6d ago

One party deserves criticism for being insufficient. One party deserves nothing but scorn and opposition.

You're viewing a single thread.

247 comments

I'd argue that Nancy Pelosy is more representative of the dems than AOC.
- Well, I’d argue Nancy is more representative of wealthy American neo-liberals, which most of us are not.
  I’d even argue is Nancy even a dem at this point she’s more of a centrist parading around as a dem.
  
  Nancy is more representative of wealthy American neo-liberals
  Yes which is much closer to who the Dems are representing as a whole
  
  That’s fair I’d agree with it.
  
  No, based upon the popularity of policies, AOC is FAR closer to representing normal people than more conservative democrats like Pelosi are?
  There is a reason people hate centrist corporate democrats, it is because they don't even pretend to push policies people desperately need.
  
  people hate centrist corporate democrats
  Then why do we keep electing them in primaries?
  
  While Nancy's actual politics may be more centrists than dem, shes still one of the old guards that must go away for any actual change in the party.
  
  Dems are centrists.
  
  Dems are a far right party that only look centrist if you squint looking at them from inside fascist crazy town.
  To basically anyone in the developed world, of which we are not, Luigi murdered a mass murderer, to any fascist or neoliberal here, we have to let murderers for profit let the free market decide who gets life saving healthcare, as just 1 of innumerable examples.
  Neoliberals don't squee like little girls at the hello kitty store when people suffer and die needlessly when it facilitates private profit as the Fascists do, but they don't see it as the social fabric betrayal and atrocity it is either. "free market forces, mr dying homeless person, but I support your right to die in the gutter of hunger and exposure as any identity you choose!" Because it's free to, but people need their basic survival met first, and that takes resources that go to them and not the robber barons that pay off both parties.
  
  agreed. In context, they're centrists for the States. Bernie is only barely left of center to the rest of the world but considered extreme here by corporate media and the other government clowns.
  
  Bernie is only barely left of center to the rest of the world
  When people say dumbass shit like this it makes me wonder what part of the world they are talking about.
  All of Africa: right wing compared to America
  Most of South America: right wing compared to America
  Pretty much all of Asia: right wing compared to America
  Middle East: lmao
  Russia: lmao
  Europe: about 70% right wing or similar to America with a handful of countries that might be considered left wing maybe but are sliding right as well.
  The British Commonwealth: about the same as America except for the healthcare aspect.
  Maybe you consider Antarctica left wing? Maybe the Oceans? Maybe the only part of the world that exists to these idiots are uber white Aryan nordic countries only? Or maybe you live in a fantasy dimension and are somehow communicating to us through a wormhole via Lemmy.
  
  Europe is absolutely not as you describe. That's what the media feeds you in North America.
  
  Oh so Hungary is left wing?
  https://www.newsweek.com/europe-france-germany-elections-far-right-map-1910280
  https://www.politico.eu/article/mapped-europe-far-right-government-power-politics-eu-italy-finalnd-hungary-parties-elections-polling/
  https://eupoliticalbarometer.uc3m.es/dashboard/ideology
  https://www.indy100.com/politics/map-europe-far-right-government
  Even if you claim Europe is more left wing than America (which is obviously debatable at this point) it still doesn't change the fact that Europe isn't "the rest of the world".
  
  Spoken like someone who cannot speak a single language outside of American English, who has never met a Western European. We are not a monoculture.
  
  Quite a lot of assumptions you have there and still not one real refutation of any of my points. Lol.
  
  I swear to gawd not all yanks are as twisted as that cat. Tho i and most do only speak yankity hahaha
  
  You made a meme just for lil 'ol me? How sweet.
  
  I totally agree with you she must go, she’s part of the let’s maintain the status quo dems.
  
  The Dems are centrists. They always have been.
  
  she’s more of a centrist parading around as a dem.
  And that perfectly represents the party as a whole.
  
  Sounds like you don't know what a Dem is
  
  You know "centrist" is not a political party, right? Fuckin kids these days, what are they teaching you...
  
  Literally nothing considering I’m an adult these days. But how’s being a smug ass hat been going for ya?
  
  Better than not being one, I guess
  
  That's a funny take. The former speaker of the house who hand selected her replacement and was the leader of the Democratic caucus for more than a decade, and you're basically calling them a DINO
  
  MAGA regularly calls Mitch McConnell a RINO. Why should we handle Nancy any differently?
  
  Right, lol. I guess the other user thought they had me in some sort of gotcha moment.
  
  You guys are so right, maga does it, that means it's correct
  /S
  
  It means that a true Democrat or Republican is one who represents the views of their constituents. Not who holds the reins of power in their respective parties. This is a valid definition.
  
  I don't believe that is a valid definition. A good politician is someone who represents the views of their constituents. A true Democrat (or whatever party) is someone who represents the views of the party. The views of the party may be influenced by party candidates on behalf of their constituents, but those views are decided upon by a group of people that aren't elected by a public ballot and have no obligation to democratic voters. If you don't like the platform of the party, you're supposed to go join a different party (but we're kinda fucked with that right now). If you're talking about who represents the views of the democratic party, it's difficult to find someone who represents them better than Pelosi.
  
  Instead of valid definition I should have said a "good definition". There is no real definition of a "true Democrat" or vice versa for Republicans. Both your definition and my definition are valid definitions.
  If you don't like the platform of the party, you're supposed to go join a different party
  The other option is to slowly replace the members of the party in positions of power. Why do you think AOC is encouraging young people to run for office? She has the right idea.
  The fact of the matter is that the US has a two party political system. This isn't changing unless one of the parties gains power and essentially gives it up to implement a new system.
  Another fact is that young people aren't running for office so all of our politicians are part of the gerontocracy and all hold particular views from having been born in a generation most of us no longer relate with.
  The only way to change things is to get young people into office at the lower levels and work their way up by building political careers until they are the ones in the positions of power in the DNC.
  The ones who will hold the reins and make change happen are the ones who actually decide to run for office. This is the system of the United States that allows it's citizens to control what happens in the higher echelons of government.
  Yes voting is a part of it but it sounds like you are unhappy with the choices you are given to vote for and that's purely because the people you would like to vote for are not running for office and winning. If they are running and not winning that is because they are not popular with the public which is another conversation but I think the majority of you are getting stuck in the "not feeling like doing anything but protesting" phase and not actually running for office.
  
  I still don't think your definition is valid or good and I didn't really see any argument that said otherwise. Immediately after the part you quoted I did say "(but we're kinda fucked with that right now)" which was in reference to our 2 party system, so yes I understand that part.
  The other option is to slowly replace the members of the party in positions of power.
  This isn't changing unless one of the parties gains power and essentially gives it up to implement a new system.
  in the positions of power in the DNC.
  Statements like these reveal why the definition I stated is more accurate. That there's a party line that politicians in that party are expected to follow. You use those statements to argue that we should be trying to change what that party line is, which I take no issue with and seems to be a goal of AOC and some others. But we're talking about who is a better example of a Democrat which has zero meaning without the democratic party. And Pelosi is an excellent example of what the party is while AOC is an example of what you would like the party to be. You do need to recognize where the party is before you can figure out how to steer it in the direction you're hoping for.
  And you're right about this being a different conversation but I still want to say a little something about
  If they are running and not winning that is because they are not popular with the public
  Because this seems like a pretty naive sentiment. First because a large percentage of the public simply doesn't vote. Also the current tribalism of our 2 party system is the most important thing for many if not most of those that do vote. But most importantly, having good and popular ideas or even saying good and popular things is not what gets you elected in this country. Our political system relies on the advertising model. If you package it right and put it in front of enough people, it doesn't actually matter what is being said. That's how someone like Trump gets elected. Which I guess is a form of being popular, but I don't think that's what you meant by it.
  Here's an incongruity that applies to both conversations. A supermajority of democratic voters support government run healthcare, but it's nowhere to be seen in the DNC platform.
  
  My argument for why either definition works is that "true Democrat" is a value judgement and different individuals will have different values. MAGA calls McConnell a RINO because he doesn't align with their values of perceiving Trump as infallible. Now they might be wrong in their belief but they have the right to define who they want as a RINO just as constituents of the Democrat party have the right to label who they please as a DINO if they don't meet their criteria of a "true Democrat".
  There is no such thing as a "true Democrat" or "true Republican" since both of these are contrived things.
  So when you are arguing over what is the correct definition, it's a waste of time because there is no true definition.
  You can support your argument with what you believe are good supportive evidence but again there is no such thing as an empirical "true -insert-party-here-".
  I may respond to the rest of your post later but I'm in the middle of my workday so please excuse me at least until this afternoon for a more in depth response.
- The centers of both parties are functionally allies, the power structure of the Democratic party despises the kind of progressive politics AOC and Bernie do far more than the Republicans they claim to oppose even when those Republicans are literal out in the open fascists. Chuck Shumer is exhibit A and will become a historical touchstone for discussions about how neoliberalism always in the end sets up the conditions for fascism and then pathetically collapses in the crucial moment of resistance against fascism.
  Fuck that, both parties need to go, how many times has the Democratic party laughed in the face of Bernie as they blatantly undermined him?
  No, I treat Republicans as an existential threat, which means I also logically see the entrenched power structures of the Democrats that are happy to lose to Republicans rather than evolve, as an existential threat.
  Pelosi is a Democrat through and through, AOC and Bernie are Democrats because they have no choice in the status quo.
  
  The progressives need a build a new party before we destroy the existing ones.
  
  Says who?
  
  Common sense.
  
  Weak response, provide evidence that trying to reform the Democratic party is a better strategy.
  They will not change their strategy, the organization is structurally incapable of it, how much more proof do you need?
  
  Maga fundamentally changed the Republican Party but you’re saying the progressives are unable to do the same?
  Why wouldn’t they be able to?
  
  Because they weren't afraid of change before we are "ready for it" like you are, which is the only reason the tea party worked. They were willing to tear everything down if it wasn't working, and that made the rest of the Republican party blink.
  Your strategy is exactly the kind of political pushback people like Shumer and Pelosi prefer, because it is strategically ineffectual at threatening their power.
  
  MAGA put in the time and effort to reform the GOP which I haven’t seen progressives do.
  They’re still stuck on their guy losing the primary nine years ago.
  
  You are a fool if you believe any of that.
  
  I calls 'em like I sees 'em.
  
  Anyone who wants to exist under a non-fascist government?
  
  We are past that point already?
  
  A fair point.
  I would point, however, to that emphasizing the need to create a progressive party, rather than prioritizing the destruction of the now-castrated Dems.
  
  The entrenched power structure is always going to narrativize a genuine alternative to the Democratic party as harsh toned leftists destroying things to destroy things, so if you are afraid of that in your rhetoric (even if you end up supporting more reform like policies in the end) you are already making it incredibly easy to be walked all over by people that resist all change.
  No, the strategy is to go for the throat of the DNC and happily back off when they realize you aren't messing around and give material concessions to the people they are supposed to represent. This is why the tea party was unfortunately successful, now is when the left does our version.
  If that breaks the Democratic party in the process, that is their fault for building a house of cards indifferent to the suffering of people in the US.
  
  Bruh, "Have a new tool ready before you get rid of the old one" isn't being afraid of leftism, even rhetorically. It's asking leftists to treat this scenario seriously, and not like the population of the US is just waiting to burst out singing the Internationale as soon as the right vanguard pops up on the scene.
  
  I think in this moment as a leftist I am asking centrists like you to take the blinders you have on seriously.
  Can you not see it is evident that the U.S. populace is far more ready to throw the status quo out than you are?
  There is no center to defend here, change is the only option and your only choice is whether that change is directly into fascism (which is what advocating for centrism in a moment like this ultimately does) or into a progressive, forward thinking bold vision of the future.
  We need a green new deal, not some lame ass policy propped up by Biden, Hillary, Shumer... and from the very beginning the visions put out by centrist Democrats are steeped in a cynical complete lack of vision that surpasses even Conservatives in inability to see any change in the status quo (though their visions are far scarier of course).
  There is no "returning" to anything, there is only moving forward and centrist Democrats legitimately scare the shit out of me with how baby like they are with being afraid of change, it puts the future of this country in great peril.
  
  Can you not see it is evident that the U.S. populace is far more ready to throw the status quo out than you are?
  Jesus Christ.
  I think in this moment as a leftist I am asking centrists like you to take the blinders you have on seriously.
  Talk to people outside of your circles. Check polls, even if they disagree with your preconceptions.
  This country is not as left-wing as you think it is, and it just elected a literal outright unashamed fascist.
  
  Progressives have not put in the time and effort of making something like you are describing.
  Maga did and reformed the GOP but progressives are content not voting and idly removed on twitter.
  Put in the effort and maybe people will take you seriously.
  
  So what? That does not negate the stated want.
  
  The bi partisan police state and Military Industrial Complex existed before Trump ever took public office.
  
  Weird how evolution takes time.
  
  Actually one of the biggest arguments in geology/evolutionary biology is whether evolution tends to be a slow, continous steady process or whether it happens in explosive spurts seperated by periods of little evolution.
  There is abundant evidence that both happens, so your metaphor is tenous at best.

247 comments