|
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 |
in german speaking countries there is a slightly derogatory term for doctors that are a bit haughty.
"Götter in Weiß" - gods in white due to their classic garb. Trump's heritage simply broke through a bit? 
|
On April 14 2026 03:22 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2026 03:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 14 2026 02:45 WombaT wrote:On April 14 2026 01:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 14 2026 01:33 WombaT wrote:On April 14 2026 00:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 14 2026 00:43 LightSpectra wrote:On April 14 2026 00:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2026 23:59 LightSpectra wrote:
All of them would be great presidents and I'd be proud to cast a vote for any one of them. My primary vote will exclusively be for whomever I think is most likely to win the general election in November 2028. I'm curious, why? Your individual vote likely won't be determinative (even if you're in a state that might matter). Why not just vote for the candidate that most aligns with your politics in a (likely meaningless) primary? Because if everyone thought like that we'd never get anything done, and I don't think I'm privileged enough to throw away my vote when everyone else is expected to vote intelligently. Who do you currently think that is (both who is most likely to win and who best aligns with your politics) and based on what? How will you go about determining that? The election's two years away and not everyone has thrown their hat in the ring yet, so anything I say is most likely going to age really poorly. We're talking about a primary, not the general election. I was told here previously that primary was the part where you could/should vote for who best aligned with you and the general election was when the "responsible/pragmatic" thing to do was fall in line. Perhaps the "most likely to win", but who most aligns with you is something you can/should probably already have an idea about and be skeptical of how much any candidate rhetorically changes their current positions to better align with other positions later. What you currently base their alignment off and the sort of metrics and ideas of how you will determine both who is most likely to win and who best aligns with your politics are also things you don't really have to worry about "aging poorly" On April 14 2026 00:47 WombaT wrote:On April 14 2026 00:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2026 23:59 LightSpectra wrote:
All of them would be great presidents and I'd be proud to cast a vote for any one of them. My primary vote will exclusively be for whomever I think is most likely to win the general election in November 2028. I'm curious, why? Your individual vote likely won't be determinative (even if you're in a state that might matter). Why not just vote for the candidate that most aligns with your politics in a (likely meaningless) primary? Who do you currently think that is (both who is most likely to win and who best aligns with your politics) and based on what? How will you go about determining that? Those are questions to any/everyone btw. You ask a lot more questions than you ever deign to answer lad I'll come back to this later if you'd like (or if you and Ender would prefer to take it to my Blog I suppose that'd be fine). You guys are just on the verge of having something resembling a real discussion about the future of the opposition to Trump/Republicans and I'd like to see that develop. I disagree that we are ‘just on the verge’ of having a discussion on that. We were having a discussion and you just dipped out of answering any reciprocal questions that were sent your way. WombaT wrote:
Is electoralism innately doomed or is it somehow salvageable? Is there an incarnation of the Dems you may find palatable, what would that look like? What areas are most pressing to target for some movement, and how? What compromises would be acceptable for more broad coalitions etc?
I’m just spitballing a few off my head, I think the thread at large would be quite interested to have those discussions Rather than attempting to answer any of those, or indeed much of what Ender asked, you don’t, then come back into the thread to interrogate Light Spectra, but we can go to your blog or something? Have you ever considered there may be a problem in how you communicate your ideas? A problem that’s exacerbated by virtue of your ideas being niche or revolutionary in the first place? You’ll somehow (correctly) observe that wider socioeconomic or cultural norms suppress such ideas in the first place, but put zero effort into actually selling them to an audience that’s at least somewhat sympathetic. And if you can’t sell them here, good blooming luck with genpop I asked Ender to take it one step at a time and you to steelman my position on non-reformist reforms and our different ToC and you both immediately/functionally refused and decided to focus your entire framing on voting (or not) for Dems instead. I still intend to come back to that in more detail here, but I was saying if you wanted to carry that on right this second we could do it there as to not interrupt a discussion about the future of the opposition to Trump/Republicans that is now already seeming to fizzle out before anything of note is discussed. As for what I'm/we're supposed to be doing here, that seems to change wildly depending on who is saying it to whom and to what end. If we didn't all have a problem communicating we'd already have something a lot closer to Light's Star Trek Utopia goal. But what exactly am I supposed to be convincing a bunch of people that regularly insist they agree with me of in your mind? Answer pretty basic questions maybe? You seem to have the time to interrogate others but not do that, for some reason. + Show Spoiler +Even on the bolded, you’re demanding things of other people, within your own framework that aren’t reciprocated whatsoever. So you want Ender to break their worldview down piecemeal, or me to steel man your positions, but you can’t return any courtesy by giving basic answers to anything.
Ironically I think you’re fighting the good fight as it were, from my personal political position but you do it so, so very badly that I find myself being critical
And you just cannot parse any criticism whatsoever, you’re a staggeringly ineffective interlocutor of your ideas, indeed actively counter-productive and you cannot process this or alter your approach whatsoever.
Even when you get constructive feedback, you just completely ignore it and wonder why people are hostile to your pronouncements.
You’re a worse than average communicator with a worldview that requires a great communicator to punch through entrenched ideas around capitalism etc, but who acts perpetually confused as to why this is the case even when people explicitly tell them The questions are sorta like the political "when did you stop beating your wife" rhetorical trap. They impose your ToC on me and demand answers to your elections based worldview/ToC rather than asking them of my ToC like I am of others for theirs. Meanwhile, leverage-based theories of change are the ones overwhelmingly credited historically for pretty much all major US political progress. However, yours/Democrats as described thus far is based on relatively recent propaganda (Democrats have been the "good" party for less time than they were the white supremacist one btw) similar to "Diamonds are forever". In order to demonstrate that definitively, it's going to take a methodical approach where we'll need to establish individual points along the path of building a bigger picture. Most of you lose interest and chase the next squirrel long before we can do that here most of the time. Again, specifically: In your view, who is the primary audience I should be addressing, and what core message should I be convincing them of? Ah ok you’re going with strawmanning and obfuscating bollocks again, it’s a convincing approach… + Show Spoiler +
Cool, you do you. I couldn’t be arsed dealing with this anymore, consider this my last earnest effort. I’ll be ignoring your output in future
Which I assume is my problem, or I’ve been infected with propoganda or something and nothing to do with your innate inability to communicate reasonably
I'm not doing that and I've said I'll address you in further detail in a bit (and/or immediately if you want to take it to my blog).
As for the specific questions:
Is electoralism innately doomed or is it somehow salvageable? Is there an incarnation of the Dems you may find palatable, what would that look like? What areas are most pressing to target for some movement, and how? What compromises would be acceptable for more broad coalitions etc?
The short answer to pretty much all of that is "non-reformist reforms" and "in so far as it/they are used/we're directing our efforts toward non-reformist reforms".
I'm not in charge (and wouldn't want to be) but it seems it would make sense to start with stuff that already has majority appeal/support, but I'm also open to other ideas.
Seems like everyone that's opined (except maybe RenSC2) would prefer AOC over the other candidates, but not so much that they'd actually want to start making an effort to convince the people (and that's a lot more people than Newsom or Harris will need to convince) they'll need to agree with us and work to help make AOC the nominee and eventually president.
|
Northern Ireland27014 Posts
On April 14 2026 03:25 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2026 02:00 WombaT wrote:On April 14 2026 01:25 Jankisa wrote:On April 14 2026 00:39 WombaT wrote:On April 13 2026 23:18 Jankisa wrote:Yeah, and I guess you can say that early USA didn't get homogenized yet, and plenty of other reasons for this trend, I just think it's very depressing that, on average, people speaking more languages then their own went from 25 % to over 50 % while in the US the presidents went in the other direction: Plus, Trump decided to double down on this "being proud of only speaking English" idiocracy bullshit by putting out an EO stating as such, as if it wasn't already so. It is very difficult though to be fair. Getting good practice in when your mother tongue is the lingua franca already is bloomin’ hard. I think sometimes it’s attributed purely to insularity when that’s not necessarily the case. Making a virtue of it is idiocy, so no surprises Trump has done that. I’d be interested to see how much of that 25% increase in people speaking other languages other than their own are simply people who grew up in households where their family primarily spoke another language. It’s on my personal bucket list to be at least semi-fluent in another language, but not something I think is really feasible unless I move somewhere else. Well, if you look at it from a different perspective, unless they are from a very rural and insulated town, an average American will encounter immigrants who might speak other languages quite often. There are over 68 million Latin Americans, I would imagine that gives you plenty of opportunity, as an average American, to try and practice Spanish. That, plus the fact that learning an language is easier today then ever before (tons of Apps, AI actually being pretty decent for helping to get going), the internet being a thing, it just gives us opportunities we never had before, I think a large chunk of that global % going up in the last few decades is due to that. I never learned English in school, I absorbed it through media (Cartoon network mostly) as a kid, after a while, as a kid who was curious about computers, I basically had to learn a bunch of it, and then that helped me be better at things like Wc3 and WOW where I found first communities that would help me with it. When I was 14, I created a forum page for a Wc3 custom map clan as a way of bribing them to give me a position on the team, and there was a very, very lengthy page there that was focused on analyzing all the official posts and OP threads I started to help me with my grammar. On the other side, while all this was happening I was struggling, daily to get by with German in school, I barely passed but even today, when I go to Germany I can understand what people are saying if they are trying to speak slowly to me, and I can get back to them if needed, with some gesticulations and English help, of course. When I went to Netherlands to live, I started Duolingo and even tho Amsterdam is extremely international, and so was my Company, I made an effort to learn it, at least to the point where I could greet people or order something, it wasn't much and the German helped, but the few Dutch folks at work appreciated the effort. So, yeah, I do think the easiest paths to learn are by growing up bilingual or moving somewhere, but there is a lot of tools and ways to get better without doing that, and I think most people would agree that knowing more languages can only be beneficial to you, plus it's fun. If you don’t speak English and wanna reside on forums or whatever, you gotta learn English, if you already do there’s little pressure. Apps aren’t really a substitute for practice, practice you simply don’t get unless you either really seek it out, or you live in an area with a lot of people who speak another tongue. I think if you live in say, LA but can’t speak basic conversational Spanish, that is pretty lazy stuff. For much of the Anglosphere outside of those kind of conditions it is genuinely very difficult for anyone who isn’t willing to emigrate, or who’s a big language hobbyist I’ve dabbled in Italian and Irish lately, my partner is a relative rarity in basically being a fluent Irish speaker. But she spent time in the Gaeltacht regularly as a kid, where that was the primary language. I’ve a decent grasp of French, but if I wanted to be vaguely conversational I’d either have to give up a lot of time in my week to pursue it, or move somewhere else and just not speak English until I was able to do it. Having the curiosity to at least try I think is important too, and definitely an area where people are lacking in my locale. Not sure how the US is in this regard. My Italian fixation comes from a childhood love of Italian football and I can’t say all that much, but I found people pretty receptive to my clumsy efforts. The best ‘compliment’ I got from somehow who switched to English was that I sounded like a native, but a native with brain damage so at least I nailed the pronunciation! This seems like a very anglocentric view. It's true that there is a lot of English content on the internet, but if you don't speak English, you just don't visit the anglophone parts of it. It isn't as if there's no content in other languages... so people who don't speak English won't be here on tl.net, but there are other forums.
It is, hence why my initial post on the topic stressed that.
If you don’t need to learn another language to consume most popular media, if most forums or social medias default to your language, it becomes rather difficult to learn a second language, especially if you don’t live in a place with a particularly large community that speak a particular language, such as some US locales and generally Spanish.
It’s not impossible by any means but it’s hard, the only folks I know who are fluent in second tongues either grew up with an immigrant parent or two, moved abroad or are language hobbyists.
I mean it’s not as if say Europeans have much proficiency in various Asian languages that make up over half the world’s population.
Why is that not the case? Because most media emanating from there, forums etc aren’t places people tend to inhabit.
|
Northern Ireland27014 Posts
On April 14 2026 03:53 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2026 03:22 WombaT wrote:On April 14 2026 03:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 14 2026 02:45 WombaT wrote:On April 14 2026 01:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 14 2026 01:33 WombaT wrote:On April 14 2026 00:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 14 2026 00:43 LightSpectra wrote:On April 14 2026 00:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2026 23:59 LightSpectra wrote:
All of them would be great presidents and I'd be proud to cast a vote for any one of them. My primary vote will exclusively be for whomever I think is most likely to win the general election in November 2028. I'm curious, why? Your individual vote likely won't be determinative (even if you're in a state that might matter). Why not just vote for the candidate that most aligns with your politics in a (likely meaningless) primary? Because if everyone thought like that we'd never get anything done, and I don't think I'm privileged enough to throw away my vote when everyone else is expected to vote intelligently. Who do you currently think that is (both who is most likely to win and who best aligns with your politics) and based on what? How will you go about determining that? The election's two years away and not everyone has thrown their hat in the ring yet, so anything I say is most likely going to age really poorly. We're talking about a primary, not the general election. I was told here previously that primary was the part where you could/should vote for who best aligned with you and the general election was when the "responsible/pragmatic" thing to do was fall in line. Perhaps the "most likely to win", but who most aligns with you is something you can/should probably already have an idea about and be skeptical of how much any candidate rhetorically changes their current positions to better align with other positions later. What you currently base their alignment off and the sort of metrics and ideas of how you will determine both who is most likely to win and who best aligns with your politics are also things you don't really have to worry about "aging poorly" On April 14 2026 00:47 WombaT wrote:On April 14 2026 00:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2026 23:59 LightSpectra wrote:
All of them would be great presidents and I'd be proud to cast a vote for any one of them. My primary vote will exclusively be for whomever I think is most likely to win the general election in November 2028. I'm curious, why? Your individual vote likely won't be determinative (even if you're in a state that might matter). Why not just vote for the candidate that most aligns with your politics in a (likely meaningless) primary? Who do you currently think that is (both who is most likely to win and who best aligns with your politics) and based on what? How will you go about determining that? Those are questions to any/everyone btw. You ask a lot more questions than you ever deign to answer lad I'll come back to this later if you'd like (or if you and Ender would prefer to take it to my Blog I suppose that'd be fine). You guys are just on the verge of having something resembling a real discussion about the future of the opposition to Trump/Republicans and I'd like to see that develop. I disagree that we are ‘just on the verge’ of having a discussion on that. We were having a discussion and you just dipped out of answering any reciprocal questions that were sent your way. WombaT wrote:
Is electoralism innately doomed or is it somehow salvageable? Is there an incarnation of the Dems you may find palatable, what would that look like? What areas are most pressing to target for some movement, and how? What compromises would be acceptable for more broad coalitions etc?
I’m just spitballing a few off my head, I think the thread at large would be quite interested to have those discussions Rather than attempting to answer any of those, or indeed much of what Ender asked, you don’t, then come back into the thread to interrogate Light Spectra, but we can go to your blog or something? Have you ever considered there may be a problem in how you communicate your ideas? A problem that’s exacerbated by virtue of your ideas being niche or revolutionary in the first place? You’ll somehow (correctly) observe that wider socioeconomic or cultural norms suppress such ideas in the first place, but put zero effort into actually selling them to an audience that’s at least somewhat sympathetic. And if you can’t sell them here, good blooming luck with genpop I asked Ender to take it one step at a time and you to steelman my position on non-reformist reforms and our different ToC and you both immediately/functionally refused and decided to focus your entire framing on voting (or not) for Dems instead. I still intend to come back to that in more detail here, but I was saying if you wanted to carry that on right this second we could do it there as to not interrupt a discussion about the future of the opposition to Trump/Republicans that is now already seeming to fizzle out before anything of note is discussed. As for what I'm/we're supposed to be doing here, that seems to change wildly depending on who is saying it to whom and to what end. If we didn't all have a problem communicating we'd already have something a lot closer to Light's Star Trek Utopia goal. But what exactly am I supposed to be convincing a bunch of people that regularly insist they agree with me of in your mind? Answer pretty basic questions maybe? You seem to have the time to interrogate others but not do that, for some reason. + Show Spoiler +Even on the bolded, you’re demanding things of other people, within your own framework that aren’t reciprocated whatsoever. So you want Ender to break their worldview down piecemeal, or me to steel man your positions, but you can’t return any courtesy by giving basic answers to anything.
Ironically I think you’re fighting the good fight as it were, from my personal political position but you do it so, so very badly that I find myself being critical
And you just cannot parse any criticism whatsoever, you’re a staggeringly ineffective interlocutor of your ideas, indeed actively counter-productive and you cannot process this or alter your approach whatsoever.
Even when you get constructive feedback, you just completely ignore it and wonder why people are hostile to your pronouncements.
You’re a worse than average communicator with a worldview that requires a great communicator to punch through entrenched ideas around capitalism etc, but who acts perpetually confused as to why this is the case even when people explicitly tell them The questions are sorta like the political "when did you stop beating your wife" rhetorical trap. They impose your ToC on me and demand answers to your elections based worldview/ToC rather than asking them of my ToC like I am of others for theirs. Meanwhile, leverage-based theories of change are the ones overwhelmingly credited historically for pretty much all major US political progress. However, yours/Democrats as described thus far is based on relatively recent propaganda (Democrats have been the "good" party for less time than they were the white supremacist one btw) similar to "Diamonds are forever". In order to demonstrate that definitively, it's going to take a methodical approach where we'll need to establish individual points along the path of building a bigger picture. Most of you lose interest and chase the next squirrel long before we can do that here most of the time. Again, specifically: In your view, who is the primary audience I should be addressing, and what core message should I be convincing them of? Ah ok you’re going with strawmanning and obfuscating bollocks again, it’s a convincing approach… + Show Spoiler +
Cool, you do you. I couldn’t be arsed dealing with this anymore, consider this my last earnest effort. I’ll be ignoring your output in future
Which I assume is my problem, or I’ve been infected with propoganda or something and nothing to do with your innate inability to communicate reasonably
I'm not doing that and I've said I'll address you in further detail in a bit (and/or immediately if you want to take it to my blog). As for the specific questions: Show nested quote +Is electoralism innately doomed or is it somehow salvageable? Is there an incarnation of the Dems you may find palatable, what would that look like? What areas are most pressing to target for some movement, and how? What compromises would be acceptable for more broad coalitions etc?
The short answer to pretty much all of that is "non-reformist reforms" and "in so far as it/they are used/we're directing our efforts toward non-reformist reforms". I'm not in charge (and wouldn't want to be) but it seems it would make sense to start with stuff that already has majority appeal/support, but I'm also open to other ideas. Seems like everyone that's opined (except maybe RenSC2) would prefer AOC over the other candidates, but not so much that they'd actually want to start making an effort to convince the people (and that's a lot more people than Newsom or Harris will need to convince) they'll need to agree with us and work to help make AOC the nominee and eventually president.
and you both immediately/functionally refused and decided to focus your entire framing on voting (or not) for Dems instead.
Which wasn’t remotely accurate, hence the strawman accusation. Hence why I couldn’t be arsed engaging with you anymore.
You refuse to answer basic questions, and you either strawman opposition to your points, or indulge in endless vagaries to dance around points of contention. And none of it is your fault, ever.
Best of luck with the revolution lad
|
On April 14 2026 03:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
Seems like everyone that's opined (except maybe RenSC2) would prefer AOC over the other candidates, but not so much that they'd actually want to start making an effort to convince the people (and that's a lot more people than Newsom or Harris will need to convince) they'll need to agree with us and work to help make AOC the nominee and eventually president.
I'd rather all the feasible candidates compete to adopt the most popular platform, stealing each other's good ideas and cross-promoting, rather than hitching my entire load to one candidate and following them to the death like some kind of 'blue MAGA'.
|
On April 14 2026 04:02 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2026 03:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 14 2026 03:22 WombaT wrote:On April 14 2026 03:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 14 2026 02:45 WombaT wrote:On April 14 2026 01:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 14 2026 01:33 WombaT wrote:On April 14 2026 00:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 14 2026 00:43 LightSpectra wrote:On April 14 2026 00:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I'm curious, why? Your individual vote likely won't be determinative (even if you're in a state that might matter). Why not just vote for the candidate that most aligns with your politics in a (likely meaningless) primary? Because if everyone thought like that we'd never get anything done, and I don't think I'm privileged enough to throw away my vote when everyone else is expected to vote intelligently. Who do you currently think that is (both who is most likely to win and who best aligns with your politics) and based on what? How will you go about determining that? The election's two years away and not everyone has thrown their hat in the ring yet, so anything I say is most likely going to age really poorly. We're talking about a primary, not the general election. I was told here previously that primary was the part where you could/should vote for who best aligned with you and the general election was when the "responsible/pragmatic" thing to do was fall in line. Perhaps the "most likely to win", but who most aligns with you is something you can/should probably already have an idea about and be skeptical of how much any candidate rhetorically changes their current positions to better align with other positions later. What you currently base their alignment off and the sort of metrics and ideas of how you will determine both who is most likely to win and who best aligns with your politics are also things you don't really have to worry about "aging poorly" On April 14 2026 00:47 WombaT wrote:On April 14 2026 00:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I'm curious, why? Your individual vote likely won't be determinative (even if you're in a state that might matter). Why not just vote for the candidate that most aligns with your politics in a (likely meaningless) primary?
Who do you currently think that is (both who is most likely to win and who best aligns with your politics) and based on what? How will you go about determining that?
Those are questions to any/everyone btw.
You ask a lot more questions than you ever deign to answer lad I'll come back to this later if you'd like (or if you and Ender would prefer to take it to my Blog I suppose that'd be fine). You guys are just on the verge of having something resembling a real discussion about the future of the opposition to Trump/Republicans and I'd like to see that develop. I disagree that we are ‘just on the verge’ of having a discussion on that. We were having a discussion and you just dipped out of answering any reciprocal questions that were sent your way. WombaT wrote:
Is electoralism innately doomed or is it somehow salvageable? Is there an incarnation of the Dems you may find palatable, what would that look like? What areas are most pressing to target for some movement, and how? What compromises would be acceptable for more broad coalitions etc?
I’m just spitballing a few off my head, I think the thread at large would be quite interested to have those discussions Rather than attempting to answer any of those, or indeed much of what Ender asked, you don’t, then come back into the thread to interrogate Light Spectra, but we can go to your blog or something? Have you ever considered there may be a problem in how you communicate your ideas? A problem that’s exacerbated by virtue of your ideas being niche or revolutionary in the first place? You’ll somehow (correctly) observe that wider socioeconomic or cultural norms suppress such ideas in the first place, but put zero effort into actually selling them to an audience that’s at least somewhat sympathetic. And if you can’t sell them here, good blooming luck with genpop I asked Ender to take it one step at a time and you to steelman my position on non-reformist reforms and our different ToC and you both immediately/functionally refused and decided to focus your entire framing on voting (or not) for Dems instead. I still intend to come back to that in more detail here, but I was saying if you wanted to carry that on right this second we could do it there as to not interrupt a discussion about the future of the opposition to Trump/Republicans that is now already seeming to fizzle out before anything of note is discussed. As for what I'm/we're supposed to be doing here, that seems to change wildly depending on who is saying it to whom and to what end. If we didn't all have a problem communicating we'd already have something a lot closer to Light's Star Trek Utopia goal. But what exactly am I supposed to be convincing a bunch of people that regularly insist they agree with me of in your mind? Answer pretty basic questions maybe? You seem to have the time to interrogate others but not do that, for some reason. + Show Spoiler +Even on the bolded, you’re demanding things of other people, within your own framework that aren’t reciprocated whatsoever. So you want Ender to break their worldview down piecemeal, or me to steel man your positions, but you can’t return any courtesy by giving basic answers to anything.
Ironically I think you’re fighting the good fight as it were, from my personal political position but you do it so, so very badly that I find myself being critical
And you just cannot parse any criticism whatsoever, you’re a staggeringly ineffective interlocutor of your ideas, indeed actively counter-productive and you cannot process this or alter your approach whatsoever.
Even when you get constructive feedback, you just completely ignore it and wonder why people are hostile to your pronouncements.
You’re a worse than average communicator with a worldview that requires a great communicator to punch through entrenched ideas around capitalism etc, but who acts perpetually confused as to why this is the case even when people explicitly tell them The questions are sorta like the political "when did you stop beating your wife" rhetorical trap. They impose your ToC on me and demand answers to your elections based worldview/ToC rather than asking them of my ToC like I am of others for theirs. Meanwhile, leverage-based theories of change are the ones overwhelmingly credited historically for pretty much all major US political progress. However, yours/Democrats as described thus far is based on relatively recent propaganda (Democrats have been the "good" party for less time than they were the white supremacist one btw) similar to "Diamonds are forever". In order to demonstrate that definitively, it's going to take a methodical approach where we'll need to establish individual points along the path of building a bigger picture. Most of you lose interest and chase the next squirrel long before we can do that here most of the time. Again, specifically: In your view, who is the primary audience I should be addressing, and what core message should I be convincing them of? Ah ok you’re going with strawmanning and obfuscating bollocks again, it’s a convincing approach… + Show Spoiler +
Cool, you do you. I couldn’t be arsed dealing with this anymore, consider this my last earnest effort. I’ll be ignoring your output in future
Which I assume is my problem, or I’ve been infected with propoganda or something and nothing to do with your innate inability to communicate reasonably
I'm not doing that and I've said I'll address you in further detail in a bit (and/or immediately if you want to take it to my blog). As for the specific questions: Is electoralism innately doomed or is it somehow salvageable? Is there an incarnation of the Dems you may find palatable, what would that look like? What areas are most pressing to target for some movement, and how? What compromises would be acceptable for more broad coalitions etc?
The short answer to pretty much all of that is "non-reformist reforms" and "in so far as it/they are used/we're directing our efforts toward non-reformist reforms". I'm not in charge (and wouldn't want to be) but it seems it would make sense to start with stuff that already has majority appeal/support, but I'm also open to other ideas. Seems like everyone that's opined (except maybe RenSC2) would prefer AOC over the other candidates, but not so much that they'd actually want to start making an effort to convince the people (and that's a lot more people than Newsom or Harris will need to convince) they'll need to agree with us and work to help make AOC the nominee and eventually president. Show nested quote + and you both immediately/functionally refused and decided to focus your entire framing on voting (or not) for Dems instead. + Show Spoiler +Which wasn’t remotely accurate, hence the strawman accusation. Hence why I couldn’t be arsed engaging with you anymore. You refuse to answer basic questions, and you either strawman opposition to your points, or indulge in endless vagaries to dance around points of contention. And none of it is your fault, ever. + Show Spoiler +Best of luck with the revolution lad
I just answered them. You want to discuss specific non-reformist reforms or what?
On April 14 2026 04:03 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2026 03:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
Seems like everyone that's opined (except maybe RenSC2) would prefer AOC over the other candidates, but not so much that they'd actually want to start making an effort to convince the people (and that's a lot more people than Newsom or Harris will need to convince) they'll need to agree with us and work to help make AOC the nominee and eventually president. I'd rather all the feasible candidates compete to adopt the most popular platform, stealing each other's good ideas and cross-promoting, rather than hitching my entire load to one candidate and following them to the death like some kind of 'blue MAGA'. Again, we're talking about a primary, not an "AOC or bust" position. This is like some sort of reflex for some people.
What you're describing is a cool idea, but that's not how it has ever actually worked.
|
On April 14 2026 04:06 GreenHorizons wrote:
Again, we're talking about a primary, not an "AOC or bust" position. This is like some sort of reflex for some people.
What you're describing a cool idea, but that's not how it has ever actually worked.
You don't remember the (highly astroturfed) "Bernie or Bust" movement? Or perhaps the PUMA voters that supported Clinton but not Obama in 2008?
|
Northern Ireland27014 Posts
On April 14 2026 03:50 Falling wrote:
Ah yes. Doctors: famous for wearing white robes and healing people through the laying on of hands surrounded by a heavenly glow while the onlookers look to the 'doctor' in adoration with hands clasped in prayer.
The only real difference between this being a headswapped Jesus depiction from the Picture Bible produced in the 70s is this version has a red robe... probably because blue is Democrat coded. The whole thing looks like blasphemy to me.
Not just blasphemous, but in an ostensible secular state!
And from a figure so divorced from the one they’re referencing as to be mental.
Does this kinda shit even land? It’s really rather strange
If it does to even a sizeable minority of the population, said proportion thinks it’s A-OK that Donald Trump of all people is comparing himself to Jesus.
Which is insane stuff really
|
On April 14 2026 04:15 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2026 04:06 GreenHorizons wrote:
Again, we're talking about a primary, not an "AOC or bust" position. This is like some sort of reflex for some people.
What you're describing a cool idea, but that's not how it has ever actually worked. You don't remember the (highly astroturfed) "Bernie or Bust" movement? Or perhaps the PUMA voters that supported Clinton but not Obama in 2008?
Not sure what point you're trying to make, but yes I remember.
I was saying that your "I'd rather all the feasible candidates compete to adopt the most popular platform, stealing each other's good ideas and cross-promoting," sounds like a nice fantasy, it's just not how it has ever actually worked in either party. Nevermind the potential dangers of lining up behind whatever happens to be "most popular" (particularly when Trump won the popular vote).
|
Northern Ireland27014 Posts
On April 14 2026 03:53 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2026 03:22 WombaT wrote:On April 14 2026 03:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 14 2026 02:45 WombaT wrote:On April 14 2026 01:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 14 2026 01:33 WombaT wrote:On April 14 2026 00:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 14 2026 00:43 LightSpectra wrote:On April 14 2026 00:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2026 23:59 LightSpectra wrote:
All of them would be great presidents and I'd be proud to cast a vote for any one of them. My primary vote will exclusively be for whomever I think is most likely to win the general election in November 2028. I'm curious, why? Your individual vote likely won't be determinative (even if you're in a state that might matter). Why not just vote for the candidate that most aligns with your politics in a (likely meaningless) primary? Because if everyone thought like that we'd never get anything done, and I don't think I'm privileged enough to throw away my vote when everyone else is expected to vote intelligently. Who do you currently think that is (both who is most likely to win and who best aligns with your politics) and based on what? How will you go about determining that? The election's two years away and not everyone has thrown their hat in the ring yet, so anything I say is most likely going to age really poorly. We're talking about a primary, not the general election. I was told here previously that primary was the part where you could/should vote for who best aligned with you and the general election was when the "responsible/pragmatic" thing to do was fall in line. Perhaps the "most likely to win", but who most aligns with you is something you can/should probably already have an idea about and be skeptical of how much any candidate rhetorically changes their current positions to better align with other positions later. What you currently base their alignment off and the sort of metrics and ideas of how you will determine both who is most likely to win and who best aligns with your politics are also things you don't really have to worry about "aging poorly" On April 14 2026 00:47 WombaT wrote:On April 14 2026 00:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2026 23:59 LightSpectra wrote:
All of them would be great presidents and I'd be proud to cast a vote for any one of them. My primary vote will exclusively be for whomever I think is most likely to win the general election in November 2028. I'm curious, why? Your individual vote likely won't be determinative (even if you're in a state that might matter). Why not just vote for the candidate that most aligns with your politics in a (likely meaningless) primary? Who do you currently think that is (both who is most likely to win and who best aligns with your politics) and based on what? How will you go about determining that? Those are questions to any/everyone btw. You ask a lot more questions than you ever deign to answer lad I'll come back to this later if you'd like (or if you and Ender would prefer to take it to my Blog I suppose that'd be fine). You guys are just on the verge of having something resembling a real discussion about the future of the opposition to Trump/Republicans and I'd like to see that develop. I disagree that we are ‘just on the verge’ of having a discussion on that. We were having a discussion and you just dipped out of answering any reciprocal questions that were sent your way. WombaT wrote:
Is electoralism innately doomed or is it somehow salvageable? Is there an incarnation of the Dems you may find palatable, what would that look like? What areas are most pressing to target for some movement, and how? What compromises would be acceptable for more broad coalitions etc?
I’m just spitballing a few off my head, I think the thread at large would be quite interested to have those discussions Rather than attempting to answer any of those, or indeed much of what Ender asked, you don’t, then come back into the thread to interrogate Light Spectra, but we can go to your blog or something? Have you ever considered there may be a problem in how you communicate your ideas? A problem that’s exacerbated by virtue of your ideas being niche or revolutionary in the first place? You’ll somehow (correctly) observe that wider socioeconomic or cultural norms suppress such ideas in the first place, but put zero effort into actually selling them to an audience that’s at least somewhat sympathetic. And if you can’t sell them here, good blooming luck with genpop I asked Ender to take it one step at a time and you to steelman my position on non-reformist reforms and our different ToC and you both immediately/functionally refused and decided to focus your entire framing on voting (or not) for Dems instead. I still intend to come back to that in more detail here, but I was saying if you wanted to carry that on right this second we could do it there as to not interrupt a discussion about the future of the opposition to Trump/Republicans that is now already seeming to fizzle out before anything of note is discussed. As for what I'm/we're supposed to be doing here, that seems to change wildly depending on who is saying it to whom and to what end. If we didn't all have a problem communicating we'd already have something a lot closer to Light's Star Trek Utopia goal. But what exactly am I supposed to be convincing a bunch of people that regularly insist they agree with me of in your mind? Answer pretty basic questions maybe? You seem to have the time to interrogate others but not do that, for some reason. + Show Spoiler +Even on the bolded, you’re demanding things of other people, within your own framework that aren’t reciprocated whatsoever. So you want Ender to break their worldview down piecemeal, or me to steel man your positions, but you can’t return any courtesy by giving basic answers to anything.
Ironically I think you’re fighting the good fight as it were, from my personal political position but you do it so, so very badly that I find myself being critical
And you just cannot parse any criticism whatsoever, you’re a staggeringly ineffective interlocutor of your ideas, indeed actively counter-productive and you cannot process this or alter your approach whatsoever.
Even when you get constructive feedback, you just completely ignore it and wonder why people are hostile to your pronouncements.
You’re a worse than average communicator with a worldview that requires a great communicator to punch through entrenched ideas around capitalism etc, but who acts perpetually confused as to why this is the case even when people explicitly tell them The questions are sorta like the political "when did you stop beating your wife" rhetorical trap. They impose your ToC on me and demand answers to your elections based worldview/ToC rather than asking them of my ToC like I am of others for theirs. Meanwhile, leverage-based theories of change are the ones overwhelmingly credited historically for pretty much all major US political progress. However, yours/Democrats as described thus far is based on relatively recent propaganda (Democrats have been the "good" party for less time than they were the white supremacist one btw) similar to "Diamonds are forever". In order to demonstrate that definitively, it's going to take a methodical approach where we'll need to establish individual points along the path of building a bigger picture. Most of you lose interest and chase the next squirrel long before we can do that here most of the time. Again, specifically: In your view, who is the primary audience I should be addressing, and what core message should I be convincing them of? Ah ok you’re going with strawmanning and obfuscating bollocks again, it’s a convincing approach… + Show Spoiler +
Cool, you do you. I couldn’t be arsed dealing with this anymore, consider this my last earnest effort. I’ll be ignoring your output in future
Which I assume is my problem, or I’ve been infected with propoganda or something and nothing to do with your innate inability to communicate reasonably
I'm not doing that and I've said I'll address you in further detail in a bit (and/or immediately if you want to take it to my blog). As for the specific questions: Show nested quote +Is electoralism innately doomed or is it somehow salvageable? Is there an incarnation of the Dems you may find palatable, what would that look like? What areas are most pressing to target for some movement, and how? What compromises would be acceptable for more broad coalitions etc?
The short answer to pretty much all of that is "non-reformist reforms" and "in so far as it/they are used/we're directing our efforts toward non-reformist reforms". I'm not in charge (and wouldn't want to be) but it seems it would make sense to start with stuff that already has majority appeal/support, but I'm also open to other ideas. Seems like everyone that's opined (except maybe RenSC2) would prefer AOC over the other candidates, but not so much that they'd actually want to start making an effort to convince the people (and that's a lot more people than Newsom or Harris will need to convince) they'll need to agree with us and work to help make AOC the nominee and eventually president.
OK so you want to start with things with majority appeal or support, which in the American context is basically centrist politics? Which you wholly reject so…
|
Yes it has? Both Clinton in 2016 and Biden in 2020 moved their platforms to the left in order to win over Bernie Sanders voters. AOC even took credit for helping with that in 2020.
On April 14 2026 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
Nevermind the potential dangers of lining up behind whatever happens to be "most popular" (particularly when Trump won the popular vote).
There's a difference between blatantly lying, like Trump promising no cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, versus actually having good ideas.
|
Northern Ireland27014 Posts
On April 14 2026 04:34 LightSpectra wrote:Yes it has? Both Clinton in 2016 and Biden in 2020 moved their platforms to the left in order to win over Bernie Sanders voters. AOC even took credit for helping with that in 2020. Show nested quote +On April 14 2026 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
Nevermind the potential dangers of lining up behind whatever happens to be "most popular" (particularly when Trump won the popular vote). There's a difference between blatantly lying, like Trump promising no cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, versus actually having good ideas.
GH is currently simultaneously arguing that the nascent revolutionTM should start by adopting popular positions, that the Democrats can’t do that because it’s not how it works, and about the dangers of indulging popular opinion à la Trump at the same time
And he wonders why folks don’t think he has all the answers…
|
On April 14 2026 04:30 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2026 03:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 14 2026 03:22 WombaT wrote:On April 14 2026 03:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 14 2026 02:45 WombaT wrote:On April 14 2026 01:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 14 2026 01:33 WombaT wrote:On April 14 2026 00:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 14 2026 00:43 LightSpectra wrote:On April 14 2026 00:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I'm curious, why? Your individual vote likely won't be determinative (even if you're in a state that might matter). Why not just vote for the candidate that most aligns with your politics in a (likely meaningless) primary? Because if everyone thought like that we'd never get anything done, and I don't think I'm privileged enough to throw away my vote when everyone else is expected to vote intelligently. Who do you currently think that is (both who is most likely to win and who best aligns with your politics) and based on what? How will you go about determining that? The election's two years away and not everyone has thrown their hat in the ring yet, so anything I say is most likely going to age really poorly. We're talking about a primary, not the general election. I was told here previously that primary was the part where you could/should vote for who best aligned with you and the general election was when the "responsible/pragmatic" thing to do was fall in line. Perhaps the "most likely to win", but who most aligns with you is something you can/should probably already have an idea about and be skeptical of how much any candidate rhetorically changes their current positions to better align with other positions later. What you currently base their alignment off and the sort of metrics and ideas of how you will determine both who is most likely to win and who best aligns with your politics are also things you don't really have to worry about "aging poorly" On April 14 2026 00:47 WombaT wrote:On April 14 2026 00:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I'm curious, why? Your individual vote likely won't be determinative (even if you're in a state that might matter). Why not just vote for the candidate that most aligns with your politics in a (likely meaningless) primary?
Who do you currently think that is (both who is most likely to win and who best aligns with your politics) and based on what? How will you go about determining that?
Those are questions to any/everyone btw.
You ask a lot more questions than you ever deign to answer lad I'll come back to this later if you'd like (or if you and Ender would prefer to take it to my Blog I suppose that'd be fine). You guys are just on the verge of having something resembling a real discussion about the future of the opposition to Trump/Republicans and I'd like to see that develop. I disagree that we are ‘just on the verge’ of having a discussion on that. We were having a discussion and you just dipped out of answering any reciprocal questions that were sent your way. WombaT wrote:
Is electoralism innately doomed or is it somehow salvageable? Is there an incarnation of the Dems you may find palatable, what would that look like? What areas are most pressing to target for some movement, and how? What compromises would be acceptable for more broad coalitions etc?
I’m just spitballing a few off my head, I think the thread at large would be quite interested to have those discussions Rather than attempting to answer any of those, or indeed much of what Ender asked, you don’t, then come back into the thread to interrogate Light Spectra, but we can go to your blog or something? Have you ever considered there may be a problem in how you communicate your ideas? A problem that’s exacerbated by virtue of your ideas being niche or revolutionary in the first place? You’ll somehow (correctly) observe that wider socioeconomic or cultural norms suppress such ideas in the first place, but put zero effort into actually selling them to an audience that’s at least somewhat sympathetic. And if you can’t sell them here, good blooming luck with genpop I asked Ender to take it one step at a time and you to steelman my position on non-reformist reforms and our different ToC and you both immediately/functionally refused and decided to focus your entire framing on voting (or not) for Dems instead. I still intend to come back to that in more detail here, but I was saying if you wanted to carry that on right this second we could do it there as to not interrupt a discussion about the future of the opposition to Trump/Republicans that is now already seeming to fizzle out before anything of note is discussed. As for what I'm/we're supposed to be doing here, that seems to change wildly depending on who is saying it to whom and to what end. If we didn't all have a problem communicating we'd already have something a lot closer to Light's Star Trek Utopia goal. But what exactly am I supposed to be convincing a bunch of people that regularly insist they agree with me of in your mind? Answer pretty basic questions maybe? You seem to have the time to interrogate others but not do that, for some reason. + Show Spoiler +Even on the bolded, you’re demanding things of other people, within your own framework that aren’t reciprocated whatsoever. So you want Ender to break their worldview down piecemeal, or me to steel man your positions, but you can’t return any courtesy by giving basic answers to anything.
Ironically I think you’re fighting the good fight as it were, from my personal political position but you do it so, so very badly that I find myself being critical
And you just cannot parse any criticism whatsoever, you’re a staggeringly ineffective interlocutor of your ideas, indeed actively counter-productive and you cannot process this or alter your approach whatsoever.
Even when you get constructive feedback, you just completely ignore it and wonder why people are hostile to your pronouncements.
You’re a worse than average communicator with a worldview that requires a great communicator to punch through entrenched ideas around capitalism etc, but who acts perpetually confused as to why this is the case even when people explicitly tell them The questions are sorta like the political "when did you stop beating your wife" rhetorical trap. They impose your ToC on me and demand answers to your elections based worldview/ToC rather than asking them of my ToC like I am of others for theirs. Meanwhile, leverage-based theories of change are the ones overwhelmingly credited historically for pretty much all major US political progress. However, yours/Democrats as described thus far is based on relatively recent propaganda (Democrats have been the "good" party for less time than they were the white supremacist one btw) similar to "Diamonds are forever". In order to demonstrate that definitively, it's going to take a methodical approach where we'll need to establish individual points along the path of building a bigger picture. Most of you lose interest and chase the next squirrel long before we can do that here most of the time. Again, specifically: In your view, who is the primary audience I should be addressing, and what core message should I be convincing them of? Ah ok you’re going with strawmanning and obfuscating bollocks again, it’s a convincing approach… + Show Spoiler +
Cool, you do you. I couldn’t be arsed dealing with this anymore, consider this my last earnest effort. I’ll be ignoring your output in future
Which I assume is my problem, or I’ve been infected with propoganda or something and nothing to do with your innate inability to communicate reasonably
I'm not doing that and I've said I'll address you in further detail in a bit (and/or immediately if you want to take it to my blog). As for the specific questions: Is electoralism innately doomed or is it somehow salvageable? Is there an incarnation of the Dems you may find palatable, what would that look like? What areas are most pressing to target for some movement, and how? What compromises would be acceptable for more broad coalitions etc?
The short answer to pretty much all of that is "non-reformist reforms" and "in so far as it/they are used/we're directing our efforts toward non-reformist reforms". I'm not in charge (and wouldn't want to be) but it seems it would make sense to start with stuff that already has majority appeal/support, but I'm also open to other ideas. Seems like everyone that's opined (except maybe RenSC2) would prefer AOC over the other candidates, but not so much that they'd actually want to start making an effort to convince the people (and that's a lot more people than Newsom or Harris will need to convince) they'll need to agree with us and work to help make AOC the nominee and eventually president. OK so you want to start with things with majority appeal or support, which in the American context is basically centrist politics? Which you wholly reject so…
Also no: On April 14 2026 04:40 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2026 04:34 LightSpectra wrote:Yes it has? Both Clinton in 2016 and Biden in 2020 moved their platforms to the left in order to win over Bernie Sanders voters. AOC even took credit for helping with that in 2020. On April 14 2026 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
Nevermind the potential dangers of lining up behind whatever happens to be "most popular" (particularly when Trump won the popular vote). There's a difference between blatantly lying, like Trump promising no cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, versus actually having good ideas. GH is currently simultaneously arguing that the nascent revolutionTM should start by adopting popular positions, that the Democrats can’t do that because it’s not how it works, and about the dangers of indulging popular opinion à la Trump at the same time And he wonders why folks don’t think he has all the answers…
No. There are general policy ideas at the local, state, and federal level that could be non-reformist reforms that generally have majority support in their respective areas.
The problem isn't really that most people wouldn't support them, it's that the entrenched interests the politicians actually serve have more leverage over policy/politicians than the majority of voters that support a given policy, like Universal Background Checks + Show Spoiler +(while pertinent, I wouldn't really consider this specific policy a non-reformist reform in itself if that matters to anyone)
|
On April 14 2026 03:43 LightSpectra wrote:
Just fondly remembering when the imbeciles in this thread tried to tell us with a straight face that AOC was an idiot because she paused a few seconds while answering a question. They voted for Mr. Do Red Cross.
The fun part was how coordinated they were, all 3 of the (relatively) frequent "centrist" posters came to the thread after noted absences to praise Rubio's speech and shit on AOC's answer.
No sexism there at all, no sir!
https://newrepublic.com/post/208997/netanyahu-trump-reports-every-day-iran
I don't think this kind of reporting really helps with messaging 180 that happened after Rubio slipped and accidentally spoke the truth about US going in to this war because of Israel.
EDIT: Oh, well, fuck New Republic, the actual quote from the article:
sraeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Monday that the Trump administration reports to him every day about the ongoing war in Iran.
In a meeting with Israel’s Cabinet ministers, Netanyahu said, “I spoke yesterday with Vice President JD Vance. He called me from his plane on his way back from Islamabad. He reported to me in detail, as this administration does every day, about the development of the negotiations. In this case, the explosion in the negotiations.”
So from "JD Vance called to say why negotiations went to shit and also Trump admin reports to us every day" somehow became "Trump reports to me every day". Well, fuck me for not reading past the headline I guess.
|
United States44113 Posts
On April 14 2026 03:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
Seems like everyone that's opined (except maybe RenSC2) would prefer AOC over the other candidates, but not so much that they'd actually want to start making an effort to convince the people (and that's a lot more people than Newsom or Harris will need to convince) they'll need to agree with us and work to help make AOC the nominee and eventually president.
GH: Dems only offer token resistance to Republicans while basically losing on purpose to help Republicans with their agenda
Also GH: Why aren’t people working harder to make a woman of colour outsider the Democratic nominee
|
On April 14 2026 05:21 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2026 03:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
Seems like everyone that's opined (except maybe RenSC2) would prefer AOC over the other candidates, but not so much that they'd actually want to start making an effort to convince the people (and that's a lot more people than Newsom or Harris will need to convince) they'll need to agree with us and work to help make AOC the nominee and eventually president. GH: Dems only offer token resistance to Republicans while basically losing on purpose to help Republicans with their agenda Also GH: Why aren’t people working harder to make a woman of colour outsider the Democratic nominee
Are you trying to point out that I'm right or that the posters here aren't "Dems" so much as "independents" and/or "socialists" that believe Democrats are the only viable political body/strategy to even potentially move their interests forward?
|
On April 14 2026 00:57 GreenHorizons wrote:I'll come back to this later if you'd like (or if you and Ender would prefer to take it to my Blog I suppose that'd be fine). You guys are just on the verge of having something resembling a real discussion about the future of the opposition to Trump/Republicans and I'd like to see that develop.
Do you not re-read your posts before hitting the button? How did you not clock how condescending this last paragraph is?
In all honesty, the biggest problem in communicating with you, besides the shitty attitude, is the sheer quantity of references to different concepts that you never bother to explain in your posts.
|
On April 14 2026 05:50 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2026 00:57 GreenHorizons wrote:I'll come back to this later if you'd like (or if you and Ender would prefer to take it to my Blog I suppose that'd be fine). You guys are just on the verge of having something resembling a real discussion about the future of the opposition to Trump/Republicans and I'd like to see that develop. Do you not re-read your posts before hitting the button? How did you not clock how condescending this last paragraph is? In all honesty, the biggest problem in communicating with you, besides the shitty attitude, is the sheer quantity of references to different concepts that you never bother to explain in your posts. Which concepts are you struggling with? (note: "struggling" isn't pejorative, it's complimentary)
That's not condescension, that was observation. For a moment the discussion between each of you seemed to look like it was going to turn to disagreements about how best to get from where we are here, today, to a future where AOC (or another preferred candidate) is a front runner, and/or the policies (ideally non-reformist reforms) we all mutually like are at the forefront of the platform for the Democrat nominee.
That rapidly devolved back into some variations of "vote blue no matter who or else!" (except Swalwell, which I suppose might be worth discussing) before the first candidate has even declared for the primary.
EDIT: Also I realize now I forgot Kwark has been quite clear he thinks Democrats should nominate the oldest whitest guy they can, not an AOC or Harris or whatever.
EDIT2: On April 14 2026 06:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2026 05:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 14 2026 05:21 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2026 03:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
Seems like everyone that's opined (except maybe RenSC2) would prefer AOC over the other candidates, but not so much that they'd actually want to start making an effort to convince the people (and that's a lot more people than Newsom or Harris will need to convince) they'll need to agree with us and work to help make AOC the nominee and eventually president. GH: Dems only offer token resistance to Republicans while basically losing on purpose to help Republicans with their agenda Also GH: Why aren’t people working harder to make a woman of colour outsider the Democratic nominee Are you trying to point out that I'm right or that the posters here aren't "Dems" so much as "independents" and/or "socialists" that believe Democrats are the only viable political body/strategy to even potentially move their interests forward? + Show Spoiler +Neither. You seem not to have noticed that the American population are deeply racist and sexist. That’s something that needs to be incorporated into your strategy. If you plan on doing a revolution before the next election then fine, voter prejudice is not an issue. But if you don’t then we need to find us an old white male reality tv star or we’ll have another 4 years of Trump.
Yeah, I remembered.
|
United States44113 Posts
On April 14 2026 05:41 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2026 05:21 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2026 03:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
Seems like everyone that's opined (except maybe RenSC2) would prefer AOC over the other candidates, but not so much that they'd actually want to start making an effort to convince the people (and that's a lot more people than Newsom or Harris will need to convince) they'll need to agree with us and work to help make AOC the nominee and eventually president. GH: Dems only offer token resistance to Republicans while basically losing on purpose to help Republicans with their agenda Also GH: Why aren’t people working harder to make a woman of colour outsider the Democratic nominee Are you trying to point out that I'm right or that the posters here aren't "Dems" so much as "independents" and/or "socialists" that believe Democrats are the only viable political body/strategy to even potentially move their interests forward?
Neither. You seem not to have noticed that the American population are deeply racist and sexist. That’s something that needs to be incorporated into your strategy. If you plan on doing a revolution before the next election then fine, voter prejudice is not an issue. But if you don’t then we need to find us an old white male reality tv star or we’ll have another 4 years of Trump.
|
On April 14 2026 04:15 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2026 03:50 Falling wrote:
Ah yes. Doctors: famous for wearing white robes and healing people through the laying on of hands surrounded by a heavenly glow while the onlookers look to the 'doctor' in adoration with hands clasped in prayer.
The only real difference between this being a headswapped Jesus depiction from the Picture Bible produced in the 70s is this version has a red robe... probably because blue is Democrat coded. The whole thing looks like blasphemy to me.
Not just blasphemous, but in an ostensible secular state! And from a figure so divorced from the one they’re referencing as to be mental. Does this kinda shit even land? It’s really rather strange If it does to even a sizeable minority of the population, said proportion thinks it’s A-OK that Donald Trump of all people is comparing himself to Jesus. Which is insane stuff really
I do expect that for a large part of the population, Trump posting AI slop featuring himself is taken at the same level of seriousness as a 'memes' channel in a discord thread. They'll see it as worth a chuckle and not part of any actual deeper message, and then if someone pipes up that the meme is racist/sexist/offensive/whatever they'll just laugh at the person saying that, as well as the meme.
It's not gonna be the thing that moves anyone that's on the fence, and I expect the group of people that are amused and/or not offended by it is much larger than the group that is 'triggered' by it, and both groups are arguably a boon to Trump.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/88/Languages_Spoke_by_US_Presidents.png/960px-Languages_Spoke_by_US_Presidents.png)
