|
Harold Fjord posted:This is such an amazing burn on the Democratic Party. It perfectly defines what they exist to do. Get out ahead of voters. And here we are today. If they try and anticipate what programs will be popular, we return to the 'enough' rolling goalposts. You not being satisfied by the Dem's policies is not proof the party has moved to the right. https://twitter.com/thegallowboob/status/1432807620411215873?s=20
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 18:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 02:50 |
|
|
Sarcastr0 posted:2. That's a great example of my point! Jesse Jackson was a fringe candidate. Now that platform is getting talked about much more widely. That is absolutely evidence of motion to the left. Everything you're saying here is false. Jackson was a serious contender in '84 and '88; he won eleven primaries and caucuses in '88. Saying that there's been a leftward progression among the Dems since then completely ignores the fact that the party lurched massively to the right in the 90s. The best one could say is that the party is close to where it was on economic justice issues in '88 - but with a much more frayed social safety net, thanks in no small part to the Clinton Administration. With regard to Truman and LBJ, you just listed two presidents who supported a single-payer system. Biden emphatically does not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 18:46
|
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:It's not a party you can work with if it ignores and freezes you out until it sees that it has absolutely no other choice. I agree that the way to get democrats to do what you want is to browbeat and humiliate them until they realize they have no choice but to concede, but that's a funny way of saying that the party has anything to recommend it other than not being bloodthirsty maniacs. What defines "absolutely no other choice" / "no choice but to concede" here? Short of some news events where activists stormed the capitol building and threatened violence against legislators if they didn't pass a bill that I missed, it seems like you are putting scare word framing together to describe "ended up doing the thing the public and activists were telling them to do." Antifa Turkeesian posted:There have always been voters who wanted gay marriage. Shouldn't the party have listened to them? Why did it take a supreme court decision for Obama to say that he supported gay marriage? "There have always been voters who wanted...." is true of quite literally every policy position you can imagine. Was the critique not "democrats only do things once they reach 51% approval"? In 2004 when Obama came to prominence, support for same sex marriage was at 31%. In 2008, it was at 39%. The polling for same sex marriage support didn't exceed 50% until around 2014. https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/ Not coincidently, 2014 was around the time Obama started taking action consistent with someone who believes in same sex marriage. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/21/us/politics/obama-to-extend-array-of-marriage-benefits-to-gay-couples.html Him being wishy washy at best during his first term on same sex marriage and defaulting to 'civil unions' as the answer is consistent with the assertion that he was following the majority public sentiment at the time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 18:47
|
|
|
Perdue is running against Kemp in GA. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/12/05/perdue-georgia-governor-kemp-primary-523772 quote:Former Sen. David Perdue plans to announce he’ll challenge Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, setting up an epic Republican Party primary clash in one of the nation’s top battleground states.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 18:48
|
|
|
Thom12255 posted:Perdue is running against Kemp in GA. Well that is certainly good news for Stacey Abrams. It will be interesting to see how competitive the primary ends up being, given the close polling between Purdue and Kemp right now. That could end up being a costly drain.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 19:02
|
|
|
LegendaryFrog posted:What defines "absolutely no other choice" / "no choice but to concede" here? Is polling the right way to determine what is the right thing to do? If gay marriage had remained at 38% approval, would the right thing have been to continue to oppose it, or to refuse to advocate for it? I think the problem here is that some people want candidates who are honest about a political vision they want to achieve, that such people want candidates who share their political program to hold office and achieve that program. The alternative is a party of essentially empty people who follow the polls while finding ways of pretending that they genuinely believe and have always believed whatever position they adopt. You can call that pragmatism, but it’s a disavowal of politics as a method for improving life on Earth, and it doesn’t have much of a future. Did Obama care one way or another whether gay people could get married? I want to be represented by someone who is motivated by an ethical program.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 19:05
|
|
|
In today's "I thought they were dead already" news, Bob Dole finally kicked it age 98.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 19:13
|
|
|
Sarcastr0 posted:Says you. I see a pattern of 'Dems will never actually pass this, it's all theatre' followed by 'well the thing they passed was actually too small.' It's like goalpost moving clockwork. Weird how they never manage to pass anything substantial isn't it? You still don't have healthcare, your cities are still filling up with tent towns, the rich got a lot richer and the poor are literally dying in the streets. Buddy the goal posts are restoring basic human dignity and the dems aren't even in the right stadium.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 19:13
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:In today's "I thought they were dead already" news, Bob Dole finally kicked it age 98. Good. A thoroughly rotten individual who helped put us on the horrible path we're currently on. I'm not looking forward to the stream of hagiographies from the msm today. e: lmao https://twitter.com/kenklippenstein/status/1467538789388193792
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 19:17
|
|
|
So should there just be a thread for five minutes of hate on the Republicans? Would that fix the weird disagreement about people not focusing on the Republicans enough?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 19:19
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Ukraine looking like it may get a bit more Russian
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 19:20
|
|
|
Big "manufacturing consent" vibes from these pieces about Ukraine and Russia.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 19:24
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:So should there just be a thread for five minutes of hate on the Republicans? Would that fix the weird disagreement about people not focusing on the Republicans enough? Here's the thing: You expect all of the Republicans evil fuckery. They literally campaign on it. They brag about it. The Democrats keep trying to pass themselves off as the Good Guys, but then turn around and keep enabling the Republicans or saying poo poo about how we need to have a strong Republican party. So yeah, this thread overwhelmingly dumps on the Dems because they're being held to a higher standard. It's the same ballpark of thought as focusing more on Cops Murdering People than on Criminals murdering people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 19:25
|
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:Is polling the right way to determine what is the right thing to do? If gay marriage had remained at 38% approval, would the right thing have been to continue to oppose it, or to refuse to advocate for it? You can’t make a counterfactual without changing facts. The right question to ask here is what would have refer to be different about the nature of gay marriage for it to remain unpopular once enacted? For example, say ‘gay marriage’ had been part of a package deal in which all non-marital gay sex was recriminalized. That would have been bad, and so people observing it being bad would have not supported it. What you ideally want out of a politician is the ability to identify which potential policies _would_ be popular if enacted. This is often very different from whatever _currently_. has majority support.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 19:27
|
|
|
I can't think of anyone in my immediate family, all non-smokers, who lived to 98. Not quite the own it sounds like, to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 19:30
|
|
|
Sarcastr0 posted:
This argument seems to reflect an incredibly naive understanding of how the political sausage gets made. Popularity is A consideration, certainly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 19:30
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:If Democrats had won more elections over the last 25 years then Roe would be fine. Full stop. Why are you people talking about how this proves we have to vote third party? But if Republicans win even one election then Democrats help them pass anti-choice laws like the partial birth abortion ban, vote for anti-choice judges that Republicans nominate like Thomas, Alito, O'Connor, and Roberts, pass laws on the state level to give Republicans justices opportunities to chip away at Roe v Wade etc So yeah obviously if a party that doesn't care about an issue always wins then nothing happens to that issue, but by the same token if they don't always win and the other team moves the ball, they not only refuse to move it back when they're in power again, they actually help the other team score those goals. People are allowed to be upset about this. Voting for Democrats does not protect abortion rights. We don't live in a single party state so sometimes the other side is allowed to win. Voting for Democrats therefore merely affects the speed at which Republicans are able to restrict abortion rights. Because Democrats have to win 100% of every election ever for abortion to stay legal but Republicans can ban it with 40% VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Dec 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 19:32
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Everything you're saying here is false. Jackson was a serious contender in '84 and '88; he won eleven primaries and caucuses in '88. Saying that there's been a leftward progression among the Dems since then completely ignores the fact that the party lurched massively to the right in the 90s. The best one could say is that the party is close to where it was on economic justice issues in '88 - but with a much more frayed social safety net, thanks in no small part to the Clinton Administration. Yeah, Clinton moved the party right on economic issues, but not on social ones or environmental ones. It's also hard to ignore how that seemed politically necessary based on where the country was at the time - see the Dem's long time in the wilderness after Carter. Again, you can't curate your focus to make your thesis more sweeping than is supportable. Steps pack in one area is not 'moAnd ignoring a lot of the Democratic Party shying away from socialism since McCarthy on issues of spending. I brought up Truman and LBJ because someone else offered them for that exact thesis. The party is not the executive alone, especially back when the parties were weaker. Regarde Aduck posted:Weird how they never manage to pass anything substantial isn't it? You still don't have healthcare, your cities are still filling up with tent towns, the rich got a lot richer and the poor are literally dying in the streets. Buddy the goal posts are restoring basic human dignity and the dems aren't even in the right stadium. And while you may think the ACA and ARA and the like are too weak to garner your support, you don't get to pretend they're nothing or conservative.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 19:32
|
|
|
Taking big sacks of money from Tobacco lobbyists and developing a smoking habit oneself are not actually all that correlated, Dole could go around telling people cigarettes' aren't addictive because he was not himself a smoker. Dole lived to 98 because of those big sacks of money.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 19:36
|
|
|
This isn't an lmao. The guy lived until 98, he could have gotten lung cancer from anything given he was a century old. efb
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 19:38
|
|
|
And still Kissenger lives on somehow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 19:41
|
|
|
Cheesus posted:I can't think of anyone in my immediate family, all non-smokers, who lived to 98. Seriously, it's like the opposite of "life comes at you fast"
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 19:45
|
|
|
have any non-cancelled leftists had literally any electoral victories recently? Sawant was unironically one of the most prominent ones, albeit as a city councilor, and afaik she's facing an apparently quite motivated recall effort currently if you remove the 'non-cancelled' you have some successes in 2018?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 19:49
|
|
|
radmonger posted:You can’t make a counterfactual without changing facts. The right question to ask here is what would have refer to be different about the nature of gay marriage for it to remain unpopular once enacted? Yeah, which is the tract dems are often taking when in the times when they do make policy that hasn't reached that polling threshold. The ACA was not polling with majority support when it passed, and Democratic politicians at the time seemed pretty clear eyed about the likelihood that there would be short term negative electoral consequences for pushing forward with it anyway, but a combination of some sincerely held beliefs that it was the right thing to do and an expectation that it would grow more popular over time once passed led them to do so. Another example is DACA, which Obama knew would be used as political ammunition against democrats after establishing. Taking executive action on immigration was polling sub 40% when he did it (which was a big part of the reason why they delayed that action until right after the 2014 midterms). Sometimes, the party does things that carry immediate risk but do them anyway because of future payoff / wanting to do actual good. Other times, they change their political stances based on direction public support is moving. Again, both of these are the things I would expect out of a functional political party. Antifa Turkeesian posted:Is polling the right way to determine what is the right thing to do? If gay marriage had remained at 38% approval, would the right thing have been to continue to oppose it, or to refuse to advocate for it? I can understand taking the position of wanting a political party to be a hive mind of unified warriors that do everything in their power to enact the policies that you say are the objectively morally correct ones regardless of polling or majority public support... sure, that sounds quite nice actually! And the benevolent dictator who happens to agree with all of my individual positions model carries that same benefit but would be even more efficient in enacting them. However, in a reality where to have any power politicians have to actually get elected by winning more votes than their opponents, I don't agree that suggesting it is a good thing that a political party is willing to adapt its position to popular will represents a "disavowal of politics as a method for improving life on Earth". Quite the contrary, I'd suggest the willingness of our government to change with the times and evolve alongside its culture is responsible for a tremendous amount of the progress that has been seen over the last 244 years of this country.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 19:53
|
|
|
Cheesus posted:I can't think of anyone in my immediate family, all non-smokers, who lived to 98. Lung cancer sucks. The fact that he lived to 98 with his last few years in agony is a pretty big self-own. Sarcastr0 posted:A third place candidate winning 11 states is not a serious contender. I stand by what I said. With regard to social issues, I'm not seeing an overall leftward trend. Police violence against POCs is running rampant, yet they keep getting more and more funding; the '94 crime bill was a bipartisan atrocity that only hurt vulnerable communities; and we have literal concentration camps for non-white refugees that the Dems keep seeming to fail to close, for whatever reason. Welfare "reform" wasn't just an economic issue, either; it disproportionately immiserated non-white individuals and families and still does to this day. In terms of environmental issues, I'm also not seeing much leftward progress from the Dems. Every solution proposed is a market-oriented one, and even then, it's still too much to ask of the party establishment. quote:I brought up Truman and LBJ because someone else offered them for that exact thesis. The party is not the executive alone, especially back when the parties were weaker. Right, but you haven't demonstrated that there was less support for single-payer back during those presidencies than there is now. If there wasn't enough support then, and there isn't enough support now, but previous presidents supported single-payer then and the president now is vocally against it, that doesn't suggest progress. e: \/\/\/ Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Oh yeah that's right. Welp I guess we know what happens next. I hope Ukrainians are preparing. I know they're kinda doing their best but to just be completely abandoned by the west is upsetting. What could we do to stop Russia from interfering in Ukraine, exactly? Majorian fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Dec 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 19:56
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:We're all talk and flashy technology without the willingness to use it against anyone who can hit back. Oh yeah that's right. Welp I guess we know what happens next. I hope Ukrainians are preparing. I know they're kinda doing their best but to just be completely abandoned by the west is upsetting. VitalSigns posted:Nuclear war is bad, Heck Yes! Loam Why would it go nuclear? Ukraine doesn't have them, and NATO matching force build up wouldn't cause it either? The only way it would go nuclear is if Russia used them. Do you think they will do that? We should probably not let Russia destabilize Ukraine anymore than they already have. Letting them fall is not going to lead to less chances of nuclear war right? I doubt the conflict would stay in the borders of Ukraine once it started.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 20:00
|
|
|
Bob Dole did a Viagra parody pepsi ad - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBdgpjnKInA&t=81s
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 20:04
|
|
|
LegendaryFrog posted:Yeah, which is the tract dems are often taking when in the times when they do make policy that hasn't reached that polling threshold. The ACA was not polling with majority support when it passed, and Democratic politicians at the time seemed pretty clear eyed about the likelihood that there would be short term negative electoral consequences for pushing forward with it anyway, but a combination of some sincerely held beliefs that it was the right thing to do and an expectation that it would grow more popular over time once passed led them to do so. There is no such thing as objective morality. The point is to articulate a political vision and then people will vote for or against it. I’m not sure where dictatorship enters into the equation or how it’s tyrannical to promise voters that you’ll support gay rights irrespective of what polls show.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 20:07
|
|
|
When I was in high school I got to go behind the scenes at a TV newsroom (friend's dad worked there) and met a graphic designer who was working to prepare images for a then-hypothetical Bob Dole obituary segment. This was in the late 90s but now I'm wondering if those images still exist and got used
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 20:07
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Ukraine looking like it may get a bit more Russian Because everything we touch turns to blood and ashes? No, wait. That’s the reason we *shouldn’t* get involved. The actual reason is that there’s no profit in it for us.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 20:09
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:
Unless you're talking about just sending Ukraine weapons or something, but don't they have a Nazi-adjacent government, I'm skeptical that arming up Nazis in hopes it will achieve some short-sighted geopolitical goal in the Great Game is such a great idea idk
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 20:11
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Sure if Democrats had won every election then Roe v Wade would indeed be fine because they have no particular desire to destroy it themselves (on a federal level anyway) Sorry, this whole thing is incredibly loving stupid and the only way to pretend I'm wrong is to ignore what I said. I got involved in this debate because the assertion, that multiple people with terminal contrarianism disease made, was that Democrats are equally responsible as Republicans for the repeal of Roe v. Wade. And yet people act like "Oh, so you're saying NO DEMOCRAT has ever done anything negative with regards to abortion policy?" loving goalposts. You're talking about a vote over 15 years ago where a 2/3 of Democrats voted the right way while Willa talks about some dumbass blue dog governor from when I was in kindergarten. And just ignoring the consistent pro-choice position of an overwhelming percentage of Democrats for decades. "Voting for Democrats does not protect abortion rights" in the same post as "Sure if Democrats had won every election then Roe v Wade would indeed be fine". Jesus Christ. Just so loving stupid. I try to treat all kinds of points of views with some minimum level of respect around here, but I will not respect this stupid bullshit. Mellow Seas posted:They appointed Supreme Court justices who rule consistently in favor of abortion rights. That to many people, the only question whenever anything bad happens is "how can I blame Democrats", has never been more crystal clear here. "Because Democrats have to win 100% of every election ever for abortion to stay legal but Republicans can ban it with 40%" - your problem isn't with Democrats, it's with the terrible design of the US Constitution, with its hard-coded overrepresentation of rural interests, and some really bad breaks over the last 20 years. And honestly, 100% of elections? Seems to me here that one extra election would've done the trick. VitalSigns posted:Vote Blue and Democrats  I'll give you, maybe, 5%. That's incredibly generous. Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Dec 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 20:14
|
|
|
Majorian posted:With regard to social issues, I'm not seeing an overall leftward trend. Police violence against POCs is running rampant, yet they keep getting more and more funding; the '94 crime bill was a bipartisan atrocity that only hurt vulnerable communities; and we have literal concentration camps for non-white refugees that the Dems keep seeming to fail to close, for whatever reason. Welfare "reform" wasn't just an economic issue, either; it disproportionately immiserated non-white individuals and families and still does to this day. But do you think the '94 crime bill would get wide Democratic support today? You keep mixing up 'where we are is bad' with 'where we were was better.' Position is not the same thing as momentum. Majorian posted:In terms of environmental issues, I'm also not seeing much leftward progress from the Dems. And culturally, do you see how Manchin doesn't have a whole coal caucus behind him? That's a change. Majorian posted:You haven't demonstrated that there was less support for single-payer back during those presidencies than there is now. If there wasn't enough support then, and there isn't enough support now, but previous presidents supported single-payer then and the president now is vocally against it, that doesn't suggest progress.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 20:14
|
|
|
Vote Blue and Democrats E: Mellow Seas posted:
It's literally true though. I voted blue no matter who and the blues that didn't matter who won and are not protecting abortion rights. What you mean to say is if we had a single party state and Democrats always won every election they wouldn't actively destroy abortion rights themselves, which is true. But they do not protect them and often vote with Republicans to destroy them when Republicans are in power which they inevitably will be sometimes. No amount of voting for Democrats is going to change that. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Dec 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 20:21
|
|
|
You guys are so far up your own asses on this. “When Democrats lose elections, things that Democrats don’t want to happen, which are bad, happen” as an argument to not vote for Democrats is the most bonkers galaxy-brain poo poo imaginable, sorry. Try for one split god drat second to stop using motivated reasoning on this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 20:29
|
|
|
^^^ I don’t vote for Democrats because on a fundamental level we don’t have the same goals or believe in the same things. Maybe if Democrats consistently lose for a while they will start pushing better candidates or the ~marketplace of ideas~ will make room for a better party, I dunno. Either way me voting for people like Manchin isn’t happening and it’s not negotiable. If you feel like this may cause issues then I’d strongly suggest you get the Democrats to do better somehow. If you don’t think my vote matters then I’m not sure why you even care so much in the first place.  Man, if only there were an 80 year history of the US invading smaller nations allied with larger rival nations that we could look to in order to see if doing it again in THIS country is a good idea. readingatwork fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Dec 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 20:30
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Man, if only there were an 80 year history of the US invading smaller nations allied with larger rival nations that we could look to in order to see if doing it again in THIS country is a good idea. ukraine is a us ally tho?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 20:32
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Sending US troops to go shoot guns at Russian troops was too insane and dangerous even for Henry Kissinger. No they're not Nazi adjacent. That said there are many ways in which any move could go wrong so grab a bottle of vodka and join us in the EE thread!
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 20:34
|
|
|
Sarcastr0 posted:No, police violence is being reported more is all. It was certainly worse 40 years ago. I work with HBCUs in my day job, and I regularly hear that this is the best time to be a POC in America, even if the struggle very much continues. Do you have actual data to confirm this? Because the Washington Post has tracked police shootings since 2015, and uh, the number's not going down. It's clearly not just that police violence is being reported more. quote:But do you think the '94 crime bill would get wide Democratic support today? No, what you keep mixing up is intention vs. results. The fact that the '94 crime bill wouldn't get passed today is irrelevant if a lot of its extremely racist provisions are still in place and the Dems aren't willing to repeal them. That's still a net-negative, in terms of civil rights and racial justice. quote:Look at environmental regs in the 1970s. Or, heck, the 1990s, and try again. Plenty of great progress over the past 20 years on that front. Can you be more specific than that? Because it seems to me like we've gotten a lot of milquetoast regs that the Republicans have easily repealed, leaving us still marching closer and closer to climate catastrophe. quote:You're switching the thesis, though I will allow this has gone on for multiple pages now and it's hard to follow. We're talking about the party, not the voters. And in the party the support for M4A is absolutely higher now than back when it was floated in the 50s and 60s. Though the business world was different then as well, making a system look viable that ended up being terrible. Is the party more supportive of M4A now than it was then? Again, Truman and Johnson supported M4A/single-payer; Biden is opposed to it. That's a pretty big difference in terms of the party establishment's position, and it's not in a positive direction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 20:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 02:50 |
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:You guys are so far up your own asses on this. “When Democrats lose elections, things that Democrats don’t want to happen, which are bad, happen” as an argument to not vote for Democrats is the most bonkers galaxy-brain poo poo imaginable, sorry. I have made no argument not to vote for Democrats. I voted for Biden obviously, and I have been reading through Lenin's "Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder" where if I'm understanding him right (I have not finished it) he does seem to be making a VBNMW argument as part of the Bolshevik strategy (there's a part in there about how just because Bolsheviks knew they needed to defeat liberals along with tsarists, they still voted for a liberal over a tsarist in runoff elections) But it is simply a reality that Democrats do not protect abortion rights, and will help Republicans destroy them when Republicans are in power and proposing anti-choice legislation, sending anti-choice judges to a Democratic senate, etc. And we have to deal with reality as it is. What you're seeing is one party that believes in something, campaigns on it, and then consistently works to deliver it when they're in power regardless of consequences. Against a party that believes in nothing, gives the issue lip service, fundraises on it, then cynically triangulates on it out of cowardice and careerism. Turns out the former is more successful at turning ideology into policy than the latter. (Amusingly, I have been told so often that it was the Republicans who don't care about abortion and are just fundraising off their base and giving lip service to their culture war issue, that's starting to look like Democrat projection lol) Continuing to vote for the same careerists who brought you to this point isn't going to protect abortion rights except in the fantasy world where America is a one-party state and elections are just a spectacle for rubber-stamping the status quo every four years. And that's just not the world we live in. Republicans are going to win sometimes, if Democrats are truly out to protect abortion rights they need to have an answer for that besides "vote for partial birth abortion bans and Clarence Thomas' confirmation to burnish their moderate bipartisan statesmanship credentials to advance their own careers ". That's not necessarily an argument not to vote for them anyway, maybe electoralism is a dead end and all we can do is vote to delay fascism and hopefully organize class consciousness and create an alternative to the Democrats before the end. I mean I voted for Biden, but let's at least be honest with ourselves about what our vote is doing. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Dec 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 20:40
|
|