NoneOfUrBusiness @ NoneOfUrBusiness @fedia.io

Posts

1

Comments

2,821

Joined

1 yr. ago

And this is the people liberals want America to rally under.

"Do New Yorkers really want socialist city-run grocery stores?"

Uh... yes? Is this their idea of spinning things in an unfavorable light? I guess this is the one time we can be glad establishment Dems are woefully out of touch.

Iran could easily allow China-bound ships and shut out everyone else, which they'll probably do if China pushes for it.

Yeah... No. The vast majority supported the genocide, either enthusiastically or through lesser evil politics. And no I'm not talking about voting for Harris; I'm talking about the liberal reaction to pro-Palestine protests and Uncommitted.

Let's try that. Death to America, and Israel while we're at it.

Okay so admittedly I hadn't heard of that. Jeffries barely gets a passing grade, but still that's weak for the so-called opposition to a fascist takeover. I'd like to see condemnation of the Israeli and US strikes as a whole, not just the possibility of expanded conflict, but I guess we'll see where the War Powers vote leads to.

Your argument, if it can even be called that, isn't proving anything at all. Pelosi isn't doing these particular things, but she has her own list of crimes.

Better? What the heck is "better"? Is putting Republicans in a Democratic president's cabinet "better"? Is completing the border wall "better"? Is supporting genocide and cracking down on protests "better"? Is the "most lethal army in the world" better? Biden failed all the most important tests put before him, and Harris was campaigning on being worse than Biden. There's at least a conversation to be had if we're talking lesser evil, but better? No fucking way.

Here's the thing: To work towards such a party you need to have both a carrot and a stick; surrendering unconditionally and hoping they'll generously grant you the opportunity to represent your leftwing ideals was always folly. In 2024 the DNC basically gave a massive middle finger to progressives, multiple in fact, which was going to lead to disaster if someone somewhere didn't whack them over the head and force them to change course. Uncommitted was supposed to be that, but they were met with scorn by people who kept screaming "vote blue no matter who." Well here's the thing: "vote blue no matter who" destroys Democrat turnout, because to your average voter voting for a party that stands for nothing is a very hard sell. It was change the Democrats while there was still time or bust, and America chose bust. There was no winning with a Democratic party that, to reiterate, stood and still stands for nothing.

The all or nothing mindset is why we have a fascist in office currently.

Non-voters were predominantly moderates, not leftists, so no. The people you're trying to criticize here for the most part voted for Harris.

The thing is: There are people who are well-equipped to stop fascism; the Democrats just hate their guts. Forcing the Democrats to accept those people and their ideas was the only way forward, which is what people like Uncommitted tried to do and were met with scorn for. Now we're at the only logical conclusion of "vote blue no matter who".

A lot of people can also die when fascism takes over because you didn't try to figure shit out, and that's the problem with vote blue no matter who: Democrats are woefully underequipped to stop fascism, so allowing them to coopt all left-leaning voices was always going to end in disaster. Coercing the Democrats into becoming less horrible was the only way to get out of this with American democracy intact, but that requires taking a more antagonistic stance than "vote blue no matter who".

Okay if you think Pelosi isn't part of the problem I have a bridge to sell you.

But being against them is still an idiotic move.

Only if you only think four years into the future and don't think of how to actually get your way out of this mess, but either way we should be able to agree that the "can't vote for Kamala because war" people are not, in fact, quiet.

In that case you must not be looking very hard, because I see these arguments every other thread. In case you actually don't see this stuff, long story short the arguments boil down to "See? We fucking told you centrism wasn't going to work," "so genocide is bad now that Trump is doing it," "the heck are you blaming us for? It was the moderates who stayed home" and "there were either enough progressives to sway the election or not enough to listen to them, you can't have it both ways". Also, though I haven't seen this one much from other people, here's me in this thread:

Then why is the DNC not pushing back on Trump's, by his own admission, war? Why are they saying exactly nothing about the genocide in Gaza? If they had any issue with these things, we'd have heard it. I mean hell, Barack "hope and change" Obama had the chance to end the war on terror and he just... didn't. If you think imperialism is a partisan issue in American politics you should take a long hard look at the history of your country, because that shit is fucking ugly and it doesn't get prettier with the blue oligarchs in charge.

Because Harris is irrelevant now? That's not as clever as you think it sounds.

Well what is genocide Joe saying about the war? What about Harris? Chuck Schumer? Hakeem Jeffries? They're saying exactly nothing because they're inside AIPAC's pockets? Thought so.

It's been time for checks notes 7 and a half decades.

Can't they keep working the land and just sell their bananas somewhere else?

The idea that primaries will fix this has been demonstrated beyond doubt to be false by Bernie 2016 and 2020. You won't force the party to change by playing by its rules.

Unless you have a concrete plan to enact sweeping electoral process changes within our current system. That’s sort of the problem, our system is designed to resist change.

Fortunately Trump is helpfully taking a sledgehammer to the whole thing, so there's an opening for this kind of sweeping reform but the work for that starts now.