Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
I mean, I have to say, so far in the running she seems to be the one that's at least trying to gather support from the left of the party, rather than distancing herself as far from us as possible. With the current leaders like Gavin Newsome, who's desperately trying to throw us under the bus, backing the billionares, and harris who's feeling that her 2024 failure was because she was too far left.
So yeah she's a flawed candidate, but so far I haven't seen a better option yet.
You need to build coalitions to be voted in, in American politics. I would love to vote for a candidate that is willing to build those coalitions with the actual left rather than salivate over guilty Trump voters. Or verbally fellate right wing personalities while they dunk on you over and over. Like seriously fuck Gavin Newsome.
I might even be excited and motivated by an AOC campaign.
What's actually terrible? Guilty Trump voters love Leftist politics when we speak plain fucking English instead of Hundred-Year-Old Marx-textbook-speech.
Remember when Bernie went to a town hall on Fox News? I promise, you can do that too. Just don't be a raging asshole in the moment, maybe start by going off on how disingenuous Liberals are for about 5 minutes, and explain that "no socialist thinks that word means what you've been told it means."
It isn't as hard as we make it. The Right Wing, to some extent, ALWAYS wins hardest by pretending to be us. Its time to have some hard, adult conversations with our coworkers, neighbors, family, etc.
In response to the "100 year old language" I do think it's important to not use terminology that is predefined in people's heads to be "bad" when communicating policy. We don't have to do that to with "public owned grocery stores" for example. A lot of leftist terminology is only know by people through the definitions given by liberalism.
But, when critics inevitably start saying "that's Marxist!" its very very important that a politician doesn't try and say "no, it's not. ".
Instead, the defense to that should always be a clear and simple "I don't care what you call it. If having affordable groceries is 'Marxist' to you then ok" Leave it there. I absolutely hate hate hate when politicians put themselves on defense for no reason. They are afraid of the labels from the right and should not be.
Doing this form of agreement as a defense literally makes their "It's Marxist" attack help leftist politics in the long term. You don't have to take the labels of the left as an attack. They are only that way if you accept their definitions. Every time people hear "I guess is Marxist" it is literally helping to correct the lies about socialism in their heads.
The long term consequences of this will actually be that we are allowed to use the language of working class struggle to describe things. It's not really that it's "100 year old language" for why it's bad for communicating right now. It's that for over 100 years it has been allowed to be defined by liberals.
So, you're right, in the short term. But the goal isn't to "not use that language". The goal is gradually remove the predefined ideas of what leftist terms mean (as defined by liberals) and show what they actually result in; through actual policy that helps people.
We will handicap ourselves in the long run if we are constantly trying to pretend that we have to dissociate ourselves from Marxist vocabulary. It doesn't have to be the center of our communication right now. But running from it when it comes up (and it will) is even worse.
I do think it’s important to not use terminology that is predefined in people’s heads to be “bad” when communicating policy
Then you surrender to the opposition's framing and end up in semantic contortions because you don't stand your ground.
That's the conclusion you made from my comment? Like, what do you think I'm talking about here?
Like, at most, you could ask for clarification on what "bad" things I mean here. I could definitely explain that better here.
But, damn, what a jump to a conclusion you made. Especially given the context that the rest of my comment was literally about the importance of NOT being afraid of the language of "the left".
Maybe my comment wasn't directed at you? Maybe I was trying to explain something to someone with the opposite belief of you and I?
Sure, fundamentally people who engage with a right wing version of a populist message are still looking for the same things. But where the separation happens is how these groups deal with negative externalities.
A random person who is part of a right wing coalition in the US will burn down everything good to ensure that someone they don't like doesn't get even a taste of a good life. Then you just have convince them who that enemy is. Compassion is a true weakness when the person you are compassionate for isn't you in a mirror.
I'm not saying you don't reach out with a message, I'm saying don't be fooled into thinking people who agree with making a living wage and universal Healthcare agree with EVERYONE making a living wage and having Healthcare. In fact they would rather not have it if it means you also get it.
I really have to disagree with that last part. Or, at least in the way you're framing it as unchangeable.
It is looking at the world from the perspective of idealism. Meaning that the people that you say "would rather not have something if it means someone they hate also gets it"
You're starting with that "thought" as being the origin of what makes the world the way it is. That there are just some people that think that way. So there is nothing to be done for that.
It's, in a similar way, how right wingers think about homeless people. That there are just some people that choose to be homeless. That it is unchangeable through changes to our systems or structures or education. They point to the one guy that says "I want to live here" to justify it as unchangeable and unsolvable.
Now, are people that "think that way" able to have their minds changed? Maybe not all. Maybe not most. I'd agree that it's likely a waste of time to work on changing the minds of those people directly.
What I am talking about is what are the ideas and material circumstances that lead people to becoming that way? Their type of believe is antihuman. It's antisocial. It's even harmful to themselves. How can we prevent people growing up today from becoming people that think that way. THAT is what's important in understanding.
So, I guess I'll just ask you what you think. What makes people believe that harming themselves is good as long as it harms another group MORE? Racism, sexism, etc. Yes. But you and I both know those are all lies they believe. Lies about gender. Lies about race. What is something that is true in their belief that they use those lies to answer?
I’d agree that it’s likely a waste of time to work on changing the minds of those people directly.
Now add the urgency factor. They are fucking with us right now, and that will only get worse until we stop them. That's a power issue, not a matter of judicious application of sweet reason.
Not sure what point you're making in the context of what you quoted. You're replying to a comment that was written to try and help someone with a specific belief ("people are just like that") and get them to attempt to think of the material factors that caused that belief.
My point was that "people just think that way" is a self defeating perspective. I believe that we CAN defeat and prevent harmful ideas that are rooted (not in the mind alone) but influenced and accepted because of material causes.
So, I can't really tell what you mean. Are you saying that trying to "convince" them is unfruitful? If so, I agree. Someone is often very times unable to simply change their beliefs through the introduction of well explained reason.
But, that was going to be my conclusion. I was attempting to baby step them there. That people are not quickly moved through ideas. The masses are moved through the material conditions that govern those ideas.
A young adult able to afford rent and to live is less likely to join the military and bomb brown children. A young adult that doesn't have to work 7 days a week for multiple jobs is less likely to believe ideas of white supremacy that promise them comforting lies.
People aren't "just like that". There are very real and very quickly changeable conditions that influence someone's probability of being "like that".
Sorry. A rant. But since you replied I wanted to at least get to the conclusion I was trying to reach in conversation.
Ahh idealism, I remember that shit. I think people suck at a fundamental level, only humans are capable of being anti human, and they do it frequently. You want a rational answer to an irrational response, the answer is that it doesn't matter. Spin your wheels trying to dig turds out of a toilet.
Just a downvote and no response? I'm ok with a misunderstanding mate. I honestly thought I was a good conversation to have and liked your initial comment. But, damn, you confuse the meaning of a word I used and give a snarky reply you're gonna get one in return.
I didn't downvoted any of your comments, I'm just done with thy convo, that was my last piece.
What you are doing is "Idealism" literally in your response. Here, I'll help you out, because you seem to be confused.
Idealism is a philosophical approach that prioritizes mind, spirit, or consciousness as the primary reality, asserting that material things exist only as perceptions or mental constructs
You asserted that "people are just that way". You are an Idealist. You think that these people come to these beliefs first through their mind. Not through their lived experiences.
I think you are confusing "Idealism" with someone being "idealistic". Because your response really sounds like you have no idea what I was talking about.
Wait, what has Harris actually doing/saying? I haven't seen much about her policies and plans since she lost.
if we see anyone as better than a "flawed candidate", we need to take off the rose colored glasses. good at keeping your head on straight.
There's never going to be a flawless candidate. If that bothers people then they should work on building non-representative forms of politics.
Garbage article title against the only viable democratic candidate.
once saw her as Bernie Sanders 2.0 but now think she's more pragmatist than revolutionary
What hot fucking nonsense is this? No shade on bernie but no one left of john mccane thinks sanders is a revolutionary. He's a pragmatic leftist who joined the dems for pragmatic reasons.
once again dnc party leader “cuck scammer” was one of the only 7 democrats to vote against sander motion to ban weapons sale to Israel.
aoc should totally push out this shameless stooge working for israel and republicans.
Strangely click bait title. None of the contents of the article indicates a severe back and forth or her having strong negative feelings towards the democratic socialists (progressives?). It all seems to stem from:
What, are they just recycling Obamas first run articles and merely replacing the names?
AOC shouldn't run for president. She should be in the senate in Schumer's seat.
Yeah, being a Republican but wearing a Democrat cloak doesn't really fool everyone.
The only problem is that America would rather vote for Trump than a woman. Not sure if it's ready yet.
I'm sick of hearing this. Hillary Clinton was roundly disliked by a lot of people, not just conservatives. Remember when she tried to ban GTA San Andreas over the Hot Coffee mod? She literally went out of her way to center Trump in the media and used her media connections to promote Trump and Cruz as whackadoos, unintentionally giving Trump more media coverage. She thought for sure she was gonna be running against Jeb Bush in the general, which put a lot of people off who didn't want another Bush or Clinton in the White House. She was rude to her constituents. She told a young black woman who had spend $1000 to be able to meet with Mrs. Clinton that she should stop complaining and run for office herself. Why are we going to continue to ignore a historically unpopular choice as a candidate and someone who doubled down on her worst takes, like being proud of her friendship with war criminal and former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Maybe it's not women as much as that specific woman.
Harris was a better candidate, but because Biden wouldn't step away we didn't get a primary, and that left a lot of voters feeling very much like we've had candidates forced down our throat by the DNC that weren't really chosen by the people for 10 fucking years running. Why can't we consider that maybe treating your voters like shit and constantly swinging to try to capture Republican voters instead of, you know, getting their own voters excited just isn't that big of a draw. For real, bringing out Dick "Darth Vader" war criminal Cheney was fucking idiotic because the shit him and GW Bush pulled helped set the stage for Trump. I think this attitude that "America won't vote for a woman" is a poor and honestly sexist misreading of the political climate.
People didn't want a political dynasty with Clinton, just like they didn't want another Bush (Jeb) who happened to be a man in the same election. Americans generally are against political dynasties because Americans are generally fickle and want to be able to kick out the last bastard. The conservatives for whatever reason are just too fuck stupid to see that Trump is breaking every system that allows them to do so.
Anyway, bottom line. I don't believe that America won't elect a woman. I firmly believe that if AOC actually ran on the platforms she actually cares about that she would walk all over the competition. I believe our last two women candidates were wrong place, wrong time, wrong situation and that this idea is the wrong conclusion to take from the outcomes.
I think AOC could be the next Obama. And by that I don't mean policy but popularity.
People got excited about someone not afraid to rock the boat.
People liked his charisma. AOC has charisma too though she does need to up her game on that.
She should look to mamdani for some tips.
Humor is a good way to get people to like you. Yes it's shallow but most voters are swayed by these things.
I think with the right advertising and PR team she can get people hopeful again. Exited for her.
Being strong against wars. No funding Israel. And universal healthcare. Lowering rent. Lower grocery cost. And anti pedo. Promise to investigate Epstein files properly.
These things will win the people's vote.
No pandering to specific groups. But to the masses.
think AOC could be the next Obama.
I think you're right, but not necessarily in the ways you listed. The main thing I think about Obama is how far short he fell from his promises and his potential. Brilliant at sales, but generally mediocre at delivery. He did become more decisive towards the end of his second term, but it still wasn't enough. I could see the same happening to AOC if she gives too much of an ear to the centrists in the Democratic Party.
As another reference point: by all accounts, Biden as VP was even more risk-averse than Obama. And that was true during his presidency as well. But Biden never promised change. The implied offer from him was, at best, competently managed decline.
I think Harris is closer to Biden in this way. She'll always be corporate-friendly, and she'll never stop backing Israel, no matter what its crimes may be. Anyone as confrontation-averse as she is is going to be nothing but another disappointment.
Hillary is an intelligent woman with considerable experience, but with a record of piss-poor political choices. And yeah, cosying up to Kissinger and Cheney were among the worst of those. Her botched health-care reform efforts when Bill was president also showed her to be a formulator of overly complex policies, and an inept negotiator who's servile to big corporations.
Add to that her arrogant tone, sense of entitlement and general unlikeability (though it's reported that she's not like that in small groups) and you have a person who should never have been a candidate for high office.
And in spite of all you mentioned, Clinton still won the national popular vote. The people have already voted for a woman to be president.
I promise you the DNC will not allow AOC to win especially if she runs on a progressive ticket. They will shut her out she like they did Sanders.
People who wouldn't vote for a woman are already Trump voters. Run a woman with an appealing platform to working class people and she will win
It has nothing to do with gender. The DNC assumes that if old, white, straight male politics is coming out of the mouth of a woman then it will be palatable. If you haven't figured it out, we are not OK with status quo anymore, regardless of whose mouth that's coming out of.
Maybe them both being terrible candidates had something to do with their loss?
Definitely did not help.
Left wing dems, as opposed to the right wing ones? 😑
Correct
Democrats have always been a center-right party.
Not the least bit true, center on the political scale does not move, the political parties do. If we overlaid today's political scale from that of 1980, today's Democrats would be to the far right of Ronald Reagan.
In what respect? Frankly, this sounds ridiculous.
There are no left wing dems, Liberalism is a right wing ideology.