|
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 31 2023 00:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2023 23:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 30 2023 18:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 30 2023 12:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 30 2023 11:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 30 2023 10:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 30 2023 08:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 30 2023 07:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 30 2023 05:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 30 2023 05:07 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
One prominent historical example that comes to mind is is the ACA. All the propaganda paints it as some massive achievement of "the left" but it's not only to the right of what Kennedy (D) proposed decades earlier, it is to the right of what Nixon and Republicans were countering with. So basically the most celebrated legislation in decades "on the left" is more rightwing than Nixon. I totally agree with you that the ACA is not as progressive or left or beneficial as, say, M4A, but the ACA was still a step in the ideal direction relative to what directly preceded it. Maybe M4A would have been 20 steps to the left while the ACA was just 1 step to the left, but it's still better than what existed beforehand, and I think that jumping from Kennedy/Nixon to Romney/Obama is skipping a few decades of watching the healthcare system get progressively worse. It's not like Obama came right after Nixon, so we're not comparing today vs. tomorrow anymore; a lot happened between those two presidents. What happened after Nixon, over several decades, moved our healthcare system even further to the right, so when Obama supported the ACA - which may have been more to the right than Nixon - it was still to the left of the status quo. Could Obama have pushed even more to the left? Possibly. Is the ACA the best we can do? I sure hope not. Do people generally like the idea of M4A? Yeah, according to polls. But are they voting for it? Currently, they aren't - which means we can't have it - which is why it frustrates me when people don't give the voters any credit. Voters aren't just talking the talk; they're also walking the walk. A person saying they like M4A doesn't mean it's going to magically happen; we need the votes. An obvious one we're seeing unfolding currently is policing where Democrats are increasingly picking up Republican perspectives to rationalize/ignore things like Cop City. I'm not quite sure what this means. Do you mean that Democrats aren't protesting (and even rioting) over police brutality, or promoting slogans and groups like BLM, ACAB, and Defund the Police? Because clearly, they're doing all that. Not every Democrat is doing that, of course, but I still wouldn't say that Democrats and Republicans have identical perspectives when it comes to cops (e.g., Black vs. Blue/All). It seems you missed that the point is this relative "right vs left" stuff leaves Democrat supporters saying policy too right wing for Nixon era Republicans is "on the left" (Whether it takes days or decades) and that the voting comes after the people already forced the same old politicians hand and they've failed to dole out the crumbs/keep the promises that dissuaded the country from going revolutionary to get the crumbs they were demanding and much more in the first place. Then we're back on the Hamster Wheel: 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 ("only option is to vote Biden") 5. Need to fix the system 6. Politicians wont fix it (because it benefits them) 7. Repeat ad nauseam. In the midst of the George Floyd uprising a Cop City like project would have been something for the Democrat party to rally together to oppose, let electoralism throw people back on the hamster wheel and today it's something the party wants to ignore, "tomorrow" (I didn't/don't mean literally) they will be pushing for their own Cop Cities while insisting it's "to the left" of the "Republican corporate slave mines proposal" or whatever to reduce crime, "so the choice is obvious". Just as Democrats pushing the type of propaganda you are now did to get 1970's Nixon/Republican policy (actually legislation to the right of that policy) praised as basically the best thing Democrats & Progressives combined have accomplished in the decades since Republicans proposed it. I agree with you that the hamster wheel steps 1-7 are hard to overcome, but we know they can be overcome. The most recent example is Trump and the Republicans overcoming it with Trump supporters winning their primary and then Trump winning the general election. A primary can be hard to win, and a general election can also be hard to win, but those 2 victories can get anyone into the presidency, provided they have enough support from one of the two major parties. And on a similar note, Bernie was pretty close to winning on the Democratic side too (I know that he needed to overcome the political machine and superdelegates against Hillary; he almost succeeded). I know that we need to deal with local redistricting, state gerrymandering, and the electoral college at the national level that prohibit elections from being more fair, but I still think it's a problem that either more politicians aren't running on progressive platforms and/or those progressive politicians aren't receiving as many votes as informal polls about progressive policies might suggest. If you think Trump was an escape from the Republican version of the hamster wheel you got duped like his supporters. As for Bernie, he's just a social democrat that genuinely believes some of the typical Democrat propaganda and might actually want to do it. For that crime Democrats did everything they possibly could to stop and coopt him, and they ultimately did. Anyone actually advocating solutions beyond the social democrat policy Democrats pretend to support gets treatment that makes Democrats treatment of Bernie look like their treatment of Hillary. The coordinated assassination of Fred Hampton by various parts of US government was a bipartisan affair for example. It's the same story for generations of "change em from the inside" social democrat types that ultimately just become the perpetuators of the policies they were ostensibly elected/platformed to change while hiding behind "pragmatism" and other rationalizations for their complicity in these horrific/devastating policies and complacency with that reality. The only way Trump is an example of that hamster wheel is if you move the goalposts so far back that any/every successful candidate perpetuates the hamster wheel, which makes the claim unfalsifiable and absurd. Trump beat the Republican machine at their own game, replaced some of the traditional Republican politicians with Trump loyalists, and completely overhauled the right. He literally broke 4, 5, and 6 in the hamster wheel. He flipped off Cruz, Rubio, McConnell, superdelegates, and anything else that represented the old guard. Now the Republican establishment, and most Republican constituents, bow to him. It's difficult to break the cycle of the hamster wheel, but it's already happened once in the last decade, and almost happened a second time with Bernie. If you don't consider Trump an example of breaking the hamster wheel, then I suppose we disagree there. I'd probably use something besides the hamster wheel to describe the ride Republican/Trump voters are being taken on in the first place. The "hamster wheel" is meant to be a truncated description of the cyclic apologist refrain of the Democrat party, their supporters, and social democrats generally, not the con games Republicans/Trump are running. The Republican party/Trump's con game is a different animal. But if we force Republicans/Trump into the analogy (you basically replace "politicians" with "Democrats/RINOs"), Trump fails to break the wheel because he's obviously not actually going to 3. fix their problems. Instead he's perpetuated and exacerbated them while Republicans/his supporters blame Democrats/RINOs for it, keeping Republicans on their version of the hamster wheel. The idea that Trump broke the hamster wheel is the one of the most ubiquitously cited core reasons his supporters support him and would vote for him even if he was in prison. You're basically arguing they are right when you know they got sold a bill of goods. Can you please give a hypothetical example of what it would look like for the Democratic hamster wheel to be broken by someone or in some scenario? What would need to happen for you to say "What's happening right now is a counterexample to the Democratic hamster wheel"? Engaging in revolutionary socialism to enact a socialist revolution. And what would that look like? I'm not sure what "engaging in revolutionary socialism" looks like. Would it be done through voting in a majority of socialists into local, state, and national leadership positions, to pass pro-socialism / anti-capitalism laws and move the country in a socialist direction? Would it be done through strikes and protests and violent riots and threats from the workers who feel disenfranchised by their employers and/or the capitalist system as a whole? I'm assuming it would start with the latter (strikes, protests, etc.) and would be considered successful if it leads to the former (laws, leadership, etc.).
Pretty much, I'd clarify the voting largely wouldn't be done under the US's current scheme (early non-reformist reforms would be) and quibble on the framing/wording/etc. a bit, but that's basically it. The actual measure of success wouldn't be laws or empowering specific individuals though. It'd be seeing our problems being remedied through socialism.
|
On August 31 2023 00:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2023 00:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 30 2023 23:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 30 2023 18:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 30 2023 12:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 30 2023 11:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 30 2023 10:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 30 2023 08:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 30 2023 07:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 30 2023 05:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
I totally agree with you that the ACA is not as progressive or left or beneficial as, say, M4A, but the ACA was still a step in the ideal direction relative to what directly preceded it. Maybe M4A would have been 20 steps to the left while the ACA was just 1 step to the left, but it's still better than what existed beforehand, and I think that jumping from Kennedy/Nixon to Romney/Obama is skipping a few decades of watching the healthcare system get progressively worse. It's not like Obama came right after Nixon, so we're not comparing today vs. tomorrow anymore; a lot happened between those two presidents. What happened after Nixon, over several decades, moved our healthcare system even further to the right, so when Obama supported the ACA - which may have been more to the right than Nixon - it was still to the left of the status quo. Could Obama have pushed even more to the left? Possibly. Is the ACA the best we can do? I sure hope not. Do people generally like the idea of M4A? Yeah, according to polls. But are they voting for it? Currently, they aren't - which means we can't have it - which is why it frustrates me when people don't give the voters any credit. Voters aren't just talking the talk; they're also walking the walk. A person saying they like M4A doesn't mean it's going to magically happen; we need the votes.
[quote]
I'm not quite sure what this means. Do you mean that Democrats aren't protesting (and even rioting) over police brutality, or promoting slogans and groups like BLM, ACAB, and Defund the Police? Because clearly, they're doing all that. Not every Democrat is doing that, of course, but I still wouldn't say that Democrats and Republicans have identical perspectives when it comes to cops (e.g., Black vs. Blue/All). It seems you missed that the point is this relative "right vs left" stuff leaves Democrat supporters saying policy too right wing for Nixon era Republicans is "on the left" (Whether it takes days or decades) and that the voting comes after the people already forced the same old politicians hand and they've failed to dole out the crumbs/keep the promises that dissuaded the country from going revolutionary to get the crumbs they were demanding and much more in the first place. Then we're back on the Hamster Wheel: 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 ("only option is to vote Biden") 5. Need to fix the system 6. Politicians wont fix it (because it benefits them) 7. Repeat ad nauseam. In the midst of the George Floyd uprising a Cop City like project would have been something for the Democrat party to rally together to oppose, let electoralism throw people back on the hamster wheel and today it's something the party wants to ignore, "tomorrow" (I didn't/don't mean literally) they will be pushing for their own Cop Cities while insisting it's "to the left" of the "Republican corporate slave mines proposal" or whatever to reduce crime, "so the choice is obvious". Just as Democrats pushing the type of propaganda you are now did to get 1970's Nixon/Republican policy (actually legislation to the right of that policy) praised as basically the best thing Democrats & Progressives combined have accomplished in the decades since Republicans proposed it. I agree with you that the hamster wheel steps 1-7 are hard to overcome, but we know they can be overcome. The most recent example is Trump and the Republicans overcoming it with Trump supporters winning their primary and then Trump winning the general election. A primary can be hard to win, and a general election can also be hard to win, but those 2 victories can get anyone into the presidency, provided they have enough support from one of the two major parties. And on a similar note, Bernie was pretty close to winning on the Democratic side too (I know that he needed to overcome the political machine and superdelegates against Hillary; he almost succeeded). I know that we need to deal with local redistricting, state gerrymandering, and the electoral college at the national level that prohibit elections from being more fair, but I still think it's a problem that either more politicians aren't running on progressive platforms and/or those progressive politicians aren't receiving as many votes as informal polls about progressive policies might suggest. If you think Trump was an escape from the Republican version of the hamster wheel you got duped like his supporters. As for Bernie, he's just a social democrat that genuinely believes some of the typical Democrat propaganda and might actually want to do it. For that crime Democrats did everything they possibly could to stop and coopt him, and they ultimately did. Anyone actually advocating solutions beyond the social democrat policy Democrats pretend to support gets treatment that makes Democrats treatment of Bernie look like their treatment of Hillary. The coordinated assassination of Fred Hampton by various parts of US government was a bipartisan affair for example. It's the same story for generations of "change em from the inside" social democrat types that ultimately just become the perpetuators of the policies they were ostensibly elected/platformed to change while hiding behind "pragmatism" and other rationalizations for their complicity in these horrific/devastating policies and complacency with that reality. The only way Trump is an example of that hamster wheel is if you move the goalposts so far back that any/every successful candidate perpetuates the hamster wheel, which makes the claim unfalsifiable and absurd. Trump beat the Republican machine at their own game, replaced some of the traditional Republican politicians with Trump loyalists, and completely overhauled the right. He literally broke 4, 5, and 6 in the hamster wheel. He flipped off Cruz, Rubio, McConnell, superdelegates, and anything else that represented the old guard. Now the Republican establishment, and most Republican constituents, bow to him. It's difficult to break the cycle of the hamster wheel, but it's already happened once in the last decade, and almost happened a second time with Bernie. If you don't consider Trump an example of breaking the hamster wheel, then I suppose we disagree there. I'd probably use something besides the hamster wheel to describe the ride Republican/Trump voters are being taken on in the first place. The "hamster wheel" is meant to be a truncated description of the cyclic apologist refrain of the Democrat party, their supporters, and social democrats generally, not the con games Republicans/Trump are running. The Republican party/Trump's con game is a different animal. But if we force Republicans/Trump into the analogy (you basically replace "politicians" with "Democrats/RINOs"), Trump fails to break the wheel because he's obviously not actually going to 3. fix their problems. Instead he's perpetuated and exacerbated them while Republicans/his supporters blame Democrats/RINOs for it, keeping Republicans on their version of the hamster wheel. The idea that Trump broke the hamster wheel is the one of the most ubiquitously cited core reasons his supporters support him and would vote for him even if he was in prison. You're basically arguing they are right when you know they got sold a bill of goods. Can you please give a hypothetical example of what it would look like for the Democratic hamster wheel to be broken by someone or in some scenario? What would need to happen for you to say "What's happening right now is a counterexample to the Democratic hamster wheel"? Engaging in revolutionary socialism to enact a socialist revolution. And what would that look like? I'm not sure what "engaging in revolutionary socialism" looks like. Would it be done through voting in a majority of socialists into local, state, and national leadership positions, to pass pro-socialism / anti-capitalism laws and move the country in a socialist direction? Would it be done through strikes and protests and violent riots and threats from the workers who feel disenfranchised by their employers and/or the capitalist system as a whole? I'm assuming it would start with the latter (strikes, protests, etc.) and would be considered successful if it leads to the former (laws, leadership, etc.). Pretty much, I'd clarify the voting largely wouldn't be done under the US's current scheme (early non-reformist reforms would be) and quibble on the framing/wording/etc. a bit, but that's basically it. The actual measure of success wouldn't be laws or empowering specific individuals though. It'd be seeing our problems being remedied through socialism.
Understood. I appreciate the elaboration.
|
On August 31 2023 01:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2023 00:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 31 2023 00:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 30 2023 23:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 30 2023 18:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 30 2023 12:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 30 2023 11:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 30 2023 10:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 30 2023 08:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 30 2023 07:38 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
It seems you missed that the point is this relative "right vs left" stuff leaves Democrat supporters saying policy too right wing for Nixon era Republicans is "on the left" (Whether it takes days or decades) and that the voting comes after the people already forced the same old politicians hand and they've failed to dole out the crumbs/keep the promises that dissuaded the country from going revolutionary to get the crumbs they were demanding and much more in the first place.
Then we're back on the Hamster Wheel:
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 ("only option is to vote Biden")
5. Need to fix the system
6. Politicians wont fix it (because it benefits them)
7. Repeat ad nauseam.
In the midst of the George Floyd uprising a Cop City like project would have been something for the Democrat party to rally together to oppose, let electoralism throw people back on the hamster wheel and today it's something the party wants to ignore, "tomorrow" (I didn't/don't mean literally) they will be pushing for their own Cop Cities while insisting it's "to the left" of the "Republican corporate slave mines proposal" or whatever to reduce crime, "so the choice is obvious".
Just as Democrats pushing the type of propaganda you are now did to get 1970's Nixon/Republican policy (actually legislation to the right of that policy) praised as basically the best thing Democrats & Progressives combined have accomplished in the decades since Republicans proposed it. I agree with you that the hamster wheel steps 1-7 are hard to overcome, but we know they can be overcome. The most recent example is Trump and the Republicans overcoming it with Trump supporters winning their primary and then Trump winning the general election. A primary can be hard to win, and a general election can also be hard to win, but those 2 victories can get anyone into the presidency, provided they have enough support from one of the two major parties. And on a similar note, Bernie was pretty close to winning on the Democratic side too (I know that he needed to overcome the political machine and superdelegates against Hillary; he almost succeeded). I know that we need to deal with local redistricting, state gerrymandering, and the electoral college at the national level that prohibit elections from being more fair, but I still think it's a problem that either more politicians aren't running on progressive platforms and/or those progressive politicians aren't receiving as many votes as informal polls about progressive policies might suggest. If you think Trump was an escape from the Republican version of the hamster wheel you got duped like his supporters. As for Bernie, he's just a social democrat that genuinely believes some of the typical Democrat propaganda and might actually want to do it. For that crime Democrats did everything they possibly could to stop and coopt him, and they ultimately did. Anyone actually advocating solutions beyond the social democrat policy Democrats pretend to support gets treatment that makes Democrats treatment of Bernie look like their treatment of Hillary. The coordinated assassination of Fred Hampton by various parts of US government was a bipartisan affair for example. It's the same story for generations of "change em from the inside" social democrat types that ultimately just become the perpetuators of the policies they were ostensibly elected/platformed to change while hiding behind "pragmatism" and other rationalizations for their complicity in these horrific/devastating policies and complacency with that reality. The only way Trump is an example of that hamster wheel is if you move the goalposts so far back that any/every successful candidate perpetuates the hamster wheel, which makes the claim unfalsifiable and absurd. Trump beat the Republican machine at their own game, replaced some of the traditional Republican politicians with Trump loyalists, and completely overhauled the right. He literally broke 4, 5, and 6 in the hamster wheel. He flipped off Cruz, Rubio, McConnell, superdelegates, and anything else that represented the old guard. Now the Republican establishment, and most Republican constituents, bow to him. It's difficult to break the cycle of the hamster wheel, but it's already happened once in the last decade, and almost happened a second time with Bernie. If you don't consider Trump an example of breaking the hamster wheel, then I suppose we disagree there. I'd probably use something besides the hamster wheel to describe the ride Republican/Trump voters are being taken on in the first place. The "hamster wheel" is meant to be a truncated description of the cyclic apologist refrain of the Democrat party, their supporters, and social democrats generally, not the con games Republicans/Trump are running. The Republican party/Trump's con game is a different animal. But if we force Republicans/Trump into the analogy (you basically replace "politicians" with "Democrats/RINOs"), Trump fails to break the wheel because he's obviously not actually going to 3. fix their problems. Instead he's perpetuated and exacerbated them while Republicans/his supporters blame Democrats/RINOs for it, keeping Republicans on their version of the hamster wheel. The idea that Trump broke the hamster wheel is the one of the most ubiquitously cited core reasons his supporters support him and would vote for him even if he was in prison. You're basically arguing they are right when you know they got sold a bill of goods. Can you please give a hypothetical example of what it would look like for the Democratic hamster wheel to be broken by someone or in some scenario? What would need to happen for you to say "What's happening right now is a counterexample to the Democratic hamster wheel"? Engaging in revolutionary socialism to enact a socialist revolution. And what would that look like? I'm not sure what "engaging in revolutionary socialism" looks like. Would it be done through voting in a majority of socialists into local, state, and national leadership positions, to pass pro-socialism / anti-capitalism laws and move the country in a socialist direction? Would it be done through strikes and protests and violent riots and threats from the workers who feel disenfranchised by their employers and/or the capitalist system as a whole? I'm assuming it would start with the latter (strikes, protests, etc.) and would be considered successful if it leads to the former (laws, leadership, etc.). Pretty much, I'd clarify the voting largely wouldn't be done under the US's current scheme (early non-reformist reforms would be) and quibble on the framing/wording/etc. a bit, but that's basically it. The actual measure of success wouldn't be laws or empowering specific individuals though. It'd be seeing our problems being remedied through socialism. Understood. I appreciate the elaboration.
No problem, but I am curious what conclusions this information helps you reach?
|
On August 31 2023 01:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2023 01:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 31 2023 00:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 31 2023 00:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 30 2023 23:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 30 2023 18:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 30 2023 12:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 30 2023 11:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 30 2023 10:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 30 2023 08:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
I agree with you that the hamster wheel steps 1-7 are hard to overcome, but we know they can be overcome. The most recent example is Trump and the Republicans overcoming it with Trump supporters winning their primary and then Trump winning the general election. A primary can be hard to win, and a general election can also be hard to win, but those 2 victories can get anyone into the presidency, provided they have enough support from one of the two major parties. And on a similar note, Bernie was pretty close to winning on the Democratic side too (I know that he needed to overcome the political machine and superdelegates against Hillary; he almost succeeded).
I know that we need to deal with local redistricting, state gerrymandering, and the electoral college at the national level that prohibit elections from being more fair, but I still think it's a problem that either more politicians aren't running on progressive platforms and/or those progressive politicians aren't receiving as many votes as informal polls about progressive policies might suggest. If you think Trump was an escape from the Republican version of the hamster wheel you got duped like his supporters. As for Bernie, he's just a social democrat that genuinely believes some of the typical Democrat propaganda and might actually want to do it. For that crime Democrats did everything they possibly could to stop and coopt him, and they ultimately did. Anyone actually advocating solutions beyond the social democrat policy Democrats pretend to support gets treatment that makes Democrats treatment of Bernie look like their treatment of Hillary. The coordinated assassination of Fred Hampton by various parts of US government was a bipartisan affair for example. It's the same story for generations of "change em from the inside" social democrat types that ultimately just become the perpetuators of the policies they were ostensibly elected/platformed to change while hiding behind "pragmatism" and other rationalizations for their complicity in these horrific/devastating policies and complacency with that reality. The only way Trump is an example of that hamster wheel is if you move the goalposts so far back that any/every successful candidate perpetuates the hamster wheel, which makes the claim unfalsifiable and absurd. Trump beat the Republican machine at their own game, replaced some of the traditional Republican politicians with Trump loyalists, and completely overhauled the right. He literally broke 4, 5, and 6 in the hamster wheel. He flipped off Cruz, Rubio, McConnell, superdelegates, and anything else that represented the old guard. Now the Republican establishment, and most Republican constituents, bow to him. It's difficult to break the cycle of the hamster wheel, but it's already happened once in the last decade, and almost happened a second time with Bernie. If you don't consider Trump an example of breaking the hamster wheel, then I suppose we disagree there. I'd probably use something besides the hamster wheel to describe the ride Republican/Trump voters are being taken on in the first place. The "hamster wheel" is meant to be a truncated description of the cyclic apologist refrain of the Democrat party, their supporters, and social democrats generally, not the con games Republicans/Trump are running. The Republican party/Trump's con game is a different animal. But if we force Republicans/Trump into the analogy (you basically replace "politicians" with "Democrats/RINOs"), Trump fails to break the wheel because he's obviously not actually going to 3. fix their problems. Instead he's perpetuated and exacerbated them while Republicans/his supporters blame Democrats/RINOs for it, keeping Republicans on their version of the hamster wheel. The idea that Trump broke the hamster wheel is the one of the most ubiquitously cited core reasons his supporters support him and would vote for him even if he was in prison. You're basically arguing they are right when you know they got sold a bill of goods. Can you please give a hypothetical example of what it would look like for the Democratic hamster wheel to be broken by someone or in some scenario? What would need to happen for you to say "What's happening right now is a counterexample to the Democratic hamster wheel"? Engaging in revolutionary socialism to enact a socialist revolution. And what would that look like? I'm not sure what "engaging in revolutionary socialism" looks like. Would it be done through voting in a majority of socialists into local, state, and national leadership positions, to pass pro-socialism / anti-capitalism laws and move the country in a socialist direction? Would it be done through strikes and protests and violent riots and threats from the workers who feel disenfranchised by their employers and/or the capitalist system as a whole? I'm assuming it would start with the latter (strikes, protests, etc.) and would be considered successful if it leads to the former (laws, leadership, etc.). Pretty much, I'd clarify the voting largely wouldn't be done under the US's current scheme (early non-reformist reforms would be) and quibble on the framing/wording/etc. a bit, but that's basically it. The actual measure of success wouldn't be laws or empowering specific individuals though. It'd be seeing our problems being remedied through socialism. Understood. I appreciate the elaboration. No problem, but I am curious what conclusions this information helps you reach?
It helps to further explain to me the semantics of your hamster wheel. I was thinking much smaller than you are. When I read the 7 cycling steps, I had assumed that "problem" (from step 1) could be a relatively small-scale issue, and that the "system" that perpetuates the simple problem (from steps 4 and 5) could similarly be considered "fixed" (from steps 5 and 6) if we no longer have that problem. For example, I was thinking of things like gradually normalizing gay marriage in society and then protecting gay marriage by law to hopefully seal the deal, or gradually normalizing marijuana in society and then decriminalizing/legalizing it to hopefully get rid of non-violent pot-related arrests. On the other hand, if I understand you correctly, you were thinking on a much bigger scale, like *fixing* the multi-faceted *problems* that arise from our current economic *system* (by overhauling just about everything and switching to a different system altogether), which is significantly more complicated.
|
On August 31 2023 02:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2023 01:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 31 2023 01:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 31 2023 00:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 31 2023 00:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 30 2023 23:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 30 2023 18:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 30 2023 12:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 30 2023 11:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 30 2023 10:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
If you think Trump was an escape from the Republican version of the hamster wheel you got duped like his supporters. As for Bernie, he's just a social democrat that genuinely believes some of the typical Democrat propaganda and might actually want to do it. For that crime Democrats did everything they possibly could to stop and coopt him, and they ultimately did. Anyone actually advocating solutions beyond the social democrat policy Democrats pretend to support gets treatment that makes Democrats treatment of Bernie look like their treatment of Hillary. The coordinated assassination of Fred Hampton by various parts of US government was a bipartisan affair for example.
It's the same story for generations of "change em from the inside" social democrat types that ultimately just become the perpetuators of the policies they were ostensibly elected/platformed to change while hiding behind "pragmatism" and other rationalizations for their complicity in these horrific/devastating policies and complacency with that reality. The only way Trump is an example of that hamster wheel is if you move the goalposts so far back that any/every successful candidate perpetuates the hamster wheel, which makes the claim unfalsifiable and absurd. Trump beat the Republican machine at their own game, replaced some of the traditional Republican politicians with Trump loyalists, and completely overhauled the right. He literally broke 4, 5, and 6 in the hamster wheel. He flipped off Cruz, Rubio, McConnell, superdelegates, and anything else that represented the old guard. Now the Republican establishment, and most Republican constituents, bow to him. It's difficult to break the cycle of the hamster wheel, but it's already happened once in the last decade, and almost happened a second time with Bernie. If you don't consider Trump an example of breaking the hamster wheel, then I suppose we disagree there. I'd probably use something besides the hamster wheel to describe the ride Republican/Trump voters are being taken on in the first place. The "hamster wheel" is meant to be a truncated description of the cyclic apologist refrain of the Democrat party, their supporters, and social democrats generally, not the con games Republicans/Trump are running. The Republican party/Trump's con game is a different animal. But if we force Republicans/Trump into the analogy (you basically replace "politicians" with "Democrats/RINOs"), Trump fails to break the wheel because he's obviously not actually going to 3. fix their problems. Instead he's perpetuated and exacerbated them while Republicans/his supporters blame Democrats/RINOs for it, keeping Republicans on their version of the hamster wheel. The idea that Trump broke the hamster wheel is the one of the most ubiquitously cited core reasons his supporters support him and would vote for him even if he was in prison. You're basically arguing they are right when you know they got sold a bill of goods. Can you please give a hypothetical example of what it would look like for the Democratic hamster wheel to be broken by someone or in some scenario? What would need to happen for you to say "What's happening right now is a counterexample to the Democratic hamster wheel"? Engaging in revolutionary socialism to enact a socialist revolution. And what would that look like? I'm not sure what "engaging in revolutionary socialism" looks like. Would it be done through voting in a majority of socialists into local, state, and national leadership positions, to pass pro-socialism / anti-capitalism laws and move the country in a socialist direction? Would it be done through strikes and protests and violent riots and threats from the workers who feel disenfranchised by their employers and/or the capitalist system as a whole? I'm assuming it would start with the latter (strikes, protests, etc.) and would be considered successful if it leads to the former (laws, leadership, etc.). Pretty much, I'd clarify the voting largely wouldn't be done under the US's current scheme (early non-reformist reforms would be) and quibble on the framing/wording/etc. a bit, but that's basically it. The actual measure of success wouldn't be laws or empowering specific individuals though. It'd be seeing our problems being remedied through socialism. Understood. I appreciate the elaboration. No problem, but I am curious what conclusions this information helps you reach? It helps to further explain to me the semantics of your hamster wheel. I was thinking much smaller than you are. When I read the 7 cycling steps, I had assumed that "problem" (from step 1) could be a relatively small-scale issue, and that the "system" that perpetuates the simple problem (from steps 4 and 5) could similarly be considered "fixed" (from steps 5 and 6) if we no longer have that problem. For example, I was thinking of things like gradually normalizing gay marriage in society and then protecting gay marriage by law to hopefully seal the deal, or gradually normalizing marijuana in society and then decriminalizing/legalizing it to hopefully get rid of non-violent pot-related arrests. On the other hand, if I understand you correctly, you were thinking on a much bigger scale, like *fixing* the multi-faceted *problems* that arise from our current economic *system* (by overhauling just about everything and switching to a different system altogether), which is significantly more complicated. I see. Part of the problem I recognize with that smaller scale perspective is that it doesn't account for capitalists and their political lackeys clawing back minimal social democrat gains because the roots of the problems are systemic and it insists on working within that system. It leaves the population of the US on a permanent precipice of disaster where they are perpetually 1 election away from losing any gains and/or longstanding basic human rights (like bodily autonomy for potentially pregnant people).
This is in part because as we all know and basically agree, capitalists have outsized influence in US politics and that won't/can't be fixed by the politicians that depend on them to get and maintain power.
When it comes to Democrats finally caving on concessions like allowing gay marriage nationally and decriminalizing cannabis in various states but not nationally (decades and countless ruined/lost lives too late btw) it isn't because the politicians or the voting that put them there, it's because everyday people made it untenable to maintain the policies through disrupting the status quo (which is basically the only way any significant improvements have ever been made in the US).
Democrats/their voters voting for them aren't the reasons those things got better (not that they are fixed), they and the people saying "you have to vote for Democrats despite that or we're doomed" are some of several reasons they took so long to ostensibly work on fixing. Joe Biden specifically played significant roles in delaying progress on both of your examples with brainless propaganda and dismissiveness regarding the severity of the devastating impacts brought about by his positions.
The problems of the Democrat Hamster Wheel are systemic, so it follows that the solutions have to be too. But that's not to say that capitalists don't ever make non-systemic concessions to buy themselves more time in power.
|
|
|
Norway28675 Posts
On August 31 2023 03:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2023 02:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 31 2023 01:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 31 2023 01:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 31 2023 00:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 31 2023 00:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 30 2023 23:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 30 2023 18:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 30 2023 12:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 30 2023 11:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
The only way Trump is an example of that hamster wheel is if you move the goalposts so far back that any/every successful candidate perpetuates the hamster wheel, which makes the claim unfalsifiable and absurd.
Trump beat the Republican machine at their own game, replaced some of the traditional Republican politicians with Trump loyalists, and completely overhauled the right. He literally broke 4, 5, and 6 in the hamster wheel. He flipped off Cruz, Rubio, McConnell, superdelegates, and anything else that represented the old guard. Now the Republican establishment, and most Republican constituents, bow to him.
It's difficult to break the cycle of the hamster wheel, but it's already happened once in the last decade, and almost happened a second time with Bernie.
If you don't consider Trump an example of breaking the hamster wheel, then I suppose we disagree there. I'd probably use something besides the hamster wheel to describe the ride Republican/Trump voters are being taken on in the first place. The "hamster wheel" is meant to be a truncated description of the cyclic apologist refrain of the Democrat party, their supporters, and social democrats generally, not the con games Republicans/Trump are running. The Republican party/Trump's con game is a different animal. But if we force Republicans/Trump into the analogy (you basically replace "politicians" with "Democrats/RINOs"), Trump fails to break the wheel because he's obviously not actually going to 3. fix their problems. Instead he's perpetuated and exacerbated them while Republicans/his supporters blame Democrats/RINOs for it, keeping Republicans on their version of the hamster wheel. The idea that Trump broke the hamster wheel is the one of the most ubiquitously cited core reasons his supporters support him and would vote for him even if he was in prison. You're basically arguing they are right when you know they got sold a bill of goods. Can you please give a hypothetical example of what it would look like for the Democratic hamster wheel to be broken by someone or in some scenario? What would need to happen for you to say "What's happening right now is a counterexample to the Democratic hamster wheel"? Engaging in revolutionary socialism to enact a socialist revolution. And what would that look like? I'm not sure what "engaging in revolutionary socialism" looks like. Would it be done through voting in a majority of socialists into local, state, and national leadership positions, to pass pro-socialism / anti-capitalism laws and move the country in a socialist direction? Would it be done through strikes and protests and violent riots and threats from the workers who feel disenfranchised by their employers and/or the capitalist system as a whole? I'm assuming it would start with the latter (strikes, protests, etc.) and would be considered successful if it leads to the former (laws, leadership, etc.). Pretty much, I'd clarify the voting largely wouldn't be done under the US's current scheme (early non-reformist reforms would be) and quibble on the framing/wording/etc. a bit, but that's basically it. The actual measure of success wouldn't be laws or empowering specific individuals though. It'd be seeing our problems being remedied through socialism. Understood. I appreciate the elaboration. No problem, but I am curious what conclusions this information helps you reach? It helps to further explain to me the semantics of your hamster wheel. I was thinking much smaller than you are. When I read the 7 cycling steps, I had assumed that "problem" (from step 1) could be a relatively small-scale issue, and that the "system" that perpetuates the simple problem (from steps 4 and 5) could similarly be considered "fixed" (from steps 5 and 6) if we no longer have that problem. For example, I was thinking of things like gradually normalizing gay marriage in society and then protecting gay marriage by law to hopefully seal the deal, or gradually normalizing marijuana in society and then decriminalizing/legalizing it to hopefully get rid of non-violent pot-related arrests. On the other hand, if I understand you correctly, you were thinking on a much bigger scale, like *fixing* the multi-faceted *problems* that arise from our current economic *system* (by overhauling just about everything and switching to a different system altogether), which is significantly more complicated. I see. Part of the problem I recognize with that smaller scale perspective is that it doesn't account for capitalists and their political lackeys clawing back minimal social democrat gains because the roots of the problems are systemic and it insists on working within that system. It leaves the population of the US on a permanent precipice of disaster where they are perpetually 1 election away from losing any gains and/or longstanding basic human rights (like bodily autonomy for potentially pregnant people). This is in part because as we all know and basically agree, capitalists have outsized influence in US politics and that won't/can't be fixed by the politicians that depend on them to get and maintain power. When it comes to Democrats finally caving on concessions like allowing gay marriage nationally and decriminalizing cannabis in various states but not nationally (decades and countless ruined/lost lives too late btw) it isn't because the politicians or the voting that put them there, it's because everyday people made it untenable to maintain the policies through disrupting the status quo (which is basically the only way any significant improvements have ever been made in the US). Democrats/their voters voting for them aren't the reasons those things got better (not that they are fixed), they and the people saying "you have to vote for Democrats despite that or we're doomed" are some of several reasons they took so long to ostensibly work on fixing. Joe Biden specifically played significant roles in delaying progress on both of your examples with brainless propaganda and dismissiveness regarding the severity of the devastating impacts brought about by his positions. The problems of the Democrat Hamster Wheel are systemic, so it follows that the solutions have to be too. But that's not to say that capitalists don't ever make non-systemic concessions to buy themselves more time in power.
I'm curious here because this is new to me - how was legalized gay marriage and decriminalized cannabis a consequence of everyday people disrupting the status quo? I genuinely thought that these changes (unlike say, the civil rights act or various worker rights, where I would agree with you) happened because they had become such popular opinions within the population at large that they were suddenly winning issues with the voters, not because of large scale protests or disruptions of any real magnitude.
|
On August 31 2023 05:00 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2023 03:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 31 2023 02:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 31 2023 01:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 31 2023 01:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 31 2023 00:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 31 2023 00:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 30 2023 23:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 30 2023 18:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 30 2023 12:37 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I'd probably use something besides the hamster wheel to describe the ride Republican/Trump voters are being taken on in the first place.
The "hamster wheel" is meant to be a truncated description of the cyclic apologist refrain of the Democrat party, their supporters, and social democrats generally, not the con games Republicans/Trump are running.
The Republican party/Trump's con game is a different animal. But if we force Republicans/Trump into the analogy (you basically replace "politicians" with "Democrats/RINOs"), Trump fails to break the wheel because he's obviously not actually going to 3. fix their problems. Instead he's perpetuated and exacerbated them while Republicans/his supporters blame Democrats/RINOs for it, keeping Republicans on their version of the hamster wheel.
The idea that Trump broke the hamster wheel is the one of the most ubiquitously cited core reasons his supporters support him and would vote for him even if he was in prison. You're basically arguing they are right when you know they got sold a bill of goods. Can you please give a hypothetical example of what it would look like for the Democratic hamster wheel to be broken by someone or in some scenario? What would need to happen for you to say "What's happening right now is a counterexample to the Democratic hamster wheel"? Engaging in revolutionary socialism to enact a socialist revolution. And what would that look like? I'm not sure what "engaging in revolutionary socialism" looks like. Would it be done through voting in a majority of socialists into local, state, and national leadership positions, to pass pro-socialism / anti-capitalism laws and move the country in a socialist direction? Would it be done through strikes and protests and violent riots and threats from the workers who feel disenfranchised by their employers and/or the capitalist system as a whole? I'm assuming it would start with the latter (strikes, protests, etc.) and would be considered successful if it leads to the former (laws, leadership, etc.). Pretty much, I'd clarify the voting largely wouldn't be done under the US's current scheme (early non-reformist reforms would be) and quibble on the framing/wording/etc. a bit, but that's basically it. The actual measure of success wouldn't be laws or empowering specific individuals though. It'd be seeing our problems being remedied through socialism. Understood. I appreciate the elaboration. No problem, but I am curious what conclusions this information helps you reach? It helps to further explain to me the semantics of your hamster wheel. I was thinking much smaller than you are. When I read the 7 cycling steps, I had assumed that "problem" (from step 1) could be a relatively small-scale issue, and that the "system" that perpetuates the simple problem (from steps 4 and 5) could similarly be considered "fixed" (from steps 5 and 6) if we no longer have that problem. For example, I was thinking of things like gradually normalizing gay marriage in society and then protecting gay marriage by law to hopefully seal the deal, or gradually normalizing marijuana in society and then decriminalizing/legalizing it to hopefully get rid of non-violent pot-related arrests. On the other hand, if I understand you correctly, you were thinking on a much bigger scale, like *fixing* the multi-faceted *problems* that arise from our current economic *system* (by overhauling just about everything and switching to a different system altogether), which is significantly more complicated. I see. Part of the problem I recognize with that smaller scale perspective is that it doesn't account for capitalists and their political lackeys clawing back minimal social democrat gains because the roots of the problems are systemic and it insists on working within that system. It leaves the population of the US on a permanent precipice of disaster where they are perpetually 1 election away from losing any gains and/or longstanding basic human rights (like bodily autonomy for potentially pregnant people). This is in part because as we all know and basically agree, capitalists have outsized influence in US politics and that won't/can't be fixed by the politicians that depend on them to get and maintain power. When it comes to Democrats finally caving on concessions like allowing gay marriage nationally and decriminalizing cannabis in various states but not nationally (decades and countless ruined/lost lives too late btw) it isn't because the politicians or the voting that put them there, it's because everyday people made it untenable to maintain the policies through disrupting the status quo (which is basically the only way any significant improvements have ever been made in the US). Democrats/their voters voting for them aren't the reasons those things got better (not that they are fixed), they and the people saying "you have to vote for Democrats despite that or we're doomed" are some of several reasons they took so long to ostensibly work on fixing. Joe Biden specifically played significant roles in delaying progress on both of your examples with brainless propaganda and dismissiveness regarding the severity of the devastating impacts brought about by his positions. The problems of the Democrat Hamster Wheel are systemic, so it follows that the solutions have to be too. But that's not to say that capitalists don't ever make non-systemic concessions to buy themselves more time in power. I'm curious here because this is new to me - how was legalized gay marriage and decriminalized cannabis a consequence of everyday people disrupting the status quo? I genuinely thought that these changes (unlike say, the civil rights act or various worker rights, where I would agree with you) happened because they had become such popular opinions within the population at large that they were suddenly winning issues with the voters, not because of large scale protests or disruptions of any real magnitude.
When it comes to gay marriage (and the LGBTQ+ rights movement generally) it was decades of disruption with the Stonewall Riots being widely credited as a sort of catalyst to kick it off.
But regarding both cannabis and gay marriage, like other issues, there are multiple ways to make them untenable. In both cases in addition to various forms of (ongoing) activism it was regular people living their lives in defiance of those laws/lack of protections that helped make it untenable.
Basically gay people would get married (whether the government recognized it or not) and then when the government/corporations did their thing (think decades of stories like Janice Langbehn's) it forced people to reevaluate their positions and over time there weren't enough people that didn't find those realities compelling left to maintain policies like that.
For cannabis it's a similar but distinct story around the human stories about the devastation of the lives and mass incarceration (and stuff like Hempfest or even ICP concerts) + Show Spoiler +(again Biden played a significant role in perpetuating and exacerbating their oppression and suffering as he did with gay marriage)
But basically we're approaching the point where there just aren't enough people to maintain the historical positions on cannabis, so rather than have the laws brazenly flouted, they'll keep changing the laws to catch up. Sorta like the repeal of alcohol prohibition, now that we're several generations into "pothead" culture being a thing (though still not as engrained as alcohol) and the science showing that alcohol is way worse for us.
|
United States42817 Posts
Voting Democrat doesn't need to be a part of your strategy for achieving fully automated gay space communism. That's not why you should do it. The criticism "people have been voting Democrat for years and we still don't have fully automated gay space communism" doesn't work, that was never the expected outcome.
You should vote Democrat without any thought to whether it gets you closer to fully automated gay space communism and then attempt to achieve your other goals outside of the ballot box. It's not on the ballot. It's not a ballot issue, not every ballot is a referendum on every specific issue all the time.
|
|
|
I think you guys are mischaracterizing GH. He isn't saying people ought to sit out and not vote. He is saying democrat politicians provide a critically low amount of reason to vote for them and that people are not making enough of a fuss over it.
People don't actually need to go so far as burn down a bunch of buildings or enable fascism to be sufficiently intolerant of capitalism. People just need to actually stand up, actually make a big fuss, and make their voices extremely heard. I think you're mostly filling in the blanks rather than reading what he says people ought to do.
|
|
|
On August 31 2023 11:58 Mohdoo wrote:
I think you guys are mischaracterizing GH. He isn't saying people ought to sit out and not vote. He is saying democrat politicians provide a critically low amount of reason to vote for them and that people are not making enough of a fuss over it.
People don't actually need to go so far as burn down a bunch of buildings or enable fascism to be sufficiently intolerant of capitalism. People just need to actually stand up, actually make a big fuss, and make their voices extremely heard. I think you're mostly filling in the blanks rather than reading what he says people ought to do.
But people do make a fuss about Dems not doing enough. They just get drowned out by the people with money to shut them up. People have been talking about this since Fred Hampton that a different kind of coalition needs to happen. The problem being, that the people who are making the fuss, aren't showing up to make the change. They bitch and moan but when it's time for action, they do nothing. They don't vote. They scare others into not voting (by ridicule or shame), and then you get more people not voting. They say "my state is blue, so it doesn't matter if I vote or not". Wrong. It does matter. Because at that point, you can afford to take chances on candidates that are further left and that have progressive ideas/solutions to many problems a lot of the rest bitch about.
The Dems aren't a monolith like the Rs. They have many factions. It's that the factions are too busy fighting each other to actually put anything of good, to work. Get more AOCs in office. Get more young progressive politicians in that share the beliefs you do. The tide is slowly turning but it is turning. It won't save the planet in time, but it's working. Just have to tune out those that talk loudly and then cower when it's time for action.
|
On August 31 2023 11:58 Mohdoo wrote:
I think you guys are mischaracterizing GH. He isn't saying people ought to sit out and not vote. He is saying democrat politicians provide a critically low amount of reason to vote for them and that people are not making enough of a fuss over it.
People don't actually need to go so far as burn down a bunch of buildings or enable fascism to be sufficiently intolerant of capitalism. People just need to actually stand up, actually make a big fuss, and make their voices extremely heard. I think you're mostly filling in the blanks rather than reading what he says people ought to do.
Of course they are. That's basically exactly what I said at the start.
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 when everyone said "whoa! It does appear Democrats are in trouble if they don't give people something more than 'you have to vote blue no matter who in perpetuity to not die, but no promises on the not dying part' " and totally didn't hop in formation to demand anyone even thinking about voting for someone other than Biden anywhere in the US (during primary season mind you) shut up and fall in line like a proper lemming instead...
There's some more polling post mugshot and it's not really better.
If Democrats/their supporters only plan to address the problems that are plain to see if you just compare rcp's heads-up polls between Biden and Trump in the 2020 cycle vs. the 2024 cycle is to shout at people to shut up and fall in line, we're all in a LOT of trouble.
|
United States42817 Posts
We shouldn’t need to tell people to fall in line against fascism. They should just do it. It’s the bare minimum. They’re not being told to support the status quo, they’re not being told to do nothing more than vote, they’re not being told that voting will fix anything, just that it will keep the fascists out. If that’s not enough for someone they’re probably a fascist.
|
On August 31 2023 15:36 KwarK wrote:
We shouldn’t need to tell people to fall in line against fascism. They should just do it. It’s the bare minimum. They’re not being told to support the status quo, they’re not being told to do nothing more than vote, they’re not being told that voting will fix anything, just that it will keep the fascists out. If that’s not enough for someone they’re probably a fascist.
Does this mean you're coming around the realization Democrats (and the rest of us) are in trouble if Democrats/their supporters can't do better than whine about the system (they built as much as anyone) not being fair because the voting population they co-cultivated for short-sighted and self-serving reasons is fed up with their BS and can't be relied on to shut up and fall in line indefinitely, while the systems (or Democrat political structure for that matter) can't be relied on to stop fascism?
Regardless, the point remains. Democrats/their supporters thinking they are entitled to all their votes and more might make sense to them, so their complacency is warranted in their minds, but it's increasingly looking like that's simply not going to be good enough to win + Show Spoiler +(though even if it was, that'd still be plenty problematic)
Seems like something that should be addressed sooner rather than later for everyone's sake or Democrats/their supporters can just keep huffing copium and ignore/thoughtlessly curse the reality that Biden is in way worse shape than he was at this point in the election in 2020 when he barely eked out a win by 10's of thousands of votes across a few key states despite 15,000,000+ people that couldn't be arsed to vote for Hillary against Trump coming to his aid.
|
Yeah, by voting in more progressive candidates locally and then nationally. Or actually getting a majority of people behind your ideas.
But you had this conversation so much at this point, just let it all go down and hope somehow your unpopular revolution will happen. There is not a snowballs chance in hell this will happen but that never stopped you from promoting it.
I have the same arguments with socdems in Switzerland all the time. They want (and sometimes bring) some utopian idea up for a vote, then they lose by 10-20% (which is a ton) and then bitch, while a more modest proposal in the same direction would have had actual chances.
It's the same shitshow since I can remember. To change stuff in a democracy, you need a majority of the people actually supporting and VOTING for it. I'm in favor of most of these "utopian" solutions, they are just a total waste of time and make the left look like losers because thats all they do, lose.
|
Bigger problem for the US is that ~50% does actively vote fascism.
Either swing the populace more to the "left" by making the Democrats more interesting (how?), or make those that don't vote, vote (how?)
|
On August 31 2023 11:58 Mohdoo wrote:
I think you guys are mischaracterizing GH. He isn't saying people ought to sit out and not vote. He is saying democrat politicians provide a critically low amount of reason to vote for them and that people are not making enough of a fuss over it.
People don't actually need to go so far as burn down a bunch of buildings or enable fascism to be sufficiently intolerant of capitalism. People just need to actually stand up, actually make a big fuss, and make their voices extremely heard. I think you're mostly filling in the blanks rather than reading what he says people ought to do.
The main problem with that argument is this: the reason why the Democratic party has been lackluster is the Republican party. Just because one party holds more seats for some time, or just because the sitting president is a Democrat, or just because the SC leans Democrat for a while, that doesn't mean Republicans suddenly have no power in any capacity. They have majority in other respects, and even as the minority they can still block and delay legislation for several decades. For eternity even if they try hard enough.
Democrats have been trying to enshrine abortion rights for a decade or two. They've failed because of the Republican party's consistent pushback, and for literally no other reason. Republicans have just kept pulling the rope until eventually they overwhelmed the Democrats with a Republican president who reformed the SC, who then proceeded to overturn Roe v Wade. It was not the Democrats' failure, it was the Republicans' success. That's the correct framing of the situation.
Blaming the Democrats for what the Republicans are doing is quite backwards.
|
The notion of "I shouldn't have to vote Democrat just to deny a fascist takeover" is a completely fair concept. You shouldn't have to and in a sane world you wouldn't have to.
But unfortunately your living in America at the start of the 21st century and the world isn't sane anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/uEnh7v6.jpg)
