Kamala raised over $1 billion dollars for her campaign, most of which was from small donors.
If that doesn’t tell the Dems they don’t need oligarch money, nothing will.
They know that. Problem is the WANT billionaires money too ^^
Then they spent it on high per hour political consultants who paid Beyonce to perform
Except Beyonce literally didn’t perform for Harris?
Oh. I heard Oprah got a mil, but that could be fake
I heard Elon was born on the moon, but that could be fake too. I wish there was a way to know for sure, or at least see a small amount of evidence one way or the other.
That’s a mere pittance compared to what the wealthy actually spend on conservatives and messaging. That’s 1 billion dollars every 4 years. Fox news, daily wire, OANN, and all the myriad of other propaganda outlets churn through more than that a year.
Yes, but we’re not talking about conservatives.
The Democratic party has a problem, and that problem is what Democratic voters want doesn’t align with what Democratic donors want. The voters want progressive policies passed, while the donors want the same neoliberalism that keeps them rich. And trying to appease one of those groups obviously alienates the other.
If any Democratic politician truly wants to help the American population, the fact that Kamala raised so much money in such a short amount of time, and the fact that many states passed progressive policies even though they voted for Trump, should tell them that they don’t need to kowtow to the wealthy because the voters will support them. Unfortunately, I don’t think they’re going to learn that lesson.
Republicans, of course, don’t have this problem because their voters and their donors all want the same thing.
The whole point of this was asking why Democrats are catering to wealthy conservative donors instead of progressive or left leaning voters. I just stated the reason why. The 1 billion dollars collected from small donors every four years for a presidential run is nice. But it’s nothing compared to what the wealthy dump into messaging and campaigning constantly. Until such time as small donors can even come close to remotely matching that. Sustaining entire media Outlet ecosystems to counter the propaganda from conservatives. Democrats aren’t going to give up trying to get some of that wealthy conservative money
I donated to Kamala’s campaign ($10), but then I realized what direction they were taking around the DNC and stopped giving them money.
Not all doners agreed with her platform, just like how not all voters did.
What happens to the amount they didn’t spend?
they’re in debt
Maybe if they go bankrupt we can start a new party that cares what its voters think and doesnt shit the bed so often.
nothings stopping you right now
Money, time, and connections are pretty big things you need to start a new political party.
It’s not like advertising a garage sale. I like your spirit though.
another party failing won’t make any of that easier
X for doubt on that. Im sure they’ve said that though. That’s a lot of really expensive campaign parties for a three month run
Overall, they are stil about ~100mm in the black.
Iirc, they had 140mm in debt and 240mm in cash on hand.
They spent stupidly, they were buying ads in Kentucky and Texas, instead of focusing on swing states and progressive policies to bring dems out in force.
It was celebrity money, you know, the same people that were telling people they were “just like them.”
Really awesome point! I hope that becomes apparent to them
Narrator: It didn’t.
Going further right didn’t help, now we need to go as left as possible
Radical ideas like Universal healthcare, paid maternity leave, free child care, taxing the rich.
Radical ideas the rest of the 1st world had had for 50 years and successfully implemented.
We’re well aware, and it’s honestly getting old hearing “wElL tHe ReSt Of ThE wOrLd,” yeah, the UK voted to leave the EU and ousted a party to replace them with Labour who don’t want to hold another referendum on the vote.
India continues to elect the populist and nationalist Modi as their PM, because he gives them bags of rice with his name on them and tells them it’s ok to hate Muslims.
Germany is flirting with fascism again, and they’ve got all the stuff Americans are apparently too fucking stupid to get done, right?
Dutch police just rounded up a bunch of pro-Palestinian protesters, protesting peacefully, and then started beating them for not moving fast enough.
Oh, and the majority of European countries are freaking the fuck out about immigration and the floods of immigrants trying to come into their countries. And funnily enough, your politicians speak about immigrants the same way our Republicans do.
But you’re right, the people who weren’t alive 50 years ago when all of this should have been done, yeah, that’s our fucking fault too, right?
Like that’ll ever happen.
The party is held by a group of political elites who are all about the establishment and power.
There needs to be a new party, a labor party, to represent the working class Americans.
I agree.
I voted for Harris because Dems are supposed to be the establishment. Supposed to be a return normal boring politics.That’s obviously not going to work. Now we need an actual working class, under a few million dollar a year takehome party.
It would be easier for progressives to take over the DNC and state Dems than to form an entirely new party and make it viable.
Why not both? It’s easier to force your way under and into that tent/coalition with an organized front to do the talking. A political party that has well defined goals and objectives, while speaking for a big group, is bound to be better at working within a broader coalition than what we have now.
Only Democrats are allowed to vote to elect Democrat leadership… Need everyone in that coalition to register Dem and then vote for new leadership… 3rd party will always be spoiler until we take over and unrig everything
Fine, then it’s not a political party outright, and instead a lobby. Or a trade association. Or a big bunch of very angry like-minded voters. The point is that such a group could exert leverage within the DNC coalition as a voting block. We already have these for other interest groups. DNC membership is really only useful for voting in primaries to most people anyway - it doesn’t have to signify allegiance or kow-towing to party power.
Yeah… Taking over the party would be easier if many people united to do so
That would be ideal, but the people who are already there will never give it up.
And the problem with creating a new party is that it will divide the votes, while the conservatives are all united under the Republican party. Unless they split too. Maybe the non Trumpists can split off and form a more traditional party. But again, they’re too afraid to split THEIR votes.
Party leadership is elected by regular party members at the state level, and then those choose the national leadership (oversimplification)… I’m sure the current leadership would fight back, but I don’t think it would be all that hard to vote them out anyway
A reverse tea-party movement. That could work. We were laughing when the tea party started because it seemingly broke GOP unity, but they managed to shift the Overton window so far to the right that the GOP now is the tea party, and Dems are GOP lite. Reversing that trend is extremely necessary.
Correct, Biden just cozying up to Trump when he should be using emergency powers to arrest this madman who under the 14th Amendment isn’t even eligible to be President was absolutely sickening to me.
Right so… “let’s do the thing the fascist threatens to do because we’re right and it’s justified” is not the same thing as the fascist saying “we’ll do it because we’re right and it’s justified”.
Easy to justify the means when you believe in the ends… but of course every one thinks they are right and that everyone else will come to believe they are right, thusly conveniently avoiding any bad consequences.
Do you have any idea what would have happened if Biden just arrested Trump?
Breaking the rules isn’t fascism though. Fascism is fascism.
What do you think is a more ethical choice:
a) uphold the law, knowing it will let fascist come to power and kill thousands
a) break the law and stop him
Breaking the rules isn’t fascism though. Fascism is fascism.
It is precisely fascism. It’s ignoring the rule of law to achieve authoritarian aims. Why is it ok when you agree with the outcome and not ok when you don’t? But way more importantly, once you do it you cannot go back. If Biden did this and Trump ended up winning - make no mistake Biden has no authority to remove candidates from ballots - then Trump would feel completely justified in jailing his opponents.
What do you think is a more ethical choice
A. Because the premise of your choice is flawed. You do not know that breaking the law would stop him. You do not know -with certainty- that not breaking the law would result in that outcome. But we do know that being authoritarian to achieve aims we believe in is no better than people we disagree with doing the exact same. What would happen if Biden was successful in stopping Trump but then, because we wouldn’t ever keep unfettered presidential power… right? RIGHT? We’re the “good” guys… what would happen if MAGA Republicans won in 2028? I doubt we’d ever have another election again.
Uh, Trump feels completely justified in jailing his enemies already. Will it happen? I’m not excited to wait and find out.
True. But the one thing we’ve got going for us is that it is demonstrably wrong and we didn’t fall into the trap of proving it was justified.
Edit: well at least two people think it’s ok to use authoritarian political power to counter authoritarian political power. Do you really think that ever works out? Note that this is very distinct from something like civil war or overthrowing the government. It’s doing the exact thing you don’t want your opponent to do.
Tis a risky game, doing what’s right.
“what’s right” is, sadly not an agreed-upon concept.
If only we had an example of a President who needed to break the the Constitution in order to save the Republic…
Oh wait, we do. Abraham fucking Lincoln.
https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/constitution.htm
I commend you for just how far you had to dig for that false equivalency. Well done!
Yeah, ww2 was settled by a nice peaceful sit-in.
After Hitler came to power, invaded multiple countries and started murdering millions.
It’s easy to look back and say, “well, if we had just taken Hitler out none of that would have happened” but at the time - before the war - that was less clear. Many in Germany enthusiastically supported him and it’s helpful to be reminded of why: The Treaty of Versailles at the end of WWI was highly punitive. The German people felt rather justified for WWI and reacted with anger to the treaty - it’s widely acknowledged as a significant contributing factor in WWII in that it opened the door to the kind of grievance Hitler was selling. By the time more people understood his aims and means it was too late and there was no alternative to war.
Now you might say well then, that just means we should have removed the Trump threat by any means necessary. I’m very sympathetic to that idea but I have a hard time accepting that for one simple reason: the lessons of WWI and II show that grievance is central to the authoritarian narrative. Direct confrontation that feeds that grievance only inflames it. A better course of action for the Democrats would have been to acknowledge the pain of wealth disparity all Americans feel and acknowledge our common goals. Instead we lent credence to the grievance and opened the door for Trump to capitalize on it.
Are you really achieving authoritarian aims if the end goal is not authoritarian?
Ah, the benevolent dictator fallacy. Because no person or party would ever abuse power or fail to give it up once the “aim” is achieved. There certainly would be no expansion in what the “aim” is. And definitely the people we agree with are always good.
Joe Biden already stepped down once. Clearly he’s not hungry for power.
It’s not about Biden it’s about setting a precedent that it’s ok for any party to break the rules because they believe themselves to be “good” and “right” and “just”.
I doubt we’d ever have another election again.
With Trump in office, and Project 2025 in the pipeline, I doubt we’re ever going to have another election anyway.
I doubt we’re ever going to have another election anyway.
I sometimes feel that way. But I still have some faith in people, particularly Gen Z. I believe after the shit hits the fan and keeps hitting it for 4 years, that we’ll turn this around. And because we didn’t agree to make presidents kings we can actually do that.
What would happen if Biden was successful in stopping Trump but then, because we wouldn’t ever keep unfettered presidential power… right? RIGHT? We’re the “good” guys… what would happen if MAGA Republicans won in 2028? I doubt we’d ever have another election again.
From the standpoint of democracy that wouldn’t be ideal, but why is republicans having 2(4) years of unchecked power better? They don’t give a shit and gonna do a lot more damage to it.
Why is it ok when you agree with the outcome and not ok when you don’t?
Because the side coming to power wants to gleefully deport, repress and kill people, and the other one much less so. The good guys are “good” not because they respect the rules, but because they believe in humane values, in ending their fists when the others’ faces begins and all that good stuff. The fascists are bad not because they break the law, but because they believe and want to do fascism.
If the rules are unjust then breaking them is an ethical imperative. And Trump not being in jail is frankly a crime against lady liberty.
If the rules are unjust then breaking them is an ethical imperative.
This thinking is precisely why Jan 6 happened and will happen again if we validate that thinking by doing it ourselves.
The fascists are bad not because they break the law, but because they believe and want to do fascism.
This is true. But if you want fascists to do fascism more and with more righteous enthusiasm, then adopt their tactics. Grievance is part of the ethos there. Many MAGAts truly believe that the Biden administration was “going after” them and that we liberals are an existential threat that justified any means at their disposal. This is the problem with violence and authoritarian approaches in general - the more you do it the more the other side feels the must do it.
And Trump not being in jail is frankly a crime against lady liberty.
Yes… and it’s an insult, unjust and highlights the double standard for the wealthy and politically powerful. But strictly speaking it’s not a crime.
The good guys are “good” not because they respect the rules, but because they believe in humane values
You know what is a humane value? Respecting other people even when you vehemently disagree with them. Acknowledging that they are human beings and have a right to their thoughts and ideas even when you feel they are wrong. Because if you do not you are tacitly agreeing to their thinking that YOU are wrong. You are giving that perspective credence and the harder you push back the more you are allowing them to justify suppression of YOUR ideas.
I happen to think MAGA zealots are absolutely misguided and ignorant. But I can see how they got that way - racism, bigotry and misogyny borne of christo-fascist white supremacy. And what that means ultimately is that the people themselves are not the enemy, the ideas are. You can shape ideas through education and by being open and accepting of people. You can’t do it by rejecting people.
This thinking is precisely why Jan 6 happened and will happen again if we validate that thinking by doing it ourselves.
What do you mean validate they don’t give a crap. The alt right isn’t going to become less relevant because we refuse to use their tactics against them. The choice is do things by the book, keep our precious moral high ground and most likely lose or get dirty and have a fighting chance.
You know what is a humane value? Respecting other people even when you vehemently disagree with them. Acknowledging that they are human beings and have a right to their thoughts and ideas even when you feel they are wrong. Because if you do not you are tacitly agreeing to their thinking that YOU are wrong. You are giving that perspective credence and the harder you push back the more you are allowing them to justify suppression of YOUR ideas…
What’s humane in respecting someone calling for genocide? Sure we should try to change their minds, I am not agitating for their liquidation, but for clawing out the political and cultural power back from their sweaty hands to try to turn away from the f-ing iceberg.
Metaphorical iceberg, because all the real ones will melt after trump dissolves the EPA.
What do you mean validate they don’t give a crap. The alt right isn’t going to become less relevant because we refuse to use their tactics against them. The choice is do things by the book, keep our precious moral high ground and most likely lose or get dirty and have a fighting chance.
Actually they do give a crap. It often doesn’t look that way because many of the most visible and vocal MAGA cult “leaders” want to push their members to enable their authoritarianism. But that’s the top-level power grab. If we do that ourselves we further enable it and allow those leaders to say “Look! See! They are doing it so we HAVE to do it!”
Talk to MAGA cult members and you will find that if you strip away all the hyperbolic rhetoric and bring it down to the nuts and bolts level they pretty much want the same things we want - fair wages, affordable cost of living, decent affordable healthcare, bodily autonomy, etc etc. A recent Wapo article highlighted this - that if you present Harris’ policies to Trump supporters absent the party they came from, those policies are very popular.
Why would I respect someone who’s grand philosophy is scapegoating and crowning a king?
You don’t have to respect their ideas or behavior, but if you do not respect them as people how can you expect them to respect you? When a child steals a toy from another child, do you beat them senseless or do you use educational tactics to ensure they understand and absorb the central lessons of sharing.
I also think it’s important to recognize the limits of this “grand philosophy”. The average MAGA cult member doesn’t really have one. They want a gallon of milk to cost $2 and a be able to get a 30 pack of Miller Lite every week without going bankrupt. Because they are poorly educated and too damned tired to care they want a silver bullet (see what I did there) to solve their problems, which this week means crowing a king. They don’t think beyond that, so why would you make the same mistake?
clawing out the political and cultural power back from their sweaty hands
And how do we accomplish that? It’s not a single line of effort but a combination of tactics: 1. Work harder to win at the ballot box which partly means: 2. Hold our mainstream party leaders to account and push them toward policies that will win elections. I happen to be aligned with Sanders on this and believe that to be policies that are progressive in nature but not in name; 3. Educate and inform. You can’t pull people away from MAGA thinking by shouting at them. f
I believe the best framework for approaching this is to acknowledge the MAGA “movement” as a cult. It’s members are often less educated and have not developed critical thinking skills nor the mental resilience to resist the brainwashing. This is only sometimes a question of intelligence - I do believe that processed food and exposure to pollutants has lowered average intelligence in particularly unjust ways, but I don’t think that’s the central issue here. Mainly it’s a question of education and the only way to successfully educate people is to meet them where they are and to open minds, not close them.
What makes a society good is being inclusive of everyone regardless of how they were born and working through cooperation to achieve goals and look out for each other. A society where people are intentionally neglected for another group’s economic gain is not a desirable society unless you’re a fascist. However, ideologies are not people and ideologies that promote an unequal society do not need to be tolerated, and people who pose a danger due to their actions to the people around them in a society that would otherwise be more fair do not need to be tolerated either.
Neither authoritarianism nor ignoring the rule of law are inherently bad. In reality, law isn’t words written on a piece of paper - it’s people with political motives that hold authority over law enforcement and the criminal justice system. The words themselves hold no authority, and they depend on the people to actually follow them, so the people can collectively choose to ignore them or change their meaning and now suddenly the law is different even though the words didn’t change one bit. The political motives the people who decide the law have generally favor a society that supports corruption and inequality, so there is nothing inherently wrong with breaking the law, especially if it makes everyone’s lives better.
Fascism is a specific type of authoritarianism that basically does the opposite to a society of what it should look like. Utilizing authority to make society better for basically everyone is not fascism. Utilizing authority to dehumanize a subset of people for the economic gain of a “superior race” is fascism.
I appreciate your thoughtful comment.
Neither authoritarianism nor ignoring the rule of law are inherently bad.
Look, I understand the point you are trying to make. Roughly that being authoritarian to achieve “good” ends is ok. The wrinkle that you overlook is that there are many wildly varying viewpoints about what is “good”. Being “inclusive of everyone” for example, is something that most Christo-fascists would abhor, their bible notwithstanding. Neglecting people for economic gain is practically a religion in itself for some people.
What all that boils down to is this: if one group ignores the rule of law because they are “right” then the other group feels fully justified in doing the same. And because we have a democracy and that democracy doesn’t enshrine progressive ideas into law, we can’t ensure groups with ideas we find abhorrent don’t use our precedent to impose those ideas on us.
Fascism is a specific type of authoritarianism that basically does the opposite to a society of what it should look like.
Not according to fascists. Do you see the problem? You just said that fascist authoritarianism is ok - from their perspective.
Utilizing authority to make society better for basically everyone is not fascism
Hitler firmly believed he was making “society better for basically everyone”. The Christian Nationalists and White Supremacists firmly believe their getting into power via a Trump administration will make “society better for basically everyone”.
I know many of us would love to believe that there is an objective truth and that our beliefs about a good, just and equitable society are universal and objectively correct at a human level. I believe in the “arc of the moral universe” that is so but there is no way that I can use the mechanisms of oppression that I detest to enforce that belief on others and have that enforcement be successful.
Have you ever tried to negotiate or educate someone when you are angry? Like say your neighbor keeps playing loud music and you really want them to stop. If you come out yelling at them and are visibly angry you -might- get them to stop, but you have made an enemy. If you approach them in an open-minded way that acknowledges their rights and autonomy you have a much better chance of a constructive dialog that gets you what you want.
It’s hard to think like this right now, I fully understand. We are all angry and frustrated as hell. Maybe it helps to be reminded that we still have a lot of power, especially at the local level… and that we are playing the long game.
Hitler firmly believed he was making “society better for basically everyone”. The Christian Nationalists and White Supremacists firmly believe their getting into power via a Trump administration will make “society better for basically everyone”.
Well for Hitler and White Supremacists they clearly weren’t making “society better for basically everyone” and all it takes to understand this is basic logic that they support one superior race and commit genocides against other races. We can argue that our thinking may be flawed and biased all we want, but that doesn’t change the objective reality that Hitler’s genocide is very well documented and that it clearly caused massive amounts of harm and suffering.
Christian Nationalism is more nuanced having been a Christian myself previously, and deconversion fucking sucks. But if they want to make a convincing argument that Christian Nationalism is a good thing, they need to prove that God actually exists and there’s enough things in the belief system that contradict scientific observation that they have no real argument supporting this. The various other pieces of bullshit they brainwashed me for 18 years with does not help their argument either (like my science teacher who was trying to convince us that dragons and dinosaurs exist right now but very few people have discovered them). Science has more ground in objective reality than religion does, and the amount of innovations science has helped us with that religion hasn’t shows us that one clearly works better than the other when it comes to progressing.
The wrinkle that you overlook is that there are many wildly varying viewpoints about what is “good”. Being “inclusive of everyone” for example, is something that most Christo-fascists would abhor, their bible notwithstanding.
So because other people’s definition of “good” is targeting people for how they were born, nobody should do anything to protect them? Why do you think these ideologies are worth defending? They’re a danger to myself and my friends. If you want to convince me that genocides are good for humanity, you’re going to need to be a lot more convincing than that.
if one group ignores the rule of law because they are “right” then the other group feels fully justified in doing the same. And because we have a democracy and that democracy doesn’t enshrine progressive ideas into law, we can’t ensure groups with ideas we find abhorrent don’t use our precedent to impose those ideas on us.
Guess what? While good people are arguing about whether it is right to do things that aren’t normal or expected to progress their agenda, horrible people are going to take the initiative and do them and then it’s too late. Life isn’t a democracy, it’s a battle between rulers that are engaging in genocides and doing other extreme human rights abuses versus everyone else. There’s a reason why aggressive people consistently end up at the top. If we want any sort of chance whatsoever of dethroning the genociders and abusers, being aggressive is the only way that even has a chance at happening. Same reason leftists and even liberals now are buying up guns. The law has a history of being weaponized to keep people marginalized, we cannot rely on law to save humanity when that law comes from the same people that are humanity’s biggest threat.
And on top of that the very reason the Democrats lost to Trump is because Trump is an actually interesting candidate promising to make radical changes, aligning with the interests and identities of many Americans, and building a shared vision and hope for the future. While meanwhile the Democrats fuck around doing basically nothing, they flip-flop on their stances whenever its convenient for them, they make vague statements that do nothing to give people any sort of inspiration, and they act like they’re out of touch with the population. If we want to stop Trump while the Democrats continue to not due shit, our best bet is a sort-of left-wing “Trump” that has the same sort of enthusiasm, energy, and vision that can inspire people to unify and fight for the social good.
Have you ever tried to negotiate or educate someone when you are angry? Like say your neighbor keeps playing loud music and you really want them to stop. If you come out yelling at them and are visibly angry you -might- get them to stop, but you have made an enemy. If you approach them in an open-minded way that acknowledges their rights and autonomy you have a much better chance of a constructive dialog that gets you what you want.
Approaching capitalists in an open-minded way rarely works. They operate on a system of optimizing to what benefits them the most economically, and if it benefits them economically for you to not have rights no conversation is going to change that. It’s more likely to work for people who are socially conservative or lower-class economic conservative, but capitalists are generally a lost cause.
Maybe it helps to be reminded that we still have a lot of power, especially at the local level…
Well funny enough in my very local area the protestors who bent laws and got arrested for it have had a bigger impact on political discussion than any single other event that has happened here. And other cities within my state have made it illegal to feed homeless people, yet activists did it anyways and even sued the government and ended up on national news for it. It seems like the most interesting people here have no problem with ignoring the rule of law, and I respect them for that.
“Well for Hitler and White Supremacists they clearly weren’t making “society better for basically everyone” and all it takes to understand this is basic logic that they support one superior race and commit genocides against other races.”
You missed my point. THEY thought they were making society better. That “everyone” meant exclusively aryans to them I thought was obvious and fundamental to the point I’m try to make - that from their perspective their actions were perfectly reasonable and justified. There’s uncomfortably little daylight between that and MAGA beliefs.
“…if they want to make a convincing argument that Christian Nationalism is a good thing”
I’m disappointed that you missed this too and launched into a segue that has little to do with the topic I brought up. I don’t think you really read my comment.
" If you want to convince me that genocides are good for humanity, you’re going to need to be a lot more convincing than that."
Ok now we’re getting ridiculous. I’m now convinced that you either didn’t read what I wrote or just didn’t understand it.
“Trump is an actually interesting candidate promising to make radical changes, aligning with the interests and identities of many Americans, and building a shared vision and hope for the future”
Untruthfully. You are missing that very important qualificaiion.
“While meanwhile the Democrats fuck around doing basically nothing, they flip-flop on their stances whenever its convenient for them”
A common error. “I didn’t personally notice any change so therefore they did nothing.” It’s demonstrably NOT true.
“Approaching capitalists in an open-minded way rarely works.”
That doesn’t even make sense. Who said anything about “approaching capitalists in an open-minded way”? WTF are you talking about?
Dude, I started out reading your lengthy comment excited to have a substantive debate. I thought you might have some interesting points. But you are so all over the place and use a very large volume of words to say very little. I’m disappointed.
it’s precisely fascism
It’s really fucking not. It’s extraordinary, unprecedented circumstances. You don’t just hand it over to this guy, especially after telling us his cabinet. They’re ALL national security threats! Tulsi fucking Gabbard in charge of every intelligence agency? Do people not see how inherently dangerous that is??
“The end justifies the means” is the standard excuse of dictators everywhere. And once you go down that road you don’t really come back.
There is an excellent interview on this topic with Laurence Tribe that is really worth watching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z06TJAMY-bo
I fully acknowledge just how much this sucks and how dangerous the situation is. I’m trans and live in a MAGA-infested area. That’s only one dimension of the danger but it definitely opens one’s eyes.
But throwing up our hands and grasping at bad options that make things worse is not the answer. We have far far more power than people realize. I don’t entirely share Tribe’s faith in our constitution and laws but to just say “oh it didn’t work lets throw it away” is not going to make things better. It would literally be throwing away what power and ability to effect change we still have. It would destroy our country and you can bet it won’t be remade as some progressive paradise.
Do you have any idea what would have happened if Biden just arrested Trump?
If he would’ve done it early in his term, I suspect Trump would not have been elected president again. But instead he pushed the idea through some absurdly bureaucratic system that allowed Trump to run the clock out on everything.
If he would’ve done it early in his term, I suspect Trump would not have been elected president again.
We would have had a civil war or at least an attempted one. Then the next time a MAGA-esque Republican came along, which would probably be in 2028 or 32 they’d feel free to completely take the gloves off. We would have validated and enabled that behavior by doing it ourselves.
I do find it fascinating that you seem to be attributing this all to Biden. We have a relatively weak executive branch and separation of powers through different branches of government for a reason. Overturning that is the worst possible idea.
Then the next time a MAGA-esque Republican came along, which would probably be in 2028 or 32 they’d feel free to completely take the gloves off.
And you think letting treason pass with no consequences isn’t also sending a message?
The Republicans have no shame and aren’t waiting for the Democrats to strike first. Take away one rationalization and they will just manufacture another.
“And you think letting treason pass with no consequences isn’t also sending a message?”
Like it or not the rule of law and due process still applies, even to people we detest. It wasn’t “letting treason pass”, it was not being able to get the consequences to stick because of (a) a conservative Supreme Court ruling that gave presidents immunity; (b) a Trump-appointed judge slow-walking and then essentially ditching Smith’s case. Notably, hundreds of Jan 6 participants went to prison for their actions. Hardly a pass there.
Simply locking Trump up because -we- felt he was treasonous is the exact same thing as Trump and the fascists locking us up because they feel we are treasonous. Critically, it invalidates our claim to being in the right and it validates the action as justified and correct, thus undermining any attempt to ensure fascists are correctly labeled as ‘the bad guys’. I know to us that’s obvious, but sadly there are millions of Americans who are unclear on that point and need to be educated. You can’t educate someone by proving them right in their claims.
I am NOT saying that overriding the rule of law isn’t sometimes necessary. After Hitler came to power and over-turned the rule of law then obviously he had to be stopped and the means didn’t really matter. I prefer to believe that will not be necessary with Trump and we can empty the burning dumpster in 2028.
Yeah, it might be just to arrest him, but America clearly doesn’t give a fuck. The fact of the matter is the people picked Trump this election, if nothing else arresting him will only galvanize his followers and legitimatize their own turn to fascism. There’s no good outcome in this scenario, we missed that opportunity on election night. It sucks but right now we’re the kid playing with fire; obviously we need to learn the hard way. We should’ve learned from the last trump presidency you say? Yeah, we really, really should’ve.
Not arresting this man the second the Supreme Court gave Joe the opportunity will end with millions dead, we both know that.
Not arresting this man the second the Supreme Court gave Joe the opportunity will end with millions dead, we both know that.
I think millions is an exaggeration but it’s also pretty irrelevant whether it’s a 1000 or 1 million, it’s gonna be very very bad. I’m very sympathetic to this argument and in a whishy hopey kinda way would have loved to see it happen…
But: the SC ruling doesn’t allow a president to act with impunity. It’s way more complicated than that.
It states that a president has “absolute immunity” for actions “within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority” and “presumptive immunity” for all official acts. The complete shitstorm that would follow an arrest of Trump “for reasons” would include significant debate about which one of these it was. I have to think that “because he will do bad things and for reasons” is going to push this to the second classification at best. And at that point a whole lot of lawyers are going to be working overtime to show that "applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.”
(Opinion here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf)
It would end up in the Supreme Court. What do you think would happen then? The SC would rule that Biden did not act appropriately and Trump would be released. I don’t have a lot of faith in running out the clock on him running or any other “good” outcome.
in this reply and the others following it you seem to be completely glossing over the most salient point here, which is that TRUMP SHOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE TO SERVE AS PRESIDENT. Taking extreme measures to prevent him from getting access to unprecedented power is not sacrificing the rule of law for our beliefs, it is defending the rule of law, in which we believe, from a madman who openly despises it!
“TRUMP SHOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE TO SERVE AS PRESIDENT”
I agree. But in fact “should not” is a question of law and despite your assertion that somehow removing him is not sacrificing the rule of law, there is no law that says Trump is ineligible to serve as president. I’d like there to be some rules disqualifying him and a bunch of other people, but alas there isn’t.
Go ahead, find the law that says Trump is ineligible and describe how you might defend that in court.
“The disqualification clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prevents public officials who engage in treason from holding a future public office.”
Yes I am aware that the Supreme Court let him stay on the ballot when they had the chance to rule on this, but that’s a single ruling, not a law, and in point of fact not even Trump’s own lawyers argued that he was not a traitor–they persuaded the Court he appointed to invent a technicality that has no basis in the actual amendment, nor any law, nor legal precedent.
The silver lining here should be that the same Court also gave Biden the immunity he would need to step in and use the Executive branch to apply any the “checks and balances” needed to restore rule of law when all other branches fail, because that is the way our democracy is designed to work, yet Biden won’t do that, and so US citizens can say goodbye to having any form of separation of powers at all.
“public officials who engage in treason”
Did Trump engage in treason? Article III of our constitution says:
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”
Trump, sadly, was never on trial for treason much less convicted of it. So like it or not (very much not!) Trump was never tried for crimes that would disqualify him from being elected president. Biden upheld the rule of law and adhered to our constitution.
I don’t like it but that’s the way it is.
We would get the inevitable civil war even sooner
It’s not inevitable at all.
Biden doesn’t even know wtf is going on. If he does, the last thing he’s doing is trying to salvage his legacy. He’s got no fight in him.
He truly fucked us. Not saying Harris would’ve won necessarily, but having only 3 months to run a campaign against someone who’s been running for 8 years is tricky. You can see why given the number of people googling if Biden dropped out…
A legacy of “Used powers given to him by the Supreme Court to stop Hitler 2.0” would be better than “Sucked Trump’s dicker harder than Elon did.”
For real. Dudes got 15-20 years left on this Earth, at the maximum. Stopping Trump and actually making sure he is charged for his crimes would be quite the footnote in the history books. I can’t imagine being that old and passing an opportunity like that up, but then again I am a simple prole.
He’s not Hitler 2.0 yet though. This is Hitler 2.0 RC 1.
The history books won’t know what will not have had happened.
What I’m saying is, if a madman is stopped before he goes mad, then wouldn’t he then never have been a madman? Was the one stopping him, justified? Can you defend their actions based on their presuppositions, even if the descent into madness is already evident?
Biden cozying up to a candidate the party portrayed as literally Hitler during the campaign will never not be funny to me
You mean depressing
deleted by creator
Yeah if only he hadn’t lost the popular vote TWICE in the primaries.
deleted by creator
The delegates too. But are you just gonna ignore MORE people voted Hillary and Biden over him to fit your narative?
It’s kinda hard to count the votes afterwards since candidates are forced to drop out before the primaries actually finish. Heck we usually don’t even make it past 6 states primaries out of 50 before a winner is announced.
“Party” goons =/= people.
I instead see them not learning a damn thing and putting up Nancy Pelosi as the Presidential candidate for 2028.
Will she achieve lichdom in time?
Acting as if she hasn’t already! There’s a reason that dude went after her husband with a hammer and not her. He knew better than to mess with a lich.
Or Manchin or Sinema or Liz Cheney.
In all honesty, Newsom is probably the candidate the party leadershit has already selected.
“The establishment party must become an anti-establishment party”
Have you all learned nothing from 2016? Democrats will rather let Trump win that let this happen.
The slide to the right is no accident nor is it ignorance. Fool me once…
Are you suggesting that Democrats want alt-right leadership in power?
They and their donors would prefer thst over a Bernie win.
They want corporarions to stay in power. The 2 parties are just flavours of capital.
Neither are for the public.
Nothing has convinced me of that more than Biden and Trump’s sudden bromance
Yes, it’s good for their fundraising
alt-right
Stop pretending this is a thing. It’ll make it a lot easier to understand.
I’ve said this before, but I think it needs to be repeated:
The populist, anti-elitist lane on the left is wide open. I don’t know that a mainstream “Democratic” party can take that lane, and I don’t know if we should bother trying to drag them there. However, what I can say is that there is going to be some significant hay to make in that field.
I think Pramila Jayapal, Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, Delia Ramirez, Jamaal Bowman, Summer Lee, Cori Bush, Katie Porter, anyone who has been rat-fucked by Democrats should all abandon their identification with the Democratic party and become independents. And in the time that he has left, at their lead, should be Bernie Sanders, who never needed to be told about the consequences of running with milquetoast policies.
Even if they caucus with Democrats, true progressives need to show them that their votes aren’t a given, and if they want them, they need to take a step towards their legislative priorities. Giving up our votes without leverage, giving in to the Washington groupthink: THIS LOSES ELECTIONS!
We shouldn’t focus on redeeming the Democratic party. Let them sink. Focus on getting good quality, reliable progressive populists elected. The Democratic party is a fucking anchor and we’re better off without it. Let those unwilling to let go of that Washington groupthink sink with it.
Split the non Republican vote so you leave the door wide open for them? That’s the problem with first past the post…
While this strategy may feel good, it makes the minorities Republicans want to hurt the cost of doing business. Even if Democrats can’t deliver on anything substantial in the short term voting for them in elections is useful.
First, it reduces the harm done to minorities. Second, it demonstrates there is a progressive voter block the democrats could shift closer to. Third, assuming we get more elections and the Democrats aren’t all in jail, it creates time for a progressive, like the Democrats your argument listed, to co-opt the Democratic Party. Like what Trump did to the Republicans and Bernie tried to do to the Democrats.
Rather than trying to achieve moral victory over Democrats, let’s leverage power for the people Republicans want to hurt.
They cannot and they will not. Please do not fall for them yanking the football away from you again. AOC and Bernie exist to give you hope and thereby capture your vote for a party that has no intention of ever fighting for the working class in a meaningful way. We need a real alternative but we’ve given away so much of our collective power (unions) that it’s hard to see a hopeful path forward. Organize with your neighbors and start building trusted communities that will fight together when needed.
Do you mean to say that AOC and Bernie are unknowingly treated as pawns by the Democrat party or that they are knowingly misleading voters into thinking the party leans further left than reality?
I would assume if anything it’s the former, and Democrat idealism has lost against the reality that a third labor party cannot take root while first-past-the-post is the rule of the game.
Would it matter which?
The DNC insiders clearly have no intention of letting the public have a voice in the party. Having a couple socialists around is supposed to secure the vote from the left. Neither Sanders nor AOC(nor other progressives) are leaving the party anytime soon.
It’s fair to argue that splitting the party means losing to the right but the current strategy doesn’t seem to be working out either.
Sanders already left the party
Technically he’s always been independent but primaried for office under a democratic ticket.
So fair? The dems still use him in this way and he is a close enough ally to be synonymous. Unless there’s more recent news?
Good. We all should. The party is dead and barely alive by the shambling corpses of pelosi and Biden assuming they will be able to control it forever.
It would matter if they ultimately decided to break away from the Dems.
As the other comment says, it hardly matters. Fwiw I think they are well-intentioned but if their strategy is working for anyone, it’s working for the corporatist dem party.
Or maybe they should just leave the Democratic party and start a new progressive party? We have less than 4 years, but that’s also the most time we’ll ever have.
The problem with that strategy is that our democracy uses a first-past-the-post voting system which trends towards a two-party system.
Then become one of the two parties.
There already are two. We must co-opt one with a populist candidate. The Republican Party was already hijacked by Trump. That leaves the Democratic Party.
Bernie tried twice, Democrats demonstrated their ability to stop that shit in its tracks. It will not work.
The only solution is for progressives to abandon the Party and start their own to replace it. The US has replaced parties before, it can be done again.
Trump tried once and it worked. Neoliberal ideas are entrenched in the minds of Americans. Neoliberalism only allows change to the people in charge of systems as it asserts, incorrectly, that our institutions are flawless. Since neoliberals only consider changing people, it is much easier for a fascist to convince a neoliberal to change the people in society. Where as it is much harder for a progressive or a socialist to convince a neoliberal to enact systemic change or redistribute wealth respectively.
In short, people with neoliberal ideas in their head need to fully internalize neoliberalism as a scam.
Abandoning the Democrats will not result in them being replaced. They will continue to exist by moving further to the right, as Democrats like Chris Murphy have already proposed.
Starting a successful third party is mathematically impossible under a FPTP system. Third party candidates can only be spoiler candidates.
Where’s the Whig Party?
Why must one of those parties be the Democrats? I don’t see no fucking Whigs around, do you?
Because unlike the Wigs, the Democrats are not divided over slavery. They can just move to the right on contemporary issues as Chris Murphy details here.
The Democrat establishment wants power and for that they have to win elections. So having an anti establishment candidate is preferable to them over a Republicans victory. If anything good came out of the last election, it is that Trump as horrible as he is can still win elections against an establishment Democrat, so the Democrats have to change.
Also changing the parties does not work. The problem is systematic and the US really needs to change its election system, to get better politics.
They sure didn’t look like they wanted to win this election.
They switch candidates in the middle of the campaign, because Biden’s polling was that bad.
Third party doesn’t work. You have to do what trump did, 1 man coup from the inside.
Apparently Republican voters are gonna set the mark at R regardless of who it is, so how about having someone like Bernie run in the Republican primary.
It didn’t work with Bernie for more reasons than the parties resistance. A lot of people on the left that dislike the party don’t seem to understand that you still have to join the party and get involved with it if you want the party to move left. Party members and active involved people shape where the party goes. We absolutely can shift the Dems left, but it means holding our noses and becoming the party. The Dems have always been an open door, big tent, party. Walk into the tent and change minds…
The Dems didn’t let a single Palestinian-American speak at the DNC this year. The tent is big enough for Cheney, not us.
Yeah, the Dems are made up of scared moderates, because the left has completely abandoned politics and conceded all their power. If you want the party to move left, become the party. It really isn’t mystical or complicated, power goes to those that take it. The left would rather stand on the outside looking in be cause at least they can complain and blame everyone else but themselves.
I tried to run for a small local position with the DNC using one of their arms that is for “funding and supporting small progressives” well that first bit is a lie. First question they asked me was how much money I had and if I had rich family to fund my campaign.
I told them not really but I would rather talk policy and maybe alternatives to spending money and they told me to pretend to be religious to find a good church to get donations from cause there are some rich churches.
I told them I was a Buddhist and happy for it, and they suggested I either find some other wealthy Buddhists cause they were sure I should be able to find some or maybe I should consider not running at all and just donating to this group or volunteering for free to them.
This will take acceptance and support from the people that run the party and all the wealthy party owners that view themselves better than working class because of their connections and wealth.
I’ve worked for the party and even helped recruit candidates. Some of what you’re writing here seems very inconsistent with how we did things at least in Minnesota and Wisconsin. No one would ever address religion or social class at all here. And funding your own campaign is usually a fools errand, because raising money helps people become invested in your campaign.
But candidates are still expected to fundraise in some way shape or form. You can’t be a viable candidate in today’s world without money. Until elections are publicly funded and banned from raising their own money, money will always be necessary. The ability to fundraise also proves viability, people that raise money show people are quite literally invested in your campaign, making them statistically likely to vote and more likely to volunteer for ‘get out the vote’ efforts.
I think you mean popular, not populist, but yes.
No, I mean populist. Populism is what is popular right now.
https://www.wordnik.com/words/populism
A political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against the privileged elite.
Trump didn’t run on any economic populism this year and won. Kamala did, and lost. It’s the electorate stupid!
She scrubbed all economic populism from her campaign in the last couple months and pivoted to campaigning with neoconservatives.
Trump ran on a populist platform that wasn’t limited to economic populism. Harris didn’t have any compelling narrative whatsoever.
It’s the electorate stupid!
It’s worth while for the electorate to learn the right lessons. Otherwise there wouldn’t be people in this comment section trying to get everyone to learn the wrong lessons.
We have already seen a third party take over a major party. The current problem with the GOP is because it absorbed the Tea Party.
With the right symbol to rally behind, we can do the same thing to the Democratic party. We need to build the Guillotine Party.
I am so down for it as long we get to use the symbol at least once for real.
Oh, I’m all for ranked choice voting, but in order for it to have any meaning we also need a plurality of parties. They also need time to build and I’m sure these two would start a good one if allowed.
Although the likelihood of political parties having any weight at all past January is anyone’s guess…
Without rank choice voting any progressive party would act as a spoiler for the Democratic Party. Debilitating ourselves in this way isn’t particularly useful for leveraging power to create better outcomes for the environment and minorities.
Then the Democratic Party had best make sure that progressives have no reason to split off and form their own party, huh?
Why does it always fall to progressives to get behind Democrats and never the other way around?
Debilitating ourselves in this way isn’t particularly useful for leveraging power to create better outcomes for the environment and minorities.
Oh thank god Democrats don’t throw vulnerable populations under the bus every chance they get.
Then the Democratic Party had best make sure that progressives have no reason to split off and form their own party, huh?
The FPTP voting system ensures that they do not have a reason.
Why does it always fall to progressives to get behind Democrats and never the other way around?
The FPTP voting system and entrenchment of neoliberalism in the minds of the American public for over 40 years from both mainstream political parties starting with Reagan. This is may be the case for western countries and democracies more broadly as well. Currently, neoliberal ideas cause a contradiction when a person encounters progressive or socialist ideas. Along the lines of:
Why would we fix our institutions if they are flawless? What’s the hurry to solve our problems if we are at the end of history?
Some useful and correct resolutions of these contradictions are:
Our institutions are flawed because they were made by us, flawed humans. The time to advert climate change, fix systemic inequalities, the reduce the wealth gap is now. Incremental changes will run out the clock, as they don’t address the root causes. There will be hundreds of millions if not billions of causalities unless these issues are addressed sooner rather than later.
Neoliberal ideas must be pulled from the minds of Americans like a weed. Or like one of those radishes in Super Mario Bros 2. Then people will be able to embrace ideas like systemic change to institutions and wealth redistribution from the rich to everyone else.
When asked about socialism, if a person responds with ‘socialism doesn’t work’ or ‘the Soviet Union collapsed’ those are the tells that a person needs to full internalize neoliberalism as a scam.
And maybe a history lesson about how the Soviet Union was actually an authoritarian communist dictatorship and not a socialist country. The government owned the means of the production, not the people, and the government wasn’t representative of the people.
Oh thank god Democrats don’t throw vulnerable populations under the bus every chance they get.
It’s better than the Democrats intentionally murdering people in camps. Neoliberals in office aren’t going to solve our problems, but it gives us time to do the work to solve them. Like educating people and co-opting the Democratic Party in one of their primaries. Like Trump did to the Republicans and Bernie tried to do to the Democrats. edit: typo
It’s better than the Democrats intentionally murdering people in camps.
The would in a heartbeat if they thought they could get one Republican vote for doing so.
Neoliberals in office aren’t going to solve our problems, but it gives us time to do the work to solve them.
Neoliberals ARE our problem. We’ve had half a century of incrementalists demanding that we just wait a little more for them to get around to moving the needle to the left, and instead they move so far to the right that they’re buddy-buddy with Netanyahu and the Cheneys. Incrementalism says “too soon” until it’s too late.
The would in a heartbeat if they thought they could get one Republican vote for doing so.
Again, don’t lie. The Democratic Party can of course move that far, but they have yet to do so.
Neoliberals ARE our problem.
Neoliberalism is the problem. Neoliberals can be tomorrow’s socialists. But we have to put in the work and educate people. My argument already refuted this point, I recommend reading it.
A few weeks ago, I’d have agreed with you, but now? The Democratic party that just lost 10 million votes… We’ll spoil that party? The one that just lost a fair election to a convicted felon? You want to protect them from being spoiled?
We have 4 years, which is, again, the most time we’ll ever get to try something like this because that’s how 4 year election cycles work. What is it exactly that they’re doing successfully you don’t want to spoil?
We’ll spoil that party?
Yes, running third party candidates in a FPTP voting system is how the spoiler effect works.
You want to protect them from being spoiled?
Because of the FPTP voting system our democracy will always trend towards a two-party system. Until we enact systemic change, we will be stuck with the Democrats and the Republicans. As long as the Democrats are further to the left of fascism we should vote for them and avoid limiting our power with third party candidates.
We the people and our interests are what avoiding the spoiler effect protects.
What is it exactly that they’re doing successfully you don’t want to spoil?
The Democrats are neoliberals. They are easier to push on social issues and the environment. The Democratic Party is the party progressives and socialists are going to want to co-opt with a populist candidate. Like Bernie tried to do and Trump did to the Republicans. But more to the point, they do not want to kill minorities and destroy the environment.
Rather than seeking a moral victory over Democrats we should look for ways to leverage power for the people Republicans want to hurt. Doing otherwise makes the harm done to minorities the cost of doing business.
I mean yes, that’s been the playbook for 8 years. More like 16 if you count what people actually thought Obama was going to be (and had record turn out). Try, try again?
The lives of millions of minorities and the Earth’s climate are at stake now. Minorities will notice the difference in the short term, but we will all notice the difference in the long term. Assuming we still have elections and a Democratic Party going forward, yes. We delay fascism and co-opt the Democratic Party. edit: typos
It’s adorable that you expect anyone to buy that the Democratic Party is movable after they just spent a whole ass year refusing to budge on fucking genocide.
The Democratic Party is the party progressives and socialists are going to want to co-opt with a populist candidate. Like Bernie tried to do and Trump did to the Republicans.
This is the key part I recommend you read.
Also, this is off topic, but Harris did pledge to end the war. It was in the news. She called for a ceasefire at least three times. If you care about the Palestinians, then voting for the party that wants to end the war is more useful than allowing the party that wants Israel to finish the job to take power.
The Tea Party did not spoil a GOP election. The GOP caved and adopted their platform.
The Democratic Party will do the same thing with the Guillotine Party.
Removed by mod
No, it’s a problem for the people empowering the right by refusing to vote for the leaning right of center, neoliberal Democrats. People are attempting to get a moral victory over the Democrats by refusing to vote for them. This strategy makes minorities the cost of doing business.
Removed by mod
No, the far-right exists because of late-stage capitalism and over 40 years of neoliberalism pushed by both mainstream parties since Reagan. The Democrats lost in large part because of their refusal to adopt a populist narrative. They didn’t go left enough. But refusing to vote for them or espousing accelerationist rhetoric because of that is self-defeating, harms minorities, and opens to the door to devastating climate change scenarios. edit: typo
ReAgan
Fixed. Thanks.
Just like GOP refugees created the Tea Party, we need to rally around the greatest symbol of the French Revolution, and build a Guillotine Party.
Let’s call it the Rule of Law Party. One law for all of us. An end to elite impunity.
I’ve always thought “the guillotine society” had a nice ring to it… Not party isn’t bad either
Or there needs to be an anti-establishment party, since the Democrats can never be one.
The issue is that unless we get rid of our first-past-the-post voting system and then enact further systemic change we are going to be stuck with the Republicans and Democrats.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
Thankfully as Trump demonstrated, a political party can be hijacked to be whatever you want. But we need to do that to the Democratic Party, like Bernie tried to do. This will involve educating people out of their neoliberal positions and ideas but it can be done.
This will involve educating people out of their neoliberal positions and ideas but it can be done.
As I get older and meet more people, I find this goal harder and harder to reach. People are dumb.
I think it starts with a smart and leftist, populist candidate, who can convince the dumb ones amongst us to follow them blindly. Then they will be educated by seeing how better things are for them under leftist leadership.
Bernie, like you said, was basically trying to be this for the US.
We can help too by educating people online. =)
Or maybe just ban “parties” and this phony, slaver system
well just in time for the supreme-court-approved executions of the anti-establishment politicians. imagine not getting this after Bernie had massive support despite all the efforts of the Democratic party, and after the orange cunt winning just by paying lip service to being anti-establishment…
seriously, that’s all you needed to do. not actually do anything, not help anybody. just fucking lie and pretend you give a shit about people grievances about being crushed by the system.
you couldn’t even clear that bar on the fucking ground, and lost to a cunt who’s known for firing people, not paying for anything, and shitting on a gold toilet. because you’re physically incapable of criticizing systemic oppression.
I fear it’s too late. Unless the party can be taken by force it won’t be enough and we only have 4 years. If dems didn’t snub Bernie this all probably wouldn’t have happened. Our choices used to be two flavors of corporate fascism, now it’s far right vs corporate. Dems are better on social issues, but it’s not enough.
Dems are clearly better on economic issues as well. Not nearly good enough, but better. The problem is that they will only go so far, and they won’t talk about it, out of fear of angering their wealthy patrons.
Well, why don’t you tell your Republican friends and families that the GOP dosent do shit for them?
Not sure why this applies to what I said, but my few Republican friends and family are uncomfortably aware of what I think about their politics.
You stated Dems are better at economics. Have you told your conservative colleagues that?
So long as the Democratic Party leadership are reliant on corporate funding, obsessed with American power projection, smitten with Israel, pensive about worker rights and in lock-step with security and intelligence establishment, there is no hope. You will have on one hand a conservative party that shows antipathy and disdain for real liberal norms (Democratic establishment) and a rabid, evil party intent on reshaping America and the world to reflect white Christian nationalist fanaticism (Republicans.)
10 years ago I would have told you that the Dems are playing a dangerous game with their interventionism. Today they consigned 1 million children to starve, be blown to smithereens and die in order to enable the revenge of a leader who is as corrupt as Trump and far more bloodthirsty. Kamala calls Trump a “fascist” and gives Netanyahu a UN veto and 2000lb bounds to drop near hospitals. This is indiciative of a party that is morally rotten and cannot be relied upon to safeguard anyone’s rights.
Unfortunately our democracy uses a first-past-the-post voting system which trends toward a two-party system. This makes the Republicans and Democrats the only game in town.
Minority Rule: First Past the Post Voting
We need to leverage power to reduce the harm done to the minority groups fascists in the Republican party want to hurt. So rather than attempting to achieve a moral victory over Democrats, people on the left should do the most useful thing they can during elections for minorities and vote for Democrats.
Unfortunately our democracy uses a first-past-the-post voting system which trends toward a two-party system
Why must one of those parties be the Democrats? I don’t see no fucking Whigs around, do you?
We need to leverage power to reduce the harm done to the minority groups fascists in the Republican party want to hurt
Democrats won’t reduce any harm. They’ll just send out fundraising emails, like they did when Roe was overturned. During this last cycle, they threw the undocumented under the bus and Democratic candidates were parroting Republican “boys in girls’ sports” hatred.
edit: sorry i was replying to to your parent comment.
No. They only hire people who say what they want to hear, which is “move to the right at all costs.”
Why must one of those parties be the Democrats? I don’t see no fucking Whigs around, do you?
Because unlike the Wigs, the Democrats are not divided over slavery. They can just move to the right on contemporary issues as Chris Murphy details here. edit: typo
Democrats won’t reduce any harm.
Hi, I’m a trans person. I’m not the most at risk trans person since I’m pre-transition, but it’s definitely a case of they would if they could. I would not like to be murdered in a death camp please. Like if Democrats can’t get trans messaging right, because they suck at winning, fine. At least they aren’t trying to completely ostracize me from society and make me dig my own grave. I hope that gives a different perspective on this.
Hi, I’m a trans person. I’m not the most at risk trans person since I’m pre-transition, but it’s definitely a case of they would if they could. I would not like to be murdered in a death camp please. Like if Democrats can’t get trans messaging right, because they suck at winning, fine. At least they aren’t trying to completely ostracize me from society and make me dig my own grave.
Democrats have no concept of solidarity. None. They just haven’t thrown you under the bus yet, but they’ve let you know that they will. Their candidates have been using the Republican “boys in girls’ sports” hatred in their campaign ads.
The undocumented? Under the bus. Muslims? Under the bus. Rail workers? Under the bus. If you expect solidarity from Democrats, prepare to tuck and roll.
Two Democratic politicians already threw trans people under the bus, saying the party is too left on trans-issues, and then parroting the “people don’t want biological boys in girl’s sports” bullshit.
And then that one Dem who ran the campaign ad “I’ve never pushed for sex changes,” or something like that.
I’m trans too, and honestly, I will never be supporting the DNC again after hearing that from two of their congressional members.
Democrats have no concept of solidarity. None.
Democrats have only recently been openly favorable to gay people within the last decade. Minorities have been using the Democrats to shift things to the left in this country for decades before that.
They just haven’t thrown you under the bus yet, but they’ve let you know that they will. Their candidates have been using the Republican “boys in girls’ sports” hatred in their campaign ads.
I’m aware of the messaging. That’s still not the same as a ban on gender affirming care, removal of employment protections, and the rounding up of homeless people.
Rail workers
Biden actually helped rail workers. He should have stuck with them from the start and done more, but it’s better than nothing.
The people who I would have expected solidarity from is the left. But instead I am constantly confronted by people who want moral victory over the Democrats. In this arrangement, I am the ball. Instead of kicking me, how about we leverage power to help people.
Vote for Democrats in elections not because they will fix our problems, stand with us, or even do what we want, but because it is how we demonstrate power to the fascists. It’s how we protect the people that Republicans want to harm and kill. It’s how we buy time to get a populist movement to co-opt the Democratic Party.
Biden taking credit for the work of rail workers whose right to strike he opposed is rich.
The people who I would have expected solidarity from is the left.
You want solidarity in one direction only. You want the left to worship the Democrats no matter who they throw under the bus.
But instead I am constantly confronted by people who want moral victory over the Democrats
You already got your actual victory over the left. You just want critics to shut up about it.
In this arrangement, I am the ball. Instead of kicking me, how about we leverage power to help people.
What power? The left, in your estimation, has only the power to lovingly smooch the ass of the center as they move to the right and ONLY the right.
Vote for Democrats in elections not because they will fix our problems, stand with us, or even do what we want, but because it is how we demonstrate power to the fascists.
THEY. SUPPORTED. GENOCIDE. I get that that’s a selling point for you, but some of us see that as already fascist-adjacent. And moving right from that just gets you fascism.
Biden taking credit for the work of rail workers whose right to strike he opposed is rich.
But like he did help them though.
You want solidarity in one direction only. You want the left to worship the Democrats no matter who they throw under the bus.
No, I want people to actually care about minorities instead of virtue signaling. I’m not interested in being currency in your game of moral purity with the Democrats.
You already got your actual victory over the left. You just want critics to shut up about it.
You got your victory over the Democrats at the expense of minorities, but you want 2026 and 2028 too. Well, Republicans might not even give us those elections or an opposition party at all now, we’ll find out.
What power? The left, in your estimation, has only the power to lovingly smooch the ass of the center as they move to the right and ONLY the right.
We have the power to stop fascists from taking power, killing people, and destroying the environment. We can even educate people and co-opt the Democratic Party. I recommend you read what I wrote.
THEY. SUPPORTED. GENOCIDE.
Biden supported genocide. Members of his own administration pushed back against him in open letters. You don’t care about the Palestinians. Genocide is a word you can type in all caps that you think will win you arguments on the internet. It holds no material implications with you whatsoever or you would be railing against Trump’s promise of indefinite genocide.
As someone closer to the chopping block than I would like, I am no longer phased by that bullshit. I’ve got the right screaming at me that they want me dead, and I’ve got people like you on the left screaming at me to be silent as they drag me the rest of the way there. The Palestinians are worse off now because of people like you and your virtue signaling and so is everyone else.
Your vote is appreciated. Your rhetoric is not. We don’t live in a moral universe. This universe is physics based. You acting in a way that is consistent with your subjective moral values isn’t going to help anyone. In fact, it’s going to let Republicans and other fascists all over the world run right over the people you claim to care about. Learn to analyze strategies based on their utility. edit: typo
The Democrats are the tool we have at our disposal. I intended to use that tool for as much as it can be used for. Help me.
any chance you are one of the bright consultants who get paid millions by dnc to come up with the brilliant strategies to be so dogsit that they loose to orange buffoon ?
No, I’m one of the trans people you use in your pursuit of moral victories over the Democrats.
more like you are just selfish and rich.
deleted by creator
Me not going quietly to the death camps is me being selfish and rich according to you, got it. Real ally. =P
death camp ? you should have said you were in gaza or westbank, my bad. yeah being rich there aint gonna help. if you were here in us, you would atleast be able to work 16 hours to be one paycheque away from homelessness.
thoughts and prayers. best we can do as we don’t care about poor brown people irrespective of gender, age or still in womb.
I live in the US where fascists have put targets on the backs of trans people.
The same fascists have also pledged to let Israel finish their genocide. Weird you don’t care about that.
Or you are the wealthy but new hotness in oppressed to the DNC to hook into to prove they care about something while it only amounts to culture identiry. But it allows them to take in heavy donations to further enrich themselves by pretending to fix things.
It’s clear that the trans community is still far to small a percentage of the populace to focus on as the main backing and asking other people to care about you and members of your community above their own well-being will not work because people are as selfish as everyone else.
I’m sorry but I really don’t care what happens within 2% of the population as long as they aren’t being killed compared to workers who make up the most of us.
So you won’t see me as a leftist using Trans as any kind of grandstanding cause I really don’t care or think you matter other than a funding source for pretend caring wealthy.
Or you are the wealthy but new hotness in oppressed to the DNC to hook into
? edit: I mean, I gave 70 dollars to Harris’ campaign this year. I spent more on the Eldrazi Incursion commander deck at my LGS which was like 90 dollars. But I gave about $300 to Warren and $300 to Bernie in 2020 and none to Biden.
above their own well-being will not work because people are as selfish as everyone else.
People are self-interested in that they care about themselves and the people in their immediate social spheres. However it is in the interests of people to vote for Democrats and against fascists.
I’m sorry but I really don’t care what happens within 2% of the population as long as they aren’t being killed
Well it’s good of you to be honest, but fascists do want to kill us. Trans people and lots of other people are going to die as a result of fascist policies.
So you won’t see me as a leftist using Trans as any kind of grandstanding cause I really don’t care or think you matter other than a funding source for pretend caring wealthy.
At least you’re honest about using trans people in pursuit of your moral victory over the Democrats.
You admit you have spare money to spend and use as donations to politics. Which is my point as most members of the Trans community does when they consider gender identity to be their biggest issue to deal with.
It’s not true for all trans people but the ones I hear from tend to have cash and I have known plenty of the LGBTQ community to be the most conservative because of their wealth. So are they willing to use themselves in their pursuit of moral victory?
It’s an identity. I literally said I don’t care and then you went and repeated your line about how you are more important. As if people are using you or spending you like currency for the election. It wasn’t about you.
Lots of people will die. Yeah start being part of the larger topic then and get your head out of your own fart box. Most of them won’t be upper class American trans people. And it certainly wasn’t about morals it’s about other people struggling that you demand agree with you in votes because you get better treatment under one party.
Maybe get with the people who care about not dying and show you do as well. As if saying, ask the DNC party to care about more than the trans community and specific shades of minority to get behind large populace movements for support is some kind of deep moral victory at your expense. Boo. Bad take.
You admit you have spare money to spend and use as donations to politics.
Yeah, I had a job and disposable income before the company I worked for went out of business because of Trump’s covid policies.
Me spending that $70 dollars isn’t the win for your argument you think it is. Harris got to a billion dollars because millions of people donated to her campaign. People solved a collective problem by working together collectively, not by being rich.
Which is my point as most members of the Trans community does when they consider gender identity to be their biggest issue to deal with.
For me it was stopping fascism. $70 seemed like a small price to pay to stop fascism for four more years. I care about trans people but the Harris campaign barely talked about trans issues so that wasn’t really a motivating factor. If they had talked about trans issues favorably I might have donated more. I gave $10 when Harris announced her run, I gave $20 when she picked Walz, I gave $20 when Harris debated Trump, and gave $20 when Walz debated Vance.
It’s not true for all trans people but the ones I hear from tend to have cash and I have known plenty of the LGBTQ community to be the most conservative because of their wealth.
I made $100k working at my job for a little over two years plus over $30k in my 401k after gas, tax, and rent. I’m not rich by any metric. Do you prefer if I can’t afford to communicate over the internet so you won’t be inconvenienced by my voice? You argument conveniently ignores I donated to Warren and Bernie. Are they not morally pure enough for you?
So are they willing to use themselves in their pursuit of moral victory?
I don’t want a moral victory. You clearly do. Don’t quit on the honesty while you were ahead.
It’s an identity. I literally said I don’t care and then you went and repeated your line about how you are more important. As if people are using you or spending you like currency for the election. It wasn’t about you.
People are more important than your moral victory.
Yeah start being part of the larger topic then and get your head out of your own fart box.
Please do that for everyone’s sake. Thanks.
As if saying, ask the DNC party to care about more than the trans community and specific shades of minority to get behind large populace movements for support is some kind of deep moral victory at your expense.
Refusing to vote for the Democrats until they are perfect on every issue is the pursuit of moral victory. It makes minorities the cost of doing business and isn’t a useful strategy for helping anyone. We didn’t get the right to marry who we want because people refused to vote for Democrats. Minorities strategically voted for Democrats for decades to get them and the US Overton window to shift to the left on that issue.
A big issue with this approach: The United States is not a law of nature; it doesn’t have to exist. The system may only allow two options, but it does not guarantee that either one of those options will keep the system viable. Reduced harm is still harm, and at some point we needed to stop doing it.
This rhetoric is what is known as accelerationism. It’s the idea that things have to get worse in order for them to get better. The United States not existing would mean the collapse of a society that supports about 340 million people. Letting the US burn to the ground is not useful, because it doesn’t help any of the people living here.
The truth is that things get better when people learn from their mistakes and the bad things that happen to them. They then use that knowledge to make things better. There’s no bottom to how bad things can get. Things can always get worse. And they will get worse unless we work to make them better.
Anyone can be tempted by the idea that they can make things better by letting them burn. But letting everything burn is how to harm the most people possible. In order to help anyone, we need to start leveraging power for each other. That means giving up on moral victories and analyzing strategies using utility instead of moral reasoning. edit: typo
It’s not accelerationism at all! It’s fatalism.
Accelerationism is, “It has to get worse before it can get better.”
My point here is, “The system that only allows for getting worse will never get better.”
It’s fatalism.
My point here is, “The system that only allows for getting worse will never get better.”
Years of US history demonstrate that is not the case. People have demonstrated it is possible to make things better with our democracy. Women’s suffrage and the civil rights movement happened in the US in the 20th century.
Things have been getting worse since Reagan brought neoliberalism to the mainstream. The US wasn’t perfect. And on some social issues like gay marriage things have gotten better. But we are where we are now thanks to over forty years of neoliberism allowing the rich to extract wealth from everyone else. We have entered the billionaires forming an oligarchy around a dictator stage of late-stage capitalism.
