You make some good points. It’s a case of why not both. There is a way to own socialism mainly by appealing to Western Europe, Scandinavia, Australia, Canada. Learning from what works and if people want to call it socialism, fine.

It’s time for Democrats to own socialism. It’s milquetoast appeals to centrism that make the party boring and come across as dishonest.

That doesn’t mean being unreasonably uncompromising or unpragmatic when it comes to getting things done across the isle in government, but at least be true to your ideals and aspirations.

Bernie would have easily beaten Trump if voters had the option. AOC will likewise wipe the floor. A real alternative not more of the same.

Why fight when (a) it’s not going to change anything and (b) winning the fight gets you a worse outcome.

If it isn’t going to change anything but there’s a reason to fight on principle, by all means. But fighting for its own sake makes you look stupid and immature.

You seem to be having a different argument to me. Are you abandoning politics altogether then?

I want to see an alternative to the big two as much as anyone. We don’t get there through opting out of civic participation.

Armed revolution i.e. civil war will likewise just be a disster. Countless deaths and decades of chaos aren’t worth a possibility of something that might be better, if there is any alternative.

You don’t have to be a centrist to be able to work with people whose priorities are not the same as your own. Most modern democracies actually have fairly healthy cooperation between different political parties who are quite far apart on the issues that matter the most to them.

How would you deal with these Nazis and other fellow Americans who you disagree with? Let’s say you’re the new president and your party controls both houses of government.

Trump is allowing people to be disappeared to El Salvador. Would you do the same to these people you call Nazis? What about the 45 million or so people who voted for this shit?

I agree the political situation sucks. But solutions aren’t easy, and eventually, at the end of the day, we have to be united or there is only war and violence forever.

I meant they shouldn’t have caved, and hopefully they don’t next time. I’m with you.

I am on the left though… 🙃

I agree that they shouldn’t have caved. That’s a different matter to OC. One appointee, and one that has a history of being less insane.

I don’t follow.

Not at all. I made a very specific critique of this moment.

I probably want what you do. I mean name a few changes or events that would make your day. That you think have a chance of happening if people do the right thing.

What are you actually trying to say the solution is?

I think you’re being understandably but uncessarily cynical for the purposes of this conversation.

I proudly call myself a far-leftist. Even a “woke” one. But victory for the ideals that drive us will not come from endless othering of those who we disagree with. Perfect is the enemy of the good, so the saying goes. I would say it’s now the enemy of even just a little bit better as opposed to so much worse.

With that being said, we should never compromise on expressing what we actually believe. I want universal basic income, guaranteed minimum income according to a livable wage, weath taxes, and much more aggressive income taxation of the 1% and 0.1%. I want universal healthcare, open borders, and end to private prisons. But fuck me if I won’t vote to make what social security we do have just a little bit better.

As politicians and lawmakers, we need to be the bigger party in the room that doesn’t stoop to their level.

I know right now things demand radical defence of democracy, but that doesn’t happen by politicians giving up what little power and platform they might have. They can go to work when they’re not out on the streets with the protestors.

Cynicism like this is why humanity is doomed. Or am I misreading you and you actually think things can (if not will) get better?

Plenty do. There is another budget vote in less than half a year.

That detail I didn’t know. If there was a chance to act on principle here I agree. Why not?

Nobody is voting for another year and a half. And hardly anyone for another three and a half years. Democrats need to pick the battles that matter.

That’s not what I said. There are better ways to fight.

Fight the turly terrible candidate choices, not the ones who you might actually have a chance of working productively with.

Chuck Schumer is abysmal and needs to step down, and he was wrong about the budget. But the essence of his argument has some truth - politics is a two-way street. In the rare case where there is a possibility of cooperation, that sets a better standard and will likely be more effective than endless partisanship.

Democrats reject this guy, a worse candidate is put forward next. Seems like a stupid hill to die on. They’re going to appoint somebody.

Edit: I didn’t know he’d be confirmed anyway. If true, then I agree a Democratic rejection out of principle would have been a better statement.

New Zealand? It’s called the “Citizen’s Advice Bureau” but it’s free for anyone. Doesn’t go as far as full representation, but it’s something.

Also our conservative government tried to defund it. Fuckers.

I agree with you, but her “exploitation” is basically using the tools capitalism handed her. The worst that could be said for her is that she might be aware of her privilege and not doing anything to give that up. But here’s the thing - what rational actor within capitalism who amasses any power would just give it all up? Benevolent intentions only get you so far, and principle rarely gets anyone anywhere in this world.

Edit: Unless it’s all bullshit, she’s probably done more good with her wealth than any other billionaire I know. Which might not be saying much, but says a lot for her candidacy as “not a complete piece of shit”. Something few ultra wealthy can claim.

We know poor people can’t get elected as well.