spaceghoti @ spaceghoti @lemmy.one

Posts

651

Comments

783

Joined

2 yr. ago

Moderating

---

I agree, the Democrats need to change and return to progressive goals. But the initial comment I was replying to suggested that Democratic voters have no reason to go vote, or at least that's how I was reading it. If I misunderstood I apologize, but that's exactly the sort of sentiment that plays into right-wing electoral plans. Discouraging people from voting is their goal, particularly in Democratic strongholds. We need to do everything we can to resist that, not feed into it.

Is it because there aren't as many Democrats voting in West Virginia, or because Democrats have given up voting in West Virginia? It's a chicken-or-the-egg problem: if West Virginia is a reliably Republican-voting state, should the DNC spend money to sway elections there when they could focus more on swing states?

Now, a case can (and should) be made that the DNC should focus more on grassroots level elections. They should do what Republicans did and focus more on local and regional elections rather than primarily national level elections. Obama bucked the DNC's policies and ran a fifty-state campaign, and that helped him win. But -- and I feel this is where the disconnect probably lies -- the DNC is not the Democratic Party. The DNC is the fundraising and electoral strategy arm of the Democratic Party. Disagreeing with their electoral strategies should not put the blame on the entire Democratic Party for not doing their part to block the rise of fascism.

The DNC doesn't have unlimited funds. For some odd reason, they don't typically get quite as much money from corporate interests as Republicans. They don't have as many dedicated donors as Republicans. Because Democrats still believe in a government for the people and by the people, which means taxing people who have more to help people who have less. So they have to decide how to best spend that money for the greatest effect. If that isn't enough for you to go out and vote, even though you live in a state dominated by Republicans, then I don't know what to tell you. If you're not willing to do your part, I'm not willing to listen to your complaints about how not enough is being done for you.

Since I haven't received even an attempt at an answer to this question before, I'll ask it again: what evidence does anyone have to show that Biden's age has negatively effected his mental capacity? I'll concede that his age is a reason to ask the question, but the question keeps being repeated in spite of any demonstration of mental lapses on his part. His verbal gaffes have been consistent throughout his political career, and I've seen no evidence that they've increased in his old age.

Would they be successful if we were consistently getting out the vote to deny them majority control? Would they be successful if we were actively participating in primaries to put forward more progressive candidates? How do you justify blaming Democrats for not doing enough to block Republicans when voters keep enabling Republican majorities? How are we not reaping the consequences of our voting patterns?

So every time they opposed Republican attempts to install fascism but failed because they didn't have the power, because we didn't vote for them to enable them to control policy, that's their fault? Seriously? People keep saying Democrats have a messaging problem and I agree, but no one ever seems to acknowledge that the reason Republicans have the advantage in messaging is because they've got dedicated media organizations tipping the scales in their favor and bombarding the public with pro-Republican disinformation. No private, independent organization has done the same for Democrats, and it would be illegal for them to spend campaign money to create one.

So please, tell me what they could have done differently with the information they had at the time.

I am watching as fascism is taking over America, and Democrats are in fact doing nothing to stop it.

You what? Do you only have access to Fox News, or something?

I agree, Democrats are not doing enough to end our corporate mindset and push the needle back toward the common good. But that's not the same as doing nothing. Biden's policies have been far more progressive than Obama's, and Obama's were more progressive than Clinton's. AOC's "the Squad" have increased their numbers (they're still a tiny minority, but they're growing) and the more we elect people like them the more traction we'll see for progressive policy.

I'm sorry we can't just turn the ship around on a dime. Our government wasn't broken all at once, and it won't be fixed any quicker. It's going to take time, patience, and persistence before we see the changes we demand, and undermining the only faction willing to be reformed isn't going to help those efforts. Criticize, yes, but make those criticisms based on factual, verifiable criticisms. "Biden is old" doesn't help us, not as long as Biden is still willing to listen to us (and he has!) and adjust his policy for the better.

We're never going to have the perfect candidate, one we align with 100%. I didn't think Biden was going to be anything more than a corporate shill when he took office. But he's pleasantly surprised me, and I think he's more than earned the benefit of the doubt.

That's because you're in a Ruby Red middle of nowhere West Virginia, where they've been fucking over the poor and blaming Democrats for at least two generations. Federal policy can only go so far, when it's left to the states to determine where the money goes and what public support to offer. If you want to blame anyone for that, look to your state leadership, not Biden.

Fine. His age is a reason to check. Which is why I ask for any other signs of mental decline. But the only evidence I've seen anyone put forward is his age, and that alone is not enough. As long as he remains competent as well as the incumbent, this line of criticism just boosts right-wing talking points.

I think you're being generous. It's a tragedy that occasionally dips into unintentional hilarity.

What a non-issue. Yes, people are making a lot of hay out of Biden's age, but where's the evidence of his mental decline? He's always been a bad speaker, but I haven't yet seen evidence that he's forgotten where he is or that he's confusing issues like Trump.

Fine, we'd like younger candidates. That's fair. But that's not reason to call Biden's competence into question.

This isn't news to anyone who comprehends conservative thinking

From Francis Wilhoit: “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”

https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progressives/#comment-729288

Not with the conservative shills on this Supreme Court, no. Not when it really counts. This is the product of several generations of conservative activism to stack the courts with partisan judges for conservative causes.

I can’t help wonder how different the world would have been with Gore as president. Even social media may have been regulated differently with a moderately (or even slightly) tech savvy administration, though that’s probably a stretch.

It's not a stretch. The antitrust lawsuits brought by nine states and the Justice Department against Microsoft was made to simply go away under the Bush administration. Our technology would probably look very different today without Microsoft's monopoly, and without that who knows what the rest of the map would look like?

Coward. I'm disappointed in my state.

Since it isn't relevant to modern politics, it doesn't contribute to the discussion.

Except the answer is not "no," there are a number of factors that suggest assault rifles -- even ones marked for civilian use -- are inflating those numbers. It could be psychological, it could be practical, it could be a number of things, but the points of correlation are too frequent and too strong to be ignored. Saying otherwise is to make yourself a liar.

The right to bear arms is a liberal value.

That sounds like a very archaic and irrelevant definition of "liberal."

Interesting how the facts disagree with you.

Several studies find that mass shooting deaths fell slightly in the decade of the federal assault weapon ban, and then rose dramatically in the decade that followed.

New research suggests that limits on large-capacity magazines play a key role.

No strong evidence shows that the ban’s presence or its end caused the change in mass shooting deaths, but many studies find a correlation.

So let's stop pretending that the guns themselves aren't part of the problem. Sure, more background checks, closing loopholes, better access to mental health services, and other things can and should be part of the solution. But the simple fact is that you can't shoot someone with a gun you can't get. That's why gun bans have worked so well all around the world.