This is QAnon-level shit, but on the center right.
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 433
- Joined
- 1 yr. ago
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 433
- Joined
- 1 yr. ago
Russia is the bad guy in this conflict. 110%. But there's no reason to start making up reasons why. Ukraine was not a neutral non-NATO buffer state after the euromaidan coup, and it doesn't need to be for the annexation of Crimea and the ongoing invasion to be wrong, which they are. All made up reasons do is give your opponents ammunition.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
"we promise ;)"
The part of the electorate that benefits from fracking, an even bigger border wall, children in cages at the border, and genocide is not big enough to move the needle. Plus, anyone who looks at those issues and considers them important is much more likely to vote for Trump anyway. Her platform was regressive dog shit, and that's why people didn't vote for her (and the genocide of course).
You can continue with the strategy of blaming the voters, but look where that got you. Just from a completely pragmatic perspective, look where that got you. The past three cycles you keep running candidates no one's excited about, on essentially republican platforms, with the main selling point being that they're not Trump (which is a veiled threat, at best). You managed to beat Trump only two out of the three times, and you had a massive pandemic helping you with the one time you did beat him with this strategy.
Eh, you know what, maybe you're right. Let's run on an even more right wing platform four years from now (maybe we can be anti-trans or whatever to attract more moderate republicans, like the 0% we managed to attract this cycle), let's tell the voters they're awful people if they vote for the other side, and maybe this time it'll work
Hear hear! I mean, how dare they not vote for the democrats? Don't they know how this works? Do they think the parties are supposed to "earn" their votes by campaigning for policies that will benefit the electorate? That's fucking childish!
They lost the election by running an essentially republican candidate. Fingers crossed for a progressive chair.
I totally agree, broken system and all. Still a free market. The free market is inherently a broken system.
So the fact that "more stats abt people living paycheck to paycheck" would convince you strongly, strongly indicates that I'm not explaining myself well enough. I'm not under the impression that if I did communicate effectively you would magically be convinced. And that's not necessarily my goal, but I would like to be able to have a productive convo with you, so I'm gonna give it another shot.
Here's two facts that I'm convinced of:
- if a consistent set of policies/campaign promises enjoy massive popular support across the aisle, then making such positions a core part of your campaign and your efforts when elected will give you a much higher chance of getting elected
- progressive policies (i.e., paid sick leave, parental leave, union-strengthening laws, universal health care, antitrust legislation, increasing solvency of social security, and so on (note that I do not mention culture war stuff)) enjoy broad popular support, across the aisle, in all states
If you believe these facts (and you don't need to), then an unavoidable conclusion is that if Harris would've run a progressive campaign, she would've had a much higher chance of winning.
The weakness in my argument is the two facts I mentioned. They require evidence. I've given a smidge of evidence for the second fact (the smoking gun of the ballot measures in Missouri). A better way to go about it is to find some policy oriented polls targeting a good cross section of the electorate which show that people (R, D, and I) generally support progressive policies (think paid sick leave, think universal health care).
The first fact is much harder to prove, but I would argue that common sense gets you a long way here. But for a more empirical approach, look at the Sanders and Obamna campaigns and the fairly broad and enthusiastic support they enjoyed.
The reason I think I wasn't explaining myself well enough is because the stats you're asking for do almost nothing to support my argument. At best, they're indirect, weak, evidence of the second fact. It shouldn't convince you if I find you some stats about the working homeless and paycheck-to-paycheck livers.
EDIT: I feel like I understand a bit better where your response is coming from. You think that I'm arguing in favor of the effectivity of progressive policies, rather than the popularity. I happen to believe both, but we're talking about why the dems lost, and in a democracy, the popularity of policies is what matters un such discussions, not their effectivity. Again, it's a bit off topic, but for the effectivity you could look at the rate of homelessness and paycheck-to-paycheck situations in more progressively legislated and often poorer countries in western Europe. You'll find that aside from popular (which is what matters here), these policies are also crazy effective.
The point that I'm making is that across the board, progressive policies are popular. And that does win elections, just look at Obamna's and Sanders' campaigns. That one state was just one extreme example of this fact.
If only someone had warned us in 1867, 1885, and 1894!
I completely agree with you that the results (monopolies and oligopolies) are undesirable, and you're doing a great job of explaining why the results are undesirable. But you're not explaining why you think monopolies and oligopolies are not the natural outcome of a free market. The free market is not a good thing.
What are you talking about, this is the natural conclusion of a free market.
Parent comment: this is culture war libertarian agitative propaganda
You: yeah but don't you feel agitated? Please debate me on culture war shit
I think the only response you deserve is a poop emoji.
In 1831, a group of slaves led by fellow slave Nat Turner rebelled against the white slave owners. The command issued was simple: "kill all whites". And they did. They killed about 55 white men, women, and children. Ten victims were 5 years or younger. The retaliation of the white slave owners was extensive. For example, in the immediate aftermath, 120 slaves were killed. The material conditions of the enslaved worsened significantly. Despite this violence, and the even more violent retribution, the abolitionists never condemned Nat Turner. John Browne goes so far as calling him an inspiration. Today, we honor Nat Turner as a hero. There's a park in New Jersey named after him, among other things.
History is rife with examples of violent struggle against violent oppression, and it's never pretty. The ANC (anti-apartheid movement in South Africa, party of Mandela) bombed civilians, the Hatian revolution involved the mass killing of French colonizers. Invariably, they kill civilians, and invariably, we look back on them as heroes playing a fundamental role in liberation.
Israel is an apartheid state, just like South Africa was. Gaza has been described as a concentration camp. It's one of the most densely populated regions in the world, borders completely controlled by Israel, you cannot get out. Half the inmates are children. The regular bombings since 2008 of this concentration camp (referred to as mowing the lawn) have killed thousands. The massacres at Sabra and Shatila, directed by the IDF, claiming in three days the lives of up to 3500 palestinians, were genocide. The occupation at the end of the six day war of the Golan heights, the Sinai peninsula, the Gaza strip and the West Bank resulted in the displacement of 400,000 arabs. This is ethnic displacement.
During the march of return, a peaceful protest in 2019 in Gaza, Israel had snipers deliberately target medics, the elderly, children, and the disabled. They were aiming for the knees, maiming some for life, killing others. Thousands were injured, hundreds killed, hospitals overrun. Despite this gruesome response, the protest went largely ignored around the globe, and nothing changed for Gazans.
When peaceful resistance against a violent apartheid ethnostate does nothing, what is to be done? If there is any justice in the world, we will look back on October 7th as we do on Nat Turner's slave revolt, or the Warsaw uprising. I hope that one day I can walk in Yahya Al-Sinwar park.
as far as economic measures go, it is. Inflation is still fucking people over, but the popular sentiment sort of lags the economy. But just because inflation is brutal on goods, doesn’t mean that inflation is high, or that the economy is “struggling” it’s just that people don’t feel good about rising tides.
80% of people live paycheck to paycheck. Don't bullshit me.
they talk, but don't act
The main messaging from the Harris campaign seemed to consist of:
- the economy is fine
- immigrants are fentanyl carrying criminals and we need to build the border wall
- fracking good
- war good (continued expansion of Israel, keep arming Ukraine instead of pushing for a diplomatic resolution, and let's invade Iran next with the most lethal fighting force in the world)
- what, do you want a DANG CHEETO in the white house?
They don't walk the walk of a pro worker party, but they sure as shit don't talk the talk either.
Crumbling empire
These stats are about the policy preferences of the electorate, while OP is about the politicians. But your picture is a fantastic illustration as to why the democrats lost the election. It's because they keep moving further right (look for example at their recent pro-fracking, pro-border wall, pro-genocide presidential candidate).