You must log in or register to comment.
Ironic since all of those bills were heavily cut down to gain “bipartisan” support and then Republicans still refused to vote for them, classic Democrat move. Kinda like how he gave up the race to Trump and then went on a photo tour with him like they’re buddies (which is pretty massive evidence for the Uniparty theory imo).
Ironic since all of those bills were heavily cut down to gain “bipartisan” support and then Republicans still refused to vote for them, classic Democrat move.
They were heavily cut down to gain the support of ‘moderate’ Dems whose support to pass them was literally indispensable. The Senate was literally at 50-50 for the first two years, and 51-49 for the next two.
Yeah, working together is a totally classic Democrat move. Got 'em.
Which policy do you think we should work together with Republicans on?
Slow fascism vs fast fascism. More money to cops, more drilling, more selling public land, more building a boarder wall, more genocide, more pardons for bad people, more keeping “permanent” tax cuts for the wealthy, more inability to actually make anything better ever.
At least with fast fascism some people are fighting back, but not hard enough to stop it.
People are fighting back but not hard enough. What a wild take.
Do not glorify Biden. Go back to Obama if you want an actual worthwhile role model. Biden was 110% on board with Bush in going to Iraq and spent the last 20 years of his career aggressively trying to break social security. Fuck boomer Biden.
deleted by creator
Gonna also address why his nickname in Congress was Jim Crow Joe?
deleted by creator
No, it originated from a 1975 Senate hearing where civil rights lawyer Jack Greenberg took Joe Biden to task for sponsoring bills that would prevent desegregation in Delaware.
The nickname really caught on after the series of “new Jim Crow” legislation, nomination, etc. that culminated in the 90s crime bill.
He was chosen as Obama’s VP explicitly due to that history along with that nickname as a form of appeasement with the “white moderates”.
i once tried to go president by president in Wikipedia wondering how far I have to go before I find one president that didn’t commit war crimes.
i gave up,
At least he really pushed back against the ongoing genoci- oh wait, no, he did the opposite of that.
I would say Obama is even worse than Biden as a role model to glorify.
You can draw a direct line between Obama’s fellating of wall street and the rise to power of MAGA. He was elected on a mandate to punish the bankers and utterly failed at this tasked, failed to enshrine Roe Vs Wade, and started a few wars. Combine this with other events like the management of Bernie Sanders’ first attempt at the presidency, and you have a spectacularly inept democrat parties that loss all credibility/appeal with swing voters.
Taking the current politics at face value, Trump would have 0 appeal if the democrats had a reasonable management of the border, if the democrats had actual economic politics instead of identity politics and didn’t bend the knee to the military industrial complex as much as republicans did.
Which wars did Obama start?
I might have misspoke: it would be more accurate to state that he got the US involved in wars, rather than starting them. More specifically, he’s criticized for getting the US in five wars and saber rattling with Iran.
So…
Afghanistan that Obama inherited from W., 2 wars in Iraq Obama inherited from W., training Syrian troops (who eventually did win) as a result of the Arab Spring and Assad gassing his own people which Obama did not start, and countering Yemen’s Houthi aggression which could really be argued that Obama did too little to counter as we are still dealing with it to this day with Iran aiding the Houthis…
Iran has been a problem for the US since the Carter administration, can’t really say Obama started that one either
Still unclear which if any of these conflicts Obama involved in
Sometimes it is best to be on the right side of history by being involved in a military conflict.
Being involved in a conflict does not automatically make it a bad thing
I don’t really feel like rehashing all the ways that the Iraq/Afghanistan war were disastrous
training Syrian troops (who eventually did win) as a result of the Arab Spring and Assad gassing his own people which Obama did not start
You need to read about Timber Sycamore. Assad did a lot of bad things, but it’s mental to imply that it was worth investing in Al-Qaeda affiliated militias to overthrow him. The new leader in Syria had a $20 million bounty on his head before rising to power in Syria, he is a leader of a splinter group of Al-Qaeda.
The Assad overthrow is not the pure-wholesome western win that you think it is. Sectarian minorities have been ethnically cleansed by these Syrian rebels now in power.
If you think that this is a success story from Obama’s admin, I’m afraid there’s no point discussing any longer.
Directions unclear
Is it because the CIA was involved that you automatically assume it was bad or that Al-Qaeda is the same organization it was 25 years ago?
25 years ago? The guy was wanted as a terrorist with a $10m bounty in 2017, the fuck you mean “25 years ago”. The bounty was rescinded because he overthrew a government seen as hostile by Israel and the US.
Are you just ignoring the article I linked describing mass killings of Alawite? Are you trying to defend those guys?
“the border” is a republican red herring, there’s basically nothing to fix, drugs and immigrants come other ways. Immigrants commit crimes at a rate much lower than citizens. It’s all republican lies that democrats are somehow fix.
Otherwise you can read about the hotels being turned into expensive migrant refuges, which I’ve seen reported about across the country. The government was paying for that, for non-citizens, during an ongoing homelessness crisis.
Look at all the cheap slave-labor that vanished into thin air the moment Trump started deporting people.
You guys absolutely had a problem with immigration. And not only did the democrats not offer any actual solution, the problem got worse under their watch. This is a prime example of democrats having useless identity politics where they address problems by brow-beating people and calling them racist, rather than doing anything for their citizens.
Across the country != the border
I didn’t say no problems with immigration. Please leave the goalpost where it was.
Then explain your point better because you aren’t making sense.
“there’s basically nothing to fix” => “I didn’t say no problems with immigration.”
*Jimmy Carter
He was the guy who knew what needed to be done decades beforehand and was ousted by the mechanations of the neocons. I wonder how much could be different if Reagan wasn’t able to make that deal with Iran to win the election.
Meh.
IMO, the problem is that Dems aren’t focusing on the economy in the correct way. Yeah, Biden did some good things. But you’ve still got massive wealth inequality, high rents and home prices, venture capital firms buying up small companies and jacking prices way the fuck up, executives raking in huge profits and salaries while laying off workers, etc. Dems keep saying, “the economy is great!” while working class people–the vast middle class in the US, which includes mid-level white collar jobs–are feeling like they’re working hard for less. Ever since the crash in '08, jobs have been less stable, and people have been turning to gig work to make ends meet, or to have anything extra in their budgets. Sanders is the only left-leaning politician that’s really banging on that drum.
Dems used to be out there running for good jobs for hard working people, work with dignity that you could live on. But they’ve been ignoring their roots for the last 40 years, and have been bought and sold by corporate America. The liberlization/globalization of the economy
In addition to that, Biden’s debate performance was a fucking disaster, and made it very, very clear to everyone that he was absolutely not fit to be president. Harris should have put some distance between herself and Biden, but she couldn’t, or wouldn’t; she was suggesting that we continue the same policies that are squeezing the working class, rather than calling for systemic reform.
Meanwhile, Trump was promising that he’d make foreign companies pay, and that he’d bring good jobs back. If you’re a low-information voter that doesn’t understand how tariffs work, and don’t think about the logistics of bringing all the manufacturing back, then this sound great.
Meanwhile, you’ve got the whole right wing media machine telling people–mostly men–that they’re right to feel screwed. And yeah, they are. It’s just that it’s not ‘libs’, women, typical immigrants, etc.; it’s corporate profiteering, trade globalization, the loss of power from unions, importing highly-skilled labor to displace higher-paid American workers (e.g., H1-B abuse), outsourcing everything, etc.
If Dems want to win, they need to get serious about good jobs that pay a living wage for middle America, putting a choke-chain on corporate profiteering, and rebuilding the power of labor.
They won’t; sponsored by the big capital, they are not capable of providing a large systemic change without losing the platform to speak on.
The issue is systemic, and Dems are not fit to solve it. Third party, funded by the regular people, is the only way forward.
Biden was lip stick on a pig. Trump is cutting a pig open.
this makes trump look like a funny cartoon villain stealing candy from the elderly, rather than a nazi intentionally persecuting minorities.
Biden boasted about having deported more people during his term than Trump did during his first term…
And then there also is the whole genocide thing and DNC people attacking minorities as stupid and disloyal for not having turned out for them any longer, showing what they really think of people who aren’t white or upper class.
It also makes the left broadly look like people who character-worship their own “leader” just like the right has “their guy.”
I can’t speak for all liberals, but I kind of think this is one of the primary “dividing lines” between the political spectrums in America. There are the people who latch onto simple narratives and power-structures like “USA GOOD LEADER GOOD” and people who are very skeptical of power and look at your government like OUR employees and should be held to account no matter what their politics are. Both sides keep projecting their own values onto the other and are making ZERO progress because of this.
They both support their genocidal garrison state no questions asked.
Don’t forget:
1-Enabled genocide against increasing opposition from his base. 2-Didn’t go after Trump for treason. 3-Didn’t go after price gouging, giving Trump a massive gift for his campaign. 4-Refused to step down despite clearly being unfit for a second term.
Biden did have a fair number of accomplishments during his term, but each one of these failures outweighs all of them combined.
Liberal voters liked Biden so much the emulated him by doing nothing to stop Trump.
Your thinking of the fake “progressives” that did nothing on election day.
I don’t know if two is exactly Fair. I would say more importantly that that he appointed Merrick Garland a fucking useless milk toast. That Garland didn’t go after Trump. I’m okay with the president not personally conducting investigations and trials.
Eh, same difference. I very much doubt he appointed Garland without knowing exactly what he’d do (or, more accurately, not do).
That’s never really the impression I had from him being appointed. I don’t think that much thought really went into it. I think it was more of a kind of a stunt/ fuck you to the Republicans for not letting him be on the Supreme Court. Kind of a see we’re going to use them since y’all wouldn’t. Which I think they regretted later. So I guess what I’m really saying is it’s Obama’s fault lol.
lol it’s milquetoast and that gives me hope for Lemmy not being entirely populated by bots right at this moment
- when everyone is price gouging and the high prices stick, that’s inflation, which Biden did go after.
3-Didn’t go after price gouging, giving Trump a massive gift for his campaign.
I agree with your other points, including the fact that he lost the fucking Republic to fascism through his deeds resulting in his overall legacy being an abject fucking failure, but the tools by which the president could, even purely theoretically, go after price gouging are extremely limited. And political concerns with the ever-fickle and reactionary US electorate would make direct presidential action even of that limited sort of questionable wisdom even for a presidency as motivated on the issue as one headed by Sanders or Warren (assuming the makeup of the rest of the government remained roughly the same).
I agree, though I’m starting to think that we’re being and limited by our own minds here a little. Look at how much raw power Republicans are exerting now, to much more evil ends, and they’re fine doing it. I think if Dems actually grew a spine, many would follow. A reactionary electorate can go both ways, since it’s mainly acting on vibes/spite/etc. Most believe nothing ever happens anyway, which is why they tell you to relax when the MAGA breaks key institutions. So I think some direct presidential action in a good direction would be good. Let the pundits scream all they want, they’ll call him a communist baby eater anyway.
PS: I hope that was coherent, I didn’t proof read it and I haven’t had my coffee yet.
To some degree, I do agree that the spinelessness of Dems works against them.
But on the other hand, Dems have a VERY different demographic than the GOP does. And the Dems have spent the past 30 years building the ‘adult in the room’ narrative which traditionally plays well to the actively voting segment of that demographic, and going for “Fuck the rules, we no longer believe in them” would likely not energize much of the base, and disillusion them the same way many left-wing voters were disillusioned in 2024 by the Harris campaign’s unwillingness to trumpet any firm ideological position.
Ultimately, I think Dem strategy, or lack thereof, is a contributor to this whole debacle - but the fundamental problem is that there’s not really a ‘winning coalition’ that’s evident at this point in American politics. Chasing swing voters by vibes instead of ever-increasingly-milquetoast policy might be marginally more electorally successful (though massively better for the country’s policy), but as unlikely to be the desired silver bullet any more than mainstream Dem attempts at shit like ‘country over party’ or ‘return to normality’ at changing the overall result of elections.
Our electorate is fucked, ideologically incoherent, low-information, and infected with deep, cultural-level maliciousness and tribalism. God knows how we dig ourselves out of this one, but however it might occur, I’m almost certain that it will happen at the grassroots, changing the electorate first and the strategy second (changing the electorate’s outlook, resulting in winning elections and being able to implement rational and useful policy), rather than vice-versa (winning elections and then changing the electorate via implementation of rational and useful policy).
Makes sense, but I have a question though. Wouldn’t the tribalism work in the favor of the “fuck it” approach? Since it would be targeted at Trump and his cronies. Dem voters tend to be all in on locking up Trump. And also, thinking towards more radical things Biden did, like pulling out of Afghanistan and strengthening the NLRB — those would technically be outside the typical Dem comfort zone, but I haven’t seen many Dem voters take issue with that.
Where I’m going with this: I don’t think voters really want this visionless triangulation approach Dems keep doing. I think the DNC wants that. The consultant class, the “it’s his/her/their turn” types. Jim Carville types and other Clinton era fossils who are afraid to call Republicans weird because they value bipartisanship above all else. Not to mention literal controlled opposition rotating villain types like “Manchinema” and now Fetterman. Those guys want compromise, but I actually think voters want a fight. I think they can see plainly that Republicans are going low and don’t actually want Dems to go high like Michelle Obama famously said — they want Dems to go lower and beat the GOP at their own game.
Again, all the tribalism and spite and brianrot, those are very conducive to a more aggressive approach rather than this “let them discredit themselves” crap. The latest polls favoring AOC, the Fight Oligarchy crowd sizes, the dismal disapproval of the Democratic Party as a whole, all these show that people are aware that the “adult jn the room” days are over and it’s a fight for survival. I’ll give you that once things hopefully get back to normal, they’ll start their finger wagging again, but right now? I kinda doubt it. If anything, the less vocal hashtag resistance is more a sign of people being tired, disappointed, and resigning themselves to the idea that nobody is fighting for them anymore and they just have to make do and keep their heads low because that’s how you survive fascism.
Disclaimer: not American, I’m from across the pond but I follow US politics closely because it affects us as well.
Makes sense, but I have a question though. Wouldn’t the tribalism work in the favor of the “fuck it” approach?
We’re back at the “GOP and Dems have a different core demographic”. There’s not a massive as-of-yet-untapped tribalist voting bloc waiting for the DNC to ratchet up their rhetoric.
Where I’m going with this: I don’t think voters really want this visionless triangulation approach Dems keep doing. I think the DNC wants that. The consultant class, the “it’s his/her/their turn” types. Jim Carville types and other Clinton era fossils who are afraid to call Republicans weird because they value bipartisanship above all else. Not to mention literal controlled opposition rotating villain types like “Manchinema” and now Fetterman. Those guys want compromise, but I actually think voters want a fight. I think they can see plainly that Republicans are going low and don’t actually want Dems to go high like Michelle Obama famously said — they want Dems to go lower and beat the GOP at their own game.
I agree entirely. Like I said, the strategy, or lack thereof, of the Dems is a contributor to this entire debacle.
Again, all the tribalism and spite and brianrot, those are very conducive to a more aggressive approach rather than this “let them discredit themselves” crap. The latest polls favoring AOC, the Fight Oligarchy crowd sizes, the dismal disapproval of the Democratic Party as a whole, all these show that people are aware that the “adult jn the room” days are over and it’s a fight for survival. I’ll give you that once things hopefully get back to normal, they’ll start their finger wagging again, but right now? I kinda doubt it. If anything, the less vocal hashtag resistance is more a sign of people being tired, disappointed, and resigning themselves to the idea that nobody is fighting for them anymore and they just have to make do and keep their heads low because that’s how you survive fascism.
I think you vastly overestimate the appetite and appeal of conflict for most American voters at this point in time. We run in extremely left-leaning circles here in Lemmy, but while there’s general dissatisfaction with the Dem party, a majority of voters want it to stay the course or become more moderate rather than radicalize. And while that’s pig-fucking stupidity, it’s… well, we play the hand we’re dealt, not the one we want.
My point about abandoning the long-standing pandering to suburban professionals and other unplugged moderates who crave civility politics wasn’t an endorsement of the Dems continuing the ‘adult in the room’ strategy, only suggesting that there are definite and serious electoral costs to changing the strategy, and that prior experience does not engender confidence in harnessing the ‘anger’ of other Dem demographics as a means of increasing electoral success.
Changing the strategy means telling the Dems, as a whole, ‘the party doesn’t need the support of the suburban middle class; progressives will make up the difference’.
And while I agree that attempting to further shore up the suburban middle class is clearly not a winning fucking strategy, progressives - even for progressive darlings like Sanders - simply do not command the votes necessary to change the electoral balance in this country, as things currently stand. It goes back to the core point I made - that the fundamental problem is we lack a clear ‘winning coalition’ more than that we lack a winning strategy (though we do also, clearly, lack a winning strategy as well). There’s no strategic silver bullet that the DNC is just ‘missing’, or too corrupt to adopt. We’re in a bad fucking position, and changing the electorate is probably more useful than changing strategy (though there’s nothing stopping us from agitating for both, I feel it’s important to emphasize that changing strategy alone is not going to be anything but kicking the can down the road - I remember the triumphalism of the successful strategy of the Obama years and how that fucking panned out)
The reason for Republicans corruption is literally the power they have. If Democrats took up that power, it wouldn’t fix anything. Then we’d have two equally corrupted unanswerable parties. Running roughshod over us.
Anyone who thought anyone at that level of government could or would save them has only fooled themselves. That level of government has never and will never represent us. Literally, look to the times it sort of seemed like it did. Like the new deal era 100 years ago that did a lot to exclude Black’s and minorities. Then realize that even that little bit was an exception and an outlier.
Nothing would be materially different had Sanders won. Because he wouldn’t have had a base of legislative support etc. He would have had better rhetoric if that’s all that mattered to you. But in terms of what he could get done. It wouldn’t be much different. When you vote for a president if you aren’t voting for anyone to fix something. You are voting for someone to manage the damage and trying to keep it from getting out of hand. That is all.
No president will ever save us. The only ones capable of saving us are ourselves. People have been so complacent. That we have sleepy octogenarians, dying in office. Generally running unopposed. That’s on us. Yes the National Party will fight against us. They’ve always been the enemy. It’s only right for them to fight against us. It’s wrong that we haven’t been fighting back against them.
Breaking things by not following the rules is easy. All Democrats can do right now is threaten to … Also break things, hoping Republicans would back down. But that only helps them.
I don’t mean break things so much as push things and not back down the instant some parliamentarian disagrees. I want them to put goals above process, if that makes sense. And obviously to have actual good goals.
He only did genocide like a smol bean 🥹
Well, the other one actually did genocide like a big bean. Biden failed to do anything to stop it, Trump actively helped.
But both sides, amirite?I think selling them weapons and defending Israel from reprisal in criminal courts, and delegitimization of the call of a genocide is not “failing to stop it”, its full blown complicity. The only thing that i see that trump has done any different is attacking freedoms of speech and the right to assemble here to prevent people from protesting over our complicity in a genocide, though to bombed innocents in Gaza, that distinctions means very little.
Biden sent some 18 billion dollars in weapons to Israel. He sanctioned the ICC for seeking to arrest Netanyahu. College protestors were beaten up by police and Zio-mobs with the support of Biden. Biden spread lies about beheaded babies on October 7 to justify the mass slaughter of Palestinian children.
Biden deliberately failed to secure a ceasefire when all it needed was a proper phone call. Meanwhile Trump managed that for two months. Biden is this deep in hell on genocide support that Trump so far performed better than him.
But when that was pointed out before the election people went on to defend genocide as somehow acceptable and God forbid demanding to stop it because then AIPAC and the Elon Musk Nazi salute fans from the ADL would have been pissed.
If he had all those accomplishments and people still didn’t vote for his successor I wouldn’t call them accomplishments.
They like him because he hurts the ones they hate a little more than he hurts them.
So there’s two factors that gave Trump (barely) the election (all the battleground states were narrowly chosen)
One, I speculate and no one seems to be addressing, is the trillion-dollar far-right propaganda machine. FOX News, OANN, Michael Walsh, Ben Shapiro, Joe Rogan and so on. It’s continuously pumping content out to the population telling them that liberals are all communists and women should all be tradwives. Also that everyone nonwhite or poor is a leech on the economy.
The other is the King Log vs. King Stork thing. In those industrialized nations where the left-side party is neoliberal (preserves the status quo), the far right parties get strong support. It was happening across Europe around when Trump got elected, though there’s been a left-side push-back since, possibly due to Trump providing a visible example of who they don’t want in office. Canada’s economist / banker PM was elected due to Trump, we are pretty sure.
Biden was as right wing as they come in the Democratic party, and for 2020 the party’s principals (who get their own votes) chose him, deciding that everyone else was too socialist for them. Biden was Biden (that is, an establishment neoliberal, with some efforts to appeal to the public. And then in 2024 he pulled out of the race, and Harris took over and in the last few months of campaigning appealed to less-nazi Republicans, which alienated her base.
The election was won by MAGA disciples voting only top ballot (for Trump and nothing else) and lost by low-information Democrats who weren’t motivated or decided to send a message by failing to show.
Regardless, figuring out how he won is more important than figuring out how to get rid of him, because even if he dies, the GOP is going to church out Secret Hitler after Secret Hitler, and the Democratic party, determined not to go left, is going to fall into irrelevance, just before they are imprisoned / killed as political enemies.
lost by low-information Democrats
Seventy-seven million people voted to unperson huge demographics of Americans which has included both legal aliens and American citizens, which is a breach of the social contract.
So yeah, the voters were wrong. Now we’re trying to figure out why, and whether the human species is just doomed to stratified societies and extinction through industrial pollution.
Don’t forget about the efforts to disenfranchise voters. Registered voter roll purges. Threats against their physical safety. Bomb threats. Closing of polling locations in blue districts. Overwhelmingly long lines in blue districts. Probationary ballots. Signature verification.
FFS it took me 6 months to renew my DL in a red state. The minute I got fed up with it and drove two hours to the middle of no where I was able to renew that same day. The voter disenfranchisement is real and intentional.
The GOP effectively purged almost 5 million votes from the voter rolls.
Look how many votes trump won by.
Yeah I’m not sure I buy the whole Musk-stole-the-election thing with hacked machines and starlink. But I know with certainty that they stole the election by preventing people from voting.
There are certainly some mathematical abnormalities with the voting data indicative of manipulation. Whether that’s actual tampering with voting machines like Trump inferred or just maga hats voting for the first time only for their god king is hard to say for sure.
This. I personally think they hacked the election, and they also purged the voter rolls.
TIL I learned about King Log vs. King Stork / Heron / Snake
deleted by creator
Yet both are enemies of the workers, play into opportunism, the vast majority of their policies are dictated by business donors and maintain the system that most of us can agree is killing the planet and people. Any minor concessions (that have already been repealed by the way, wonder how that works /s) might make things a little bit comfortable, but is essentially nothing in comparison.
Stop rallying behind the puppets of capitalists, look past the liberal abstraction to see things for what they really are even if media says otherwise.
Ah libs, holding hands with fascists and blaming the left for fascism as is tradition.
I think you grossly misunderstood the meme.
Really? Because it seems to me like this meme is trying to say Joe Biden was awesome and the title is definitely something I’ve heard parroted by people who blame leftists for not voting for Biden.
Ah, the Nirvana fallacy. If he wasn’t perfect then I guess we should let Trump win. Calling Biden a fascist is a pretty gross misunderstanding of history
Calling Biden a fascist is a pretty gross misunderstanding of history
No, saying he wasn’t is. Biden had polite tea and handed the white house over to a fascist. That’s literally having lunch at the fascist table, which we all know makes you one of them
He did once describe himself as a proud Zionist. Which by definition is a fascist ideology so…
I didn’t call Biden a fascist. But historically liberals will side with fascists or try to entice fascist vote instead of trying to rally with leftists, which historically has lead to fascism, to the point where it’s literally part of the fascist tactic that political theorists like Carl Schmitt wrote about to destroy liberal democracy. And Biden is exactly that.
Leftists don’t have a person to rally around, and some leftists rallied around MAGA. So leftists either sat out, or sided with fascists.
What did you expect liberals to do in this situation?
Lee expect liberals to pressure politicians who side with genocide to not do that. We expect liberals to actually give a shit in the primaries. We expect liberals to at the very least not stop protests claiming that “violent protest doesnt help the cause.” We expect liberals to support politicians that want to make change. We want actually SOMETHING out of the supposed relationship we are supposed to have to stop fascism. But all you do is promote fascist imperialism light and then blame us when that tried and failed system hasn’t worked for my entire life.
And if the liberals don’t do a good enough job you just side with the fascists to teach the liberals a lesson?
This. The “leftists” arguing for accelerationism are welcome to go to any of the fascist countries they love so much. They don’t need to keep trying to force America down the same path.
Last I checked, Authoritarian rule under a single leader screaming about the importance of “merit” isn’t found on the left of the spectrum.
lmao the US doesn’t need help “going down the path of fascism”. They paved the road. Over a black neighborhood.
historically liberals will side with fascists or try to entice fascist vote instead of trying to rally with leftists
Are there stats on this I can check out? Like numbers on documenting times a lib government in various countries was in power when a fascist movement gained ground, and then whether the ruling coalition decided to work to support or quash the movement.
