|
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 18:47 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2026 16:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2026 16:34 Acrofales wrote:On July 29 2026 16:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2026 15:57 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On July 29 2026 15:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2026 15:25 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On July 29 2026 15:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2026 15:18 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On July 29 2026 15:14 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
It's in the question. The "or *WHAT*" would be (in your phrasing) "or it would be self-sabotage". Ok... if that's what you want to ask: They would need to have the policy of... not wanting to be president/mayor/senate member/whatever position they are trying to get elected for. Since self-sabotage is doing something counter to what THEY want, and their past actions imply that they want to be in a position of political power. See, you could have just said "No I don't have any". You do understand you asked what policies I have, that if they did not concede, has only consequences for them right? I don't give a shit what the outcome for them is. This is exactly why I'm asking you to clarify what you would expect *for me* to do, if they do not meet those needs. The question (as can be seen in an earlier iteration) is asking if you (or anyone that thinks or has said the "infighting on the left" (or whatever rhetorical iteration) is a major obstacle that needs to be addressed have any of those policies/points that 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 are phrasing this question (and doubling down on clarifications) in a way, that unless I believe the centrists/moderates actually cared about leftist policies, it's impossible for the answer to be anything meaningful. Because for them to 'not self-sabotage' is not actionable by me. + Show Spoiler +It pertains only to the centrists/moderates and the outcomes for them.
If you mean, if there are policies I have, that should they not concede to, would be considered self sabotage for me(assumedly if I voted for them) .
Or if they didn't concede to it, I wouldn't (hypothetically) vote for them, or I'd be involved in a campaign against them, or ,I don't know, call for violent revolution. Those would be actionable by me, and could have meaningful answers.
You are asking if I have policies I have, should they not concede to, would be self sabotage for them. Why would anyone vaguely on the left care whether the centre/corporate dems fail to achieve THEIR aims? Those are at best, incidental to our aims. I'm obviously not asking about something "actionable by [you]" . The question is asking about requesting some policies/points that corporate/establishment/moderate/thirdway/Klobuchar/Buttigieg/whatever Democrats need to stop infighting with those to their left about (doesn't have to be a position you support or one you oppose) in order to not self-sabotage (read: undermine their own core goals [we'll assume the best of them], public support, or chances of electoral success). I'll give someone else a shot if that is still unclear to you. I don't have a clue how to answer that, so let's go the other way round, + Show Spoiler +looking backwards. Name policies enacted by Biden or Obama that you would consider self-sabotage. Not detrimental to your goals, but to their own. Maybe looking backwards at centrist politicians we can identify past policies that were self-sabotaging in retrospect and then we can think of some that a hypothetical Democrat centrist might hypothetically enact as hypothetical president in 2028. Pretty sure the "other way round" would be what is usually happening, which is people insisting on various policies and positions people to the left of corporate/establishment/moderate/thirdway/Klobuchar/Buttigieg/whatever Democrats need to stop infighting with those "moderate" Democrats over and concede to them in order to not self-sabotage. I told you exactly what I meant with the other way around and it wasn't that.
Yeah, I was pointing out that what you described isn't really "the other way around" (it's instructive how easy the actual other way round I showed you would be for you to answer huh?). It's a deliberate distraction from Blue MAGA's version of the "Who won the 2020 election" question that makes all of you BSOD/blather/petulantly lash out/anything but be able to give a straightforward answer to a straightforward question.
In case anyone forgot, the question was/is: Does anyone 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's both amusing and very sad to see Blue MAGA struggle like this.
|
On July 30 2026 00:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2026 18:47 Acrofales wrote:On July 29 2026 16:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2026 16:34 Acrofales wrote:On July 29 2026 16:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2026 15:57 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On July 29 2026 15:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2026 15:25 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On July 29 2026 15:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2026 15:18 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
[quote]
Ok... if that's what you want to ask:
They would need to have the policy of... not wanting to be president/mayor/senate member/whatever position they are trying to get elected for. Since self-sabotage is doing something counter to what THEY want, and their past actions imply that they want to be in a position of political power.
See, you could have just said "No I don't have any". You do understand you asked what policies I have, that if they did not concede, has only consequences for them right? I don't give a shit what the outcome for them is. This is exactly why I'm asking you to clarify what you would expect *for me* to do, if they do not meet those needs. The question (as can be seen in an earlier iteration) is asking if you (or anyone that thinks or has said the "infighting on the left" (or whatever rhetorical iteration) is a major obstacle that needs to be addressed have any of those policies/points that 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 are phrasing this question (and doubling down on clarifications) in a way, that unless I believe the centrists/moderates actually cared about leftist policies, it's impossible for the answer to be anything meaningful. Because for them to 'not self-sabotage' is not actionable by me. + Show Spoiler +It pertains only to the centrists/moderates and the outcomes for them.
If you mean, if there are policies I have, that should they not concede to, would be considered self sabotage for me(assumedly if I voted for them) .
Or if they didn't concede to it, I wouldn't (hypothetically) vote for them, or I'd be involved in a campaign against them, or ,I don't know, call for violent revolution. Those would be actionable by me, and could have meaningful answers.
You are asking if I have policies I have, should they not concede to, would be self sabotage for them. Why would anyone vaguely on the left care whether the centre/corporate dems fail to achieve THEIR aims? Those are at best, incidental to our aims. I'm obviously not asking about something "actionable by [you]" . The question is asking about requesting some policies/points that corporate/establishment/moderate/thirdway/Klobuchar/Buttigieg/whatever Democrats need to stop infighting with those to their left about (doesn't have to be a position you support or one you oppose) in order to not self-sabotage (read: undermine their own core goals [we'll assume the best of them], public support, or chances of electoral success). I'll give someone else a shot if that is still unclear to you. I don't have a clue how to answer that, so let's go the other way round, + Show Spoiler +looking backwards. Name policies enacted by Biden or Obama that you would consider self-sabotage. Not detrimental to your goals, but to their own. Maybe looking backwards at centrist politicians we can identify past policies that were self-sabotaging in retrospect and then we can think of some that a hypothetical Democrat centrist might hypothetically enact as hypothetical president in 2028. Pretty sure the "other way round" would be what is usually happening, which is people insisting on various policies and positions people to the left of corporate/establishment/moderate/thirdway/Klobuchar/Buttigieg/whatever Democrats need to stop infighting with those "moderate" Democrats over and concede to them in order to not self-sabotage. I told you exactly what I meant with the other way around and it wasn't that. Yeah, I was pointing out that what you described isn't really "the other way around" (it's instructive how easy the actual other way round I showed you would be for you to answer huh?). It's a deliberate distraction from Blue MAGA's version of the "Who won the 2020 election" question that makes all of you BSOD/blather/petulantly lash out/anything but be able to give a straightforward answer to a straightforward question. In case anyone forgot, the question was/is: Does anyone 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's both amusing and very sad to see Blue MAGA struggle like this.
I wrote up a lengthy post responding to this question, of course, you ignored it.
Instead you are parroting your new favorite gotcha which you seem to be very proud of, and the saddest part is that both components of it (repeating the same question from me, blue MAGA from the left wing internet) are completely unoriginal.
Weak shit.
|
On July 29 2026 14:05 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2026 13:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2026 13:09 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote: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. Doubleupgradedobbies just typed up two very large and comprehensive posts to discuss things with you. If you'd like engagement, this would be a good time to reciprocate and type up a similarly comprehensive post.
GH gives this experience to everyone, all you can do is know it’s not you, it’s GH. And not get sucked in when next time GH claims GH wants to have genuine discussion.
Sucks for the new to thread people, but great that GH no longer has others to shit on the people with GH. No one is as good as turning possible allies into certain enigma like GH.
On July 29 2026 21:59 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
something something hamster wheel, something something.
GH is going to GH and you can not blame new people for being optimistic that GH is going to have a real two way discussion with them.
At least it dies out fast now because no one is fooled into thinking that GH is the victim of GHs political beliefs (that being said no one even really knows what those are), GH just gets treated poorly because GH is an asshole to everyone.
|
On July 29 2026 21:56 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2026 06:50 LightSpectra wrote:
GreenHorizons, do you stand by your claim that "the age of consent should be lowered to something more reasonable, like 12"? We can safely assume they still stand by this because they've elected to not revise their statement. So building off of this, can we also conclude that the reason they explode in rage whenever people say "vote blue no matter who" is because they want people to vote Libertarian to address the above issue?
Is calling people "blue MAGA" a distraction from the above questions GH refuses to address?
|
On July 30 2026 00:34 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2026 00:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2026 18:47 Acrofales wrote:On July 29 2026 16:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2026 16:34 Acrofales wrote:On July 29 2026 16:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2026 15:57 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On July 29 2026 15:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2026 15:25 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On July 29 2026 15:20 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]See, you could have just said "No I don't have any".
You do understand you asked what policies I have, that if they did not concede, has only consequences for them right? I don't give a shit what the outcome for them is. This is exactly why I'm asking you to clarify what you would expect *for me* to do, if they do not meet those needs. The question (as can be seen in an earlier iteration) is asking if you (or anyone that thinks or has said the "infighting on the left" (or whatever rhetorical iteration) is a major obstacle that needs to be addressed have any of those policies/points that 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 are phrasing this question (and doubling down on clarifications) in a way, that unless I believe the centrists/moderates actually cared about leftist policies, it's impossible for the answer to be anything meaningful. Because for them to 'not self-sabotage' is not actionable by me. + Show Spoiler +It pertains only to the centrists/moderates and the outcomes for them.
If you mean, if there are policies I have, that should they not concede to, would be considered self sabotage for me(assumedly if I voted for them) .
Or if they didn't concede to it, I wouldn't (hypothetically) vote for them, or I'd be involved in a campaign against them, or ,I don't know, call for violent revolution. Those would be actionable by me, and could have meaningful answers.
You are asking if I have policies I have, should they not concede to, would be self sabotage for them. Why would anyone vaguely on the left care whether the centre/corporate dems fail to achieve THEIR aims? Those are at best, incidental to our aims. I'm obviously not asking about something "actionable by [you]" . The question is asking about requesting some policies/points that corporate/establishment/moderate/thirdway/Klobuchar/Buttigieg/whatever Democrats need to stop infighting with those to their left about (doesn't have to be a position you support or one you oppose) in order to not self-sabotage (read: undermine their own core goals [we'll assume the best of them], public support, or chances of electoral success). I'll give someone else a shot if that is still unclear to you. I don't have a clue how to answer that, so let's go the other way round, + Show Spoiler +looking backwards. Name policies enacted by Biden or Obama that you would consider self-sabotage. Not detrimental to your goals, but to their own. Maybe looking backwards at centrist politicians we can identify past policies that were self-sabotaging in retrospect and then we can think of some that a hypothetical Democrat centrist might hypothetically enact as hypothetical president in 2028. Pretty sure the "other way round" would be what is usually happening, which is people insisting on various policies and positions people to the left of corporate/establishment/moderate/thirdway/Klobuchar/Buttigieg/whatever Democrats need to stop infighting with those "moderate" Democrats over and concede to them in order to not self-sabotage. I told you exactly what I meant with the other way around and it wasn't that. Yeah, I was pointing out that what you described isn't really "the other way around" (it's instructive how easy the actual other way round I showed you would be for you to answer huh?). It's a deliberate distraction from Blue MAGA's version of the "Who won the 2020 election" question that makes all of you BSOD/blather/petulantly lash out/anything but be able to give a straightforward answer to a straightforward question. In case anyone forgot, the question was/is: Does anyone 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's both amusing and very sad to see Blue MAGA struggle like this. I wrote up a lengthy post responding to this question, of course, you ignored it. Instead you are parroting your new favorite gotcha which you seem to be very proud of, and the saddest part is that both components of it (repeating the same question from me, blue MAGA from the left wing internet) are completely unoriginal. Weak shit.
The funniest part of this “burn” is GH political claims are basically left wing populism, which would be Blue MAGA. If GH was at all a serious person who enjoyed discussion and not a keyboard warrior who likes internet fites. GH would be all in trying to grow a blue MAGA in the US.
|
Canada11607 Posts
The question cannot be answered as worded because it contains within it a contradiction. I do not think by and large establishment Democrats like Buttigieg are causing infighting. To me it's rather like demanding examples of how the King has joined the rebellion... and how can there be examples when the King is what the rebels are rebelling against. Can you point me to examples of where Buttigieg (we'll stick with him because you name him as representative of your category and I am more familiar with him) is causing infighting?
Also, who in the world is Blue MAGA in this scenario and what defines them?
|
On July 30 2026 00:34 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2026 00:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2026 18:47 Acrofales wrote:On July 29 2026 16:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2026 16:34 Acrofales wrote:On July 29 2026 16:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2026 15:57 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On July 29 2026 15:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2026 15:25 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On July 29 2026 15:20 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]See, you could have just said "No I don't have any".
You do understand you asked what policies I have, that if they did not concede, has only consequences for them right? I don't give a shit what the outcome for them is. This is exactly why I'm asking you to clarify what you would expect *for me* to do, if they do not meet those needs. The question (as can be seen in an earlier iteration) is asking if you (or anyone that thinks or has said the "infighting on the left" (or whatever rhetorical iteration) is a major obstacle that needs to be addressed have any of those policies/points that 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 are phrasing this question (and doubling down on clarifications) in a way, that unless I believe the centrists/moderates actually cared about leftist policies, it's impossible for the answer to be anything meaningful. Because for them to 'not self-sabotage' is not actionable by me. + Show Spoiler +It pertains only to the centrists/moderates and the outcomes for them.
If you mean, if there are policies I have, that should they not concede to, would be considered self sabotage for me(assumedly if I voted for them) .
Or if they didn't concede to it, I wouldn't (hypothetically) vote for them, or I'd be involved in a campaign against them, or ,I don't know, call for violent revolution. Those would be actionable by me, and could have meaningful answers.
You are asking if I have policies I have, should they not concede to, would be self sabotage for them. Why would anyone vaguely on the left care whether the centre/corporate dems fail to achieve THEIR aims? Those are at best, incidental to our aims. I'm obviously not asking about something "actionable by [you]" . The question is asking about requesting some policies/points that corporate/establishment/moderate/thirdway/Klobuchar/Buttigieg/whatever Democrats need to stop infighting with those to their left about (doesn't have to be a position you support or one you oppose) in order to not self-sabotage (read: undermine their own core goals [we'll assume the best of them], public support, or chances of electoral success). I'll give someone else a shot if that is still unclear to you. I don't have a clue how to answer that, so let's go the other way round, + Show Spoiler +looking backwards. Name policies enacted by Biden or Obama that you would consider self-sabotage. Not detrimental to your goals, but to their own. Maybe looking backwards at centrist politicians we can identify past policies that were self-sabotaging in retrospect and then we can think of some that a hypothetical Democrat centrist might hypothetically enact as hypothetical president in 2028. Pretty sure the "other way round" would be what is usually happening, which is people insisting on various policies and positions people to the left of corporate/establishment/moderate/thirdway/Klobuchar/Buttigieg/whatever Democrats need to stop infighting with those "moderate" Democrats over and concede to them in order to not self-sabotage. I told you exactly what I meant with the other way around and it wasn't that. Yeah, I was pointing out that what you described isn't really "the other way around" (it's instructive how easy the actual other way round I showed you would be for you to answer huh?). It's a deliberate distraction from Blue MAGA's version of the "Who won the 2020 election" question that makes all of you BSOD/blather/petulantly lash out/anything but be able to give a straightforward answer to a straightforward question. In case anyone forgot, the question was/is: Does anyone 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's both amusing and very sad to see Blue MAGA struggle like this. I wrote up a lengthy post responding to this question, of course, you ignored it. Instead you are parroting your new favorite gotcha + Show Spoiler +which you seem to be very proud of, and the saddest part is that both components of it (repeating the same question from me, blue MAGA from the left wing internet) are completely unoriginal. Weak shit. If you're talking about that nonsense that some "asshole" called "libkisa" wrote, that's more of the blathering I was talking about.
A straightforward answer to the Blue MAGA version of "Who won the 2020 election" doesn't require much writing at all. It makes all the efforts people are taking to NOT simply answer with a couple policies/points centrists need to concede to people to their left on or else they're self-sabotaging even more illuminating.
|
Haha, not as much effort as you ignoring any answers that are provided.
You are a very silly person, I'll join the others in ignoring you.
|
A straightforward answer to "should people vote Libertarian to abolish the age of consent" doesn't require much writing at all. It makes all the efforts GH is taking to NOT simply answer with a couple policies/points even more illuminating.
|
When morons like Barack Obama and Bill Clinton were running the USA I couldn't sleep at night. Now with the "guardian angel" of the world's sea lanes, Donald Trump, running the USA I sleep like a baby.
https://youtube.com/shorts/hZ181s9SR70?si=ulfOCipzRXh3-EK4
As we all know the USA was founded on the principle of no shipping lane tolls without representation. Somehow , I thought this saying was supposed to rhyme. Oh well, you get the idea.
|
On July 30 2026 00:39 Falling wrote:
The question cannot be answered as worded because it contains within it a contradiction. I do not think by and large establishment Democrats like Buttigieg are causing infighting. To me it's rather like demanding examples of how the King has joined the rebellion... and how can there be examples when the King is what the rebels are rebelling against. Can you point me to examples of where Buttigieg (we'll stick with him because you name him as representative of your category and I am more familiar with him) is causing infighting?
Also, who in the world is Blue MAGA in this scenario and what defines them?
Sure it can. The idea that centrist/moderate/thirdway/etc Democrats are the "King" and progressives/their policy prescriptions are the rebels/rebellion is getting closer to recognizing the absurdity of Blue MAGA's inability to answer though.
Blue MAGA are the people so enraptured by thirdway Democrat mythology that they are incapable of providing policies/points that centrist/moderate/thirdway Democrats need to concede on to those to their left or else those centrist/moderate/thirdway Democrats would be self-sabotaging (undermining their own political success).
|
On July 30 2026 01:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2026 00:39 Falling wrote:
The question cannot be answered as worded because it contains within it a contradiction. I do not think by and large establishment Democrats like Buttigieg are causing infighting. To me it's rather like demanding examples of how the King has joined the rebellion... and how can there be examples when the King is what the rebels are rebelling against. Can you point me to examples of where Buttigieg (we'll stick with him because you name him as representative of your category and I am more familiar with him) is causing infighting?
Also, who in the world is Blue MAGA in this scenario and what defines them? + Show Spoiler +Sure it can. The idea that centrist/moderate/thirdway/etc Democrats are the "King" + Show Spoiler +and progressives/their policy prescriptions are the rebels/rebellion is getting closer to recognizing the absurdity of Blue MAGA's inability to answer though.
Blue MAGA are the people so enraptured by thirdway Democrat mythology that they are incapable of providing policies/points that centrist/moderate/thirdway Democrats need to concede on to those to their left or else those centrist/moderate/thirdway Democrats would be self-sabotaging (undermining their own political success).
GH entering their monarchist period was wildly unexpected.
|
|
|
Not to rain on anybody's parade, but "state officials" in Wisconsin are not presumptively fascists, any more than Tony Evers (Democratic Wisconsin governor) and Tammy Baldwin (Democratic Wisconsin senator) lieutenant governor (D) Attorney General (D) Secretary of State (D) are also fascists. The story needs to breathe a little from something that happened back in June for violating regulations, and comments from back in fucking January about dead Trump free beer day. It could be some rogue department, and it could also be a stupid businessman that's using politics as a cover for violating Wisconsin state law.
|
Revoking the licence to sell alcohol to an alcohol selling business that allegedly owes you tax money for alcohol seems just dumb enough to be petty revenge.
|
On July 30 2026 08:59 KT_Elwood wrote:
Revoking the licence to sell alcohol to an alcohol selling business that allegedly owes you tax money for alcohol seems just dumb enough to be petty revenge. I'd say the same thing if some big Trump business owner claimed selective enforcement of the law for failing to comply with state alcohol regulation. There's always the chance that he's dead right on his claims, and there's the chance that he thinks politics is his Get Out Of Jail Free Card from regulations affecting his business.
The article itself says right to appeal and operate during appeal. The timeline of January & April activism, and the phantom figures wait until June to cite a violation and July to pursue it with penalties? And in Wisconsin?
|
Canada11607 Posts
On July 30 2026 01:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2026 00:39 Falling wrote:
The question cannot be answered as worded because it contains within it a contradiction. I do not think by and large establishment Democrats like Buttigieg are causing infighting. To me it's rather like demanding examples of how the King has joined the rebellion... and how can there be examples when the King is what the rebels are rebelling against. Can you point me to examples of where Buttigieg (we'll stick with him because you name him as representative of your category and I am more familiar with him) is causing infighting?
Also, who in the world is Blue MAGA in this scenario and what defines them? Sure it can. The idea that centrist/moderate/thirdway/etc Democrats are the "King" and progressives/their policy prescriptions are the rebels/rebellion is getting closer to recognizing the absurdity of Blue MAGA's inability to answer though. Blue MAGA are the people so enraptured by thirdway Democrat mythology that they are incapable of providing policies/points that centrist/moderate/thirdway Democrats need to concede on to those to their left or else those centrist/moderate/thirdway Democrats would be self-sabotaging (undermining their own political success).
The king and rebels is showing showing how a question framed with a contradiction within it makes no sense and cannot be answered. I am not calling the establishment king and the leftist rebels.
To put it in another way, it is normal for a party to have wings or factions and for there to be disagreement and shifts in momentum on what part prevails in the party. When anyone talks about the infighting from the leftists that is sabotaging the Democrat party, that is NOT what anyone is talking about. So this turnabout on what Pete and establishment dems can do to stop the infighting doesn't make any sense.
Because the infighting that is self-sabatoging is the active measures when one part of the party basically ignores the party they are ostensibly running against and exclusively tear down what is supposedly their party.
It was the leftist, not the establishment that harangued 'Genocide' Joe over Gaza and then vanished when Trump got elected and gave the keys to the kingdom to Netanyahu.
It was leftists, not the establishment that sat on their hands for the election and now say, everything Trump is doing? Harris would have done the exact same thing. (see Hasan and basically anyone on the left that argues there is no difference between Dems and MAGA... the uniparty rhetoric was also strong in MAGA)
It is leftists, not the establishment purity test every level of government official for their position on Israel/Palestine. Doesn't matter how progressive they are. If you aren't maxed out in pro-Pally, River to the Sea, Palestine will be free (of the Jews), then get the hell out, you are no progressive. (see Scott Wiener)
It is leftists, not the establishment that cucked Sanders one of the most progressive senators, replacing him at his own rally, giving right wing media all the fodder they need to show what dweebs Democrats are.
MAGA has a pipeline of White House to Fox News to big podcasters to small podcasters to spread the word of what MAGA should believe next.
Democrats struggle to even express spread a message of what they are up to and especially on leftist platforms, effectively attacked as much as one would expect had they stepped on Fox News. (See Krystal Ball try to steamroll Adam Smith ability to even answer when on Breaking Point.)
I could go on.
Policy debate within the party is good and normal and is not infighting. The tactics used to gain control over the policy that are utilized by the far left are simply not seen by establishment Dems, which is why I don't think the question can be answered as such. (Especially as many of tactics actively discourage people voting.) Buttigieg doesn't do anything close to that as he is on the attack against MAGA and one of the better communicators of what the Democrats stand for, what it should do, and why MAGA ought to be opposed. But it's those tactics which are self-sabotaging because their targets are indiscriminate. Take the strongest progressive candidate. A half year later, that same candidate is dead to the leftists.
"F you and your Zionist handlers!"
Oh. Also, I think you are really stretching to make Blue MAGA/ fetch happen. What makes MAGA, MAGA is not comparable to the malaise of establishment Dems. Completely different problems and completely different levels of loyalty to the Leader over position.
|
On July 30 2026 13:28 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2026 01:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2026 00:39 Falling wrote:
The question cannot be answered as worded because it contains within it a contradiction. I do not think by and large establishment Democrats like Buttigieg are causing infighting. To me it's rather like demanding examples of how the King has joined the rebellion... and how can there be examples when the King is what the rebels are rebelling against. Can you point me to examples of where Buttigieg (we'll stick with him because you name him as representative of your category and I am more familiar with him) is causing infighting?
Also, who in the world is Blue MAGA in this scenario and what defines them? Sure it can. The idea that centrist/moderate/thirdway/etc Democrats are the "King" and progressives/their policy prescriptions are the rebels/rebellion is getting closer to recognizing the absurdity of Blue MAGA's inability to answer though. Blue MAGA are the people so enraptured by thirdway Democrat mythology that they are incapable of providing policies/points that centrist/moderate/thirdway Democrats need to concede on to those to their left or else those centrist/moderate/thirdway Democrats would be self-sabotaging (undermining their own political success). The king and rebels is showing showing how a question framed with a contradiction within it makes no sense and cannot be answered. I am not calling the establishment king and the leftist rebels. + Show Spoiler +
To put it in another way, it is normal for a party to have wings or factions and for there to be disagreement and shifts in momentum on what part prevails in the party. When anyone talks about the infighting from the leftists that is sabotaging the Democrat party, that is NOT what anyone is talking about. So this turnabout on what Pete and establishment dems can do to stop the infighting doesn't make any sense.
Because the infighting that is self-sabatoging is the active measures when one part of the party basically ignores the party they are ostensibly running against and exclusively tear down what is supposedly their party.
It was the leftist, not the establishment that harangued 'Genocide' Joe over Gaza and then vanished when Trump got elected and gave the keys to the kingdom to Netanyahu.
It was leftists, not the establishment that sat on their hands for the election and now say, everything Trump is doing? Harris would have done the exact same thing. (see Hasan and basically anyone on the left that argues there is no difference between Dems and MAGA... the uniparty rhetoric was also strong in MAGA)
It is leftists, not the establishment purity test every level of government official for their position on Israel/Palestine. Doesn't matter how progressive they are. If you aren't maxed out in pro-Pally, River to the Sea, Palestine will be free (of the Jews), then get the hell out, you are no progressive. (see Scott Wiener)
It is leftists, not the establishment that cucked Sanders one of the most progressive senators, replacing him at his own rally, giving right wing media all the fodder they need to show what dweebs Democrats are.
MAGA has a pipeline of White House to Fox News to big podcasters to small podcasters to spread the word of what MAGA should believe next.
Democrats struggle to even express spread a message of what they are up to and especially on leftist platforms, effectively attacked as much as one would expect had they stepped on Fox News. (See Krystal Ball try to steamroll Adam Smith ability to even answer when on Breaking Point.)
I could go on.
Policy debate within the party is good and normal and is not infighting. The tactics used to gain control over the policy that are utilized by the far left are simply not seen by establishment Dems, which is why I don't think the question can be answered as such. (Especially as many of tactics actively discourage people voting.) Buttigieg doesn't do anything close to that as he is on the attack against MAGA and one of the better communicators of what the Democrats stand for, what it should do, and why MAGA ought to be opposed. But it's those tactics which are self-sabotaging because their targets are indiscriminate. Take the strongest progressive candidate. A half year later, that same candidate is dead to the leftists.
"F you and your Zionist handlers!"
Oh. Also, I think you are really stretching to make Blue MAGA/ fetch happen. What makes MAGA, MAGA is not comparable to the malaise of establishment Dems. Completely different problems and completely different levels of loyalty to the Leader over position.
I know. There's no contradiction. Your answer is "No I don't have any either". I didn't need a rant about why you dislike leftists and blame them for so much. It seems literally none of you can comprehend that some centrists/corporate/thirdway policy is just objectively worse than its more progressive alternatives (We're talking even stuff to the right of Bernie). Not just functionally, but electorally too. This is no small part of why we can't have nice things.
A smaller fraction of "leftists" than Hillary supporters didn't fall in line and they get endless blame for Democrats' unending hubris giving us Trump 2x. Democrats literally imprison, enslave, and kill Black people/socialists for 100+ years (definitively destructive infighting) and the survivors are supposed to not have any standards or expectations like "don't aid and abet fascists in genocide". This to supposedly protect themselves from the fascism (got Trump anyway despite Black people overwhelmingly supporting Democrats) those same Democrats are laying/laid the foundation for (while also aiding and abetting fascists elsewhere).
It's not a good sign that the ostensible "progressives" and "leftists" here (or most places online) literally can't come up with anything centrists/moderate/thirdway Democrats need to stop infighting with progressives about and to concede on so as not to undermine the Democrats' party's capacity to accomplish its ostensible goals (the good ones) and win the races they need to (some they pushed/are pushing progressives out of). How anyone that lists some policies feels about the given policy isn't necessarily even the point. Just being able to identify any of the policies that are more popular with "independent" voters and the Democrats' own party. Basic electoral sense suggests centrists should stop infighting about those things and concede it to the "progressives/independents/leftists".
This complete failure by "progressives/leftists" here and generally is a significant part of how Democrats continue to help move society deeper into a right-wing capitalist hellscape.
|
What is it that you are doing that is way more effective and you would like the progressives in this thread to do?
Pointing out problems is very easy and does not make a person smart or productive. Solutions do, lead us.
|
The funniest thing is that I, in more cases then not disagree with Falling's view of what's wrong with Democrats, I mean I kind of went over most of those occurrences in my ironic reply to GH and it's easy to compare and contrast them.
All of this does not mean shit to GH, because he's too busy literally doing what the issue is, purity testing people who agree with him, insulting them and ignoring what they write because it's not exactly what he had in mind.
It's a great microcosm of what is wrong with progressives today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
