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.
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.
I suppose the world has changed. It is insane though. The insane part coming from the President himself posting such things.
I’m sure we had Bush the Disciple or Saint Barack stuff back in the day, but it was some granny somewhere doing a wee painting in her spare time.
I’m not offended as such, not my belief system. I just think it’s insane and we’re getting into the kind of hagiographic territory we used to mock ‘less civilised’ states for indulging in.
Indeed, we’re getting to the point of being so inured to utter, utter bullshit that we’re just sighing and shrugging at this point.
None of this shite is acceptable, nor should become some new norm, but here we are.
I’m not charging you with such a claim incidentally, I think you’re merely observing, and accurately. But like it really isn’t, none of it.
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.
You can’t answer basic questions, and when you cannot you either descend into vagary, or as Ender pointed out a rather condescending tone, often accompanied with endless references and an implication that people don’t understand the topic.
As per the previous discussion a question shared by both of us was, we don’t disagree on the theory far as I can tell. How do you get to socialism or something even close in the US as it stands right now. Or indeed what the goals even are.
IMO you refuse to actually answer these questions because I believe you’re an accelerationist who values the long term socialist cause more than short-term harm reduction. It suits to dance around that perpetually, which is why you don’t give straight answers on just about anything.
Yeah Kwark did say that, he is also probably right. Because he’s actually looked around and seen the lay of the land. I don’t think he remotely likes likes it, but he gets out of his exploratory craft, has a wee sniff around
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.
and when you cannot you either descend into vagary, or as Ender pointed out a rather condescending tone, often accompanied with endless references and an implication that people don’t understand the topic.
As per the previous discussion a question shared by both of us was, we don’t disagree on the theory far as I can tell. How do you get to socialism or something even close in the US as it stands right now. Or indeed what the goals even are.
IMO you refuse to actually answer these questions because I believe you’re an accelerationist who values the long term socialist cause more than short-term harm reduction. It suits to dance around that perpetually, which is why you don’t give straight answers on just about anything.
Yeah Kwark did say that, he is also probably right. Because he’s actually looked around and seen the lay of the land. I don’t think he remotely likes likes it, but he gets out of his exploratory craft, has a wee sniff around
I answered your questions, you should pick it up from there:
On April 14 2026 00:43 LightSpectra wrote: [quote]
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.
[quote]
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: [quote] 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.
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…
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)
You didn’t answer my questions though, I mean sorry to harp on but you did nae.
The one thing you did respond to could also be an argument made by a staunch electoralist, so it’s not exactly a great one for more revolutionary politics.
Ender seems a bright enough person, they don’t seem to think you answered them satisfactorily either.
I’m almost sensing a pattern here or something.
I’m not sure what I’m meant to be ‘picking up’ here? Believe it or not you’re not the only person here who’s left wing or who’s read some of the sacred texts in here.
A good chunk of this thread aren’t even American. We reside in either more left wing nations, or at least ones with strong trade unions etc.
Your catch-all solution is revolutionary socialism, while living in pretty much the Western nation least suited to that transition and act confused when people quibble this.
When push came to shove you were more concerned with shitting on the Dems than trying to keep the Fascists out. Then when oh noes here’s the Fascists it’s everyone else’s fault again, and then you went to shaming people for not being anti-Fascist enough while yourself skipping the odd mass protest because you had family gatherings to attend.
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.
and when you cannot you either descend into vagary, or as Ender pointed out a rather condescending tone, often accompanied with endless references and an implication that people don’t understand the topic.
As per the previous discussion a question shared by both of us was, we don’t disagree on the theory far as I can tell. How do you get to socialism or something even close in the US as it stands right now. Or indeed what the goals even are.
IMO you refuse to actually answer these questions because I believe you’re an accelerationist who values the long term socialist cause more than short-term harm reduction. It suits to dance around that perpetually, which is why you don’t give straight answers on just about anything.
Yeah Kwark did say that, he is also probably right. Because he’s actually looked around and seen the lay of the land. I don’t think he remotely likes likes it, but he gets out of his exploratory craft, has a wee sniff around
I answered your questions, you should pick it up from there:
On April 14 2026 04:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 14 2026 04:30 WombaT wrote:
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: [quote] 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.
[quote] 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.
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…
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)
for example.
You didn’t answer my questions though, I mean sorry to harp on but you did nae.
The one thing you did respond to could also be an argument made by a staunch electoralist, so it’s not exactly a great one for more revolutionary politics.
Ender seems a bright enough person, they don’t seem to think you answered them satisfactorily either.
I most certainly did. You just didn't/don't like the answers you got. That's a different problem.
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" + Show Spoiler +
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 and Kwark) 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.
As I said, the issue isn't the popularity of the policy though:
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.
This is the really important bit we need to focus on imo:
The problem isn't really that most people wouldn't support some specific policy (or politician for that matter), 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)
for example.
EDIT: While far more pronounced in the US, it's going to be increasingly noticeable everywhere. A similar but clearly less egregious UK example (granted I'm far less familiar with the politics) might be the wealth tax on assets over 10 million.
On April 14 2026 06:40 WombaT wrote: Yeah Kwark did say that, he is also probably right. Because he’s actually looked around and seen the lay of the land. I don’t think he remotely likes likes it, but he gets out of his exploratory craft, has a wee sniff around
Exactly. Politics is too important for idealism, the stakes are too high.
The Lancet estimates the USAID cut death toll to be 14 million by 2030.
The difference between the most qualified black woman and the most qualified old white man isn't high enough to die on this hill. Let's say that the best candidate truly is a black woman but due to white identity politics DEI we have to select the best white male candidate. They're still going to be 99% as good, by the time we've narrowed the entire US population down to just a handful of candidates they're all pretty exceptional, the differences between them are fairly minor.
The world cannot afford the US to keep going down this path. Countries are going without fertilizer.
On April 14 2026 06:40 WombaT wrote: Yeah Kwark did say that, he is also probably right. Because he’s actually looked around and seen the lay of the land. I don’t think he remotely likes likes it, but he gets out of his exploratory craft, has a wee sniff around
Exactly. Politics is too important for idealism, the stakes are too high.
The Lancet estimates the USAID cut death toll to be 14 million by 2030.
The difference between the most qualified black woman and the most qualified old white man isn't high enough to die on this hill. Let's say that the best candidate truly is a black woman but due to white identity politics DEI we have to select the best white male candidate. They're still going to be 99% as good, by the time we've narrowed the entire US population down to just a handful of candidates they're all pretty exceptional, the differences between them are fairly minor.
The world cannot afford the US to keep going down this path. Countries are going without fertilizer.
The application of this in this context would be:
Does this mean the rest of us should join you and be actively discouraging voters and the Democrat party from supporting someone like AOC, Harris, or probably Buttigieg? as the nominee? (even if one might ultimately vote for any of them if they have to)
Do/should we exclusively promote any particular white guy? Newsom? as the best possible option?
If it truly is as important as you suggest, surely we can't wait till some arbitrary date in the future to start this work? If so, when?
On April 14 2026 06:40 WombaT wrote: Yeah Kwark did say that, he is also probably right. Because he’s actually looked around and seen the lay of the land. I don’t think he remotely likes likes it, but he gets out of his exploratory craft, has a wee sniff around
Exactly. Politics is too important for idealism, the stakes are too high.
The Lancet estimates the USAID cut death toll to be 14 million by 2030.
The difference between the most qualified black woman and the most qualified old white man isn't high enough to die on this hill. Let's say that the best candidate truly is a black woman but due to white identity politics DEI we have to select the best white male candidate. They're still going to be 99% as good, by the time we've narrowed the entire US population down to just a handful of candidates they're all pretty exceptional, the differences between them are fairly minor.
The world cannot afford the US to keep going down this path. Countries are going without fertilizer.
The application of this in this context would be:
Does this mean the rest of us should join you and be actively discouraging voters and the Democrat party from supporting someone like AOC, Harris, or probably Buttigieg? as the nominee? (even if one might ultimately vote for any of them if they have to)
Do/should we exclusively promote any particular white guy? Newsom? as the best possible option?
If truly is as important as you suggest, surely we can't wait till some arbitrary date in the future to start this work? If so, when?
I'm not in charge of the plan and I don't know why you keep trying to make me in charge. This is just an observation of the power of white nationalist identity politics in the US. Challenging white nationalist identity politics has disastrous fallout and running a nonwhite nonmale candidate is just not that important to the actual policy that gets implemented.
If you win you get a centre right black woman instead of a centre right white man. If you lose then millions of people die.
On April 14 2026 06:40 WombaT wrote: Yeah Kwark did say that, he is also probably right. Because he’s actually looked around and seen the lay of the land. I don’t think he remotely likes likes it, but he gets out of his exploratory craft, has a wee sniff around
Exactly. Politics is too important for idealism, the stakes are too high.
The Lancet estimates the USAID cut death toll to be 14 million by 2030.
The difference between the most qualified black woman and the most qualified old white man isn't high enough to die on this hill. Let's say that the best candidate truly is a black woman but due to white identity politics DEI we have to select the best white male candidate. They're still going to be 99% as good, by the time we've narrowed the entire US population down to just a handful of candidates they're all pretty exceptional, the differences between them are fairly minor.
The world cannot afford the US to keep going down this path. Countries are going without fertilizer.
The application of this in this context would be:
Does this mean the rest of us should join you and be actively discouraging voters and the Democrat party from supporting someone like AOC, Harris, or probably Buttigieg? as the nominee? (even if one might ultimately vote for any of them if they have to)
Do/should we exclusively promote any particular white guy? Newsom? as the best possible option?
If truly is as important as you suggest, surely we can't wait till some arbitrary date in the future to start this work? If so, when?
I'm not in charge of the plan and I don't know why you keep trying to make me in charge.This is just an observation of the power of white nationalist identity politics in the US. Challenging white nationalist identity politics has disastrous fallout and running a nonwhite nonmale candidate is just not that important to the actual policy that gets implemented.
If you win you get a centre right black woman instead of a center right white man. If you lose then millions of people die.
(You'll note I'm not in charge of "the revolutionary socialism plan" but that doesn't stop the questions lol)
I'm asking for your opinion on how to apply your observation with respect to your current actions. As in: Do you think it would be helpful to spread your message that nominating Harris, AOC, or Buttigieg would be a fool's bet when there is a better/99% as good (I'm not sure who) white guy option?
Is that something the people that say they would prefer AOC be the nominee agree with?
On April 14 2026 06:40 WombaT wrote: Yeah Kwark did say that, he is also probably right. Because he’s actually looked around and seen the lay of the land. I don’t think he remotely likes likes it, but he gets out of his exploratory craft, has a wee sniff around
Exactly. Politics is too important for idealism, the stakes are too high.
The Lancet estimates the USAID cut death toll to be 14 million by 2030.
The difference between the most qualified black woman and the most qualified old white man isn't high enough to die on this hill. Let's say that the best candidate truly is a black woman but due to white identity politics DEI we have to select the best white male candidate. They're still going to be 99% as good, by the time we've narrowed the entire US population down to just a handful of candidates they're all pretty exceptional, the differences between them are fairly minor.
The world cannot afford the US to keep going down this path. Countries are going without fertilizer.
I understand what you're saying - I'm definitely one for favoring what is realistic and practical when it comes to preferring an election win over an election loss, even if the winning candidate wasn't my #1 choice and even if the losing candidate was my #1 choice.
How do we base our level of confidence in all this? How can we be so sure that settling for the not-ideal candidate is the best move? If the not-ideal Democratic candidate has a 60% chance of winning the general election, and the ideal Democratic candidate has a 55% chance, is 55 close enough to 60 that we could still vote for our ideal candidate? Should we just always pick the highest number, even if it's 60 vs. 59?
Where do we draw the line(s), and how do we come up with the comparative information in the first place? Is it by looking at hypothetical polling data on how each Democratic primary candidate would perform against likely Republican nominees in the general election?
If someone had said back in 2008 that we should play it safe and choose a white man over a black man (Obama), then the white man might have also won, but it turned out that Obama won anyway. (But maybe Obama was already polling better than any other Democratic alternative in hypothetical general election polls? I don't remember.)
Or is this only a remark about how Harris shouldn't have replaced Biden in the last election, and not so easily generalizable in the future?
On April 14 2026 08:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: If someone had said back in 2008 that we should play it safe and choose a white man over a black man (Obama), then the white man might have also won, but it turned out that Obama won anyway. (But maybe Obama was already polling better than any other Democratic alternative in hypothetical general election polls? I don't remember.)
Or is this only a remark about how Harris shouldn't have replaced Biden in the last election, and not so easily generalizable in the future?
Obama was a colossal mistake. He was able to win due to charisma and the Great Recession but the reaction to Obama has been incredibly destructive, both to America and the world in general. The end of Pax Americana is going to be an absolute calamity and that's before we get into the reactionary refusal to address the impending climate collapse.
If I could trade Obama 2008/2012 for Biden and trade Trump presidencies for Romney I'd do that in a heartbeat.
The white nationalists have tremendous electoral power but they're easily divided and will often stay home if there's no nonwhite on the ballot. We've got to stop triggering these snowflakes before they kill us all.
On April 14 2026 08:39 GreenHorizons wrote: Do you think it would be helpful to spread your message that nominating Harris, AOC, or Buttigieg would be a fool's bet when there is a better/99% as good (I'm not sure who) white guy option?
Neither helpful nor unhelpful, my posts on teamliquid don't move the needle either way.
On April 14 2026 08:39 GreenHorizons wrote: Do you think it would be helpful to spread your message that nominating Harris, AOC, or Buttigieg would be a fool's bet when there is a better/99% as good (I'm not sure who) white guy option?
Neither helpful nor unhelpful, my posts on teamliquid don't move the needle either way.
I wish people gave my posts that are critical of Democrats that grace lol.
I'm talking about here and beyond though. When/where we organize politically. Is your message that nominating Harris, AOC, or Buttigieg would be a fool's bet when there is a better/99% as good (I'm not sure who) white guy option something people should bring up at their Democrat party meetings? With whoever/wherever they organize politically?
Should someone like DPB be going to their next (or any future) Democrat party/primary organizing meeting and explaining to those in attendance why Harris, AOC, or Buttigieg would be a fool's bet as you illustrated?
With Harris in front now it's obviously not currently the prevailing view of voters, but it could be, and we could help (however small our contribution here and beyond may end up being in the grand scheme). Isn't figuring out how to and then doing that how democracy as people here imagine it is supposed to work more or less?
Eh, honestly I think the power of 'white nationalist identity politics' is situational.
As of right now, with Trump/Maga support/approval at historic lows, especially among the non-party aligned. I think you can get away just running the person with your favoured policy ideas/best ideological alignment. To do otherwise right now would be conceding far too much needlessly when in a strong position (which the Dems are guilty of often).
When you have a more a tighter more neutral race, if you could find a middle of the road white liberal who basically ran on repealing Citizens United, that might be more justified. (I single out Citizens United, because progressive ideas are basically impossible to push through with it, they instantly get shit on by what seems like every dollar in the country through every business interest through it).
That is not to advocate for Kamala, or Buttigieg, because as far as I can see they are just middle of the road Liberals who happen to be POC/LGBT/a woman. Middle of the road Libs who noticeably closed ranks against the progressive left when push came to shove. I don't see them as being substantially different from say Gavin Newsom.
But you aren't really spoiled for choice at the moment. I can't really think of an actual progressive who could even be even in sniffing distance of being an outsider for candidate. Maybe Ro Khanna? (I don't think AOC is even an outsider chance either, but I could be wrong, name recognition I guess)
On April 14 2026 08:39 GreenHorizons wrote: Do you think it would be helpful to spread your message that nominating Harris, AOC, or Buttigieg would be a fool's bet when there is a better/99% as good (I'm not sure who) white guy option?
Neither helpful nor unhelpful, my posts on teamliquid don't move the needle either way.
I wish people gave my posts that are critical of Democrats that grace lol.
I'm talking about here and beyond though. When/where we organize politically. Is your message that nominating Harris, AOC, or Buttigieg would be a fool's bet when there is a better/99% as good (I'm not sure who) white guy option something people should bring up at their Democrat party meetings? With whoever/wherever they organize politically?
Should someone like DPB be going to their next (or any future) Democrat party/primary organizing meeting and explaining to those in attendance why Harris, AOC, or Buttigieg would be a fool's bet as you illustrated?
With Harris in front now it's obviously not currently the prevailing view of voters, but it could be, and we could help (however small our contribution here and beyond may end up being in the grand scheme). Isn't figuring out how to and then doing that how democracy as people here imagine it is supposed to work more or less?
Harris isn’t in front now among voters, Trump is. We had a Trump vs Harris race and Harris lost. Who is the front runner among Democratic insiders isn’t relevant.
I don’t decide what DPB does and I don’t know what would be a good use of his time. It depends what else he has going on I guess.
As for grace, you don’t get it because you don’t deserve it. My point was a general observation on the power of the white identity politics reaction in America. You single individual people out and accuse them of being materially involved in genocides for the simple crime of having a working understanding of electoral game theory. We are not the same.
On April 14 2026 08:39 GreenHorizons wrote: Do you think it would be helpful to spread your message that nominating Harris, AOC, or Buttigieg would be a fool's bet when there is a better/99% as good (I'm not sure who) white guy option?
Neither helpful nor unhelpful, my posts on teamliquid don't move the needle either way.
I wish people gave my posts that are critical of Democrats that grace lol.
I'm talking about here and beyond though. When/where we organize politically. Is your message that nominating Harris, AOC, or Buttigieg would be a fool's bet when there is a better/99% as good (I'm not sure who) white guy option something people should bring up at their Democrat party meetings? With whoever/wherever they organize politically?
Should someone like DPB be going to their next (or any future) Democrat party/primary organizing meeting and explaining to those in attendance why Harris, AOC, or Buttigieg would be a fool's bet as you illustrated?
With Harris in front now it's obviously not currently the prevailing view of voters, but it could be, and we could help (however small our contribution here and beyond may end up being in the grand scheme). Isn't figuring out how to and then doing that how democracy as people here imagine it is supposed to work more or less?
Harris isn’t in front now among voters, Trump is. We had a Trump vs Harris race and Harris lost. Who is the front runner among Democratic insiders isn’t relevant. I don’t decide what DPB does and I don’t know what would be a good use of his time. It depends what else he has going on I guess.
As for grace, you don’t get it because you don’t deserve it.
My point was a general observation on the power of the white identity politics reaction in America. + Show Spoiler +
You single individual people out and accuse them of being materially involved in genocides for the simple crime of having a working understanding of electoral game theory. We are not the same.
I guess we agree on it being a useless observation at least?
According to the latest IRS figures, New York saw nearly $10 billion in adjusted gross income vanish between 2021 and 2022 as roughly 425,000 residents departed, trailing only California in revenue loss. High earners and working-age adults were the most likely to leave,
And, obviously, the Democrats have botched California.
Compare Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada to Niagara Falls, New York. The difference is stark.
Check out Niagara Falls New York. I thought Niagara Falls was the "Honeymoon Capital" of NA?
To be fair .. the whole Love Canal thing was prolly 25% the fault of the Republicans. It was not all on the Dems.
On April 14 2026 09:16 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote: Eh, honestly I think the power of 'white nationalist identity politics' is situational.
As of right now, with Trump/Maga support/approval at historic lows, especially among the non-party aligned. I think you can get away just running the person with your favoured policy ideas/best ideological alignment. To do otherwise right now would be conceding far too much needlessly when in a strong position (which the Dems are guilty of often).
That’s literally what went wrong.
2008 Dems: “Sure, it may ruffle a few feathers, but Bush’s unpopularity has America ready for a change.”
2025: “The 19 year old in charge of allocating government grants, a Mr Big Balls, has cancelled pharmaceutical trials after confusing transgenic mice with transgender mice.”
It’s not worth poking that particular gorilla, even if you win.
On April 14 2026 08:39 GreenHorizons wrote: Do you think it would be helpful to spread your message that nominating Harris, AOC, or Buttigieg would be a fool's bet when there is a better/99% as good (I'm not sure who) white guy option?
Neither helpful nor unhelpful, my posts on teamliquid don't move the needle either way.
I wish people gave my posts that are critical of Democrats that grace lol.
I'm talking about here and beyond though. When/where we organize politically. Is your message that nominating Harris, AOC, or Buttigieg would be a fool's bet when there is a better/99% as good (I'm not sure who) white guy option something people should bring up at their Democrat party meetings? With whoever/wherever they organize politically?
Should someone like DPB be going to their next (or any future) Democrat party/primary organizing meeting and explaining to those in attendance why Harris, AOC, or Buttigieg would be a fool's bet as you illustrated?
With Harris in front now it's obviously not currently the prevailing view of voters, but it could be, and we could help (however small our contribution here and beyond may end up being in the grand scheme). Isn't figuring out how to and then doing that how democracy as people here imagine it is supposed to work more or less?
Harris isn’t in front now among voters, Trump is. We had a Trump vs Harris race and Harris lost. Who is the front runner among Democratic insiders isn’t relevant. I don’t decide what DPB does and I don’t know what would be a good use of his time. It depends what else he has going on I guess.
As for grace, you don’t get it because you don’t deserve it.
My point was a general observation on the power of the white identity politics reaction in America. + Show Spoiler +
You single individual people out and accuse them of being materially involved in genocides for the simple crime of having a working understanding of electoral game theory. We are not the same.
I guess we agree on it being a useless observation at least?
On April 14 2026 09:16 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote: Eh, honestly I think the power of 'white nationalist identity politics' is situational.
As of right now, with Trump/Maga support/approval at historic lows, especially among the non-party aligned. I think you can get away just running the person with your favoured policy ideas/best ideological alignment. To do otherwise right now would be conceding far too much needlessly when in a strong position (which the Dems are guilty of often).
That’s literally what went wrong.
2008 Dems: “Sure, it may ruffle a few feathers, but Bush’s unpopularity has America ready for a change.”
2025: “The 19 year old in charge of allocating government grants, a Mr Big Balls, has cancelled pharmaceutical trials after confusing transgenic mice with transgender mice.”
So your solution to prevent the fascists from getting into government, is just to let the racists win?
You'll just only ever have old white nominees for the Democratic party as long as the Republicans remain rascist? Seems like a winning plan.
EPT
