|
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 March 26 2025 06:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2025 06:06 Laurens wrote:
Vance also visiting Greenland now.
They’re not really going to annex it right, right? I'm leaning towards No - I think Trump is mostly just posturing and trying to show off how he can threaten everyone and still be untouchable - but who knows? If someone was going to arbitrarily decide to invade allied countries and destroy our relationships with the rest of the world, it would obviously be Trump.
On March 26 2025 00:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2025 20:33 WombaT wrote:On March 25 2025 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 25 2025 07:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 25 2025 07:30 Luolis wrote:
Imagine being Hillary right now :D Obama and Clinton and Biden and Harris were right about everything Trump-related. Always have been, always will be. LibHorizons: Except for the most important things; being the right people/having the correct politics to beat him. Also Clinton's Pied Piper thing is a pretty big exception that also helped make Trump president. What is the charge of this Pied Piper thing? It seems to read much like the various campaigns were somewhat blindsided by Trump at every new hurdle he cleared, and thought he’d be a lock to beat in a Presidential. Which, to be fair, most of us were thinking at the time. “I admit to being suckered into every narrative that predicted Trump’s demise over and over,” said Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy, a Clinton ally. “I admittedly was a pretty consistent skeptic that they were ultimately going to nominate this buffoon, so I probably came to the realization that he was the nominee as late as anybody."
“I was in denial for a very long time,” added former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, the one-time presidential candidate and DNC chair. “I tell people I was wrong for 52 weeks in a row starting in June.”
That aside it seems a bit rich to simultaneously be digging up the failings of the 2016 campaign, and sidestepping awkward questions on 2024 with a ‘we have to move on folks, what are we doing now?’ I’ve no issues with either but be consistent on this at least. + Show Spoiler +LibHorizons: Hillary literally intentionally helped Trump become the nominee, and therefore, president. So to take Bush down, Clinton’s team drew up a plan to pump Trump up.
“... can serve as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right. ...we don’t want to marginalize the more extreme candidates, but make them more ‘Pied Piper’ candidates who actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party,” Republicans moving right under Trump's leadership was deliberately encouraged by Clinton and her campaign. Instead of making them easier to beat and Hillary Clinton president like she thought it would, it made Republicans more effective at stripping people of their rights with Democrats help. Hillary made possibly the biggest political mistake of our lives and it's quite the exception to always being right about Trump. It came up because of DPB's ahistorical Third Way bootlicking. It only emboldens Third Way dead enders in the fight for the future of the party that my fellow libs/Dems/ilk seem largely unwilling/incapable of engaging with at any length.
LibHorizons: Case in point.
You're all demonstrably far more interested in pointing/gawking at, and mocking the latest stupid things right wingers say/do, along with the rise of fascism, than discussing/doing anything meaningful about any of it.
That's not an opinion, that's an observable/demonstrable fact.
That's a choice you all make, and that's your prerogative. However, a major reason it matters is that those choices and the people that make them are among the top reasons (mostly Third Way) Democrats will continue to enable Trump until they are powerless to stop him, if that hasn't already happened.
I'm desperately trying to see a way forward with/as Democrats, because it seems that making a viable run with a 3rd/workers' party is all but impossible in the US under these conditions. Unfortunately, all the libs/Dems/ilk that could be discussing how to do that, instead just mock and gawk right winger nonsense/rising fascism like political mean girls.
You all are but a tiny offbeat sampling of the people that potentially stand between us and a fascist future, but even us here, in this moment have to get much more serious about how we're going to stop what is happening or we're all actually screwed.
|
On March 26 2025 10:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2025 06:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 26 2025 06:06 Laurens wrote:
Vance also visiting Greenland now.
They’re not really going to annex it right, right? I'm leaning towards No - I think Trump is mostly just posturing and trying to show off how he can threaten everyone and still be untouchable - but who knows? If someone was going to arbitrarily decide to invade allied countries and destroy our relationships with the rest of the world, it would obviously be Trump. Show nested quote +On March 26 2025 00:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 25 2025 20:33 WombaT wrote:On March 25 2025 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 25 2025 07:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 25 2025 07:30 Luolis wrote:
Imagine being Hillary right now :D Obama and Clinton and Biden and Harris were right about everything Trump-related. Always have been, always will be. LibHorizons: Except for the most important things; being the right people/having the correct politics to beat him. Also Clinton's Pied Piper thing is a pretty big exception that also helped make Trump president. What is the charge of this Pied Piper thing? It seems to read much like the various campaigns were somewhat blindsided by Trump at every new hurdle he cleared, and thought he’d be a lock to beat in a Presidential. Which, to be fair, most of us were thinking at the time. “I admit to being suckered into every narrative that predicted Trump’s demise over and over,” said Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy, a Clinton ally. “I admittedly was a pretty consistent skeptic that they were ultimately going to nominate this buffoon, so I probably came to the realization that he was the nominee as late as anybody."
“I was in denial for a very long time,” added former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, the one-time presidential candidate and DNC chair. “I tell people I was wrong for 52 weeks in a row starting in June.”
That aside it seems a bit rich to simultaneously be digging up the failings of the 2016 campaign, and sidestepping awkward questions on 2024 with a ‘we have to move on folks, what are we doing now?’ I’ve no issues with either but be consistent on this at least. + Show Spoiler +LibHorizons: Hillary literally intentionally helped Trump become the nominee, and therefore, president. So to take Bush down, Clinton’s team drew up a plan to pump Trump up.
“... can serve as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right. ...we don’t want to marginalize the more extreme candidates, but make them more ‘Pied Piper’ candidates who actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party,” Republicans moving right under Trump's leadership was deliberately encouraged by Clinton and her campaign. Instead of making them easier to beat and Hillary Clinton president like she thought it would, it made Republicans more effective at stripping people of their rights with Democrats help. Hillary made possibly the biggest political mistake of our lives and it's quite the exception to always being right about Trump. It came up because of DPB's ahistorical Third Way bootlicking. It only emboldens Third Way dead enders in the fight for the future of the party that my fellow libs/Dems/ilk seem largely unwilling/incapable of engaging with at any length. LibHorizons: Case in point. You're all demonstrably far more interested in pointing/gawking at, and mocking the latest stupid things right wingers say/do, along with the rise of fascism, than discussing/doing anything meaningful about any of it. That's not an opinion, that's an observable/demonstrable fact. That's a choice you all make, and that's your prerogative. However, a major reason it matters is that those choices and the people that make them are among the top reasons (mostly Third Way) Democrats will continue to enable Trump until they are powerless to stop him, if that hasn't already happened. I'm desperately trying to see a way forward with/as Democrats, because it seems that making a viable run with a 3rd/workers' party is all but impossible in the US under these conditions. Unfortunately, all the libs/Dems/ilk that could be discussing how to do that, instead just mock and gawk right winger nonsense/rising fascism like political mean girls. You all are but a tiny offbeat sampling of the people that potentially stand between us and a fascist future, but even us here, in this moment have to get much more serious about how we're going to stop what is happening or we're all actually screwed.
I don't know why you're so stuck on forcing me into your mold, but it's not really doing anything productive.
DPB? Trump? Greenland? Maybe not? Case in point! Typical libcuckbootlickerthirdfourthfifthwaydemonrat.
"You're all demonstrably far more interested in pointing/gawking at, and mocking the latest stupid things right wingers say/do, along with the rise of fascism, than discussing/doing anything meaningful about any of it."
Okay, fine. How do you propose that you and I stop Trump from hypothetically invading Greenland?
|
On March 26 2025 11:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2025 10:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 26 2025 06:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 26 2025 06:06 Laurens wrote:
Vance also visiting Greenland now.
They’re not really going to annex it right, right? I'm leaning towards No - I think Trump is mostly just posturing and trying to show off how he can threaten everyone and still be untouchable - but who knows? If someone was going to arbitrarily decide to invade allied countries and destroy our relationships with the rest of the world, it would obviously be Trump. On March 26 2025 00:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 25 2025 20:33 WombaT wrote:On March 25 2025 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 25 2025 07:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 25 2025 07:30 Luolis wrote:
Imagine being Hillary right now :D Obama and Clinton and Biden and Harris were right about everything Trump-related. Always have been, always will be. LibHorizons: Except for the most important things; being the right people/having the correct politics to beat him. Also Clinton's Pied Piper thing is a pretty big exception that also helped make Trump president. What is the charge of this Pied Piper thing? It seems to read much like the various campaigns were somewhat blindsided by Trump at every new hurdle he cleared, and thought he’d be a lock to beat in a Presidential. Which, to be fair, most of us were thinking at the time. “I admit to being suckered into every narrative that predicted Trump’s demise over and over,” said Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy, a Clinton ally. “I admittedly was a pretty consistent skeptic that they were ultimately going to nominate this buffoon, so I probably came to the realization that he was the nominee as late as anybody."
“I was in denial for a very long time,” added former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, the one-time presidential candidate and DNC chair. “I tell people I was wrong for 52 weeks in a row starting in June.”
That aside it seems a bit rich to simultaneously be digging up the failings of the 2016 campaign, and sidestepping awkward questions on 2024 with a ‘we have to move on folks, what are we doing now?’ I’ve no issues with either but be consistent on this at least. + Show Spoiler +LibHorizons: Hillary literally intentionally helped Trump become the nominee, and therefore, president. So to take Bush down, Clinton’s team drew up a plan to pump Trump up.
“... can serve as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right. ...we don’t want to marginalize the more extreme candidates, but make them more ‘Pied Piper’ candidates who actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party,” Republicans moving right under Trump's leadership was deliberately encouraged by Clinton and her campaign. Instead of making them easier to beat and Hillary Clinton president like she thought it would, it made Republicans more effective at stripping people of their rights with Democrats help. Hillary made possibly the biggest political mistake of our lives and it's quite the exception to always being right about Trump. It came up because of DPB's ahistorical Third Way bootlicking. It only emboldens Third Way dead enders in the fight for the future of the party that my fellow libs/Dems/ilk seem largely unwilling/incapable of engaging with at any length. LibHorizons: Case in point. You're all demonstrably far more interested in pointing/gawking at, and mocking the latest stupid things right wingers say/do, along with the rise of fascism, than discussing/doing anything meaningful about any of it. That's not an opinion, that's an observable/demonstrable fact. That's a choice you all make, and that's your prerogative. However, a major reason it matters is that those choices and the people that make them are among the top reasons (mostly Third Way) Democrats will continue to enable Trump until they are powerless to stop him, if that hasn't already happened. I'm desperately trying to see a way forward with/as Democrats, because it seems that making a viable run with a 3rd/workers' party is all but impossible in the US under these conditions. Unfortunately, all the libs/Dems/ilk that could be discussing how to do that, instead just mock and gawk right winger nonsense/rising fascism like political mean girls. You all are but a tiny offbeat sampling of the people that potentially stand between us and a fascist future, but even us here, in this moment have to get much more serious about how we're going to stop what is happening or we're all actually screwed. + Show Spoiler +
I don't know why you're so stuck on forcing me into your mold, but it's not really doing anything productive.
DPB? Trump? Greenland? Maybe not? Case in point! Typical libcuckbootlickerthirdfourthfifthwaydemonrat.
"You're all demonstrably far more interested in pointing/gawking at, and mocking the latest stupid things right wingers say/do, along with the rise of fascism, than discussing/doing anything meaningful about any of it." Okay, fine. How do you propose that you and I stop Trump from hypothetically invading Greenland? LibHorizons: I would put the nonsensical rhetoric about Greenland pretty low on the priority list. It's likely the sort of troll/distraction many of us have pointed out Trump is fond of doing to distract from the more devastating and problematic things he's actually doing/done and/or what we can do about it
More generally we should be organizing resistance (The #Resistance from rank and file Democrat voters seemingly pretty nonexistent this time) around the plan I've been suggesting while refining and empowering it/us.
RenSc2 put forward something I agree with. That we can/should target all the Democrats that enabled Trump with his budget while extracting nothing in return (even Pelosi criticized Schumer for this).
Since many of them are retiring and/or not up for reelection until 2028 or later, I think one of the most immediate manifestations of this fight for the future of the party is pressuring Schumer out as leader. Probably with eyes on possibly replacing him in the Senate with AOC in 2028, if she isn't on the presidential ticket.
I know GH is ready for a general strike every day, but I do think we're all going to have to figure out what Trump could do that would finally make us say we HAVE to stop what is happening IMMEDIATELY by grinding everything from schools, to transportation, to labs, to construction, to offices, to retail, to government itself to a halt until xyz demands are met.
Several posters from other countries have mentioned their confusion/dismay at how disinterested Democrat voters/people generally in the US seem to be in the sort of mass protests we've seen in other countries to oppose their own governments doing this kind of stuff. I'm inclined to agree with their concern.
While the Greenland thing is probably a red herring, Trump is already disappearing people, ignoring courts, and plans to keep doing increasingly more heinous things that he's not even trying to hide. But let's say he did invade Greenland, would that be enough for us to do a general strike? Or would we have to wait until Trump did something worse than invade a NATO ally to stop going about our lives as normal as we can?
|
Northern Ireland26028 Posts
On March 26 2025 10:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2025 06:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 26 2025 06:06 Laurens wrote:
Vance also visiting Greenland now.
They’re not really going to annex it right, right? I'm leaning towards No - I think Trump is mostly just posturing and trying to show off how he can threaten everyone and still be untouchable - but who knows? If someone was going to arbitrarily decide to invade allied countries and destroy our relationships with the rest of the world, it would obviously be Trump. Show nested quote +On March 26 2025 00:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 25 2025 20:33 WombaT wrote:On March 25 2025 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 25 2025 07:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 25 2025 07:30 Luolis wrote:
Imagine being Hillary right now :D Obama and Clinton and Biden and Harris were right about everything Trump-related. Always have been, always will be. LibHorizons: Except for the most important things; being the right people/having the correct politics to beat him. Also Clinton's Pied Piper thing is a pretty big exception that also helped make Trump president. What is the charge of this Pied Piper thing? It seems to read much like the various campaigns were somewhat blindsided by Trump at every new hurdle he cleared, and thought he’d be a lock to beat in a Presidential. Which, to be fair, most of us were thinking at the time. “I admit to being suckered into every narrative that predicted Trump’s demise over and over,” said Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy, a Clinton ally. “I admittedly was a pretty consistent skeptic that they were ultimately going to nominate this buffoon, so I probably came to the realization that he was the nominee as late as anybody."
“I was in denial for a very long time,” added former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, the one-time presidential candidate and DNC chair. “I tell people I was wrong for 52 weeks in a row starting in June.”
That aside it seems a bit rich to simultaneously be digging up the failings of the 2016 campaign, and sidestepping awkward questions on 2024 with a ‘we have to move on folks, what are we doing now?’ I’ve no issues with either but be consistent on this at least. + Show Spoiler +LibHorizons: Hillary literally intentionally helped Trump become the nominee, and therefore, president. So to take Bush down, Clinton’s team drew up a plan to pump Trump up.
“... can serve as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right. ...we don’t want to marginalize the more extreme candidates, but make them more ‘Pied Piper’ candidates who actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party,” Republicans moving right under Trump's leadership was deliberately encouraged by Clinton and her campaign. Instead of making them easier to beat and Hillary Clinton president like she thought it would, it made Republicans more effective at stripping people of their rights with Democrats help. Hillary made possibly the biggest political mistake of our lives and it's quite the exception to always being right about Trump. It came up because of DPB's ahistorical Third Way bootlicking. It only emboldens Third Way dead enders in the fight for the future of the party that my fellow libs/Dems/ilk seem largely unwilling/incapable of engaging with at any length. LibHorizons: Case in point. You're all demonstrably far more interested in pointing/gawking at, and mocking the latest stupid things right wingers say/do, along with the rise of fascism, than discussing/doing anything meaningful about any of it. That's not an opinion, that's an observable/demonstrable fact. That's a choice you all make, and that's your prerogative. However, a major reason it matters is that those choices and the people that make them are among the top reasons (mostly Third Way) Democrats will continue to enable Trump until they are powerless to stop him, if that hasn't already happened. I'm desperately trying to see a way forward with/as Democrats, because it seems that making a viable run with a 3rd/workers' party is all but impossible in the US under these conditions. Unfortunately, all the libs/Dems/ilk that could be discussing how to do that, instead just mock and gawk right winger nonsense/rising fascism like political mean girls. You all are but a tiny offbeat sampling of the people that potentially stand between us and a fascist future, but even us here, in this moment have to get much more serious about how we're going to stop what is happening or we're all actually screwed.
You’re pointing out the Clinton campaign fucking up by underestimating Trump being well, actually electable.
Accurate, but it begs the question that if the country is more susceptible to right wing populism than the Dem apparatus thought, how is that going to be fertile ground for some big left wing swing?
Furthermore you seem to want to simultaneously slam the past political misjudgements of others, but not own any of those you, or those similarly have made. While calling decent folks like DPB a boolicker in the process.
If you can’t own your fuckups, why would anyone listen to you?
You don’t have to disavow your principles or anything, but you can’t simultaneously bitch about Dem strategy leading to bad outcomes and sidestep the ‘how did Trump getting in help Gaza?’ one.
I’ve a lot of time for your politics in general, but this is nonsense.
|
It would really really suck to be one of the US soldiers serving in Greenland right now. Going from ally to threat over something completely out of their control. I'm guessing that leaving the base is either not an option or a much less pleasant one. If it is just a joke, it is certainly a mean spirited one.
|
I think GH really confuses no one wanting to discuss the very real things needed to win the next election with no one wanting to discuss it with him. Its really hard to take seriously someone tryign to scold you on not careing about the issues when you clearly just showed from the last election you don't give a single shit about any of the issues. We all know when it comes time to actually support any of the changes needed in this country GH will be first in line to fight against them for not being enough change or no the change he specifically wants.
He has to come up with different personas in order to even begin to discuss these things because hes not honest enough with himself to admit that he doesn't give a shit about schools justice or poverty enough to even find out that there is slavery on the ballet until the day of the election.
He wonders why the people he calls genocide supporters aren't interested in having a discussion with the alt persona hes created to sidestep him not being able to apologize for what hes said and done in the past. He thinks I'm a genocide supporter and I'm not interested in working with people who are okay with genocide supporters.
|
On March 26 2025 11:46 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2025 10:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 26 2025 06:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 26 2025 06:06 Laurens wrote:
Vance also visiting Greenland now.
They’re not really going to annex it right, right? I'm leaning towards No - I think Trump is mostly just posturing and trying to show off how he can threaten everyone and still be untouchable - but who knows? If someone was going to arbitrarily decide to invade allied countries and destroy our relationships with the rest of the world, it would obviously be Trump. On March 26 2025 00:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 25 2025 20:33 WombaT wrote:On March 25 2025 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 25 2025 07:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 25 2025 07:30 Luolis wrote:
Imagine being Hillary right now :D Obama and Clinton and Biden and Harris were right about everything Trump-related. Always have been, always will be. LibHorizons: Except for the most important things; being the right people/having the correct politics to beat him. Also Clinton's Pied Piper thing is a pretty big exception that also helped make Trump president. What is the charge of this Pied Piper thing? It seems to read much like the various campaigns were somewhat blindsided by Trump at every new hurdle he cleared, and thought he’d be a lock to beat in a Presidential. Which, to be fair, most of us were thinking at the time. “I admit to being suckered into every narrative that predicted Trump’s demise over and over,” said Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy, a Clinton ally. “I admittedly was a pretty consistent skeptic that they were ultimately going to nominate this buffoon, so I probably came to the realization that he was the nominee as late as anybody."
“I was in denial for a very long time,” added former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, the one-time presidential candidate and DNC chair. “I tell people I was wrong for 52 weeks in a row starting in June.”
That aside it seems a bit rich to simultaneously be digging up the failings of the 2016 campaign, and sidestepping awkward questions on 2024 with a ‘we have to move on folks, what are we doing now?’ I’ve no issues with either but be consistent on this at least. + Show Spoiler +LibHorizons: Hillary literally intentionally helped Trump become the nominee, and therefore, president. So to take Bush down, Clinton’s team drew up a plan to pump Trump up.
“... can serve as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right. ...we don’t want to marginalize the more extreme candidates, but make them more ‘Pied Piper’ candidates who actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party,” Republicans moving right under Trump's leadership was deliberately encouraged by Clinton and her campaign. Instead of making them easier to beat and Hillary Clinton president like she thought it would, it made Republicans more effective at stripping people of their rights with Democrats help. Hillary made possibly the biggest political mistake of our lives and it's quite the exception to always being right about Trump. It came up because of DPB's ahistorical Third Way bootlicking. It only emboldens Third Way dead enders in the fight for the future of the party that my fellow libs/Dems/ilk seem largely unwilling/incapable of engaging with at any length. LibHorizons: Case in point. You're all demonstrably far more interested in pointing/gawking at, and mocking the latest stupid things right wingers say/do, along with the rise of fascism, than discussing/doing anything meaningful about any of it. That's not an opinion, that's an observable/demonstrable fact. That's a choice you all make, and that's your prerogative. However, a major reason it matters is that those choices and the people that make them are among the top reasons (mostly Third Way) Democrats will continue to enable Trump until they are powerless to stop him, if that hasn't already happened. I'm desperately trying to see a way forward with/as Democrats, because it seems that making a viable run with a 3rd/workers' party is all but impossible in the US under these conditions. Unfortunately, all the libs/Dems/ilk that could be discussing how to do that, instead just mock and gawk right winger nonsense/rising fascism like political mean girls. You all are but a tiny offbeat sampling of the people that potentially stand between us and a fascist future, but even us here, in this moment have to get much more serious about how we're going to stop what is happening or we're all actually screwed. + Show Spoiler +You’re pointing out the Clinton campaign fucking up by underestimating Trump being well, actually electable.
Accurate, but it begs the question that if the country is more susceptible to right wing populism than the Dem apparatus thought, how is that going to be fertile ground for some big left wing swing?
Furthermore you seem to want to simultaneously slam the past political misjudgements of others, but not own any of those you, or those similarly have made. While calling decent folks like DPB a boolicker in the process. If you can’t own your fuckups, why would anyone listen to you? + Show Spoiler +You don’t have to disavow your principles or anything, but you can’t simultaneously bitch about Dem strategy leading to bad outcomes and sidestep the ‘how did Trump getting in help Gaza?’ one.
I’ve a lot of time for your politics in general, but this is nonsense. LibHorizons: I voted for Harris. What more did you want?
If not listening to my contributions was the problem, that'd be an improvement. Right now Dems/libs/ilk here aren't discussing their alternatives/improvements to the best plan presented here.
This is also what I'm talking about with libs/Dems/ilk here not being politically mature enough to move beyond their personal peccadillos with GH to engage in serious discussions here about the future of the Democratic party and the country generally.
Serm, DPB, RenSC2, Sadist, and myself all have at least slightly different visions/preferences of how to move forward. They (along with plenty of others) could at least be discussing this among themselves, even if they see some value in mean girling me (LibHorizons) and GH out of consideration in that discussion.
|
My brother in Christ you are creating alternate personas because you yourself cannot move beyond your personal preccadillos with us to engage with us honestly.
Do you think we're dumb enough to think that libhorizons is a real person? Its not even a real effort to engage from a different viewpoint you're still trying to maintain your moral high ground over everyone else.
|
On March 26 2025 13:53 Sermokala wrote:My brother in Christ you are creating alternate personas because you yourself cannot move beyond your personal preccadillos with us to engage with us honestly. + Show Spoiler +
Do you think we're dumb enough to think that libhorizons is a real person? Its not even a real effort to engage from a different viewpoint you're still trying to maintain your moral high ground over everyone else.
LibHorizons: That's objectively not why.
On February 21 2025 22:24 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2025 22:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 21 2025 21:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 21 2025 18:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Steve Bannon just gave a Nazi salute during a CPAC speech, after saying that Trump should be president during the 2028 term too. Is it more or less plausibly deniable than Musk's? My initial reaction was that it was weaker than Musk's, but without the "my heart goes out to you" cover, it feels a bit more naked even if less enthusiastic. Ezra Klein recently opened his show by pointing out he talked to a bunch of Democrats about what they would be doing if they had won control of the House, Senate, and Presidency. They all told him they didn't know. If people are going to insist on relying on Democrats, they are going to need to demand better/more of them. Democrats (ultimately capitalists generally too, but they are freebasing with Trump/Musk right now) need a Project 2026/New Deal to rally around. Obviously my version would be much further left than anything they'd come up with, but every hour they go without having this as THE "other thing to talk about" besides whatever Trump and his cronies are breaking, is unforgivable political malpractice. Less enthusiastic than Musk's two Nazi salutes, definitely. Doesn't make it any less plausible imo though; they both know what they're signaling. Feel like Bannon's lack of enthusiasm was meant for the "see they call everyone a Nazi!" troll but just read as a sign of weakness to me. Means there's still time to do something. I think that should be socialist in nature. You have inexplicably and steadfastly refused to join those efforts afaict. Opting instead to echo JO's call for contacting politicians ( I did this btw, don't know if you tried, but pretty sure it just went to a "not my constituent" Voicemail purgatory?) and threats of primaries. I'd like this to be reciprocal, but I'll make the first steps regardless. I'll try make a good faith effort to post/act as a lib/Dem/ilk in the context of this thread like I've requested of you and others to do as socialists in my blog. This is your (and the rest of the libs/Dems/ilk) chance to point me in the direction you prefer. You could also all demonstrate your own capacity to act in good faith reciprocity to at least seriously consider the alternatives on the table for organizing against the rising tide of fascism in the US and beyond.
GH: If you all make a more convincing case to me than socialism, I'd be thrilled to learn and support it. As of yet, you've all collectively over the course of ~5 months since Harris lost, failed to offer anything remotely as clear, straightforward and considered as LibHorizons' plan (which is admittedly incomplete). I'd certainly prefer you all become socialists (or at least adopt personas) and engage on my blog, but for literally everyone in the world's sake I'd like to at least be able to see you all discuss your lib/Dem/ilk plans/solutions to see the details being worked through and actions being taken.
You don't win any prizes or points by refusing to do that obviously necessary work and blaming me/mean girling LibHorizons. You just look petty and unhelpful.
|
+ Show Spoiler +You might have just gotten socialism, just not on the spectrum you expected. The national kind. Cyberenvanced, with a guy who roleplays batman and sauron who sells driving molotov cocktails and tanks and a president who grabs issues by the pussy.
It‘s like a dystopia but somewhat comical.
That was just the obvious though.
I don‘t have anything against the companies per say, rather the political influence taking.
|
Green Horizons: Here is my issue with your proposal for a plan based on Bernie Sanders supported models:
Medicare for all is not actually that popular among the US voters. There are certain polls that exist that seem to show that inflate its popularity through vaguely formatted questions. However, in general once you get into the meat and potatoes of the actual changes that would need to happen to implement this policy support drops off quickly.
The above problem is exacerbated by the other main issue with courting people on progressive issues: Progressives are an absolute dogshit voter base, who find every excuse to tear down representatives and not vote for them.
There is no better example than the ACA. The Democrats originally tried to include a public option, however it famously had to be dropped due to critical opposition from Lieberman. There are many issues with the ACA, however it is simply undeniable that it accomplished basically everything that could be accomplished with the political capital that the Democrats had at the time.
Now, what happened to the politicians who did their best to implement this agenda and improve health care in America? They got massacred. They got massacred on the right, but more insidiously they got massacred by the progressive left who were unsatisfied that their one small effort of voting in one big election didn't result in everything they wanted being accomplished in one fell swoop. As a result, rather than building momentum for future improvements, Democrats got massacred in the 2010 midterms, and the ACA has been chipped away at ever since.
That is what happens to people who stick their neck out on progressive issues. When they inevitably are not able to accomplish every single thing that progressive voters want (because it's literally impossible with our political system), they will turn on you. They are fundamentally lazy. They don't show up to off-year elections. They don't canvas well outside of areas they already have significant control. They have no sense of progressive improvement, of pragmatism, and of setting and celebrating achievable goals.
You're operating on the false assumption that if the Dems go far enough left that the voters will show up. That's not how it's ever worked, and they've been burned on that before. Politicians will always support the viewpoints of the people who form reliable portions of their base. Political representation follows political engagement, not the other way around.
|
You're operating on the false assumption that if the Dems go far enough left that the voters will show up. That's not how it's ever worked, and they've been burned on that before. Politicians will always support the viewpoints of the people who form reliable portions of their base. Political representation follows political engagement, not the other way around.
How did hanging around with the Cheneys and promising to have Republicans in the cabinet work out for Democrats this time around lmao. Swinging to the right doesnt work.
|
Seems more and more likely that your 2 party system has broken (even though technically it isn't a 2 party system) and there's a heavy need to have more people vote for different parties, which might take some time to adjust, which I don't know if it ever will.
Also, you absolutely need to abandon FPTP system. Makes no sense. Relative representation is actually where it's at.
|
On March 26 2025 22:55 Uldridge wrote:
Seems more and more likely that your 2 party system has broken (even though technically it isn't a 2 party system) and there's a heavy need to have more people vote for different parties, which might take some time to adjust, which I don't know if it ever will.
Also, you absolutely need to abandon FPTP system. Makes no sense. Relative representation is actually where it's at.
God willing, but politician resisting
|
On March 26 2025 22:55 Uldridge wrote:
Seems more and more likely that your 2 party system has broken (even though technically it isn't a 2 party system) and there's a heavy need to have more people vote for different parties, which might take some time to adjust, which I don't know if it ever will.
Also, you absolutely need to abandon FPTP system. Makes no sense. Relative representation is actually where it's at.
It's not a bug, it's a feature. The 2 party FPTP system allows for both major political parties to do fuck all and still keep getting elected and keep raising money. They never have to worry about losing power, they never have to worry about some upstart competition forcing them out, they don't really need to do anything except some performative opposition to the other side and some vague gestures towards stuff their half of the voter base cares about. Why would either the Reps or the Dems upset the status quo that literally guarantees their continued existence?
|
How did hanging around with the Cheneys and promising to have Republicans in the cabinet work out for Democrats this time around lmao. Swinging to the right doesnt work.
Thank you so much for proving my point. So, the fact that Harris had a few meetings with Cheney and touted that her support symbolized a very real component of the Republican / center voter base who is disgusted with Trump's flaunting of the rule of law is something you're willing to grill her over or convince progressives to stay home?
If this is enough to turn off progressive voters, then inevitably any politician who's interested in being anything more than an activist or demagogue will run foul of this. There is no path towards being an actually effective politician in the USA's political landscape, and simultaneously pass the purity tests of the progressive base.
It doesn't matter how many progressive policy positions of the progressive left she picked up or supported. Progressives found some excuse not to care, and as a result set back their own agenda by decades. And to be clear, I am very much in support of most progressive policy positions. I'm an American who grew up in Canada and is currently living in Denmark, and I think it's one of the best countries in the world. I wish that my home country had the same form of labor support, social security net, and childcare benefits that exist in this country. However, I also recognize that the toxic mindset demonstrated by modern American progressives will never achieve these things, unless you're actually willing to learn how to play politics and actually act like a reliable and sane voter base.
|
Because every election cycle the US becomes more unhinged? You could even argue that MAGA initially seceded from the traditional Republican party until they all fell in line (to keep their power).
I'd rather see reforms instead of implosions, but we'll see how things will turn out I guess. Not seeing it cool off in the upcoming years though.
|
On March 26 2025 22:41 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +You're operating on the false assumption that if the Dems go far enough left that the voters will show up. That's not how it's ever worked, and they've been burned on that before. Politicians will always support the viewpoints of the people who form reliable portions of their base. Political representation follows political engagement, not the other way around. How did hanging around with the Cheneys and promising to have Republicans in the cabinet work out for Democrats this time around lmao. Swinging to the right doesnt work.
They miscalculated in that they thought the Cheneys and trying to build a bridge towards bipartisanship would bring them votes. Maybe they were too idealistic in that we are not trending towards kinder politics.
I think this applies to the US too www.theguardian.com, it was brought up a few pages back.
Leftwing activists in Britain are less likely to work with their political opponents than other groups and more likely to think those holding different views have been misled, a study has found.
The research also shows the group is more likely to dislike and criticise those that disagree with them than other voting blocs, a trait the report’s authors argue has contributed to the repeated failure of progressive campaigns and the rise of the global far right.
Perhaps the discussion shouldn't be about whether tacking left or towards the right would've been the right move, but more about how to engage effectively with the American people? Clearly, telling Trump voters that they're stupid hasn't worked, maybe time to try a different strategy?
|
On March 26 2025 23:59 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2025 22:41 Zambrah wrote:You're operating on the false assumption that if the Dems go far enough left that the voters will show up. That's not how it's ever worked, and they've been burned on that before. Politicians will always support the viewpoints of the people who form reliable portions of their base. Political representation follows political engagement, not the other way around. How did hanging around with the Cheneys and promising to have Republicans in the cabinet work out for Democrats this time around lmao. Swinging to the right doesnt work. They miscalculated in that they thought the Cheneys and trying to build a bridge towards bipartisanship would bring them votes. Maybe they were too idealistic in that we are not trending towards kinder politics. I think this applies to the US too www.theguardian.com, it was brought up a few pages back. Show nested quote +Leftwing activists in Britain are less likely to work with their political opponents than other groups and more likely to think those holding different views have been misled, a study has found.
The research also shows the group is more likely to dislike and criticise those that disagree with them than other voting blocs, a trait the report’s authors argue has contributed to the repeated failure of progressive campaigns and the rise of the global far right. Perhaps the discussion shouldn't be about whether tacking left or towards the right would've been the right move, but more about how to engage effectively with the American people? Clearly, telling Trump voters that they're stupid hasn't worked, maybe time to try a different strategy?
The strategy should be to appeal to the working class, energy the most people, the people who work for a living, to vote for you and then (this is the key part that Democrats love to weaponize their incompetence to avoid) deliver on making their lives meaningfully better.
That doesnt work for the billionaire donors though, so, y'know, maybe they'll see if they can snag the Bush family, maybe do a photo op with Jeb or something.
Thank you so much for proving my point. So, the fact that Harris had a few meetings with Cheney and touted that her support symbolized a very real component of the Republican / center voter base who is disgusted with Trump's flaunting of the rule of law is something you're willing to grill her over or convince progressives to stay home?
This did nothing to swing any conservative voters to her, all Harris did in her tack right was tell people who dont want conservatives in government that she would make sure to include conservatives in government.
Its absolutely brain dead. Swing voter strategies are brain dead, I have said this forever, Democrats win on turnout, not swinging 3 total conservatives across all of the US to vote for Democrats.
It doesn't matter how many progressive policy positions of the progressive left she picked up or supported.
Big part of the problem is Democrats incessant ineffectuality, they look actively willfully incompetent, noone expects them to do shit but capitulate to Republicans and themselves, they'll find excuses to break their promises and do nothing, thats the image Democrats have cultivated.
Democrats have basically jerked themselves off into a corner, noone trusts them to keep campaign promises so they cant really bank on people believing what they say, and they're weak and ineffectual do-nothings so when they do get into office they perpetuate people's lack of trust in them.
|
On March 26 2025 23:59 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2025 22:41 Zambrah wrote:You're operating on the false assumption that if the Dems go far enough left that the voters will show up. That's not how it's ever worked, and they've been burned on that before. Politicians will always support the viewpoints of the people who form reliable portions of their base. Political representation follows political engagement, not the other way around. How did hanging around with the Cheneys and promising to have Republicans in the cabinet work out for Democrats this time around lmao. Swinging to the right doesnt work. They miscalculated in that they thought the Cheneys and trying to build a bridge towards bipartisanship would bring them votes. Maybe they were too idealistic in that we are not trending towards kinder politics. I think this applies to the US too www.theguardian.com, it was brought up a few pages back. Show nested quote +Leftwing activists in Britain are less likely to work with their political opponents than other groups and more likely to think those holding different views have been misled, a study has found.
The research also shows the group is more likely to dislike and criticise those that disagree with them than other voting blocs, a trait the report’s authors argue has contributed to the repeated failure of progressive campaigns and the rise of the global far right. Perhaps the discussion shouldn't be about whether tacking left or towards the right would've been the right move, but more about how to engage effectively with the American people? Clearly, telling Trump voters that they're stupid hasn't worked, maybe time to try a different strategy?
That wasn't Harris's strategy, although I agree with you that "engaging effectively with the American people" is needed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
