|
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 September 30 2025 03:44 LightSpectra wrote:They scheduled the Medicaid defund to start in 2027, so they can point the fingers at Democrats after they retake the House in the previous year's midterms. But health care costs are already spiraling out of control, so even controlling so much of the media will make it hard for them to keep that illusion up.
There needs to be medicare for all (improved from regular medicare) so that we can implement price controls by negotiating as the largest possible blocks. This goes for procedures and drugs.
None of this is sustainable. Insurance has gotten more expensive for shittier coverage for years (higher premiums, higher deductables, more co pays, etc)
|
On September 30 2025 00:55 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2025 00:53 Sadist wrote:
You cant argue with GH. The goal posts will move and he wont change his mind.
Hes doing the right wingers a favor by attacking democrats and seemingly rarely if ever attacking republicans. That they're not a right-winger themself is a bold assumption. If you spend all day shitting on Democrats and repeating Republican talking points, you're practically indistinguishable from a Republican.
On September 30 2025 01:24 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2025 01:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 30 2025 00:53 Sadist wrote:
You cant argue with GH. The goal posts will move and he wont change his mind.
Hes doing the right wingers a favor by attacking democrats and seemingly rarely if ever attacking republicans.
It's funny because before I changed my mind (and became a socialist) I was a Democrat that got scolded here for attacking Republicans too much in the era of compromise/bipartisanship. Republicans are engaged in a genocidal attempt to enshrine a fascist/authoritarian/Technofeudalist future. Democrats have been helping them lay the foundations our entire lives. "Republicans are engaged in a genocidal attempt to enshrine a fascist/authoritarian/Technofeudalist future. That's why I 100% agree with them that Kamala Harris failed upwards because of DEI."
It's funny that you shamelessly replaced the actual next sentence with your invented whataboutism. I think Drone covered this sufficiently.
On July 22 2025 07:42 Liquid`Drone wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Tbh Excludos you might get a pass because presumably you've seen more of him in the Ukraine thread than the USpol thread. But even then you could look at the Norwegian political spectrum: Aiding Ukraine with weapons has had nearly unianimous support in among the political parties with parliamentary representation in Norway, all the way from FrP on the right to SV on the left. One party has been hesitant - because of their opposition to NATO and the American hegemony (not their support of Russia) - that party being Rødt, which I am sure you recognize as the 'considered most leftwing party we have'. The stuff you see GH stating about this conflict is stuff you'll see from internal discussions within that party.
Like for fuck's sake the guy has a blog called 'socialism, anyone?'
He's been posting about social democracy not being good enough because it still works within a capitalist (thus exploitative) framework for like, hundreds of posts over a decade? There's honestly no way to be polite about this - if you've read a lot of GH's posting and you conclude that he's a right-winger, either your reading comprehension or your understanding of political ideology is way off. Of course, for Serm, stating that he's a right winger is kind of on brand, as, as I just stated, there's no other poster more guilty of inventing opinions among his fellow forumers than he is, but christ. This isn't even me defending GH, it's just me being appalled. + Show Spoiler +It's like, when Nicaragua initially refused to sign the paris agreement, that wasn't because they didn't believe in climate change, it was because they thought it didn't go far enough and was basically a path to failure. That's GH compared to the other american posters here. Not that this will stop you...
On September 30 2025 00:59 Uldridge wrote:
First get your own house in order before criticizing someone else's is like one of the oldest proverb that's known more or less by every culture surely should hold some kind of wisdom, no?
Correct. They insist their strategy of incessantly mocking and gawking the right is preferable to actually discussing the best plan for Democrats moving forward that we've seen here. Or what Democrats have been doing instead thus far. + Show Spoiler +On September 30 2025 00:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2025 09:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 28 2025 07:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 28 2025 04:48 Mohdoo wrote:On September 28 2025 03:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 28 2025 03:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Donald Trump just invented a civil war in Portland and is now invading Oregon: Trump authorizes troops for Portland, escalating use of military inside U.S.
The president authorized the use of “Full force, if necessary,” in a campaign to use the military against Americans that has little modern precedent. ... Trump said in a social media post that he was directing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to provide troops to what he dubbed “War ravaged Portland” as well as “any of our ICE Facilities under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/09/27/trump-military-portland-ice/ So what, who cares, what is anyone going to do about it? I ask sardonically and seriously. Probably nothing. But who knows. Guess we’ll see. There will be plenty of protestors to join if you decide to make the trip down from Seattle Should there be protests? What kind should there be? Should elected Democrats be promoting them, opposing them, neither? What goals/demands should they have? What would success look like? How could people be working toward that success? Anyone/everyone is free to opine Schumer is leading Democrats letting them know the plan is to join him in hoping Republicans sign magically effective legislation to stop it. + Show Spoiler + For those still holding out hope on the Epstein files, Democrats want you to follow their lead of hoping Republicans will magically do the right thing. Is Democrat leadership strategy/plan of simply hoping Republicans do the right thing sensible? Is that leadership people should follow?
In part because we all know the answers to questions like: Is Democrat leadership strategy/plan of simply hoping Republicans do the right thing sensible? Is that leadership people should follow? aren't exactly inspiring.
|
Seems like Trump does not have to seek political asylum from Russia when he has Gaza to rule after the presidency is over.
|
On September 30 2025 00:59 Uldridge wrote:
First get your own house in order before criticizing someone else's is like one of the oldest proverb that's known more or less by every culture surely should hold some kind of wisdom, no?
Its a lot easier to do this when you actually hold the levers of power. Punching down on the democrats when they are out of power and blaming them for what the republicans are doing makes no sense.
We are in triage mode. Step 1 is to get out of the bad situation we are in. Not voting and punching down on democrats makes no sense.
GH has said himself he wont vote for them even if they acquiesce on his specific issue. He will just move onto the next issue.
I think hes an accelerationist btw. Thats the only thing that makes sense to me. Why else would you advocate to play on hard mode with the republicans in power?
|
A StarCraft 2 forum poster can't really punch down on an institution that spends more money in a single election cycle than that forum goer would spend across many, many generations
|
On September 30 2025 06:09 Zambrah wrote:
A StarCraft 2 forum poster can't really punch down on an institution that spends more money in a single election cycle than that forum goer would spend across many, many generations
The democrat party isn't just an institution its the infrastructure and the people who vote for it because its the only credible lefitst infrastructure that can contend in elections that matter on a national level. Minnesota has the farmer-laborer party but it can only surive by being an affilate of the democrat party beacuse thats how elections work when no one else bothers to form a party that isn't one of the big 2.
GH would rather the republicans win than see the democrats win, which just makes republicans win, his solution for making the democrats better is to make the democrats lose more, which just makes repubicans win. His solution to get support for his aims is to piss off and insult everyone he is trying to convince to his side, which just makes no sense if you're trying to do anything at all other than help republicans win.
|
GH's proposed strategy is both wrong and right at the same time.
Theoretically the correct strategy would be for people to simply never vote Republican, and to always vote Democrat when Republicans have a realistic shot at winning. So right now that means to literally always vote Democrat. Insofar GH is wrong. But that's purely theoretical.
The problem with that strategy is what GH correctly understands: it fails in practice. Enough people don't vote Democrat for the strategy to work. Dems, including some further to the left, need consistent support for Republicans to understand that they have to move away from the far-right to win any elections ever. That support for Dems just isn't there.
So, while GH is being called out rightfully on the one hand, he's also being used as a punching bag by people who don't have a better plan than he does. Nobody else here has a better strategy.
As long as that is the case, people have no real argument against him. They need to provide a better strategy before they can rightfully punch down on GH's views.
|
On September 30 2025 15:17 Magic Powers wrote:
GH's proposed strategy is both wrong and right at the same time.
Theoretically the correct strategy would be for people to simply never vote Republican, and to always vote Democrat when Republicans have a realistic shot at winning. So right now that means to literally always vote Democrat. Insofar GH is wrong. But that's purely theoretical.
The problem with that strategy is what GH correctly understands: it fails in practice. Enough people don't vote Democrat for the strategy to work. Dems, including some further to the left, need consistent support for Republicans to understand that they have to move away from the far-right to win any elections ever. That support for Dems just isn't there.
So, while GH is being called out rightfully on the one hand, he's also being used as a punching bag by people who don't have a better plan than he does. Nobody else here has a better strategy.
As long as that is the case, people have no real argument against him. They need to provide a better strategy before they can rightfully punch down on GH's views.
Maybe you should make the argument why repeating rightwing-adjacent talking points (which is what GH is doing) is a strategy that will yield the desired outcome: turn the US to socialism.
|
I mean GH doesn't really have a plan either, other than encouraging people to take meaningful action when presented with fascism (and trying to get people to think about what meaningful action might look like, etc). Kwark has also alluded to meaningful action people could take, but to be clear Kwark only suggests those actions in a video game. I have roughly equal understanding of those plans, and/or confidence that those pushing those plans actually intend to do them.
I don't know if "get people to think about what meaningful action they could take" constitutes a plan. Generally, I'm sympathetic toward GH's position, but I do appreciate people's frustration at the irony of "mocking and gawking". Shaming Americans into voting Democrat seems as effective as shaming Americans into socialist revolution.
I know that in my own world, I know exactly the people I call if fascism comes knocking at Canada's door, so I can contribute meaningfully in preventing such things.
|
On September 30 2025 17:13 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2025 15:17 Magic Powers wrote:
GH's proposed strategy is both wrong and right at the same time.
Theoretically the correct strategy would be for people to simply never vote Republican, and to always vote Democrat when Republicans have a realistic shot at winning. So right now that means to literally always vote Democrat. Insofar GH is wrong. But that's purely theoretical.
The problem with that strategy is what GH correctly understands: it fails in practice. Enough people don't vote Democrat for the strategy to work. Dems, including some further to the left, need consistent support for Republicans to understand that they have to move away from the far-right to win any elections ever. That support for Dems just isn't there.
So, while GH is being called out rightfully on the one hand, he's also being used as a punching bag by people who don't have a better plan than he does. Nobody else here has a better strategy.
As long as that is the case, people have no real argument against him. They need to provide a better strategy before they can rightfully punch down on GH's views. + Show Spoiler +Maybe you should make the argument why repeating rightwing-adjacent talking points ( which is what GH is doing) + Show Spoiler +is a strategy that will yield the desired outcome: turn the US to socialism.
Will you quote a couple recent examples of me doing that please? I'm genuinely curious what you're referencing.
|
On September 30 2025 17:22 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2025 17:13 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 30 2025 15:17 Magic Powers wrote:
GH's proposed strategy is both wrong and right at the same time.
Theoretically the correct strategy would be for people to simply never vote Republican, and to always vote Democrat when Republicans have a realistic shot at winning. So right now that means to literally always vote Democrat. Insofar GH is wrong. But that's purely theoretical.
The problem with that strategy is what GH correctly understands: it fails in practice. Enough people don't vote Democrat for the strategy to work. Dems, including some further to the left, need consistent support for Republicans to understand that they have to move away from the far-right to win any elections ever. That support for Dems just isn't there.
So, while GH is being called out rightfully on the one hand, he's also being used as a punching bag by people who don't have a better plan than he does. Nobody else here has a better strategy.
As long as that is the case, people have no real argument against him. They need to provide a better strategy before they can rightfully punch down on GH's views. + Show Spoiler +Maybe you should make the argument why repeating rightwing-adjacent talking points ( which is what GH is doing) + Show Spoiler +is a strategy that will yield the desired outcome: turn the US to socialism. Will you quote a couple recent examples of me doing that please? I'm genuinely curious what you're referencing.
It would be quicker if you explained how your approach of delegitimising the democrats as an effective political force differs from the rightwing strategy of delegitimising the democrats as an effective political force.
|
On September 30 2025 18:00 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2025 17:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 30 2025 17:13 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 30 2025 15:17 Magic Powers wrote:
GH's proposed strategy is both wrong and right at the same time.
Theoretically the correct strategy would be for people to simply never vote Republican, and to always vote Democrat when Republicans have a realistic shot at winning. So right now that means to literally always vote Democrat. Insofar GH is wrong. But that's purely theoretical.
The problem with that strategy is what GH correctly understands: it fails in practice. Enough people don't vote Democrat for the strategy to work. Dems, including some further to the left, need consistent support for Republicans to understand that they have to move away from the far-right to win any elections ever. That support for Dems just isn't there.
So, while GH is being called out rightfully on the one hand, he's also being used as a punching bag by people who don't have a better plan than he does. Nobody else here has a better strategy.
As long as that is the case, people have no real argument against him. They need to provide a better strategy before they can rightfully punch down on GH's views. + Show Spoiler +Maybe you should make the argument why repeating rightwing-adjacent talking points ( which is what GH is doing) + Show Spoiler +is a strategy that will yield the desired outcome: turn the US to socialism. Will you quote a couple recent examples of me doing that please? I'm genuinely curious what you're referencing. It would be quicker if you explained how your approach of delegitimising the democrats as an effective political force differs from the rightwing strategy of delegitimising the democrats as an effective political force.
Think it is quite obvious. If Democrats see massive drop off in people willing to vote for them, they will have to recalibrate. If they dont another party will show up to fill the void. (a bit like reform rise in UK)
Edit some grammar
|
On September 30 2025 18:30 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2025 18:00 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 30 2025 17:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 30 2025 17:13 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 30 2025 15:17 Magic Powers wrote:
GH's proposed strategy is both wrong and right at the same time.
Theoretically the correct strategy would be for people to simply never vote Republican, and to always vote Democrat when Republicans have a realistic shot at winning. So right now that means to literally always vote Democrat. Insofar GH is wrong. But that's purely theoretical.
The problem with that strategy is what GH correctly understands: it fails in practice. Enough people don't vote Democrat for the strategy to work. Dems, including some further to the left, need consistent support for Republicans to understand that they have to move away from the far-right to win any elections ever. That support for Dems just isn't there.
So, while GH is being called out rightfully on the one hand, he's also being used as a punching bag by people who don't have a better plan than he does. Nobody else here has a better strategy.
As long as that is the case, people have no real argument against him. They need to provide a better strategy before they can rightfully punch down on GH's views. + Show Spoiler +Maybe you should make the argument why repeating rightwing-adjacent talking points ( which is what GH is doing) + Show Spoiler +is a strategy that will yield the desired outcome: turn the US to socialism. Will you quote a couple recent examples of me doing that please? I'm genuinely curious what you're referencing. It would be quicker if you explained how your approach of delegitimising the democrats as an effective political force differs from the rightwing strategy of delegitimising the democrats as an effective political force. Think it is quite obvious. If Democrats see massive drop off in people willing to vote for them, they will have to recalibrate. If they dont another party will show up to fill the void. (a bit like reform rise in UK) Edit some grammar
So you are saying that they only differ in their ulterior motive, i.e. GH's objective is 'benign' as in he wants the democrats to lose support so they learn that they need to address his needs. However, both GH's approach and right-wing strategy coincide in the practical approach of eliminating obstacles to the implementation of a right-wing agenda.
|
On September 30 2025 18:00 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2025 17:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 30 2025 17:13 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 30 2025 15:17 Magic Powers wrote:
GH's proposed strategy is both wrong and right at the same time.
Theoretically the correct strategy would be for people to simply never vote Republican, and to always vote Democrat when Republicans have a realistic shot at winning. So right now that means to literally always vote Democrat. Insofar GH is wrong. But that's purely theoretical.
The problem with that strategy is what GH correctly understands: it fails in practice. Enough people don't vote Democrat for the strategy to work. Dems, including some further to the left, need consistent support for Republicans to understand that they have to move away from the far-right to win any elections ever. That support for Dems just isn't there.
So, while GH is being called out rightfully on the one hand, he's also being used as a punching bag by people who don't have a better plan than he does. Nobody else here has a better strategy.
As long as that is the case, people have no real argument against him. They need to provide a better strategy before they can rightfully punch down on GH's views. + Show Spoiler +Maybe you should make the argument why repeating rightwing-adjacent talking points ( which is what GH is doing) + Show Spoiler +is a strategy that will yield the desired outcome: turn the US to socialism. Will you quote a couple recent examples of me doing that please? I'm genuinely curious what you're referencing. It would be quicker if you explained how your approach of delegitimising the democrats as an effective political force differs from the rightwing strategy of delegitimising the democrats as an effective political force.
Democrat leaders have delegitimized themselves as a (sufficiently) effective political force. Biden refusing to drop out throughout all of 2024, then suddenly unilaterally nominating Harris with no regard to strategic optimization after he finally did drop out far too late. He effectively flipped off the entire Democrat support base. He broke the campaign.
What the heck was he thinking? Was he just being spiteful? What happened there?
More importantly, how could this be allowed? Just because he was the sitting president he could do that without consulting with his peers? That's total madness.
The Democrat party lost cohesion in 2024 and opened the door to Trump's fascism. They carry a large amount of fault.
If they want to regain strength and trust, they'll have to get their shit in order. Is that happening? Are they uniting now and ensuring this kind of shitshow won't happen again in the future?
|
On September 30 2025 19:09 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2025 18:30 Razyda wrote:On September 30 2025 18:00 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 30 2025 17:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 30 2025 17:13 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 30 2025 15:17 Magic Powers wrote:
GH's proposed strategy is both wrong and right at the same time.
Theoretically the correct strategy would be for people to simply never vote Republican, and to always vote Democrat when Republicans have a realistic shot at winning. So right now that means to literally always vote Democrat. Insofar GH is wrong. But that's purely theoretical.
The problem with that strategy is what GH correctly understands: it fails in practice. Enough people don't vote Democrat for the strategy to work. Dems, including some further to the left, need consistent support for Republicans to understand that they have to move away from the far-right to win any elections ever. That support for Dems just isn't there.
So, while GH is being called out rightfully on the one hand, he's also being used as a punching bag by people who don't have a better plan than he does. Nobody else here has a better strategy.
As long as that is the case, people have no real argument against him. They need to provide a better strategy before they can rightfully punch down on GH's views. + Show Spoiler +Maybe you should make the argument why repeating rightwing-adjacent talking points ( which is what GH is doing) + Show Spoiler +is a strategy that will yield the desired outcome: turn the US to socialism. Will you quote a couple recent examples of me doing that please? I'm genuinely curious what you're referencing. It would be quicker if you explained how your approach of delegitimising the democrats as an effective political force differs from the rightwing strategy of delegitimising the democrats as an effective political force. Think it is quite obvious. If Democrats see massive drop off in people willing to vote for them, they will have to recalibrate. If they dont another party will show up to fill the void. (a bit like reform rise in UK) Edit some grammar So you are saying that they only differ in their ulterior motive, i.e. GH's objective is 'benign' as in he wants the democrats to lose support so they learn that they need to address his needs. However, both GH's approach and right-wing strategy coincide in the practical approach of eliminating obstacles to the implementation of a right-wing agenda.
Not really. Republicans want Democrats to loose support, while gain support for Republicans. GH doesnt seem to be advocating support for Republicans.
|
On September 30 2025 19:22 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2025 19:09 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 30 2025 18:30 Razyda wrote:On September 30 2025 18:00 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 30 2025 17:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 30 2025 17:13 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 30 2025 15:17 Magic Powers wrote:
GH's proposed strategy is both wrong and right at the same time.
Theoretically the correct strategy would be for people to simply never vote Republican, and to always vote Democrat when Republicans have a realistic shot at winning. So right now that means to literally always vote Democrat. Insofar GH is wrong. But that's purely theoretical.
The problem with that strategy is what GH correctly understands: it fails in practice. Enough people don't vote Democrat for the strategy to work. Dems, including some further to the left, need consistent support for Republicans to understand that they have to move away from the far-right to win any elections ever. That support for Dems just isn't there.
So, while GH is being called out rightfully on the one hand, he's also being used as a punching bag by people who don't have a better plan than he does. Nobody else here has a better strategy.
As long as that is the case, people have no real argument against him. They need to provide a better strategy before they can rightfully punch down on GH's views. + Show Spoiler +Maybe you should make the argument why repeating rightwing-adjacent talking points ( which is what GH is doing) + Show Spoiler +is a strategy that will yield the desired outcome: turn the US to socialism. Will you quote a couple recent examples of me doing that please? I'm genuinely curious what you're referencing. It would be quicker if you explained how your approach of delegitimising the democrats as an effective political force differs from the rightwing strategy of delegitimising the democrats as an effective political force. Think it is quite obvious. If Democrats see massive drop off in people willing to vote for them, they will have to recalibrate. If they dont another party will show up to fill the void. (a bit like reform rise in UK) Edit some grammar So you are saying that they only differ in their ulterior motive, i.e. GH's objective is 'benign' as in he wants the democrats to lose support so they learn that they need to address his needs. However, both GH's approach and right-wing strategy coincide in the practical approach of eliminating obstacles to the implementation of a right-wing agenda. Not really. Republicans want Democrats to loose support, while gain support for Republicans. GH doesnt seem to be advocating support for Republicans.
So you're not really disagreeing with my post. I said "they only differ in their ulterior motive". I mean, sure, GH ultimately wants a socialist system implemented and for that he needs Americans to fundamentally change their identity. Republicans just want to win. Both are implementing the same strategy "get democrats to lose support so a rightwing agenda can be implemented".
|
On September 30 2025 19:11 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2025 18:00 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 30 2025 17:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 30 2025 17:13 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 30 2025 15:17 Magic Powers wrote:
GH's proposed strategy is both wrong and right at the same time.
Theoretically the correct strategy would be for people to simply never vote Republican, and to always vote Democrat when Republicans have a realistic shot at winning. So right now that means to literally always vote Democrat. Insofar GH is wrong. But that's purely theoretical.
The problem with that strategy is what GH correctly understands: it fails in practice. Enough people don't vote Democrat for the strategy to work. Dems, including some further to the left, need consistent support for Republicans to understand that they have to move away from the far-right to win any elections ever. That support for Dems just isn't there.
So, while GH is being called out rightfully on the one hand, he's also being used as a punching bag by people who don't have a better plan than he does. Nobody else here has a better strategy.
As long as that is the case, people have no real argument against him. They need to provide a better strategy before they can rightfully punch down on GH's views. + Show Spoiler +Maybe you should make the argument why repeating rightwing-adjacent talking points ( which is what GH is doing) + Show Spoiler +is a strategy that will yield the desired outcome: turn the US to socialism. Will you quote a couple recent examples of me doing that please? I'm genuinely curious what you're referencing. It would be quicker if you explained how your approach of delegitimising the democrats as an effective political force differs from the rightwing strategy of delegitimising the democrats as an effective political force. Democrat leaders have delegitimized themselves as a (sufficiently) effective political force. Biden refusing to drop out throughout all of 2024, then suddenly unilaterally nominating Harris with no regard to strategic optimization after he finally did drop out far too late. He effectively flipped off the entire Democrat support base. He broke the campaign. What the heck was he thinking? Was he just being spiteful? What happened there? More importantly, how could this be allowed? Just because he was the sitting president he could do that without consulting with his peers? That's total madness. The Democrat party lost cohesion in 2024 and opened the door to Trump's fascism. They carry a large amount of fault. If they want to regain strength and trust, they'll have to get their shit in order. Is that happening? Are they uniting now and ensuring this kind of shitshow won't happen again in the future?
In addition, the unity can't be about being against Trump, running things better than Republicans, or maintaining the old status quo. Such unity seems to offer very little to voters who weren't excited about Clinton, Biden, and Kamala. It is hard to see many Republicans or other voters being really interested in a little more right-wing Democrats or a little less authoritarian Republicans. The division seems that deep. The messaging would also feel off if there is a huge divide on other issues within the Democrats while they attempt to seem united on Trump.
Probably the biggest driving force, even behind Trump, is that people are tired of the old and want something new and different. Trump changed republicans a lot in the past decade. Democrats need to do the same.
|
On September 30 2025 19:36 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2025 19:22 Razyda wrote:On September 30 2025 19:09 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 30 2025 18:30 Razyda wrote:On September 30 2025 18:00 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 30 2025 17:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 30 2025 17:13 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 30 2025 15:17 Magic Powers wrote:
GH's proposed strategy is both wrong and right at the same time.
Theoretically the correct strategy would be for people to simply never vote Republican, and to always vote Democrat when Republicans have a realistic shot at winning. So right now that means to literally always vote Democrat. Insofar GH is wrong. But that's purely theoretical.
The problem with that strategy is what GH correctly understands: it fails in practice. Enough people don't vote Democrat for the strategy to work. Dems, including some further to the left, need consistent support for Republicans to understand that they have to move away from the far-right to win any elections ever. That support for Dems just isn't there.
So, while GH is being called out rightfully on the one hand, he's also being used as a punching bag by people who don't have a better plan than he does. Nobody else here has a better strategy.
As long as that is the case, people have no real argument against him. They need to provide a better strategy before they can rightfully punch down on GH's views. + Show Spoiler +Maybe you should make the argument why repeating rightwing-adjacent talking points ( which is what GH is doing) + Show Spoiler +is a strategy that will yield the desired outcome: turn the US to socialism. Will you quote a couple recent examples of me doing that please? I'm genuinely curious what you're referencing. It would be quicker if you explained how your approach of delegitimising the democrats as an effective political force differs from the rightwing strategy of delegitimising the democrats as an effective political force. Think it is quite obvious. If Democrats see massive drop off in people willing to vote for them, they will have to recalibrate. If they dont another party will show up to fill the void. (a bit like reform rise in UK) Edit some grammar So you are saying that they only differ in their ulterior motive, i.e. GH's objective is 'benign' as in he wants the democrats to lose support so they learn that they need to address his needs. However, both GH's approach and right-wing strategy coincide in the practical approach of eliminating obstacles to the implementation of a right-wing agenda. Not really. Republicans want Democrats to loose support, while gain support for Republicans. GH doesnt seem to be advocating support for Republicans. So you're not really disagreeing with my post. I said "they only differ in their ulterior motive". I mean, sure, GH ultimately wants a socialist system implemented and for that he needs Americans to fundamentally change their identity. Republicans just want to win. Both are implementing the same strategy "get democrats to lose support so a rightwing agenda can be implemented".
I do disagree with your post. If someone doesnt want to vote for "fascist enablers", it somewhat implies that he wouldnt vote for "fascists". I think your perception is distorted due to nature of this forum, which is wildly in favour of Democrats.
GH saying "dont vote Democrats" is "speaking to the masses". GH saying dont vote Republicans... I mean why bother may as well PM Introvert.
|
I mean, the issues are the same as they have been for years.
1) The Republican base isn’t THAT ideologically different from one another. You’ve got the far-right, obviously, and the “leftmost right” (the Introverts and what have you) don’t really have too much of a problem with what the far-right wants to do, as long as the status quo is maintained. Hell, anecdotally I even know some previously-Republican-now-Democrat-hate-Trumpers who like to post memes and complain about him, but when asked by myself/other friends if they’re concerned about the stuff being done by the administration, they roll their eyes while shaking their head and say “nah that’s just more Trump bullshit to control the news cycle, America’s dealt with wacky power grabbing Presidents before, Jackson etc., just gotta’ ride this out until he’s gone in 2028.” The majority of the public simply isn’t that bothered by Trump.
Meanwhile, for the Democrat base, the “rightmost left” (people like the guy above, couple posters here, etc), that just want the status quo maintained while having a bit of a conscience, have serious ideological beef with people on the far-left. If a far-left candidate won a primary, you’d likely see serious defectors (although perhaps Mamdani in NY can serve as a valuable test case for how much this would happen). The voting base is all over the place, which leads to…
2) Democrats don’t have a brand. They used to be pro-middle class / pro-worker, then when politicians couldn’t be that anymore they turned pro-big money / pro-globalist / pro-status quo with some pro-minority stuff sprinkled in, but ever since Trump became a thing they’ve become Make America Great Again (Pre-Trump). MAGA with a D in front isn’t magically going to beat the original MAGA; everyone who’d be swayed with that branding is already MAGA, and no one’s going to believe them when all the establishment Dems are in corporate pockets. Personally, if I’m asked what I’m voting for when I vote Democrat, all I can think to say is “not Trump, friendly with the West, corps get bigger, and social justice for minorities.” Which, yeah, I like 3 of the 4, but only 2 of them are meaningful country policies, and it still isn’t addressing the death of the American worker / middle class.
Trump is the only one paying lip service to it, which is why he’s able to swindle all of them; hard to ignore the shady snake oil salesman when he’s the only one even trying to sell medicine.
So to tie it back to GH, I don’t have a problem at all with his rhetoric. He’s obviously not pro-Republican; I’ve never seen a post any support or praise of Trump and what he’s doing. He’s just trying to light a fire under y’all collective asses to engage meaningfully with your individual political beliefs, see how they track with what’s currently being represented by the Democratic Party, and normalize change. Because if you believe “wow, the way the world works right now sucks”, you can’t then argue “you can’t do that, that’s not the way the world works”, because the logical conclusion of meshing those two is “the world sucks and will keep on sucking until hopefully it stops sucking anymore on its own.”
At that point you’re at best (if you have hope for it to stop sucking) ideologically similar to Nazi Germany citizens who “had to go along with all the bad stuff until hopefully things get better” (but instead internalized all the bad shit they had to do until it didn’t seem so bad anymore), OR at worst (if you’ve lost hope for it to stop sucking) ideologically similar to 647 / No Lives Matter nihilists who say “fuck this fucking sucky world that sucks and everyone in it, even me” (until their rage pushes them to shoot up a public place).
|
On September 30 2025 21:07 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2025 19:36 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 30 2025 19:22 Razyda wrote:On September 30 2025 19:09 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 30 2025 18:30 Razyda wrote:On September 30 2025 18:00 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 30 2025 17:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 30 2025 17:13 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 30 2025 15:17 Magic Powers wrote:
GH's proposed strategy is both wrong and right at the same time.
Theoretically the correct strategy would be for people to simply never vote Republican, and to always vote Democrat when Republicans have a realistic shot at winning. So right now that means to literally always vote Democrat. Insofar GH is wrong. But that's purely theoretical.
The problem with that strategy is what GH correctly understands: it fails in practice. Enough people don't vote Democrat for the strategy to work. Dems, including some further to the left, need consistent support for Republicans to understand that they have to move away from the far-right to win any elections ever. That support for Dems just isn't there.
So, while GH is being called out rightfully on the one hand, he's also being used as a punching bag by people who don't have a better plan than he does. Nobody else here has a better strategy.
As long as that is the case, people have no real argument against him. They need to provide a better strategy before they can rightfully punch down on GH's views. + Show Spoiler +Maybe you should make the argument why repeating rightwing-adjacent talking points ( which is what GH is doing) + Show Spoiler +is a strategy that will yield the desired outcome: turn the US to socialism. Will you quote a couple recent examples of me doing that please? I'm genuinely curious what you're referencing. It would be quicker if you explained how your approach of delegitimising the democrats as an effective political force differs from the rightwing strategy of delegitimising the democrats as an effective political force. Think it is quite obvious. If Democrats see massive drop off in people willing to vote for them, they will have to recalibrate. If they dont another party will show up to fill the void. (a bit like reform rise in UK) Edit some grammar So you are saying that they only differ in their ulterior motive, i.e. GH's objective is 'benign' as in he wants the democrats to lose support so they learn that they need to address his needs. However, both GH's approach and right-wing strategy coincide in the practical approach of eliminating obstacles to the implementation of a right-wing agenda. Not really. Republicans want Democrats to loose support, while gain support for Republicans. GH doesnt seem to be advocating support for Republicans. So you're not really disagreeing with my post. I said "they only differ in their ulterior motive". I mean, sure, GH ultimately wants a socialist system implemented and for that he needs Americans to fundamentally change their identity. Republicans just want to win. Both are implementing the same strategy "get democrats to lose support so a rightwing agenda can be implemented". I do disagree with your post. If someone doesnt want to vote for "fascist enablers", it somewhat implies that he wouldnt vote for "fascists". I think your perception is distorted due to nature of this forum, which is wildly in favour of Democrats. GH saying "dont vote Democrats" is "speaking to the masses". GH saying dont vote Republicans... I mean why bother may as well PM Introvert.
You've just done the same thing again. You are simply saying that he has a different motive for wanting the downfall of Democrats than Republicans do (which is something I already acknowledged).
I mean, I have a hard time distinguishing "a hard-right poster cosplaying as a left-wing poster to further the goals of the right" and GH, don't you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
