Lurker > legendary_zell

emblem-man posted...

Labor unions have seen their strongest growth and power under Biden

I give Biden credit to the extent that he deserves credit on that. His NLRB has been much better. He's been much less antagonistic than Clinton or Obama. But the union movement is growing from a point of near death. And unions are still not integrated into the party except as vote whips and donor bases. The Democratic Party is still not built around backing working class people to the hilt, even to the extent it was 20 years after the New Deal.

Additionally, Biden's record is a lot less clear when it comes to public sector unions as he kneecapped the railworkers, didn't push to get Dubester confirmed to the FLRA, and has set up an antagonistic relationship with unions at his agencies concerning remote work, despite collective bargaining agreements guaranteeing us flexibility.

K181 posted...

Why are so many people mad at Biden for something someone not part of his administration said?

Because as this topic demonstrates, it's the attitude from the administration and its supporters, it pervades the entire party. If it was an uncommon attitude, this would get no traction whatsoever.
Humble_Novice posted...

This. Just this.

This is not responsive to what I've actually said in this topic. That post responded as if I was demanding that Democrats give me the sky and the moon with 51 Senators and without the house. I explicitly said that's not what I want. It's acting as if I don't understand the current structural constraints Democrats face as if I don't deal with them on a daily basis in my job trying to actually improve things for people on the ground. I understand the number of Senators we have, the number of house members we have, the thresholds we need for filibuster proof majorities, to change House and Senate rules, the structural advantages Southern and less populous states have, the impact of the electoral college, the role of gerrymandering, etc. It's so arrogant of y'all to tell a goddamn federal constitutional lawyer that he doesn't understand civics. My job is civics. I explicitly said that I'm not ignoring those constraints or getting mad at Democrats for not ignoring them, I'm suggesting that Democrats work on what they independently control and do what they can do to reform themselves to deal with those constraints and change the ones that are changeable.

At no point in this topic have I suggested that Biden can snap his fingers and usher in an Anarcho-Communist Utopia. What I'm saying is that "the numbers we have" does not have to be an unchangeable constant. There's been times when we were much closer the numbers we need, and it's not a coincidence that unions were much stronger at that time. The numbers were what they were because the Democratic Party was much more of a working class party, they styled themselves that way, operated that way, legislated that way, and their current troubles are in large part because they traded that away for technocratic neoliberal and fake identity politics stuff that is a far less robust principle to organize around.

Unknown5uspect posted...

I mean if you really believe to have your finger on the pulse and know all the right answers then why don't you run for office?

Because I'm a regular person with no political connections and I'm not independently wealthy, so I can't afford to give up my job to run for office. I also live in DC so running for office here wouldn't do a thing.

I had a friend with my views run against a DC insider. She had a real chance to win with ANY support from the party. She's far better suited for it than me as well. She was attacked and ignored by the party and lost by like 200 votes. So I've seen how that goes.

Additionally, I don't think I have all the answers. I'm just a guy. But it seems pretty clear that we need something more than we've gotten. To bring it back to black people, we've had Brown v. Board and the Civil Rights Action and other stuff for decades now, and yet residential segregation is just as bad as it was then, and worse in some ways, the wealth gap hasn't been closed, we have mass incarceration, failing schools, etc. The approach towards these issues has largely been the same since Carter and it hasn't worked. Gotta do something else clearly.

NatsuSama posted...

I don't think you dont dont understand; your posts show you don't understand these basic things. I'm not saying that to smear you either believe it or not.

I also don't think this is unique to you, nor am I specifically making this about you to target you. What I said generally applies to the average American voter who gets their news from social media and their favorite talking heads. They think they understand basic civics and how the United States Government works..... but then they start talking with idealistic ideas, with idealistic expectations with the current makeup up even just our existing Congress and show no they really don't understand. As they start saying things that sound nice and idealistic......., but in reality and in practice ignores whether you like compromise or not we are unable to bypass the numbers we have to actually pass their idealistic legislation. The 40% of the country you disagree with doesn't just disappear because we dislike their toxic agendas. Just ignoring them doesn't make them go away, and it most certainly doesn't help "staying home" as some argue as their representation grows more powerful.

We legit have some who think the President can make sweeping policy changes with a flick of a pen. Or those who question why Democrats bother compromising with Republicans despite Democrats not having the numbers to pass what they originally wanted.

So yes, many think they understand how the United States Government works, but they really....dont. We have to work with these people if we are going to get anything done. At least until we can vote Republicans out in enough numbers that its impossible for them to obstruct. And we arent at the whims of 1 or 2 flakes like Sinema and Manchin.

And despite the propaganda, the Biden administration has actually passed a lot of good agendas despite the level obstruction he faced.

Which again I need to stress that isn't to say one shouldn't criticize Democrats, or that there isn't room for improvement.... but Crocket was spot on. Too many do not actually comprehend how the United States Government actually works. You can't pass legislation on idealistic dreams alone, and listening to your favorite talking head who perpetuates we can magically ignore our we don't have the numbers. That isn't how the United States Government actually works. Whether you like what we are stuck with or not, we literally have do not have the numbers in government to pass sweeping legislation without obstruction from Republicans.

TLDR: You. Don't. Have. Enough. Power and numbers. In. Government. Yet. This cannot be stressed enough, which only gets worse with the "why vote" purist types who do not understand they play a part in making shit worse. Who also seem to think there will be a promised turnaround after 2024 to reverse stacking damages and even more numbers of Republicans sitting in seats of government. Idealistic dreams isn't going to overcome the numbers needed in government to pass legislation, obstruction free.

Okay, let's back up. If someone believed that we need to get certain concrete policy proposals passed in order to still have anything resembling democracy or a habitable planet, how could they advocate for that in a way that shows they understand the government in your eyes? Is that possible? How would it look different from what I've said in this topic.

emblem-man posted...

I'm not calling them dumb. Democrats tend to be bad at highlighting the positive things they do. I think it's good for me to highlight and let people know those positives in case they haven't heard about it.
If they have heard about it and they don't care, then that let's me better know what solutions and policies they want.
Informing people is not calling them stupid.

I can also tell them that part of the IRA was to allow negotiating of drug prices which will drive down prices. Depending on where they live, I can also talk about YIMBY wins that will help drive down the cost of home ownership. I can tell them about the lower student loans they will be paying for outright cancellation of those loans.

If their argument is that they want those things to happen now and not in a year since policy takes time, then you're right. I have no answer for them and I don't think any candidate will, and any candidate that does is outright lying to them.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/b/bc6f5771.jpg

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/f/f33e419e.jpg

I'm not criticizing you, I think you're taking the 100 percent right approach. There's not going to be a better, more aggressive candidate that materializes between now and the election, so what you're suggesting is the best that can be done. I'm criticizing others who seem to not even want to do that and instead default towards open derision and condescension or accusing people of wanting Trump to win.

That's a much better strategy than what others have suggested. Go with that, not "you blacks are remedial and don't understand how government works." Why is that some people's instinct? If you really think Biden has done wonders, publicize those wonders and say there's more where that come from.

The issue is that there's an underlying current of unease that none of those policy wins actually addressed. People feel their paychecks shrinking, housing is increasingly unaffordable, they're not safe going outside due to mass shootings or just regular shootings, they're still living in segregated neighborhoods, behind on wealth, still overwhelmingly saddled with student/medical/credit card debt, that their kids will be worse off instead of better of than they were. So when you tell them things are actually great, they scoff. THAT'S what need to be addressed, it's what killed Hillary, and it may kill Biden and there really hasn't been a response on that other than telling people things are actually great, they just don't get it.

NatsuSama posted...

This entire post doubles down on you not understanding or even grasping Democrats do not have the numbers to pass whatever they want. Which means like it or not they are forced to compromise with Republicans on watered down legislation you don't like. Even being blocked on some of the agendas we may want.

You just didn't get everything you wanted so it's the same as some opposite extreme to you.

Your entire post and even the examples repeatedly ignores the reality that Democrats regardless if they genuinely want to do xyz, they can't based on what we have to work with. Regardless if you like it or not, we have to work with Republicans if we want to pass anything in Congress as we don't have the numbers in Congress to pass sweeping legislation without any obstruction from Republicans and even 1 or 2 flops like Sinema and Manchin. Regardless if you like it or not, how politics, government and civics works.... it mean we are forced to compromise on watered down legislation even if it doesn't check every box you wanted.

That ofc isn't to say one shouldn't criticize Democrats, or that there isn't room for improvement.... but Crocket was spot on. Too many do not actually comprehend how the United States Government actually works. They think because they vote sporadically once in a while that the person or team they voted for can just unanimously pass sweeping legislation from their campaign promises. In reality that is not how politics works.

Do you genuinely think I don't understand these basic things or are you just trying to smear me? Yes, I understand that with things exactly as they are, many of the things I want are impossible. But I'm making two points here.

1. You need to find some other way to convince black people that the current situation is okay enough for them to come out and vote FOR the Democrats. Just insisting people are ignorant and stupid is not going to work. Just saying the other guy will be worse might work, but as 2016 shows, it might not. Democrats are the party that claims they will fix the issues black people care about, but they get elected and don't. People are going to be mad about that and you have to figure out how to deal with that in a constructive manner. The answer isn't lectures about civics or promising less, it's finding a way to deliver. You say you're focused on pragmatism and reality, but seem to be refusing to understand that reality.
2. We can change what we have to work with if different tactics were used and different policies were enacted. Democrats have public support on their side for truly transformative policies. They have the overwhelming support of voting age people in general. But they don't mobilize these people, instead they demobilize them and try to win by upsetting things as little as possible. That's an active choice the Democratic party makes and it results in the constraints that we see. There are things that the Democrats independently control like their platform, their staffing, who they endorse, how they practice politics, how they communicate, etc that play a huge role in what the board looks like and what the possibilities are. For example, a lot more things are on the table if there was a possibility of targeted or even a general strike if any key Democratic priority was obstructed. But the Democrats would have to change to make that a possibility, totally independent of the number of Senators it takes to break a filibuster or the House map in 2024.

NatsuSama posted...

I didn't conveniently leave it out as your logic by your own words still leads you to claiming, "they're both leading to the same conclusion" when they are not.

The two are not the same, and not pushing for the same outcomes just because you can find a stance they might agree on at a wide variant level.

Your logic also still ignores reality of how politics works, and how laws are actually passed. Even your logic claiming "Democrats fear losing Republicans" which again ignores reality. Love them or hate them, Republicans make up approximately 40% of the country that actually votes. We have to compromise with these people to pass any legislation based on our current make up of congress. In politics that includes sometimes having to sweat talk a few into being willing to compromise. The House literally is controlled (I use that word loosely) by Republicans right now. Like it or not, the 2 parties need to work together right now until we can vote enough Republicans out.

The conclusion is the same, even if they want different things. If you're trying to escape a serial killer by driving away and the serial killer (Republicans) is blocking your path and you (Democrats) genuinely want to escape, but don't put the keys in the ignition or turn the engine on (mobilizing people), the outcome is going to be you sitting there, regardless of what you want.

If you claim to pursue a goal, but don't utilize the tactics necessary to get there, you can't be surprised when you don't reach your goal. Not reaching the goal is what Republicans want and what we'll get if they're not stopped. So by not using the necessary tactics, you're getting to the same goal by a different route.

Let's tie this back to black voters. Lets say Dems want to end school segregation and funding disparities. Republicans want to keep things the same or even make them worse. Let's say that to fix that issue, funding would need to be a taken over by the state or federal government, and would no longer be based on the wealth of the school's area. If a lot of time, energy, and money is wasted on things that don't work, and the thing that does work is taken off the table, the outcome will be a Republican win (the status quo or worse) even though that's not what the Democrats wanted.

Also, I didn't say Democrats fear losing Republicans, I said they fear losing TO Republicans. Compromising into fake solutions that don't actually solve anything benefits Republicans and not Democrats. We have to waste our time defending half measures that still leave people suffering while Republicans prey on discontent and wait to reverse whatever gains we do make. The goal of politics is to solve problems, not merely be in office or pass something.

Policies and the views and practices of the parties heavily influence the numbers you get to achieve further policy goals. They aren't separate things. This shit is not a wishlist, it's deciding what happens. Being agnostic towards policy and tactics is how we got here.

NatsuSama posted...

Even if you are leftist they are still not the same.

Claiming they are is exactly what I'm talking about. Everyone who doesn't perfectly align with you is not the same as the opposite extreme. Or "just as bad."

The fact that you boil things down into extremely binary non nuance level of logic, doesn't change they aren't actually the same.

You conveniently cut out the part where I said "one is better than the other" so you could make your scripted, strawman point. I vote straight ticket Democrat. I work for the Biden admin. I donate to the Dems. I do not think they're the same. The Democrats are much better than the Republicans. But that's mostly a function of how bad the Republicans are, not how good the Democrats are. And some of us think the Democrats need to be actually good, not just not as bad. And not for aesthetic or purely ideological reasons, but for practical ones.

For example, a party that does not include mobilizing ordinary, working class people as party of their strategy and core practices is not and will not be equipped to fight fascism. The Democratic Party actively avoids doing that, instead preferring to rely on donors and occasionally defanged unions. Let's pretend we're only talking about elections and electoral issues. A consequence of that is that they can't mobilize effectively to GOTV, can't combat voter purges and opposition to voting rights, can't combat bad rulings by the courts either with protests or electorally, can't mobilize for constitutional amendments/recalls/initiatives.

The Republican Party is propped up by the broken system that's preserved as a result, and Democrats fear losing to this party, so they remain "moderate" and the cycle continues. This is one place where the Republicans and Democrats don't differ enough for it to be meaningful and it has vast consequences, almost enough to decide practical reality on its own.

You are the one boiling things down to an illogical binary by pretending that I'm saying they're the same or implying that I'm expecting or even seeking perfect alignment with my personal views.

NatsuSama posted...

The idea that they are "Republican lite" is definitely your feelings dictating reality given the level of extremism Republicans openly flirts with, and what they openly are telling Americans they will do if Trump wins. The fact that you characterized them as "Republicans lite" is actually my point.

As for Biden lying or not, no one said you cant be upset or criticize him about anything Biden does that bad.

However there is a fine line between criticism, and going down the purist route of acting like they are the same or "almost the same" as Republicans if they fuck up on something or have several stances that differentiate from you while you ignore the majority of stances and efforts that align with you. Especially the types that always say "it's not enough" given what Congress looks like.

Not if you are a leftist. They are both capitalist parties. They both support America propping up the current unfair order. They both oppose anything that would fundamentally change this dynamic. Therefore, they both appear as gradations of the same beast. Yes, one is better than the other, but they're both leading to the same conclusion. A Democratic Party that refused to do what the people want and need is a party that directly dampens the hopes of the people, creates frustration and desperation, and thus creates the conditions for a final Republican win. Under either, we're heading to the same future of a broken working class, climate disaster, continued racial injustice, and fascism at home and abroad.

You disagree with that because you don't think those things are inherently negative. Or you don't think the worst outcomes will occur. Or you think they're acceptable over the short term. Or you think the Democrats will eventually try to change these things. But disagreeing on that point is not immaturity or not understanding politics. It's having a different view of politics.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]



I'm tired of people with this condescending view in this topic. It relies on completely ignoring the actual topic at hand. This isn't a debate about tax policy or the minimum wage or even a civil rights struggle. This is about a currently ongoing ethnic cleansing and genocide. That's not a matter of patience or ongoing strategy or slowly convincing the public over decades. It's an immediate life or death issue. The public has already been convinced in favor of a ceasefire. The public already understands that genocide and ethnic cleansing are bad and don't want to fund it. The roadblock here is the politicians themselves, not the amount of votes.

It seems like you're the ones who don't understand this dynamic, you're simply running the standard "people to the left of me don't have patience and don't understand politics" script when that's not even relevant here! How does your strategy save a single child in Gaza? Actually withholding votes would be catastrophic and I don't endorse it. But threatening to do so is just politics and at least has a chance to produce urgent change on an urgent change issue.

What's "immature" or "tankie" about wanting the killing of Gazans to stop? And wanting a ceasefire to stop that? Or criticizing politicians that stand in the way of that, even if they're generally on our "side." That's not not the left turning on someone over wanting a 1 percent higher tax rate. This is an issue of life and death and an ongoing genocide. And a ceasefire is the preferred policy of a clear majority of the American people and the UN. Are they also immature tankies who simply don't understand the need to compromise in favor of genocide?

You simply disagree with that position and don't want Democrats to take flak for their continued support of Israel. Just stick with that. There's nothing immature about criticizing Bernie for opposing a ceasefire if he in fact opposes one. Or using the term barbaric to describe killing 1200 people in a terrorist attack but not bombing thousands of innocent, already imprisoned children to death.

They have to find another way to say this, point blank period. This is the exact response that people get here when Biden loses support for doing things people don't like. That's what naturally happens when you do that and you can't condescend your way back into support, but that seems to be all a certain type of Democrat knows how to do.

This is starting to give echoes of 2016.

Shadow_Don posted...

Hezbollah and Iran invade Israel. WW3 ensues.

Online Progressives: "problem solved!"

Don't make this into a debate about Democracy if the real issue is that you just support Biden's current blank check policy towards Israel.

Tyranthraxus posted...

That doesn't matter. If you can't get Biden, get someone else. Once Democrats start seeing more local / state level politicians losing because of Pro Israel stances, they'll change. The Republicans have already done this on their side with things like election denial. How republican officials, even long standing well connected and well respected ones like Liz Cheney have lost their seats because they refused to endorse election denial.

Your problem is you want Biden to snap his fingers and fix shit overnight and that's just not how political change happens. The civil rights movement didn't start and end with the one MLK Jr speech. It was a battle over 100 years in the making and in many ways still going on.

Besides, what will you say when Biden calls for a ceasefire and Netanyahu predictably tells him to fuck off? Invade Israel?

The same dynamic happens even at the lower levels, it's not just a Presidential thing. The stakes are just higher and there's more attention at the Presidential level. Republicans do what they do because they are unafraid to fight for what they want and because they aren't afraid to vote for candidates that give them that, whether electable or not. That's exactly what we're being told not to do.

Another thing is that as these are matters of foreign policy, not domestic issues, Biden really can snap his fingers and stop the flow of aid or publicly pressure for a ceasefire, combined with allowing UN resolutions on the subject to proceed unblocked. And this is a matter of immediate life or death, lives are being taken, homes are being destroyed, and room is being made for the permanent destruction and settlement of Gaza as we speak, it's not something a long term movement addresses, it's by nature an immediate demand.

Biden was elected in large part on his supposed fundamental decency, especially in comparison to Trump. Supporting Israel's actions undermines that and a public statement that they've gone too far and that he's not going to help them do so anymore would be enough to secure wavering votes. It would restore that cornerstone of his argument.

Let's go Porter! Why would we not want the most leftward and electable candidate in a solid Dem state? Not having at least a progressive if not a DSA type is just leaving points on the board.

Tyranthraxus posted...

Primary elections. That's how you do it.

You know the left would be excommunicated and blamed for the fall of the Republic if they tried to primary Biden over Palestine or anything else. It happens everytime an establishment Democrat is primaried over ideology/lack of representativeness vs corruption or health issues or something.

1337toothbrush posted...

No one else seeing the irony of the "democratic" party basically saying "vote or die"?

They're saying that because that is the situation. In large part due to their inaction, but that doesn't change the reality. The Republican Party cannot be allowed to win under any circumstances and the only opposing force with a chance to win right now is the Democratic Party. And it's a matter of getting to 217 Electoral Votes which is tied to the Democratic candidate getting enough votes in crucial states.

At the same time, the dynamic that some here are pushing ensures that we stay on the edge of fascism like this. If Democrats can count on everyone's vote all the time no matter what they do or don't do, purely based on what the other guy is doing, how will they ever be held accountable or improve? What are people supposed to do when we have a heavily electoral system, but you're not allowed to withhold votes from one of the parties, to form new parties, or vote for the other party? How will we get a party that can actively fight fascism like this? How are people not currently engaged in the system supposed to become engaged with a party that operates with impunity like that?

Everyone here who is pro-Palestine will readily and immediately proclaim this to be wrong if it's as it appears. Will people who are pro-Israel's current actions admit when their side is wrong. They seem to consider even being asked to do so offensive.

Humble_Novice posted...

https://twitter.com/VABVOX/status/1720560695417135469

Couldn't this be interpreted as most wanting him to resign only after completing the ongoing ethnic cleansing or never? This isn't a disapproval of the war or the circumstances that led to the war. It doesn't exactly help any Palestinians. But I guess it's better than nothing if it leads to his actual downfall.

The curse of the Forbes cover claims another victim.

thronedfire2 posted...

when would marketing to 1% of the population ever be a good campaign strategy?

This isn't about corn subsidies to Indiana, it's about supporting a genocide. This shouldn't be a matter of campaign strategy for one, it shouldn't need to be electorally advantageous to be avoided and it shouldn't be done even if it's electorally advantageous.

This logic would support anything being done to any group of people, as long as the group is small enough, or the action is popular enough with another group of people unaffected by the action. For example, it's an argument used verbatim to oppose ending slavery, civil rights laws, and reparations for indigenous Americans.

cjsdowg posted...

Presser: Biden is losing support from Arab Americans.
Press Sec: Well he is talking to "rural" voters.

https://twitter.com/_waleedshahid/status/1719802442131427812

This is basically an admission that they're not concerned about Arab and Muslim voters, they're banking on rural voters and other people to make up for whatever support the lose. They don't really have anything to say in response.

Ayyyyy, good job man! Now just live in the moment and enjoy her company, don't think too much about the future or think about it as a performance. She likes you for who you are and who you've been, so just keep doing that.

Because he a bitch

It's not going to be easy, but think about it this way. You don't want to let these opportunities slip by, and if that happens, you'll be beating yourself up/feel a lot worse about that than you do about your shyness now.

Just make your mutual interest clear ASAP verbally and let her know that you'll need to ramp up slowly. Don't let her think you're not into her because once that switch flips off, it'll either be impossible to switch back on or will take far more effort then than what you'll need to do now.

Tl:dr, confirm your interest and start the process of becoming comfortable. Don't just continue to project uncertainty and disinterest. You'll have time if you make your interest clear, but things could end permanently at any time if you don't.

Not sure how his fighting style is French at all. Shouldn't he be a fencer or something?

He does look cool though. Makes you wonder where all these people with teleportation and energy swords have been hiding all this time.

Forty_Niners posted...

Well that's patently untrue. In this case, they have a massive gripe. In nearly other case, Dems are doing their best to make life better for them one way or another, unlike Republicans who actively try to make their lives a living hell.

The whole point is that Biden is making their lives a living hell right now.

Squandered what may have been the last chance for a New New Deal/political reset in America. Demobilized the biggest political movement since the New Deal, just when it was most needed. Continued the Democratic Party's descent into neoliberal mush. Bailed out the banks without restructuring the system. Continued the wars and even expanded them in some ways, before winding some of them down. Propped up our broken private healthcare system. Attacked whistleblowers and truth tellers. Bungled Supreme Court stuff and the judicial systems. Let state Democratic parties fall into ruin. Continued Clinton's mission of taking party in a direction that continued to alienate or not mobilize working class voters. Set us up for Trump.

Was pretty good on LGBT issues, his admin doesn't get enough credit for that, drastic progress was made under his term. Pretty good on things related to the admin state in general. Very inspiring and uniting. ACA, despite its flaws did cover more people and helped Dems win far into the future.

Overall, a 5.5/10 who was the only president in my lifetime with the potential to be a 9/10. Gigantic amounts of wasted potential and lots of blowback for decisions he made or refused to make.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


I'm not downplaying it by saying active bombing is worse. There are levels of genocide and some can be worse than others, but both still damn the perpetrators to the lowest circle of hell.

Tyranthraxus posted...

He was above it IF your family lived in a LGBT friendly state. He offered/proposed zero protections if you lived in say, Alabama.

In a sense they're the same again here. Biden is promising to protect Muslims in America, just not overseas, while Trump is promising to harm them.

Again, Biden isn't merely offering the status quo or a lack of protection, he's actively in support of the bombing, and blocks attempts to stop it. He's promising harm as well. It'd be like if Carter actively supported anti-sodomy laws in Alabama, defended them in court, and called any attempt to criticize them anti-Christian, and funded the anti-LGBT police there, but still wanted the votes of LGBT people. And really, that doesn't even cover it because that doesn't involve straight up death and ethnic cleansing.

hockeybub89 posted...

So Arab Americans haven't voted in many decades? Because America has been killing people in the Arab world for a very long time.

Are you saying neither you nor any other American deserves to keep living if America keeps that up?

If Iraqis couldn't bring themselves to vote in 2003-2016 or so, I wouldn't blame them one bit. Of course we all deserve to live, that's the whole point. The problem is that both parties disagree with that right now. I'm telling you right now, I don't think any of us would vote for a party that was pro-our ethnic cleansing. I'm pretty sure I've seen most of you threaten not to vote Dem over far less. Casting that type of vote is something people expect others to do, not themselves.

Tyranthraxus posted...

Well that's already happened a few decades ago so we know the answer to that.

"Carter said Gay Rights should be left up to the States. Let's vote in Reagan instead that will work out better for sure."

Even speaking in relative terms, this analogy doesn't work because both Carter and Reagan were in a far better position for LGBT people than Trump or Biden are for Palestinians right now. Even callous neglect and discrimination from Reagan is better than full support for active bombing.

But things aren't relative here, there are things that matter in absolute terms, like not having your family killed. You gotta get above that threshold. Carter was above that, Biden is not. The situations aren't comparable at all, this isn't a mere policy preference.

The thing is, you're all minimizing what's actually happening here because you have to for your point to not seem callous and awful. Biden isn't "not being as good as they want" or "not being perfect" or "not having their back".

He's funding their unrestrained death, destruction, and ethnic cleansing. He's blocking any attempts to stop it. As much as anyone not in the IDF or the Knesset, he caused this many times over:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/31/world/palestinian-american-family-relatives-killed-gaza

hockeybub89 posted...

I'm sure those of my fellow queer people who take a stand on Biden not having their back will feel real smug when the party that thinks they are rapist pedophiles that need to disappear from society takes over instead. That will teach Biden and our two-party system!

Is Biden himself killing you? Would you vote for Biden if he was killing LGBT people, but Trump wanted to do even worse?

What don't you people understand? Voting is an affirmative act. People have to have a reason to go out and do it. The vast majority of human beings only vote to protect or improve life for themselves or their loved ones. That doesn't seem to be on the table as both options will kill their loved ones. At that point, people lose interest, regardless of how bad the other option is.

I would've thought that people learned from 2016 that obligation politics doesn't work. The other guy is bad politics doesn't work if you are also bad enough for people. You have to offer a certain level of quality and "I'll kill your family regardless" is well below that level.

You and Biden are walking straight into a brick wall and then you're going to blame Muslims/Palestinians when you break your nose. However logical you think you're being, your logic is very limited if it can't account for this. Telling people that they're stupid, acting like they don't understand the alternatives, blaming them for the destruction of the Republic rather than asking Biden to be better.....we'll see how that works out.

FlyEaglesFly24 posted...

What military commander is going to do that though? From a pure tactical perspective, what commanding officer is going to march his troops into a situation that is more than likely going to get themselves killed and eliminate the tactical advantage they have over the enemy?

Especially since in the history of warfare, the precedent has already been set that military leaders time and again choose ending the threat over saving lives, with the chief example of that of course being Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

At this point, it can not be disputed that the Israeli government is guilty of war crimes. But think about it at the ground level. Youre the leader of a battalion, a platoon or whatever. You are responsible for the lives of your men and women, and know that you have to make the phone calls to their parents in the event that things go south. Theoretically, why wouldnt you use every advantage you had to try and bring your people home?

Its not like this is the movies. You dont want your platoon to be remembered like the Massachusetts 54th where they made a movie about you, but only your relatives get to watch it.

Again, all theoretical. Obviously you want your soldiers to be able to sleep at night comfortable with the moral correctness of your orders, but just from a theoretical perspective, what military commander is going to make that choice?

There might be some that would, I dunno. I don't think the universal response is to kill an unlimited number of refugees to get one guy. But even if they wouldn't that's why military commanders are awful people on a systemic level. Because they routinely see it as easier to sleep after killing innocent kids and refugees than after losing some soldiers in a war.

And why? Because they actually know some of people that will die or because of nationalism? That's not an excuse for war crimes, and we'd all recognize that if we were in the refugee camp, or knew someone who was, or were citizens of the country the commander was at war with. Artificially restricted empathy like this is the root of all evil, I truly believe that.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes. Strategic bombing is a war crime. And this is a war crime.

None of you would do any different in their position. All of you (correctly) refuse to vote for Trump for reasons far less intense than him funding the ongoing massacre of your family.

You're not thinking of this from their perspective, only your own. I understand you don't want Trump and I don't either, but think about what you're asking from them. Yes Trump would be worse and would do the same thing, but Biden is doing it now and you want them to pull the lever for that regardless. If you still pull the lever for someone after something like that, you're conceding that they can do ANYTHING to you.

Starks posted...

The pro-Hamas and river-to-sea folks never need to answer for what Hamas is aiming at with their rockets. Even hypothetical perfectly accurate rockets that could defeat Iron Dome, it is never a concern.

There's not a single Pro Hamas poster on this board. Hamas is evil and shouldn't be indiscriminately attacking Israeli civilians, even as part of armed resistance.

To answer your earlier question, yes, the military should risk it's life to specifically target Hamas rather than blowing up Palestinian children to save their lives.

Let's think for a second entirely from the IDF's perspective here. By what calculation is killing one Hamas leader but deliberately blowing up dozens of helpless refugees worth it? The loss of one guy is not going to cripple Hamas, and you'll take a huge hit in the minds of all rationally thinking people internationally. You've also probably created several people who now hate you as much as the Hamas guy you blew up.

Either they're not thinking rationally or they're acting with total impunity. Or both.

Our law on contracts and terms and conditions has gotten absolutely absurd. It's now acceptable to waive your constitutional right to jury trial in order to get your tendies for a slight discount. All allegedly to facilitate business transactions going 0.00001 percent faster.

ScazarMeltex posted...

Yep, you either support the ethnic cleansing or find yourself unemployed or blacklisted. I wonder how all the "totally not right wing" free speech absolutists feel about thism

Holy shit, that's really scary. One guy literally got attacked for saying war crimes are bad no matter who commits them. He said absolutely nothing wrong or anything that could be considered supportive of Hamas.

ellis123 posted...

Yet all of the things you just said were in service of not changing the status quo. Just because something is extremist doesn't make it radicalist. Radicalism when applied to politics is about the transformation or replacement of fundamental aspect of the government. Someone running around with an AR-15 trying to stop people from voting isn't ka change from the status quo: it is literally the opposite in that they are actively trying to keep the old one at gun point.

So yeah, modern conservatism isn't highly extremist-focused, but not really radicalist.

That describes extremism, not radicalsim. Radical politics can involve extremism, but it is not exclusively about that. Instead it is based around the concept of the change in society. Thus you can take your point of the Civil War and see it entirely as the conservatives having a war exclusively to combat the projected change in the status quo. So just like with Chainsaw it can always be pointed out that at no point in time will the conservative ever be the one actually calling for a change in the status quo. Conservatives want to criminalize abortion? That isn't a change to the status quo, women are already lower on the power totem pole. No worker protections? Not. A. Change.

Basically it's a simple confusion with the concept of the radicalist and the extremist. Conservatives actively fight against any change to the status quo, hence why most people recognize conservatism through neo-liberalism now rather than monarchism, and thus by default they really aren't going to ever be radical when it comes to politics. On the flip side extremism can come from either side just fine as it is not about the content being fought for so much as the way that the fighting is happing. Thus in your examples you have brought up plenty of extremism, but at no point is any of it actually radical. No change is happening to the status quo, with the biggest alterations being the "quiet part" being codified.

Which part of the last 40 years have had women having the same power as men? I must have been asleep during that bit.

To what? White men having all the power? Certainly you could make the argument that some wish for a far more extreme version of what is currently in place but it's not like we don't already have easy things to point to like the wage gap to point out how that already exists just fine.

Nah, I'm literally referencing the dictionary definition of radical.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/radical

a
: very different from the usual or traditional : EXTREME (emphasis added by me)
b
: favoring extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions (emphasis added by me)
c
: associated with political views, practices, and policies of extreme change
d
: advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affair (emphasis added by me)
the radical right (emphasis added by me, other than italics)

He's always sucked. He's still a modern Republican. Being a modern Republican in 2023 means you are basura.

ellis123 posted...

Conservatives inherently wish for the status quo to be unchanged. Thus they are against anything that be considered radical.

This is not a workable definition of radical or conservative. Radical can mean either extreme or extreme and leftwing, but the core meaning common to both is extreme.

Sometimes, the status quo can be radical (meaning extreme). For example, in the antebellum South, the US had one of the worst forms of widespread, racialized chattel slavery in human history. That was a radical form of organizing society. Maintaining that was radical. Starting a Civil War to maintain that system was radical. Yet conservatives were the ones who did that.

Later, Gilded Age capitalism was the status quo. The government was bombing workers for trying to go on strike, there was a huge gap between rich and poor, the working class was almost powerless. That was a radical state of society, and conservatives supported it.

Now, you have conservatives supporting criminalizing abortion, removing accurate history and scientific education from schools, more police power, no worker protections, more concentration of wealth and political power in the hands of the wealthy, restriction of voting rights, moving towards white Christian nationalist rhetoric and policy, and offering support to anti-democratic movements and politicians. That's radical, conservatives support it.

Reactionaries have always been reactionaries. The "true conservatives" that you're talking about are called Democrats. They've merged into that party and largely control it from the top. The others are just weaponized grievance with some fancy window dressing.

Some openly hate minorities. The others say they don't hate minorities, just poor people. But ask who those poor people are in their minds, and it's minorities. And then there's the ones who just hate poor/love rich people exclusively. Those are the least bad ones in some sense, and yet they're much more likely to make common cause with the other two than even a moderate conservative (Democrat).

Finally!

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


I think there's some of that and some miseducation too. There's been a long history of right wingers, centrists, and moderates trying to claim MLK Jr., striking coal miners, suffragettes etc. They do it by claiming to accept the status quo of what those people won through radicalism, whitewashing the radicalism, then criticizing anyone who uses those same tactics today for a new cause.

People are genuinely taught that MLK Jr. was a moderate who asked nicely in fine Sunday clothes and never wanted race considered in anything, and ended racism that way. It's not in the interest of the people who fund or write school curriculums to teach that radicalism works, and it's damn near the only thing that works when those in power deny fundamental principles like the equality of people, or the importance of the future over profit.

Interesting that DeSantis is trying to use this because him and all his supporters are the very people being called losers and they sure as hell would be cheering if they were in that crowd. And DeSantis is still losing because the vast majority of Republicans are still on that train. Because they have fascist brain and have utterly subordinated themselves to goddamn Donald Trump. Embarrassing.

Many of you are so utterly unaware of history, it's sickening. You seem to assume you'd be on the right side if people just presented the info to you the right way. "Like MLK did, all nice and polite and only bothering elected officials and no one else."

That's straight up false. Like another poster said, he was hated during his time. Anyone who ever did anything worthwhile was hated by most regular people during their time. And they all did things people hated, things that bothered, inconvenienced, and even may have hurt regular people mildly. They deliberately hurt small businesses and their employees. They shut down roads. They engaged in industrial sabotage and work stoppages in essential industries. They engaged in trespassing and taking over public and private property.

Tl:dr, you are doing the exact same thing people who opposed the civil rights movement did. Convincing yourself you're just opposed to the methods rather than the message, when the reality is it's both.