|
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?
|
Dear GH, if you go a few posts back you will see that I explicitly mentioned that the infighting that is causing the whole world to go to hell is much more on the progressive left.
Centrist democrats band together and wold throw anyone under the buss and will jump on whatever bandwagon they think will keep them in power, on the other hand, progressives will, as a good example, withdraw endorsement from their biggest star because she was not anti-Israel enough.
I very specifically mentioned a post away why I think Buttigieg and Klobuchar are not good candidates to me.
It's kind of insulting and frankly boring to have to re-iterate all of these things to you because apparently you refuse to read what people are writing.
Against any Republican, anyone with a brain would take either of those 2 in a heartbeat, no matter how ideologically flawed they are, because they aren't fascists.
|
On July 29 2026 05:07 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2026 04:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2026 04:03 Jankisa wrote: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:
[quote]
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? Dear GH, if you go a few posts back you will see that I explicitly mentioned that the infighting that is causing the whole world to go to hell is much more on the progressive left. Centrist democrats band together and wold throw anyone under the buss and will jump on whatever bandwagon they think will keep them in power, on the other hand, progressives will, as a good example, withdraw endorsement from their biggest star because she was not anti-Israel enough. I very specifically mentioned a post away why I think Buttigieg and Klobuchar are not good candidates to me. It's kind of insulting and frankly boring to have to re-iterate all of these things to you because apparently you refuse to read what people are writing. Against any Republican, anyone with a brain would take either of those 2 in a heartbeat, no matter how ideologically flawed they are, because they aren't fascists. I know what you said. It's demonstrative of what I've been talking about.
So no, you don't 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.
It doesn't seem like any of the "vote blue no matter who" crowd does?
|
GreenHorizons, do you stand by your claim that "the age of consent should be lowered to something more reasonable, like 12"?
|
GH is just oBlade from the left, just a matter of time until you guys get it.
|
It’s way better now, it’s slow enough and few enough people that people don’t jump on GHs strawmans of the other persons posts without reading the whole conversation. The down side is there is no one to make an actual point for GH and him to pretend that was it all along so almost nothing comes from it. But overall it’s an improvement.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1361 Posts
I can't even tell what they are arguing about. I don't think they even have fundamentally different political stances.
I don't think GH understands 'vote blue no matter who' is a temporary, practical stance, and everyone's version of leftism is a more long standing philosophical stance.
Vote blue no matter who doesn't mean you are happy with the candidates the Democrats are putting up. It just means they are at the time, less bad than the opposition. Does it suck that this encourages/allows the Democrats to constantly run candidates who are... subpar to say the least? Absolutely. But what are you going to do specifically in that election? Your options are limited vote blue, vote red, vote independent or don't vote. You can do OTHER stuff in the meantime, but you still need to make this decision on the actual election.
You can still be advocating for 'non reformist reforms' or still be organising on the side, but none of that is going to stop the ongoing election from happening. What are you going to do? Vote for the Republican/conservative on the other side who are openly advocating for things you don't want? That would be, at best, some form of accelerationism.
As Jankiska has mentioned repeatedly now, he would not support Klobuchar/Buttigieg because they are against, say.. universal healthcare (though I question how much how much they, like any liberals are against it so much as pre-compromising with the opposition before staking their positions as liberals tend to do). I'm sure HE believes they should stop infighting with the left on that issue and just be for universal healthcare.
But if they did, hypothetically win the next Dem primary, and are running against... Rubio or Trump3 or Vance, what are you going to do? Not vote for Klobuchar/Buttigieg?
Noone is saying you shouldn't vote/canvass/organise against them in primaries or just outside of that specific election in general. And I understand voting for them surrenders leverage to the 'center', where they have no reason to listen to the left if the left votes for them anyway. But would you really advocate for not voting blue in an actual election where the alternative is actively worse?
Is your stance? 'Fuck it, let the right invade Cuba, or tarriff everyone,' or whatever else those ghouls stand for?
Because that's why people talk about harm reduction. To do otherwise is accelerationism, 'we'll let the Republicans win, and if they make things bad enough the Dems will have to compromise with the left'
There aren't people here (that I can tell), certainly that would describe themselves as leftists, who are philosophically 'vote blue no matter who', there are a bunch of leftists who aren't accelerationists, so the practical short term options for them are to vote blue or let their country burn(more so than it already is).
|
On July 29 2026 10:59 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:I can't even tell what they are arguing about. I don't think they even have fundamentally different political stances. + Show Spoiler +I don't think GH understands 'vote blue no matter who' is a temporary, practical stance, and everyone's version of leftism is a more long standing philosophical stance.
Vote blue no matter who doesn't mean you are happy with the candidates the Democrats are putting up. It just means they are at the time, less bad than the opposition. Does it suck that this encourages/allows the Democrats to constantly run candidates who are... subpar to say the least? Absolutely. But what are you going to do specifically in that election? Your options are limited vote blue, vote red, vote independent or don't vote. You can do OTHER stuff in the meantime, but you still need to make this decision on the actual election.
You can still be advocating for 'non reformist reforms' or still be organising on the side, but none of that is going to stop the ongoing election from happening. What are you going to do? Vote for the Republican/conservative on the other side who are openly advocating for things you don't want? That would be, at best, some form of accelerationism.
As Jankiska has mentioned repeatedly now, he would not support Klobuchar/Buttigieg because they are against, say.. universal healthcare (though I question how much how much they, like any liberals are against it so much as pre-compromising with the opposition before staking their positions as liberals tend to do). I'm sure HE believes they should stop infighting with the left on that issue and just be for universal healthcare.
But if they did, hypothetically win the next Dem primary, and are running against... Rubio or Trump3 or Vance, what are you going to do? Not vote for Klobuchar/Buttigieg?
Noone is saying you shouldn't vote/canvass/organise against them in primaries or just outside of that specific election in general. And I understand voting for them surrenders leverage to the 'center', where they have no reason to listen to the left if the left votes for them anyway. But would you really advocate for not voting blue in an actual election where the alternative is actively worse?
Is your stance? 'Fuck it, let the right invade Cuba, or tarriff everyone,' or whatever else those ghouls stand for?
Because that's why people talk about harm reduction. To do otherwise is accelerationism, 'we'll let the Republicans win, and if they make things bad enough the Dems will have to compromise with the left'
There aren't people here (that I can tell), certainly that would describe themselves as leftists, who are philosophically 'vote blue no matter who', there are a bunch of leftists who aren't accelerationists, so the practical short term options for them are to vote blue or let their country burn(more so than it already is).
Think it is pretty obvious we do.
Do you also not 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?
Did I stumble on the Blue MAGA version of "Who won the 2020 election?"
|
On July 29 2026 11:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2026 10:59 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:I can't even tell what they are arguing about. I don't think they even have fundamentally different political stances. + Show Spoiler +I don't think GH understands 'vote blue no matter who' is a temporary, practical stance, and everyone's version of leftism is a more long standing philosophical stance.
Vote blue no matter who doesn't mean you are happy with the candidates the Democrats are putting up. It just means they are at the time, less bad than the opposition. Does it suck that this encourages/allows the Democrats to constantly run candidates who are... subpar to say the least? Absolutely. But what are you going to do specifically in that election? Your options are limited vote blue, vote red, vote independent or don't vote. You can do OTHER stuff in the meantime, but you still need to make this decision on the actual election.
You can still be advocating for 'non reformist reforms' or still be organising on the side, but none of that is going to stop the ongoing election from happening. What are you going to do? Vote for the Republican/conservative on the other side who are openly advocating for things you don't want? That would be, at best, some form of accelerationism.
As Jankiska has mentioned repeatedly now, he would not support Klobuchar/Buttigieg because they are against, say.. universal healthcare (though I question how much how much they, like any liberals are against it so much as pre-compromising with the opposition before staking their positions as liberals tend to do). I'm sure HE believes they should stop infighting with the left on that issue and just be for universal healthcare.
But if they did, hypothetically win the next Dem primary, and are running against... Rubio or Trump3 or Vance, what are you going to do? Not vote for Klobuchar/Buttigieg?
Noone is saying you shouldn't vote/canvass/organise against them in primaries or just outside of that specific election in general. And I understand voting for them surrenders leverage to the 'center', where they have no reason to listen to the left if the left votes for them anyway. But would you really advocate for not voting blue in an actual election where the alternative is actively worse?
Is your stance? 'Fuck it, let the right invade Cuba, or tarriff everyone,' or whatever else those ghouls stand for?
Because that's why people talk about harm reduction. To do otherwise is accelerationism, 'we'll let the Republicans win, and if they make things bad enough the Dems will have to compromise with the left'
There aren't people here (that I can tell), certainly that would describe themselves as leftists, who are philosophically 'vote blue no matter who', there are a bunch of leftists who aren't accelerationists, so the practical short term options for them are to vote blue or let their country burn(more so than it already is). Think it is pretty obvious we do. Do you also not 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? Did I stumble on the Blue MAGA version of "Who won the 2020 election?"
Classic GH, gets an opportunity to explain himself and possibly gain an ally, but because he can’t and wants to protect his ego, he attacks.
Don’t worry doubleup, it’s him not you.
|
On July 29 2026 11:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2026 10:59 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:I can't even tell what they are arguing about. I don't think they even have fundamentally different political stances. + Show Spoiler +I don't think GH understands 'vote blue no matter who' is a temporary, practical stance, and everyone's version of leftism is a more long standing philosophical stance.
Vote blue no matter who doesn't mean you are happy with the candidates the Democrats are putting up. It just means they are at the time, less bad than the opposition. Does it suck that this encourages/allows the Democrats to constantly run candidates who are... subpar to say the least? Absolutely. But what are you going to do specifically in that election? Your options are limited vote blue, vote red, vote independent or don't vote. You can do OTHER stuff in the meantime, but you still need to make this decision on the actual election.
You can still be advocating for 'non reformist reforms' or still be organising on the side, but none of that is going to stop the ongoing election from happening. What are you going to do? Vote for the Republican/conservative on the other side who are openly advocating for things you don't want? That would be, at best, some form of accelerationism.
As Jankiska has mentioned repeatedly now, he would not support Klobuchar/Buttigieg because they are against, say.. universal healthcare (though I question how much how much they, like any liberals are against it so much as pre-compromising with the opposition before staking their positions as liberals tend to do). I'm sure HE believes they should stop infighting with the left on that issue and just be for universal healthcare.
But if they did, hypothetically win the next Dem primary, and are running against... Rubio or Trump3 or Vance, what are you going to do? Not vote for Klobuchar/Buttigieg?
Noone is saying you shouldn't vote/canvass/organise against them in primaries or just outside of that specific election in general. And I understand voting for them surrenders leverage to the 'center', where they have no reason to listen to the left if the left votes for them anyway. But would you really advocate for not voting blue in an actual election where the alternative is actively worse?
Is your stance? 'Fuck it, let the right invade Cuba, or tarriff everyone,' or whatever else those ghouls stand for?
Because that's why people talk about harm reduction. To do otherwise is accelerationism, 'we'll let the Republicans win, and if they make things bad enough the Dems will have to compromise with the left'
There aren't people here (that I can tell), certainly that would describe themselves as leftists, who are philosophically 'vote blue no matter who', there are a bunch of leftists who aren't accelerationists, so the practical short term options for them are to vote blue or let their country burn(more so than it already is). Think it is pretty obvious we do. Do you also not 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? Did I stumble on the Blue MAGA version of "Who won the 2020 election?" Two choices for the Blue MAGA version of "Who won the 2020 election?"
1. Gore won 2000, but it was stolen by the Supreme Court.
2. 2016: Illegitimate election (eg Hillary Clinton), Trump didn't actually win (eg Jimmy Carter), Trump was not a legitimate president (eg John Lewis D-GA), Russia changed vote totals (67% Dems @2018).
I don't see any others actually in the running for Blue MAGA. As for BlueAnon, it's gotta be Trump staged his own assassination attempt or attempts, or was actually shot. I'm willing to accept other entries for BlueAnon, like some of the more fantastical Epstein conspiracies.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1361 Posts
On July 29 2026 11:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2026 10:59 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:I can't even tell what they are arguing about. I don't think they even have fundamentally different political stances. + Show Spoiler +I don't think GH understands 'vote blue no matter who' is a temporary, practical stance, and everyone's version of leftism is a more long standing philosophical stance.
Vote blue no matter who doesn't mean you are happy with the candidates the Democrats are putting up. It just means they are at the time, less bad than the opposition. Does it suck that this encourages/allows the Democrats to constantly run candidates who are... subpar to say the least? Absolutely. But what are you going to do specifically in that election? Your options are limited vote blue, vote red, vote independent or don't vote. You can do OTHER stuff in the meantime, but you still need to make this decision on the actual election.
You can still be advocating for 'non reformist reforms' or still be organising on the side, but none of that is going to stop the ongoing election from happening. What are you going to do? Vote for the Republican/conservative on the other side who are openly advocating for things you don't want? That would be, at best, some form of accelerationism.
As Jankiska has mentioned repeatedly now, he would not support Klobuchar/Buttigieg because they are against, say.. universal healthcare (though I question how much how much they, like any liberals are against it so much as pre-compromising with the opposition before staking their positions as liberals tend to do). I'm sure HE believes they should stop infighting with the left on that issue and just be for universal healthcare.
But if they did, hypothetically win the next Dem primary, and are running against... Rubio or Trump3 or Vance, what are you going to do? Not vote for Klobuchar/Buttigieg?
Noone is saying you shouldn't vote/canvass/organise against them in primaries or just outside of that specific election in general. And I understand voting for them surrenders leverage to the 'center', where they have no reason to listen to the left if the left votes for them anyway. But would you really advocate for not voting blue in an actual election where the alternative is actively worse?
Is your stance? 'Fuck it, let the right invade Cuba, or tarriff everyone,' or whatever else those ghouls stand for?
Because that's why people talk about harm reduction. To do otherwise is accelerationism, 'we'll let the Republicans win, and if they make things bad enough the Dems will have to compromise with the left'
There aren't people here (that I can tell), certainly that would describe themselves as leftists, who are philosophically 'vote blue no matter who', there are a bunch of leftists who aren't accelerationists, so the practical short term options for them are to vote blue or let their country burn(more so than it already is). Think it is pretty obvious we do. Do you also not 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? Did I stumble on the Blue MAGA version of "Who won the 2020 election?"
Depends on your definition of need to.
I firstly, am maybe more open to the argument for accelerationism/brinksmanship, than other leftists here, in great part because we are not talking about my country. In furthering disfunction, there is at least the silver lining of accelerated erosion of the US global hegemony, which is maybe a bigger priority for me than for others.
But let's assume I am not an accelerationist/open to the idea of withholding my vote in an act of brinksmanship when the alternatively is basically guaranteed to be even worse.
Would I need any dem candidate (or any candidate really), to be in support of universal health care, revoking Citizens United, not be in support of bombing/invading more countries to support that candidate? Yes.
Would I vote for someone I don't actually support because the context of the elections are they will put in someone else who also doesn't support these things, but is also politically engaged in furthering more religiously motivated policy in law/education, likely to do more tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations? Also yes.
The answer to the latter changes if I am ok with accelerationism, or I think the Liberals care enough about actual policy to be held hostage to the situation the same way I (hypothetically) am by more leftist policies.
Hypothetically, if the dems ran a candidate ,for some reason, that wasn't for universal healthcare, or all those things I want. And was also super horny about invading Cuba (or another country of your choice), and thinks we should do even more corporate welfare, ban abbortion everywhere etc. Then I wouldn't vote for them, because they would be worse than the Republicans winning. But then harm reduction is not really a factor anymore.
You haven't actually put forth an argument for accelerationism (that I can see). If that is your stance, then it's understandable why the political divide between you and the other left leaning posters here is. Otherwise I don't see a substantial difference in stance. You aren't happy with how little leverage the left, or the left of the democrats have over the party's policies as a whole. Guess what, neither are the left leaning posters here.
|
On July 29 2026 13:09 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2026 11:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2026 10:59 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:I can't even tell what they are arguing about. I don't think they even have fundamentally different political stances. + Show Spoiler +I don't think GH understands 'vote blue no matter who' is a temporary, practical stance, and everyone's version of leftism is a more long standing philosophical stance.
Vote blue no matter who doesn't mean you are happy with the candidates the Democrats are putting up. It just means they are at the time, less bad than the opposition. Does it suck that this encourages/allows the Democrats to constantly run candidates who are... subpar to say the least? Absolutely. But what are you going to do specifically in that election? Your options are limited vote blue, vote red, vote independent or don't vote. You can do OTHER stuff in the meantime, but you still need to make this decision on the actual election.
You can still be advocating for 'non reformist reforms' or still be organising on the side, but none of that is going to stop the ongoing election from happening. What are you going to do? Vote for the Republican/conservative on the other side who are openly advocating for things you don't want? That would be, at best, some form of accelerationism.
As Jankiska has mentioned repeatedly now, he would not support Klobuchar/Buttigieg because they are against, say.. universal healthcare (though I question how much how much they, like any liberals are against it so much as pre-compromising with the opposition before staking their positions as liberals tend to do). I'm sure HE believes they should stop infighting with the left on that issue and just be for universal healthcare.
But if they did, hypothetically win the next Dem primary, and are running against... Rubio or Trump3 or Vance, what are you going to do? Not vote for Klobuchar/Buttigieg?
Noone is saying you shouldn't vote/canvass/organise against them in primaries or just outside of that specific election in general. And I understand voting for them surrenders leverage to the 'center', where they have no reason to listen to the left if the left votes for them anyway. But would you really advocate for not voting blue in an actual election where the alternative is actively worse?
Is your stance? 'Fuck it, let the right invade Cuba, or tarriff everyone,' or whatever else those ghouls stand for?
Because that's why people talk about harm reduction. To do otherwise is accelerationism, 'we'll let the Republicans win, and if they make things bad enough the Dems will have to compromise with the left'
There aren't people here (that I can tell), certainly that would describe themselves as leftists, who are philosophically 'vote blue no matter who', there are a bunch of leftists who aren't accelerationists, so the practical short term options for them are to vote blue or let their country burn(more so than it already is). Think it is pretty obvious we do. Do you also not 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? Did I stumble on the Blue MAGA version of "Who won the 2020 election?" Depends on your definition of need to. + Show Spoiler +I firstly, am maybe more open to the argument for accelerationism/brinksmanship, than other leftists here, in great part because we are not talking about my country. In furthering disfunction, there is at least the silver lining of accelerated erosion of the US global hegemony, which is maybe a bigger priority for me than for others.
But let's assume I am not an accelerationist/open to the idea of withholding my vote in an act of brinksmanship when the alternatively is basically guaranteed to be even worse.
Would I need any dem candidate (or any candidate really), to be in support of universal health care, revoking Citizens United, not be in support of bombing/invading more countries to support that candidate? Yes.
Would I vote for someone I don't actually support because the context of the elections are they will put in someone else who also doesn't support these things, but is also politically engaged in furthering more religiously motivated policy in law/education, likely to do more tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations? Also yes.
The answer to the latter changes if I am ok with accelerationism, or I think the Liberals care enough about actual policy to be held hostage to the situation the same way I (hypothetically) am by more leftist policies.
Hypothetically, if the dems ran a candidate ,for some reason, that wasn't for universal healthcare, or all those things I want. And was also super horny about invading Cuba (or another country of your choice), and thinks we should do even more corporate welfare, ban abbortion everywhere etc. Then I wouldn't vote for them, because they would be worse than the Republicans winning. But then harm reduction is not really a factor anymore.
You haven't actually put forth an argument for accelerationism (that I can see). If that is your stance, then it's understandable why the political divide between you and the other left leaning posters here is. Otherwise I don't see a substantial difference in stance. You aren't happy with how little leverage the left, or the left of the democrats have over the party's policies as a whole. Guess what, neither are the left leaning posters here. So far it is looking like I did stumble on the Blue MAGA "Who won the 2020 election?"
It's not about who you or me would vote for (or this idea that voting for Trump or whoever isn't supporting them, however reluctantly and with whatever rationalizations).
It's specifically asking if you also don't 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?
It appears you don't.
|
On July 29 2026 12:07 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2026 11:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2026 10:59 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:I can't even tell what they are arguing about. I don't think they even have fundamentally different political stances. + Show Spoiler +I don't think GH understands 'vote blue no matter who' is a temporary, practical stance, and everyone's version of leftism is a more long standing philosophical stance.
Vote blue no matter who doesn't mean you are happy with the candidates the Democrats are putting up. It just means they are at the time, less bad than the opposition. Does it suck that this encourages/allows the Democrats to constantly run candidates who are... subpar to say the least? Absolutely. But what are you going to do specifically in that election? Your options are limited vote blue, vote red, vote independent or don't vote. You can do OTHER stuff in the meantime, but you still need to make this decision on the actual election.
You can still be advocating for 'non reformist reforms' or still be organising on the side, but none of that is going to stop the ongoing election from happening. What are you going to do? Vote for the Republican/conservative on the other side who are openly advocating for things you don't want? That would be, at best, some form of accelerationism.
As Jankiska has mentioned repeatedly now, he would not support Klobuchar/Buttigieg because they are against, say.. universal healthcare (though I question how much how much they, like any liberals are against it so much as pre-compromising with the opposition before staking their positions as liberals tend to do). I'm sure HE believes they should stop infighting with the left on that issue and just be for universal healthcare.
But if they did, hypothetically win the next Dem primary, and are running against... Rubio or Trump3 or Vance, what are you going to do? Not vote for Klobuchar/Buttigieg?
Noone is saying you shouldn't vote/canvass/organise against them in primaries or just outside of that specific election in general. And I understand voting for them surrenders leverage to the 'center', where they have no reason to listen to the left if the left votes for them anyway. But would you really advocate for not voting blue in an actual election where the alternative is actively worse?
Is your stance? 'Fuck it, let the right invade Cuba, or tarriff everyone,' or whatever else those ghouls stand for?
Because that's why people talk about harm reduction. To do otherwise is accelerationism, 'we'll let the Republicans win, and if they make things bad enough the Dems will have to compromise with the left'
There aren't people here (that I can tell), certainly that would describe themselves as leftists, who are philosophically 'vote blue no matter who', there are a bunch of leftists who aren't accelerationists, so the practical short term options for them are to vote blue or let their country burn(more so than it already is). Think it is pretty obvious we do. Do you also not 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? Did I stumble on the Blue MAGA version of "Who won the 2020 election?" Classic GH, gets an opportunity to explain himself and possibly gain an ally, but because he can’t and wants to protect his ego, he attacks. Don’t worry doubleup, it’s him not you.
Speaking of ally, GH has previously mentioned that their pronouns are "they", presumably they/them/themselves/their etc. Not calling you out because I think you're intentionally being a shitter, just letting you know in case you missed it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
