|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 08 2026 02:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 01:29 Billyboy wrote:On June 08 2026 01:05 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 17:20 Godwrath wrote:On June 07 2026 15:23 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 13:16 Billyboy wrote:On June 07 2026 07:53 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 05:39 Introvert wrote:
I said if he's a fascist Dems should have been willing to make steep compromises. Their unwillingness belies their rhetoric. But I still say if one was trying to defeat a fascist they would soften they policy stances to try and prevent said fascist from winning. That might be the most stark example of being a "moderate." It's a fair point, and one of the aspects I hope the Democrats use to win in 2028. If the country is crashing down, and through this country the world, then almost any compromise to pick up more in the middle is Priority #1. If this is politics as usual, and you want a bigger victory through unabashed support for numbers 1 through 20 of progressive policy goals (a win and a mandate), then continue acting as I observe. I want Trump gone and (likely) Vance defeated, and I want Democrats to moderate in order to make that a resounding victory. Sorry if you think it's just so unfair to pivot for an election win. You're dealing with the electorate that exists, not the one you think you deserve. What do you specifically mean by moderate though? Like what was Harris doing that was so wild? She was basically going to be more Biden, who was famously moderate, often making deals with the Republicans to the chagrin of the American Leftist. What, other than right wing media yelling about it, made Harris radical? I'd really ask you if you know what compromise means, and if you can observe the tension that I'm pointing out in the post. You'll notice that you're bringing Kamala to the discussion, not I. And perhaps you meant to reply to a post about Kamala and radicalism. I am not trying to sound snarky here, have you thought that If you truly want Trump and Vance gone, maybe it's about time you start compromising.? That's precisely the point of my post. You're unwilling to compromise on the progressive agenda to defeat Trump, so you are happy enough to see Trump's VP elected. I'm saying run honestly on progressive positions regarding the economy, trade, and parts of foreign policy, but take positions against much of the rest. I'll vote for that, merely because it would be worth stopping Trump-populism in the form of Vance. You haven't identified any compromise you're willing to entertain, so perhaps you are just asking that in others and getting ready to blame that in others. Harris was a moderate candidate and willing to compromise all sorts of progressive positions. Your point is just completely wrong. The Dems and Republicans are very different. Then why was Harris working for and getting endorsements from extreme leftists like Dick Cheney? Why was she unwilling to bridge the divide?
It’s strange that no one wants to be far right in the US but somehow there is no one right of their positions.
|
Canada11594 Posts
Trump calls the US third world because of his delusions/ lies that every election is rigged. The reporter is crooked because she won't accept his claim without evidence that California's election is rigged. (Taking a long time to tally is not the same thing as rigged.) She's just trying to skip over that part and not even argue the point. But because she will not submit, Trump, the messiah, rage quits.
He's right, in a sense, because he and his cronies are turning the US into a corrupt third world world. Just pardoned a fellow party member who was convicted of insider trading. Makes sense, of course, because Trump is currently engaged in insider trading, buying up stocks of companies that he knows will receive government contracts. And Trump ally Ellison has successfully dismantled 60 Minutes because they as journalists they maintained their independence and wouldn't toe the line of the Dear Leader. Journalists are barred from the Pentagon office buildings. But who cares about all that because of gas prices or something.
|
On June 08 2026 01:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 00:03 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 23:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2026 23:21 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 23:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2026 22:50 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 22:47 Simberto wrote:
Obviously it isn't just Darwin, Darwin lived in the 19th century, and afaik didn't even know about genes. A lot of science has happened between 1871 and 2026. And a bunch of additional science will happen.
As far as i (not being a biologist) understand, there are a bunch of open questions in biology. But evolution being a core mechanic of the development of life is incredibly well supported by evidence. I don't think anyone would complain about an approach of "this is what we know, why we think we know it, and potential alternative explanations and why we don't think they fit very well, but these are some open questions and current ideas on what may fill them, and how to investigate it."
After all, that is how science works, and it has been how basically all of my science education has worked.
But once you start using "God did it, the bible says so" as an argument, you can't really do any legitimate science anymore. And teaching something like that as a legitimate opinion that warrants taking as seriously as centuries of scientific study and experimental evidence is simply not something a competent science educator should be willing to do. If you always view religious texts as literal rather than guidelines, sure. Don't see why fiat lux is different from the big bang theory, depending on which entity you assume behind it. A spiritual one or a giant processor. Just to avoid confusion and disappointment, this is satire right? No. It's the same idea behind it or at least similar. Some random event propelled light and mass outwards. Is it random or isn't it. It's not necessarily scientific just because you have to assume it's random not knowing what the alternative is. At that point it's up to you what you believe. Apparently I have a twin somewhere, must be the evil one. There is simply no way you've studied big bang cosmology if you think that it's "the same idea" as, "or at least similar" to, Supernatural Deity Declared "Let There Be Light". Start with this introduction, and read the entire entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang Please note that the Wiki's countless scientific references, sources, and citations are significantly more in depth than just a one-liner from an ancient, historically inaccurate, scientifically inaccurate religious text. Yes. It's a theory. It says it right at the top. Not something proven.I'm not here to argue for a particular religion either way. Just to argue that the thought behind it is similar. Light out of god/the unknown. Who knows. It's just outside the scope of the provable, at least right now. Religious experiences are only subjective and not empirically provable anyway. And we're probably shitting up the thread with it. Subjectively I feel like I'm living on top of a hellgate or something which doesn't necessarily imply I believe in hell. But I guess I'm not getting torn up by a guy with a chainsaw so it's all good. Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 00:39 Vivax wrote:
Whatever. I'm not here to argue about proving or disproving religion or the big bang. I just found the thought process similar between that phrase and what exists as a still unproven theory.
You can intuitively know or at least accurately guess things without material proof, sometimes. Not a fan of pure materialism either way. Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 00:58 Vivax wrote:On June 08 2026 00:43 Simberto wrote:On June 08 2026 00:19 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2026 00:03 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 23:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2026 23:21 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 23:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2026 22:50 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 22:47 Simberto wrote:
Obviously it isn't just Darwin, Darwin lived in the 19th century, and afaik didn't even know about genes. A lot of science has happened between 1871 and 2026. And a bunch of additional science will happen.
As far as i (not being a biologist) understand, there are a bunch of open questions in biology. But evolution being a core mechanic of the development of life is incredibly well supported by evidence. I don't think anyone would complain about an approach of "this is what we know, why we think we know it, and potential alternative explanations and why we don't think they fit very well, but these are some open questions and current ideas on what may fill them, and how to investigate it."
After all, that is how science works, and it has been how basically all of my science education has worked.
But once you start using "God did it, the bible says so" as an argument, you can't really do any legitimate science anymore. And teaching something like that as a legitimate opinion that warrants taking as seriously as centuries of scientific study and experimental evidence is simply not something a competent science educator should be willing to do. If you always view religious texts as literal rather than guidelines, sure. Don't see why fiat lux is different from the big bang theory, depending on which entity you assume behind it. A spiritual one or a giant processor. Just to avoid confusion and disappointment, this is satire right? No. It's the same idea behind it or at least similar. Some random event propelled light and mass outwards. Is it random or isn't it. It's not necessarily scientific just because you have to assume it's random not knowing what the alternative is. At that point it's up to you what you believe. Apparently I have a twin somewhere, must be the evil one. There is simply no way you've studied big bang cosmology if you think that it's "the same idea" as, "or at least similar" to, Supernatural Deity Declared "Let There Be Light". Start with this introduction, and read the entire entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang Please note that the Wiki's countless scientific references, sources, and citations are significantly more in depth than just a one-liner from an ancient, historically inaccurate, scientifically inaccurate religious text. Yes. It's a theory. It says it right at the top. Not something proven. I'm not here to argue for a particular religion either way. Just to argue that the thought behind it is similar. Light out of god/the unknown. Who knows. It's just outside the scope of the provable, at least right now. Religious experiences are only subjective and not empirically provable anyway. And we're probably shitting up the thread with it. Subjectively I feel like I'm living on top of a hellgate or something which doesn't necessarily imply I believe in hell. But I guess I'm not getting torn up by a guy with a chainsaw so it's all good. You’re using the word theory wrong. It doesn’t apply a lack of proof. Things that are proven by science are still theories. I think the only area where one can truly prove stuff is maths. Everything else could always just haven been random chance every time something happened in the past. Sure, every time in the past when i let go of a ball, it accelerated downwards. But maybe that was just random chance, and next time it will move upwards. But obviously that isn't really a sensible way to approach things. The core question is "how good does statistical proof need to be for us to accept something as true." At some point, we need to accept some things as "true enough" if there is overwhelming past evidence that things do seem to work like that. And most accepted scientific theories are way beyond the level that a normal person would view as "overwhelming evidence". I fucking hate the stupid "it's just a theory" discussion that is based on nothing but people not knowing what words actually mean. The whole thing is such a silly standard cliché that i honestly didn't expect someone to seriously say that. What is next? "Bro, what if, like, the universe is like, woah man, you know?" stoner cosmology? If it's unproven, then it's just a theory.You don't hate that it's just a theory, you probably just hate that someone considers the simpler spiritual one as equally possible (two unproven theories are still a zero in fact checking but you can ramp up the approximation) because you gave up on believing that religion holds any value. Can I prove that some chemical structure is going to relieve you of pain just by looking at it? I can just test it. You can't test the big bang. Pi probably just exists to troll mathematicians with supercomputers. A "scientific theory" is the gold standard of explanatory and predictive power. There is nothing better or more accurate or more empirically supported than a scientific theory for a given set of phenomena, observations, data, laws, and mathematics that are about a specific topic.
Not that I agree with Vivax, but You guys really should be more careful and precise when discussing science. I mean, is String Theory a scientific theory? Yes. Is it bullshit? Also yes.
Is Loop Quantum Gravity a scientific theory? Yes. Is it bullshit? Most likely.
Is multiverse theory a scientific theory? Yes. Is it bullshit? Does it matter?
Is Conformal Cyclic Cosmology a scientific theory? Yes. Is it bullshit? Depends on who you ask.
I could go on, but I hope you get where I am going.
Also, I noticed you mentioned Big Bang in your list. I hope you are aware that many physicists, including some Nobel Prize laureates, do not actually believe in the Big Bang?
PS. Scientific theories (outside of math) aren't really ever proven (in the strong sense of the word).
PS. I do believe in the modern theory of evolution. I also believe it can be wrong, as any scientific theory can be shown to be wrong by new observations and replaced with a better theory.
|
Northern Ireland27271 Posts
On June 08 2026 03:24 KwarK wrote:
WombaT keeps pointing out the Starmer situation and how it is a case study in what the self identifying moderates are talking about but people don't seem to care.
Labour tried appealing to the old school socialists with Corbyn but was defeated in the election and the result was the most incompetent right wing mismanagement in the history of the UK, peaking with Liz Truss and her declaration that government economic policy would be to borrow and never repay (borrow from who Liz? You announced that you weren't going to repay before you got the loan!). The scandals of Conservative rule were truly breathtaking and unforgivable, ministers in charge of providing PPE to frontline NHS workers during the pandemic giving contracts to their mates knowing the PPE was defective, telling people they couldn't go into the hospital to say goodbye to their dying parents because of social distancing while they themselves threw fucking parties. The British right wing's incompetence at the day to day administration of government was only matched by their lack of basic ethics.
Starmer got in as a moderate and has set about doing the things that people have been begging for. For over a decade one of the most important issues for voters has been migrants entering on small boats and every right wing administration that has pledged to deal with it has campaigned on it and then allowed it to get worse, only to be voted back in on the same issue. For the first time the numbers are going down under Starmer. He's actually doing the thing. And the voters who say that that is their most important issue hate him and want to vote back in even more extremist right wingers.
It's an extremely important case study on the "why not meet the 'centrists' where they're at" approach and wombat keeps bringing it up and it keeps getting ignored.
Yeah, pretty much exactly my point. I believe you’re more plugged into UK specific politics than some here, so perhaps that’s why my point has maybe not been fully parsed in the manner I meant
Cut immigration, because we want sensible immigration policy? - Yes
Cut the ‘weird trans stuff’ because that’s a big deal for some reason - yes
Stop being so obsessed with race because we don’t like that - Also largely yes
Labour have largely pivoted to what the ostensible middle have been asking for, and hey it turns out many don’t like it anyway!
Also as Kwark alluded to it’s genuinely hard to overstate quite how bad the Tories were over here, especially latterly with Liz Truss being the nadir. Which was tolerated for well over a decade
My personal read is that said ‘sensible centre’ is actually much more reactionary than is thought, or indeed they themselves even realise, so throwing them a bone doesn’t actually do anything for you, they’ll still bat their eyelashes at Nigel Farage, while at the same time you lose a lot of buy-in and faith from your actual traditional support base.
I’ll add the caveat that this is more of an issue in 2 party systems, or systems that are de-facto close to that, and less so in systems where building cross-party coalitions is effectively necessary to govern.
|
On June 08 2026 04:13 Silvanel wrote:
Also, I noticed you mentioned Big Bang in your list. I hope you are aware that many physicists, including some Nobel Prize laureates, do not actually believe in the Big Bang?
This isn't a thing. I assume you're talking about Penrose since you mentioned CCC, but in it every cycle is started by a big bang, no serious person denies that the big bang actually happened, some just have a pet hypothesis attached to it and its meaning.
On June 08 2026 04:13 Silvanel wrote:
PS. I do believe in the modern theory of evolution. I also believe it can be wrong, as any scientific theory can be shown to be wrong by new observations and replaced with a better theory.
Can it though? The new observations wouldn't invalidate previous ones, it would have to encompass them. It wouldn't be replaced, it would be built on.
|
On June 08 2026 04:13 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 01:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2026 00:03 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 23:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2026 23:21 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 23:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2026 22:50 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 22:47 Simberto wrote:
Obviously it isn't just Darwin, Darwin lived in the 19th century, and afaik didn't even know about genes. A lot of science has happened between 1871 and 2026. And a bunch of additional science will happen.
As far as i (not being a biologist) understand, there are a bunch of open questions in biology. But evolution being a core mechanic of the development of life is incredibly well supported by evidence. I don't think anyone would complain about an approach of "this is what we know, why we think we know it, and potential alternative explanations and why we don't think they fit very well, but these are some open questions and current ideas on what may fill them, and how to investigate it."
After all, that is how science works, and it has been how basically all of my science education has worked.
But once you start using "God did it, the bible says so" as an argument, you can't really do any legitimate science anymore. And teaching something like that as a legitimate opinion that warrants taking as seriously as centuries of scientific study and experimental evidence is simply not something a competent science educator should be willing to do. If you always view religious texts as literal rather than guidelines, sure. Don't see why fiat lux is different from the big bang theory, depending on which entity you assume behind it. A spiritual one or a giant processor. Just to avoid confusion and disappointment, this is satire right? No. It's the same idea behind it or at least similar. Some random event propelled light and mass outwards. Is it random or isn't it. It's not necessarily scientific just because you have to assume it's random not knowing what the alternative is. At that point it's up to you what you believe. Apparently I have a twin somewhere, must be the evil one. There is simply no way you've studied big bang cosmology if you think that it's "the same idea" as, "or at least similar" to, Supernatural Deity Declared "Let There Be Light". Start with this introduction, and read the entire entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang Please note that the Wiki's countless scientific references, sources, and citations are significantly more in depth than just a one-liner from an ancient, historically inaccurate, scientifically inaccurate religious text. Yes. It's a theory. It says it right at the top. Not something proven.I'm not here to argue for a particular religion either way. Just to argue that the thought behind it is similar. Light out of god/the unknown. Who knows. It's just outside the scope of the provable, at least right now. Religious experiences are only subjective and not empirically provable anyway. And we're probably shitting up the thread with it. Subjectively I feel like I'm living on top of a hellgate or something which doesn't necessarily imply I believe in hell. But I guess I'm not getting torn up by a guy with a chainsaw so it's all good. On June 08 2026 00:39 Vivax wrote:
Whatever. I'm not here to argue about proving or disproving religion or the big bang. I just found the thought process similar between that phrase and what exists as a still unproven theory.
You can intuitively know or at least accurately guess things without material proof, sometimes. Not a fan of pure materialism either way. On June 08 2026 00:58 Vivax wrote:On June 08 2026 00:43 Simberto wrote:On June 08 2026 00:19 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2026 00:03 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 23:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2026 23:21 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 23:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2026 22:50 Vivax wrote:
[quote]
If you always view religious texts as literal rather than guidelines, sure.
Don't see why fiat lux is different from the big bang theory, depending on which entity you assume behind it. A spiritual one or a giant processor. Just to avoid confusion and disappointment, this is satire right? No. It's the same idea behind it or at least similar. Some random event propelled light and mass outwards. Is it random or isn't it. It's not necessarily scientific just because you have to assume it's random not knowing what the alternative is. At that point it's up to you what you believe. Apparently I have a twin somewhere, must be the evil one. There is simply no way you've studied big bang cosmology if you think that it's "the same idea" as, "or at least similar" to, Supernatural Deity Declared "Let There Be Light". Start with this introduction, and read the entire entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang Please note that the Wiki's countless scientific references, sources, and citations are significantly more in depth than just a one-liner from an ancient, historically inaccurate, scientifically inaccurate religious text. Yes. It's a theory. It says it right at the top. Not something proven. I'm not here to argue for a particular religion either way. Just to argue that the thought behind it is similar. Light out of god/the unknown. Who knows. It's just outside the scope of the provable, at least right now. Religious experiences are only subjective and not empirically provable anyway. And we're probably shitting up the thread with it. Subjectively I feel like I'm living on top of a hellgate or something which doesn't necessarily imply I believe in hell. But I guess I'm not getting torn up by a guy with a chainsaw so it's all good. You’re using the word theory wrong. It doesn’t apply a lack of proof. Things that are proven by science are still theories. I think the only area where one can truly prove stuff is maths. Everything else could always just haven been random chance every time something happened in the past. Sure, every time in the past when i let go of a ball, it accelerated downwards. But maybe that was just random chance, and next time it will move upwards. But obviously that isn't really a sensible way to approach things. The core question is "how good does statistical proof need to be for us to accept something as true." At some point, we need to accept some things as "true enough" if there is overwhelming past evidence that things do seem to work like that. And most accepted scientific theories are way beyond the level that a normal person would view as "overwhelming evidence". I fucking hate the stupid "it's just a theory" discussion that is based on nothing but people not knowing what words actually mean. The whole thing is such a silly standard cliché that i honestly didn't expect someone to seriously say that. What is next? "Bro, what if, like, the universe is like, woah man, you know?" stoner cosmology? If it's unproven, then it's just a theory.You don't hate that it's just a theory, you probably just hate that someone considers the simpler spiritual one as equally possible (two unproven theories are still a zero in fact checking but you can ramp up the approximation) because you gave up on believing that religion holds any value. Can I prove that some chemical structure is going to relieve you of pain just by looking at it? I can just test it. You can't test the big bang. Pi probably just exists to troll mathematicians with supercomputers. A "scientific theory" is the gold standard of explanatory and predictive power. There is nothing better or more accurate or more empirically supported than a scientific theory for a given set of phenomena, observations, data, laws, and mathematics that are about a specific topic. Not that I agree with Vivax, but You guys really should be more careful and precise when discussing science. I mean, is String Theory a scientific theory? Yes. Is it bullshit? Also yes. Is Loop Quantum Gravity a scientific theory? Yes. Is it bullshit? Most likely. Is multiverse theory a scientific theory? Yes. Is it bullshit? Does it matter? Is Conformal Cyclic Cosmology a scientific theory? Yes. Is it bullshit? Depends on who you ask. I could go on, but I hope you get where I am going.
It sounds like you're the one who needs to be more precise.
Multiverse theory is not a scientific theory. Google it. You made the same mistake that Vivax made: a scientific theory is not the same as a colloquial theory or a hypothesis. Multiverse theory is a hypothesis, one that is likely unfalsifiable, which - as you and I both agree at the end of this post - is a problem because falsifiability is necessary to become a scientific theory. It has not been elevated to the status of scientific theory. Unless you think that multiverse theory is currently falsifiable? Similarly, please explain how string theory is currently known to be falsifiable too.
Of course, a lack of falsifiability doesn't mean multiverse theory is automatically right or wrong, but don't assert that evolution, big bang, plate tectonics, atomic theory, germ theory, and gravity don't deserve proper credit as scientific theories just because you can list hypotheses. I actually listed scientific theories and correctly called them scientific theories.
Are "Loop Quantum Gravity" and "Conformal Cyclic Cosmology" actual scientific theories, or are you mistakenly asserting that they are, like you did with multiverse theory? I don't know anything about either LQG or CCC, but you're the one with the burden of proof here to explain why they've supposedly been given the premier status of scientific theory.
Also, I noticed you mentioned Big Bang in your list. I hope you are aware that many physicists, including some Nobel Prize laureates, do not actually believe in the Big Bang?
Well it's a good thing that the truth of an explanation isn't contingent upon there being 100% consensus 
PS. Scientific theories (outside of math) aren't really ever proven (in the strong sense of the word).
Mathematics has theorems, which are different from scientific theories, which are both different from colloquially speaking of theories and hypotheses. A mathematical theorem is proven, yes, but that's not a theory. The similar words can definitely be confusing.
PS. I do believe in the modern theory of evolution. I also believe it can be wrong, as any scientific theory can be shown to be wrong by new observations and replaced with a better theory.
Yes, scientific theories are falsifiable. That's one of the reasons why multiverse theory is not a scientific theory.
|
On June 08 2026 03:24 KwarK wrote:
WombaT keeps pointing out the Starmer situation and how it is a case study in what the self identifying moderates are talking about but people don't seem to care.
Labour tried appealing to the old school socialists with Corbyn but was defeated in the election and the result was the most incompetent right wing mismanagement in the history of the UK, peaking with Liz Truss and her declaration that government economic policy would be to borrow and never repay (borrow from who Liz? You announced that you weren't going to repay before you got the loan!). The scandals of Conservative rule were truly breathtaking and unforgivable, ministers in charge of providing PPE to frontline NHS workers during the pandemic giving contracts to their mates knowing the PPE was defective, telling people they couldn't go into the hospital to say goodbye to their dying parents because of social distancing while they themselves threw fucking parties. The British right wing's incompetence at the day to day administration of government was only matched by their lack of basic ethics.
Starmer got in as a moderate and has set about doing the things that people have been begging for. For over a decade one of the most important issues for voters has been migrants entering on small boats and every right wing administration that has pledged to deal with it has campaigned on it and then allowed it to get worse, only to be voted back in on the same issue. For the first time the numbers are going down under Starmer. He's actually doing the thing. And the voters who say that that is their most important issue hate him and want to vote back in even more extremist right wingers.
It's an extremely important case study on the "why not meet the 'centrists' where they're at" approach and wombat keeps bringing it up and it keeps getting ignored.
Again: Starmer is not a good example, because people in the UK have other realistic options, his lost support doesnt go to conservatives, but this other options.
"Starmer got in as a moderate" -ok, normally I would say this prove entire point, however Conservatives were so unelectable that he could run as commie, anarchist, nazi or god of new religion and still would probably won.
On June 07 2026 06:30 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
As a point to the discussion earlier I think I've seen posts about the teenager in England being stabbed on r/conservative every day the last week, and there are multiple posts about it if you scroll for like 30 seconds.
I realize it's a sad story with some pretty fucked up behaviour from the cops but and it's national news in the UK. But it's still not normal to have that much focus on something that happened in another country (a year ago and the murder has been sentenced).
To be fair it is kinda like in this very thread, I think most of the posters is not from US. And police went above and beyond any reason with this one.
|
United States44245 Posts
On June 08 2026 04:39 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 03:24 KwarK wrote:
WombaT keeps pointing out the Starmer situation and how it is a case study in what the self identifying moderates are talking about but people don't seem to care.
Labour tried appealing to the old school socialists with Corbyn but was defeated in the election and the result was the most incompetent right wing mismanagement in the history of the UK, peaking with Liz Truss and her declaration that government economic policy would be to borrow and never repay (borrow from who Liz? You announced that you weren't going to repay before you got the loan!). The scandals of Conservative rule were truly breathtaking and unforgivable, ministers in charge of providing PPE to frontline NHS workers during the pandemic giving contracts to their mates knowing the PPE was defective, telling people they couldn't go into the hospital to say goodbye to their dying parents because of social distancing while they themselves threw fucking parties. The British right wing's incompetence at the day to day administration of government was only matched by their lack of basic ethics.
Starmer got in as a moderate and has set about doing the things that people have been begging for. For over a decade one of the most important issues for voters has been migrants entering on small boats and every right wing administration that has pledged to deal with it has campaigned on it and then allowed it to get worse, only to be voted back in on the same issue. For the first time the numbers are going down under Starmer. He's actually doing the thing. And the voters who say that that is their most important issue hate him and want to vote back in even more extremist right wingers.
It's an extremely important case study on the "why not meet the 'centrists' where they're at" approach and wombat keeps bringing it up and it keeps getting ignored. Yeah, pretty much exactly my point. I believe you’re more plugged into UK specific politics than some here, so perhaps that’s why my point has maybe not been fully parsed in the manner I meant Cut immigration, because we want sensible immigration policy? - Yes Cut the ‘weird trans stuff’ because that’s a big deal for some reason - yes Stop being so obsessed with race because we don’t like that - Also largely yes Labour have largely pivoted to what the ostensible middle have been asking for, and hey it turns out many don’t like it anyway! Also as Kwark alluded to it’s genuinely hard to overstate quite how bad the Tories were over here, especially latterly with Liz Truss being the nadir. Which was tolerated for well over a decade My personal read is that said ‘sensible centre’ is actually much more reactionary than is thought, or indeed they themselves even realise, so throwing them a bone doesn’t actually do anything for you, they’ll still bat their eyelashes at Nigel Farage, while at the same time you lose a lot of buy-in and faith from your actual traditional support base. I’ll add the caveat that this is more of an issue in 2 party systems, or systems that are de-facto close to that, and less so in systems where building cross-party coalitions is effectively necessary to govern.
Yep. The answer to
"why not give the voters these common sense centrist policies that people like across the spectrum"
is that they fucking hate it when you do that.
It turns out they don't actually care about results, they just want to be angry. It's a group of people who are addicted to resentment and victim politics.
|
On June 08 2026 04:55 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2026 06:30 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
As a point to the discussion earlier I think I've seen posts about the teenager in England being stabbed on r/conservative every day the last week, and there are multiple posts about it if you scroll for like 30 seconds.
I realize it's a sad story with some pretty fucked up behaviour from the cops but and it's national news in the UK. But it's still not normal to have that much focus on something that happened in another country (a year ago and the murder has been sentenced). To be fair it is kinda like in this very thread, I think most of the posters is not from US. And police went above and beyond any reason with this one.
I think most posters are probably from India, China, Russia and related countries so that checks out. 
I agree the police fucked up really bad. At the same time the racist angle that US politicians are going for doesn't hold any water.
From the police officers perspective they have a people calling that they have been attacked and that there were no weapons involved. These guys are calm and collected.
They reach the scene and they have an agitated person, drunk who supposedly just took a beating. Dark clothes, not easy to spot blood or stab wounds.
He says he's been stabbed and they should have checked but I imagine "Officer I've been ..." is something they probably hear every day when arresting drunk people. There are a lot of things they could, and should have done different but to me it doesn't feel like 2 tier policing and while it's sad the kid died in handcuffs he was dead at that point and there wasn't anything the police could do about it even if they tried. It's fucked that the murderer didn't get cuffed but he did go to jail for 20+ years.
I think there are other cases where a suspect has said "I can't breathe" to police officers that are worse because the police actually killed the suspect themselves. I suspect most posters on r/conservative would not agree.
|
On June 08 2026 03:43 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 01:55 dyhb wrote:On June 08 2026 01:29 Billyboy wrote:On June 08 2026 01:05 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 17:20 Godwrath wrote:On June 07 2026 15:23 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 13:16 Billyboy wrote:On June 07 2026 07:53 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 05:39 Introvert wrote:
I said if he's a fascist Dems should have been willing to make steep compromises. Their unwillingness belies their rhetoric. But I still say if one was trying to defeat a fascist they would soften they policy stances to try and prevent said fascist from winning. That might be the most stark example of being a "moderate." It's a fair point, and one of the aspects I hope the Democrats use to win in 2028. If the country is crashing down, and through this country the world, then almost any compromise to pick up more in the middle is Priority #1. If this is politics as usual, and you want a bigger victory through unabashed support for numbers 1 through 20 of progressive policy goals (a win and a mandate), then continue acting as I observe. I want Trump gone and (likely) Vance defeated, and I want Democrats to moderate in order to make that a resounding victory. Sorry if you think it's just so unfair to pivot for an election win. You're dealing with the electorate that exists, not the one you think you deserve. What do you specifically mean by moderate though? Like what was Harris doing that was so wild? She was basically going to be more Biden, who was famously moderate, often making deals with the Republicans to the chagrin of the American Leftist. What, other than right wing media yelling about it, made Harris radical? I'd really ask you if you know what compromise means, and if you can observe the tension that I'm pointing out in the post. You'll notice that you're bringing Kamala to the discussion, not I. And perhaps you meant to reply to a post about Kamala and radicalism. I am not trying to sound snarky here, have you thought that If you truly want Trump and Vance gone, maybe it's about time you start compromising.? That's precisely the point of my post. You're unwilling to compromise on the progressive agenda to defeat Trump, so you are happy enough to see Trump's VP elected. I'm saying run honestly on progressive positions regarding the economy, trade, and parts of foreign policy, but take positions against much of the rest. I'll vote for that, merely because it would be worth stopping Trump-populism in the form of Vance. You haven't identified any compromise you're willing to entertain, so perhaps you are just asking that in others and getting ready to blame that in others. Harris was a moderate candidate and willing to compromise all sorts of progressive positions. Your point is just completely wrong. The Dems and Republicans are very different. Are you guaranteeing to me that she's the candidate in 2028? I'm aware of the argument that voters should bank on her decision to not actively campaign on issues that were so important to her in the 2020 Democratic Primary. That's tangent to my argument, so I can only assume that you want to see the state of 2024 moderation again in 2028. No, I’m suggesting it didn’t work, because it didn’t work. You know what they say about compromising: if you try a California politician that can't imagine what she would do differently than her unpopular, departing President, you've proven that it doesn't work! The only other proof you would need is a UK politician that managed 33.7% of the vote not being more popular!
|
On June 08 2026 05:49 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 03:43 Billyboy wrote:On June 08 2026 01:55 dyhb wrote:On June 08 2026 01:29 Billyboy wrote:On June 08 2026 01:05 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 17:20 Godwrath wrote:On June 07 2026 15:23 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 13:16 Billyboy wrote:On June 07 2026 07:53 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 05:39 Introvert wrote:
I said if he's a fascist Dems should have been willing to make steep compromises. Their unwillingness belies their rhetoric. But I still say if one was trying to defeat a fascist they would soften they policy stances to try and prevent said fascist from winning. That might be the most stark example of being a "moderate." It's a fair point, and one of the aspects I hope the Democrats use to win in 2028. If the country is crashing down, and through this country the world, then almost any compromise to pick up more in the middle is Priority #1. If this is politics as usual, and you want a bigger victory through unabashed support for numbers 1 through 20 of progressive policy goals (a win and a mandate), then continue acting as I observe. I want Trump gone and (likely) Vance defeated, and I want Democrats to moderate in order to make that a resounding victory. Sorry if you think it's just so unfair to pivot for an election win. You're dealing with the electorate that exists, not the one you think you deserve. What do you specifically mean by moderate though? Like what was Harris doing that was so wild? She was basically going to be more Biden, who was famously moderate, often making deals with the Republicans to the chagrin of the American Leftist. What, other than right wing media yelling about it, made Harris radical? I'd really ask you if you know what compromise means, and if you can observe the tension that I'm pointing out in the post. You'll notice that you're bringing Kamala to the discussion, not I. And perhaps you meant to reply to a post about Kamala and radicalism. I am not trying to sound snarky here, have you thought that If you truly want Trump and Vance gone, maybe it's about time you start compromising.? That's precisely the point of my post. You're unwilling to compromise on the progressive agenda to defeat Trump, so you are happy enough to see Trump's VP elected. I'm saying run honestly on progressive positions regarding the economy, trade, and parts of foreign policy, but take positions against much of the rest. I'll vote for that, merely because it would be worth stopping Trump-populism in the form of Vance. You haven't identified any compromise you're willing to entertain, so perhaps you are just asking that in others and getting ready to blame that in others. Harris was a moderate candidate and willing to compromise all sorts of progressive positions. Your point is just completely wrong. The Dems and Republicans are very different. Are you guaranteeing to me that she's the candidate in 2028? I'm aware of the argument that voters should bank on her decision to not actively campaign on issues that were so important to her in the 2020 Democratic Primary. That's tangent to my argument, so I can only assume that you want to see the state of 2024 moderation again in 2028. No, I’m suggesting it didn’t work, because it didn’t work. You know what they say about compromising: if you try a California politician that can't imagine what she would do differently than her unpopular, departing President, you've proven that it doesn't work! The only other proof you would need is a UK politician that managed 33.7% of the vote not being more popular!
Right! The compromising president was unpopular, partly because the hardline extreme leader of the of the opposing party didn’t allow compromises, even ones that they favoured. Such as on immigration.
|
On June 08 2026 05:49 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 03:43 Billyboy wrote:On June 08 2026 01:55 dyhb wrote:On June 08 2026 01:29 Billyboy wrote:On June 08 2026 01:05 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 17:20 Godwrath wrote:On June 07 2026 15:23 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 13:16 Billyboy wrote:On June 07 2026 07:53 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 05:39 Introvert wrote:
I said if he's a fascist Dems should have been willing to make steep compromises. Their unwillingness belies their rhetoric. But I still say if one was trying to defeat a fascist they would soften they policy stances to try and prevent said fascist from winning. That might be the most stark example of being a "moderate." It's a fair point, and one of the aspects I hope the Democrats use to win in 2028. If the country is crashing down, and through this country the world, then almost any compromise to pick up more in the middle is Priority #1. If this is politics as usual, and you want a bigger victory through unabashed support for numbers 1 through 20 of progressive policy goals (a win and a mandate), then continue acting as I observe. I want Trump gone and (likely) Vance defeated, and I want Democrats to moderate in order to make that a resounding victory. Sorry if you think it's just so unfair to pivot for an election win. You're dealing with the electorate that exists, not the one you think you deserve. What do you specifically mean by moderate though? Like what was Harris doing that was so wild? She was basically going to be more Biden, who was famously moderate, often making deals with the Republicans to the chagrin of the American Leftist. What, other than right wing media yelling about it, made Harris radical? I'd really ask you if you know what compromise means, and if you can observe the tension that I'm pointing out in the post. You'll notice that you're bringing Kamala to the discussion, not I. And perhaps you meant to reply to a post about Kamala and radicalism. I am not trying to sound snarky here, have you thought that If you truly want Trump and Vance gone, maybe it's about time you start compromising.? That's precisely the point of my post. You're unwilling to compromise on the progressive agenda to defeat Trump, so you are happy enough to see Trump's VP elected. I'm saying run honestly on progressive positions regarding the economy, trade, and parts of foreign policy, but take positions against much of the rest. I'll vote for that, merely because it would be worth stopping Trump-populism in the form of Vance. You haven't identified any compromise you're willing to entertain, so perhaps you are just asking that in others and getting ready to blame that in others. Harris was a moderate candidate and willing to compromise all sorts of progressive positions. Your point is just completely wrong. The Dems and Republicans are very different. Are you guaranteeing to me that she's the candidate in 2028? I'm aware of the argument that voters should bank on her decision to not actively campaign on issues that were so important to her in the 2020 Democratic Primary. That's tangent to my argument, so I can only assume that you want to see the state of 2024 moderation again in 2028. No, I’m suggesting it didn’t work, because it didn’t work. You know what they say about compromising: if you try a California politician that can't imagine what she would do differently than her unpopular, departing President, you've proven that it doesn't work! The only other proof you would need is a UK politician that managed 33.7% of the vote not being more popular!
Starmer leveraged that support to deliver one of the biggest victories landslides in a long time. He has a huge parliamentary majority. The equivalent of taking like 2/3 of the EC votes.
Nobody likes the dude. For people like myself it's a huge disappointment, he is not delivering a single thing that I'd want. For the other side, they'd rather have their anti-immigration policies with a side of racism, thank you very much.
|
On June 08 2026 01:05 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2026 17:20 Godwrath wrote:On June 07 2026 15:23 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 13:16 Billyboy wrote:On June 07 2026 07:53 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 05:39 Introvert wrote:
I said if he's a fascist Dems should have been willing to make steep compromises. Their unwillingness belies their rhetoric. But I still say if one was trying to defeat a fascist they would soften they policy stances to try and prevent said fascist from winning. That might be the most stark example of being a "moderate." It's a fair point, and one of the aspects I hope the Democrats use to win in 2028. If the country is crashing down, and through this country the world, then almost any compromise to pick up more in the middle is Priority #1. If this is politics as usual, and you want a bigger victory through unabashed support for numbers 1 through 20 of progressive policy goals (a win and a mandate), then continue acting as I observe. I want Trump gone and (likely) Vance defeated, and I want Democrats to moderate in order to make that a resounding victory. Sorry if you think it's just so unfair to pivot for an election win. You're dealing with the electorate that exists, not the one you think you deserve. What do you specifically mean by moderate though? Like what was Harris doing that was so wild? She was basically going to be more Biden, who was famously moderate, often making deals with the Republicans to the chagrin of the American Leftist. What, other than right wing media yelling about it, made Harris radical? I'd really ask you if you know what compromise means, and if you can observe the tension that I'm pointing out in the post. You'll notice that you're bringing Kamala to the discussion, not I. And perhaps you meant to reply to a post about Kamala and radicalism. I am not trying to sound snarky here, have you thought that If you truly want Trump and Vance gone, maybe it's about time you start compromising.? That's precisely the point of my post. You're unwilling to compromise on the progressive agenda to defeat Trump, so you are happy enough to see Trump's VP elected. I'm saying run honestly on progressive positions regarding the economy, trade, and parts of foreign policy, but take positions against much of the rest. I'll vote for that, merely because it would be worth stopping Trump-populism in the form of Vance. You haven't identified any compromise you're willing to entertain, so perhaps you are just asking that in others and getting ready to blame that in others. can you define what policies should we compromise to be against to ? Like out loud.
I will be honest, the whole pandering to the "centrista" voterbase has proven over and over to be just akin to roll over and just lose. So maybe you should make a compelling case on why this time is going to work against right wing populism other than just your word on it.
|
The reality is the Dems don’t need someone who “compromises” to win. They need someone who brings emotion and passion to the race.
Compromise is important to actually get things done, especially if you want to actually govern within the confines of the American system, but it’s irrelevant, or even seen as a negative during election season.
|
On June 08 2026 06:33 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 01:05 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 17:20 Godwrath wrote:On June 07 2026 15:23 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 13:16 Billyboy wrote:On June 07 2026 07:53 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 05:39 Introvert wrote:
I said if he's a fascist Dems should have been willing to make steep compromises. Their unwillingness belies their rhetoric. But I still say if one was trying to defeat a fascist they would soften they policy stances to try and prevent said fascist from winning. That might be the most stark example of being a "moderate." It's a fair point, and one of the aspects I hope the Democrats use to win in 2028. If the country is crashing down, and through this country the world, then almost any compromise to pick up more in the middle is Priority #1. If this is politics as usual, and you want a bigger victory through unabashed support for numbers 1 through 20 of progressive policy goals (a win and a mandate), then continue acting as I observe. I want Trump gone and (likely) Vance defeated, and I want Democrats to moderate in order to make that a resounding victory. Sorry if you think it's just so unfair to pivot for an election win. You're dealing with the electorate that exists, not the one you think you deserve. What do you specifically mean by moderate though? Like what was Harris doing that was so wild? She was basically going to be more Biden, who was famously moderate, often making deals with the Republicans to the chagrin of the American Leftist. What, other than right wing media yelling about it, made Harris radical? I'd really ask you if you know what compromise means, and if you can observe the tension that I'm pointing out in the post. You'll notice that you're bringing Kamala to the discussion, not I. And perhaps you meant to reply to a post about Kamala and radicalism. I am not trying to sound snarky here, have you thought that If you truly want Trump and Vance gone, maybe it's about time you start compromising.? That's precisely the point of my post. You're unwilling to compromise on the progressive agenda to defeat Trump, so you are happy enough to see Trump's VP elected. I'm saying run honestly on progressive positions regarding the economy, trade, and parts of foreign policy, but take positions against much of the rest. I'll vote for that, merely because it would be worth stopping Trump-populism in the form of Vance. You haven't identified any compromise you're willing to entertain, so perhaps you are just asking that in others and getting ready to blame that in others. can you define what policies should we compromise to be against to ? Like out loud. I will be honest, the whole pandering to the "centrista" voterbase has proven over and over to be just akin to roll over and just lose. So maybe you should make a compelling case on why this time is going to work against right wing populism other than just your word on it.
I also love the framing that Trumpism is basically inevitable. The only way not to get Trump is to become Trump yourself by "compromising" by giving the insane fascists everything they might possibly want. Because surely then they will vote for you. And only giving them some things just proves that you are not "compromising" hard enough.
|
On June 08 2026 06:27 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 05:49 dyhb wrote:On June 08 2026 03:43 Billyboy wrote:On June 08 2026 01:55 dyhb wrote:On June 08 2026 01:29 Billyboy wrote:On June 08 2026 01:05 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 17:20 Godwrath wrote:On June 07 2026 15:23 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 13:16 Billyboy wrote:On June 07 2026 07:53 dyhb wrote:
[quote]
[quote]It's a fair point, and one of the aspects I hope the Democrats use to win in 2028. If the country is crashing down, and through this country the world, then almost any compromise to pick up more in the middle is Priority #1. If this is politics as usual, and you want a bigger victory through unabashed support for numbers 1 through 20 of progressive policy goals (a win and a mandate), then continue acting as I observe. I want Trump gone and (likely) Vance defeated, and I want Democrats to moderate in order to make that a resounding victory.
Sorry if you think it's just so unfair to pivot for an election win. You're dealing with the electorate that exists, not the one you think you deserve. What do you specifically mean by moderate though? Like what was Harris doing that was so wild? She was basically going to be more Biden, who was famously moderate, often making deals with the Republicans to the chagrin of the American Leftist. What, other than right wing media yelling about it, made Harris radical? I'd really ask you if you know what compromise means, and if you can observe the tension that I'm pointing out in the post. You'll notice that you're bringing Kamala to the discussion, not I. And perhaps you meant to reply to a post about Kamala and radicalism. I am not trying to sound snarky here, have you thought that If you truly want Trump and Vance gone, maybe it's about time you start compromising.? That's precisely the point of my post. You're unwilling to compromise on the progressive agenda to defeat Trump, so you are happy enough to see Trump's VP elected. I'm saying run honestly on progressive positions regarding the economy, trade, and parts of foreign policy, but take positions against much of the rest. I'll vote for that, merely because it would be worth stopping Trump-populism in the form of Vance. You haven't identified any compromise you're willing to entertain, so perhaps you are just asking that in others and getting ready to blame that in others. Harris was a moderate candidate and willing to compromise all sorts of progressive positions. Your point is just completely wrong. The Dems and Republicans are very different. Are you guaranteeing to me that she's the candidate in 2028? I'm aware of the argument that voters should bank on her decision to not actively campaign on issues that were so important to her in the 2020 Democratic Primary. That's tangent to my argument, so I can only assume that you want to see the state of 2024 moderation again in 2028. No, I’m suggesting it didn’t work, because it didn’t work. You know what they say about compromising: if you try a California politician that can't imagine what she would do differently than her unpopular, departing President, you've proven that it doesn't work! The only other proof you would need is a UK politician that managed 33.7% of the vote not being more popular! Right! The compromising president was unpopular, partly because the hardline extreme leader of the of the opposing party didn’t allow compromises, even ones that they favoured. Such as on immigration. So now it's Biden's fault that Kamala couldn't draw a distinction between herself and Biden. This might be the apex of denying Kamala agency, and trust me, I've heard that she was the sad result of circumstances beyond her control for at least two years and maybe more.
Probably enough playing games with somebody that thinks everything Kamala did wrong is minor compared to her half-assed attempt to play at a moderate. Democrats are kings of trying nothing, and being all out of ideas. Thank god that Trump is term-limited, I swear.
On June 08 2026 06:33 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 01:05 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 17:20 Godwrath wrote:On June 07 2026 15:23 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 13:16 Billyboy wrote:On June 07 2026 07:53 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 05:39 Introvert wrote:
I said if he's a fascist Dems should have been willing to make steep compromises. Their unwillingness belies their rhetoric. But I still say if one was trying to defeat a fascist they would soften they policy stances to try and prevent said fascist from winning. That might be the most stark example of being a "moderate." It's a fair point, and one of the aspects I hope the Democrats use to win in 2028. If the country is crashing down, and through this country the world, then almost any compromise to pick up more in the middle is Priority #1. If this is politics as usual, and you want a bigger victory through unabashed support for numbers 1 through 20 of progressive policy goals (a win and a mandate), then continue acting as I observe. I want Trump gone and (likely) Vance defeated, and I want Democrats to moderate in order to make that a resounding victory. Sorry if you think it's just so unfair to pivot for an election win. You're dealing with the electorate that exists, not the one you think you deserve. What do you specifically mean by moderate though? Like what was Harris doing that was so wild? She was basically going to be more Biden, who was famously moderate, often making deals with the Republicans to the chagrin of the American Leftist. What, other than right wing media yelling about it, made Harris radical? I'd really ask you if you know what compromise means, and if you can observe the tension that I'm pointing out in the post. You'll notice that you're bringing Kamala to the discussion, not I. And perhaps you meant to reply to a post about Kamala and radicalism. I am not trying to sound snarky here, have you thought that If you truly want Trump and Vance gone, maybe it's about time you start compromising.? That's precisely the point of my post. You're unwilling to compromise on the progressive agenda to defeat Trump, so you are happy enough to see Trump's VP elected. I'm saying run honestly on progressive positions regarding the economy, trade, and parts of foreign policy, but take positions against much of the rest. I'll vote for that, merely because it would be worth stopping Trump-populism in the form of Vance. You haven't identified any compromise you're willing to entertain, so perhaps you are just asking that in others and getting ready to blame that in others. can you define what policies should we compromise to be against to ? Like out loud. I will be honest, the whole pandering to the "centrista" voterbase has proven over and over to be just akin to roll over and just lose. So maybe you should make a compelling case on why this time is going to work against right wing populism other than just your word on it. On June 08 2026 01:05 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2026 17:20 Godwrath wrote:On June 07 2026 15:23 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 13:16 Billyboy wrote:On June 07 2026 07:53 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 05:39 Introvert wrote:
I said if he's a fascist Dems should have been willing to make steep compromises. Their unwillingness belies their rhetoric. But I still say if one was trying to defeat a fascist they would soften they policy stances to try and prevent said fascist from winning. That might be the most stark example of being a "moderate." It's a fair point, and one of the aspects I hope the Democrats use to win in 2028. If the country is crashing down, and through this country the world, then almost any compromise to pick up more in the middle is Priority #1. If this is politics as usual, and you want a bigger victory through unabashed support for numbers 1 through 20 of progressive policy goals (a win and a mandate), then continue acting as I observe. I want Trump gone and (likely) Vance defeated, and I want Democrats to moderate in order to make that a resounding victory. Sorry if you think it's just so unfair to pivot for an election win. You're dealing with the electorate that exists, not the one you think you deserve. What do you specifically mean by moderate though? Like what was Harris doing that was so wild? She was basically going to be more Biden, who was famously moderate, often making deals with the Republicans to the chagrin of the American Leftist. What, other than right wing media yelling about it, made Harris radical? I'd really ask you if you know what compromise means, and if you can observe the tension that I'm pointing out in the post. You'll notice that you're bringing Kamala to the discussion, not I. And perhaps you meant to reply to a post about Kamala and radicalism. I am not trying to sound snarky here, have you thought that If you truly want Trump and Vance gone, maybe it's about time you start compromising.? That's precisely the point of my post. You're unwilling to compromise on the progressive agenda to defeat Trump, so you are happy enough to see Trump's VP elected. I'm saying run honestly on progressive positions regarding the economy, trade, and parts of foreign policy, but take positions against much of the rest. I'll vote for that, merely because it would be worth stopping Trump-populism in the form of Vance. You haven't identified any compromise you're willing to entertain, so perhaps you are just asking that in others and getting ready to blame that in others. On June 08 2026 02:12 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 01:55 dyhb wrote:On June 08 2026 01:29 Billyboy wrote:On June 08 2026 01:05 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 17:20 Godwrath wrote:On June 07 2026 15:23 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 13:16 Billyboy wrote:On June 07 2026 07:53 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 05:39 Introvert wrote:
I said if he's a fascist Dems should have been willing to make steep compromises. Their unwillingness belies their rhetoric. But I still say if one was trying to defeat a fascist they would soften they policy stances to try and prevent said fascist from winning. That might be the most stark example of being a "moderate." It's a fair point, and one of the aspects I hope the Democrats use to win in 2028. If the country is crashing down, and through this country the world, then almost any compromise to pick up more in the middle is Priority #1. If this is politics as usual, and you want a bigger victory through unabashed support for numbers 1 through 20 of progressive policy goals (a win and a mandate), then continue acting as I observe. I want Trump gone and (likely) Vance defeated, and I want Democrats to moderate in order to make that a resounding victory. Sorry if you think it's just so unfair to pivot for an election win. You're dealing with the electorate that exists, not the one you think you deserve. What do you specifically mean by moderate though? Like what was Harris doing that was so wild? She was basically going to be more Biden, who was famously moderate, often making deals with the Republicans to the chagrin of the American Leftist. What, other than right wing media yelling about it, made Harris radical? I'd really ask you if you know what compromise means, and if you can observe the tension that I'm pointing out in the post. You'll notice that you're bringing Kamala to the discussion, not I. And perhaps you meant to reply to a post about Kamala and radicalism. I am not trying to sound snarky here, have you thought that If you truly want Trump and Vance gone, maybe it's about time you start compromising.? That's precisely the point of my post. You're unwilling to compromise on the progressive agenda to defeat Trump, so you are happy enough to see Trump's VP elected. I'm saying run honestly on progressive positions regarding the economy, trade, and parts of foreign policy, but take positions against much of the rest. I'll vote for that, merely because it would be worth stopping Trump-populism in the form of Vance. You haven't identified any compromise you're willing to entertain, so perhaps you are just asking that in others and getting ready to blame that in others. Harris was a moderate candidate and willing to compromise all sorts of progressive positions. Your point is just completely wrong. The Dems and Republicans are very different. Are you guaranteeing to me that she's the candidate in 2028? I'm aware of the argument that voters should bank on her decision to not actively campaign on issues that were so important to her in the 2020 Democratic Primary. That's tangent to my argument, so I can only assume that you want to see the state of 2024 moderation again in 2028. I think you are likely to see a fighting liberal win the Democrat primary. A progressive will not because while they are very noisy online, and very good at sabotaging their own party by purity testing mayoral! candidates solely on their position on Israel-Palestine! (Mayors are well known to have jurisdiction over foreign policy) they otherwise are not very capable of bringing policy forward that has a hope of passing or building coalitions. So I fully expect a candidate who is a moderate politically within the liberal wing of the party, but a fighter by personality to win--- if the Democrats are smart. Trump ran on trans issues because it plays. Harris did not. Trump ran on border issues because he told the Republicans to spike the border bill to guarantee he could run on it. Exacerbate the problem so you can win on it. But she wasn't enough of a fighter to parry the attacks. 2008 Biden could have and that's basically what they need (minus the verbal gaffs). On June 08 2026 02:54 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 02:12 Falling wrote:On June 08 2026 01:55 dyhb wrote:On June 08 2026 01:29 Billyboy wrote:On June 08 2026 01:05 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 17:20 Godwrath wrote:On June 07 2026 15:23 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 13:16 Billyboy wrote:On June 07 2026 07:53 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 05:39 Introvert wrote:
I said if he's a fascist Dems should have been willing to make steep compromises. Their unwillingness belies their rhetoric. But I still say if one was trying to defeat a fascist they would soften they policy stances to try and prevent said fascist from winning. That might be the most stark example of being a "moderate." It's a fair point, and one of the aspects I hope the Democrats use to win in 2028. If the country is crashing down, and through this country the world, then almost any compromise to pick up more in the middle is Priority #1. If this is politics as usual, and you want a bigger victory through unabashed support for numbers 1 through 20 of progressive policy goals (a win and a mandate), then continue acting as I observe. I want Trump gone and (likely) Vance defeated, and I want Democrats to moderate in order to make that a resounding victory. Sorry if you think it's just so unfair to pivot for an election win. You're dealing with the electorate that exists, not the one you think you deserve. What do you specifically mean by moderate though? Like what was Harris doing that was so wild? She was basically going to be more Biden, who was famously moderate, often making deals with the Republicans to the chagrin of the American Leftist. What, other than right wing media yelling about it, made Harris radical? I'd really ask you if you know what compromise means, and if you can observe the tension that I'm pointing out in the post. You'll notice that you're bringing Kamala to the discussion, not I. And perhaps you meant to reply to a post about Kamala and radicalism. I am not trying to sound snarky here, have you thought that If you truly want Trump and Vance gone, maybe it's about time you start compromising.? That's precisely the point of my post. You're unwilling to compromise on the progressive agenda to defeat Trump, so you are happy enough to see Trump's VP elected. I'm saying run honestly on progressive positions regarding the economy, trade, and parts of foreign policy, but take positions against much of the rest. I'll vote for that, merely because it would be worth stopping Trump-populism in the form of Vance. You haven't identified any compromise you're willing to entertain, so perhaps you are just asking that in others and getting ready to blame that in others. Harris was a moderate candidate and willing to compromise all sorts of progressive positions. Your point is just completely wrong. The Dems and Republicans are very different. Are you guaranteeing to me that she's the candidate in 2028? I'm aware of the argument that voters should bank on her decision to not actively campaign on issues that were so important to her in the 2020 Democratic Primary. That's tangent to my argument, so I can only assume that you want to see the state of 2024 moderation again in 2028. I think you are likely to see a fighting liberal win the Democrat primary. A progressive will not because while they are very noisy online, and very good at sabotaging their own party by purity testing mayoral! candidates solely on their position on their position on Israel-Palestine! (Mayors are well known to have jurisdiction over foreign policy) they otherwise are not very capable of bringing policy forward or building coalitions. So I fully expect a candidate who is a moderate politically within the liberal wing of the party, but a fighter by personality to win--- if the Democrats are smart. Israel-Palestine is actually a good example of what needs to happen. The progressive wing of the Democratic party has been making receipt of campaign funds from AIPAC tantamount to a Trump ally and reason to lose your primary (despite however unsuitable the other major candidate is generally). The Democratic party should be about coalition building without litmus tests like AIPAC or "Stop The Genocide" or BDS. There are a ton of other positions to take on this, like Israel has to spend its own money if it wants American weapons, or extracting diplomatic concessions regarding the West Bank and Gaza in order to play ball. Show nested quote +Trump ran on trans issues because it plays. Harris did not. Trump ran on border issues because he told the Republicans to spike the border bill to guarantee he could run on it. Exacerbate the problem so you can win on it. But she wasn't enough of a fighter to parry the attacks. 2008 Biden could have and that's basically what they need (minus the verbal gaffs). If you get a fighter that knows how to fight back against accusations of extremism, Dems win. And it's not enough to simply not campaign on a topic that you previously spoke on as if it was a core civil rights issue. That leaves you vulnerable to attack. What changed on this civil rights issue, and can you craft a believable/convincing story on what changed? If Biden could drop border crossing to ~30% of previous on June 4th, 2024 (by executive authority, and not through Congress), why was that only done after 8 million peoples-worth of policy failure over his term and his last full year in office? What would you do differently? 2008 Biden could have done it and 2016 Biden could have done it too. But he didn't run in 2016 (I've heard a billion competing theories on that). By 2024, he couldn't debate. Kamala's ... how do I put this gently ... style of rhetoric is not conducive to fighting back on attacks that erode the moderate wing of her base. If she's the nominee, she needs to hone it. And she still might run and win simply based on the weakness of her opponent! I want a better horse in the race. I'm interested, Falling, if you read the investigations prior to the 2024 campaign "she refuses to take responsibility for delicate issues and blames staffers for the negative results that ensue ... the VP herself also bears responsibility for the way her office is run. It all starts at the top", 92% staff turnover. And then some of the 2024 campaign post-mortems, like Hey, nobody has come to our neighborhood. The campaign doesn’t care about us... The covert operations, many of them led by Black organizers, represented extraordinary acts of insubordination against the Harris campaign. I'm not going to link all of them. They were diverse enough, and sourced enough, to make me think there was a problem with Harris as an administrator and director of her own campaign, and not just disgruntled campaign operatives beefing about the direction. NYT, Politico, etc reported. If you need more examples, or are unfamiliar with progressive policy ideas apart from the economy and trade, please ask a progressive. We have enough Democrats telling you what Republicans think that getting moderate Democrats telling progressive Democrats what they think is pretty obviously dumb.
|
On June 08 2026 05:32 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 04:55 Razyda wrote:On June 07 2026 06:30 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
As a point to the discussion earlier I think I've seen posts about the teenager in England being stabbed on r/conservative every day the last week, and there are multiple posts about it if you scroll for like 30 seconds.
I realize it's a sad story with some pretty fucked up behaviour from the cops but and it's national news in the UK. But it's still not normal to have that much focus on something that happened in another country (a year ago and the murder has been sentenced). To be fair it is kinda like in this very thread, I think most of the posters is not from US. And police went above and beyond any reason with this one. I think most posters are probably from India, China, Russia and related countries so that checks out. I agree the police fucked up really bad. At the same time the racist angle that US politicians are going for doesn't hold any water. From the police officers perspective they have a people calling that they have been attacked and that there were no weapons involved. These guys are calm and collected. They reach the scene and they have an agitated person, drunk who supposedly just took a beating. Dark clothes, not easy to spot blood or stab wounds. He says he's been stabbed and they should have checked but I imagine "Officer I've been ..." is something they probably hear every day when arresting drunk people. There are a lot of things they could, and should have done different but to me it doesn't feel like 2 tier policing and while it's sad the kid died in handcuffs he was dead at that point and there wasn't anything the police could do about it even if they tried. It's fucked that the murderer didn't get cuffed but he did go to jail for 20+ years. I think there are other cases where a suspect has said "I can't breathe" to police officers that are worse because the police actually killed the suspect themselves. I suspect most posters on r/conservative would not agree.
Do you seriously believe that if it would be few white people claiming racial abuse standing over black guy repeating he was stabbed, police would cuff black guy without hesitation (we are talking UK today, noy US in 1840)? Part of the grooming gang scandal was that people were afraid of accusation of racism.
As for racist angle:
https://www.npcc.police.uk/SysSiteAssets/media/downloads/our-work/race-action-plan/police-anti-racism-commitment.pdf
Producing equality of policing outcomes for people from different
ethnic groups by responding to individuals and communities according
to their specific needs, circumstances and experiences, with
understanding that these will be racialised and with the aim of reducing
harm.
It does not mean treating everyone ‘the same’ or being ‘colour blind’ (racial
equality).
What do you expect if NPCC produces such document???
|
If this had happened more than once, or involved higher ups making decisions having thought about those decisions, you could maybe make an argument about some kind of systemic issue here.
As it is, it was two coppers dealing very badly with an incident having to make decisions on the fly in what is absolutely an isolated incident.
Sure, you can say 'But the grooming gangs!' but that was 20 years ago and was a completely different kind of situation involving loads of agencies all failing for reasons that were easily identified.
This was a horrific incident that the racist right has decided to exploit as hard as they possibly can to try and convince the world that UK cops hate white people, despite most police forces in the UK being found to be more likely to be racist against literally anyone except white people.
Its just another standard case of people whining because the world has noticed that they get every privilege known to man and that maybe we should take steps to mitigate that. As usual those steps are clumsy and should definitely be open to debate, but some sort of anti-white racism angle is frankly fucking ridiculous.
|
On June 08 2026 07:14 Jockmcplop wrote:
This was a horrific incident that the racist right has decided to exploit as hard as they possibly can to try and convince the world that UK cops hate white people, despite most police forces in the UK being found to be more likely to be racist against literally anyone except white people.
I didnt say UK cops hate white people, as a matter of fact I think they have short end of the stick. Whatever they do there will be either right or left wing press jumping on them.
On June 08 2026 07:14 Jockmcplop wrote:
or involved higher ups making decisions having thought about those decisions, you could maybe make an argument about some kind of systemic issue here.
Who exactly do you think wrote the document i linked above?
|
On June 08 2026 06:44 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 06:27 Billyboy wrote:On June 08 2026 05:49 dyhb wrote:On June 08 2026 03:43 Billyboy wrote:On June 08 2026 01:55 dyhb wrote:On June 08 2026 01:29 Billyboy wrote:On June 08 2026 01:05 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 17:20 Godwrath wrote:On June 07 2026 15:23 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 13:16 Billyboy wrote:
[quote]
What do you specifically mean by moderate though? Like what was Harris doing that was so wild? She was basically going to be more Biden, who was famously moderate, often making deals with the Republicans to the chagrin of the American Leftist.
What, other than right wing media yelling about it, made Harris radical?
I'd really ask you if you know what compromise means, and if you can observe the tension that I'm pointing out in the post. You'll notice that you're bringing Kamala to the discussion, not I. And perhaps you meant to reply to a post about Kamala and radicalism. I am not trying to sound snarky here, have you thought that If you truly want Trump and Vance gone, maybe it's about time you start compromising.? That's precisely the point of my post. You're unwilling to compromise on the progressive agenda to defeat Trump, so you are happy enough to see Trump's VP elected. I'm saying run honestly on progressive positions regarding the economy, trade, and parts of foreign policy, but take positions against much of the rest. I'll vote for that, merely because it would be worth stopping Trump-populism in the form of Vance. You haven't identified any compromise you're willing to entertain, so perhaps you are just asking that in others and getting ready to blame that in others. Harris was a moderate candidate and willing to compromise all sorts of progressive positions. Your point is just completely wrong. The Dems and Republicans are very different. Are you guaranteeing to me that she's the candidate in 2028? I'm aware of the argument that voters should bank on her decision to not actively campaign on issues that were so important to her in the 2020 Democratic Primary. That's tangent to my argument, so I can only assume that you want to see the state of 2024 moderation again in 2028. No, I’m suggesting it didn’t work, because it didn’t work. You know what they say about compromising: if you try a California politician that can't imagine what she would do differently than her unpopular, departing President, you've proven that it doesn't work! The only other proof you would need is a UK politician that managed 33.7% of the vote not being more popular! Right! The compromising president was unpopular, partly because the hardline extreme leader of the of the opposing party didn’t allow compromises, even ones that they favoured. Such as on immigration. So now it's Biden's fault that Kamala couldn't draw a distinction between herself and Biden. This might be the apex of denying Kamala agency, and trust me, I've heard that she was the sad result of circumstances beyond her control for at least two years and maybe more. Probably enough playing games with somebody that thinks everything Kamala did wrong is minor compared to her half-assed attempt to play at a moderate. Democrats are kings of trying nothing, and being all out of ideas. Thank god that Trump is term-limited, I swear. Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 06:33 Godwrath wrote:On June 08 2026 01:05 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 17:20 Godwrath wrote:On June 07 2026 15:23 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 13:16 Billyboy wrote:On June 07 2026 07:53 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 05:39 Introvert wrote:
I said if he's a fascist Dems should have been willing to make steep compromises. Their unwillingness belies their rhetoric. But I still say if one was trying to defeat a fascist they would soften they policy stances to try and prevent said fascist from winning. That might be the most stark example of being a "moderate." It's a fair point, and one of the aspects I hope the Democrats use to win in 2028. If the country is crashing down, and through this country the world, then almost any compromise to pick up more in the middle is Priority #1. If this is politics as usual, and you want a bigger victory through unabashed support for numbers 1 through 20 of progressive policy goals (a win and a mandate), then continue acting as I observe. I want Trump gone and (likely) Vance defeated, and I want Democrats to moderate in order to make that a resounding victory. Sorry if you think it's just so unfair to pivot for an election win. You're dealing with the electorate that exists, not the one you think you deserve. What do you specifically mean by moderate though? Like what was Harris doing that was so wild? She was basically going to be more Biden, who was famously moderate, often making deals with the Republicans to the chagrin of the American Leftist. What, other than right wing media yelling about it, made Harris radical? I'd really ask you if you know what compromise means, and if you can observe the tension that I'm pointing out in the post. You'll notice that you're bringing Kamala to the discussion, not I. And perhaps you meant to reply to a post about Kamala and radicalism. I am not trying to sound snarky here, have you thought that If you truly want Trump and Vance gone, maybe it's about time you start compromising.? That's precisely the point of my post. You're unwilling to compromise on the progressive agenda to defeat Trump, so you are happy enough to see Trump's VP elected. I'm saying run honestly on progressive positions regarding the economy, trade, and parts of foreign policy, but take positions against much of the rest. I'll vote for that, merely because it would be worth stopping Trump-populism in the form of Vance. You haven't identified any compromise you're willing to entertain, so perhaps you are just asking that in others and getting ready to blame that in others. can you define what policies should we compromise to be against to ? Like out loud. I will be honest, the whole pandering to the "centrista" voterbase has proven over and over to be just akin to roll over and just lose. So maybe you should make a compelling case on why this time is going to work against right wing populism other than just your word on it. Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 01:05 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 17:20 Godwrath wrote:On June 07 2026 15:23 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 13:16 Billyboy wrote:On June 07 2026 07:53 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 05:39 Introvert wrote:
I said if he's a fascist Dems should have been willing to make steep compromises. Their unwillingness belies their rhetoric. But I still say if one was trying to defeat a fascist they would soften they policy stances to try and prevent said fascist from winning. That might be the most stark example of being a "moderate." It's a fair point, and one of the aspects I hope the Democrats use to win in 2028. If the country is crashing down, and through this country the world, then almost any compromise to pick up more in the middle is Priority #1. If this is politics as usual, and you want a bigger victory through unabashed support for numbers 1 through 20 of progressive policy goals (a win and a mandate), then continue acting as I observe. I want Trump gone and (likely) Vance defeated, and I want Democrats to moderate in order to make that a resounding victory. Sorry if you think it's just so unfair to pivot for an election win. You're dealing with the electorate that exists, not the one you think you deserve. What do you specifically mean by moderate though? Like what was Harris doing that was so wild? She was basically going to be more Biden, who was famously moderate, often making deals with the Republicans to the chagrin of the American Leftist. What, other than right wing media yelling about it, made Harris radical? I'd really ask you if you know what compromise means, and if you can observe the tension that I'm pointing out in the post. You'll notice that you're bringing Kamala to the discussion, not I. And perhaps you meant to reply to a post about Kamala and radicalism. I am not trying to sound snarky here, have you thought that If you truly want Trump and Vance gone, maybe it's about time you start compromising.? That's precisely the point of my post. You're unwilling to compromise on the progressive agenda to defeat Trump, so you are happy enough to see Trump's VP elected. I'm saying run honestly on progressive positions regarding the economy, trade, and parts of foreign policy, but take positions against much of the rest. I'll vote for that, merely because it would be worth stopping Trump-populism in the form of Vance. You haven't identified any compromise you're willing to entertain, so perhaps you are just asking that in others and getting ready to blame that in others. Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 02:12 Falling wrote:On June 08 2026 01:55 dyhb wrote:On June 08 2026 01:29 Billyboy wrote:On June 08 2026 01:05 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 17:20 Godwrath wrote:On June 07 2026 15:23 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 13:16 Billyboy wrote:On June 07 2026 07:53 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 05:39 Introvert wrote:
I said if he's a fascist Dems should have been willing to make steep compromises. Their unwillingness belies their rhetoric. But I still say if one was trying to defeat a fascist they would soften they policy stances to try and prevent said fascist from winning. That might be the most stark example of being a "moderate." It's a fair point, and one of the aspects I hope the Democrats use to win in 2028. If the country is crashing down, and through this country the world, then almost any compromise to pick up more in the middle is Priority #1. If this is politics as usual, and you want a bigger victory through unabashed support for numbers 1 through 20 of progressive policy goals (a win and a mandate), then continue acting as I observe. I want Trump gone and (likely) Vance defeated, and I want Democrats to moderate in order to make that a resounding victory. Sorry if you think it's just so unfair to pivot for an election win. You're dealing with the electorate that exists, not the one you think you deserve. What do you specifically mean by moderate though? Like what was Harris doing that was so wild? She was basically going to be more Biden, who was famously moderate, often making deals with the Republicans to the chagrin of the American Leftist. What, other than right wing media yelling about it, made Harris radical? I'd really ask you if you know what compromise means, and if you can observe the tension that I'm pointing out in the post. You'll notice that you're bringing Kamala to the discussion, not I. And perhaps you meant to reply to a post about Kamala and radicalism. I am not trying to sound snarky here, have you thought that If you truly want Trump and Vance gone, maybe it's about time you start compromising.? That's precisely the point of my post. You're unwilling to compromise on the progressive agenda to defeat Trump, so you are happy enough to see Trump's VP elected. I'm saying run honestly on progressive positions regarding the economy, trade, and parts of foreign policy, but take positions against much of the rest. I'll vote for that, merely because it would be worth stopping Trump-populism in the form of Vance. You haven't identified any compromise you're willing to entertain, so perhaps you are just asking that in others and getting ready to blame that in others. Harris was a moderate candidate and willing to compromise all sorts of progressive positions. Your point is just completely wrong. The Dems and Republicans are very different. Are you guaranteeing to me that she's the candidate in 2028? I'm aware of the argument that voters should bank on her decision to not actively campaign on issues that were so important to her in the 2020 Democratic Primary. That's tangent to my argument, so I can only assume that you want to see the state of 2024 moderation again in 2028. I think you are likely to see a fighting liberal win the Democrat primary. A progressive will not because while they are very noisy online, and very good at sabotaging their own party by purity testing mayoral! candidates solely on their position on Israel-Palestine! (Mayors are well known to have jurisdiction over foreign policy) they otherwise are not very capable of bringing policy forward that has a hope of passing or building coalitions. So I fully expect a candidate who is a moderate politically within the liberal wing of the party, but a fighter by personality to win--- if the Democrats are smart. Trump ran on trans issues because it plays. Harris did not. Trump ran on border issues because he told the Republicans to spike the border bill to guarantee he could run on it. Exacerbate the problem so you can win on it. But she wasn't enough of a fighter to parry the attacks. 2008 Biden could have and that's basically what they need (minus the verbal gaffs). Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 02:54 dyhb wrote:On June 08 2026 02:12 Falling wrote:On June 08 2026 01:55 dyhb wrote:On June 08 2026 01:29 Billyboy wrote:On June 08 2026 01:05 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 17:20 Godwrath wrote:On June 07 2026 15:23 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 13:16 Billyboy wrote:On June 07 2026 07:53 dyhb wrote:
[quote]
[quote]It's a fair point, and one of the aspects I hope the Democrats use to win in 2028. If the country is crashing down, and through this country the world, then almost any compromise to pick up more in the middle is Priority #1. If this is politics as usual, and you want a bigger victory through unabashed support for numbers 1 through 20 of progressive policy goals (a win and a mandate), then continue acting as I observe. I want Trump gone and (likely) Vance defeated, and I want Democrats to moderate in order to make that a resounding victory.
Sorry if you think it's just so unfair to pivot for an election win. You're dealing with the electorate that exists, not the one you think you deserve. What do you specifically mean by moderate though? Like what was Harris doing that was so wild? She was basically going to be more Biden, who was famously moderate, often making deals with the Republicans to the chagrin of the American Leftist. What, other than right wing media yelling about it, made Harris radical? I'd really ask you if you know what compromise means, and if you can observe the tension that I'm pointing out in the post. You'll notice that you're bringing Kamala to the discussion, not I. And perhaps you meant to reply to a post about Kamala and radicalism. I am not trying to sound snarky here, have you thought that If you truly want Trump and Vance gone, maybe it's about time you start compromising.? That's precisely the point of my post. You're unwilling to compromise on the progressive agenda to defeat Trump, so you are happy enough to see Trump's VP elected. I'm saying run honestly on progressive positions regarding the economy, trade, and parts of foreign policy, but take positions against much of the rest. I'll vote for that, merely because it would be worth stopping Trump-populism in the form of Vance. You haven't identified any compromise you're willing to entertain, so perhaps you are just asking that in others and getting ready to blame that in others. Harris was a moderate candidate and willing to compromise all sorts of progressive positions. Your point is just completely wrong. The Dems and Republicans are very different. Are you guaranteeing to me that she's the candidate in 2028? I'm aware of the argument that voters should bank on her decision to not actively campaign on issues that were so important to her in the 2020 Democratic Primary. That's tangent to my argument, so I can only assume that you want to see the state of 2024 moderation again in 2028. I think you are likely to see a fighting liberal win the Democrat primary. A progressive will not because while they are very noisy online, and very good at sabotaging their own party by purity testing mayoral! candidates solely on their position on their position on Israel-Palestine! (Mayors are well known to have jurisdiction over foreign policy) they otherwise are not very capable of bringing policy forward or building coalitions. So I fully expect a candidate who is a moderate politically within the liberal wing of the party, but a fighter by personality to win--- if the Democrats are smart. Israel-Palestine is actually a good example of what needs to happen. The progressive wing of the Democratic party has been making receipt of campaign funds from AIPAC tantamount to a Trump ally and reason to lose your primary (despite however unsuitable the other major candidate is generally). The Democratic party should be about coalition building without litmus tests like AIPAC or "Stop The Genocide" or BDS. There are a ton of other positions to take on this, like Israel has to spend its own money if it wants American weapons, or extracting diplomatic concessions regarding the West Bank and Gaza in order to play ball. Trump ran on trans issues because it plays. Harris did not. Trump ran on border issues because he told the Republicans to spike the border bill to guarantee he could run on it. Exacerbate the problem so you can win on it. But she wasn't enough of a fighter to parry the attacks. 2008 Biden could have and that's basically what they need (minus the verbal gaffs). If you get a fighter that knows how to fight back against accusations of extremism, Dems win. And it's not enough to simply not campaign on a topic that you previously spoke on as if it was a core civil rights issue. That leaves you vulnerable to attack. What changed on this civil rights issue, and can you craft a believable/convincing story on what changed? If Biden could drop border crossing to ~30% of previous on June 4th, 2024 (by executive authority, and not through Congress), why was that only done after 8 million peoples-worth of policy failure over his term and his last full year in office? What would you do differently? 2008 Biden could have done it and 2016 Biden could have done it too. But he didn't run in 2016 (I've heard a billion competing theories on that). By 2024, he couldn't debate. Kamala's ... how do I put this gently ... style of rhetoric is not conducive to fighting back on attacks that erode the moderate wing of her base. If she's the nominee, she needs to hone it. And she still might run and win simply based on the weakness of her opponent! I want a better horse in the race. I'm interested, Falling, if you read the investigations prior to the 2024 campaign "she refuses to take responsibility for delicate issues and blames staffers for the negative results that ensue ... the VP herself also bears responsibility for the way her office is run. It all starts at the top", 92% staff turnover. And then some of the 2024 campaign post-mortems, like Hey, nobody has come to our neighborhood. The campaign doesn’t care about us... The covert operations, many of them led by Black organizers, represented extraordinary acts of insubordination against the Harris campaign. I'm not going to link all of them. They were diverse enough, and sourced enough, to make me think there was a problem with Harris as an administrator and director of her own campaign, and not just disgruntled campaign operatives beefing about the direction. NYT, Politico, etc reported. If you need more examples, or are unfamiliar with progressive policy ideas apart from the economy and trade, please ask a progressive. We have enough Democrats telling you what Republicans think that getting moderate Democrats telling progressive Democrats what they think is pretty obviously dumb.
Its clear you are deliberately missing my point. Which really speaks to the "strength" of your terrible argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
