Yes neoliberals, let’s continue to govern from the center. Because that’s worked so well the last forty years as the right has moved the Overton window to the point where we no longer have a left wing party.
I think it’s worth mentioning again that all this hope and excitement comes with the first candidates that aren’t Boomers.
Let’s win elections by just all becoming republicans and letting the billionaires win! That’s what compromise looks like to these people.
Obama was a boomer?
Generations aren’t written in stone, but the Boomers are generally defined as 1946-1964 and Obama was 1961. So younger Boomer.
Now “boomer” just means old person. Gen Z are happy to refer to older millenials and younger Gen X as boomers, because why bother educating yourself.
because language evolves, and now the word “boomer” is more useful as a word to describe old people with a specific mindset rather than as a word for people born in a specific lapse of time
I think the “specific mindset” is also one that is out of touch with every younger generation.
yea, that mindset of being out of touch and thinking your generation was the last good one, that kinda mindset
(at least that’s how i see it)
They’re all shit lol. But the actual boomer generation were definitely some of the worst of the worst. Benefiting in ways most can’t even comprehend from the generations that came before them. Eagerly gobbling it all up. Acting like they earned it . But then leaving none for those that came after and just generally souring things on every possible measure. I’m doing the things their parents grandparents Etc fought for.
There are always exceptions. Possibly as I’m even an exception to my own generation. But there are definitely some rules that can be broadly applied.
Boomer generation; 1946 - 1964…
…Obama, born 1961.
So yes, technically he was a Boomer.
Harris 1964. So she’s also a boomer.
But Biden is not a boomer. Born 1942, he’s part of the silent generation. He’s the first non-boomer since Bush senior.
Also, three of the last five presidents were born in 1946 - Bush, Clinton, and Trump. Annus horribilis.
Damn. I thought he was like 20 years younger.
He was! 20 years ago.
I truly see neoliberals as on the right these days.
They want us to be slaves.
The Dems have had control of all 3 House of Reps, Senate, and Presidency for 6 years out of the last 44 years. And you wonder why they’re forced to compromise?
Every time they lose (like they’ve lost for 38 years out of the 44 years), they are forced to compromise and they go to the center to find voters. You want them to not go to the center? Then they need to win first.
I’m happy to see your Ctrl, C, and P buttons are in fine working condition. Do you have a valid argument though?
You mean V, you can’t even get your attacks right.
Argument is valid and was given. And since you were oh so polite, do you have a valid counter, or do you only have attacks?
I may or may not reply since you already showed who you are. More attacks = no reply.
- Americans repeatedly respond to authenticity, even if that authenticity is built on lies (Trump)
- An old white self-avowed Democratic Socialist independent from Vermont overtook a decades-old Third Way household name in under a year, outperforming her in head-to-head polling against Trump.
- Democrats repeatedly water down their rhetoric to appeal to ignorance in the middle-ground
- Said middle-ground is defined by right-wing extremist rhetoric and a shifting of the Overton Window
- Said policies then fail because they watered-down the rocket-fuel too much and it never broke orbit.
- Democrats shocked when grassroots coalition that is the backbone of the party and GOTV movement unenthused.
- Democratic establishment shocked when they lose.
The day Democrats grow a backbone and double-down on progressive policy because it actually works instead of appealing to ignorance is the day Democrats never lose again.
There are some good signs in the party they’re moving away from this; notably ignoring a lot of the advice from Hillary Clinton strategists (thank fuck), while also promoting progressive voices on the national stage such as at the convention — AOC, Bernie, Warren speeches. Still, there are remnants of the old that need to go.
Also:
Don’t ever shy away from our progressive values. One person’s socialism is another person’s neighborliness.
- Tim Walz
That is a well spoken summery of the current issue with our political system. Thank you for taking the time to write that up and share it.
It is sometimes hard to have faith in the future when we are so inundated with our current issues. To cultivate hope in the future it is key to remember that time marches on and the older generations will always be replaced by a younger generation. I believe if we keep our democracy alive for long enough we do have the potential as a society to right many wrongs that the younger generations have lived under for the past 50 years and if we stay on target with our wants and needs and can put empathy and compassion for our neighbors as a core belief then it is only a matter of time before we get elected representatives in power to start affecting change.
I believe we, as a people, can do better for our future generations and that is why we all must do our civic duty and vote, not just for president but in our local elections, no matter how small, and every election above that. We have the power to change all this and I believe we will in time. It won’t be overnight but it can be within our lifetimes. Small steps matter because right now we aren’t capable of making huge steps but when the big steps forward become attainable we are prepared as a society to take those steps.
Thank you again for your post, stay strong and motivated and we can do this. Remember this isn’t just about you and me but us as a country, as a species and our responsibility to the future generations that will come after us. We can right our past mistakes and keep hope for that future alive. We have a greater voice now than we realize and are already electing people into positions of power to affect this change. We are not in this alone but in this together; not me, Us!
Aw thanks — and wonderfully said, yourself! Indeed despite everything along with much work to do, I feel quite optimistic. It feels as though we’re beginning to rip band-aids off that were placed there decades ago and I’m all for it. I should also note that I come from a rural Republican blue-collar family who flipped under Bush’s first term… So people can certainly change and I know I can get quite feisty with my rhetoric toward conservatives these days but sometimes it pays to extend an olive branch for some of those still reachable.
IDK if they are shocked at the results. There’s a calculation that needs to be made between convincing voters you have their back, while convincing donors that you have theirs, when those groups have irreconcilable differences of material interest. A cynic would say that a politicians job is to convince the voter base and the donor base that you’ll protect each from the other.
ignoring a lot of the advice from Hillary Clinton strategists (thank fuck)
idk. They seem to be running on the “if you don’t vote dems you hate black people” shtick that didn’t work in 2016. Lemmy users are eating it up though.
Where are they doing that?
The response Harris made to the protestors at the DNC is the best example I can think of. I’m probably exaggerating how much the Harris campaign is relying on this strategy because lemmy is inundated with “DO YOU WANT TRUMP TO WIN???” commenters,
She responded to the protesters and said if you don’t vote you hate blacks? Can you link me to that quote!?
I specifically recall her responding to protesters, “if you want trump to win, then keep talking” at a rally in Michigan. It’s not “hate blacks” but it has the same effect as what Hilary was doing. It’s not a forthcoming approach to tell voters they have to vote for you vs actually doing the legwork and coming up with policy to make them want to vote for you.
It’s really frustrating because it’s obvious the administration has its hands tied but it can’t come out and outright say it, and she’s also absolutely 100% correct in that Trump would just laugh at protesters, mock them, and tell his rally to beat them up.
I remember during the Democratic primaries these more scorched-earth pro-Palestinian protesters (I’m pro-Palestinian; just not to the point I’m shooting myself and them in the foot) would say along the lines, "Well this is the primaries and the time to advance change and protest — and I at least respect that. After the Democrat is locked in, then of course it’s a binary choice, and Trump is obviously far, far worse for Palestinians. So it comes down to 1) what’s more likely, that these protests change official policy ahead of polling, or 2) it leads to wedge-driving and disunity among the Democratic banner, handing the election to the far-worse opponent? Harris and I believe the latter is more likely, hence saying something along those lines.
I mean Jesus, they’re actively working on a permanent ceasefire while Trump is calling Bibi to undermine it. So why aren’t protesters protesting Trump rallies?
VP candidates can appear as progressive as they want because at the end of the day they don’t really have that much power. I won’t believe any real shift is happening towards progressives till we get a presidential candidate talking about more progressive policies. Until then it’s mostly them trying to pay lip service to progressive policies while chasing the moderate as the Republicans continue to drag the country to the right. If the Democrats really wanted to get more votes they would stop chasing moderates and try to activate disaffected voters who don’t care about voting because from their perspective both parties don’t really care about helping them. But then that would get in the way of the donors wants or stop politicians from being able to make lots of money from trading stocks and they would rather lose than give up that.
This can be shortened to:
Democrats have learned to talk like arguing traders on a ME bazaar, with that “munnat” tone, but haven’t yet learned to actually bargain like people do in such situations.
The issue is, I’m not sure this is correct. You are presenting Democrats as acting in your interest, just dumb.
I seriously doubt there are people dumber than you and me anywhere close to their leadership. But assuming that they are acting in your interest is unsubstantiated.
Also I hope this
is the day Democrats never lose again.
doesn’t mean you want a single-party system.
Soviet newspaper quotes of the kind “our single-party democracy is showing itself to be more efficient than their useless oscillations between Democrats and Republicans” are supposed to be a joke.
I think of it more like Republicans disintegrate. Democrats become the conservative party, ranked choice passes and we get coalitions with numerous third parties.
Why would Democrats pass ranked choice when they don’t have competition under existing system?
Has anyone ever yielded power voluntarily?
OK, sometimes very illuminated and virtuous souls do that. Just in case, these are not on the ballot.
In my hypothetical a progressive party would surely arise to contest the conservative democrats. Hopefully they would bring ranked choice mainstream.
Its absolutely malice not incompetence
Pelosi is no political genius. She’s got some parlor tricks but most religious leaders do.
But the fact that my Trump loving family members would vote for Bernie over Trump speaks volumes.
Bernie getting fucked by the DNC was the greatest political blunder in 100 years.
Nobody wants Catholics vs Evangelicals anymore because most people think that shit is garbage.
We want PROGRESSIVES because we want PROGRESS!
Pelosi can fucking go.
She may come off as a darling of the Democrats, but to me, she’s just a old boomer who is part of the old guard of politicians who make money being a politician.
She was born in 1940. She’s older than the Boomers.
I was shocked by how old she is. Her surgeon is doing amazing work
Her surgeon is probably about as good as your optometrist.
Note they didn’t imply she looked young, just that she doesn’t look 84, and I’ll grant that. She also doesn’t look as utterly absurdly surreal as some people who have had work done, so her and her cosmetic surgeon(s) are displaying some degree of restraint about what is realistically worth attempting.
My natural eyes are rather fukt, so yeah I’d agree. They’re killing it.
She’s 84 and I placed her at late 60s at the convention, as someone who remembers the name ‘Pelosi’ once every half-year. I guess it was a tag team cage match with her surgeon and beautician vs me and my perception of older women.
I think that’s how almost everyone sees her these days. I don’t think she’s anyone’s darling, it’s just that she’s still rich, powerful, and connected.
I will never forgive the DNC for that. Bernie is salvation. He is pure and impossible to coerce.
I think the establishment knew how much power they would lose and sandbagged him from both sides.
Bernie getting fucked by the DNC was the greatest political blunder in 100 years.
it wasn’t the dnc that caused bernie to be completely terrible with voters outside of the northeast and western coasts.
I mean the reason Hillary only ever needed about 30% to win was explicitly the DNC and that same reason depressed turnout for Bernie (super delegates falling in line with party will for Hillary, and announcing their support for her en masse and up front so that Bernie’s was already badly losing before the first primary vote was cast, which in turn reduces turnout for him.
As for only selling well on the coasts, I’m in fucking WV and we went 53% for Bernie vs 35% for Hillary which is why Hillary only won WV by one delegate. She got 20% here in the general.
again it’s not the dnc’s fault that people preferred hillary clinton, who was a long time democratic party member who had lots of sway, over bernie sanders who had no connection to the party at all until he decided to run in 2016.
Again, Hillary only ever needed 30% of the primary vote to win, and there was already reports of Hillary having an unbeatable lead before the first primary vote was cast, which depressed tuenout. Because the super delegates (who literally exist so the DNC as an organization can put their thumb on the scales in the primaries) linesd up behind Hillary out of the gate. Bernie needed a 70+% supermajority of primary voters to vote for him to win, Clinton only needed one in three.
One of the few things I’ll give the GOP credit for is that they hold a mostly fair primary and stick by the results, without the ratfucking the DNC does.
One of the few things I’ll give the GOP credit for is that they hold a mostly fair primary and stick by the results, without the ratfucking the DNC does.
delusional
People want progressive ideals as policy, but losing the messaging war for 4 decades has taken its toll.
You cannot associate these policies with an ideology. Just call it common sense. Or the Fuck Billionaires Agenda. Whatever.
You can’t undo decades of media programming by telling people that they would all agree with you if they just paid closer attention. Losing strategy.
They aren’t even trying to win the messaging war. Instead of pointing out how unbelievably horrible the republican plan of deporting 20 million undocumented migrants, they capitulated and moved further right on immigration.
People do like the policies though. Even republicans. You might be the one not paying attention.
That’s what they said, but suggested calling it something other than what it is to appeal to the American public.
Maybe you night not be the one to paying attention.
Man fuck Pelosi. She’s just worried about being unable to insider-trade her privileged position to wealth. If the play’s not broken, why would they change a damn thing. Fuck these ghouls!
fuck all these liberals. They are the reason we have devolved into a corporatocracy. They are the reason Trump won
no more throwing enough money at homeless housing to LITERALLY SEND EACH TO COLLEGE, yet still having the homelessness rate rise…
Liberals want more bandaids that make their masters rich Progressives want to tackle root causes once and for all
When Harris wins that is not the end of our struggle. We need to push her to be progressive and actually enact the will of the people.
Judging by her speech as the DNC I doubt she’s gonna do anything progressive outside of the price controls she mentioned. All the talk about the border and making sure America has the most lethal military and countering Iran took all my enthusiasm for Harris away.
What center?
Between the Democrats and Republicans? The GOP that wanted to brutalize Pelosi on the steps of the capital? The GOP that laughed when a man with a hammer nearly murdered her husband with a hammer? The GOP that wants to roll back all civil rights to a time before the revolution? The GOP that wants to install a fascist dictatorship?
Or do you mean the center of where the American public stands?
The center of what Americans want is a hell of a lot more progressive than you, Nancy.
The GOP that wanted to brutalize Pelosi on the steps of the capital? The GOP that laughed when a man with a hammer nearly murdered her husband with a hammer? The GOP that wants to roll back all civil rights to a time before the revolution? The GOP that wants to install a fascist dictatorship?
You are ascribing the actions of individuals to the entire group. Not every GOP person is a MAGA person and not every MAGA person would resort to violence like some on January 6th. Please allow for some nuance.
There is no nuance anymore. If you’re actively supporting the GOP at this point, you ARE MAGA, and if you support MAGA, you’re okay with fascism.
There is no nuance if you yourself do not provide it.
The nuance was lost the minute they tried to overthrow the capital.
All of them did it? We wouldn’t still be standing without McConnell and Pence. As terrible as their policies are they still stood up for the system.
All of them are complicit, yes. It’s not that hard to understand. Go ahead and keep apologizing for them.
I’m not apologizing for anyone. I’m just saying they are not all one person and some of them do the right thing sometimes.
McConnell stood up to that part of the system but still enabled the SC we have today.
Yes, he did, but that was within the bounds of the law. This person cannot honestly claim that the entire GOP tried to overthrow the government.
We wouldn’t be having this conversation if McConnell hadn’t protected trump every step of the way. He made a heat of the moment call on J6 that you’re praising him for, but his behavior after the fact tells me he regrets his decision.
Any credibility McConnell gained on J6, he last 10 fold on February 13th.
The rest of the GOP came out in strong condemnation of those attacks, right? No equivocating, or pretending they were Democrats, or saying they weren’t violent?
Edit: and the Republicans in the Senate voted to remove Trump from office after the House sent them articles of impeachment about this, right?
Again, what did Pence and McConnell do when given the choice to overthrow the republic? I’m not a MAGA or GOP person by any means, nor am I a Democrat, I’m just trying to point out that things are not as black and white as you bullies want to paint them.
The rest of the GOP literally wanted to hang both of them. McConnell didn’t vote to convict on impeachment while equivocating about Trump begin “practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day”. These people are cowards, at best.
Sure, they’re cowards, but did they overthrow the government?
My only point is that you need to treat people as individuals and not put everyone who has ever voted for the GOP in the MAGA camp. There are Republicans who had just enough backbone on January 6th and there are republicans who do not support Trump today. Believe it or not, there are even republicans who support abortion or believe in gay marriage or support sane gun control measures. Everyone everywhere is an individual.
It’s important to allow people to evolve if they so choose.
Buddy, did any of those individuals in power that you are defending vote to remove Trump when he was impeached for running an insurrection? They didn’t and that is the cover they are providing as their brownshirts terrorize the people.
I can’t speak for them. However, if they simply wanted to terrorize people they could have just overthrown the government.
On one hand you’re moving goal posts to make them seem good. The bar is not literally overthrowing the government…great… on the other everyone’s tolerance for these folks in the party is just as bad as the bad actors because it enables and emboldens them. This is quite literally how the Nazi’s got into power. Because of people like you.
No, they are not good, I’m just saying they’re not all the same and they didn’t all commit that particular crime.
What evolution have Pence and McConnell done since then?
McConnell has taken up the game “Red Light, Green Light”…I hear he’s very good!
Not sure, my only point is that we will not allow anyone in the party to do so if we claim them to be a monolith. There is in fact a divergence of opinions within the party on multiple topics.
Not every GOP person is a MAGA person and not every MAGA person would resort to violence like some on January 6th.
And those that don’t are silent on the face of it (implicitly condoning the behavior) or are shouted down and pushed out of the party. Don’t pretend like the political machine and the voting base don’t support this behavior when they keep putting these people back in office.
Don’t forget, the GOP was against J6 until they saw the base was for it. Then even the people who could have been in danger said it was ok. So they absolutely support this shit even if they say they don’t.
Please allow for some nuance.
In this case, nuance is the excuse used to paper over the support these people have from within the party. Come back when the party machinery and base feel that way, because the individual’s “beliefs” are meaningless due to being a nebulous concept that isn’t supported by their actions.
Remember, if 10 people are sitting at a table and a Nazi is allowed to sit down, you’ve got 11 Nazis. And until we see evidence of these beliefs actually being held by a sizable amount of them, I’m not going to pretend it exists outside of their fringe.
He starts the both sides here…
Pelosi needs to go
Pelosi is STILL against stock buying bans for Congress because the “free market is for everyone”, meanwhile they get to decide who participates in said free market with advanced warning on news
Fuck you Pelosi.
Pelosi is an old hack who needs to take all of her stock market ill gotten gains and go away.
Why stop at one?
Barack Obama had a lot of great ideas, but I think people have forgotten how many times he gave up without a fight. His motto seemed to be, “We can’t win, so why try.” I really blame him for the demoralized Democratic base that stayed home and allowed Donald Trump’s win.
Harris needs to fight for progressive ideals, even if she doesn’t always bring home a victory.
Obama lost the House of Representatives in years 3 and 4. And again in years 5 and 6. Then he lose both the House of Reps and the Senate in years 7 and 8. That was the thanks he got for the ACA. He pushed for progress, got it, and the left voters never showed up for more.
You want progress? You need to vote and give Dems consistent and overwhelming victories.
To be clear the ACA was Romneycare…not progress.
Romneycare that didn’t kick into action until 2014. And because state agencies got to rebrand their programs, you had some crazy A/B poll testing results.
In Kentucky, a new Marist poll conducted for NBC News finds that 57 percent of registered voters have an unfavorable view of “Obamacare,” the shorthand commonly used to label the 2010 Affordable Care Act. That’s compared with only 33 percent who give it a thumbs up – hardly surprising in a state where the president’s approval rating hovers just above 30 percent.
By comparison, when Kentucky voters were asked to give their impression of “kynect,” the state exchange created as a result of the health care law, the picture was quite different.
A plurality – 29 percent – said they have a favorable impression of kynect, compared to 22 percent who said they view the system unfavorably. Twenty-seven percent said they hadn’t heard of kynect, and an additional 21 percent said they were unsure.
Chicken or the egg?
I look at it as a Mexican standoff. The protest left voter is not going to win this Mexican Standoff because the Dems have an out, to go for the center voter. Which is a voter that actually shows up. The leftist has no alternative. Bemoan the two party system if you want, but there is no alternative.
When the left doesn’t show up, Dems just go to the center even more.
Democrats past center decades ago. Harris’ acceptance speech was full fledged right wing
Call it whatever you want, when they lose they will go to where the votes are. They have an out in this Mexican Standoff. You don’t.
And as they go to where the votes are, republicans, they should be abandoned by left leaning voters.
Depends if you want to stop them from going center. They will go where the votes are. When you don’t vote, you tell them to not do anything left ever. “Don’t bother with us, there’s no support over here!” Congrats, it’s the biggest self own ever.
Except every time Democrats do win then the excuse becomes that they can’t unite the party.
Walz is the perfect solution for this excuse. He passed progressive policies weekly in the governorship with a 1 seat majority. There are plenty of reasons to be excited about this ballot that are new. You could of course argue the same thing about early Obama, but I trust Walz.
What evidence is there that Kamal will even try to pass an agenda that is similar to what Walz did in Minnesota?
I think Walz is the most progressive governor in the country and would love to see his policies implemented on a national level. What evidence is there that Kamala’s administration will even attempt to enact those policies? She has been light on policy, with the exception of supporting Israel and building the wall via the bipartisan immigration bill that the Dems are now running on.
I’m assuming Tester wins in Montana and dems have a blue house and 50/50 senate. But even with that, idk why we would presume she would be as progressive as Walz
When do they win? They need all 3 of House of Representatives, Senate, and Presidency to do much of anything. And they’ve had that for, drumroll please, 4 of the last 24 years. Or 6 years of the last 44 years. They basically never win. So they are forced to compromise and then they go to the center to find voters.
And when they do get all 3, Obama passed the ACA, Biden passed green energy, student debt, drug price control, etc,. And the thanks they get is to then lose the midterm elections. Thanks voters that don’t show up!
Biden did historically well in the midterms tbh. If it wasn’t for gerrymandering and a population capped House, Dems would still have complete control of Congress
Yeah but it still kneecaps them. He can’t even do a sweetheart border deal without the House.
Yeah my point is that voters did show up. Dems did historically well in 2022 for an incumbent party
Its just that the structure of our electoral politics favors rural areas and gerrymandered districts. Which currently means the red team benefits. Which isn’t the fault of recent voters
He still lost the house. Not enough showed up.
Honestly, voting for representatives was a hard sell back then but after 2020 young people actually showed up to vote between presidential elections. Uniting the party is easy if all the elected party members are progressives.
The ACA is a huge black mark on Obama’s legacy. Clinton certainly wasn’t going to push for universal healthcare. She was just a terrible candidate.
It was just really hard to get excited to pay 1100$ a month for bare bones family insurance. (At the time…it’s closer to 2500 a month today).
Oh the most progressive healthcare reform ever is suddenly a bad thing? Fucking lol.
Want more? Vote and give them consistent and overwhelming victories. 2 years every 16 years is going to be slow. Bump that up champ.
Oh the most progressive healthcare reform ever
In America? That was Medicaid, and was established in 1965 by adding Title XIX to the Social Security Act. The PPACA was the biggest increase in enrollment since it was established, but was by no means universal or even approaching the scope of the original act.
Your first sentence is a joke right? Most progressive health care ever is a misnomer. It was Romneycare rebranded.
Get a clue
It’s a joke if your “black mark” is a joke. Like it or not, it was and is the most progressive healthcare ever, on a federal level if you want to be pedantic. Get a clue indeed.
Which brings us back to: If you want more, then you have to give Dems consistent and overwhelming victories.
In what way was it more progressive than Medicare and Medicaid?
Lyndon Johnson and the Great Society is the high-water mark of progressive domestic legislation. Nothing in the 60 years since then is remotely close - quite the opposite, actually
Want more? Vote and give them consistent and overwhelming victories.
Lucy with the football.
Hello Mr Crab! You have graced me with two messages today. What shall we cover today? Oh, that they “take away” something. Ok let’s cover how much power they have had:
They have had control of all 3 (house of reps, senate, and presidency) for 4 years of the last 24 years. If you to go back further, then it’s 6 years of the last 44 fucking years. If you want more progress, then you’re gonna have to up that!
Is this where you complain that they didn’t do everything, everywhere, all at once when they had control? If so, then I say that writing up legislation takes time, energy, and political capital. You can’t do literally everything, everywhere, all at once.
Ok we’ll see how this conversation goes huh MrCrab.
They have had control of all 3 (house of reps, senate, and presidency) for 4 years of the last 24 years.
And they wasted as much of that as possible. How large does the majority have to be? How long do we have to hold it before Democrats actually keep their fucking promises to someone other than Netanyahu?
When will Democrats start using the majorities we give them?
Yup there is Mr Crab! so I’ll just C+P
Writing up legislation takes time, energy, and political capital. You can’t do literally everything, everywhere, all at once.
Here’s a very short list of what Biden has done: Green energy, EV investment, union empowerment, student debt forgiveness, marijuana rescheduling and pardons, infrastructure, drug price controls, Chips act, PACT act, etc etc etc. Non-competes banned (by FTC along ‘party lines’). Pardoning people kicked out for being gay. Supporting Ukraine.
But you want to suggest they aren’t using the majority to do anything.
I wonder if that will suffice for this conversation!
That was the thanks he got for the ACA
I was paying for health insurance when the ACA was passed. My cost went up and my coverage got worse, and nowadays I can’t afford any coverage at all despite making too much money to qualify for Medicaid. The ACA increased “access to healthcare” but it was an absolute, unmitigated failure - Obama got exactly what he deserved for it.
I make too much to qualify for Medicaid, but my ACA premiums, net of tax credit, are $0. Sorry it hasn’t worked for you, but that’s obviously not the universal outcome.
You want [more] progress? You need to vote and give Dems consistent and overwhelming victories.
So they can find just enough no votes like they always fucking do.
Hello Mr Crab! What should we cover today? Oh ok it looks like you’re on a semi-conspiracy that they will “find” aka you are implying create no votes. I think it’s enough to call out the conspiracy. I wonder if that’s enough for this one.
It’s not a conspiracy to notice that the party breaks its promises.
Ah MrCrab, you are implying that they do nothing, ever, anywhere, that any one of their voters want. Thus the semiconspiracy. As addressed in my other reply, you can’t do everything, everywhere, all at once. Because: Writing up legislation takes time, energy, and political capital. You can’t do literally everything, everywhere, all at once.
It is really quite something how Obama almost categorically opted to give up without a fight on virtually every issue. He had to be dragged across the finish line for the ACA and was trying to kill the public option before Lieberman even took that charge up.
The backroom politics of the Obama years should have primed anyone for what came after.
never forget he authorized the extra-judicial drone-bombing of an American child.
Obama is just a character. He is the charming face of the bloodthirsty elite.
Look at his recordIf he were not attractive and charming people would be treating him like Pelosi
I’m convinced liberals are really just sneaky centrists. We need to rid the party of neo liberals
He didn’t give up, he was all talk with no intent of action.
The headline completely mischaracterized what the article (and Lee) said.
Lee is clearly sticking pretty close to the party line, but still emphasizing the appeal of progressive policies. “I have to disagree a bit” is just not the same as saying Nancy Pelosi is wrong.
The article said:
Lee somewhat cautiously said she disagrees “a bit” and that “anecdotal evidence” from around the country indicate it’s better to run “to” not “from progressive ideals.”
And Lee herself said:
I have to disagree a bit. I think that we have data, we have polling, we have anecdotal evidence from American – Americans all over the country, but especially out in Pennsylvania, in a swing state, where we’re not actually asking for our – our candidates to run away from progressive ideals. We’re asking them for – for them to run to them.
Agreed. Her comments were more nuanced than that. And I think what she said was correct. These policies might better come down to how they are framed if we want them to succeed.
Moving to the right and calling it the center is why the “good” party is supporting genocide.
Israel has the equivalent of Donald Trump at the helm right now. And Hamas staged the equivalent of ten 9/11s, handing a deeply unpopular conservative PM an extension on his political power for the foreseeable future.
Netanyahu and Hamas both want this conflict to go on as long as possible. Netanyahu because it lets him keep power, Hamas because they want to use the 2 million people in Gaza as a pawn to shift the world against Israel. Their end goal is to wipe out the 20 million people living in Israel, and their own founders have stated that that’s not where it ends. They’re not going to stop until the whole world is under an Islamic Caliphate.
Hamas absolutely does not give a damn about anyone living in Gaza. And they’ll continue to brainwash and sacrifice the children, either as meat shields when they’re young, or as soldiers when they get older. Israel grants asylum to gay Palestinians that escape from Gaza or the West Bank. Sometimes their families will kidnap them, bring them back and behead them.
I don’t think it’s pure coincidence they go looking for Pride Parades.
Terrorists do terrorist things. If we want this to ever end, realistically the only way to do it would be to kill the Hamas leadership in any way possible and somehow undo 20 years of brainwashing they inflicted on the Gaza population. As for Israel, think how racist the average American living in a border state is. How much worse do you think they’d be if Mexico was shooting rockets at our border towns every few days? Even without the rockets, we’ve been messing with South America for a hundred years, making sure we’d never have competition on this side of the pond.
Are they racist? Absolutely. We’d be way worse under similar circumstances. Can you imagine what we’d do if Mexico invaded Texas and killed 20,000 people and kidnapped another 4000 and took them as hostages?
The US claimed everything from California to Texas after a war with Mexico. Technically they were here before we were. Should we all pack up and leave too? Why are we expecting folks to do things we’d never do ourselves?
I think Israel not running n apartheid state would do a hell of a lot more to change the minds of Palestinians than anything Hamas says
We put them there to draw aggro for all the messed up things we do in the region so we can steal their oil.
They’ve been doing that for 60 years. Every rocket, every terrorist attack they took in that timeframe should have been ours to take. We engineered the whole thing.
We got all the benefit, while they took all the losses. You want to blame them for being racist to the people trying to kill them every day? When we, as Americans are pretty much the entire reason it’s happening?
Have you seen pictures of Iran in the 70s?
We did this. All of it. We don’t get to wash our hands and pretend this isn’t all on us.
What did Mexico do to us? Guatamala? We overthrow governments for fruit companies on this side of the pond. The idea of US taking the moral high ground on a situation we created is insane.
If you actually want the moral high ground, know what we should be doing? Campaign to bring the 2 million Palestinians HERE. You think people living in Gaza right now wouldn’t immediately accept an offer to come live in America? And they’d acclimate to secular society a lot faster here than they ever would living in Gaza which has been blown to bits already.
Sure, we’d have all the problems that we were so eager to inflict on the Israelis. We’ll get bombed, people will die, and we’ll probably finally get our share of the terrorist attacks Israel and Europe have been dealing with for decades. But unlike them, we’d actually deserve it. Last I checked, OPEC isn’t selling oil in Euros.
Let Israel have the whole thing, and lets see if that changes a damn thing. It’s the LEAST we could do after using them as cannon fodder for the past 60 years. And these performative leftists will actually learn WHY Jordan and Egypt refuse to accept Palestinian refugees. (Hint: It’s called assassinations and coup attempts)
You’re just making complete straw man arguments right now because I never defended the US once in my statement. I said Israel is running an apartheid state and maybe Hamas wouldn’t be an issue if they weren’t.
Yes the US is distinctly involved in Israel and the repression and genocide of the Palestinian people, and has been since 1948. However, that does not take away any blame from the Israelis being a violent apartheid state committing a genocide. And yes, I absolutely do blame them for being racist because Israel was the one who has created the conditions for this and every previous war in the region.
It is absolutely not unreasonable for people who were living in that land and were dispossessed of their land through no fault of their own, who are currently still being dispossessed of their land, and who are living in an apartheid, as they have been since Israels formation, to fight back against their oppressors.
By that logic the native Americans should never have fought against the colonialists and the Indians should never have fought back and killed any British. More recently by your logic Ukraine should not have fought back against Russia.
You have a right and an obligation to fight an invading power.
And we committed genocide against the Native Americans and put the few that were left in barren strips of land no one wanted to fend for themselves.
Fine, let’s give them back everything first. Then demand others do the same. To this day we impose more rules on the Native Americans than Israel does to Palestine.
We should pray that Israel doesn’t do to Palestine what we did to the Native Americans because there would be about 500 of them left, and they’d be stuffed into a piece of land the size of a Walmart parking lot.
And yet… despite the absolutely horrific shit we inflicted on the Native Americans… if your local tribe started kidnapping Americans and beheading them do you think anyone will care why?
You don’t see the irony in this?
I’m not saying the Palestinians aren’t justified in trying to take back their lands. I’m saying the Israelis are there because WE carved out that piece of land and told them they could go there. I’m saying WE decided to destabilize the entire region and sowed division so we could steal their oil afterwards. And WE directed the resulting (entirely justified) resentment towards Israel, using them as a convenient scapegoat to take the target off of our own backs.
We do not have the moral high ground here, and pearl clutching about the Israelis being racist towards people who are trying to kill them (because of us) and trying to say we should cut off all military aid and leave them to die is a morally abhorrent position to take for someone who lived their whole life steeped in the wealth that we extracted from their blood.
Because if that’s your solution for Israel, applying that same standard to us would mean we’d have to collectively commit mass suicide first. We’ve done a lot worse for a lot less.
Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t be throwing stones. Our house isn’t even glass. It’s made out of single sheets of phyllo dough.
And the scary thing is, we weren’t even the worst of the lot. Look at what world dominating empires have done historically and most of them were so, so much worse than us. Hell, look what China and Russia is doing NOW. As horrible as we were/are, just about everyone else who attained this level of power has done worse.
There is no way to atone for everything we did. But even if you wanted to start, letting 20 million people die in a death-trap we created because it’s no longer convenient for us to maintain it is certainly not the way to start things.
Zionism is a settler colonialism project was able to start with the support of British Imperialism. Zionism as a political movement started with Theodore Herzl in the 1880s as a ‘modern’ way to ‘solve’ the ‘Jewish Question’ of Europe. Since at least the 1860’s, Europe was increasingly antisemitic and hostile to Jewish people. Zionism was explicitly a Setter Colonialist movement and the native Palestinians were not considered People but Savages by the Europeans. While Zionist Colonization began before it, the Balfor Declaration is when Britain gave it’s backing of the movement in order to ‘solve’ the ‘Jewish Question’ while also creating a Colony in the newly conquered Middle East after WWI in order to exhibit military force in the region and extract natural resources. That’s when Zionist immigration started to pick up, out of necessity for most as Europe became more hostile and antisemitic. That continued into and during WWII, European countries and even the US refused to expand immigration quotas for Jewish people seeking asylum. The idea that the creation of Israel is a reparation for Jewish people is an after-the-fact justification. While most Jewish immigrants had no choice and just wanted a place to live in peace, it was the Zionist Leadership that developed and implemented the forced transfer, ethnic cleansing, of the native population, Palestinians. Without any Occupation, Apartheid, and ethnic cleansing, there would not be any Palestinian resistance to it.
-
10 myths of Israel by Ilan Pappe, summerized and full book
Transfer Committee and the JNF led to Forced Displacement of 100,000 Palestinians throughout the mandate.
Ending the current genocide means stopping military support for that genocide. The only way for everyone to live peacefully is a secular One State with equal rights and Right of Return for all Palestinians and Israelis
Make your own arguments instead of copy pasting things. It’s lazy, and you haven’t addressed any of my arguments.
If you care enough about the issue to have a discussion about it, at least use your own words and arguments that show you at least thought about the issues at hand.
I laid out my argument for why we can’t unilaterally cut support to Israel clearly and repeatedly. Least you can do is attempt the same if you want to convince anyone.
Israel has the equivalent of Donald Trump at the helm right now.
Which is why they have your support. The rest of your screed of genocide apologia just reinforces this.
Clearly, because reading my comments it isn’t immediately obvious what my political inclinations are.
caliphate
How do they propose to do that with North America? There’s just no way
If your argument is that we shouldn’t care because there’s no way to accomplish that in North America, why should we care when a suicidal terrorist group complains they’re being oppressed while they’re trying to kill 20 million people in Israel?
They got exactly what they wanted. Even the appeal to our humanity in an attempt to get us to stop supporting Israel was planned out from day 1. The end goal of which, is to make it easier to wipe Israel off the map.
Its not, please don’t make assumptions on that little. I’m simply poking a hole in how absurd the overall project is. Its a grift, designed to run in perpetuity because the stated endgame is a pipe dream.
You think ending Israel and killing everyone in it is just something Hamas pays lip service to?
It’s not like every country around them immediately invaded them the moment they were founded, right? Don’t get me wrong, we should never have put them there in the first place. It was the 1950s, nobody else wanted the Jews in their own countries either. But they’re there now. We put them there.
Hell, the whole reason the region is full of religious fundamentalist freaks is because we made a point of destabilizing the entire region so we could steal their oil without having to pay for it.
We did that. We put them there, screwed over the entire region and gave the locals an easy scapegoat to project their grievances onto, and after 60 years of it, you want to complain that they’re now too mean to their neighbors so we should leave em out to dry so they can all get killed? While we sit here getting fat off the riches we stole?
You want to wash our hands of it now? Well that’s convenient. It’s not like we don’t owe everything we take for granted to our ability to print money and force the entire world to buy oil using our currency.
Honestly, I think we should take a little responsibility. For once in our miserable lives.
Israel is the one that was founded on ethnic cleansing, used the peace process to expand it’s settlements, and is currently engaged in genocide. Both Hamas and Fatah have agreed to a Two-State solution based on the 1967 borders for decades. Oslo and Camp David were used by Israel to continue settlements in the West Bank and maintain an Apartheid, while preventing any actual Two-State solution
Oslo Accord Sources: MEE, NYT, Haaretz, AJ
The settlements represent land-grabbing, and land-grabbing and peace-making don’t go together, it is one or the other. By its actions, if not always in its rhetoric, Israel has opted for land-grabbing and as we speak Israel is expanding settlements. So, Israel has been systematically destroying the basis for a viable Palestinian state and this is the declared objective of the Likud and Netanyahu who used to pretend to accept a two-state solution. In the lead up to the last election, he said there will be no Palestinian state on his watch. The expansion of settlements and the wall mean that there cannot be a viable Palestinian state with territorial contiguity. The most that the Palestinians can hope for is Bantustans, a series of enclaves surrounded by Israeli settlements and Israeli military bases.
- Avi Shlaim
How Avi Shlaim moved from two-state solution to one-state solution
‘One state is a game changer’: A conversation with Ilan Pappe
I know I wrote a lot and I wouldn’t expect you to read it all, but I addressed this as well, using the US-Mexico war as an example.
We haven’t given back Texas and California yet. If you invade a country and they take your territory, you can ask for a do-over, but it’s probably not going to happen.
As I’ve noted, WE created this whole mess. And we shouldn’t expect others to comply to standards we would never accept ourselves.
If you want to take it a step further, I posited a hypothetical situation where Mexico invaded and killed 20,000 Americans and took another 4000 hostage.
And what our response would likely be. If you aren’t lying to yourself, you know exactly what we would do, especially if we have someone like Donald Trump at the helm when it happens.
The Zionist Settler colonists were the in invaders, what are you talking about. Are you trying to paint all Arab/Muslims in the region as the same? Or do you recognize that the surrounding countries invaded the newly founded Israel after months of Israel ethnicly cleansing hundreds of Palestinian towns and also for their own interests? Transjordan colluded with Ben-Gurion to acquire the West Bank. Egypt also had their own ambitions. In 1967 Israel started the war in order to gain control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip to gain control over all of historic Palestine. It’s been a permanent occupation so the ethnostate that is Israel can continue settlements while rejecting the humanity and citizenship of Palestinians to solve it’s ‘demografic problem.’
I can’t tell if you just aren’t bothering to read what I wrote or if you are just looking for the closest tangentially related thing to copy-paste.
I just said expecting them to return land when we’re keeping Texas and California is a case of “Do as I say, not as I do.”
Yes, Israel removed Palestinian settlements. At our behest. We told them that land was now theirs. And the countries surrounding Israel telegraphed invasion plans for days before the six day war.
Revisionism aside, are you still trying to lay this at the feet of the Israelis instead of ours? We did that. It’s cowardly to try to pretend otherwise.
Israel has been the one doing the settler Colonialism and ethnic cleansing, the fact that the US and other western countries have financially and militarily supported it for decades does not mean that Israel is not the one responsible for it.
Yes, the US was founded on genocide of the natives and continues to disparage them to this day with reservations. Obviously I don’t support that, they deserve reparations and yes that includes land and financial compensation.
The Israeli plan to occupy the West Bank and Gaza Strip were planned for years. That’s not revisionism, 1967 war: Haaretz, Forward . Forcible ‘Transfer’ (ethnic cleansing) is fundamental to Zionism since the 1880’s long before the US had a major role in the region since the 1960s.
The whole point of the Uncommitted and other anti-genocide movements is to end US military support for the genocide. That’s what is needed to start pressuring Israel to end being an Apartheid State.
You say that and yet, we have protests about Israel/Palestine and not a peep about reparations for Native Americans. We killed 99.9% of their population. It’s easy to pay lip service after the fact, it’s done.
Guess it’s easier to pretend you care when you don’t have settlements being raided and entire families being scalped. And you killed so many of them that there aren’t enough of them left to complain about their treatment. We know what we did do when that was the reality though.
I ask again, what would we do if a tribe went rogue and started doing that now?
Do you think we’ve grown over the past 200 years? Think we’d react differently today?
Be honest.
Some progressive ideals are what the average American wants. Many are still very hard sells. What the Dems need to realize is that the political-junkie conceptions of ‘centrist’ and ‘progressive’ mean very little to the ‘swing voters’ they’re trying to appeal to. They don’t want a coherent ideological approach. Not that that seems to stop ‘centrist’ Dem reps from constantly trying to chase policy rightwards.
What are the hard sells? List them
Hardest ones for the majority are probably landback and reparations. Less hard but still pretty hard for Americans writ large would be a big transition to public housing and mass transit, since for many Americans most of their wealth is in their house value and a huge part of their concept of freedom is in their car. Anything that threatens the suburbs - whether that’s making cities better and cheaper or increasing land taxes to better match the true cost of providing services to non-urban areas - is basically impossible to do in America as it currently exists.
Defund the police is a hard sell outside of the minority communities that face the worst of what the police do. Reform the police is a little easier to sell to libs, but they’ve been “reforming” the police basically my whole life and the only thing that’s happened is the budget keeps going up and they keep getting more and more military vehicles.
Less hard but still opposed by the majority is any kind of actually-effective industrial policy. For example compare how China captured 80% of the world’s solar production - by investing a trillion dollars over the past decade directly into green energy companies, some run directly by the state and some run privately in partnership with it - to our own largest green energy investments - which was smaller than our oil and gas investments in the same bill and didn’t create any kind of control over the market at all, just incentives for private businesses to possibly chase after - and it’s clear why we’re falling behind or losing our lead in basically every single sector. But propose that the US Government should take a page out of China’s book and invest directly in production and people will screech at you about how central planning doesn’t work and how the government can’t do anything right.
It’s like this for policy after policy after policy, no matter how granular you get. Bike lanes? People think those increase traffic. Giving benefits and a minimum wage to Uber drivers? Roundly rejected. Demilitarizing the border and legalizing most of our immigrants? Keep dreaming! Just about the only progressive policy that gets widespread support is Medicare for All, and even that depends on how you word your polling question.
IMO almost all of what I just laid out is due to a messaging deficit from progressives. We’re certainly in a better place than we used to be - I remember the 2000s when being anti-war or pro-lgbt got you sent to the American gulag - but we need more people and orgs with a national profile pushing for these issues and not immediately folding on them in the name of party unity.
Demilitarizing the border and legalizing most of our immigrants?
These two are in opposition to each other. Selling the public on amnesty for whoever is here already requires a credible plan to prevent more illegal entry.
There is no reason for this is to be case. We could literally just stop enforcing the border right now - fire all border patrol agents, demo every single wall - and things would be fine. The undocumented immigrant crisis is 100% man made, and the purpose it serves the ruling class is that it creates a labor pool that has no legal protections.
Maybe you could explain to the administrators of Kursk how its not important to defend the border 😂
Is America at war with Mexico? No.
That’s it. That’s the whole explanation.
Defund the police is a hard sell outside of the minority communities that face the worst of what the police do.
those poll numbers are fucking insane, I had no idea it had gotten that bad. We already have more cops and jails than any other country - what the fuck do people think increasing the budget is going to do!?
Broadly speaking, higher taxes required to responsibly fund progressive programs.
You have to convince folks they’ll get their money’s worth.
Particularly rural areas are skeptical, they think they get money taken from them to solve city problems, and even if they might be able to benefit, the program might not be able to reach them.
So you might have decent luck with medicare for all (though there’s a huge special interest influencing them against that too), but if you wanted big infrastructure and transit plans, they’ll think the government is going to toss money at the cities and do nothing for them. Or worse, they’ll be one of the folks that get eminent domained to bulldoze their home to make way for rail connecting two big cities.
Tax capital gains at equal rates to wages and add additional tax brackets to the top, increasing to a 90% rate. Done.
Why the fuck is Pelosi still a voice that anyone in the goddamn party listens to? She’s been doing nothing but fucking up since she entered Congress. She’s literally almost single-handedly responsible for the absolute deterioration of the Democratic party in our government. The only one who outstrips her in that department is Harry Reid.
Biden didn’t step aside until she asked him too, so she’s at least done one good thing.
who’s gonna ask her?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
