|
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 July 29 2026 01:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2026 01:46 dyhb wrote:On July 29 2026 01:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2026 00:44 LightSpectra wrote:On July 29 2026 00:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2026 00:12 LightSpectra wrote:On July 28 2026 23:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 28 2026 23:52 LightSpectra wrote:On July 28 2026 23:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 28 2026 22:07 LightSpectra wrote:[quote] + Show Spoiler +I didn't think you'd have such a passionate response since you said voting for centrists was a "a defensive five minute tactical choice", but I'll give my thoughts.
I mean, sure? You could also say "Baseball is designed to manipulate you into swinging a bat", but that doesn't give any positive or negative moral value to swinging bats.
I phrased it like that because I knew there were some counter-examples, but this isn't one of them. "Progressives" in the early 20th century were not egalitarians, the core defining value that unites all leftists, since they supported eugenics, scientific racism, persecuting prostitutes, and so on. Woodrow Wilson hosted a viewing of Birth of a Nation at the White House. Fascist in morality. Wilson is one of those "vote for anyone but him" examples in history, not "vote for him to keep someone worse out".
Great example in my favor actually. Compare to what Germany, Italy, Spain, and Japan were doing to communists in the same year (1940). Prosecuting 200-something people that had ties to the Soviet Union was considerably less harmful to socialism than pogroms and concentration camps.
Sure, that's possibly a good counter-example. Though I'm not sure any of this is relevant at all since an actual fascist party wasn't really on the ballot at any point in this time period. And moreover, while both Democratic and Republican presidents kept J. Edgar Hoover in charge of the FBI (obviously a point of shame), only one side supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which made the modern progressive movement possible.
😐
Quite the opposite. You're alienating the population because all of the evils the Trump administration is doing could've been avoided if just a small percentage more of the population mobilized against it. You don't want to entertain that notion because you alternate between saying saying "Democrats are useless because they couldn't stop Trump" which plays well for the crowd, but also "Democrats aren't that much worse than Trump", which doesn't. Your opinions would be a lot more credible if you picked one of those and stuck with it genuinely instead of trying to dip your toes in both pools.
You should talk to more people. A lot of people care about that.
Yeah, it does come up.
True. Unfortunate that they crippled themselves with all the in-fighting in addition to the cops and FBI murdering them. + Show Spoiler +Mutual aid is a wonderful thing but you're probably delusional if you think we're approaching a future where it provides a valid alternative to the state itself for enough of the country to manifest socialism. If fascists are in power, they will dismantle it by force and have no qualms doing so. Such a thing is only possible if fascists are kept out of power. I think that says much more than you intended. Yeah, leftists make life harder on themselves because in addition to fascists and other authoritarians wanting to kill them, they dilute their own power (their leverage, as you call it) with ideological micro-schisms and self-sabotage. As someone who consistently preaches left unity with everyone except Stalinists/Maoists/Juchists, it's not against my worldview that a Maoist group crippled themselves. Since you've completely lost the plot talking about "infighting" and "micro-schisms and self-sabotage" to rationalize the Democrat "shield" murdering people that want human rights, I think it's worth trying to dig into this general idea of infighting. For it to be a fight, there has to be opposition. I'm not rationalizing anyone murdering anyone. + Show Spoiler +I said J. Edgar Hoover was possibly a good counter-example against voting for liberals/centrists. It would be a vastly different world if Obama or Biden had their own Hoover that was assassinating Americans on American soil to impede civil rights, the moral case of voting against Republicans would be a lot harder if not impossible to make in that world.
While the Kennedys and LBJ were relatively progressive for their time despite COINTELPRO, there were some even more left-wing Democrats like Jesse Jackson and Eugene McCarthy (before the 80s) that you could argue made Democrats worth supporting just so they could pull the rest to the left. They probably would've sacked Hoover immediately. It might be easy to dismiss that because we know they didn't win in hindsight, but it would be a vastly different world if only a small percentage of the population moved to support them. What are some of the points you believe centrists must stop fighting about and concede to those to their left? Why? "Centrism" is not a universal position or ideology, so that question is too vague to answer. It's always a relative position to something else in a certain place and time. I could comment if you were more specific. You most definitely are, more importantly though, you're advocating supporting the murderers as a way to protect oneself from them. It'd be laughable if it wasn't so horrifying. I think you know what I'm talking about. Democrat leadership (to the extent that's real), Establishment Democrats? Maybe you want me to call them moderate Democrats? Basically the kind of Democrats that refused to vote for Bernie Sanders in the 2016 and 2020 primary? What do you believe they need to stop fighting with people to their left about and just concede to them? Why? Without arbitrarily deleting words from post, show me where I said that. The part of my post you deleted was where I said people should've supported a Democratic POTUS nominee that would've immediately sacked Hoover. I haven't deleted anything + Show Spoiler +(I've actually gone out of my way to reinclude things you purposely removed) , that's how you post (for reasons I think have become more obvious over the course of this discussion). I find it amusing it's so hard for you (and a lot of other people) to just answer the simple request for those that lament the infighting among the left to list some of the policies/points that the corporate/establishment/moderate/thirdway/whatever Democrats need to stop infighting about and concede to those to their left in order to not self-sabotage. EDIT: Funnily enough, this should actually be relatively easy for all of you because you have dyhb who probably voted for Clinton in the 2016 primary. It's seems LS is struggling, but surely some of you should be able to identify something? I think Bernie had a better chance against Trump than Clinton, simply because of Clinton’s baggage. That’s less to do with the policy positions than the specific individuals involved. There’s some real issues between sensible moderates and establishment “it’s her turn,” and there was no Obama this time around to send Clinton packing in the primaries. Tim Kaine was fine. Hopefully Klobuchar or Shapiro this time around. Not sure if that's hindsight or how you voted but given the Klobuchar/Shapiro I'd guess you at least supported Biden over Bernie in 2020? I desperately want to see you and Sermokala discuss why we should all rally behind Klobuchar for 2028.
When do you plan to substantiate that I'm "advocating supporting the murderers as a way to protect oneself from them"? I'm waiting patiently.
|
On July 29 2026 01:58 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2026 01:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2026 00:44 LightSpectra wrote:On July 29 2026 00:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2026 00:12 LightSpectra wrote:On July 28 2026 23:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 28 2026 23:52 LightSpectra wrote:On July 28 2026 23:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 28 2026 22:07 LightSpectra wrote:On July 28 2026 06:40 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] You're just ignoring the actual argument to rationalize your fixation on harm-reduction voting. That is part of what I'm pointing out the system is designed to manipulate you into doing. Your theory of electoral gravity is a key part of how the establishment keeps you in this hopeless Hamster Wheel. Your belief that centrists are less vicious and rarely deploy McCarthyist policies is misleading at best. Who launched the Palmer Raids against socialists? Woodrow Wilson, a progressive champion. Who signed the Smith Act to jail communists? The "best Democrat in history", Franklin D. Roosevelt. Who ran COINTELPRO to assassinate Black Panthers and dismantle the Black Radical Tradition? Liberal darlings JFK and LBJ. Who militarized the modern police state and crushed Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter? Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Who cracked down on students opposing genocide? Joe Biden. They've managed to confuse you into believing that supporting the people laying the foundations for fascism is the only way to protect yourself from fascism. It'd be funny if it weren't so catastrophic. You think I am alienating 90% of the population because you view 'the population' as a collection of online pundits/posters obsessed with whether someone voted for Clinton or Harris or whatever (and my general disdain for that kind of engagement). Normal, working-class people do not join movements because of a voting scorecard. They join them because of material reality. When a family is getting evicted and a radical mutual aid network stops the landlord, they don't care who we voted for. When an independent union wins them a living wage and healthcare through a brutal strike, they don't care about our presidential preferences (at least historically, going forward, yeah it comes up). The Black Panthers didn't build the most influential radical movement in modern US history by trying to look 'trustworthy' to moderate white liberals. They did it by feeding children and enlisting armed self-defense in the streets to protect it.The center-left will call us self-righteous idiots on social media? Fine. Let them create their vapid digital noise. While they are laughing/crying on Bluesky about the latest idiotic thing uttered by a Republican and voter apathy (or where/whatever), we will be on the ground building the literal networks of survival. When the system inevitably fractures under its own greed, the working class won't run to the liberals who spent decades telling them to compromise. They will run to the people who actually built the infrastructure to keep them alive. Many of the liberals/Democrats/"vote blue no matter who" crowd will run to join the fascists and call it "pragmatism". + Show Spoiler +I didn't think you'd have such a passionate response since you said voting for centrists was a "a defensive five minute tactical choice", but I'll give my thoughts.
I mean, sure? You could also say "Baseball is designed to manipulate you into swinging a bat", but that doesn't give any positive or negative moral value to swinging bats.
I phrased it like that because I knew there were some counter-examples, but this isn't one of them. "Progressives" in the early 20th century were not egalitarians, the core defining value that unites all leftists, since they supported eugenics, scientific racism, persecuting prostitutes, and so on. Woodrow Wilson hosted a viewing of Birth of a Nation at the White House. Fascist in morality. Wilson is one of those "vote for anyone but him" examples in history, not "vote for him to keep someone worse out".
Great example in my favor actually. Compare to what Germany, Italy, Spain, and Japan were doing to communists in the same year (1940). Prosecuting 200-something people that had ties to the Soviet Union was considerably less harmful to socialism than pogroms and concentration camps.
Sure, that's possibly a good counter-example. Though I'm not sure any of this is relevant at all since an actual fascist party wasn't really on the ballot at any point in this time period. And moreover, while both Democratic and Republican presidents kept J. Edgar Hoover in charge of the FBI (obviously a point of shame), only one side supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which made the modern progressive movement possible.
😐
Quite the opposite. You're alienating the population because all of the evils the Trump administration is doing could've been avoided if just a small percentage more of the population mobilized against it. You don't want to entertain that notion because you alternate between saying saying "Democrats are useless because they couldn't stop Trump" which plays well for the crowd, but also "Democrats aren't that much worse than Trump", which doesn't. Your opinions would be a lot more credible if you picked one of those and stuck with it genuinely instead of trying to dip your toes in both pools.
You should talk to more people. A lot of people care about that.
Yeah, it does come up.
True. Unfortunate that they crippled themselves with all the in-fighting in addition to the cops and FBI murdering them. + Show Spoiler +Mutual aid is a wonderful thing but you're probably delusional if you think we're approaching a future where it provides a valid alternative to the state itself for enough of the country to manifest socialism. If fascists are in power, they will dismantle it by force and have no qualms doing so. Such a thing is only possible if fascists are kept out of power. I think that says much more than you intended. Yeah, leftists make life harder on themselves because in addition to fascists and other authoritarians wanting to kill them, they dilute their own power (their leverage, as you call it) with ideological micro-schisms and self-sabotage. As someone who consistently preaches left unity with everyone except Stalinists/Maoists/Juchists, it's not against my worldview that a Maoist group crippled themselves. Since you've completely lost the plot talking about "infighting" and "micro-schisms and self-sabotage" to rationalize the Democrat "shield" murdering people that want human rights, I think it's worth trying to dig into this general idea of infighting. For it to be a fight, there has to be opposition. I'm not rationalizing anyone murdering anyone. + Show Spoiler +I said J. Edgar Hoover was possibly a good counter-example against voting for liberals/centrists. It would be a vastly different world if Obama or Biden had their own Hoover that was assassinating Americans on American soil to impede civil rights, the moral case of voting against Republicans would be a lot harder if not impossible to make in that world.
While the Kennedys and LBJ were relatively progressive for their time despite COINTELPRO, there were some even more left-wing Democrats like Jesse Jackson and Eugene McCarthy (before the 80s) that you could argue made Democrats worth supporting just so they could pull the rest to the left. They probably would've sacked Hoover immediately. It might be easy to dismiss that because we know they didn't win in hindsight, but it would be a vastly different world if only a small percentage of the population moved to support them. What are some of the points you believe centrists must stop fighting about and concede to those to their left? Why? "Centrism" is not a universal position or ideology, so that question is too vague to answer. It's always a relative position to something else in a certain place and time. I could comment if you were more specific. You most definitely are, more importantly though, you're advocating supporting the murderers as a way to protect oneself from them. It'd be laughable if it wasn't so horrifying. I think you know what I'm talking about. Democrat leadership (to the extent that's real), Establishment Democrats? Maybe you want me to call them moderate Democrats? Basically the kind of Democrats that refused to vote for Bernie Sanders in the 2016 and 2020 primary? What do you believe they need to stop fighting with people to their left about and just concede to them? Why? Without arbitrarily deleting words from post, show me where I said that. The part of my post you deleted was where I said people should've supported a Democratic POTUS nominee that would've immediately sacked Hoover. I haven't deleted anything + Show Spoiler +(I've actually gone out of my way to reinclude things you purposely removed) , that's how you post (for reasons I think have become more obvious over the course of this discussion). I find it amusing it's so hard for you (and a lot of other people) to just answer the simple request for those that lament the infighting among the left to list some of the policies/points that the corporate/establishment/moderate/thirdway/whatever Democrats need to stop infighting about and concede to those to their left in order to not self-sabotage. EDIT: Funnily enough, this should actually be relatively easy for all of you because you have dyhb who probably voted for Clinton in the 2016 primary. It's seems LS is struggling, but surely some of you should be able to identify something? On July 29 2026 01:03 LightSpectra wrote:
I find it amusing it's impossible for you to substantiate that I'm "advocating supporting the murderers as a way to protect oneself from them."
Edit: I'll happily answer your question about the Democratic Party just as soon as you're able to substantiate that I'm "advocating supporting the murderers as a way to protect oneself from them." Until you do so I'm going to assume you're acting in bad faith. EDIT2: I've agreed to disagree about that and am moving on to something more productive and less personal/petty/pedantic. I think your refusal to do so and your attempt at an ultimatum is comically illustrative of what I've been talking about. Show nested quote +On July 29 2026 01:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2026 01:46 dyhb wrote:On July 29 2026 01:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2026 00:44 LightSpectra wrote:On July 29 2026 00:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2026 00:12 LightSpectra wrote:On July 28 2026 23:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 28 2026 23:52 LightSpectra wrote:On July 28 2026 23:15 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I think that says much more than you intended.
Yeah, leftists make life harder on themselves because in addition to fascists and other authoritarians wanting to kill them, they dilute their own power (their leverage, as you call it) with ideological micro-schisms and self-sabotage. As someone who consistently preaches left unity with everyone except Stalinists/Maoists/Juchists, it's not against my worldview that a Maoist group crippled themselves. Since you've completely lost the plot talking about "infighting" and "micro-schisms and self-sabotage" to rationalize the Democrat "shield" murdering people that want human rights, I think it's worth trying to dig into this general idea of infighting. For it to be a fight, there has to be opposition. I'm not rationalizing anyone murdering anyone. + Show Spoiler +I said J. Edgar Hoover was possibly a good counter-example against voting for liberals/centrists. It would be a vastly different world if Obama or Biden had their own Hoover that was assassinating Americans on American soil to impede civil rights, the moral case of voting against Republicans would be a lot harder if not impossible to make in that world.
While the Kennedys and LBJ were relatively progressive for their time despite COINTELPRO, there were some even more left-wing Democrats like Jesse Jackson and Eugene McCarthy (before the 80s) that you could argue made Democrats worth supporting just so they could pull the rest to the left. They probably would've sacked Hoover immediately. It might be easy to dismiss that because we know they didn't win in hindsight, but it would be a vastly different world if only a small percentage of the population moved to support them. What are some of the points you believe centrists must stop fighting about and concede to those to their left? Why? "Centrism" is not a universal position or ideology, so that question is too vague to answer. It's always a relative position to something else in a certain place and time. I could comment if you were more specific. You most definitely are, more importantly though, you're advocating supporting the murderers as a way to protect oneself from them. It'd be laughable if it wasn't so horrifying. I think you know what I'm talking about. Democrat leadership (to the extent that's real), Establishment Democrats? Maybe you want me to call them moderate Democrats? Basically the kind of Democrats that refused to vote for Bernie Sanders in the 2016 and 2020 primary? What do you believe they need to stop fighting with people to their left about and just concede to them? Why? Without arbitrarily deleting words from post, show me where I said that. The part of my post you deleted was where I said people should've supported a Democratic POTUS nominee that would've immediately sacked Hoover. I haven't deleted anything + Show Spoiler +(I've actually gone out of my way to reinclude things you purposely removed) , that's how you post (for reasons I think have become more obvious over the course of this discussion). I find it amusing it's so hard for you (and a lot of other people) to just answer the simple request for those that lament the infighting among the left to list some of the policies/points that the corporate/establishment/moderate/thirdway/whatever Democrats need to stop infighting about and concede to those to their left in order to not self-sabotage. EDIT: Funnily enough, this should actually be relatively easy for all of you because you have dyhb who probably voted for Clinton in the 2016 primary. It's seems LS is struggling, but surely some of you should be able to identify something? I think Bernie had a better chance against Trump than Clinton, simply because of Clinton’s baggage. That’s less to do with the policy positions than the specific individuals involved. There’s some real issues between sensible moderates and establishment “it’s her turn,” and there was no Obama this time around to send Clinton packing in the primaries. Tim Kaine was fine. Hopefully Klobuchar or Shapiro this time around. Not sure if that's hindsight or how you voted but given the Klobuchar/Shapiro I'd guess you at least supported Biden over Bernie in 2020? I desperately want to see you and Sermokala discuss why we should all rally behind Klobuchar for 2028. When do you plan to substantiate that I'm "advocating supporting the murderers as a way to protect oneself from them"? I'm waiting patiently. I told you:
I've agreed to disagree about that and am moving on to something more productive and less personal/petty/pedantic. I think your refusal to do so and your attempt at an ultimatum is comically illustrative of what I've been talking about.
Did you have any policies/points that the corporate/establishment/moderate/thirdway/whatever Democrats need to stop infighting about and concede to those to their left in order to not self-sabotage?
Do any of you that think the "infighting on the left" (or whatever rhetorical iteration) is a major obstacle that needs to be addressed have any of those policies/points?
|
On July 29 2026 01:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2026 01:46 dyhb wrote:On July 29 2026 01:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2026 00:44 LightSpectra wrote:On July 29 2026 00:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2026 00:12 LightSpectra wrote:On July 28 2026 23:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 28 2026 23:52 LightSpectra wrote:On July 28 2026 23:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 28 2026 22:07 LightSpectra wrote:[quote] + Show Spoiler +I didn't think you'd have such a passionate response since you said voting for centrists was a "a defensive five minute tactical choice", but I'll give my thoughts.
I mean, sure? You could also say "Baseball is designed to manipulate you into swinging a bat", but that doesn't give any positive or negative moral value to swinging bats.
I phrased it like that because I knew there were some counter-examples, but this isn't one of them. "Progressives" in the early 20th century were not egalitarians, the core defining value that unites all leftists, since they supported eugenics, scientific racism, persecuting prostitutes, and so on. Woodrow Wilson hosted a viewing of Birth of a Nation at the White House. Fascist in morality. Wilson is one of those "vote for anyone but him" examples in history, not "vote for him to keep someone worse out".
Great example in my favor actually. Compare to what Germany, Italy, Spain, and Japan were doing to communists in the same year (1940). Prosecuting 200-something people that had ties to the Soviet Union was considerably less harmful to socialism than pogroms and concentration camps.
Sure, that's possibly a good counter-example. Though I'm not sure any of this is relevant at all since an actual fascist party wasn't really on the ballot at any point in this time period. And moreover, while both Democratic and Republican presidents kept J. Edgar Hoover in charge of the FBI (obviously a point of shame), only one side supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which made the modern progressive movement possible.
😐
Quite the opposite. You're alienating the population because all of the evils the Trump administration is doing could've been avoided if just a small percentage more of the population mobilized against it. You don't want to entertain that notion because you alternate between saying saying "Democrats are useless because they couldn't stop Trump" which plays well for the crowd, but also "Democrats aren't that much worse than Trump", which doesn't. Your opinions would be a lot more credible if you picked one of those and stuck with it genuinely instead of trying to dip your toes in both pools.
You should talk to more people. A lot of people care about that.
Yeah, it does come up.
True. Unfortunate that they crippled themselves with all the in-fighting in addition to the cops and FBI murdering them. + Show Spoiler +Mutual aid is a wonderful thing but you're probably delusional if you think we're approaching a future where it provides a valid alternative to the state itself for enough of the country to manifest socialism. If fascists are in power, they will dismantle it by force and have no qualms doing so. Such a thing is only possible if fascists are kept out of power. I think that says much more than you intended. Yeah, leftists make life harder on themselves because in addition to fascists and other authoritarians wanting to kill them, they dilute their own power (their leverage, as you call it) with ideological micro-schisms and self-sabotage. As someone who consistently preaches left unity with everyone except Stalinists/Maoists/Juchists, it's not against my worldview that a Maoist group crippled themselves. Since you've completely lost the plot talking about "infighting" and "micro-schisms and self-sabotage" to rationalize the Democrat "shield" murdering people that want human rights, I think it's worth trying to dig into this general idea of infighting. For it to be a fight, there has to be opposition. I'm not rationalizing anyone murdering anyone. + Show Spoiler +I said J. Edgar Hoover was possibly a good counter-example against voting for liberals/centrists. It would be a vastly different world if Obama or Biden had their own Hoover that was assassinating Americans on American soil to impede civil rights, the moral case of voting against Republicans would be a lot harder if not impossible to make in that world.
While the Kennedys and LBJ were relatively progressive for their time despite COINTELPRO, there were some even more left-wing Democrats like Jesse Jackson and Eugene McCarthy (before the 80s) that you could argue made Democrats worth supporting just so they could pull the rest to the left. They probably would've sacked Hoover immediately. It might be easy to dismiss that because we know they didn't win in hindsight, but it would be a vastly different world if only a small percentage of the population moved to support them. What are some of the points you believe centrists must stop fighting about and concede to those to their left? Why? "Centrism" is not a universal position or ideology, so that question is too vague to answer. It's always a relative position to something else in a certain place and time. I could comment if you were more specific. You most definitely are, more importantly though, you're advocating supporting the murderers as a way to protect oneself from them. It'd be laughable if it wasn't so horrifying. I think you know what I'm talking about. Democrat leadership (to the extent that's real), Establishment Democrats? Maybe you want me to call them moderate Democrats? Basically the kind of Democrats that refused to vote for Bernie Sanders in the 2016 and 2020 primary? What do you believe they need to stop fighting with people to their left about and just concede to them? Why? Without arbitrarily deleting words from post, show me where I said that. The part of my post you deleted was where I said people should've supported a Democratic POTUS nominee that would've immediately sacked Hoover. I haven't deleted anything + Show Spoiler +(I've actually gone out of my way to reinclude things you purposely removed) , that's how you post (for reasons I think have become more obvious over the course of this discussion). I find it amusing it's so hard for you (and a lot of other people) to just answer the simple request for those that lament the infighting among the left to list some of the policies/points that the corporate/establishment/moderate/thirdway/whatever Democrats need to stop infighting about and concede to those to their left in order to not self-sabotage. EDIT: Funnily enough, this should actually be relatively easy for all of you because you have dyhb who probably voted for Clinton in the 2016 primary. It's seems LS is struggling, but surely some of you should be able to identify something? I think Bernie had a better chance against Trump than Clinton, simply because of Clinton’s baggage. That’s less to do with the policy positions than the specific individuals involved. There’s some real issues between sensible moderates and establishment “it’s her turn,” and there was no Obama this time around to send Clinton packing in the primaries. Tim Kaine was fine. Hopefully Klobuchar or Shapiro this time around. Not sure if that's hindsight or how you voted but given the Klobuchar/Shapiro I'd guess you at least supported Biden over Bernie in 2020? I desperately want to see you and Sermokala discuss why we should all rally behind Klobuchar for 2028. Klobuchar for 2020. Buttigieg would’ve also been fine.
I want the largest possible coalition to move the country past Trump’s second term. The left wing can make their case for their reforms in the midterms and through presidential-congressional compromise legislation. I don’t know Sermo’s opinion on Klobuchar.
|
On July 29 2026 02:33 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2026 01:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2026 01:46 dyhb wrote:On July 29 2026 01:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2026 00:44 LightSpectra wrote:On July 29 2026 00:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2026 00:12 LightSpectra wrote:On July 28 2026 23:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 28 2026 23:52 LightSpectra wrote:On July 28 2026 23:15 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I think that says much more than you intended.
Yeah, leftists make life harder on themselves because in addition to fascists and other authoritarians wanting to kill them, they dilute their own power (their leverage, as you call it) with ideological micro-schisms and self-sabotage. As someone who consistently preaches left unity with everyone except Stalinists/Maoists/Juchists, it's not against my worldview that a Maoist group crippled themselves. Since you've completely lost the plot talking about "infighting" and "micro-schisms and self-sabotage" to rationalize the Democrat "shield" murdering people that want human rights, I think it's worth trying to dig into this general idea of infighting. For it to be a fight, there has to be opposition. I'm not rationalizing anyone murdering anyone. + Show Spoiler +I said J. Edgar Hoover was possibly a good counter-example against voting for liberals/centrists. It would be a vastly different world if Obama or Biden had their own Hoover that was assassinating Americans on American soil to impede civil rights, the moral case of voting against Republicans would be a lot harder if not impossible to make in that world.
While the Kennedys and LBJ were relatively progressive for their time despite COINTELPRO, there were some even more left-wing Democrats like Jesse Jackson and Eugene McCarthy (before the 80s) that you could argue made Democrats worth supporting just so they could pull the rest to the left. They probably would've sacked Hoover immediately. It might be easy to dismiss that because we know they didn't win in hindsight, but it would be a vastly different world if only a small percentage of the population moved to support them. What are some of the points you believe centrists must stop fighting about and concede to those to their left? Why? "Centrism" is not a universal position or ideology, so that question is too vague to answer. It's always a relative position to something else in a certain place and time. I could comment if you were more specific. You most definitely are, more importantly though, you're advocating supporting the murderers as a way to protect oneself from them. It'd be laughable if it wasn't so horrifying. I think you know what I'm talking about. Democrat leadership (to the extent that's real), Establishment Democrats? Maybe you want me to call them moderate Democrats? Basically the kind of Democrats that refused to vote for Bernie Sanders in the 2016 and 2020 primary? What do you believe they need to stop fighting with people to their left about and just concede to them? Why? Without arbitrarily deleting words from post, show me where I said that. The part of my post you deleted was where I said people should've supported a Democratic POTUS nominee that would've immediately sacked Hoover. I haven't deleted anything + Show Spoiler +(I've actually gone out of my way to reinclude things you purposely removed) , that's how you post (for reasons I think have become more obvious over the course of this discussion). I find it amusing it's so hard for you (and a lot of other people) to just answer the simple request for those that lament the infighting among the left to list some of the policies/points that the corporate/establishment/moderate/thirdway/whatever Democrats need to stop infighting about and concede to those to their left in order to not self-sabotage. EDIT: Funnily enough, this should actually be relatively easy for all of you because you have dyhb who probably voted for Clinton in the 2016 primary. It's seems LS is struggling, but surely some of you should be able to identify something? I think Bernie had a better chance against Trump than Clinton, simply because of Clinton’s baggage. That’s less to do with the policy positions than the specific individuals involved. There’s some real issues between sensible moderates and establishment “it’s her turn,” and there was no Obama this time around to send Clinton packing in the primaries. Tim Kaine was fine. Hopefully Klobuchar or Shapiro this time around. Not sure if that's hindsight or how you voted but given the Klobuchar/Shapiro I'd guess you at least supported Biden over Bernie in 2020? I desperately want to see you and Sermokala discuss why we should all rally behind Klobuchar for 2028. Klobuchar for 2020. Buttigieg would’ve also been fine. I want the largest possible coalition to move the country past Trump’s second term. The left wing can make their case for their reforms in the midterms and through presidential-congressional compromise legislation. I don’t know Sermo’s opinion on Klobuchar.
Interesting how much you and the people that seem to treat you with so much disdain actually agree.
Did you have any policies/points that the corporate/establishment/moderate/thirdway/Klobuchar/Buttigieg/whatever Democrats need to stop infighting about and concede to those to their left in order to not self-sabotage?
|
On July 29 2026 02:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2026 01:58 LightSpectra wrote:On July 29 2026 01:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2026 00:44 LightSpectra wrote:On July 29 2026 00:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2026 00:12 LightSpectra wrote:On July 28 2026 23:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 28 2026 23:52 LightSpectra wrote:On July 28 2026 23:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 28 2026 22:07 LightSpectra wrote:[quote] + Show Spoiler +I didn't think you'd have such a passionate response since you said voting for centrists was a "a defensive five minute tactical choice", but I'll give my thoughts.
I mean, sure? You could also say "Baseball is designed to manipulate you into swinging a bat", but that doesn't give any positive or negative moral value to swinging bats.
I phrased it like that because I knew there were some counter-examples, but this isn't one of them. "Progressives" in the early 20th century were not egalitarians, the core defining value that unites all leftists, since they supported eugenics, scientific racism, persecuting prostitutes, and so on. Woodrow Wilson hosted a viewing of Birth of a Nation at the White House. Fascist in morality. Wilson is one of those "vote for anyone but him" examples in history, not "vote for him to keep someone worse out".
Great example in my favor actually. Compare to what Germany, Italy, Spain, and Japan were doing to communists in the same year (1940). Prosecuting 200-something people that had ties to the Soviet Union was considerably less harmful to socialism than pogroms and concentration camps.
Sure, that's possibly a good counter-example. Though I'm not sure any of this is relevant at all since an actual fascist party wasn't really on the ballot at any point in this time period. And moreover, while both Democratic and Republican presidents kept J. Edgar Hoover in charge of the FBI (obviously a point of shame), only one side supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which made the modern progressive movement possible.
😐
Quite the opposite. You're alienating the population because all of the evils the Trump administration is doing could've been avoided if just a small percentage more of the population mobilized against it. You don't want to entertain that notion because you alternate between saying saying "Democrats are useless because they couldn't stop Trump" which plays well for the crowd, but also "Democrats aren't that much worse than Trump", which doesn't. Your opinions would be a lot more credible if you picked one of those and stuck with it genuinely instead of trying to dip your toes in both pools.
You should talk to more people. A lot of people care about that.
Yeah, it does come up.
True. Unfortunate that they crippled themselves with all the in-fighting in addition to the cops and FBI murdering them. + Show Spoiler +Mutual aid is a wonderful thing but you're probably delusional if you think we're approaching a future where it provides a valid alternative to the state itself for enough of the country to manifest socialism. If fascists are in power, they will dismantle it by force and have no qualms doing so. Such a thing is only possible if fascists are kept out of power. I think that says much more than you intended. Yeah, leftists make life harder on themselves because in addition to fascists and other authoritarians wanting to kill them, they dilute their own power (their leverage, as you call it) with ideological micro-schisms and self-sabotage. As someone who consistently preaches left unity with everyone except Stalinists/Maoists/Juchists, it's not against my worldview that a Maoist group crippled themselves. Since you've completely lost the plot talking about "infighting" and "micro-schisms and self-sabotage" to rationalize the Democrat "shield" murdering people that want human rights, I think it's worth trying to dig into this general idea of infighting. For it to be a fight, there has to be opposition. I'm not rationalizing anyone murdering anyone. + Show Spoiler +I said J. Edgar Hoover was possibly a good counter-example against voting for liberals/centrists. It would be a vastly different world if Obama or Biden had their own Hoover that was assassinating Americans on American soil to impede civil rights, the moral case of voting against Republicans would be a lot harder if not impossible to make in that world.
While the Kennedys and LBJ were relatively progressive for their time despite COINTELPRO, there were some even more left-wing Democrats like Jesse Jackson and Eugene McCarthy (before the 80s) that you could argue made Democrats worth supporting just so they could pull the rest to the left. They probably would've sacked Hoover immediately. It might be easy to dismiss that because we know they didn't win in hindsight, but it would be a vastly different world if only a small percentage of the population moved to support them. What are some of the points you believe centrists must stop fighting about and concede to those to their left? Why? "Centrism" is not a universal position or ideology, so that question is too vague to answer. It's always a relative position to something else in a certain place and time. I could comment if you were more specific. You most definitely are, more importantly though, you're advocating supporting the murderers as a way to protect oneself from them. It'd be laughable if it wasn't so horrifying. I think you know what I'm talking about. Democrat leadership (to the extent that's real), Establishment Democrats? Maybe you want me to call them moderate Democrats? Basically the kind of Democrats that refused to vote for Bernie Sanders in the 2016 and 2020 primary? What do you believe they need to stop fighting with people to their left about and just concede to them? Why? Without arbitrarily deleting words from post, show me where I said that. The part of my post you deleted was where I said people should've supported a Democratic POTUS nominee that would've immediately sacked Hoover. I haven't deleted anything + Show Spoiler +(I've actually gone out of my way to reinclude things you purposely removed) , that's how you post (for reasons I think have become more obvious over the course of this discussion). I find it amusing it's so hard for you (and a lot of other people) to just answer the simple request for those that lament the infighting among the left to list some of the policies/points that the corporate/establishment/moderate/thirdway/whatever Democrats need to stop infighting about and concede to those to their left in order to not self-sabotage. EDIT: Funnily enough, this should actually be relatively easy for all of you because you have dyhb who probably voted for Clinton in the 2016 primary. It's seems LS is struggling, but surely some of you should be able to identify something? On July 29 2026 01:03 LightSpectra wrote:
I find it amusing it's impossible for you to substantiate that I'm "advocating supporting the murderers as a way to protect oneself from them."
Edit: I'll happily answer your question about the Democratic Party just as soon as you're able to substantiate that I'm "advocating supporting the murderers as a way to protect oneself from them." Until you do so I'm going to assume you're acting in bad faith. EDIT2: I've agreed to disagree about that and am moving on to something more productive and less personal/petty/pedantic. I think your refusal to do so and your attempt at an ultimatum is comically illustrative of what I've been talking about. On July 29 2026 01:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2026 01:46 dyhb wrote:On July 29 2026 01:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2026 00:44 LightSpectra wrote:On July 29 2026 00:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2026 00:12 LightSpectra wrote:On July 28 2026 23:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 28 2026 23:52 LightSpectra wrote:
[quote]
Yeah, leftists make life harder on themselves because in addition to fascists and other authoritarians wanting to kill them, they dilute their own power (their leverage, as you call it) with ideological micro-schisms and self-sabotage.
As someone who consistently preaches left unity with everyone except Stalinists/Maoists/Juchists, it's not against my worldview that a Maoist group crippled themselves. Since you've completely lost the plot talking about "infighting" and "micro-schisms and self-sabotage" to rationalize the Democrat "shield" murdering people that want human rights, I think it's worth trying to dig into this general idea of infighting. For it to be a fight, there has to be opposition. I'm not rationalizing anyone murdering anyone. + Show Spoiler +I said J. Edgar Hoover was possibly a good counter-example against voting for liberals/centrists. It would be a vastly different world if Obama or Biden had their own Hoover that was assassinating Americans on American soil to impede civil rights, the moral case of voting against Republicans would be a lot harder if not impossible to make in that world.
While the Kennedys and LBJ were relatively progressive for their time despite COINTELPRO, there were some even more left-wing Democrats like Jesse Jackson and Eugene McCarthy (before the 80s) that you could argue made Democrats worth supporting just so they could pull the rest to the left. They probably would've sacked Hoover immediately. It might be easy to dismiss that because we know they didn't win in hindsight, but it would be a vastly different world if only a small percentage of the population moved to support them. What are some of the points you believe centrists must stop fighting about and concede to those to their left? Why? "Centrism" is not a universal position or ideology, so that question is too vague to answer. It's always a relative position to something else in a certain place and time. I could comment if you were more specific. You most definitely are, more importantly though, you're advocating supporting the murderers as a way to protect oneself from them. It'd be laughable if it wasn't so horrifying. I think you know what I'm talking about. Democrat leadership (to the extent that's real), Establishment Democrats? Maybe you want me to call them moderate Democrats? Basically the kind of Democrats that refused to vote for Bernie Sanders in the 2016 and 2020 primary? What do you believe they need to stop fighting with people to their left about and just concede to them? Why? Without arbitrarily deleting words from post, show me where I said that. The part of my post you deleted was where I said people should've supported a Democratic POTUS nominee that would've immediately sacked Hoover. I haven't deleted anything + Show Spoiler +(I've actually gone out of my way to reinclude things you purposely removed) , that's how you post (for reasons I think have become more obvious over the course of this discussion). I find it amusing it's so hard for you (and a lot of other people) to just answer the simple request for those that lament the infighting among the left to list some of the policies/points that the corporate/establishment/moderate/thirdway/whatever Democrats need to stop infighting about and concede to those to their left in order to not self-sabotage. EDIT: Funnily enough, this should actually be relatively easy for all of you because you have dyhb who probably voted for Clinton in the 2016 primary. It's seems LS is struggling, but surely some of you should be able to identify something? I think Bernie had a better chance against Trump than Clinton, simply because of Clinton’s baggage. That’s less to do with the policy positions than the specific individuals involved. There’s some real issues between sensible moderates and establishment “it’s her turn,” and there was no Obama this time around to send Clinton packing in the primaries. Tim Kaine was fine. Hopefully Klobuchar or Shapiro this time around. Not sure if that's hindsight or how you voted but given the Klobuchar/Shapiro I'd guess you at least supported Biden over Bernie in 2020? I desperately want to see you and Sermokala discuss why we should all rally behind Klobuchar for 2028. When do you plan to substantiate that I'm "advocating supporting the murderers as a way to protect oneself from them"? I'm waiting patiently. I told you: I've agreed to disagree about that and am moving on to something more productive and less personal/petty/pedantic. I think your refusal to do so and your attempt at an ultimatum is comically illustrative of what I've been talking about. Did you have any policies/points that the corporate/establishment/moderate/thirdway/whatever Democrats need to stop infighting about and concede to those to their left in order to not self-sabotage? Do any of you that think the "infighting on the left" (or whatever rhetorical iteration) is a major obstacle that needs to be addressed have any of those policies/points?
So we should "agree to disagree" about your accusation that I said something that I factually, provably did not, and if I don't, then I'm being "personal/petty/pedantic"?
|
On July 29 2026 02:47 GreenHorizons wrote:
Interesting how much you and the people that seem to treat you with so much disdain actually agree.
Victims of the US Politics thread, unite!
Also, very funny that you are using "thirdway" as a derogatory term when you posted their attacks on Democrats like a year ago.
And no, I doubt that a lot of people around here could be classified as Klobuchar / Buttigeg supporters, afaik both of them are against Universal Healthcare or doing anything radical to deal with the oligarchy, which I think most non tankie lefties in this thread would most likely agree are the two biggest problems USA needs to address.
|
On July 29 2026 02:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2026 02:33 dyhb wrote:On July 29 2026 01:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2026 01:46 dyhb wrote:On July 29 2026 01:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2026 00:44 LightSpectra wrote:On July 29 2026 00:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2026 00:12 LightSpectra wrote:On July 28 2026 23:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 28 2026 23:52 LightSpectra wrote:
[quote]
Yeah, leftists make life harder on themselves because in addition to fascists and other authoritarians wanting to kill them, they dilute their own power (their leverage, as you call it) with ideological micro-schisms and self-sabotage.
As someone who consistently preaches left unity with everyone except Stalinists/Maoists/Juchists, it's not against my worldview that a Maoist group crippled themselves. Since you've completely lost the plot talking about "infighting" and "micro-schisms and self-sabotage" to rationalize the Democrat "shield" murdering people that want human rights, I think it's worth trying to dig into this general idea of infighting. For it to be a fight, there has to be opposition. I'm not rationalizing anyone murdering anyone. + Show Spoiler +I said J. Edgar Hoover was possibly a good counter-example against voting for liberals/centrists. It would be a vastly different world if Obama or Biden had their own Hoover that was assassinating Americans on American soil to impede civil rights, the moral case of voting against Republicans would be a lot harder if not impossible to make in that world.
While the Kennedys and LBJ were relatively progressive for their time despite COINTELPRO, there were some even more left-wing Democrats like Jesse Jackson and Eugene McCarthy (before the 80s) that you could argue made Democrats worth supporting just so they could pull the rest to the left. They probably would've sacked Hoover immediately. It might be easy to dismiss that because we know they didn't win in hindsight, but it would be a vastly different world if only a small percentage of the population moved to support them. What are some of the points you believe centrists must stop fighting about and concede to those to their left? Why? "Centrism" is not a universal position or ideology, so that question is too vague to answer. It's always a relative position to something else in a certain place and time. I could comment if you were more specific. You most definitely are, more importantly though, you're advocating supporting the murderers as a way to protect oneself from them. It'd be laughable if it wasn't so horrifying. I think you know what I'm talking about. Democrat leadership (to the extent that's real), Establishment Democrats? Maybe you want me to call them moderate Democrats? Basically the kind of Democrats that refused to vote for Bernie Sanders in the 2016 and 2020 primary? What do you believe they need to stop fighting with people to their left about and just concede to them? Why? Without arbitrarily deleting words from post, show me where I said that. The part of my post you deleted was where I said people should've supported a Democratic POTUS nominee that would've immediately sacked Hoover. I haven't deleted anything + Show Spoiler +(I've actually gone out of my way to reinclude things you purposely removed) , that's how you post (for reasons I think have become more obvious over the course of this discussion). I find it amusing it's so hard for you (and a lot of other people) to just answer the simple request for those that lament the infighting among the left to list some of the policies/points that the corporate/establishment/moderate/thirdway/whatever Democrats need to stop infighting about and concede to those to their left in order to not self-sabotage. EDIT: Funnily enough, this should actually be relatively easy for all of you because you have dyhb who probably voted for Clinton in the 2016 primary. It's seems LS is struggling, but surely some of you should be able to identify something? I think Bernie had a better chance against Trump than Clinton, simply because of Clinton’s baggage. That’s less to do with the policy positions than the specific individuals involved. There’s some real issues between sensible moderates and establishment “it’s her turn,” and there was no Obama this time around to send Clinton packing in the primaries. Tim Kaine was fine. Hopefully Klobuchar or Shapiro this time around. Not sure if that's hindsight or how you voted but given the Klobuchar/Shapiro I'd guess you at least supported Biden over Bernie in 2020? I desperately want to see you and Sermokala discuss why we should all rally behind Klobuchar for 2028. Klobuchar for 2020. Buttigieg would’ve also been fine. I want the largest possible coalition to move the country past Trump’s second term. The left wing can make their case for their reforms in the midterms and through presidential-congressional compromise legislation. I don’t know Sermo’s opinion on Klobuchar. Interesting how much you and the people that seem to treat you with so much disdain actually agree. Did you have any policies/points that the corporate/establishment/moderate/thirdway/Klobuchar/Buttigieg/whatever Democrats need to stop infighting about and concede to those to their left in order to not self-sabotage? I expect tough negotiations on that. I don’t expect the left to want to concede much to the moderate wing. It’ll probably be some of the social and culture war stuff to the left wing in exchange for more moderate fiscal, immigration, judicial appointments. I can’t really go into depth until we’re in full primary season.
|
On July 29 2026 04:03 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2026 02:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2026 02:33 dyhb wrote:On July 29 2026 01:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2026 01:46 dyhb wrote:On July 29 2026 01:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2026 00:44 LightSpectra wrote:On July 29 2026 00:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2026 00:12 LightSpectra wrote:On July 28 2026 23:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Since you've completely lost the plot talking about "infighting" and "micro-schisms and self-sabotage" to rationalize the Democrat "shield" murdering people that want human rights, I think it's worth trying to dig into this general idea of infighting. For it to be a fight, there has to be opposition. I'm not rationalizing anyone murdering anyone. + Show Spoiler +I said J. Edgar Hoover was possibly a good counter-example against voting for liberals/centrists. It would be a vastly different world if Obama or Biden had their own Hoover that was assassinating Americans on American soil to impede civil rights, the moral case of voting against Republicans would be a lot harder if not impossible to make in that world.
While the Kennedys and LBJ were relatively progressive for their time despite COINTELPRO, there were some even more left-wing Democrats like Jesse Jackson and Eugene McCarthy (before the 80s) that you could argue made Democrats worth supporting just so they could pull the rest to the left. They probably would've sacked Hoover immediately. It might be easy to dismiss that because we know they didn't win in hindsight, but it would be a vastly different world if only a small percentage of the population moved to support them. What are some of the points you believe centrists must stop fighting about and concede to those to their left? Why? "Centrism" is not a universal position or ideology, so that question is too vague to answer. It's always a relative position to something else in a certain place and time. I could comment if you were more specific. You most definitely are, more importantly though, you're advocating supporting the murderers as a way to protect oneself from them. It'd be laughable if it wasn't so horrifying. I think you know what I'm talking about. Democrat leadership (to the extent that's real), Establishment Democrats? Maybe you want me to call them moderate Democrats? Basically the kind of Democrats that refused to vote for Bernie Sanders in the 2016 and 2020 primary? What do you believe they need to stop fighting with people to their left about and just concede to them? Why? Without arbitrarily deleting words from post, show me where I said that. The part of my post you deleted was where I said people should've supported a Democratic POTUS nominee that would've immediately sacked Hoover. I haven't deleted anything + Show Spoiler +(I've actually gone out of my way to reinclude things you purposely removed) , that's how you post (for reasons I think have become more obvious over the course of this discussion). I find it amusing it's so hard for you (and a lot of other people) to just answer the simple request for those that lament the infighting among the left to list some of the policies/points that the corporate/establishment/moderate/thirdway/whatever Democrats need to stop infighting about and concede to those to their left in order to not self-sabotage. EDIT: Funnily enough, this should actually be relatively easy for all of you because you have dyhb who probably voted for Clinton in the 2016 primary. It's seems LS is struggling, but surely some of you should be able to identify something? I think Bernie had a better chance against Trump than Clinton, simply because of Clinton’s baggage. That’s less to do with the policy positions than the specific individuals involved. There’s some real issues between sensible moderates and establishment “it’s her turn,” and there was no Obama this time around to send Clinton packing in the primaries. Tim Kaine was fine. Hopefully Klobuchar or Shapiro this time around. Not sure if that's hindsight or how you voted but given the Klobuchar/Shapiro I'd guess you at least supported Biden over Bernie in 2020? I desperately want to see you and Sermokala discuss why we should all rally behind Klobuchar for 2028. Klobuchar for 2020. Buttigieg would’ve also been fine. I want the largest possible coalition to move the country past Trump’s second term. The left wing can make their case for their reforms in the midterms and through presidential-congressional compromise legislation. I don’t know Sermo’s opinion on Klobuchar. Interesting how much you and the people that seem to treat you with so much disdain actually agree. Did you have any policies/points that the corporate/establishment/moderate/thirdway/Klobuchar/Buttigieg/whatever Democrats need to stop infighting about and concede to those to their left in order to not self-sabotage? + Show Spoiler +Victims of the US Politics thread, unite! Also, very funny that you are using "thirdway" as a derogatory term when you posted their attacks on Democrats like a year ago. And no, I doubt that a lot of people around here could be classified as Klobuchar / Buttigieg supporters, afaik both of them are against Universal Healthcare or doing anything radical to deal with the oligarchy, which I think most non tankie lefties in this thread would most likely agree are the two biggest problems USA needs to address.
I'm using "thirdway" descriptively there. It's a self-ascribed nomenclature for some of the people I'm referencing when I asked (and am wondering if you have any):
Did you have any policies/points that the corporate/establishment/moderate/thirdway/Klobuchar/Buttigieg/whatever Democrats need to stop infighting about and concede to those to their left in order to not self-sabotage?
You say they couldn't be classified as supporters but all of them would enthusiastically support them and demand the same of me. Sermokala and dyhb already clearly support Klobuchar and I've not seen any "vote blue no matter who" type suggest they don't/wouldn't support Buttigieg and I'm pretty sure most of them have him in or near their top tier.
If anyone explicitly opposes Buttigieg I'd be curious to hear their reasoning why?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
