|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On August 30 2023 00:33 Uldridge wrote:
You can not call yourself a progressive and vote Democrat and be serious. Perhaps in favor of the status quo, then that'a the party for you. Social norm is not really dictated by politicians, but by the underlying current of how society progresses. New ways of living brought by tech and globalism and academia. Legislation always lags behind and tries to find a way to harmonize with it.
Republicans vehemently try to hold onto their whatever backward orthodoxy they actually want, while to Democrats don't really want to succumb to the social norm, but they'll do it to capture some votes.
I can't think Bernie or AOC or would adhere to the Democratic party f there was even a slight possibility to be of some significance without it.
I can and I do. I don't support the status quo. I support getting socialists into positions of power to make a real difference in the US. That takes time. And while I wait for that to be realized I will continue voting for socialists, voting against fascism, and advocating for socialism to those who will listen. Voting is one tool in the toolbox. Not using it when it's right there and only needed once every couple of years is moronic.
|
On August 30 2023 00:42 StasisField wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2023 06:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 29 2023 05:38 StasisField wrote:On August 29 2023 05:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 29 2023 05:06 StasisField wrote:On August 29 2023 04:55 Mohdoo wrote:On August 29 2023 04:40 StasisField wrote:On August 29 2023 03:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 29 2023 02:31 KwarK wrote:On August 29 2023 02:25 GreenHorizons wrote:First poll since the mugshot is out and Trump is up 2 points (5 if you include Cornel West) on Biden. projects.fivethirtyeight.comFor context, the same polling firm had Biden up 8 points at this point of the race in 2019. + Show Spoiler +That's a 10 point swing in favor of Trump amid the "worst" news for him to date. I know Democrats insist this/Biden is the best they can do, but it's increasingly looking like that won't be good enough. That’s America’s fault. And the whole planet's problem. Oh so you'll be voting for Biden then? Since you recognize the Fascist GOP winning is the whole world's problem, I'm sure you'll do the bare minimum and vote to prevent it on Election Day and not be another leftist with worse political instincts than the literal Nazis who took over the GOP by voting to keep the GOP in power while also electing more of their own candidates to the party over time. Ehhh, folks like me and GH have an easy pass in this regard because our entire cities could choose not to vote and Biden would still win (Washington and Oregon). Protest votes to signal dissatisfaction with corporate dems when you live in a safe-blue state is the correct thing to do IMO. If enough people protest vote/don't vote in a safe state, they are no longer safe. Vote protesting of any kind is really stupid when christo-fascism is at our doorstep. From my perspective the US is essentially christo-fascism's (though I'd use "racial capitalism's") "house", and dad's just coming home to the doorstep from work abroad. So because things are already bad you don't want to keep things from getting worse? Wow, very progressive of you. Truly, the revolution we've all been waiting for: doing nothing because things already suck. On the contrary, I consider perpetually voting for whoever the Democrat party allows to be demonstrably ineffective and in effect "doing nothing". The incontrovertible example I typically refer to being 0 progress in 60+ years on racial wealth inequality and the unparalleled support of Democrats by Black people despite that. Never mind looking past Biden's personal responsibility for contributing to decades of destroying our families/communities with mass incarceration the whole time. That Democrats feel entitled to my or any other Black person's vote despite that is disgusting to me. That they so brazenly try to shame anyone that disagrees with them that they are, is indescribably disappointing. That they rationalize it by pointing to the system they built is just asinine. You can't get what you want from Democrats if you don't vote in your own Democrats. You want a socialist revolution? Taking over the most popular party in a 2-party system and implementing your policy platform through that party is a nonviolent path to a real socialist revolution. You vote for socialists in the primary and you hold the line against literal fascist rule in the general. The evidence this works is the GOP. We have seen a demonstrable change in policy and attitude from the GOP over the last couple decades from a conservative party to openly advocating for fascism. The change you claim to want is possible but you turn your nose up to it. You'd rather do things that have no chance of changing how things work in this country. A real revolutionary you are, GH. I have explained this to GH numerous times in the past.
The problem is that progressives in the US are not actually a majority. The US has very much a deeply conservation population.
Unlike the crazies in the GOP who did prove they are a majority among Republican voters.
|
On August 30 2023 01:18 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2023 00:42 StasisField wrote:On August 29 2023 06:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 29 2023 05:38 StasisField wrote:On August 29 2023 05:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 29 2023 05:06 StasisField wrote:On August 29 2023 04:55 Mohdoo wrote:On August 29 2023 04:40 StasisField wrote:On August 29 2023 03:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 29 2023 02:31 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
That’s America’s fault. And the whole planet's problem. Oh so you'll be voting for Biden then? Since you recognize the Fascist GOP winning is the whole world's problem, I'm sure you'll do the bare minimum and vote to prevent it on Election Day and not be another leftist with worse political instincts than the literal Nazis who took over the GOP by voting to keep the GOP in power while also electing more of their own candidates to the party over time. Ehhh, folks like me and GH have an easy pass in this regard because our entire cities could choose not to vote and Biden would still win (Washington and Oregon). Protest votes to signal dissatisfaction with corporate dems when you live in a safe-blue state is the correct thing to do IMO. If enough people protest vote/don't vote in a safe state, they are no longer safe. Vote protesting of any kind is really stupid when christo-fascism is at our doorstep. From my perspective the US is essentially christo-fascism's (though I'd use "racial capitalism's") "house", and dad's just coming home to the doorstep from work abroad. So because things are already bad you don't want to keep things from getting worse? Wow, very progressive of you. Truly, the revolution we've all been waiting for: doing nothing because things already suck. On the contrary, I consider perpetually voting for whoever the Democrat party allows to be demonstrably ineffective and in effect "doing nothing". The incontrovertible example I typically refer to being 0 progress in 60+ years on racial wealth inequality and the unparalleled support of Democrats by Black people despite that. Never mind looking past Biden's personal responsibility for contributing to decades of destroying our families/communities with mass incarceration the whole time. That Democrats feel entitled to my or any other Black person's vote despite that is disgusting to me. That they so brazenly try to shame anyone that disagrees with them that they are, is indescribably disappointing. That they rationalize it by pointing to the system they built is just asinine. You can't get what you want from Democrats if you don't vote in your own Democrats. You want a socialist revolution? Taking over the most popular party in a 2-party system and implementing your policy platform through that party is a nonviolent path to a real socialist revolution. You vote for socialists in the primary and you hold the line against literal fascist rule in the general. The evidence this works is the GOP. We have seen a demonstrable change in policy and attitude from the GOP over the last couple decades from a conservative party to openly advocating for fascism. The change you claim to want is possible but you turn your nose up to it. You'd rather do things that have no chance of changing how things work in this country. A real revolutionary you are, GH. I have explained this to GH numerous times in the past. The problem is that progressives in the US are not actually a majority. The US has very much a deeply conservation population. Unlike the crazies in the GOP who did prove they are a majority among Republican voters.
Polls show that progressive policy is actually very popular in the US. I think one of the big problems is that a large chunk of the US population that doesn't vote are people who are in favor of those policies, so candidates who support those policies don't win. Leftists and progressives don't vote because they don't see their ideologies represented in either party, but not voting is why they don't see their ideologies represented in either party. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy
|
On August 30 2023 01:30 StasisField wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2023 01:18 Gorsameth wrote:On August 30 2023 00:42 StasisField wrote:On August 29 2023 06:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 29 2023 05:38 StasisField wrote:On August 29 2023 05:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 29 2023 05:06 StasisField wrote:On August 29 2023 04:55 Mohdoo wrote:On August 29 2023 04:40 StasisField wrote:On August 29 2023 03:21 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
And the whole planet's problem. Oh so you'll be voting for Biden then? Since you recognize the Fascist GOP winning is the whole world's problem, I'm sure you'll do the bare minimum and vote to prevent it on Election Day and not be another leftist with worse political instincts than the literal Nazis who took over the GOP by voting to keep the GOP in power while also electing more of their own candidates to the party over time. Ehhh, folks like me and GH have an easy pass in this regard because our entire cities could choose not to vote and Biden would still win (Washington and Oregon). Protest votes to signal dissatisfaction with corporate dems when you live in a safe-blue state is the correct thing to do IMO. If enough people protest vote/don't vote in a safe state, they are no longer safe. Vote protesting of any kind is really stupid when christo-fascism is at our doorstep. From my perspective the US is essentially christo-fascism's (though I'd use "racial capitalism's") "house", and dad's just coming home to the doorstep from work abroad. So because things are already bad you don't want to keep things from getting worse? Wow, very progressive of you. Truly, the revolution we've all been waiting for: doing nothing because things already suck. On the contrary, I consider perpetually voting for whoever the Democrat party allows to be demonstrably ineffective and in effect "doing nothing". The incontrovertible example I typically refer to being 0 progress in 60+ years on racial wealth inequality and the unparalleled support of Democrats by Black people despite that. Never mind looking past Biden's personal responsibility for contributing to decades of destroying our families/communities with mass incarceration the whole time. That Democrats feel entitled to my or any other Black person's vote despite that is disgusting to me. That they so brazenly try to shame anyone that disagrees with them that they are, is indescribably disappointing. That they rationalize it by pointing to the system they built is just asinine. You can't get what you want from Democrats if you don't vote in your own Democrats. You want a socialist revolution? Taking over the most popular party in a 2-party system and implementing your policy platform through that party is a nonviolent path to a real socialist revolution. You vote for socialists in the primary and you hold the line against literal fascist rule in the general. The evidence this works is the GOP. We have seen a demonstrable change in policy and attitude from the GOP over the last couple decades from a conservative party to openly advocating for fascism. The change you claim to want is possible but you turn your nose up to it. You'd rather do things that have no chance of changing how things work in this country. A real revolutionary you are, GH. I have explained this to GH numerous times in the past. The problem is that progressives in the US are not actually a majority. The US has very much a deeply conservation population. Unlike the crazies in the GOP who did prove they are a majority among Republican voters. Polls show that progressive policy is actually very popular in the US. I think one of the big problems is that a large chunk of the US population that doesn't vote are people who are in favor of those policies, so candidates who support those policies don't win. Leftists and progressives don't vote because they don't see their ideologies represented in either party, but not voting is why they don't see their ideologies represented in either party. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy Yeah, people who don't vote don't count.
|
On August 30 2023 00:42 StasisField wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2023 06:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 29 2023 05:38 StasisField wrote:On August 29 2023 05:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 29 2023 05:06 StasisField wrote:On August 29 2023 04:55 Mohdoo wrote:On August 29 2023 04:40 StasisField wrote:On August 29 2023 03:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 29 2023 02:31 KwarK wrote:On August 29 2023 02:25 GreenHorizons wrote:First poll since the mugshot is out and Trump is up 2 points (5 if you include Cornel West) on Biden. projects.fivethirtyeight.comFor context, the same polling firm had Biden up 8 points at this point of the race in 2019. + Show Spoiler +That's a 10 point swing in favor of Trump amid the "worst" news for him to date. I know Democrats insist this/Biden is the best they can do, but it's increasingly looking like that won't be good enough. That’s America’s fault. And the whole planet's problem. Oh so you'll be voting for Biden then? Since you recognize the Fascist GOP winning is the whole world's problem, I'm sure you'll do the bare minimum and vote to prevent it on Election Day and not be another leftist with worse political instincts than the literal Nazis who took over the GOP by voting to keep the GOP in power while also electing more of their own candidates to the party over time. Ehhh, folks like me and GH have an easy pass in this regard because our entire cities could choose not to vote and Biden would still win (Washington and Oregon). Protest votes to signal dissatisfaction with corporate dems when you live in a safe-blue state is the correct thing to do IMO. If enough people protest vote/don't vote in a safe state, they are no longer safe. Vote protesting of any kind is really stupid when christo-fascism is at our doorstep. From my perspective the US is essentially christo-fascism's (though I'd use "racial capitalism's") "house", and dad's just coming home to the doorstep from work abroad. So because things are already bad you don't want to keep things from getting worse? Wow, very progressive of you. Truly, the revolution we've all been waiting for: doing nothing because things already suck. On the contrary, I consider perpetually voting for whoever the Democrat party allows to be demonstrably ineffective and in effect "doing nothing". The incontrovertible example I typically refer to being 0 progress in 60+ years on racial wealth inequality and the unparalleled support of Democrats by Black people despite that. Never mind looking past Biden's personal responsibility for contributing to decades of destroying our families/communities with mass incarceration the whole time. That Democrats feel entitled to my or any other Black person's vote despite that is disgusting to me. That they so brazenly try to shame anyone that disagrees with them that they are, is indescribably disappointing. That they rationalize it by pointing to the system they built is just asinine. You can't get what you want from Democrats if you don't vote in your own Democrats. You want a socialist revolution? Taking over the most popular party in a 2-party system and implementing your policy platform through that party is a nonviolent path to a real socialist revolution. You vote for socialists in the primary and you hold the line against literal fascist rule in the general. The evidence this works is the GOP. We have seen a demonstrable change in policy and attitude from the GOP over the last couple decades from a conservative party to openly advocating for fascism. The change you claim to want is possible but you turn your nose up to it. You'd rather do things that have no chance of changing how things work in this country. A real revolutionary you are, GH.
This is just the start of the perpetual dem apologist refrain of:
1. There's a problem
2. Politicians won't fix it
3. Need to replace the politicians with ones that will
4. Can't replace the politicians because of how the system works
5. Need to fix the system
6. Politicians wont fix it (because it benefits them)
7. Repeat ad nauseam.
people of good conscience need to get off that hamster wheel if we want any hope of a desirable future. It's not something they can wait another 40-60 years to do (like they have on the Black-white wealth gap). It's already too late to save countless people and every day they stubbornly refuse to get off the wheel countless more are lost.
If you're going to thoughtlessly advocate for a tea partyesque movement you would do well to remember they also ignored electability arguments and were willing to lose winnable elections in favor of supporting their preference. Something I understand you specifically to be advocating against.
|
On August 29 2023 23:06 Uldridge wrote:
Well, if these people could successfully install Trump as dictator for life, it would've been with the support of a big ass army. So they were woefully ubequipped and undersupported to make this task a success. So yeah, let them cry harder. They're morons for thinking they could make someone sit on their throne without a whole bunch of powerful (or millions upon millions of) people behind them acting it out.
I hope wholeheartedly the US will self correct and not eat itself up from the inside out, because every day that passes it looks more and more polarized and in the end something will break. Nothing will actually break though if either not enough people or not powerful enough people actively take a side and try to make things happen. So it seems it's all grandstanding for now, with extremely vocal mintorities, occasional riots, or vigilante antics, while life goes on.
But your government is corrupt. Or at the very least ideologically bankrupt and it's trying its hardest to self preserve. There is new blood, but it feels so weird to read that there's a 89 year old person in one of the highest bodies of government actively doing things like forming sentences (i.e. speaking intelligble words) and debating policy.
In any case, if divisive topics like abortion and immigration and the war on drugs and gun laws and systemic racism and LGBTQ keep not finding common ground, who knows what that will spur in 10-20 years? Like I said, let's hope you self correct and these Rebublican buffoons can understand it's not all that bad and we can move along. But if I'm to give a complete answer I'd talk about how Democrats are basically just as bad, of not even worse and how these two parties are long overdue to implode and let a multiparty system take its place. But maybe that's impossible for a country hosting 330 million people. I don't know, difficult topic to untangle on a forum during office hours lol
Yeah, I mean, I’m not sure how rosy I feel about the future of the US government on current trajectory. The whole system is implicitly designed to periodically trade power between the factions, and one faction is actively in favor of destroying current frameworks, seizing any power they can, and using it against political enemies. That’s not a popular platform, and they’ve pretty consistently underperformed electorally since 2016, but they’re not changing course and the pendulum kind of *has* to give them power back eventually. What happens when insurrectionists control all three branches of government?
All of that would be concerning enough if just preserving the status quo was a reasonable outcome, but there’s enormous challenges bearing down on us in the next few decades that we’re completely incapable of addressing. I mean, the balance of power in the world order is breaking down, everybody is militarizing, and countries with expansionist aims are openly pursuing them. Climate change is likely to devastate whole ways of life and create millions of refugees. All of this in a political climate where even if you think the Democrats are on track to hold power away from the fascists in 2024, any political analyst would tell you that’s subject to change if inflation rises above 5%, or unemployment rises above 8%, or if GDP shrinks by 2%.
Our systems are deeply fragile structures, and we know there’s enormous earthquakes incoming. It’s a bit hard to know when though, and in what form. And prescribing responses kind of depends a lot on the when and how. Like, should I be trying to prepare for natural disasters and refugee crises? Then maybe I should focus on self-sufficiency, community resiliency, that kind of thing. Or is the biggest threat rising international hostilities leading to open wars of conquest in multiple theaters? In that case, I don’t know, maybe we need to try to strengthen national alliance systems and build a reliable international consensus against wars of aggression, backed by militaries able to respond more readily than they did in Ukraine? Or maybe it’s ultra-right wing militias trying to execute coups, or maybe it’s central governments becoming increasingly authoritarian to prevent those coups. There’s a lot of threats, some more likely than others, many with enormous and potentially tragic consequences, and all implying difficult and expensive and sometimes contradictory measures to prevent them.
In other words, yes, difficult to untangle during office hours.
|
I also wanted to highlight this from mohdoo:
it is important to note that many of the "luxuries" we now enjoy (like weekends) were forcibly taken from capitalists and people were killed fighting for that right.
The idea that the positive changes in the US have come from people voting "less evil" people into power and then those elected officials make the changes is a convenient myth, but wrong. That's simply not how it works. How it has actually worked is that people organized beyond electoralism, fought tooth and nail (sometimes literally) the status quo, and eventually the "typically evil" politicians had to follow/toss them some crumbs or lose control altogether.
|
On August 30 2023 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:I also wanted to highlight this from mohdoo: Show nested quote +it is important to note that many of the "luxuries" we now enjoy (like weekends) were forcibly taken from capitalists and people were killed fighting for that right. The idea that the positive changes in the US have come from people voting "less evil" people into power and then those elected officials make the changes is a convenient myth, but wrong. That's simply not how it works. How it has actually worked is that people organized beyond electoralism, fought tooth and nail (sometimes literally) the status quo, and eventually the "typically evil" politicians had to follow/toss them some crumbs or lose control altogether.
But those "luxuries" came from voters on the left, not voters on the right. It would be ideal if the Democratic nominee was further to the left, but the fact of the matter still remains that the Democratic nominee will always be more to the left than the Republican nominee.
|
On August 30 2023 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:I also wanted to highlight this from mohdoo: Show nested quote +it is important to note that many of the "luxuries" we now enjoy (like weekends) were forcibly taken from capitalists and people were killed fighting for that right. The idea that the positive changes in the US have come from people voting "less evil" people into power and then those elected officials make the changes is a convenient myth, but wrong. That's simply not how it works. How it has actually worked is that people organized beyond electoralism, fought tooth and nail (sometimes literally) the status quo, and eventually the politicians had to follow/toss them some crumbs or lose control altogether.
Maybe, but the reverse doesn't hold. Negative changes in the US have come from people voting "more evil" people into power. Some of those changes should be fresh in everyone's memory.
Voting doesn't in any way impede someone from organizing beyond electoralism, I don't get why some of you pit them against eachother like it's one or the other. Trust me, if you go to a protest or strike, no one's gonna check your non-voter cred.
If the argument is that Biden losing to Trump would somehow make Dems change for the better, then commit to that and just vote for Trump. Sitting out the referendum does absolutely nothing other than give people a way to avoid responsibility and be able to keep moralizing in case that goes horribly wrong.
|
On August 30 2023 02:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2023 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:I also wanted to highlight this from mohdoo: it is important to note that many of the "luxuries" we now enjoy (like weekends) were forcibly taken from capitalists and people were killed fighting for that right. The idea that the positive changes in the US have come from people voting "less evil" people into power and then those elected officials make the changes is a convenient myth, but wrong. That's simply not how it works. How it has actually worked is that people organized beyond electoralism, fought tooth and nail (sometimes literally) the status quo, and eventually the "typically evil" politicians had to follow/toss them some crumbs or lose control altogether. But those "luxuries" came from voters on the left, not voters on the right. It would be ideal if the Democratic nominee was further to the left, but the fact of the matter still remains that the Democratic nominee will always be more to the left than the Republican nominee.
Those luxuries didnt come from voters, they came from fighters, people threatening to burn their bosses homes down, people getting shot and beaten by cops, strikers, etc.
|
On August 30 2023 03:25 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2023 02:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 30 2023 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:I also wanted to highlight this from mohdoo: it is important to note that many of the "luxuries" we now enjoy (like weekends) were forcibly taken from capitalists and people were killed fighting for that right. The idea that the positive changes in the US have come from people voting "less evil" people into power and then those elected officials make the changes is a convenient myth, but wrong. That's simply not how it works. How it has actually worked is that people organized beyond electoralism, fought tooth and nail (sometimes literally) the status quo, and eventually the "typically evil" politicians had to follow/toss them some crumbs or lose control altogether. But those "luxuries" came from voters on the left, not voters on the right. It would be ideal if the Democratic nominee was further to the left, but the fact of the matter still remains that the Democratic nominee will always be more to the left than the Republican nominee. Those luxuries didnt come from voters, they came from fighters, people threatening to burn their bosses homes down, people getting shot and beaten by cops, strikers, etc.
And they were on which side?
a. left
b. right.
Hint: answer is a.
Semantics isn't going to change this fact.
Edit: Same response for GH's post below. Moving to the right can't possibly be the ideal move.
|
On August 30 2023 02:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2023 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:I also wanted to highlight this from mohdoo: it is important to note that many of the "luxuries" we now enjoy (like weekends) were forcibly taken from capitalists and people were killed fighting for that right. The idea that the positive changes in the US have come from people voting "less evil" people into power and then those elected officials make the changes is a convenient myth, but wrong. That's simply not how it works. How it has actually worked is that people organized beyond electoralism, fought tooth and nail (sometimes literally) the status quo, and eventually the "typically evil" politicians had to follow/toss them some crumbs or lose control altogether. But those "luxuries" came from voters on the left, not voters on the right. It would be ideal if the Democratic nominee was further to the left, but the fact of the matter still remains that the Democratic nominee will always be more to the left than the Republican nominee.
Not from "voters" voting, but from workers that may or may not have voted for either party or neither (like voting for Eugene Debs) forcing their concession despite the persistent threat/practice of social/political ostracism, grave harm and incarceration.
If you measure Democrats against today's Republicans you'll end up standing to the right of yesterday's Republicans and calling it "to the left".
On August 30 2023 03:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2023 03:25 Zambrah wrote:On August 30 2023 02:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 30 2023 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:I also wanted to highlight this from mohdoo: it is important to note that many of the "luxuries" we now enjoy (like weekends) were forcibly taken from capitalists and people were killed fighting for that right. The idea that the positive changes in the US have come from people voting "less evil" people into power and then those elected officials make the changes is a convenient myth, but wrong. That's simply not how it works. How it has actually worked is that people organized beyond electoralism, fought tooth and nail (sometimes literally) the status quo, and eventually the "typically evil" politicians had to follow/toss them some crumbs or lose control altogether. But those "luxuries" came from voters on the left, not voters on the right. It would be ideal if the Democratic nominee was further to the left, but the fact of the matter still remains that the Democratic nominee will always be more to the left than the Republican nominee. Those luxuries didnt come from voters, they came from fighters, people threatening to burn their bosses homes down, people getting shot and beaten by cops, strikers, etc. And they were on which side? a. left b. right. Hint: answer is a. Semantics isn't going to change this fact. Edit: Same response for GH's post below. Moving to the right can't possibly be the ideal move.
The question/edit is an asinine semantic non sequitur as alluded to by the fact that you're using left and right relatively where what is "to the right" today can be "to the left" tomorrow and doesn't address the issue of the "luxuries" not being the product of voters voting.
|
On August 30 2023 00:55 JimmiC wrote:
You can certainly call yourself a progressive and vote democratic. They have progressive candidates running in most primaries and some in the general.
You've been reading to much "bad dems". They are a coalition that stretches from left to center right. And because the US has so many right, far right, and whatever we are calling the wacky QAnon folks that coalition needs to exist.
Would you really tell your party of choice to not vote with centrists because they are bad if it meant the far right party had control?
I would actually just start my own party honestly. Create enough division that they have to take you seriously. It's completely ridiculous that you need an affiliation with fuzzy ideals to adhere to or your voice won't be heard. But... how will your voice ever be heard like that if your affiliation has 20 different views on the same topic? You'll just be drowned out by those who shout loudest or who have the most clout.
In Belgium, with only 11 million citizens and around 7(? I don't even know and care to be honest, but it illustrates my point), there's infighting because the party doesn't align ideologically. Which isn't bad, per se, but if you feel like you have somethijg dinstinct to say, you start your own party and you can be heard.
On August 30 2023 01:06 StasisField wrote:
I can and I do. I don't support the status quo. I support getting socialists into positions of power to make a real difference in the US. That takes time. And while I wait for that to be realized I will continue voting for socialists, voting against fascism, and advocating for socialism to those who will listen. Voting is one tool in the toolbox. Not using it when it's right there and only needed once every couple of years is moronic.
I don't believe Democrats offer any solution at all, not after they presented Hillary in 2016. I believe it takes time to transform your grotesque monstrosity of a party, but will there be enough people that align themselves to make that change happen? I sincerely hope your strategy works, because frankly, I don't see it happening at all.
|
On August 30 2023 03:25 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2023 02:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 30 2023 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:I also wanted to highlight this from mohdoo: it is important to note that many of the "luxuries" we now enjoy (like weekends) were forcibly taken from capitalists and people were killed fighting for that right. The idea that the positive changes in the US have come from people voting "less evil" people into power and then those elected officials make the changes is a convenient myth, but wrong. That's simply not how it works. How it has actually worked is that people organized beyond electoralism, fought tooth and nail (sometimes literally) the status quo, and eventually the "typically evil" politicians had to follow/toss them some crumbs or lose control altogether. But those "luxuries" came from voters on the left, not voters on the right. It would be ideal if the Democratic nominee was further to the left, but the fact of the matter still remains that the Democratic nominee will always be more to the left than the Republican nominee. Those luxuries didnt come from voters, they came from fighters, people threatening to burn their bosses homes down, people getting shot and beaten by cops, strikers, etc. But it sure is a lot easier to get those luxuries and keep those luxuries while you don't have fascists leading the government.
No matter where you think change comes from, its a lot easier when your not ruled by a fascists dictatorship. I hope we can all agree on that.
|
On August 30 2023 03:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2023 03:25 Zambrah wrote:On August 30 2023 02:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 30 2023 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:I also wanted to highlight this from mohdoo: it is important to note that many of the "luxuries" we now enjoy (like weekends) were forcibly taken from capitalists and people were killed fighting for that right. The idea that the positive changes in the US have come from people voting "less evil" people into power and then those elected officials make the changes is a convenient myth, but wrong. That's simply not how it works. How it has actually worked is that people organized beyond electoralism, fought tooth and nail (sometimes literally) the status quo, and eventually the "typically evil" politicians had to follow/toss them some crumbs or lose control altogether. But those "luxuries" came from voters on the left, not voters on the right. It would be ideal if the Democratic nominee was further to the left, but the fact of the matter still remains that the Democratic nominee will always be more to the left than the Republican nominee. Those luxuries didnt come from voters, they came from fighters, people threatening to burn their bosses homes down, people getting shot and beaten by cops, strikers, etc. And they were on which side? a. left b. right. Hint: answer is a. Semantics isn't going to change this fact. Edit: Same response for GH's post below. Moving to the right can't possibly be the ideal move.
it is not a matter of semantics when the people in this thread are insisting it is strictly dem voters that are going to make the change happen.
it is NOT voters at all that drive this change. and i don’t think anyone is suggesting moving right. that’s not the same as not voting dem.
|
On August 30 2023 03:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2023 03:25 Zambrah wrote:On August 30 2023 02:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 30 2023 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:I also wanted to highlight this from mohdoo: it is important to note that many of the "luxuries" we now enjoy (like weekends) were forcibly taken from capitalists and people were killed fighting for that right. The idea that the positive changes in the US have come from people voting "less evil" people into power and then those elected officials make the changes is a convenient myth, but wrong. That's simply not how it works. How it has actually worked is that people organized beyond electoralism, fought tooth and nail (sometimes literally) the status quo, and eventually the "typically evil" politicians had to follow/toss them some crumbs or lose control altogether. But those "luxuries" came from voters on the left, not voters on the right. It would be ideal if the Democratic nominee was further to the left, but the fact of the matter still remains that the Democratic nominee will always be more to the left than the Republican nominee. Those luxuries didnt come from voters, they came from fighters, people threatening to burn their bosses homes down, people getting shot and beaten by cops, strikers, etc. And they were on which side? a. left b. right. Hint: answer is a. Semantics isn't going to change this fact. Edit: Same response for GH's post below. Moving to the right can't possibly be the ideal move.
Im not sure its that semantic to want to reinforce that voters didnt earn those rights, they were written in blood, people voting was not the mechanism by which these things really came to be, it was people dying, being beaten and killed, spilling their blood.
My only real point here is to make sure theres push back on the notion that voting is all that powerful a mechanism for change, 'cause its not. Its one small piece of what needs to happen for change to occur, but in the end it is a small piece, the bigger pieces are so often violence and bloodshed, I'd argue due to how ineffective voting has generally proven to be.
|
On August 30 2023 03:43 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2023 03:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 30 2023 03:25 Zambrah wrote:On August 30 2023 02:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 30 2023 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:I also wanted to highlight this from mohdoo: it is important to note that many of the "luxuries" we now enjoy (like weekends) were forcibly taken from capitalists and people were killed fighting for that right. The idea that the positive changes in the US have come from people voting "less evil" people into power and then those elected officials make the changes is a convenient myth, but wrong. That's simply not how it works. How it has actually worked is that people organized beyond electoralism, fought tooth and nail (sometimes literally) the status quo, and eventually the "typically evil" politicians had to follow/toss them some crumbs or lose control altogether. But those "luxuries" came from voters on the left, not voters on the right. It would be ideal if the Democratic nominee was further to the left, but the fact of the matter still remains that the Democratic nominee will always be more to the left than the Republican nominee. Those luxuries didnt come from voters, they came from fighters, people threatening to burn their bosses homes down, people getting shot and beaten by cops, strikers, etc. And they were on which side? a. left b. right. Hint: answer is a. Semantics isn't going to change this fact. Edit: Same response for GH's post below. Moving to the right can't possibly be the ideal move. it is not a matter of semantics when the people in this thread are insisting it is strictly dem voters that are going to make the change happen. it is NOT voters at all that drive this change. and i don’t think anyone is suggesting moving right. that’s not the same as not voting dem. well the right wing voters sure aren't going to abstain to keep the playing field level.
Every vote side A doesn't get is a vote less that side B needs to win.
Elections are often won or lost on whether or not people can be bothered to go out a vote.
|
On August 29 2023 21:32 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2023 07:45 Introvert wrote:On August 29 2023 04:36 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Yeah the election stuff is clearly worse than the documents imo. Well I guess I don't fully know the extent of the documents but the election stuff is a clear as daylight attempt at stealing the presidency, it's just so incompetently executed that it ends up being kinda hilariosly ridiculous and that seems to make people kinda gloss over it As we all know wrong=/=illegal and I am uncomfortable with using statutes in new ways to get at someone already deemed bad. And esp because many of these prosecutors get elected promising to go after Trump. Bragg did. I think Willis did too. I was here during russiagate, I have watched people who ought to take their jobs very seriously beclown themselves and give up their integrity for plaudits from their own side. If trying to overthrow the government isn’t illegal then what the fuck is? I thought I got pretty jaded by the end of the Trump administration but somehow I still thought “if someone tries to use the levers to power to eliminate democratic capability to remove them from power, everyone’s first priority has to be making sure they don’t have that access again” was a bipartisan commitment. Or at *least* one the National Review-type “principled conservatives” would actually support. Pardon my naivete, won’t happen again. Threatening public officials to try to get them to commit crimes is absolutely already a crime, but if what you want is a criminal statute with extremely specifically listed elements that are completely unambiguously met by Trump’s conduct, the classified documents case has that for you, too. At this point it’s increasingly obvious that conservatives don’t actually think their nominal ideals like “rule of law” are even possible. In which case, what *are* their principles other than acquisition of power?
See, this is part of the problem I have. Smith spent pages talking about Jan 6 and didn't actually charge anything related to Jan 6. It's political, and his case is weak and runs afoul of recent sc precedent. If the case against him in terms of what was legal was airtight then we wouldn't have new and novel interpretations of law. If you say, "well this hasn't happened before" I would also contend thats probably a good sign these laws weren't written with this in mind. Moreover too much of this assumes Trump knew he lost, but his statements in private are ambiguous at best. Anyway point not to nitpick but to say that it's actually not all clear thr law addresses what he did.
|
On August 30 2023 03:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2023 02:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 30 2023 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:I also wanted to highlight this from mohdoo: it is important to note that many of the "luxuries" we now enjoy (like weekends) were forcibly taken from capitalists and people were killed fighting for that right. The idea that the positive changes in the US have come from people voting "less evil" people into power and then those elected officials make the changes is a convenient myth, but wrong. That's simply not how it works. How it has actually worked is that people organized beyond electoralism, fought tooth and nail (sometimes literally) the status quo, and eventually the "typically evil" politicians had to follow/toss them some crumbs or lose control altogether. But those "luxuries" came from voters on the left, not voters on the right. It would be ideal if the Democratic nominee was further to the left, but the fact of the matter still remains that the Democratic nominee will always be more to the left than the Republican nominee. Not from "voters" voting, but from workers that may or may not have voted for either party or neither (like voting for Eugene Debs) forcing their concession despite the persistent threat/practice of social/political ostracism, grave harm and incarceration. If you measure Democrats against today's Republicans you'll end up standing to the right of yesterday's Republicans and calling it "to the left". Show nested quote +On August 30 2023 03:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 30 2023 03:25 Zambrah wrote:On August 30 2023 02:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 30 2023 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:I also wanted to highlight this from mohdoo: it is important to note that many of the "luxuries" we now enjoy (like weekends) were forcibly taken from capitalists and people were killed fighting for that right. The idea that the positive changes in the US have come from people voting "less evil" people into power and then those elected officials make the changes is a convenient myth, but wrong. That's simply not how it works. How it has actually worked is that people organized beyond electoralism, fought tooth and nail (sometimes literally) the status quo, and eventually the "typically evil" politicians had to follow/toss them some crumbs or lose control altogether. But those "luxuries" came from voters on the left, not voters on the right. It would be ideal if the Democratic nominee was further to the left, but the fact of the matter still remains that the Democratic nominee will always be more to the left than the Republican nominee. Those luxuries didnt come from voters, they came from fighters, people threatening to burn their bosses homes down, people getting shot and beaten by cops, strikers, etc. And they were on which side? a. left b. right. Hint: answer is a. Semantics isn't going to change this fact. Edit: Same response for GH's post below. Moving to the right can't possibly be the ideal move. The question/edit is an asinine semantic non sequitur as alluded to by the fact that you're using left and right relatively where what is "to the right" today can be "to the left" tomorrow and doesn't address the issue of the "luxuries" not being the product of voters voting.
Like what? What are some current Republican talking points ("to the right today") that you think will be "to the left tomorrow"? Do you think that being against climate change, women's rights, education, or LGBTQ+ will suddenly be Democratic platforms, instead of Republican ones? Is there sufficient precedent for this?
Historically, the opposite of what you're saying tends to be true. What was deemed progressive a generation or two ago (e.g., interracial marriage, rights to vote) is now so common sense that even most conservatives are okay with them. Over several decades, we see that many controversially-left positions end up becoming the norm and moderate and centrist. It's why we keep pushing to the left, even if that means incrementally. We certainly don't push to the right today and assert that it could end up being how best to get to the left tomorrow.
|
On August 30 2023 03:43 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2023 03:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 30 2023 03:25 Zambrah wrote:On August 30 2023 02:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 30 2023 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:I also wanted to highlight this from mohdoo: it is important to note that many of the "luxuries" we now enjoy (like weekends) were forcibly taken from capitalists and people were killed fighting for that right. The idea that the positive changes in the US have come from people voting "less evil" people into power and then those elected officials make the changes is a convenient myth, but wrong. That's simply not how it works. How it has actually worked is that people organized beyond electoralism, fought tooth and nail (sometimes literally) the status quo, and eventually the "typically evil" politicians had to follow/toss them some crumbs or lose control altogether. But those "luxuries" came from voters on the left, not voters on the right. It would be ideal if the Democratic nominee was further to the left, but the fact of the matter still remains that the Democratic nominee will always be more to the left than the Republican nominee. Those luxuries didnt come from voters, they came from fighters, people threatening to burn their bosses homes down, people getting shot and beaten by cops, strikers, etc. And they were on which side? a. left b. right. Hint: answer is a. Semantics isn't going to change this fact. Edit: Same response for GH's post below. Moving to the right can't possibly be the ideal move. it is not a matter of semantics when the people in this thread are insisting it is strictly dem voters that are going to make the change happen. it is NOT voters at all that drive this change. and i don’t think anyone is suggesting moving right. that’s not the same as not voting dem.
Moving right to get to the left was just asserted. And if we want to say that it's not only voters that make change, that's fine, but the laws that keep the change necessarily come from voters. People can also fight for progress without voting, but at the end of the day, the votes need to happen. And those progressive changes that eventually become enshrined as laws come from voting Democrat, not from voting Republican.
On August 30 2023 03:44 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2023 03:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 30 2023 03:25 Zambrah wrote:On August 30 2023 02:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 30 2023 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:I also wanted to highlight this from mohdoo: it is important to note that many of the "luxuries" we now enjoy (like weekends) were forcibly taken from capitalists and people were killed fighting for that right. The idea that the positive changes in the US have come from people voting "less evil" people into power and then those elected officials make the changes is a convenient myth, but wrong. That's simply not how it works. How it has actually worked is that people organized beyond electoralism, fought tooth and nail (sometimes literally) the status quo, and eventually the "typically evil" politicians had to follow/toss them some crumbs or lose control altogether. But those "luxuries" came from voters on the left, not voters on the right. It would be ideal if the Democratic nominee was further to the left, but the fact of the matter still remains that the Democratic nominee will always be more to the left than the Republican nominee. Those luxuries didnt come from voters, they came from fighters, people threatening to burn their bosses homes down, people getting shot and beaten by cops, strikers, etc. And they were on which side? a. left b. right. Hint: answer is a. Semantics isn't going to change this fact. Edit: Same response for GH's post below. Moving to the right can't possibly be the ideal move. Im not sure its that semantic to want to reinforce that voters didnt earn those rights, they were written in blood, people voting was not the mechanism by which these things really came to be, it was people dying, being beaten and killed, spilling their blood. My only real point here is to make sure theres push back on the notion that voting is all that powerful a mechanism for change, 'cause its not. Its one small piece of what needs to happen for change to occur, but in the end it is a small piece, the bigger pieces are so often violence and bloodshed, I'd argue due to how ineffective voting has generally proven to be.
There is more to it than voting, yes. But the voting still needs to happen, so it's counterproductive to do all the other things (rallies, speeches, etc.) but then to snub the elections that can actually cement these ideal, progressive changes into laws. Why spend all the time to bring the football to the one yard line, and then say it doesn't matter if we score the touchdown or if the other team does?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/uEnh7v6.jpg)
