No we haven’t. FDR put in place universal healthcare, universal retirement, jobs for people that want to work so that they’re not subject to whims of the economy as to whether they can feed themselves. Postwar Britain guaranteed housing at reasonable rates to its people. The EPA, the CDC, clean water in your house, all this stuff happens because somebody makes it happen.
Democracy works, if you make it work. All that FDR stuff happened because people had spent decades fighting for their labor rights in the streets, harder than the wealthy were fighting to keep them down. That’s it. That’s how it functions. If instead of that, the labor movement had been filled with strategically incapable losers who said “MAN THE WHIGS DON’T FUCKING REPRESENT ME” and then fucked off to do something else, we’d still be working weekends and getting our arms pulled off in the factories.
This is why people think the whole “protest voter” thing is a psyop: Because it makes so little sense as a strategy for producing positive change. As a way of making sure things get ten times worse and the worst people in the world get to profit, though, it’s a fucking fantastic strategy.
umm, that’s 40 years ago you’re talking about, and it was Harry Truman who came after, so I say it was sinking gradually since then. In any case voting for warmongers is kind of an approval to them, people have every right to distinguish themselves from warmongers.
I don’t really care about labor rights that much in this discussion, but I strongly doubt that you can achieve any by “voting blue, no matter who”, you’re not really voting here imo, you’re just showing the lobbyists that you’re accepting anything blue they offer. The example of FDR only shows that your party has been infiltrated and needs a purge of some kind, instead of unconditional support.
umm, that’s 40 years ago you’re talking about, and it was Harry Truman who came after, so I say it was sinking gradually since then.
Yeah, pretty much. Because things got good and people stopped fighting.
This whole model where “the assholes in power are doing corrupt things and don’t look out for the people” is this shocking surprise, and leads to us needing to disengage from the whole system even more, is wrong. Fight for what you need. That is the way.
I don’t really care about labor rights that much in this discussion, but I strongly doubt that you can achieve any by “voting blue, no matter who”
Good thing I never said that. What I was saying is that “Vote no, no matter who” is a bunch of garbage probably equally unproductive to this elaborate strawman of “vote blue no matter who.”
The example of FDR only shows that your party has been infiltrated and needs a purge of some kind
Yeah, pretty much. If we could start with Schumer and Pelosi that would be great.
Tell me, does “the leftest end of the party refuses to vote anymore” leads to the party moving left? Or right? I can’t remember. Is that a good way to purge the centrists, by withdrawing the leftist input? Maybe there is some kind of history from 1968 - 1992 that I can look to. Or maybe the history of the Democrats since 1992?
If you meant that you wanted people in US to vote for someone like Bernie Sanders then I’m not your opponent. I only discard the idea of “vote Biden to prevent Trump” which evolved to “vote Kamala Harris to prevent Trump” even when both are clearly not standing for you really, but “just do it cuz they’re the candidates of the party”.
I’m pretty sure the meme is blaming those who didn’t vote blue in the last American elections, “resulting in Trump winning”.
I’m not discarding the idea of practicing the democratic procedure in your country all together or participating in votes, but rather only the idea of “vote for the lesser of two evils”, as it has only proved to sink the boat so far. I’m arguing against extreme loyalty for the party, for life.
I only discard the idea of “vote Biden to prevent Trump”
Then you are… well, I won’t say you’re my “enemy” exactly. But I think you’re making incredibly stupid decisions, and then being dishonest (“just do it cuz they’re the candidates of the party” when the logic was literally pretty much the opposite of that).
If the house is on fire, then leaving the house is urgent. Preventing Trump was urgent. Saying it’s not worth leaving the house because you don’t like the weather outside is ridiculous, and framing this past election like preventing Trump was not urgent, even now with the benefit of hindsight, shows some really remarkably bad strategic ability, and I don’t think I really want to listen to your political wisdom as to how to look at things or how we can get out of this mess now.
only the idea of “vote for the lesser of two evils”, as it has only proved to sink the boat so far
My point bringing up 1968 and 1992 was that refusing to vote for the lesser of two evils, thus opening the door for a much much greater evil to reset the bar downwards and also motivating the Democrats to move to the right since the left isn’t voting for them anyway, is precisely and exactly what has been sinking the boat.
Absolutely it was. I can have some issues with people’s general way of characterizing what Biden did, but I feel like you are still missing the point that I am making:
It is the normal course of political leaders to become corrupted and start to do things like the DNC is currently doing. It happens in Communist systems, it happens to the Republicans, it happens to the Democrats, it happened to Labour in the UK, it happens to any political body just because of the nature of power and corruption, and the incentives at work. This whole idea “Well we have to get rid of the Democrats because they’re bad, that’ll solve it” is 1,000% missing that point (and, yes, if there were anyone who were saying “We have to keep voting for Democrats, that’ll solve it,” then I would equally tell them that they are living in a dream world.)
My point is that getting ourselves out of the current crisis involves being engaged with the political system (both in and out of the “official” allowed channels), and that giving up one of the key tools of influence and letting the forces of evil gobble up a giant advantage for themselves in November 2024, which we will now have to work incredibly hard just to get back to even the pretty-bad state things were in before, was a massive mistake. Whether or not Biden was “good enough,” or for that matter whether even his significant sins like genocide in Gaza needed to apply to Kamala Harris, has absolutely no bearing on that point.
Again: People have been trying this strategy you’re promoting since 1968. It definitely hasn’t pulled the Democrats to the left. My feeling is, work to strengthen unions and civil institutions outside of Washington, support progressive candidates (the few of them that exist within the Democratic party), and try to avoid obvious disasters. That makes sense to me. The strategy that it sounds like you’re talking about, withholding support until the Democrats get better on their own all of a sudden, has in my view proved itself to be an unmitigated disaster in the years from 1968 until now.
In my view your idea is consent to the two party system, which is not explicitly forced by the constitution, but is being enforced more and more over time by your own behavior. One needs to have limits at least on what they consent to, even when their choice is neglect afterwards. The fact that not even both parties offered a pro zionist candidate, but even inside the democrat party, both candidates (Biden then Harris) were explicitly pro Zionist, this shows where loyalty to an institution no matter what leads to.
Christianity is often ridiculed for for being fanatic, but even though it is a religion, it had reforms (Martin Luther and the protestant denomination eventually) when the main Catholic church was corrupt (I’m sorry for the Christians reading this if I’m getting history wrong). My point is: this was a religion and accepted reforms, here we’re merely talking about a political party, a progressive one if I’m not wrong.
Always have been.
Center people are a psyop
You just hate me cuz I’m right.
No we haven’t. FDR put in place universal healthcare, universal retirement, jobs for people that want to work so that they’re not subject to whims of the economy as to whether they can feed themselves. Postwar Britain guaranteed housing at reasonable rates to its people. The EPA, the CDC, clean water in your house, all this stuff happens because somebody makes it happen.
Democracy works, if you make it work. All that FDR stuff happened because people had spent decades fighting for their labor rights in the streets, harder than the wealthy were fighting to keep them down. That’s it. That’s how it functions. If instead of that, the labor movement had been filled with strategically incapable losers who said “MAN THE WHIGS DON’T FUCKING REPRESENT ME” and then fucked off to do something else, we’d still be working weekends and getting our arms pulled off in the factories.
This is why people think the whole “protest voter” thing is a psyop: Because it makes so little sense as a strategy for producing positive change. As a way of making sure things get ten times worse and the worst people in the world get to profit, though, it’s a fucking fantastic strategy.
umm, that’s 40 years ago you’re talking about, and it was Harry Truman who came after, so I say it was sinking gradually since then. In any case voting for warmongers is kind of an approval to them, people have every right to distinguish themselves from warmongers.
I don’t really care about labor rights that much in this discussion, but I strongly doubt that you can achieve any by “voting blue, no matter who”, you’re not really voting here imo, you’re just showing the lobbyists that you’re accepting anything blue they offer. The example of FDR only shows that your party has been infiltrated and needs a purge of some kind, instead of unconditional support.
Yeah, pretty much. Because things got good and people stopped fighting.
This whole model where “the assholes in power are doing corrupt things and don’t look out for the people” is this shocking surprise, and leads to us needing to disengage from the whole system even more, is wrong. Fight for what you need. That is the way.
Good thing I never said that. What I was saying is that “Vote no, no matter who” is a bunch of garbage probably equally unproductive to this elaborate strawman of “vote blue no matter who.”
Yeah, pretty much. If we could start with Schumer and Pelosi that would be great.
Tell me, does “the leftest end of the party refuses to vote anymore” leads to the party moving left? Or right? I can’t remember. Is that a good way to purge the centrists, by withdrawing the leftist input? Maybe there is some kind of history from 1968 - 1992 that I can look to. Or maybe the history of the Democrats since 1992?
If you meant that you wanted people in US to vote for someone like Bernie Sanders then I’m not your opponent. I only discard the idea of “vote Biden to prevent Trump” which evolved to “vote Kamala Harris to prevent Trump” even when both are clearly not standing for you really, but “just do it cuz they’re the candidates of the party”.
I’m pretty sure the meme is blaming those who didn’t vote blue in the last American elections, “resulting in Trump winning”.
I’m not discarding the idea of practicing the democratic procedure in your country all together or participating in votes, but rather only the idea of “vote for the lesser of two evils”, as it has only proved to sink the boat so far. I’m arguing against extreme loyalty for the party, for life.
Then you are… well, I won’t say you’re my “enemy” exactly. But I think you’re making incredibly stupid decisions, and then being dishonest (“just do it cuz they’re the candidates of the party” when the logic was literally pretty much the opposite of that).
If the house is on fire, then leaving the house is urgent. Preventing Trump was urgent. Saying it’s not worth leaving the house because you don’t like the weather outside is ridiculous, and framing this past election like preventing Trump was not urgent, even now with the benefit of hindsight, shows some really remarkably bad strategic ability, and I don’t think I really want to listen to your political wisdom as to how to look at things or how we can get out of this mess now.
My point bringing up 1968 and 1992 was that refusing to vote for the lesser of two evils, thus opening the door for a much much greater evil to reset the bar downwards and also motivating the Democrats to move to the right since the left isn’t voting for them anyway, is precisely and exactly what has been sinking the boat.
So the house wasn’t burning down during Biden’s administration ?
Absolutely it was. I can have some issues with people’s general way of characterizing what Biden did, but I feel like you are still missing the point that I am making:
It is the normal course of political leaders to become corrupted and start to do things like the DNC is currently doing. It happens in Communist systems, it happens to the Republicans, it happens to the Democrats, it happened to Labour in the UK, it happens to any political body just because of the nature of power and corruption, and the incentives at work. This whole idea “Well we have to get rid of the Democrats because they’re bad, that’ll solve it” is 1,000% missing that point (and, yes, if there were anyone who were saying “We have to keep voting for Democrats, that’ll solve it,” then I would equally tell them that they are living in a dream world.)
My point is that getting ourselves out of the current crisis involves being engaged with the political system (both in and out of the “official” allowed channels), and that giving up one of the key tools of influence and letting the forces of evil gobble up a giant advantage for themselves in November 2024, which we will now have to work incredibly hard just to get back to even the pretty-bad state things were in before, was a massive mistake. Whether or not Biden was “good enough,” or for that matter whether even his significant sins like genocide in Gaza needed to apply to Kamala Harris, has absolutely no bearing on that point.
Again: People have been trying this strategy you’re promoting since 1968. It definitely hasn’t pulled the Democrats to the left. My feeling is, work to strengthen unions and civil institutions outside of Washington, support progressive candidates (the few of them that exist within the Democratic party), and try to avoid obvious disasters. That makes sense to me. The strategy that it sounds like you’re talking about, withholding support until the Democrats get better on their own all of a sudden, has in my view proved itself to be an unmitigated disaster in the years from 1968 until now.
In my view your idea is consent to the two party system, which is not explicitly forced by the constitution, but is being enforced more and more over time by your own behavior. One needs to have limits at least on what they consent to, even when their choice is neglect afterwards. The fact that not even both parties offered a pro zionist candidate, but even inside the democrat party, both candidates (Biden then Harris) were explicitly pro Zionist, this shows where loyalty to an institution no matter what leads to.
Christianity is often ridiculed for for being fanatic, but even though it is a religion, it had reforms (Martin Luther and the protestant denomination eventually) when the main Catholic church was corrupt (I’m sorry for the Christians reading this if I’m getting history wrong). My point is: this was a religion and accepted reforms, here we’re merely talking about a political party, a progressive one if I’m not wrong.