If you think that you can change the Constitution through back channels, then I need to know what you’re smoking.
Backchannel until [super]majority agreement achieved before going public!
Lincoln didn’t run on ending slavery, but plenty of abolitionists supported him, including Frederick Douglas
Douglass was also very involved in national politics, and as the presidential election of 1860 approached, he advocated for candidates with strong antislavery platforms. American voters received a ballot crowded with four candidates: Abraham Lincoln (Republican), John C. Breckenridge (Southern Democrat), Stephen A. Douglas (Democrat), and John Bell (Constitutional Union). Douglas’s belief in “popular sovereignty,” Breckenridge’s pro-slavery platform, and Bell’s aversion to the issue entirely left Frederick Douglass to endorse Lincoln and the Republicans, whom he believed were more antislavery than the divided Democrats.
https://www.vox.com/policy/385549/trans-sports-transgender-biden-harris-democrats-titleix
What the Biden administration proposed on transgender athletes
In 2023, over strong objections of activists on the right and left, the Biden administration announced a proposed change to Title IX, the law that prohibits discrimination based on sex in any federally funded educational program. Their suggested change would prohibit outright bans on transgender athletes, but would permit schools to restrict transgender students from participating if they could demonstrate that inclusion would harm “educational objectives” like fair competition and the prevention of injury.
This more nuanced stance marked the first time the Biden administration took the position that sex differences can matter in school sports, something hotly disputed by leading LGBTQ rights organizations. The proposed rule also reflected research that suggests sex differences emerge over time, so the standard for inclusion in high school should not necessarily be the same as that in younger grades.
Contrary to the post-election grumblings from Biden allies in the Atlantic, the president has been virtually silent on his own administration’s proposal for the last 18 months. He’s never spoken about it, and it was never mentioned by any other Biden official, including in any White House briefing on transgender issues.
[⁝]
But there is some evidence that Republicans’ years of attacks have taken their toll on public opinion. Gallup found in 2023 that 69 percent of Americans believe transgender athletes should only be allowed to compete on sports teams that match their sex assigned at birth, an increase from the 62 percent who said the same in 2021.
Tellingly, Biden’s proposed policy on transgender athletes — allowing targeted restrictions for fairness and safety while rejecting blanket bans — would likely resonate more with average Americans than the hardline stances typically associated with Republicans, who leaned on transgender fearmongering in the midterms only to see their candidates flop, or Democrats, who many voters perceive as having no nuance on the topic at all. Yet the Biden administration’s reluctance to clearly communicate their middle-ground position left a vacuum that Republicans were happy to fill. It’s a dynamic that political observers say has become increasingly common: Democratic leaders stake out a position but, wary of internal rifts, default to strategic ambiguity even on issues where their stances might resonate with voters.
Interesting: nuance (do not restrict unless it would harm) was possible to beat Republicans on this policy. Internal rifts led them to stay silent on a stance (already being realized) that would resonate.
Really interesting. Thank you
Removed by mod
The portion of the population of trans people in the US is the same as the Jewish portion of the population of pre-Nazi Germany.
You would have happily sat by as the Jews were sent to the ovens.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Suggesting that not being caught up in your fight for semantics, is the same as condoning mass murder. Disgusting.
How you take me for someone who sits happily by while fascists send anyone off to die is crazy man.
People’s passports and other basic identification documents are being revoked, the healthcare people need to stay breathing is being targeted for elimination, and the official policy of the administration is that trans people are pedophiles worthy of the death penalty. And you’re here spouting the T slur and dismissing the genocide that is right in front of you.
Yes, you would have happily sat by, and likely cheered on, as Jews were sent to the gas chambers. After all, Jews in pre-Nazi Germany were as unpopular as trans people in the US are now. You would have probably been throwing a few rocks on Kristallnacht yourself.
Fuck you. That shit is happening in your fucked up corner of the world, not in mine. You were the ones who lost your fucking country to the Nazis.
Now i gotta worry about your president threatening to invade my country, because you spent so much fucking time talking about minority social inclusion (which they fucking should have, and do have in my country) that you completely botched the job of keeping billionaires from just buying up your government.
Most of you need multiple fucking jobs to pay the rent and feed your kids, because you ate the propoganda that unions were out to abuse you they’ve been spewing for the last half century.
I think it is very honorable that you want to fight for social inclusion. But when are you gonna get on from that, and actually fight to improve working and living conditions for the working class? Not getting thrown into poverty if you break a leg?
Maybe changing your education system, to have a stronger public school system, don’t you think the social inclusion would happen more naturally if you just fucking educated your people?
It’s ridiculous to look at. You keep letting them buttfuck you, Meanwhile everything the American left has been yelling about for the past decade is social inclusion and forbidden words.
Fighting for the working class IS fighting for minorities. Incessant yapping about semantics is only driving the people who should be fighting with you away.
don’t you think the social inclusion would happen more naturally if you just fucking educated your people?
I doubt it. Bigots are too powerful. They’re good at getting their messages out. They raise bigoted children. They also strongly oppose any education that might help undo these bigoted views, so you really have a chicken-and-egg situation there.
That’s why it isn’t enough to just not be racist; you have to be anti-racist, and I think that by the same token it isn’t enough to just not be a transphobe…you have to be anti-transphobia. The bigots are organized and willing to fight, so the other side has to, too.
Can we please put a pause on the focus on social inclusion, and focus on defeating the fascists trying to own the world?
One does not preclude the other. There is energy for both inclusion and revolution.
In fact, revolution is inclusion, is mutual-aid, etc. It’s a requirement. For every person “fighting” there are 10 more people supporting the people and the community that fascism and its shrinking safety nets leave behind
We are probably fighting the same people anyway, but can we please focus on their actual crimes instead of their harmful rhetoric?
Well, no you’re not really an ally yet, far as i can tell. Fix your head. “Trannies” sheesh son
Edit for the thread: probably best to just block this cat, they’re clearly enjoying themselves
Removed by mod
Can we please put a pause on the focus on social inclusion,
Ok. You’re no longer included.
oop quick note man it’s “trans people” or whatnot will delete this once ya see
Removed by mod
Bashing?
Analogy - black people tell me not to use the n word, am I at a disadvantage for saying “black” instead of a slur? Would be a little odd to ignore feedback when it makes no difference to me… I ain’t married to “n***er” (censored it painlessly)
I’m irreverent as FUCK by the way ^ 10, quick make a dead baby joke (srsly I don’t give a shit about ouchie topics, I do try to be aight to folks tho)
Removed by mod
This is the ideal perspective that leads to optimal outcomes for the general public?
Nah, but fighting so hard for something that you forget to… checks notes have basic human rights like healthcare and free education, is ridiculous.
You went so hard on one issue, that you drive half your population to vote for Nazis. Job well done, right?
While Hitler’s in power, gentleman’s agreement to defer discussion on words might make sense. Use the standard accepted lexicon today, get scofflaws out of Washington, return to this topic in happier times
Tankies justifying slave labor “only 10% of industries were built with gulag forces” calling socialist countries that succeeded with market socialism revisionist “Tito is a revisionist prick delaying global Revolution” and then not even batting an eye to the worse state capitalism that USSR and china engaged in “it improved the lives of people! No, it wasn’t authoritarian! And yes, the party members we sent to gulags and killed were DEFINITELY anti revolutionists and not trying to stop the state capitalism that was forming.”
Tankies… calling socialist countries that succeeded with market socialism revisionist “Tito is a revisionist prick delaying global Revolution”
Hate to break it to you but supporting Tito would make you a tankie in the eyes of most people on Lemmy who use the term (though you may get a pass for denouncing others).
Personally, I like a hybrid system. You know the famous Laffer Curve? Laffer was a hack who just used it to justify tax cuts, but he did have a point. At a 0% tax rate and a 100% tax rate, the government is bringing in zero revenue. However, the shaped of the curve in between is unknown. He just arbitrarily assumed that wherever tax rates happened to be at, the optimal rate was lower. I say we actually study it and harness the principle.
Personally, I like the idea of using this principle not just as a crank tool to justify tax cuts, but as a way to maximize redistributive spending. Figure out what tax rate allows you to have the absolute most generous social welfare system possible, and set your tax policies to that rate. I like the free market, but as a practical tool, not for its own sake. I want to keep the free market around…chained to a treadmill, set to the maximum speed possible that won’t cause it to die of exhaustion.
That curve is so stupid on so many levels, wow.
But also, when we talk about socialism, we don’t mean “capitalism but we tax the rich”. A socialist society would not even need taxes, in the liberal sense. When the means of production are controlled democratically by the workers, by extending democracy from the political to the economic, who would you even tax, and who would the money go to?
It’s a big problem that people have been so convinced that capitalism and liberal democracy are the only way to organize society. We can do better!
Fight all you want, by all means, bring those in power further left. But at the ballot box come election day, I don’t care if the dem wants to sacrifice puppies on weekends. Guaranteed their Republican opponent has a factory grinding puppies into various consumer products by the millions. And their 3rd party counterpart likely has a greater chance of getting elected to mayor of flavortown than to congress/president (and also still probably kills puppies casually among friends themselves).
Is this system bullshit? Yup. Is it the one we got? Yup. We need to deal within that reality. By all means, let’s work to change that system, but for the love of God, let’s not shoot ourselves in the foot when our favorite candidate doesn’t stand a chance in hell, or the more likely candidate is blatantly flawed (but still better than the alternative)
Bring them further left how? Why would they need to do anything when you’d vote for them anyways? Every election both parties move a little bit to the right, and you have no choice but vote Dem. What can you realistically do when the only power you have is voting unless you are a billionaire? Your electoral system is truly fucked and the probably of it fixing itself is low, because why would the party in power want to change the system that just gave them that power?
All I can say is leave if you are able to.
I don’t care if the dem wants to sacrifice puppies on weekends.
How’s that been working for you? It looks to me like this attitude brought us Trump. Maybe it’s time the Democrats started demanding better.
I say demanding. Sitting out an election doesn’t count. The system doesn’t change just because you refuse to participate.
I’m really having trouble parsing your suggestion here.
- DEMAND better.
- Don’t just sit out election.
But surely a demand comes with a consequence if not met, right? What is the consequence in an election if not withholding your vote? But you said not to sit it out. Are you arguing in favor of voting 3rd party then? I have to assume that’s your intent, though you didn’t actually say that.
If that is your position, sure, but the problem with voting third party is that, without the mother of all grassroots followings, no third party candidate stands a shadow of a chance. And there was clearly no such popular candidate for president last election. And providing third parties with support is as bad as just not voting if they no chance of winning. It just amounts to not supporting your preferred candidate that does stand a chance.
That is fucked. I know and I agree. But that is the nature of First Past The Post voting and always will be. It’s a lot like the prisoners dilemma. The best possible outcome for you would be to get your most preferred third party candidate, but if you vote for them, and the rest of the voters don’t, you split the vote and end up giving your least preferred candidate an advantage instead. But voting your mosr preferred two-party candidate/popular candidate, or least of two evils as it may well be, comes with some negatives, but is an objectively better outcome.
We need election reform to get rid of FPTP and the two-party system with it. That is no small thing, I know, and there is no quick way to get that done. All we can do is advocate for it, vote for other advocates for it, and hope that eventually it becomes a party platform. But until then, we have to live with the reality and vote strategically. Demand better in so far as you use your voice and your dollars to support better candidates, vote in the primaries for the better candidate, but use your vote on election day with the system we have. Unfortunately, that does sometimes mean voting for a bit of evil to save yourself from a lot of evil.
What got us Trump 2.0 was people refusing to support Kamala. Apathy, protest, contempt, indifference, whatever their reasons, they didn’t show up and give her their votes. A big part of that is her fault for failing to live up to the standards the left expected of her, for failing to excite left wing voters. Those voters were perfectly justified in not being happy about the idea of voting for her, but, ultimately we are worse off because they didn’t. And choosing not to vote at all or to vote third party instead is on them alone.
No, what got us Trump 2.0 was the Democrats running a shitty candidate, on the coattails of another shitty candidate, on the coattails of a shitty presidential run. People were clamoring for a new candidate that actualy gave a shit, and the Democrats told them to sit down and shut up.
The Democrats chose money, war-mongers, and genocide over winning a slam-dunk election. It’s not the voter’s fault that we’re here, as they loudly told the Democrats what they wanted. It’s the Democrat’s fault for ignoring those demands from their base.
Why should people vote for a party that fights against what they want, when they can vote for a third party that is fighting for what they want?
But at the ballot box come election day, I don’t care if the dem wants to sacrifice puppies on weekends
Every time a democrat talks like this they lose votes. “Yeah my candidate supports genocide, but-” stop you’ve just smeared your own candidate. If you don’t have anything nice about your candidate then keep your mouth shut.
Any normal american will see the rest of your comment and think they’re better off investing in bullets and silver than worrying about the election. You’re basically doing voter surppression.
Or maybe their candidates shouldn’t support genocide. It’d be much easier to sell the Democrats as a valid party to vote for if they weren’t in support of things like genocide.
Do you see us electing ourselves out of this mess (that we elected ourselves into)?
I’m not going to lie, this mess will only end with the sitting congress and judiciary growing some nuts and shutting all of this shit down, OR with a military coup. I don’t see either happening. Realistically, we have likely had our last truly free election for the foreseeable future the way this is going. I hope I’m wrong.
I don’t think either of those is very likely. The congress and judiciary are made up of people who used their powers to facilitate the current problems. A military coup is also pretty unlikely but I don’t really have much to base that feeling on. Trump dying might break the spell enough for some congressional action. Outside of that, I’m afraid that civil resistance is the only thing that will impede these deportations. And I don’t mean orderly protests on the weekends.
Organizing takes time, you want to flip a switch and have millions in the streets for a general strike but it’s going to take gradual steps to get there.
I’m pessimistic about a general strike in the US. We don’t have anywhere near the union participation required, IMO. I’m talking about smaller, ad-hoc groups doing real damage, hopefully with broad (if tacit) support. See what’s happening with Teslas as an example. Next should come some serious anti-ICE actions. Sweet username btw.
100%. Prior to Election Day? Get a democratic butt in every race and challenge the people advocating for puppy sacrifices.
Unfortunately we are at a point where only one party can be fixed.
But I was told democrats are worse than hitler
They aren’t worse then Hitler. They just kept saying Hitler has a right to defend himself and selling him the gas for his chambers.
Not the best way to win an election.
Tbh I think the Republicans get us closer to revolution than the Democrats do. I think the only way out is to break the system.
Means to an end, maybe. But do the ends justify these means? And what makes you think a leftist utopia is even the ends of all this in the first place?
Yeah that’s the biggest problem is I can’t guarantee the revolution would be leftist or that the emerging system would be better than our current system. We need to build a leadership system now.
The problem is, all that fighting, criticizing and finger pointing can be weaponized. That’s why FUD works.
You just amplify any legit concerns until they seem worse than Trump.
I’m convinced most of the leftists on here are either foreign actors or repeating their talking points.
I agree. It’s important to not lose the thread or your sense of reality when focusing on internal problems. Internal problems are usually differences of opinion, perspective, or goals, but with the same or similar basic values behind them. It’s important to keep those shared values in mind even while nitpicking the other stuff when you’re trying to influence the direction of your side. Keep in mind that you are all going generally the same direction while the Right is pulling against every step you take together, and just because your differences among the Left is your focus now doesn’t mean it is a bigger deal than your differences with the Right.
The Neoliberals have had 50 years in control of the “leftist” party, and they have only enabled the country to move further right.
They are either impotent or complicit.
This election the Neoliberals will either lose control of the party or we start a new leftist party. If they try to shove another milquetoast neolib down our throats they might get elected, but then the next Trump gets elected after 4 years of impotence and the cycle of the Duopoly continues.
Personally, I think some states are close to center, some are further left and others are further right. Rather than splitting the party and the vote share, we can grassroots organize, get signatures for a ballot initiative, and change the voting system away from First Past the Post. Our voting system is what ultimately prevents viable alternative parties from appearing and is causing the “safe incumbent” neoliberals to win out over “risky” progressive picks since people only get one vote and they don’t want to have their least favorite candidate win over their favorite and their safe choice.
Organizing now matters a lot. If we change even a few more states away from First Past the Post voting, like we did with Alaska and Maine, then third parties will have much more stable ground to actually form and win elections on the state and federal level. I still think supporting incumbents in many cases make sense until we act to change the voting systems. Although rallying around potential candidates which are pushing for change can make a difference in some races.
We can try to change the voting system on the county level and city level if trying to get the state as a whole to change has not been working in your state.
It’s always the leftists “splitting the party”, never the conservative Neoliberals.
That’s not something I would say or agree with. My statement is separate from that type of perspective and not what my comment was talking about.
Rather than splitting the party and the vote share, we can grassroots organize, get signatures for a
You don’t even read your own comments
Good point, the Dems stink! They haven’t done anything to stop Trump!
I’m gonna vote for Trump next election and until the Democrats start opposing Trump
Lazy troll
If you read theory, you’d know Marxist-Leninists aren’t trolls
Obvious bad faith argument. Voters and gerrymandering from the GOP moved the country further right.
The country will move left when leftists start winning elections.
Which is much less likely now that Trump is in office.
My bad I must have forgotten the part where Democrats, the “leftist” party of unions and ending slavery, wasn’t allowed to ever gain power in my lifetime, and that’s why they have done absolutely nothing to protect unions and push leftist policy.
OH WAIT A DEMOCRAT GETS ELECTED EVERY 4 YEARS AND THEN FUCKING MEETS FASCISTS IN THE MIDDLE, MOVING US FURTHER TO THE RIGHT.
No one is “allowed” to take power. There is a constant struggle for it. Leftists have been losing that struggle because they don’t get enough votes.
Dems move right because it is a politician’s job to cater to their constituents regardless of their ideology. If there are fewer leftist constituents then the politicians move right.
Ahh yes, that’s why Republicans do such a good job representing the normies and leftists in their constituents, because they represent all of their constituents, right?
Your brain is mush if you seriously believe it’s perfectly OK for Dems to move right and repugs to also move right…
umm akshually there’s nothing they can do even tho they had the presidency and a congressional majority because…
Just shut up man
Well said.
Heh Penis Prager
This is the fart side shat
This is why leftists consistently lose elections.
Low-key truth here
This post could actually be the psy-op. Spread the idea that infighting is happening to then create it
Infighting amongst leftist has literally existed as long as leftist ideology itself has existed. You can’t learn the history of the left without reading about dozens of examples.
And that’s why fascism seems to win. Seems like they can compromise as long as the people the don’t like suffer
It’s less that they can compromise and more that the only policy that they care about is policy that hurts minorities. They’d happily jump on a grenade or march into an oven so long as they can take a liberal and an immigrant with them.
On the other hand, look at how much effort it’s taken for the fascists to get power again. The groundwork for the current administration was started under Reagan and solidified under Bush Jr. They had to take every branch of the government by force to get to where they are because there just aren’t enough of their supporters to actually get them into office without bending the rules until they break.
“Left unity” IS the psy-op. The notion that leftism is some sort of singular concept that is harmonious with all forms of itself. What a great manipulation. There are good ways to do leftism and bad ways. Anyone who tells you different is intentionally trying to create divisiveness of the known differences in approaches to leftism to agitate leftists and gaslight them into thinking there is an ideal and that the ideal is only achievable if they all somehow agree. But as they never will as this doesn’t make sense, these contradictions positioned as truths are the manipulation used to destabilize any movements. For any success of movement leftists will need to agree to disagree or one will have to over power the other.
I’ve seen enough infighting already, if anything this joke is late to the punch.
also spread the idea that anyone that expresses a pragmatic approach to the moving the needle left incrementally should be shamed because they weren’t “pure” enough.
I see it quite a lot, personally. Democrats are blaming other Pro-palestine democrats for not voting for pro-Israel candidates.
US Dems are center-right, not leftists.
They’re taking about leftists, not Democrats.
Ah sorry, I’m getting the terms confused.
it feels hypocritical to post about infighting while inciting arguments and heated discussion, and not offer any solutions.
The solution is to stop letting perfect be the enemy of good.
You have a strange definition of perfection.
And and even stranger definition of “the good” tbh.
And what would that be?
Seems like you’re characterizing the dems as “good”. Aren’t they the “lesser evil”?
I don’t consider Democrats as leftist, and I thought the subject was leftist infighting
I’ve misunderstood you then. Can you explain who is perfect and who is good in your analogy?
semantics - and thus we fight. point proven. Orange Hitler didn’t win against left. left couldn’t agree if they save democracy or defend democracy so they did neither
You say semantics, but I find that liberals genuinely can’t seem to decide if their political leaders are “super good people, actually”, or “admittedly terrible war criminals, but not as bad as the other guy”.
thanks OP!
The take I’ve been seeing more lately is that many on the left don’t internally support genocide, they’re just afraid of AIPAC money taking away their ability to do any good.
And that’s pretty bad. But the more we expose the core threat, the less they may fear them as hate for AIPAC overwhelms their ability to spew lies. Much like how hate for Musk overcame his spending on the WI election.
(But hey, I’m eager to learn. If anyone can show that people on the left are actively Zionist, or have personally motivated reasons for their silence, I’m curious about it)
PS: verytallbart makes some pretty funny YTPs off politics and far-right aholes.
The take I’ve been seeing more lately is that many on the left don’t internally support genocide, they’re just afraid of AIPAC money taking away their ability to do any good.
This is true but I don’t know how much. There’s some democrats explicitly and correctly calling out AIPAC as being an a far right PAC. Taking money from AIPAC needs to be seen as treacherous as taking money from NRA or the Heritage foundation.
It sounds like you’re talking about the Democratic Party, not the left. I think some in the party are true Zionists (like Chuck Shumer and Joe Biden) while others are just afraid to be visibly anti-Zionist out of fear of AIPAC.
Good good, let the hate flow through you. Purity is what matters, not affecting change. Go now, inquisitor.
Be Democrat
Compromise on all your ideals and field the most mediocre candidate
Lose to Donald Trump
You Lemmy progressives need to be honest with yourselves. If “not a fascist” wasn’t enough to make you vote for Harris there isn’t a candidate in the universe that would have passed your purity test. It’s almost like you actually wanted Trump to win.
The Democrats policy on Palestine seems pretty fascist to me.
I voted for Jill Stein, who’s anti-genocide, among other things. The left needs to support more anti-genocide candidates.
I bet you most leftists that use alternative media like lemmy DID vote for Harris. You’re screaming at all the lemmings still over at Reddit…
Oh I voted for Harris (and am also not the person you replied to) but “Compromise on all your ideals” describes the trajectory of the Kamala candidacy quite well. And that’s best case. Worst case, as the atlantic suggested way back in 2020, she didn’t share those ideals to begin with.
And that sprint to the right that she made didn’t move the needle on R voters at all. She should have campaigned like she wanted Democrat votes, but she didn’t. She talked a lot about her Glock and got cozy with the war criminals of the prior generation, didn’t talk much about climate change, and even gave space on stage to Liz Cheney at the DNC instead of even giving a single minute to a pro-Palestine Democrat, to try getting some of the basket of deplorables to pick her. None of them did, and it didn’t make Democrats very happy either.
Maybe if the Democratic candidate had acted like she wanted Democrat votes, this map would have looked different in the end.
If the first week and a half had been indicative of the rest of the campaign we’d have a woman in the white house right now. Skipping a meeting with Bibi, picking walz, Republicans are weird, joy, the coconut shit. Cringe as fuck but people were excited and that’s all that matters in American politics, then she came out and gave a full throated right wing speech at the dnc and it all went down from there. Cosplay republicans can’t beat the real thing.
They picked her for her lack of principals and the fact she’d shift to wherever she was told, it was more important to have a candidate that they could control than a candidate who could win. And now the whole world suffers more than it needed to.
If the first week and a half had been indicative of the rest of the campaign we’d have a woman in the white house right now. Skipping a meeting with Bibi, picking walz, Republicans are weird, joy, the coconut shit. Cringe as fuck but people were excited and that’s all that matters in American politics, then she came out and gave a full throated right wing speech at the dnc and it all went down from there.
💯
Maybe if the Democratic candidate had acted like she wanted Democrat votes, this map would have looked different in the end.
Ah, professional politician eh? That’s some rarefied air there.
Keep going… What drives turnout? Citizen campaigning.
Maybe if leftists didn’t spend the year leading up to the election protesting the better candidate we would have seen a better outcome.
I see the BlueMAGA crowd has moved from “you have to vote for Democrats” to “you can never criticize Democrats”
So Kamala had no duty to motivate the people she wanted to vote for her? That seems a bit backwards from how I’ve always understood elections.
I agree that “Not Trump” actually should be enough in today’s climate - but it wasn’t in 2016, so why trot out that playbook again? Seems shortsighted and stupid, almost as if corporate donations and Republican voters seemed more imporantant to the DNC than Democrat voters, who were just expected to be “in the bag.”
The proper assignment of blame is on Joe Biden for not getting out of the way to have a real primary.
People weren’t given a choice for their candidate. Excitement drives Democratic turnout, and they’ve been tamping down expectations for decades now. There’s nothing exciting about the campaign strategy of “we’re not Donald Trump.”
Blaming leftists for the failings of liberals is what keeps pushing the party establishment to the right.
Lemmy Democrats did their strategy, lost, and blame leftists. Talk about being in denial.
That strategy won the majority of elections since the 90s.
Trump lost by more in 2020 and repeated his strategy just to win. Too bad he didn’t follow the leftist strategy of complaining and not trying to win.
He complained a lot. He complained after winning. The difference is, Trump campaigned to win right wing losers… The problem is… so did Kamala.
This constant blaming the left for Democrats’ failure is the true psyop, and you seem to be foolish enough to play along…
He didnt just complain without trying to win. Like leftists are popular for doing.
Kamala campaigned to everyone. Trying to reach as many voters as possible because that is a prerequisite for winning elections and a reason leftists don’t win elections.
Russia needed Trump to win for their invasion. It is public knowledge that their strategy is to create infighting in the US so we are more divided and don’t get anything done. This is done by trying to push the right further right and the left further left.
We already know the GOP campaigns with the goal of preventing Dems from winning.
Kamala campaigned on making the wealthy pay their fair share so the billionaire class didn’t want her to win.
These are the obvious sources of “psyops” that are rampant on the internet right now.
This constant blaming the left for Democrats’ failure is the true psyop
This doesn’t even make sense.
But every single mainstream Democrat is just as fascist outside of the US as the Republicans. They proved that when they didn’t do anything about a genocide. They are also increasingly fascistic in the US as they demonstrated by being better at deportations than the Republicans. (Also, regularly breaking with Democrat voters to side with MAGA in Congress/Senate).
The Democrats are the same team as the Republicans, they just use different language.
If “not a fascist” wasn’t enough to make you vote for Harris
if they want this title then maybe they shouldn’t have been arming and defending the extermination campaign in Palestine
I’m convinced they are bad actors. With all the damage Trump is doing they still complain about the alternative like they are campaigning for the GOP.
All or nothing isn’t as easy as you think for people. Lefties have a lot of destructive ideas that look superficially good, but cause mass division that doesnt need to be.
Leftists see democrats as fascists of a different shade. And I mean they aren’t good, they do a lot of the same shit as Republicans but hey look we don’t hate black people and fly rainbow flags while we slowly strip your rights but the right is literally running around seig heiling while wiping their asses with the bill of rights so.
Personally, the whole government needs to go. But that’s a pipe dream
Link because I don’t think I can upload images on here: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FjBAU1OWAAAJB8W?format=jpg&name=medium
Seriously lemmy can be wild in this regard. I got a death threat for implying democrats were better than Republicans.
I’m not in love with many of their policies, they don’t go nearly far enough, but like damn they’re obviously the better choice
You think Democrats didn’t go far enough on exterminateing Palestinians?
The problem is that the democrats have been name calling for so long, that calling anyone fascist holds no weight. No one cares, they simply don’t believe the democrats.
And so you need a bigger platform than “I’m not a republican”.
The platform was “I’m really a Republican” though, not “I’m not a Republican.”
And given the choice of voting for a Republican or a cosplay Republican they’re gonna vote for the real thing.
Compromise on all your ideals and field the most mediocre candidate
If Kamala is mediocre what does that make Trump?
Secondly what is it about Trump that most strikes him as a conservative? What conservative values do you think he thinks about and values the most?
If Kamala is mediocre what does that make Trump?
You are aware that Harris lost right?
Yes, it’s possible to have 2 shit candidates you know :P
In Australia we are frequently voting for the ‘least worst’ candidate, we have mandatory voting so very few of us have this idea in our head that we need to run out and enthusiastically support a candidate, we just vote for the one who we think will do the least damage, in Australia Kamala would have won easily
Yes, it’s possible to have 2 shit candidates you know :P
Yes, and Kamala lost.
In Australia we are frequently voting for the ‘least worst’ candidate
Australian doesn’t have first past the post voting! What are you talking about!
Australian doesn’t have first past the post voting! What are you talking about!
I don’t get it, how does this preclude having shit options to vote for?
Because the entire justification for “lesser evil” voting is that America has first past the post voting
What conservative values do you think he thinks about and values the most?
That Conservative value would be: an in party that the law protects, but does not bind.
Trump represents what Republicans want to vote for.
But this is about ideals and values of the left wing vs right.
What values and ideals does Trump have that appeals to them?
Six Trump voters on why he won their support in 2024 https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyg5jdgzy1o
Lets see these “ideals” and “values” that Trump voters hold dear to their hearts:
They don’t like immigrants, the border crossings
They thought he could do a better job with the economy
They thought he could do a better job with the economy
‘With his grandkids, I see the softer side’ <- Lady is on drugs I assume, going to ignore this one
They thought he could do a better job with the economy
Doesn’t like war, likes a strong man leader
So 3 out of 5 were about the economy 1 didn’t like illegal immigration 1 didn’t like war
So people voted largely for Trump because they felt the economy does better under him
And this looks to be backed up with this poll:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/651719/economy-important-issue-2024-presidential-vote.aspx
Economy Most Important Issue to 2024 Presidential Vote
The economy ranks as the most important of 22 issues that U.S. registered voters say will influence their choice for president. It is the only issue on which a majority of voters, 52%, say the candidates’ positions on it are an “extremely important” influence on their vote. Another 38% of voters rate the economy as “very important,” which means the issue could be a significant factor to nine in 10 voters.
Is this a conservative value? a good economy? do leftists not value a good economy?
I am not a fan of Bernie Sanders but I guarantee he would have won. The Democrats refused to give people the policies they wanted.
do you think aoc would have won as well?
Is this a conservative value? a good economy? do leftists not value a good economy?
The term “the economy” here is too broad. Under Biden, by most statistical measures, the economy at a national level was doing pretty well with back to back 20%+ increases in the stock market in the last 2 years. But that wasn’t what these voters were referring to. They were referring to their personal finances, their family’s economy. Even the bits about not liking immigrants was their misdiagnosis that immigrants were negatively affecting their family economy. They think that immigrant being present meant that their family’s economy was reduced. They think that any taxes levied on them unfairly reduce their family’s economy. They were being squeezed from all directions, lower pay & job insecurity, sky high housing costs (“the rent is too damn high!”), out of control undischargable student loan burdens, bottomless health insurance and health care costs, spiraling home insurance costs from floods/wildfires/hurricanes, and finally the price of eggs.
These voters thought that this was a broken economy, but that is a misdiagnosis. This is an issue of income inequality. Too much of the wealth of the prosperous nation is confined to a tiny fraction at the top. And this mass of voters ended up voting to make this problem worse.
i agree with you but the guy i was arguing with claimed that kamala strayed too far from left wing values and thats why she didn’t win
my claim is something more fundamental, she didn’t assure voters that she would do better on the economy than trump
imo even if she did turn around and become the biggest pro Palestinian, transgender, anarchist, radical communist out there she still wouldn’t have won because the biggest issue to people was the local economy not gaza
she probably should have just offered everyone a tax cut
edit: and that trump has pretty much no values or ideals, just donald is #1 and he’s gonna fix everything and everyone else is wrong or stupid
I feel like you may have missed the sarcasm in OP, unless I’m misunderstanding you.
