Hell, even Kamala was more charismatic than Hillary.
Tinidril
joined 2 years ago
I know the DNC would love to blame their electoral failure on third parties.
Is that what I did? I'm just doing an apples to apples comparison of two strategies.
They aren’t a shitty uninspiring party that cant articulate an authentic compelling vision for the future
No, they aren't. They sure manage to inspire more loyalty than any third party has ever managed though.
I know people like to blame Bernie for 2016,
Not me, but people. Not sure how this is relevant here though. You aren't being genuine with me, you are just ranting.
PARTIES HAVE TO WIN VOTES! And if your solution is to tell everyone, the party is fine we just need these dumbass voters to fall in line
Once again, I have to wonder who the fuck you think you are talking to.
you’ve got bigger problems than arguing with some guy on Lemmy.
Pot, meet kettle.
The inside strategy has given us two trump presidencies and has directly led to the current situation we find ourselves in.
How are you not getting this? The outside strategy was also in play, and it also led us to where we are today. The only difference is that the inside strategy has actually made some progress while the outside strategy has achieved exactly dick.
You don't get to restart the clock on the outside strategy every single election. It's not new. It has a track record, and it's nothing to be proud of. In theory the outside strategy is bad, and on reality it's even worse. Grow up
If insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results, it’s not clear to me how continuing to support the Dems is going to start working.
So, you think we need a brand new approach and a 3rd party is it? I'm not interested in political strategy from someone who doesn't realize that third parties have run in every election since forever.
Your "new" strategy has its own track record, and it's even worse than the one you want to abandon. At least the inside strategy hasn't helped any Republicans win. You are either ignorant, or a Republican.
I'll come at it from another direction. The executive order is nonsense from a legal perspective for any number of reasons, but that's assuming the Trump administration intends to follow the rule of law. I hope it's pretty obvious by now that we can't make that assumption.
Lets say you are an ideological enemy of Trump that the administration want's to railroad. They use this executive order to prompt the FBI to start digging. The FBI isn't going to push back and say that antifa isn't an organization, and they will never have to prove such a thing in court. They still have to find something to charge you with though, but you are a model citizen with no criminal record, and you have never said anything online that could possibly be twisted to sound like a threat. So, you are safe, except...
Since you have been implicated as a domestic terrorist, the intelligence agencies get roped in. Independent of the FBI, these agencies are the top experts in the entire world at finding your secrets and even at fabricating pretty much any document or other piece of evidence they want. As a terrorist (yeah, they drop the "implicated" part pretty quickly) you are a risk to national security. Suddenly the FBI is getting tips that lead them to whatever they need to put you away for whatever crime is most useful.
This is exactly how fascist governments operate.
Step one is to purge neoliberals from the Democratic party. It needed to be done about ten years ago though, but I guess now is the second best time.
And im sure Trump is under the full impression that "antifa" is a group/organization of sorts, whether you or I believe it or not. So he's basically canceling a non-existent group?
When this order gets interpreted and implemented, will they be reading Trump's mind (ugh, sick thought) or will they be reading the order?
Trump is like King Tommen, happily banging the seal of the King on whatever mommy puts in front of him. Whether or not he has the faintest idea of what he is signing is entirely irrelevant. The people who wrote the order know what they want it to mean, and they won't be interpreting it any other way. What Trump thinks is far less relevant than what Stephen Miller thinks.
I just watched part of the Harris interview with Maddow, and she kept calling Trump a "communist dictator", so apparently Trump is the new left and Democrats need to come at him from the right to defeat the commies.
It's funny though, none of them seem to have a plan for how to prevent their new party from being similarly overrun by greed. If they somehow managed to overcome every organizational challenge to get a massive voter migration away from Democrats and to Whatevercrats, they would have to somehow vet the intentions of hundreds or thousands of candidates who never held office before. These are largely the folks who promoted Tulsi Gabbard and Jimmy Dore long after their grifts became obvious.
Let’s stop voting for Democrats that’ll fix it
I think a whole lot of that comes from right wing bots, just like the whole astroturfed "Walk Away" campaign back in 2018. I wish I could attribute it completely to the right wing, but I'm sure a lot of edgy leftists are doing it too. The arguments are terrible, but some do seem to genuinely buy in. Somehow the answer to "Democrats bad" can't be "Replace bad Democrats with good Democrats".
Are we just going to dump every use of violence as genocide...
No we aren't, and no I didn't. History is packed with countries doing genocides, either of local populations or as part of a colonial project. Russia is currently committing genocide against ethic Ukrainians. China is currently committing genocide against the Uyghurs. I would argue that the US genocide of native Americans never ended, and the current Hispanic purge is clearly going well beyond just undocumented immigrants.
If Israel stopped fighting, there would be peace through Israelis moving back.
You are almost certainly correct. It just has nothing to do with your assertion that they should lose the ability to defend themselves.
If the Resistance stopped fighting, they would all be exterminated.
The resistance is unfortunately pretty irrelevant at this point. This is low key feeding Israeli propaganda that what's going on is a war.
This is a baby-brained tu quoque, and borderline offensive.
Calling you a genocide apologist is only borderline offensive? Anyways, since my position is that AOC is not a genocide apologist, this isn't a "you also" it's a "just you".
Ending a government is not genocide; ending a people is.
And? You think Iran (and others) are only interested in ending the Israeli government? Please. The fact that Israel is evil doesn't make all of Israel's enemies good. As much as Oct 7 has been abused to justify genocide, it's a fact that the attacks were focused on civilians, not military or symbols of the Israeli government.
You don’t seize the party leader position by defeating the party leader. AOC taking Schumer’s seat would result in 2 nominally democratic socialists in the Senate. But what good would it do if they don’t vote differently?
No, you do seize momentum though. A plucky progressive knocking out the highest ranking public face of the Democratic establishment is a pretty big deal. How do you think we get to 3 democratic socialists in the Senate? And again, I have to point out your ridiculous hyperbole. Are you really ignorant enough to think that AOC and Bernie don't vote differently? Are you really ignorant enough to think that voting is the only tool they have to drive change? A tiny number of progressives in congress have been able to drag the Democrats left on a bunch of issues. You don't approve of one vote on one amendment that wouldn't pass anyways for a bill that she also voted against.
You have addressed nothing about my core assertion that coherent appeals and consistency and follow-through is what wins elections.
Agreeing with it isn't addressing it? OK. I guess I have to remind you again that there are exactly two claims you made that I disagree with, and that this is irrelevant to both. No, AOC isn't perfect. No, I don't have any problem with productive criticism of AOC. Calling her a genocide apologist and claiming that she is complicit in genocide based on a bill she actually voted against is not productive criticism. Hyperbolic bullshit is just going to marginalize you. Why the fuck would AOC ever take you seriously?
With that, I'm done. Go ahead and close it out if you want.
Kinder and gentler Margaret Thatcher energy? That's weirdly specific, not to mention being a really low bar.
Every time Hillary speaks she oozes elitism, entitlement, and contempt for anyone who stands in her way. She deflects every criticism as sexual discrimination whether it makes sense or not. She is everything that makes people hate Democrats distilled into a single person. She does, however, come across as slightly less narcissistic than Trump.