|
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 February 15 2025 01:25 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2025 01:19 Sermokala wrote:
I can think of a few other people who have said "peace through power" over the years and they are not the good people in any story.
please, do not take that joke literally. Kane from C&C said it. We're on an RTS forum board talking about world politics. In effect this is what's going on here.
Above is the best part, here is the entire plot line.
Do you think Kane was presented as the good guy of C&C? I know its from a video game but the guy is literally a global terrorist in the games and is saying that as the justification for what he does.
Have some media literacy I beg you. The joke is you parroting a global terrorist's saying as something Trump should do. You're the one whos suppose to be on the side that hes not the bad guy in this.
|
On February 15 2025 02:14 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2025 01:25 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On February 15 2025 01:19 Sermokala wrote:
I can think of a few other people who have said "peace through power" over the years and they are not the good people in any story.
please, do not take that joke literally. Kane from C&C said it. We're on an RTS forum board talking about world politics. In effect this is what's going on here.
Above is the best part, here is the entire plot line. Do you think Kane was presented as the good guy of C&C? I know its from a video game but the guy is literally a global terrorist in the games and is saying that as the justification for what he does. Have some media literacy I beg you. The joke is you parroting a global terrorist's saying as something Trump should do. You're the one whos suppose to be on the side that hes not the bad guy in this. The only thing Jimmy cares about is bashing Canada and praising the US because he left the former for work in the latter and now he has to constantly justify that decision.
|
On February 15 2025 02:13 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2025 02:01 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2025 01:57 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On February 15 2025 01:42 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2025 00:58 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On February 15 2025 00:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 15 2025 00:11 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2025 00:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 14 2025 23:46 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 14 2025 23:22 Sadist wrote:
GH if Trump is successful in kicking palestinians out of Gaza do you think your protest vote was successful?
This point is interesting to me. Its basically a trolley problem. The only people who didn't vote for death, destruction and chaos in Gaza are the people who didn't vote for either party. While that's semantically correct, keep in mind those people are still complicit in the death, destruction, and chaos in Gaza, just like everyone else. They don't have any moral high ground in regards to what's been going on in Gaza, or any future devastation there. Additionally, those non-Democratic voters certainly didn't vote for any domestic improvements either. I disagree. Simply existing does make you complicit in anything. Making a positive choice to be complicit in something makes you complicit. Let me put this another way. How is a person supposed to convince the Democrats to change their policy without threatening to withhold their vote, and actually meaning it? It is the only lever anybody has. What do you mean by "change their policy"? The Democratic policy wouldn't improve as a result of them losing the election; the only thing that would change is that Palestinians would have to deal with the Republican policy, which is even worse. Biden worked to create a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel - the very one that's still mostly working right now, even while Trump is president - and during the election, Harris repeatedly pledged to continue pushing for a peaceful end where Gaza/Palestinians aren't completely overrun by Israel. The Democrats' two-state solution where Palestinians still exist would have been a much better situation than what Trump was/is pushing for, where he's okay with Israel taking over completely. The non-Democratic voters worked against the Democrats' vision and ended up aiding the Republicans' vision, which is about as anti-Gaza as you could get. (One could argue that Biden/Harris didn't/wouldn't do everything in their power to stop Netanyahu, and that Biden/Harris are extremely flawed when it comes to this issue, but they're still miles ahead of Trump's vision... and non-Democratic voters weren't willing to pick the more helpful of the two options.) It's like talking to the Rs in this thread. The people like Jock and GH have this moral highground that they're unwilling to come down off of because they can't fathom being wrong in this case. The people who voted Ds aren't complicit in the war in Gaza or Ukraine. They're trying to get people in positions to stop it using democratic methods. Now they have to justify fuckin up the vote and convince themselves that abstaining from participating was the correct choice. Conciousness aside. This isn't about the right thing to do, it's about what makes them feel better when they go to sleep. "I tried but no one listened, guess that's all I can do. Time for napsies." This is the third time i've told I'm trying to take the moral high ground, when I joined this conversation to try and empathize with the people that Dem voters were claiming were responsible for everything Trump is doing. It is you (collective), not I, who was taking the moral high ground, and you don't even notice yourselves doing it. Its not like the Democrats haven't been told, repeatedly, by every single non Democrat in America, that this behaviour is a massive turn off and gives out the impression that a) The Democrats and their voters believe they have the moral high ground absolutely b) Are perfectly happy telling everyone else they are evil c) Are incredibly arrogant about their self-defined position on the top of the moral superiority pyramid. The problem is the refusal to even try and see anyone else's point of view. I've been told in this very thread that if I was a Palestinian who has watched their family slaughtered because of the policies of Democrats, that I should still vote Democrat. The lack of empathy is absolutely astonishing tbh. On February 15 2025 01:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 15 2025 00:59 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2025 00:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 15 2025 00:11 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2025 00:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 14 2025 23:46 Jockmcplop wrote:
[quote]
This point is interesting to me. Its basically a trolley problem.
The only people who didn't vote for death, destruction and chaos in Gaza are the people who didn't vote for either party. While that's semantically correct, keep in mind those people are still complicit in the death, destruction, and chaos in Gaza, just like everyone else. They don't have any moral high ground in regards to what's been going on in Gaza, or any future devastation there. Additionally, those non-Democratic voters certainly didn't vote for any domestic improvements either. I disagree. Simply existing does make you complicit in anything. Making a positive choice to be complicit in something makes you complicit. Let me put this another way. How is a person supposed to convince the Democrats to change their policy without threatening to withhold their vote, and actually meaning it? It is the only lever anybody has. What do you mean by "change their policy"? The Democratic policy wouldn't improve as a result of them losing the election; the only thing that would change is that Palestinians would have to deal with the Republican policy, which is even worse. Biden worked to create a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel - the very one that's still mostly working right now, even while Trump is president - and during the election, Harris repeatedly pledged to continue pushing for a peaceful end where Gaza/Palestinians aren't completely overrun by Israel. The Democrats' two-state solution where Palestinians still exist would have been a much better situation than what Trump was/is pushing for, where he's okay with Israel taking over completely. The non-Democratic voters worked against the Democrats' vision and ended up aiding the Republicans' vision, which is about as anti-Gaza as you could get. (One could argue that Biden/Harris didn't/wouldn't do everything in their power to stop Netanyahu, and that Biden/Harris are extremely flawed when it comes to this issue, but they're still miles ahead of Trump's vision... and non-Democratic voters weren't willing to pick the more helpful of the two options.) By 'change their policy' I mean stop selling the weapons that kill the civilians in Gaza, stop unconditionally supporting any extremity of action that Israel decides is appropriate, and stop being the single world power who more than anyone else has caused this genocide to occur. Sure, well done, they engineered a ceasefire after so many civilians unnecessarily died at the hands of the US's little brother while the Democrats sat there and applauded, but for me, that doesn't inspire me to vote for them. I get it, you are unconditionally a Dem voter, but you shouldn't assume that everyone else will give their vote out so easily. And let's be clear here, the Democrats' vision wasn't a ceasefire and then peace forever, it was a ceasefire that allows them restock Israel with newer, more expensive weapons for the next round of massacre in a few years. Okay, so let's play it out your way, according to your argument: A bunch of people decided not to vote for Kamala Harris because they were convinced that Harris losing would result in the Democrats finally changing their Israel-Palestine policy to be more pro-Palestine and less pro-Israel. How'd that plan work out for you / the non-Democratic voters? Do we see any indication that the Democratic party is now shifting towards being more pro-Palestine? Do we have any reason to think that Palestinians will be safer, thanks to non-Democratic voters aiding Trump? In the short term, for the next few years, you have a good point here. It all falls apart if you look any further ahead than that. Why would the democrats ever need to listen to what their voters want again? They can just dictate what you are going to vote for and you'll vote for it to keep the Republicans out. Long term, I believe it is very helpful for political parties to genuinely believe that people will stop voting for them if they don't listen to their voters. That is the entire purpose of not voting Democrat in this case. It isn't going to make the lives of people in Gaza better, that horse has bolted. The ship has sailed. The people of Gaza are fucked because the Democrats decided it could be so. Maybe though, next time the Democrats are in the middle of a genocide and an election is coming up, they'll think twice about their policies. We recognized what the Ds did in the campaign that probably led to their defeat and we also gave a lot of benefit of the doubt to what was being said. But time and time again, all we're getting are people bashing the D party for things that the Rs did or refused to cooperate on. So all you're doing, by continuing to bash Ds and not hold Rs responsible for the shitshow we're currently seeing, is allowing them to grab more of the power. We understand the problems and have offered solutions. But those solutions aren't palatable to people like you and GH (collective). What you effectively want are for the Ds to assume total power and just kick the Rs out and invite a civil war to try and accelerate whatever asinine ideas you dream up. That isn't how it works. This entire thread is just a circular argument. I don't think I have a moral superiority over you or GH. But I know that pouting because your ideal candidate didn't get in and handing the country to fascism isn't the play. Either put up or shut up. If you're not going to participate, then what grounds do you have to stand on to tell those that are, what to do? At the end of the day, we're a bunch of strangers on the internet arguing. It's not helping. Again, this simply is not what happened and is not reflective of my participation in the discussion at all. You're acting like I just turned up and started blaming Democrats for everything. I'm here because I just don't buy the argument that was being made that anyone who didn't vote Democrat is responsible for everything that Trump decides to do. You are flipping that on its head and claiming that in defending those people, I'm somehow attacking the Democrats. edited for niceness And I'm saying that it is precisely the issue of them not supporting the platform that allowed this takeover. I'm not saying you personally, it's a collective. GH sits here and shits on the Ds for failing, but at the same time, it was enough people who were Ds that voted trump/third party/did not vote that caused this. And they are assigned some of the blame. To pin it all on the Ds is shifting blame so that they don't have to feel bad. You're welcome to defend them and I'm sure they and others appreciate it. But at the end of the day, they are also to blame and should be held accountable for that as well as the D party. The D voters voted to keep trump out and it didn't work. The messaging was bad and the play was bad. But to now sit back and attack D voters because they voted? What's the angle or prize you're fishing for?
The prize I'm fishing for I suppose is a Democrat party that listens to its voters a little bit more, or frankly a Democrat party that listens to voters who share my perspective on world events.
I don't think I'll see that in my lifetime, but I definitely won't see it if people give the Democrat their vote unconditionally.
I'm also fishing for just a little bit of give and take here. I understand the argument that rationally, voting for the Dems is marginally better for the people of Gaza in the short term. I think in the long term it is worse for reasons I have described.
I also think that some acknowledgement that rationality, although very important, can be overridden in certain circumstances. Of course no Palestinian is going to vote for the party that took part in the slaughter of their family. Engaging with the topic on a human level, that should be obvious. Yet even when discussing that quite extreme example, people fall back on logic and rationality and refuse to empathize with those for whom that kind of discussion has gone out of the window.
There's a whole middle ground as well with general Middle-Eastern voters who feel that it is 'their people' that the Democrats have taken part in killing. I would wager that for alot of those people, voting rationally for a tiny percentage gain in survivability for the people of Gaza has gone out of the window just through sheer anger and sadness.
To dismiss this and then blame those people for what Trump is doing is something I just can't get my head around.
Then we finally get to the people on this forum who are making arguments. There's no recognition that maybe some people engage with these world events on an emotional level and simply cannot bring themselves to vote for people who are taking part in genocide. There's no 'Maybe these people think completely different to how I think about events'. Its simply a numbers game. Calculate the percentage and vote accordingly. Rationality wins.
Except as we've seen, it doesn't. The human element of this, the refusal to take part in something that a person sees as evil, is important even if it seems irrational and the numbers don't add up in the very short term.
|
On February 14 2025 23:11 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2025 23:05 KwarK wrote:On February 14 2025 23:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 14 2025 22:32 KwarK wrote:On February 14 2025 22:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 14 2025 21:56 KwarK wrote:On February 14 2025 21:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 14 2025 21:35 KwarK wrote:On February 14 2025 21:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 14 2025 21:17 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
And you believe your plan of getting Americans to engage in a general strike is more likely to work than the plan of voting Trump out? I believe getting ~10,000,000 people to engage in a general strike is necessary. Voting Trump out isn't even maybe an option until years from now anyway. It's like planning to order buckets to throw water out the window to deal with the several feet of standing water in the house from regional flooding. As a plan it fundamentally doesn't understand the nature of the problem. So you believe that Trump is both a fascist and also that you should allow him to stay in power + Show Spoiler +, day after day, week after week, enacting his fascist policies and genociding the people of Palestine while you work on your strike. And then you think that once you've got 10m people to engage in a general strike, which incidentally will never happen, it'll somehow defeat fascism? Because Trump is presumably both a genocidal fascist and also at the mercy of strikes. It's just like that time when Hitler was defeated by organized German labour. I wish I had your gift for self deception, it must be so nice to believe in such things. No. I believe organizing with my comrades towards a general strike (along with plenty of other activities) is a better use of time and energy than dissuading people from doing that like a fascist would. This sounds like an excuse to hang out with your buddies. You're not serious about stopping fascism + Show Spoiler +, even your "solutions" don't actually involve stopping anything. What you're doing basically makes you a willing accomplice to everything bad that happens from here on. You knew what they were doing, you knew what they were going to do, but you choose to hang out with your friends instead. If you ever wondered what you'd do if you were in 1940 Germany then you now have your answer and it's not a great look. You're free to believe that, and I'm open to considering/trying your alternatives (is it fleeing the country?), unlike you and the libs/Dems/ilk you're representing with this tantrum. Consider that some of the people you’re working with may have been open to some kind of actual solution to the issue at hand. You’re pulling them away from real resistance and instead advocating that you all just take a day off work together. You’re essentially just another layer of structural opposition to real change, a net to catch people who recognize that there’s an issue and ensnare them with pipe dreams of general strikes. This is part of what I mean by delusional and ahistorical. 50 years of voting for Democrats with several majorities got people the grand prize of healthcare legislation that Republicans rejected as too right wing 50 years ago. We know that objectively isn't "real resistance". Meanwhile basically all significant progress in this country has come from direct actions like strikes, protests, and people generally demanding it, even against threats of death. Not from falling in line to vote for Democrats without making any demands of them. Like I said though, if you have an alternative "actual solution" or "real resistance" plan, I'm listening. Afaict though, your plan is to flee or pick up a baton and join the fascists. All the significant progress that led us to the current intolerable situation? That progress? That’s your historical precedent? So that's a no to you having an alternative besides running to save your own skin or, as you're doing now, picking up a baton to ensure the rest of us can't save ours? Cool. EDIT: Show nested quote +On February 14 2025 23:06 Sadist wrote:GH if you wanted to make progress why not vote for Dems then strike? + Show Spoiler + At least then youd be dealing with a receptive and not fascist government. Its like you want to play on hard mode. One reason would be that my vote would not have even been counted before the election was called, while casting it for Dems would be making me complicit in genocide. Still voting for Dems despite that is heinously sadistic imo
I just want to go back to this. Why is this not an important point? A lot of us in the midwest are in swing states while people from solidly blue or red states lob grenades not understanding potential consequences. Its easy to be on the fence of being anti trump when you are not in a swing state. This is not reality for many people. Im not blaming the large muslim 3rd party vote in michigan for losing the election as white folks vote for republican en masse and if we could flip 5-10% dems would win every election. However, when everyone is forcibly removed from Gaza I hope everyone understands voting has consequences.
|
On February 15 2025 03:10 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2025 23:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 14 2025 23:05 KwarK wrote:On February 14 2025 23:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 14 2025 22:32 KwarK wrote:On February 14 2025 22:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 14 2025 21:56 KwarK wrote:On February 14 2025 21:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 14 2025 21:35 KwarK wrote:On February 14 2025 21:31 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I believe getting ~10,000,000 people to engage in a general strike is necessary.
Voting Trump out isn't even maybe an option until years from now anyway. It's like planning to order buckets to throw water out the window to deal with the several feet of standing water in the house from regional flooding. As a plan it fundamentally doesn't understand the nature of the problem. So you believe that Trump is both a fascist and also that you should allow him to stay in power + Show Spoiler +, day after day, week after week, enacting his fascist policies and genociding the people of Palestine while you work on your strike. And then you think that once you've got 10m people to engage in a general strike, which incidentally will never happen, it'll somehow defeat fascism? Because Trump is presumably both a genocidal fascist and also at the mercy of strikes. It's just like that time when Hitler was defeated by organized German labour. I wish I had your gift for self deception, it must be so nice to believe in such things. No. I believe organizing with my comrades towards a general strike (along with plenty of other activities) is a better use of time and energy than dissuading people from doing that like a fascist would. This sounds like an excuse to hang out with your buddies. You're not serious about stopping fascism + Show Spoiler +, even your "solutions" don't actually involve stopping anything. What you're doing basically makes you a willing accomplice to everything bad that happens from here on. You knew what they were doing, you knew what they were going to do, but you choose to hang out with your friends instead. If you ever wondered what you'd do if you were in 1940 Germany then you now have your answer and it's not a great look. You're free to believe that, and I'm open to considering/trying your alternatives (is it fleeing the country?), unlike you and the libs/Dems/ilk you're representing with this tantrum. Consider that some of the people you’re working with may have been open to some kind of actual solution to the issue at hand. You’re pulling them away from real resistance and instead advocating that you all just take a day off work together. You’re essentially just another layer of structural opposition to real change, a net to catch people who recognize that there’s an issue and ensnare them with pipe dreams of general strikes. This is part of what I mean by delusional and ahistorical. 50 years of voting for Democrats with several majorities got people the grand prize of healthcare legislation that Republicans rejected as too right wing 50 years ago. We know that objectively isn't "real resistance". Meanwhile basically all significant progress in this country has come from direct actions like strikes, protests, and people generally demanding it, even against threats of death. Not from falling in line to vote for Democrats without making any demands of them. Like I said though, if you have an alternative "actual solution" or "real resistance" plan, I'm listening. Afaict though, your plan is to flee or pick up a baton and join the fascists. All the significant progress that led us to the current intolerable situation? That progress? That’s your historical precedent? So that's a no to you having an alternative besides running to save your own skin or, as you're doing now, picking up a baton to ensure the rest of us can't save ours? Cool. EDIT: On February 14 2025 23:06 Sadist wrote:GH if you wanted to make progress why not vote for Dems then strike? + Show Spoiler + At least then youd be dealing with a receptive and not fascist government. Its like you want to play on hard mode. One reason would be that my vote would not have even been counted before the election was called, while casting it for Dems would be making me complicit in genocide. Still voting for Dems despite that is heinously sadistic imo I just want to go back to this. Why is this not an important point? A lot of us in the midwest are in swing states while people from solidly blue or red states lob grenades not understanding potential consequences. + Show Spoiler +Its easy to be on the fence of being anti trump when you are not in a swing state. This is not reality for many people. Im not blaming the large muslim 3rd party vote in michigan for losing the election as white folks vote for republican en masse and if we could flip 5-10% dems would win every election. However, when everyone is forcibly removed from Gaza I hope everyone understands voting has consequences.
You asked about my vote. But this again masks in delusion that you guys were telling people to shut up and fall in line behind Biden before the primary even started.
As if we don't remember Democrats en masse gaslighting us and themselves about Biden totally being fine to make it through the primary and election and that even if he couldn't they'd knowingly vote for a clinically braindead Biden anyway.
You needed to be shouting from the rooftops with everyone else demanding better, for a primary without Biden, or at least a pseudo primary where the different factions of Democrats make their cases to the public and then unite around their predetermined nominee anyway. I'd have still complained, but Biden would have been exposed earlier, left more time for a backup plan to take form, and potentially succeeded + Show Spoiler +(assuming this wasn't the intended outcome of his stubborn hubris)
We're there again. When you need to be shouting from the rooftops demanding better while doing work to bring it about. Instead, you're again trying to browbeat people into submission to a Democrat party that believes and acts like you are a worthless idiot to them.
|
If we're a worthless idiot to the democratic party what do you think you are to the republican party GH? At best you're acting in their interests at worst you're working for their benifit.
You don't get to absolve yourself of the consequences of your actions along the path to utopia. You have the agency to effect the world around you and you should agnowedge to yourself what those effects are.
|
On February 15 2025 03:10 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2025 23:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 14 2025 23:05 KwarK wrote:On February 14 2025 23:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 14 2025 22:32 KwarK wrote:On February 14 2025 22:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 14 2025 21:56 KwarK wrote:On February 14 2025 21:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 14 2025 21:35 KwarK wrote:On February 14 2025 21:31 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I believe getting ~10,000,000 people to engage in a general strike is necessary.
Voting Trump out isn't even maybe an option until years from now anyway. It's like planning to order buckets to throw water out the window to deal with the several feet of standing water in the house from regional flooding. As a plan it fundamentally doesn't understand the nature of the problem. So you believe that Trump is both a fascist and also that you should allow him to stay in power + Show Spoiler +, day after day, week after week, enacting his fascist policies and genociding the people of Palestine while you work on your strike. And then you think that once you've got 10m people to engage in a general strike, which incidentally will never happen, it'll somehow defeat fascism? Because Trump is presumably both a genocidal fascist and also at the mercy of strikes. It's just like that time when Hitler was defeated by organized German labour. I wish I had your gift for self deception, it must be so nice to believe in such things. No. I believe organizing with my comrades towards a general strike (along with plenty of other activities) is a better use of time and energy than dissuading people from doing that like a fascist would. This sounds like an excuse to hang out with your buddies. You're not serious about stopping fascism + Show Spoiler +, even your "solutions" don't actually involve stopping anything. What you're doing basically makes you a willing accomplice to everything bad that happens from here on. You knew what they were doing, you knew what they were going to do, but you choose to hang out with your friends instead. If you ever wondered what you'd do if you were in 1940 Germany then you now have your answer and it's not a great look. You're free to believe that, and I'm open to considering/trying your alternatives (is it fleeing the country?), unlike you and the libs/Dems/ilk you're representing with this tantrum. Consider that some of the people you’re working with may have been open to some kind of actual solution to the issue at hand. You’re pulling them away from real resistance and instead advocating that you all just take a day off work together. You’re essentially just another layer of structural opposition to real change, a net to catch people who recognize that there’s an issue and ensnare them with pipe dreams of general strikes. This is part of what I mean by delusional and ahistorical. 50 years of voting for Democrats with several majorities got people the grand prize of healthcare legislation that Republicans rejected as too right wing 50 years ago. We know that objectively isn't "real resistance". Meanwhile basically all significant progress in this country has come from direct actions like strikes, protests, and people generally demanding it, even against threats of death. Not from falling in line to vote for Democrats without making any demands of them. Like I said though, if you have an alternative "actual solution" or "real resistance" plan, I'm listening. Afaict though, your plan is to flee or pick up a baton and join the fascists. All the significant progress that led us to the current intolerable situation? That progress? That’s your historical precedent? So that's a no to you having an alternative besides running to save your own skin or, as you're doing now, picking up a baton to ensure the rest of us can't save ours? Cool. EDIT: On February 14 2025 23:06 Sadist wrote:GH if you wanted to make progress why not vote for Dems then strike? + Show Spoiler + At least then youd be dealing with a receptive and not fascist government. Its like you want to play on hard mode. One reason would be that my vote would not have even been counted before the election was called, while casting it for Dems would be making me complicit in genocide. Still voting for Dems despite that is heinously sadistic imo I just want to go back to this. Why is this not an important point? A lot of us in the midwest are in swing states while people from solidly blue or red states lob grenades not understanding potential consequences. Its easy to be on the fence of being anti trump when you are not in a swing state. This is not reality for many people. Im not blaming the large muslim 3rd party vote in michigan for losing the election as white folks vote for republican en masse and if we could flip 5-10% dems would win every election. However, when everyone is forcibly removed from Gaza I hope everyone understands voting has consequences.
For those of you relentlessly bashing the democrats both here and in real life, the bolded bit is important. Your vote might be meaningless in your state, but your consistent and persistent efforts to paint the only real opposition to Trumpism as terrible has real consequences when the people in purple states listen to you and don't go and vote. Surely, the first step in carrying out a successful socialist revolution is ensuring the party advocating a fascist-adjacent platform doesn't gain more power.
|
United States41883 Posts
On February 15 2025 02:30 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2025 02:13 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On February 15 2025 02:01 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2025 01:57 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On February 15 2025 01:42 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2025 00:58 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On February 15 2025 00:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 15 2025 00:11 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2025 00:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 14 2025 23:46 Jockmcplop wrote:
[quote]
This point is interesting to me. Its basically a trolley problem.
The only people who didn't vote for death, destruction and chaos in Gaza are the people who didn't vote for either party. While that's semantically correct, keep in mind those people are still complicit in the death, destruction, and chaos in Gaza, just like everyone else. They don't have any moral high ground in regards to what's been going on in Gaza, or any future devastation there. Additionally, those non-Democratic voters certainly didn't vote for any domestic improvements either. I disagree. Simply existing does make you complicit in anything. Making a positive choice to be complicit in something makes you complicit. Let me put this another way. How is a person supposed to convince the Democrats to change their policy without threatening to withhold their vote, and actually meaning it? It is the only lever anybody has. What do you mean by "change their policy"? The Democratic policy wouldn't improve as a result of them losing the election; the only thing that would change is that Palestinians would have to deal with the Republican policy, which is even worse. Biden worked to create a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel - the very one that's still mostly working right now, even while Trump is president - and during the election, Harris repeatedly pledged to continue pushing for a peaceful end where Gaza/Palestinians aren't completely overrun by Israel. The Democrats' two-state solution where Palestinians still exist would have been a much better situation than what Trump was/is pushing for, where he's okay with Israel taking over completely. The non-Democratic voters worked against the Democrats' vision and ended up aiding the Republicans' vision, which is about as anti-Gaza as you could get. (One could argue that Biden/Harris didn't/wouldn't do everything in their power to stop Netanyahu, and that Biden/Harris are extremely flawed when it comes to this issue, but they're still miles ahead of Trump's vision... and non-Democratic voters weren't willing to pick the more helpful of the two options.) It's like talking to the Rs in this thread. The people like Jock and GH have this moral highground that they're unwilling to come down off of because they can't fathom being wrong in this case. The people who voted Ds aren't complicit in the war in Gaza or Ukraine. They're trying to get people in positions to stop it using democratic methods. Now they have to justify fuckin up the vote and convince themselves that abstaining from participating was the correct choice. Conciousness aside. This isn't about the right thing to do, it's about what makes them feel better when they go to sleep. "I tried but no one listened, guess that's all I can do. Time for napsies." This is the third time i've told I'm trying to take the moral high ground, when I joined this conversation to try and empathize with the people that Dem voters were claiming were responsible for everything Trump is doing. It is you (collective), not I, who was taking the moral high ground, and you don't even notice yourselves doing it. Its not like the Democrats haven't been told, repeatedly, by every single non Democrat in America, that this behaviour is a massive turn off and gives out the impression that a) The Democrats and their voters believe they have the moral high ground absolutely b) Are perfectly happy telling everyone else they are evil c) Are incredibly arrogant about their self-defined position on the top of the moral superiority pyramid. The problem is the refusal to even try and see anyone else's point of view. I've been told in this very thread that if I was a Palestinian who has watched their family slaughtered because of the policies of Democrats, that I should still vote Democrat. The lack of empathy is absolutely astonishing tbh. On February 15 2025 01:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 15 2025 00:59 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2025 00:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 15 2025 00:11 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2025 00:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
While that's semantically correct, keep in mind those people are still complicit in the death, destruction, and chaos in Gaza, just like everyone else. They don't have any moral high ground in regards to what's been going on in Gaza, or any future devastation there. Additionally, those non-Democratic voters certainly didn't vote for any domestic improvements either. I disagree. Simply existing does make you complicit in anything. Making a positive choice to be complicit in something makes you complicit. Let me put this another way. How is a person supposed to convince the Democrats to change their policy without threatening to withhold their vote, and actually meaning it? It is the only lever anybody has. What do you mean by "change their policy"? The Democratic policy wouldn't improve as a result of them losing the election; the only thing that would change is that Palestinians would have to deal with the Republican policy, which is even worse. Biden worked to create a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel - the very one that's still mostly working right now, even while Trump is president - and during the election, Harris repeatedly pledged to continue pushing for a peaceful end where Gaza/Palestinians aren't completely overrun by Israel. The Democrats' two-state solution where Palestinians still exist would have been a much better situation than what Trump was/is pushing for, where he's okay with Israel taking over completely. The non-Democratic voters worked against the Democrats' vision and ended up aiding the Republicans' vision, which is about as anti-Gaza as you could get. (One could argue that Biden/Harris didn't/wouldn't do everything in their power to stop Netanyahu, and that Biden/Harris are extremely flawed when it comes to this issue, but they're still miles ahead of Trump's vision... and non-Democratic voters weren't willing to pick the more helpful of the two options.) By 'change their policy' I mean stop selling the weapons that kill the civilians in Gaza, stop unconditionally supporting any extremity of action that Israel decides is appropriate, and stop being the single world power who more than anyone else has caused this genocide to occur. Sure, well done, they engineered a ceasefire after so many civilians unnecessarily died at the hands of the US's little brother while the Democrats sat there and applauded, but for me, that doesn't inspire me to vote for them. I get it, you are unconditionally a Dem voter, but you shouldn't assume that everyone else will give their vote out so easily. And let's be clear here, the Democrats' vision wasn't a ceasefire and then peace forever, it was a ceasefire that allows them restock Israel with newer, more expensive weapons for the next round of massacre in a few years. Okay, so let's play it out your way, according to your argument: A bunch of people decided not to vote for Kamala Harris because they were convinced that Harris losing would result in the Democrats finally changing their Israel-Palestine policy to be more pro-Palestine and less pro-Israel. How'd that plan work out for you / the non-Democratic voters? Do we see any indication that the Democratic party is now shifting towards being more pro-Palestine? Do we have any reason to think that Palestinians will be safer, thanks to non-Democratic voters aiding Trump? In the short term, for the next few years, you have a good point here. It all falls apart if you look any further ahead than that. Why would the democrats ever need to listen to what their voters want again? They can just dictate what you are going to vote for and you'll vote for it to keep the Republicans out. Long term, I believe it is very helpful for political parties to genuinely believe that people will stop voting for them if they don't listen to their voters. That is the entire purpose of not voting Democrat in this case. It isn't going to make the lives of people in Gaza better, that horse has bolted. The ship has sailed. The people of Gaza are fucked because the Democrats decided it could be so. Maybe though, next time the Democrats are in the middle of a genocide and an election is coming up, they'll think twice about their policies. We recognized what the Ds did in the campaign that probably led to their defeat and we also gave a lot of benefit of the doubt to what was being said. But time and time again, all we're getting are people bashing the D party for things that the Rs did or refused to cooperate on. So all you're doing, by continuing to bash Ds and not hold Rs responsible for the shitshow we're currently seeing, is allowing them to grab more of the power. We understand the problems and have offered solutions. But those solutions aren't palatable to people like you and GH (collective). What you effectively want are for the Ds to assume total power and just kick the Rs out and invite a civil war to try and accelerate whatever asinine ideas you dream up. That isn't how it works. This entire thread is just a circular argument. I don't think I have a moral superiority over you or GH. But I know that pouting because your ideal candidate didn't get in and handing the country to fascism isn't the play. Either put up or shut up. If you're not going to participate, then what grounds do you have to stand on to tell those that are, what to do? At the end of the day, we're a bunch of strangers on the internet arguing. It's not helping. Again, this simply is not what happened and is not reflective of my participation in the discussion at all. You're acting like I just turned up and started blaming Democrats for everything. I'm here because I just don't buy the argument that was being made that anyone who didn't vote Democrat is responsible for everything that Trump decides to do. You are flipping that on its head and claiming that in defending those people, I'm somehow attacking the Democrats. edited for niceness And I'm saying that it is precisely the issue of them not supporting the platform that allowed this takeover. I'm not saying you personally, it's a collective. GH sits here and shits on the Ds for failing, but at the same time, it was enough people who were Ds that voted trump/third party/did not vote that caused this. And they are assigned some of the blame. To pin it all on the Ds is shifting blame so that they don't have to feel bad. You're welcome to defend them and I'm sure they and others appreciate it. But at the end of the day, they are also to blame and should be held accountable for that as well as the D party. The D voters voted to keep trump out and it didn't work. The messaging was bad and the play was bad. But to now sit back and attack D voters because they voted? What's the angle or prize you're fishing for? The prize I'm fishing for I suppose is a Democrat party that listens to its voters a little bit more, or frankly a Democrat party that listens to voters who share my perspective on world events. I don't think I'll see that in my lifetime, but I definitely won't see it if people give the Democrat their vote unconditionally. I'm also fishing for just a little bit of give and take here. I understand the argument that rationally, voting for the Dems is marginally better for the people of Gaza in the short term. I think in the long term it is worse for reasons I have described. I also think that some acknowledgement that rationality, although very important, can be overridden in certain circumstances. Of course no Palestinian is going to vote for the party that took part in the slaughter of their family. Engaging with the topic on a human level, that should be obvious. Yet even when discussing that quite extreme example, people fall back on logic and rationality and refuse to empathize with those for whom that kind of discussion has gone out of the window. There's a whole middle ground as well with general Middle-Eastern voters who feel that it is 'their people' that the Democrats have taken part in killing. I would wager that for alot of those people, voting rationally for a tiny percentage gain in survivability for the people of Gaza has gone out of the window just through sheer anger and sadness. To dismiss this and then blame those people for what Trump is doing is something I just can't get my head around. Then we finally get to the people on this forum who are making arguments. There's no recognition that maybe some people engage with these world events on an emotional level and simply cannot bring themselves to vote for people who are taking part in genocide. There's no 'Maybe these people think completely different to how I think about events'. Its simply a numbers game. Calculate the percentage and vote accordingly. Rationality wins. Except as we've seen, it doesn't. The human element of this, the refusal to take part in something that a person sees as evil, is important even if it seems irrational and the numbers don't add up in the very short term.
Democrats do listen to Americans. The problem you have is Americans, not Democrats. Americans, by and large, support Israel. They don’t believe the Democrats are the lesser evil, they believe the support for Israel is good.
|
On February 15 2025 05:16 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2025 02:30 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2025 02:13 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On February 15 2025 02:01 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2025 01:57 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On February 15 2025 01:42 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2025 00:58 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On February 15 2025 00:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 15 2025 00:11 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2025 00:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
While that's semantically correct, keep in mind those people are still complicit in the death, destruction, and chaos in Gaza, just like everyone else. They don't have any moral high ground in regards to what's been going on in Gaza, or any future devastation there. Additionally, those non-Democratic voters certainly didn't vote for any domestic improvements either. I disagree. Simply existing does make you complicit in anything. Making a positive choice to be complicit in something makes you complicit. Let me put this another way. How is a person supposed to convince the Democrats to change their policy without threatening to withhold their vote, and actually meaning it? It is the only lever anybody has. What do you mean by "change their policy"? The Democratic policy wouldn't improve as a result of them losing the election; the only thing that would change is that Palestinians would have to deal with the Republican policy, which is even worse. Biden worked to create a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel - the very one that's still mostly working right now, even while Trump is president - and during the election, Harris repeatedly pledged to continue pushing for a peaceful end where Gaza/Palestinians aren't completely overrun by Israel. The Democrats' two-state solution where Palestinians still exist would have been a much better situation than what Trump was/is pushing for, where he's okay with Israel taking over completely. The non-Democratic voters worked against the Democrats' vision and ended up aiding the Republicans' vision, which is about as anti-Gaza as you could get. (One could argue that Biden/Harris didn't/wouldn't do everything in their power to stop Netanyahu, and that Biden/Harris are extremely flawed when it comes to this issue, but they're still miles ahead of Trump's vision... and non-Democratic voters weren't willing to pick the more helpful of the two options.) It's like talking to the Rs in this thread. The people like Jock and GH have this moral highground that they're unwilling to come down off of because they can't fathom being wrong in this case. The people who voted Ds aren't complicit in the war in Gaza or Ukraine. They're trying to get people in positions to stop it using democratic methods. Now they have to justify fuckin up the vote and convince themselves that abstaining from participating was the correct choice. Conciousness aside. This isn't about the right thing to do, it's about what makes them feel better when they go to sleep. "I tried but no one listened, guess that's all I can do. Time for napsies." This is the third time i've told I'm trying to take the moral high ground, when I joined this conversation to try and empathize with the people that Dem voters were claiming were responsible for everything Trump is doing. It is you (collective), not I, who was taking the moral high ground, and you don't even notice yourselves doing it. Its not like the Democrats haven't been told, repeatedly, by every single non Democrat in America, that this behaviour is a massive turn off and gives out the impression that a) The Democrats and their voters believe they have the moral high ground absolutely b) Are perfectly happy telling everyone else they are evil c) Are incredibly arrogant about their self-defined position on the top of the moral superiority pyramid. The problem is the refusal to even try and see anyone else's point of view. I've been told in this very thread that if I was a Palestinian who has watched their family slaughtered because of the policies of Democrats, that I should still vote Democrat. The lack of empathy is absolutely astonishing tbh. On February 15 2025 01:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 15 2025 00:59 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2025 00:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 15 2025 00:11 Jockmcplop wrote:
[quote]
I disagree.
Simply existing does make you complicit in anything. Making a positive choice to be complicit in something makes you complicit.
Let me put this another way. How is a person supposed to convince the Democrats to change their policy without threatening to withhold their vote, and actually meaning it? It is the only lever anybody has. What do you mean by "change their policy"? The Democratic policy wouldn't improve as a result of them losing the election; the only thing that would change is that Palestinians would have to deal with the Republican policy, which is even worse. Biden worked to create a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel - the very one that's still mostly working right now, even while Trump is president - and during the election, Harris repeatedly pledged to continue pushing for a peaceful end where Gaza/Palestinians aren't completely overrun by Israel. The Democrats' two-state solution where Palestinians still exist would have been a much better situation than what Trump was/is pushing for, where he's okay with Israel taking over completely. The non-Democratic voters worked against the Democrats' vision and ended up aiding the Republicans' vision, which is about as anti-Gaza as you could get. (One could argue that Biden/Harris didn't/wouldn't do everything in their power to stop Netanyahu, and that Biden/Harris are extremely flawed when it comes to this issue, but they're still miles ahead of Trump's vision... and non-Democratic voters weren't willing to pick the more helpful of the two options.) By 'change their policy' I mean stop selling the weapons that kill the civilians in Gaza, stop unconditionally supporting any extremity of action that Israel decides is appropriate, and stop being the single world power who more than anyone else has caused this genocide to occur. Sure, well done, they engineered a ceasefire after so many civilians unnecessarily died at the hands of the US's little brother while the Democrats sat there and applauded, but for me, that doesn't inspire me to vote for them. I get it, you are unconditionally a Dem voter, but you shouldn't assume that everyone else will give their vote out so easily. And let's be clear here, the Democrats' vision wasn't a ceasefire and then peace forever, it was a ceasefire that allows them restock Israel with newer, more expensive weapons for the next round of massacre in a few years. Okay, so let's play it out your way, according to your argument: A bunch of people decided not to vote for Kamala Harris because they were convinced that Harris losing would result in the Democrats finally changing their Israel-Palestine policy to be more pro-Palestine and less pro-Israel. How'd that plan work out for you / the non-Democratic voters? Do we see any indication that the Democratic party is now shifting towards being more pro-Palestine? Do we have any reason to think that Palestinians will be safer, thanks to non-Democratic voters aiding Trump? In the short term, for the next few years, you have a good point here. It all falls apart if you look any further ahead than that. Why would the democrats ever need to listen to what their voters want again? They can just dictate what you are going to vote for and you'll vote for it to keep the Republicans out. Long term, I believe it is very helpful for political parties to genuinely believe that people will stop voting for them if they don't listen to their voters. That is the entire purpose of not voting Democrat in this case. It isn't going to make the lives of people in Gaza better, that horse has bolted. The ship has sailed. The people of Gaza are fucked because the Democrats decided it could be so. Maybe though, next time the Democrats are in the middle of a genocide and an election is coming up, they'll think twice about their policies. We recognized what the Ds did in the campaign that probably led to their defeat and we also gave a lot of benefit of the doubt to what was being said. But time and time again, all we're getting are people bashing the D party for things that the Rs did or refused to cooperate on. So all you're doing, by continuing to bash Ds and not hold Rs responsible for the shitshow we're currently seeing, is allowing them to grab more of the power. We understand the problems and have offered solutions. But those solutions aren't palatable to people like you and GH (collective). What you effectively want are for the Ds to assume total power and just kick the Rs out and invite a civil war to try and accelerate whatever asinine ideas you dream up. That isn't how it works. This entire thread is just a circular argument. I don't think I have a moral superiority over you or GH. But I know that pouting because your ideal candidate didn't get in and handing the country to fascism isn't the play. Either put up or shut up. If you're not going to participate, then what grounds do you have to stand on to tell those that are, what to do? At the end of the day, we're a bunch of strangers on the internet arguing. It's not helping. Again, this simply is not what happened and is not reflective of my participation in the discussion at all. You're acting like I just turned up and started blaming Democrats for everything. I'm here because I just don't buy the argument that was being made that anyone who didn't vote Democrat is responsible for everything that Trump decides to do. You are flipping that on its head and claiming that in defending those people, I'm somehow attacking the Democrats. edited for niceness And I'm saying that it is precisely the issue of them not supporting the platform that allowed this takeover. I'm not saying you personally, it's a collective. GH sits here and shits on the Ds for failing, but at the same time, it was enough people who were Ds that voted trump/third party/did not vote that caused this. And they are assigned some of the blame. To pin it all on the Ds is shifting blame so that they don't have to feel bad. You're welcome to defend them and I'm sure they and others appreciate it. But at the end of the day, they are also to blame and should be held accountable for that as well as the D party. The D voters voted to keep trump out and it didn't work. The messaging was bad and the play was bad. But to now sit back and attack D voters because they voted? What's the angle or prize you're fishing for? The prize I'm fishing for I suppose is a Democrat party that listens to its voters a little bit more, or frankly a Democrat party that listens to voters who share my perspective on world events. I don't think I'll see that in my lifetime, but I definitely won't see it if people give the Democrat their vote unconditionally. I'm also fishing for just a little bit of give and take here. I understand the argument that rationally, voting for the Dems is marginally better for the people of Gaza in the short term. I think in the long term it is worse for reasons I have described. I also think that some acknowledgement that rationality, although very important, can be overridden in certain circumstances. Of course no Palestinian is going to vote for the party that took part in the slaughter of their family. Engaging with the topic on a human level, that should be obvious. Yet even when discussing that quite extreme example, people fall back on logic and rationality and refuse to empathize with those for whom that kind of discussion has gone out of the window. There's a whole middle ground as well with general Middle-Eastern voters who feel that it is 'their people' that the Democrats have taken part in killing. I would wager that for alot of those people, voting rationally for a tiny percentage gain in survivability for the people of Gaza has gone out of the window just through sheer anger and sadness. To dismiss this and then blame those people for what Trump is doing is something I just can't get my head around. Then we finally get to the people on this forum who are making arguments. There's no recognition that maybe some people engage with these world events on an emotional level and simply cannot bring themselves to vote for people who are taking part in genocide. There's no 'Maybe these people think completely different to how I think about events'. Its simply a numbers game. Calculate the percentage and vote accordingly. Rationality wins. Except as we've seen, it doesn't. The human element of this, the refusal to take part in something that a person sees as evil, is important even if it seems irrational and the numbers don't add up in the very short term. Democrats do listen to Americans. The problem you have is Americans, not Democrats. Americans, by and large, support Israel. They don’t believe the Democrats are the lesser evil, they believe the support for Israel is good.
Fine I'm willing to accept that (at least that my problem is with Americans, not specifically Democrats).
Apparently, the problem you have is Americans too, because they seem to believe that support for Trump is good.
|
People wouldnt be so persistent about how Democrats were bad if Democrats didnt seem so intent on being shitty, like damn, their entire identity is failure and a deep unwillingness to acknowledge that anything is wrong with any of their strategies or actions.
Like damn, the voters dont control the Democrats, they make that clear, they don't listen to us, they don't care about us, they aren't interested in anything we have to say that doesnt affirm whatever consultant dipshits they have on staff are already saying.
Noone from Idaho really gives two shits what some asshole from Washington state thinks, or at least they wouldnt if what they were saying didn't reflect reality on some level.
|
On February 15 2025 04:47 Sermokala wrote:
If we're a worthless idiot to the democratic party what do you think you are to the republican party GH? At best you're acting in their interests at worst you're working for their benifit.
You don't get to absolve yourself of the consequences of your actions along the path to utopia. You have the agency to effect the world around you and you should agnowedge to yourself what those effects are.
The parties basically function as mostly useless customer service representatives for the US's oligarchs.
Oligarchs want us all doing what you, Sadist, Kwark, and Dems/libs/ilk are doing generally. The Niemoller quote starts with socialists for a reason.
Whatever mistakes any of us have made in the past, we can use the next ~6 months to do something without the burden of having to rationalize supporting the Democrat party/specific incumbents with votes no one can cast for more than a year.
None of you that ostensibly want the US to be better than it is have any reason not to do that, and instead whine at me for pointing out the fierce urgency of now, other than your own emotional immaturity.
|
GH i feel like you try to drum up support against Dems to be an accelerationist in the hopes of getting things to be bad enough to sway people to your side. Thats the only logical conclusion I can come up with if you would rather change peoples minds and have a 10M person strike under a fascist government as opposed to the Democrats.
It really doesnt make logical sense for me otherwise. For you and your friends it would make sense to have the strike in a less dangerous environment.
|
On February 15 2025 05:46 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2025 03:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2025 03:10 Sadist wrote:On February 14 2025 23:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 14 2025 23:05 KwarK wrote:On February 14 2025 23:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 14 2025 22:32 KwarK wrote:On February 14 2025 22:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 14 2025 21:56 KwarK wrote:On February 14 2025 21:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
No. I believe organizing with my comrades towards a general strike (along with plenty of other activities) is a better use of time and energy than dissuading people from doing that like a fascist would. This sounds like an excuse to hang out with your buddies. You're not serious about stopping fascism + Show Spoiler +, even your "solutions" don't actually involve stopping anything. What you're doing basically makes you a willing accomplice to everything bad that happens from here on. You knew what they were doing, you knew what they were going to do, but you choose to hang out with your friends instead. If you ever wondered what you'd do if you were in 1940 Germany then you now have your answer and it's not a great look. You're free to believe that, and I'm open to considering/trying your alternatives (is it fleeing the country?), unlike you and the libs/Dems/ilk you're representing with this tantrum. Consider that some of the people you’re working with may have been open to some kind of actual solution to the issue at hand. You’re pulling them away from real resistance and instead advocating that you all just take a day off work together. You’re essentially just another layer of structural opposition to real change, a net to catch people who recognize that there’s an issue and ensnare them with pipe dreams of general strikes. This is part of what I mean by delusional and ahistorical. 50 years of voting for Democrats with several majorities got people the grand prize of healthcare legislation that Republicans rejected as too right wing 50 years ago. We know that objectively isn't "real resistance". Meanwhile basically all significant progress in this country has come from direct actions like strikes, protests, and people generally demanding it, even against threats of death. Not from falling in line to vote for Democrats without making any demands of them. Like I said though, if you have an alternative "actual solution" or "real resistance" plan, I'm listening. Afaict though, your plan is to flee or pick up a baton and join the fascists. All the significant progress that led us to the current intolerable situation? That progress? That’s your historical precedent? So that's a no to you having an alternative besides running to save your own skin or, as you're doing now, picking up a baton to ensure the rest of us can't save ours? Cool. EDIT: On February 14 2025 23:06 Sadist wrote:GH if you wanted to make progress why not vote for Dems then strike? + Show Spoiler + At least then youd be dealing with a receptive and not fascist government. Its like you want to play on hard mode. One reason would be that my vote would not have even been counted before the election was called, while casting it for Dems would be making me complicit in genocide. Still voting for Dems despite that is heinously sadistic imo I just want to go back to this. Why is this not an important point? A lot of us in the midwest are in swing states while people from solidly blue or red states lob grenades not understanding potential consequences. + Show Spoiler +Its easy to be on the fence of being anti trump when you are not in a swing state. This is not reality for many people. Im not blaming the large muslim 3rd party vote in michigan for losing the election as white folks vote for republican en masse and if we could flip 5-10% dems would win every election. However, when everyone is forcibly removed from Gaza I hope everyone understands voting has consequences. You asked about my vote. But this again masks in delusion that you guys were telling people to shut up and fall in line behind Biden before the primary even started. As if we don't remember Democrats en masse gaslighting us and themselves about Biden totally being fine to make it through the primary and election and that even if he couldn't they'd knowingly vote for a clinically braindead Biden anyway. You needed to be shouting from the rooftops with everyone else demanding better, for a primary without Biden, or at least a pseudo primary where the different factions of Democrats make their cases to the public and then unite around their predetermined nominee anyway. I'd have still complained, but Biden would have been exposed earlier, left more time for a backup plan to take form, and potentially succeeded + Show Spoiler +(assuming this wasn't the intended outcome of his stubborn hubris) . We're there again. When you need to be shouting from the rooftops demanding better while doing work to bring it about. Instead, you're again trying to browbeat people into submission to a Democrat party that believes and acts like you are a worthless idiot to them. GH i feel like you try to drum up support against Dems to be an accelerationist in the hopes of getting things to be bad enough to sway people to your side. Thats the only logical conclusion I can come up with if you would rather change peoples minds and have a 10M person strike under a fascist government as opposed to the Democrats. It really doesnt make logical sense for me otherwise. For you and your friends it would make sense to have the strike in a less dangerous environment. I already pointed out, with receipts, that I was saying that in order for Democrats to win, they needed to be better (regardless of whether they could get my vote or not). Your feelings aren't supported by the record/facts, making your conclusions anything but logical.
I agree that we probably all should have been supporting a general strike all the back to the occupy movement, but sorta like with the planting a tree thing, the next best time to do it is today.
|
On February 15 2025 05:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2025 05:46 Sadist wrote:On February 15 2025 03:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2025 03:10 Sadist wrote:On February 14 2025 23:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 14 2025 23:05 KwarK wrote:On February 14 2025 23:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 14 2025 22:32 KwarK wrote:On February 14 2025 22:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 14 2025 21:56 KwarK wrote:[quote] This sounds like an excuse to hang out with your buddies. You're not serious about stopping fascism + Show Spoiler +, even your "solutions" don't actually involve stopping anything. What you're doing basically makes you a willing accomplice to everything bad that happens from here on. You knew what they were doing, you knew what they were going to do, but you choose to hang out with your friends instead. If you ever wondered what you'd do if you were in 1940 Germany then you now have your answer and it's not a great look. You're free to believe that, and I'm open to considering/trying your alternatives (is it fleeing the country?), unlike you and the libs/Dems/ilk you're representing with this tantrum. Consider that some of the people you’re working with may have been open to some kind of actual solution to the issue at hand. You’re pulling them away from real resistance and instead advocating that you all just take a day off work together. You’re essentially just another layer of structural opposition to real change, a net to catch people who recognize that there’s an issue and ensnare them with pipe dreams of general strikes. This is part of what I mean by delusional and ahistorical. 50 years of voting for Democrats with several majorities got people the grand prize of healthcare legislation that Republicans rejected as too right wing 50 years ago. We know that objectively isn't "real resistance". Meanwhile basically all significant progress in this country has come from direct actions like strikes, protests, and people generally demanding it, even against threats of death. Not from falling in line to vote for Democrats without making any demands of them. Like I said though, if you have an alternative "actual solution" or "real resistance" plan, I'm listening. Afaict though, your plan is to flee or pick up a baton and join the fascists. All the significant progress that led us to the current intolerable situation? That progress? That’s your historical precedent? So that's a no to you having an alternative besides running to save your own skin or, as you're doing now, picking up a baton to ensure the rest of us can't save ours? Cool. EDIT: On February 14 2025 23:06 Sadist wrote:GH if you wanted to make progress why not vote for Dems then strike? + Show Spoiler + At least then youd be dealing with a receptive and not fascist government. Its like you want to play on hard mode. One reason would be that my vote would not have even been counted before the election was called, while casting it for Dems would be making me complicit in genocide. Still voting for Dems despite that is heinously sadistic imo I just want to go back to this. Why is this not an important point? A lot of us in the midwest are in swing states while people from solidly blue or red states lob grenades not understanding potential consequences. + Show Spoiler +Its easy to be on the fence of being anti trump when you are not in a swing state. This is not reality for many people. Im not blaming the large muslim 3rd party vote in michigan for losing the election as white folks vote for republican en masse and if we could flip 5-10% dems would win every election. However, when everyone is forcibly removed from Gaza I hope everyone understands voting has consequences. You asked about my vote. But this again masks in delusion that you guys were telling people to shut up and fall in line behind Biden before the primary even started. As if we don't remember Democrats en masse gaslighting us and themselves about Biden totally being fine to make it through the primary and election and that even if he couldn't they'd knowingly vote for a clinically braindead Biden anyway. You needed to be shouting from the rooftops with everyone else demanding better, for a primary without Biden, or at least a pseudo primary where the different factions of Democrats make their cases to the public and then unite around their predetermined nominee anyway. I'd have still complained, but Biden would have been exposed earlier, left more time for a backup plan to take form, and potentially succeeded + Show Spoiler +(assuming this wasn't the intended outcome of his stubborn hubris) . We're there again. When you need to be shouting from the rooftops demanding better while doing work to bring it about. Instead, you're again trying to browbeat people into submission to a Democrat party that believes and acts like you are a worthless idiot to them. GH i feel like you try to drum up support against Dems to be an accelerationist in the hopes of getting things to be bad enough to sway people to your side. Thats the only logical conclusion I can come up with if you would rather change peoples minds and have a 10M person strike under a fascist government as opposed to the Democrats. It really doesnt make logical sense for me otherwise. For you and your friends it would make sense to have the strike in a less dangerous environment. I already pointed out, with receipts, that I was saying that in order for Democrats to win, they needed to be better (regardless of whether they could get my vote or not). Your feelings aren't supported by the record/facts, making your conclusions anything but logical. I agree that we probably all should have been supporting a general strike all the back to the occupy movement, but sorta like with the planting a tree thing, the next best time to do it is today.
They were better. And it still wasn't enough. Your demands are arbitrary and unreasonable.
|
United States41883 Posts
On February 15 2025 05:20 Zambrah wrote:
People wouldnt be so persistent about how Democrats were bad if Democrats didnt seem so intent on being shitty, like damn, their entire identity is failure and a deep unwillingness to acknowledge that anything is wrong with any of their strategies or actions.
Like damn, the voters dont control the Democrats, they make that clear, they don't listen to us, they don't care about us, they aren't interested in anything we have to say that doesnt affirm whatever consultant dipshits they have on staff are already saying.
Noone from Idaho really gives two shits what some asshole from Washington state thinks, or at least they wouldnt if what they were saying didn't reflect reality on some level.
Wrong direction. For example voters hate trans people but democrats refused to commit to erasing them from public life. The reality is that the democrats are too left wing and tolerant for the American public. Talk radio, Fox News, the capture of local tv news, and social media have devastated the values of the American voting public.
Trump’s unashamed vindictive petty greedy racist narrow minded stupid nature is a mirror. He’s more American than apple pie.
|
On February 15 2025 06:18 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2025 05:20 Zambrah wrote:
People wouldnt be so persistent about how Democrats were bad if Democrats didnt seem so intent on being shitty, like damn, their entire identity is failure and a deep unwillingness to acknowledge that anything is wrong with any of their strategies or actions.
Like damn, the voters dont control the Democrats, they make that clear, they don't listen to us, they don't care about us, they aren't interested in anything we have to say that doesnt affirm whatever consultant dipshits they have on staff are already saying.
Noone from Idaho really gives two shits what some asshole from Washington state thinks, or at least they wouldnt if what they were saying didn't reflect reality on some level. Wrong direction. For example voters hate trans people but democrats refused to commit to erasing them from public life. The reality is that the democrats are too left wing and tolerant for the American public. Talk radio, Fox News, the capture of local tv news, and social media have devastated the values of the American voting public. Trump’s unashamed vindictive petty greedy racist narrow minded stupid nature is a mirror. He’s more American than apple pie.
Nah, most people didn’t vote for this. Game theory bullshit being used to assign beliefs to people would have you as a Trump supporter.
Not voting means something other than active support for whoever wins.
|
On February 15 2025 06:02 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2025 05:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2025 05:46 Sadist wrote:On February 15 2025 03:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2025 03:10 Sadist wrote:On February 14 2025 23:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 14 2025 23:05 KwarK wrote:On February 14 2025 23:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 14 2025 22:32 KwarK wrote:On February 14 2025 22:12 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
You're free to believe that, and I'm open to considering/trying your alternatives (is it fleeing the country?), unlike you and the libs/Dems/ilk you're representing with this tantrum.
Consider that some of the people you’re working with may have been open to some kind of actual solution to the issue at hand. You’re pulling them away from real resistance and instead advocating that you all just take a day off work together. You’re essentially just another layer of structural opposition to real change, a net to catch people who recognize that there’s an issue and ensnare them with pipe dreams of general strikes. This is part of what I mean by delusional and ahistorical. 50 years of voting for Democrats with several majorities got people the grand prize of healthcare legislation that Republicans rejected as too right wing 50 years ago. We know that objectively isn't "real resistance". Meanwhile basically all significant progress in this country has come from direct actions like strikes, protests, and people generally demanding it, even against threats of death. Not from falling in line to vote for Democrats without making any demands of them. Like I said though, if you have an alternative "actual solution" or "real resistance" plan, I'm listening. Afaict though, your plan is to flee or pick up a baton and join the fascists. All the significant progress that led us to the current intolerable situation? That progress? That’s your historical precedent? So that's a no to you having an alternative besides running to save your own skin or, as you're doing now, picking up a baton to ensure the rest of us can't save ours? Cool. EDIT: On February 14 2025 23:06 Sadist wrote:GH if you wanted to make progress why not vote for Dems then strike? + Show Spoiler + At least then youd be dealing with a receptive and not fascist government. Its like you want to play on hard mode. One reason would be that my vote would not have even been counted before the election was called, while casting it for Dems would be making me complicit in genocide. Still voting for Dems despite that is heinously sadistic imo I just want to go back to this. Why is this not an important point? A lot of us in the midwest are in swing states while people from solidly blue or red states lob grenades not understanding potential consequences. + Show Spoiler +Its easy to be on the fence of being anti trump when you are not in a swing state. This is not reality for many people. Im not blaming the large muslim 3rd party vote in michigan for losing the election as white folks vote for republican en masse and if we could flip 5-10% dems would win every election. However, when everyone is forcibly removed from Gaza I hope everyone understands voting has consequences. You asked about my vote. But this again masks in delusion that you guys were telling people to shut up and fall in line behind Biden before the primary even started. As if we don't remember Democrats en masse gaslighting us and themselves about Biden totally being fine to make it through the primary and election and that even if he couldn't they'd knowingly vote for a clinically braindead Biden anyway. You needed to be shouting from the rooftops with everyone else demanding better, for a primary without Biden, or at least a pseudo primary where the different factions of Democrats make their cases to the public and then unite around their predetermined nominee anyway. I'd have still complained, but Biden would have been exposed earlier, left more time for a backup plan to take form, and potentially succeeded + Show Spoiler +(assuming this wasn't the intended outcome of his stubborn hubris) . We're there again. When you need to be shouting from the rooftops demanding better while doing work to bring it about. Instead, you're again trying to browbeat people into submission to a Democrat party that believes and acts like you are a worthless idiot to them. GH i feel like you try to drum up support against Dems to be an accelerationist in the hopes of getting things to be bad enough to sway people to your side. Thats the only logical conclusion I can come up with if you would rather change peoples minds and have a 10M person strike under a fascist government as opposed to the Democrats. It really doesnt make logical sense for me otherwise. For you and your friends it would make sense to have the strike in a less dangerous environment. I already pointed out, with receipts, that I was saying that in order for Democrats to win, they needed to be better (regardless of whether they could get my vote or not). Your feelings aren't supported by the record/facts, making your conclusions anything but logical. I agree that we probably all should have been supporting a general strike all the back to the occupy movement, but sorta like with the planting a tree thing, the next best time to do it is today. They were better. And it still wasn't enough. Your demands are arbitrary and unreasonable.
This is the "I threw the pennies right at the homeless person making them richer than they were before, then they yelled at me!? What an ungrateful prick!?!?" defense and it is shamefully out of touch.
Democrats and their supporters needed to demand better than Biden before the primary (when I was telling them as much), Biden/his staff needed the self-awareness to have Biden pass the torch like he said when he was running in 2020. Democrat supporters needed to have the wisdom/honesty to recognize Biden couldn't be their nominee if they wanted to win before the primary even started.
Again though, it's not about my demands or my vote, it was about getting enough of the voters that already voted for Biden to vote for a Democrat in 2024.
I'd also note this reinforces Kwark's plan of encouraging Democrats to be more fascist in order to win. Which is how we ended up with 50 years of voting for Democrats leading to their ultimate accomplishment being passing healthcare legislation that Republicans rejected 50 years ago as too right-wing.
I feel like if you guys just take a couple steps back, a few deep breaths, you'll realize how absurd you all come off in this situation.
|
On February 15 2025 06:33 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2025 06:18 KwarK wrote:On February 15 2025 05:20 Zambrah wrote:
People wouldnt be so persistent about how Democrats were bad if Democrats didnt seem so intent on being shitty, like damn, their entire identity is failure and a deep unwillingness to acknowledge that anything is wrong with any of their strategies or actions.
Like damn, the voters dont control the Democrats, they make that clear, they don't listen to us, they don't care about us, they aren't interested in anything we have to say that doesnt affirm whatever consultant dipshits they have on staff are already saying.
Noone from Idaho really gives two shits what some asshole from Washington state thinks, or at least they wouldnt if what they were saying didn't reflect reality on some level. Wrong direction. For example voters hate trans people but democrats refused to commit to erasing them from public life. The reality is that the democrats are too left wing and tolerant for the American public. Talk radio, Fox News, the capture of local tv news, and social media have devastated the values of the American voting public. Trump’s unashamed vindictive petty greedy racist narrow minded stupid nature is a mirror. He’s more American than apple pie. Nah, most people didn’t vote for this. Game theory bullshit being used to assign beliefs to people would have you as a Trump supporter. Not voting means something other than active support for whoever wins.
Please explain the bolded. trump is president. He won the popular vote. Most people obviously voted for this. The keyword is voted. If you didn't vote, you don't get to bitch at those that voted for the opposite of what is going on now.
I'll wait for an explanation.
On February 15 2025 06:38 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2025 06:02 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On February 15 2025 05:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2025 05:46 Sadist wrote:On February 15 2025 03:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2025 03:10 Sadist wrote:On February 14 2025 23:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 14 2025 23:05 KwarK wrote:On February 14 2025 23:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 14 2025 22:32 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Consider that some of the people you’re working with may have been open to some kind of actual solution to the issue at hand. You’re pulling them away from real resistance and instead advocating that you all just take a day off work together. You’re essentially just another layer of structural opposition to real change, a net to catch people who recognize that there’s an issue and ensnare them with pipe dreams of general strikes. This is part of what I mean by delusional and ahistorical. 50 years of voting for Democrats with several majorities got people the grand prize of healthcare legislation that Republicans rejected as too right wing 50 years ago. We know that objectively isn't "real resistance". Meanwhile basically all significant progress in this country has come from direct actions like strikes, protests, and people generally demanding it, even against threats of death. Not from falling in line to vote for Democrats without making any demands of them. Like I said though, if you have an alternative "actual solution" or "real resistance" plan, I'm listening. Afaict though, your plan is to flee or pick up a baton and join the fascists. All the significant progress that led us to the current intolerable situation? That progress? That’s your historical precedent? So that's a no to you having an alternative besides running to save your own skin or, as you're doing now, picking up a baton to ensure the rest of us can't save ours? Cool. EDIT: On February 14 2025 23:06 Sadist wrote:GH if you wanted to make progress why not vote for Dems then strike? + Show Spoiler + At least then youd be dealing with a receptive and not fascist government. Its like you want to play on hard mode. One reason would be that my vote would not have even been counted before the election was called, while casting it for Dems would be making me complicit in genocide. Still voting for Dems despite that is heinously sadistic imo I just want to go back to this. Why is this not an important point? A lot of us in the midwest are in swing states while people from solidly blue or red states lob grenades not understanding potential consequences. + Show Spoiler +Its easy to be on the fence of being anti trump when you are not in a swing state. This is not reality for many people. Im not blaming the large muslim 3rd party vote in michigan for losing the election as white folks vote for republican en masse and if we could flip 5-10% dems would win every election. However, when everyone is forcibly removed from Gaza I hope everyone understands voting has consequences. You asked about my vote. But this again masks in delusion that you guys were telling people to shut up and fall in line behind Biden before the primary even started. As if we don't remember Democrats en masse gaslighting us and themselves about Biden totally being fine to make it through the primary and election and that even if he couldn't they'd knowingly vote for a clinically braindead Biden anyway. You needed to be shouting from the rooftops with everyone else demanding better, for a primary without Biden, or at least a pseudo primary where the different factions of Democrats make their cases to the public and then unite around their predetermined nominee anyway. I'd have still complained, but Biden would have been exposed earlier, left more time for a backup plan to take form, and potentially succeeded + Show Spoiler +(assuming this wasn't the intended outcome of his stubborn hubris) . We're there again. When you need to be shouting from the rooftops demanding better while doing work to bring it about. Instead, you're again trying to browbeat people into submission to a Democrat party that believes and acts like you are a worthless idiot to them. GH i feel like you try to drum up support against Dems to be an accelerationist in the hopes of getting things to be bad enough to sway people to your side. Thats the only logical conclusion I can come up with if you would rather change peoples minds and have a 10M person strike under a fascist government as opposed to the Democrats. It really doesnt make logical sense for me otherwise. For you and your friends it would make sense to have the strike in a less dangerous environment. I already pointed out, with receipts, that I was saying that in order for Democrats to win, they needed to be better (regardless of whether they could get my vote or not). Your feelings aren't supported by the record/facts, making your conclusions anything but logical. I agree that we probably all should have been supporting a general strike all the back to the occupy movement, but sorta like with the planting a tree thing, the next best time to do it is today. They were better. And it still wasn't enough. Your demands are arbitrary and unreasonable. This is the "I threw the pennies right at the homeless person making them richer than they were before, then they yelled at me!? What an ungrateful prick!?!?" defense and it is shamefully out of touch. Democrats and their supporters needed to demand better than Biden before the primary (when I was telling them as much), Biden/his staff needed the self-awareness to have Biden pass the torch like he said when he was running in 2020. Democrat supporters needed to have the wisdom/honesty to recognize Biden couldn't be their nominee if they wanted to win before the primary even started. Again though, it's not about my demands or my vote, it was about getting enough of the voters that already voted for Biden to vote for a Democrat in 2024. I'd also note this reinforces Kwark's plan of encouraging Democrats to be more fascist in order to win. Which is how we ended up with 50 years of voting for Democrats leading to their ultimate accomplishment being passing healthcare legislation that Republicans rejected 50 years ago as too right-wing. I feel like if you guys just take a couple steps back, a few deep breaths, you'll realize how absurd you all come off in this situation.
I feel like you're willfully ignoring the fact that many people here and out irl, did exactly what you are talking about. Biden being stubborn and waiting until his failure of a debate to step aside is no one's fault but his own. You're not "forcing" the President to step aside if he doesn't want to. Get that thought out of your mind. This had to be his choice and his alone. He made it but it was too late. Literally everyone agrees on that part.
You keep repeating the same talking points to add fluff to your posts doesn't change the facts of the matter. You have no rebuttal besides parroting the same spiel over and over as if you were a republican. Are you a republican? Because it would take little convincing me that you were.
|
I love it when GenocideHorizons comes in and tells everyone that they're complicit in genocide for voting Democrats (unlike him, of course). When it is pointed out that supporting Democrats was the best option to prevent genocide, we get accused of trying to take the moral high ground. Seems really stupid to blame the democrat supporters of trying to take the moral high ground when the conversation literally started with someone trying to claim moral superiority and accusing us of being complicit in genocide.
We've had years of being brow beaten by someone who can't even articulate what he supports. What candidate did he vote for? No fucking idea. He spent the entire Biden term trying to tear down the Democrats rather than build up any candidate. Maybe he's a Cornel West supporter, who'd vaguely align with GH's vague politics and was on the 2024 ballot in some states, but GenocideHorizons never mentioned him once.
He could have pushed for any party that doesn't support "genocide", but he didn't. We may be FPTP, which naturally trends towards 2 parties, but we're still allowed to vote 3rd party. Instead, he spent 4 years trying to tear down Democrats, the main opposition party to the Republicans. When pressed for any answers on what he wants, the only one we get is "Socialism". The SPU? DSA? SPoA? He hasn't mentioned any of them, just "Socialism". "Socialism" isn't an answer. He might as well say "Better" and he'd have given as much details.
We finally get "General Strike" in the last month or two, which is a nice step forward, but where's the organization of it? He doesn't have to do it himself, but what group is he supporting that is trying to organize it? Again, we get nothing. Billyboy asked specific questions about it. No reply.
It's all theatre. It's all about someone who just wants to feel morally superior while doing some morally inferior actions. I think Sadist nails it when he calls GenocideHorizons an accelerationist. Except, I'm not so sure that he actually wants something better on the other side, he's just an angry child who wants to see the world burn.
|
On February 15 2025 06:39 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2025 06:33 Zambrah wrote:On February 15 2025 06:18 KwarK wrote:On February 15 2025 05:20 Zambrah wrote:
People wouldnt be so persistent about how Democrats were bad if Democrats didnt seem so intent on being shitty, like damn, their entire identity is failure and a deep unwillingness to acknowledge that anything is wrong with any of their strategies or actions.
Like damn, the voters dont control the Democrats, they make that clear, they don't listen to us, they don't care about us, they aren't interested in anything we have to say that doesnt affirm whatever consultant dipshits they have on staff are already saying.
Noone from Idaho really gives two shits what some asshole from Washington state thinks, or at least they wouldnt if what they were saying didn't reflect reality on some level. Wrong direction. For example voters hate trans people but democrats refused to commit to erasing them from public life. The reality is that the democrats are too left wing and tolerant for the American public. Talk radio, Fox News, the capture of local tv news, and social media have devastated the values of the American voting public. Trump’s unashamed vindictive petty greedy racist narrow minded stupid nature is a mirror. He’s more American than apple pie. Nah, most people didn’t vote for this. Game theory bullshit being used to assign beliefs to people would have you as a Trump supporter. Not voting means something other than active support for whoever wins. + Show Spoiler +Please explain the bolded. trump is president. He won the popular vote. Most people obviously voted for this. The keyword is voted. If you didn't vote, you don't get to bitch at those that voted for the opposite of what is going on now.
I'll wait for an explanation. Show nested quote +On February 15 2025 06:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2025 06:02 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On February 15 2025 05:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2025 05:46 Sadist wrote:On February 15 2025 03:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2025 03:10 Sadist wrote:On February 14 2025 23:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 14 2025 23:05 KwarK wrote:On February 14 2025 23:01 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
This is part of what I mean by delusional and ahistorical.
50 years of voting for Democrats with several majorities got people the grand prize of healthcare legislation that Republicans rejected as too right wing 50 years ago. We know that objectively isn't "real resistance". Meanwhile basically all significant progress in this country has come from direct actions like strikes, protests, and people generally demanding it, even against threats of death. Not from falling in line to vote for Democrats without making any demands of them.
Like I said though, if you have an alternative "actual solution" or "real resistance" plan, I'm listening. Afaict though, your plan is to flee or pick up a baton and join the fascists. All the significant progress that led us to the current intolerable situation? That progress? That’s your historical precedent? So that's a no to you having an alternative besides running to save your own skin or, as you're doing now, picking up a baton to ensure the rest of us can't save ours? Cool. EDIT: On February 14 2025 23:06 Sadist wrote:GH if you wanted to make progress why not vote for Dems then strike? + Show Spoiler + At least then youd be dealing with a receptive and not fascist government. Its like you want to play on hard mode. One reason would be that my vote would not have even been counted before the election was called, while casting it for Dems would be making me complicit in genocide. Still voting for Dems despite that is heinously sadistic imo I just want to go back to this. Why is this not an important point? A lot of us in the midwest are in swing states while people from solidly blue or red states lob grenades not understanding potential consequences. + Show Spoiler +Its easy to be on the fence of being anti trump when you are not in a swing state. This is not reality for many people. Im not blaming the large muslim 3rd party vote in michigan for losing the election as white folks vote for republican en masse and if we could flip 5-10% dems would win every election. However, when everyone is forcibly removed from Gaza I hope everyone understands voting has consequences. You asked about my vote. But this again masks in delusion that you guys were telling people to shut up and fall in line behind Biden before the primary even started. As if we don't remember Democrats en masse gaslighting us and themselves about Biden totally being fine to make it through the primary and election and that even if he couldn't they'd knowingly vote for a clinically braindead Biden anyway. You needed to be shouting from the rooftops with everyone else demanding better, for a primary without Biden, or at least a pseudo primary where the different factions of Democrats make their cases to the public and then unite around their predetermined nominee anyway. I'd have still complained, but Biden would have been exposed earlier, left more time for a backup plan to take form, and potentially succeeded + Show Spoiler +(assuming this wasn't the intended outcome of his stubborn hubris) . We're there again. When you need to be shouting from the rooftops demanding better while doing work to bring it about. Instead, you're again trying to browbeat people into submission to a Democrat party that believes and acts like you are a worthless idiot to them. GH i feel like you try to drum up support against Dems to be an accelerationist in the hopes of getting things to be bad enough to sway people to your side. Thats the only logical conclusion I can come up with if you would rather change peoples minds and have a 10M person strike under a fascist government as opposed to the Democrats. It really doesnt make logical sense for me otherwise. For you and your friends it would make sense to have the strike in a less dangerous environment. I already pointed out, with receipts, that I was saying that in order for Democrats to win, they needed to be better (regardless of whether they could get my vote or not). Your feelings aren't supported by the record/facts, making your conclusions anything but logical. I agree that we probably all should have been supporting a general strike all the back to the occupy movement, but sorta like with the planting a tree thing, the next best time to do it is today. They were better. And it still wasn't enough. Your demands are arbitrary and unreasonable. This is the "I threw the pennies right at the homeless person making them richer than they were before, then they yelled at me!? What an ungrateful prick!?!?" defense and it is shamefully out of touch. Democrats and their supporters needed to demand better than Biden before the primary (when I was telling them as much), Biden/his staff needed the self-awareness to have Biden pass the torch like he said when he was running in 2020. Democrat supporters needed to have the wisdom/honesty to recognize Biden couldn't be their nominee if they wanted to win before the primary even started. Again though, it's not about my demands or my vote, it was about getting enough of the voters that already voted for Biden to vote for a Democrat in 2024. I'd also note this reinforces Kwark's plan of encouraging Democrats to be more fascist in order to win. Which is how we ended up with 50 years of voting for Democrats leading to their ultimate accomplishment being passing healthcare legislation that Republicans rejected 50 years ago as too right-wing. I feel like if you guys just take a couple steps back, a few deep breaths, you'll realize how absurd you all come off in this situation. + Show Spoiler +I feel like you're willfully ignoring the fact that many people here and out irl, did exactly what you are talking about. Biden being stubborn and waiting until his failure of a debate to step aside is no one's fault but his own. You're not "forcing" the President to step aside if he doesn't want to. + Show Spoiler + Get that thought out of your mind. This had to be his choice and his alone. He made it but it was too late. Literally everyone agrees on that part.
You keep repeating the same talking points to add fluff to your posts doesn't change the facts of the matter. You have no rebuttal besides parroting the same spiel over and over as if you were a republican. Are you a republican? Because it would take little convincing me that you were.
This is categorically not correct. He obviously has the most blame, but of course his top advisors and the top Democrats share in the blame quite directly. They knew Biden wasn't capable of running a general election campaign in his condition. Instead of doing something about it they gaslit the hell out of people until that blew up in their faces.
He was forced to step down. Biden refused right up until he was shown that he absolutely couldn't win, so Pelosi had no choice but to threaten him with burning down the party at the convention as his legacy. He absolutely would have ran and lost if Pelosi let him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
