On August 19 2026 02:39 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2026 02:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2026 01:55 WombaT wrote:On August 19 2026 01:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 18 2026 23:55 misirlou wrote:On August 18 2026 22:04 Billyboy wrote:On August 18 2026 15:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 18 2026 15:13 dyhb wrote:On August 18 2026 14:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 18 2026 13:49 dyhb wrote:[quote] First, any poll that asks about Medicare For All should also ask respondents if they think they keep their private health plan after it's enacted. That was key some years ago when a similar question was asked of respondents. + Show Spoiler +Second, this is an update to the 2020 study, which means the lead author was an advisor to the Sanders campaign. Kind of like asking if Data Centers actually increase available potable water and decrease electricity rates for consumers from an Nvidia consultant. Third, Jeffries is smart enough to know that the assumptions should be doubted until peer review and independent analysis. And that polling is almost a freebie "what kind of plans should the Democratic party focus on" (96% inflation, 91% tax the wealthy, 92% stop Trump's policies, that's a lot of >90% "focus on" response) Well, even then, it still seems more popular than data centers and nuclear power A November 2025 poll by Data for Progress found that 65 percent supported Medicare for All when described as national health insurance replacing most private insurance.
The survey found 78 percent support among Democrats, 71 percent among independents and 49 percent among Republicans. And even after respondents were told that Medicare for All would eliminate most private insurance and require higher taxes, support remained above 60 percent. Also worth noting: His position is a notable shift from earlier years, when congressional records show he co-sponsored Medicare for All legislation introduced in 2019 and 2021. https://www.newsweek.com/medicare-for-all-what-polls-reveal-as-hakeem-jeffries-rejects-proposal-12332745I'm guessing that's a "no" as far as you know on the Trump question? Nothing comes to mind on comparing Jeffries and Medicare For All to Trump. You understand the question is about whether there's something that Trump/Republican leadership opposes/supports in opposition to a comparable majority of their own party? There is a little war in the Middle East you might have missed. Just more proof that it doesn't matter what those voters say, the only thing you can trust about them is that they'll stand firmly behind their party moves How does the Tea Party and Trump fit into that in your view? Was that the voters following the party or the party being dragged by the voters (that were 'inspired' by billionaires)? It's also worth noting that it's just not true/accurate that Republican voters oppose Trump's policy of war in Iran comparably to how Democrat voters support universal healthcare vs it being opposed by their Democrat leaders. Lastly, this is demonstrative of how all the pleading for people to fall in line behind Democrats' leadership inarguably helps fascists move the country towards their fascist dystopia. How does it? This is my previous explanation to you: On August 13 2026 23:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 13 2026 07:15 WombaT wrote:+ Show Spoiler +It’s quite remarkable really. I think there’s 100% a good case to be made that the Dems aren’t going to solve a lot of problems afflicting Joe and Jane average American anytime soon, and are quite deficient there. I’d happily agree with that, but they wouldn’t be instituting Fascist policies from the White House either. + Show Spoiler +It’s less doubling down than quadrupling down at this point. It’s genuinely insufferable It's not so much "a good case" as it is demonstrably true. Thinking voting Democrat was the shield for ~60 years was indispensable in the metastization of fascism/Trump in the first place. That also includes helping to lay the foundations of fascist policy themselves like the Patriot Act, Cop City in ATL, or NYC still using the military to police the transit system, just to name a few examples. Which connected to this previous explanation: On July 28 2026 04:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 28 2026 03:44 LightSpectra wrote:On July 28 2026 03:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 28 2026 01:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 28 2026 01:08 LightSpectra wrote:On July 28 2026 00:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 28 2026 00:19 LightSpectra wrote:On July 28 2026 00:09 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
And again, you asked why I mentioned it. The reason was to illustrate that infighting wasn't the overwhelming problem it is portrayed to be, the real issues are simplistically intricate.
You're correct to point out this difference in media, but your imagination (and reading of my previous posts) fails you in coming up with what (I would believe) would be an appropriate counter for that for people that actually want to bring the best tenets of socialist thought into our societal structure.
At the core, is again, a fundamental misalignment between how many people view US politics and the actual mechanisms/systems/etc at play. Behind all the rhetoric, it's about leverage. Obviously a humanist/socialist perspective is never going to win playing in a system designed to accommodate competing factions of the Epstein Class by trying to build their own competing faction of "good Epstein Class people" within that system's rules.
On that note, it's worth hearing more about your thoughts on why you believe there isn't/won't/can't be comparable corporate/mainstream/left-wing media that reinforces humanist/the best socialist tenets pressuring Democrats to fall in line? Remind me what that appropriate counter would be? 20 years ago I probably would've agreed with this wholeheartedly, but Republicans have shown they can use their leverage to repeatedly screw over their own voters (not just the rank-and-file either, they have screwed over their own megacorporate backers in the weapons, agricultural, etc. industries) and that doesn't lose them those votes or support. The goldfish-brained swing voters don't remember any of it on election day either, just whatever gas prices look like and whatever the most recent scandal the media was talking about. There could be, it's hypothetically possible, but there just isn't at this time. Right now the strongest force in politics is social media and the ones owned by the far-right (Facebook, Instagram, Youtube, Twitter, Tiktok) completely mog all of the other ones (Reddit, Bluesky, the rest are barely even worth mentioning), which are still mostly owned by right-wingers, just not explicit Trump donors. I support revolutionary socialism as the appropriate counter. The specific tactics that includes varies depending on perspective, but it starts in many ways, including with individuals recognizing the fundamental structures of US politics and capitalism. That's been at the core of my focus on leverage in US political history as I've described previously (rather than how you're thinking about it). DSA is not that. But plenty of people I respect the work of think that it could(/must) be. So for those that think there's some sort of better reformist path option, DSA and the sort of uncomfortable infighting (that I would say you rightly/unintentionally point out is part of why the reformist path is a dead end) is the best version of that they're getting. If all of the excesses and corruption of an Epstein accomplice POTUS didn't spur people into revolutionary socialism, then what will? (ongoing) Deliberate and multi-generational efforts ( like those I mentioned) by informed and dedicated workers aligning with circumstances ideally help brought about by those diligent efforts. Nothing will magically 'spur' people into a revolution. Thinking a scandal will change the world is liberal idealism. As you pointed out, the Epstein Class owns the media, the algorithms, and the grocery stores (and in effect, the farms/factories that fill them). They know how to manage public anger and turn it into various forms of "harmless digital noise". The only thing that changes this is a brutal, multi-generational grind. We have to build/ramp up independent survival networks right now so people don't starve when they strike. We don't wait for the system to collapse. We diligently build the collective capacity to protect workers by choking off corporate profits, so that when the system finally fractures under its own greed, the working class has the raw physical leverage to take over instead of the fascists. How do you or anyone think spending a couple pages arguing with Trump supporters about whether AOC is a member of DSA fits into this or your alternative preference (which would be nice to be seen explained)? I don't have any criticisms. It's a fine outlook. I assume, since you said "We don't wait for the system to collapse", you therefore would agree that this multi-generational effort is more likely to succeed if socialists vote for centrists/liberals to keep fascists out of power whenever possible, i.e. the opposite of accelerationism. Correct? You are fundamentally confusing the symptom with the disease. Corporate centrists do not stop fascism. Their policies explicitly manufacture the economic misery, desperation, and cynicism that breeds it. When liberals protect monopolies, bails out banks, and suppresses working-class wages, they lay down the foundations for the next right-wing strongman.Treating corporate Democrats as a 'shield' is a delusion. They are a political ratchet. The right moves the goalposts, and the center locks them into place. Voting for them doesn't defeat fascism, it just enables the slow motion decline of society while their corporate donors line their pockets. + Show Spoiler +I reject accelerationism in part because hoping for a catastrophic collapse without an organized alternative is suicidal. But you are misunderstanding the functionality/meaningfulness of voting as political engagement. It takes ~five minutes once every two years (at least it should in an industrialized country). If a worker decides that pulling the lever for a centrist buys a sliver of defensive breathing room for our independent unions and mutual aid networks to breathe, fine. Do it. If another worker decides the corporate party needs to be starved of votes to break its leverage, fine. Do that. But do not confuse a defensive five minute tactical choice inside a rigged capitalist system with the actual multi-generational work of building working-class power. The latter being how you actually keep fascists out of power. One reason the Democratic establishment constantly drags progressives to the right is because of the exact logic you just laid out. They know they can give you objectively worse, corporate/Republican/lobbyist-written policies, and you will still fall in line because you are terrified of the alternative. You have given away all your leverage for free. By making 'harm reduction' one's political guidepost, you ensure that the center rarely has to concede a single thing to the working class (but for to keep the extraction going ala the New Deal). My outlook doesn't really care about your voting habits per se. It cares about what you are doing the other 364 days of the year. The only way to stop a fascist isn't to vote for a corporate puppet. It is to build the organized, independent capacity to shut down the economy when the state steps out of line. Which if you noticed, there was a bipartisan multi-generational effort to dismantle people's capacity to do that coming out of the Civil Rights Movement when they had a similar version of this discussion and falling in line behind centrists was the prevailing common sense. Which again, led us directly to Trump being president 2x (so far). In this particular example, Democrat leaders' insistence on protecting health insurance corporations (which would include the ACA that enshrined their profits in law) is part of that. Dems bad I guess, never heard that record before
Had a feeling you were just sealioning. This shitpost response confirms it.
Here's the thing, ostensibly, we all want Republicans to lose (oBlade types excluded). My critiques of Democrats' leaders are to highlight how losing to Republicans like Trump isn't because I've been pointing out how they've been incessantly pissing in the faces of their voters for years. It's because at the behest of their owners donors they're incessantly pissing in the faces of the people that would support them (not about whether I would or not) and (have their lackeys and useful idiots) demanding everyone slurp it down to avoid drowning. Turns out, that predictably loses to Trump.
I'm sure reality show style drama/gossip and shitposting about how stupid Trump/Republicans are is great at triggering the dopamine spikes that reddit style engagement has been engineered for, but I happen to have a different perspective/frame for politics that I prefer.
|
On August 19 2026 02:58 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2026 02:49 LightSpectra wrote:
Real question, what's she going to say that will move the needle at all? She changes his diarrhea-filled diaper, pumps his cankles full of Big Mac sauce, listens to him complain about how Melania won't sleep with him anymore? Maybe good for a laugh or two but most Republicans probably already know he's a pathetic old man at this point. I mean, I really have no idea. But she’s with him 24/7. Sends him seemingly romantic notes, was one of the few people he choose to save from the “Iranian attack”. She probably knows current him better than anyone on the planet. Move the needle is a good point though, nothing seems to, but I’d still rather bet on that working than 100m in tv ads. Just all the health stuff making him look weak to all the “alpha males” and “alpha male” loving women might matter. And of course for the entertainment.
The only way it'll change anything is if something truly salacious drops two weeks before a major election. Otherwise the goldfish voters will promptly forget about it. And it so happens the goldfish voters are currently really pissed about the Iran War, cost-of-living, and ICE, so it doesn't seem like more palace intrigue will matter. Maybe if Harper was constantly whispering "forget not the data centers, milord" in Trump's ear though and somebody blurted that out, lol.
|
EPT
