I love this meme
Party that supports multiple dictatorships pretends they don’t like fascism
“Antifascist” holy shit that’s funny.
I’ve never voted in an election where I wasn’t voting for policies I disagree with.
These kids need better civics education so they know we don’t get nice things in America.
Genocide as a policy you can respectfully disagree with
But you don’t have to!
The only illusion is that genocide was ever not an American policy. Talk to a Native American about it.
Wokely voting for the genocide guy
Trump or Biden, they will support Israel. At least I am sure Biden won’t drop a nuke.
If you care about Palestinians as you claim, you should listen to them.
The Palestinians understand that however bad Biden may be, Trump would be worse. Those are the only two options that exist.
Which pro-Palestine group is endorsing Biden?
Republicans say the dumbest shit ever, but it’s also incredibly stupid to believe that would actually happen. Nuking Gaza would mean fallout hitting Israel, it’s not something that would ever be approved.
Not really how nuclear weapon fallout works
Considering how close they are, yes it is. If you’re going to be pedantic, at least explain how I’m wrong. Regardless, Israel doesn’t want Palestine itself irradiated because they plan on stealing that land anyway.
That is literally why tactical nuclear weapons were invented.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon
And the president does not need approval to drop a nuke.
and where have they been used against people?
You better watch out PugJesus, I just got accused of being a bot in another thread for having this point of view 😂
I’m used to tankie whinging about how they can’t support fascist regimes without being called out.
I hit em with the “maybe your views are just unpopular?” and have yet to see a response…
It doesn’t matter. They don’t believe in democracy, much less convincing people. They’re vanguardist fascists, after all.
The response was probably “<admin> banned elliot_crane” from .ml + hexbear, and the ban conveniently didn’t federate to .world’s modlog
lmao I wouldn’t be surprised if that happened a long time ago… I’ve been calling out this shit for months.
And at every other time of the political cycle they will be on and on about how they’re the only ones who really take the threat of fascism in this country seriously.
I mean, they claim that now, even as they say “It doesn’t matter if a literal fascist gets in power; support for anti-fascist coalitions is unforgivable!”
In the run-up to the 1932 German elections, the left-wing party was still calling the establishment-left party the “main” enemy, and fighting them in the streets and siphoning support away from them by running their own candidates in three-way elections that also included Hitler. A few years later, most of them were dead, since they were the very first of his targets, long before the Jews.
The heroic SPD, who shoveled two million conscripts to their deaths in the pointless meat grinder of WWI (which killed 20 million, all told) and violently suppressed opposition to it in the name of “national unity.” Yes, I can see the resemblance.
By the way, the 1932 German Presidential election had three candidates: the nefarious communist candidate Ernst Thälmann, Adolf Hitler, and Paul von Hindenburg. The winner was not Hitler, it was Hindenburg, who then proceeded to appoint Hitler as chancellor. If only the KPD hadn’t split the vote between Hitler and the guy who would appoint Hitler, the guy who won anyway might have won and, uh, done exactly what he did, which is appoint Hitler chancellor and enable him to rise to power.
Obviously, the lesson to take away from this is that the people who tried to stop both world wars were on the wrong side of history, and the people who supported the guy who appointed Hitler chancellor in order to stop him from coming to power were right about everything and worthy of emulation.
Ah, yes, the heroic KPD, the mouthpiece of the Soviets, definitely just trying to stop the mean ol’ Nazis
Fucking astounding how far you’ll go to sympathize with fascists. But hey, after Hitler, you, right?
The KPD weren’t around when that was signed, on account of how Hitler murdered them. Because he correctly identified them as his chief ideological enemies.
As for the pact itself, it was signed after Stalin unsuccessfully attempted to form a unified front against Hitler with Britain and France. The latter two signed many agreements with Hitler, such as selling out Czechoslovakia, in the hope that he would stay focused on fighting the communists. Nobody was eager to get involved in a second world war.
Oh look, the tankie is back in this thread.
What can I say? I can’t resist the siren call of people being wrong on the internet.
Because he correctly identified them as his chief ideological enemies.
Curious, since their feuding with the SPD was instrumental in the rise of the Nazi Party, and that their puppetmasters cozied up to the Nazis at the first opportunity. Almost like it was just a power struggle with few actual ideological scruples involved.
Curious
It is curious. So curious, in fact, that your whole conspiracy collapses in the face of it.
since their feuding with the SPD was instrumental in the rise of the Nazi Party
It takes two to fued. Maybe the SPD should’ve tried not shoveling millions of people into a pointless war, or not killing KPD leaders who opposed it, or throwing their weight behind the only candidate who actually was neither Hitler or aligned with Hitler, or not saying the communists were just as bad as the fascists (you know, like you’re doing now).
The heroic SPD, who shoveled two million conscripts to their deaths in the pointless meat grinder of WWI (which killed 20 million, all told)
Yep, 100% accurate (and, a roughly-accurate analogy I think with modern Democrats doing insane things like supporting Israel)
and violently suppressed opposition to it
Er… which suppression are you talking about? I’m a little out of my depth on it but the only suppression I’m aware of came after the KPD started a violent rebellion against them. But like I say I’m not that well aware of it, can you tell me?
By the way, the 1932 German Presidential election had three candidates: the nefarious communist candidate Ernst Thälmann, Adolf Hitler, and Paul von Hindenburg. The winner was not Hitler, it was Hindenburg, who then proceeded to appoint Hitler as chancellor.
Once he won his 1932 term Hindenburg had Brüning as chancellor, then Papen, then Schleicher, amid a massive amount of infighting, and then after all that was Hitler. The vague picture I have is that infighting including but not limited to KPD vs. everyone else, strikes, street battles, and general chaos was a big part of what was making German politics nonfunctional and created the conditions where Hindenburg eventually had to work with Hitler.
Certainly the moderates in the Reichstag had to work with either the KPD or the Nazis, numerically, in order to get anything done, since none of those three factions had a majority. I’m out of my depth to say exactly how it played out or whose fault it all was. But I’m pretty confident in saying that “Hindenburg was secretly Hitler-friendly and got behind him instantly as soon as he was in office” is oversimplified, if that’s what you’re saying. For one thing, he’d been in office already for 7 years before that, and he had to die before the Nazis actually took over – it doesn’t seem to me like him in office was the key to Nazi takeover.
Would it have turned out different if it was 64% Hindenburg, instead of 51% Hindenburg and 13% Thälmann? And likewise with loyalties in the Reichstag? I’m sort of implying that it might have, but honestly I have no idea. And I likewise have no idea whose “fault” it was between the SPD and KPD that they were both pretty consistently at each other’s throats. I just know that part of the way it played out was rabid opposition to Hindenburg and the SPD from the left, rather than unification from them as the only alternative to Hitler, and that against that backdrop Hitler was able to make it work.
Obviously, the lesson to take away from this is that the people who tried to stop both world wars were on the wrong side of history, and the people who supported the guy who appointed Hitler chancellor in order to stop him from coming to power were right about everything and worthy of emulation.
I didn’t say they were on the wrong side of history, and I don’t think they were. I do think that their treatment of the SPD as “the real enemy”, and pursuit of “what we want in a perfect world” with no attention to “what’s the best outcome we can actually achieve” or “what will be the actual real outcome of chasing our perfect vision” is, in my opinion, part of what let Hitler come to power and got most of them killed a couple years later.
Er… which suppression are you talking about? I’m a little out of my depth on it but the only suppression I’m aware of came after the KPD started a violent rebellion against them. But like I say I’m not that well aware of it, can you tell me?
When a government gets millions of people killed for no reason, using violence against that government is completely justified.
And I likewise have no idea whose “fault” it was between the SPD and KPD that they were both pretty consistently at each other’s throats.
It was the SPD’s fault, for the whole, you know, “war that killed 20 million people” thing.
When a government gets millions of people killed for no reason, using violence against that government is completely justified.
Got it, I understand what you’re saying. Sure. Like I say, you’re not really wrong in this.
However, you could say, getting so bent out of shape when they use violence against you back against your rebellion that you’re still holding a grudge about it more than a decade later, even to the point of refusing to work with them against someone who’s going to get 75 million people (and nearly 100% of your particular political party) killed, seems shortsighted. That’s more my point than anything about “justified” or the right side of history.
Right, except that as established, the SPD were the ones who chose to back the guy who made Hitler chancellor. So it’s really more like, should they have backed the people who already got 20 million and a bunch of people from your party killed, so they can support the guy who’ll support the guy who’s going to get 75 million and virtually everyone in your party killed?
Your claim that Hindenburg winning by a wider margin could have possibly prevented Hitler’s rise to power is a counterfactual, even long after the fact, there’s no way to know if that’s true. I could just as easily say that the SDP could’ve thrown their weight behind Thälmann and that might have stopped Hitler, and maybe it would have, or maybe it wouldn’t. One way or another, the differences between the SDP and KPD were not one-sided, and those differences began over a disagreement where the SDP were clearly in the wrong and got millions of people killed for nothing.
And the same pattern repeats today, with MLs calling everyone else ‘social fascists’ or like terms and crying “After
HitlerTrump, us!”, while playing the victim if they’re ever called out on it.
voting 3rd party
not voting also sends a strong message
Pretty much just had this conversation. Except my point was if you want further left, then you have to give Dems consistent victories. Because when they lose they go to the center to find votes. Remember Dems have had all 3 (house, Senate, presidency) for only 4 years of the last 24 years.
The greatest expansion of Rights in American history came in a period where Democrats had a very strong string of victories. From FDR to LBJ Democrats dominated in this country, it was also the period in which basically everything we consider the Cornerstone of our nation was developed. It’s also the period that the conservatives are trying to roll back as hard as humanly possible.
that’s at a time when democrats were republicans and republicans were democrats; things change and so do political parties and whitewashing like this suggests either shallow understanding or willful misrepresentation.
It absolutely wasn’t. This is a time when the new deal was created. This is the time when the American middle class was created. Social Security. Civil Rights Act. Voting Rights Act. All during this period thanks to the Democrats. The Republicans who left the Democratic party are those that left because they didn’t like what the Democratic party was doing. The idea that both parties completely swapped places one day is an infantile understanding of that scenario.
it’s crystal clear from your response that you could use a refresher on your modern american history so i found this for you.
So I’m you’re confused your argument is that FDR did not Implement all the programs he implemented?
oic now; i think i can understand our disconnect now.
the democrats of the 1930’s have less in common with the democrats of today than they have with the republicans of today. pretending otherwise is either shallow understanding or willful misrepresentation.
You think the Democrats of FDR’s time have more in common with Republicans of today whose sole purpose is the dismantling of everything FDR did?
Talk about willful misinterpretation.
Democrats were never Republicans or vice versa. Prior to 1964 both parties had a diverse balance of Bigots. Democrats having a large contingent of racist southern Dixiecrats. Republicans had also long been the party of fascists and Nazi sympathizers. What happened post 1964 was not a party or ideological switch per se. Democrats just ditched the bigots courting a much bigger potential voting block. Republicans having lost the chance to court the same voting block instead courted the bigots fleeing the Democratic Party. It was a concentration of bigots. Not a change of ideology.
it’s crystal clear from your response that you could use a refresher on your modern american history so i found this for you.
That doesn’t contradict anything I said. Care to try again?
if you’re still not understanding; you’re beyond any help i can render.
Conservatives including some Democrats.
Well said sir
Left wing people walked away from the Democrats after 1968, and they had every righteous reason to. Did the Democrats suddenly start embracing actual leftism as a winning strategy as a result? Did a viable third party emerge? Did non electoral activism (much more powerful at the time, like a massive nationwide movement) finally take hold and upend the system to bring about real, sustained change?
Not exactly. We went, in that time, from “great society” and 1-income families who owned their home and sent kids to college, and the civil rights act and all that stuff, to Reagan -> Clinton -> Bush and the fuckin apocalypse that’s brought us the current corporate hellscape. The reality of working life in today’s America would be unrecognizable to most (white) people in the 1960s. The Democrats, after 24 years of losing elections (ironically enough, losing them by fielding leftist candidates like McGovern, McCarthy, and Carter), finally tacked hard to the right and started being contenders again, but we lost a lot of ground and we’re only just now even starting to undo the damage. The party of JFK and Carter became the party of Clinton and Obama.
I actually think modern left wing people are aware of how terrifying Trump is, and would vote for Biden even if he wasn’t a significant step up from the low bar that is the modern Democrats. But yes, the drumbeat of MAGA imposters and the occasional confused leftist saying that if we just stop voting then everything will find a way to work itself out is certainly a thing that exists.
(ironically enough, losing them by fielding leftist candidates like McGovern, McCarthy, and Carter),
And when Gore and Hillary Clinton stuck their head a little bit left on climate change, they lost. And people wonder why Dems go to the center to find voters.
Gore won, and Hillary didn’t lose because of her views on climate change.
Dems are bad at politics, so they “go to the center” chasing republicans. They simply don’t realize they’re already a right wing party, and are chasing the extremist republicans towards far right fascism. Or more likely, they just don’t care so long as the corporate donor money keeps flowing in.
Oh we had president Gore? I must have missed that. Thanks 3rd party voters!
Dude, Dems constantly lose Congress. They’ve had control of all 3 house Senate presidency for 4 years of the last 24 years. Or 6 years for the last 44 years. That’s the math. So they go to the center to find votes. They don’t go center just because, they go there to find votes.
Unfortunely no, you’re once again incorrect.
Gore won the election, as was proven in numerous FL recounts. However, Fox News, among other mainstream corporate media orgs, had already called the election for GW Bush. This was actually the basis the corrupt Supreme Court used to give the presidency to Dubya in Bush v Gore, and the rest was history.
The Dems shifting to the right doesn’t have anything to do with finding votes - it’s all about finding the money. As you rightly point out, Dems are terrible at politics and lose elections when they shouldn’t. I mean just consider how reprehensible the Republican policies are, it’s so bad that Rs don’t even campaign on their platform, choosing instead to resort to divisive culture war distractions to motivate their voting base.
In the late 70s / early 80s, Dems realized they were losing because they were being massively outspent by republicans who had been courting big business, offering them deregulation in exchange for campaign financing. In over 96% of elections, the candidate who spent more on advertising won. Dems decided their only chance to remain relevant was to become a fundraising organization instead of an actual representative political party - thus, their policies became much more conservative in order to appease corporate donors and get the money flowing into their coffers too. Of course, they never raise as much as republicans, so this strategy is flawed to its core, but this is the reality of the modern day DNC, why it is in fact a controlled opposition party, and why they consistently fail to motivate any significant number of voters. Because they aren’t chasing voters - they’re chasing money.
Oh so we had president Gore? We can talk all day about recounts, but we did not have president Gore. You realllllyy don’t want to deal with that huh. Probably because of the next part: it was the third party voters that cost Gore the election. Thanks 3rd party voters!
The Dems shifting to the right doesn’t have anything to do with finding votes - it’s all about finding the money.
Lol they want to win elections, and that means voters.
As you rightly point out, Dems are terrible at politics
Lol I didn’t say that. At this point, well we’ll see what else I’ll bother replying to.
At the end of the day, the election is won by VOTERS. All this refusing to vote in protest and voting 3rd party in protest that I see so often is what costs Dems elections. And the hilarious part is, these protest votes and protest no-votes end up being wildly counter productive. They give the election to Bush and Trump, and guess what happens to the Overton window when that happens? The whole thing moves right.
So we’re down to: What do you, the informed left wing (I assume) voter do to move things left? What you can do is vote Dems. Give them consistent and overwhelming victories. Because when they lose they go to the center to find, wait for it, VOTES.
I think your reading comprehension may be hampered by your fixation on a 2 party system. Gore won the election, but had the presidency stolen from him by the media and Supreme Court.
In the recent elections which have had some of the highest turnout of voters over the time period we’re discussing, at most an abysmal 38% of eligible voters voted.
Perhaps consider that it’s the misguided policies Dems maintain in order to pursue those delicious legal bribe monies, as opposed to 3rd party candidates trying to do the right thing, that are costing the Dems election results. Blaming voters for actually exercising their right to vote is wholly undemocratic.
So, as an informed left wing voter who wishes to see more progressive policies enacted, I would pressure the Dems from the left to abandon those conservative policy positions if they want my vote. I would then vote for someone else if they maintain policies inconsistent with my beliefs. That’s how democracy works.
I have no particular love for either of the Clintons but I’m still sad about Gore. Between the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, real action on climate change before it was too late, and the underregulation that led to the 2008 financial crash, the whole fuckin world would be different if he’d been allowed into office after he won the election.
Just think how much further left we’d be if Hillary won. Instead Trump won and the Overton window went off the cliff. How’d those protest no-votes go? *They ended up being counter-productive.
As for Bill Clinton, he learned from Carter being voted out and Reagan and Bush winning. He played the position he had to play.
Remember Dems have only had all 3 (house, Senate, presidency) for 4 years of the last 24 years.
And when you take it to a filibuster-proof majority they have had even less control than that.
Filibuster proof majority for 4 months out of the last 44 years. Not 4 years, 4 months.
And we got the ACA, one of the most positive, transformative laws of the last two decades. Did it go as far as we wanted? Nope, but it has changed lives for the better across the country. 4 months.
And during those four years they only had a super majority that could overcome the GOPs automatic use of the filibuster for a very short period of time when Independents caucused with the Dems, and even then there were some holdouts that watered down the best parts of what they were able to get through.
It didn’t work in 1968. It didn’t work in 1980. It didn’t work in 1984. It didn’t work in 1988. It didn’t work in 2000. It didn’t work in 2016. It didn’t work in 2020…
Yeah because they’re an idiot. If you actually want to get leftists in power, the answer is to start sharpening your knives. Replace Dems with leftists in your local elections. Organize for ranked choice voting and electoral reform. Work alongside your local labor unions to generate support for pro-labor, non-establishment politicians for Senators and House Representatives.
We can keep the Democrats in power until the time comes, but there’s no hope for the party. It’s far more likely for the Dems to cannibalize the Republican party after the MAGA movement explodes than for them to ever reform into a serious leftist party. If we want one, we’ll have to make it ourselves.
I’m afraid you missed my whole point. Dems can’t go left when they keep losing elections. When they lose elections, they go to the center to find votes.
If you want Dems to go left, give them consistent and overwhelming victories.
and you’re missing the point of those dates, which is all the victories the Dems have been given. Despite them, they’ve always gone consistently further and further right while winning elections, because the only thing that actually motivates the Democratic party are corporate donors. It’s why the party cannot be saved; it’s as beholden to corporate interests as the right.
What are you on about. 1968 was Nixon. 1980 was Reagan. 1984 was Reagan. 1988 was Bush senior. 2000 was Bush junior. 2016 was Trump. I don’t know why they included 2020.
Dems have only had control of all 3 (house senate presidency) for 2009-2011 and 2021-2023. They have had control for 4 years of the last 24 years. If you include Bill Clinton, then it’s 6 years of the last 32 years. If you go back further then it’s 6 years of the last 44 years. Those are the victories Dems have been given and it’s next to nothing. You desperately need to get your facts straight.
The next lesson: When they don’t have control of all 3 (house, senate, presidency), they need to negotiate with the GOP to pass anything. And guess what, the GOP doesn’t want anything to pass so they block everything. That’s why Dems need all 3 to get anything done. And they’ve only had it for 6 out of the last 44 years.
The Left needs to study up on what the Moral Majority did back in the 1970s.
Both Parties have local clubhouses where they decide local matters; who is going to run for dog catcher and should we put a STOP sign on Main Street? If the normal turnout for a meeting was twenty people, the Moral Majority would show up with 50. It didn’t cost them an arm and a leg, and they quietly stole power from big shots like Nelson Rockefeller.
start actually showing up where it will make a difference
Bingo. If you’ve made it this far in the thread and are wondering what you, one person behind a keyboard, can do, it’s to start going to your local town hall meetings, and to start bringing friends. The first thing you’ll notice is that basically no-one is there. If you suddenly show up as a consistent group of 10-15, local politicians will start taking you seriously.
If you don’t have any friends, going to local protests are a great way to make them! There’s still a few going on in solidarity with Palestine I think, but there’ll always be more!
Yep. If we want far left, we need to do what the far right did. Vote consistently and persistently for wing candidates and then vote for the extreme when they chance a run.
Anyone pretending this is bad is a short sighted fool at best. We will never magically get left wing extremists. They need a foundation of left wing to build off and that means compromise and frankly if you’re against this compromise you’re not a leftist, you’re an idealist idiot that will be played.
Except that is the opposite of how the Right works. Contrary to what Liberals tell themselves, Republican voters need to be wooed, Democrat voters fall in line. If a national Republican candidate isn’t anti-abortion, the evangelicals might not show up, if they aren’t anti-tax and anti-welfare, they loose “business Republicans”, and they need to scaremonger about things such as immigration to rile up other parts of their base. That is why you don’t have every Republican presidential candidate saying things like “Look, we have to appeal to moderate Democrats. That is why we have to expand welfare, access to abortion, and make it easier for immigrants to come in. If you believe in conservative values, he is still the lesser evil than the Democrat, despite being pro-welfare and immigration, and you only have two choices”
Your reality bubble is incompatible with the rest of the world’s. Republicans need to be placated. There is no need to follow through. They always blame others.
Your attempt at casing the democrats as the same thing is the basis for bothsideism. All you need to do is respond with some whataboutism to determine the thickness of your bubble
It’s not both sides-ism. I am saying that the Republicans can’t guilt-trip their voters, so they aren’t constantly moving to the left and having platforms that their voters hate, relying on their only appeal being lesser evilism. It is because the Democrats need to constantly move right for their donors, and can in some respects ignore the wishes of their base through the logic of “lesser evils” that Biden can continue building Trump’s border wall, try to outflank Trump on the right on immigration, and continue to support genocide, when 4 years ago, liberals could understand these policies are fascist.
That’s some abused spouse logic. Keep rewarding the people abusing your trust? Maybe they’ll recognize you this time? Maybe the reason they always go to the right is because they don’t think the left will stop voting for them. Maybe they just don’t care. Either way it makes no sense to reward that behavior.
It’s more like choosing your enemy then a business transaction.
Maybe the reason they always go to the right is because they don’t think the left will stop voting for them.
Maybe it’s because Dems have had all 3 (house, senate, presidency) for a measly 4 years of the last 24 years. If you want to go back further then it’s 6 years out of the last 44 years. That’s right, Dems have had control for a measly 6 years out of the last 44 fucking years.
When they don’t have control of all 3 (house, senate, presidency), they need to negotiate with the GOP to pass anything. And you wonder why they have to meet in the middle when they don’t have power? The GOP even shut down the government under Obama.
And when they lose elections (do the math, they’ve lost control for 20 years out of the last 24 years. Or 38 years out of the last 44 years.) when they lose elections, they go to the center to find votes. Because that’s where the voters are. Every time they try to move a little left (Gore, Hilary Clinton) they lose. So what does the next guy do? He goes to the center because that’s where the votes go.
You desperately need to learn what’s going on.
So what do you do if you want things to go left? Give Dems consistent and overwhelming victories. Let them know that they can go left without losing like Gore and Hilary Clinton did.
Clinton was not a move to the left! The Clinton wing is the right wing of the Democrats. Both Clintons, are the prime example of the Democrats being the Republican party of 8 years ago. And Gore would have been a continuation of Bill. Trump being the other candidate is the only reason she isn’t seen as a right wing candidate. A lot of her liabilities, particularly with battleground states, in 2016 was her being the champion of every right wing policy an appreciable amount of Democrats signed on to.
Ok let’s go through this chronologically.
Bill Clinton: When you run against an incumbent (Bush senior) you run from the center. You have to run center when running against an incumbent, so that’s what he did.
Gore: After the population hopefully warmed up with Bill Clinton, he stuck his head out left with climate change. And bam he lost the election. Thanks 3rd party protest voters!
Obama: So guess what Obama learned from Gore? Don’t stick your head out. He ran on vague “hope”, hoping the ambiguity would be enough considering Bush’s disastrous wars. And he won.
Hillary Clinton: After the population hopefully warmed up with Obama, she stuck her head out just a tiny itty little bit with the Map Room to fight climate change. And guess what happened? Bam she lost. Thanks protest non-voters!
On to Biden. Just like Obama learned from Gore, Biden learned from Hillary that you don’t stick your head out left. And he was running against an incumbent, so once again when you do that you run center. He’s actually been governing more from the left, but he ran center.
And you’re amazed that they don’t run an extreme left platform? Every time they stick their head out a little itsy bitsy tiny bit left they lose. And the next guy learns to go to the center to win.
So how do you get them to move left? By giving them victories. Consistent and overwhelming victories. Because when they lose, like they’ve lost 20 years out of the last 24 years, they will go to the centre to find votes.
Those are extremely simplistic takes for why Gore and Clinton lost. If memory serves me right climate change didn’t have much to do with either and it had more to do with people feeling they were out-of-touch wonks. Bush was “the guy you could have a beer with” even though he didn’t drink.
And they run to the center because there are actually voters there. The left is noisy online but there’s not enough of us spread out far enough to move the needle. America is not a progressive country, and we need to get used to that.
Simplistic because I’m not going to bother to write more. From what I know Gore was a decent step left, not just climate change. By 2016 there was enough attention on climate change that was the step left.
And they run to the center because there are actually voters there
This is what I say ad nauseum. But I think there are enough left
voterspeople to move the needle. The problem is they don’t vote in protest, or they vote 3rd party in protest. They’re waiting to fall in love with a big left candidate, and I’m saying that’s going to magically appear, you need baby steps (which they don’t like so they protest).This is the whole “Dems fall in love, Republicans fall in line”. Those Republicans show up every time and they move the needle because of that.
I’ve given up believing there’s enough that can move the needle, because even if they all voted for decades they’re crammed into high population states and districts so their power is diluted to ineffectiveness.
Unless we get a mass migration to low population states of lefties this is going to be how our politics works.
Of course when I bring this up the reaction is “But there’s nothing to do there!”
So we should vote for them because they’re out of touch with so much of the country that they’re ineffective?
If you want the Dems to move left, you do that by giving them consistent and overwhelming victories. Not 4 years out of the last 24 years. Not 6 years out of the last 44 fucking years. I just went through the chronology with somebody else in this exact chain, take a look. https://lemmy.world/comment/10617871
You still haven’t said anything to explain this theory of them moving left if the left votes for them no matter what. Why would they worry about satisfying a voting block that automatically votes for them?
Lol yes I did. I see you didn’t read what I linked. Every now and then they try to move left, and whenever they do they lose the election. So guess what? Next election they move to the center to find voters. So guess what you can do? Make Dems win consistently and overwhelmingly so they don’t lose when they go left.
They’ve lost 20 years out of the last 24 years, and you’re surprised they go to the center to find votes? Lol.
You brought up 2 centrist politicians as examples of moving left. That’s not an argument.
The MAGA had slowly coming into view *chefs kiss *
Vote for Hitler and start a antifa club! All the cool kids do it!
Just be sure to endorse Genocide while you antifa!
Every candidate supports genocide in either Ukraine or Gaza… except Bernie sort of.
Bernie supports Israel. He went mask off at the start of the Genocide.
Rather than smugly shaming leftists who draw the line at genocide, you could instead spend your time pushing Biden to stop the slaughter, which would instantly win votes. It’s telling that you don’t 😉
Another pro-Biden liberal trying to push leftists to vote for genocide. (They won’t, sorry)
Funny, last I checked the terminally online MLs were advocating letting Trump win and genocide flourish.
The genocide is flourishing right now, and the worst way to persuade a politician is to promise you’ll vote for them no matter what.
The worst way to stop a genocide is allowing a Muslim ban fan to ramp up the executions and also assist Russia against Ukraine.
But the Ukrainian genocide is None Of Our Business™, conveniently.
I didn’t realize America was sending spec ops, bombs, and our taxes to Russia.
Lesser-evil voting has led you to support an imagined “kinder, gentler genocide”. Seems a bad strategy.
Whatever helps you convince yourself you’re right in allowing Donald to genocide harder and in more countries.
When you were a kid learning about Nazis, did you ever imagine yourself begging people to vote for a guy actively carrying out a genocide?
Once again I ask these tankies, what is your suggestion come November? If the answer isn’t vote for Biden, you’re helping Trump. When you come back to reality, that’s just the simple truth.
When your middle school class gets to their unit on Nazis, perhaps you’ll discover why it is bad to assist the openly racist authoritarian demagogue who did a putsch, screeches “fake news” at everything, and wants SCOTUS to hand him a long knife.
iT’S TeLlInG ThAt yOu dOnT
What is it telling of exactly? Is this meant to imply that pug supports the Israeli campaign? That they’re also a genocidal madperson?
If you’ll humor me for a moment… What happens if progressives pull support for biden and he doesn’t change his position? What is the outcome of that scenario?
Given two ways to help Biden win the election:
- Pressure Biden to stop the genocide.
- Pressure people to support Biden even though he’ll continue the genocide.
When someone chooses 2) and not 1), it’s telling me that they’d rather see people accept Biden’s Zionist goals than see Biden accept popular will.
So, while in a perfect world, I agree with you… The current problem that exists is that opposite to Biden is Trump. And while Biden is currently engaging in a performance of seeing how quickly he can erase a red line after drawing it, Trump:
- Has on record stated that Israel must “finish the problem”
- Is the spearhead of the project 2025 plan
- Is also domestically terrible (to sum it up in one awful term… He’s hard-line “Anti-woke”)
Given the above, can you understand how, even though its a terrible, awful, disgusting decision to make, a lot of voters will want as many people as possible to still vote for Biden, despite acknowledging his terrible policy? How these voters understand what they are enabling, but they also understand that the alternative is the potential democratic collapse (project 2025) of the USA?
Edit: in addition to the above, what @[email protected] also stands as needing to be answered… Where is the mass outraged call for the right to (in a non-antisemitic way) support Palestine if elected? As far as I’m concerned, ive not seen a single call to action for that side.
In a perfect world there’d be genocide?
Again, just stand in solidarity with Palestinians. Listen to them, listen to their advocacy groups.
Thank you for totally failing to engage with anything I typed 👍
You said “Biden is the lesser evil” but it took you 3 paragraphs. If a voting strategy has led you to apologize for genocide, you need a new strategy. Listen to the people whose tents are being bombed. Listen to their advocacy groups.
Respectfully, I dont believe we’re going to shift each other’s views at a rate where it’s feasible to undertake this via a Lemmy thread. I will disengage from here, feel free to take this as a “win” if you’re the type of person to do that. I sincerely and genuinely wish you luck in your approach, I would love to be proven wrong.
Edit: typo
Except your option 1 people are rife with Trump loyalists, Russian propoganda, and naive fools.
Where’s the call to the GOP to stop voting to support Israel? Oddly silent on that side.
Said like someone who’s never been near an anti-Trump protest.
Wtf would you know about antifascism?
Did you notice how antifa did not show up to protect your precious Wall Street shills on Jan 6th? Wanna take a guess why?
Stop trying to co-opt antifa to protect your garbage status quo, liberal.
I suppose we should protect your garbage views?
Hell of an antifascist coalition that throws its weight behind a party and candidate funding and arming and denying a genocide.
In this shit universe you have to be pragmatic sometimes and pick the less fascist person to prevent even worse fascism. Nobody like it, but here we are.
Okay. When do you have to be pragmatic and draw a red line? Where is that red line?
There is no red line. Things change. Society and humanity isn’t static . what was acceptable in the past isn’t anymore and what is acceptable now was not in the past. I am not an absolutist.
You do what you think will functionally lead to the best possible outcome now.
Is that a roundabout way of saying that the genocide is acceptable to you now?
I’ve never seen someone claim moral relativism for that reason!
No.
That red line exists in the same space as the red line that Biden has for Israel.
“Pro-democracy conservatives” in an antifascist coalition, y’all crack me up sometimes.
Eh. This describes my Dad, I guess. Life time “fiscal conservative” that voted Republican his entire life except 2016 and on. Possibly 2008 too, he was outraged at Palin and the Tea Party.
They exist.
But he was never a republican for the social conservatism side of things. Never watched Fox News or Rush Limbaugh or any of that garbage. And votes blue down ticket too because he accepts that the entire party is corrupted now.
This is exactly why I can respect older, actual, conservatives and not the hate/fear driven fox viewers like my own father…
The older conservatives generally came to their conclusions in some ways “on their own” while current magas are just being emotionally manipulated and propagandized like crazy…
Obligatory: I FUCKING HATE PROPAGANDISTS!
Check out The Bulwark. It’s basically a bunch of people who still consider themselves conservatives but exclusively vote Democrat because Republicans are insane and/or fascists.
And mad props to them for going against the cult. They’re still moist likely regressive assholes, but they’re principled regressive assholes and I can respect that.
It’s really interesting to see their insight on politics. I get the impression I wouldn’t really like any of them in person, but their sense of humor about the time they spent working on GOP campaigns is endearing.
Some Republican Secretaries of State, Mike Pence, military leaders, conservatives in the Justice Department, and similar not-real-inspiring-politically people were some of the most important ones who put the brakes on Trump’s previous attempt at a for-real fascist takeover. Without them, I think there is an excellent chance that it would have worked, and we’d be currently living in a society which doesn’t have functioning elections or protections for political speech in media or on the internet.
I do understand that our elections and our media right now are not fully free. But that doesn’t mean every point on that spectrum is the same. People on the left sometimes like to say Reagan or Bush or Trump 1 or Obama or Biden are so oppressive that it all might as well be fascism, but people who lived through real totalitarian rule further down on the spectrum would tell you that no, no it is certainly not.
Any of those Never-Trump Republicans going to vote for Biden? They seem to be very silent.
If the ‘anti-trump coalition’ consists of people voting entirely to avoid a trump presidency, why does the coalition building only consist of capitulation to the views of the anti-trump republicans
Because a split on the left, in this case, guarantees a right win. You should, however fight for what you think is right on all days of the year, not just on election season.
This. What you can vote for in the election depends heavily on what happens between elections.
If “we have to vote trump out of office” is the platform and everything else is immaterial, why not run a more progressive campaign instead of trying to win the vote of people who won’t vote Dem again
Because biden is not progressive, and since votes on the left are not realy going to trump, he is trying to win votes at the “center-right”. To the risk of loosing some votes on the left, yes.
Given the attitudes on this platform I’m bracing for the downvotes, but I genuinely wish you and others like you would stop trying to (nearly daily) insult/shame others into voting the way you want. You should watch this video by Bernie Sanders about winning votes for Biden on merit and logic. Note that he never uses insults, and the reasoned arguments Sanders has been making for months convinced me to stop telling people to vote 3rd party months ago. I’m now willing to ask people to vote Biden in spite of my reservations - not because Biden is great but because Trump absolutely cannot be allowed to win.
You and others with the same views could try that approach as opposed to reflexively calling everyone who brings up concerns or expresses reservations fascists, complete idiots, bots, and so on. I have no clue why so many people on Lemmy believe that incessantly attacking everyone who disagrees with them with the most extreme accusations they can muster makes their position welcoming or attractive. I won’t speak for others but I was won over by calm reason, not being called slurs every time I opened Lemmy.
not because Biden is great but because Trump absolutely cannot be allowed to win.
I hear all the time “Biden can’t run on being not Trump”.
And Biden is great. He’s done a crap load.
Biden has done some good things. I disagree that he’s great. If you want specifics, the first 90 seconds of that Sanders video is him detailing several grievances I agree with in a clear, concise and fairly complete list. However, to quote Sanders: “But while we may have our disagreements with Biden, it’s important to take a minute to think about what a Trump presidency would mean to our country, and in fact the world.”
I know what needs to be done which is why I stopped encouraging/supporting 3rd party or undecided voting months ago. I could go on a lot longer, but that’s the bottom line. I’ll join the effort to stop Trump - just don’t ask me to agree that my concerns are invalid or have been adequately addressed.
Lol see there it is. You chose to focus on the “not Trump”. I may watch it later, but you see? I talk about how Biden’s done great, and you talk about how he’s not Trump.
So you won’t spend 90 seconds to watch the criticisms laid out, but you’ll take the time to tell me they are all either nonexistent or invalid?
That’s not what I said, so now you’re horribly bad faith and I’m no longer willing to converse with you. Funny how you emphasis “not insult/shame” and then pull out that absolutely horrendous bad faith move.
(FYI I’m on mobile and not watching at the moment.)
No. You said “Biden is great”. I said, “I acknowledge he’s done some good, I still disagree, and here’s a concise list of reasons why. In spite of that, I’m willing to get on board to fight Trump”. You replied (and this is an exact quote): “I talk about how Biden’s done great, and you talk about how he’s not Trump”, completely disregarding that I directly addressed why I don’t think Biden is great. I did NOT just talk about how he’s not Trump.
How am I arguing in bad faith? That is the sequence of events, and it’s easily confirmed. I’m also not calling you out just because you didn’t watch the video. I’m saying you didn’t watch AND disregarded that I explicitly gave you the video as a source for my disagreement with you to instead say I focus on “not Trump”. Now you’ve doubled down with a response that paints me as arguing in bad faith and linking that to insults/abuse. I never insulted you. Disagreeing is not inherently a slur or abusive, nor is pointing out the holes in an rebuttal. If you don’t have time to watch the vid that’s understandable but wait to respond until you do or at least don’t say I only focused on “not Trump” when that’s provably not the case.
not because Biden is great but because Trump absolutely cannot be allowed to win.
Oh, here I thought my argument was something else.
It’s funny, though, because when you emphasize that Trump can’t be allowed to win, the chorus of the MLs and their defenders is “HE CAN’T JUST BE NOT TRUMP, THE LESSER EVIL IS STILL EVIL”.
You and others with the same views could try that approach as opposed to reflexively calling everyone who brings up concerns or expresses reservations fascists, complete idiots, bots, and so on. I have no clue why so many people on Lemmy believe that frequently insulting everyone who disagrees with them with the most extreme accusations they can muster makes their position welcoming or attractive.
I’m not trying to attract MLs. MLs and their useful idiots are lost causes. This isn’t about convincing people who are already set in their ways - it’s about warding off the braindead points of propagandists so everyone can see what they are before making the mistake of buying in.
“I’m allowed to call people idiots, fascists, etc. basically daily because I can justify it.” Everyone willing to dehumanize and denigrate others has what they believe to be validating reasons. I can’t stop you from trying to win people over by insulting everyone who disagrees, but I wanted to be a voice asking for kinder, calmer discourse a la the Bernie video I posted.
“I’m allowed to call people idiots, fascists, etc. basically daily because I can justify it.”
I’m allowed to call out fascists for being fascist fucks because kindness and sweetness doesn’t stop fascism.
You keep up on the flower power, though.
I can read your post history. I’m getting tired making the same point but insults are, as near as I can tell, your go-to and I don’t even know if you try anything else. You’ve insulted people disagreeing with you several times just today. I mean, look at how dismissive you are (kindness doesn’t work, flower power) of me and Senator Sander’s approach of using calmly delivered facts to win over those who will likely decide the upcoming election. It’s an attempt to make sure people are convinced you are a true defender of democracy and that your modus operandi of attacks are the only reasonable way to do it properly.
But whatever. I’ve made my point, given a solid example of what I think is a far more attractive approach that has worked for me and others, and that’s all I wanted to add to the conversation. Feel free to reiterate that I’m a idiotic hippy who will usher in unending fascism.
I can read your post history. I’m getting tired making the same point but insults are, as near as I can tell, your go-to and I don’t even know if you try anything else. You’ve insulted people disagreeing with you several times just today.
Just today? Funny thing is, today the only two arguments I’ve gotten into are “Is letting fascists into power actually bad?” (it is) and “Is genocide of Ukrainians wrong enough to do literally anything about?” (it is).
Sorry if you find that a disagreement worthy of respectful dialogue, but personally, I find neither fascism nor genocide to be respectable.
Just today?
What did I say about being able to read your post history?
- “But hey, since when are fascists internally consistent?”
- “Democracy is. I didn’t realize that this metaphor was getting too complex for you.”
- Here’s your post from today where you call LibLefts “useful idiots who serve above (authoritarians) only to be purged when the revolution is complete”. You also say they support terrorism, and their only solution to community violence is lynch mobs.
- “It doesn’t matter. They don’t believe in democracy, much less convincing people. They’re vanguardist fascists, after all.”
- “Wow. Literally saying the quiet part out loud - “As long as the Democrats are not 100% in line with my views, it’s okay to endorse inaction and the takeover of a fascist regime on the pretext that the Democrats Aren’t Good Enough™””
- “I’m used to tankie whinging about how they can’t support fascist regimes without being called out.”
- “The literal opposite of the truth. But I guess the guilt of having MLs backstab the leftist opposition so Fascist Spain could win hurts your point, huh?”
- “Oh, they see the connection. They just want Republicans in office. They don’t give a fuck about the suffering of minorities, they just want the worst possible option in power so they can feel smug about “not supporting the system”.”
Those are all examples from just the last 2 hours, across multiple threads. The tragic thing is, I probably agree with a lot of your points. You really do appear to want to deliver those points with as much dehumanization and dismissal as possible however.
Ironically, for how often this dude calls others foreign plants, he uses British language like whinging, which in the US is spelled whining.
What did I say about being able to read your post history?
You mistake me. When I said “Just today?” I meant it as a preface to “I’ve only been in two arguments today, and neither of them were with causes worthy of respect - namely, support for fascism, and support for genocide”
Here’s your post from today where you call LibLefts “useful idiots who serve above (authoritarians) only to be purged when the revolution is complete”.
That’s a meme, man, of what is effectively a horoscope for political nerds, and it makes fun of all the quadrants.
“The literal opposite of the truth. But I guess the guilt of having MLs backstab the leftist opposition so Fascist Spain could win hurts your point, huh?”
I’m sorry, how am I supposed to respond to a blatant bad faith effort to spread historical misinformation? “That’s definitely true”?
