2d ago

The Republicans Should've Faced Way More Criticism During The 2024 Presidential Campaign

602 comments

What a stupid post. Yeah it's progressives' fault mango Mussolini is POTUS /s. This is a talking point manufactured by MAGA handlers that some broadly Dem-supporting people choose to broadcast, now outside the US. This is a type of brainrot that undermines critical thinking, divides the left, and helps elect the right. Canada deserves better
- Tankie are leftists, they are not progressives.
  
  And progressives are not leftists, they are centrist liberals. Sanders is never going to call abolishing private ownership of the means of production.
  
  Idk why you’re being downvoted, you’re right.
  
  Because some other db0 user is angry with me and is downvoting everything I say regardless of content.
  
  Left is Progress, Right is Conservation of old ways (Conservative)
  Tankies are not Leftists, even
  
  Trump is progressive by that logic because he is dismantling the old ways.
  
  The old ways didn't have a system of laws to prevent discrimination and unethical greed. He is taking us back there.
  
  That's the very old ways. You can't conserve them when they are gone.
  Of course one could argue that there has never been a time with a system of laws to prevent discrimination and unethical greed.
  
  People are alive today that remember the times without restriction very very clearly. Namely the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the following welfare programs that saved or improved millions of lives, politicians on the right want to tear that down.
- helps elect the right
  Trump, the farthest right viable candidate, was elected because he got the most votes.
  Regardless of your feelings about her, Kamala was the most viable opposition to Trump.
  Some people were most active being anti-Kamala.
  In your opinion, did the anti-Kamala influencers hurt Trump's election, or did they help Trump's election?
  
  Kamala was the most viable opposition to Trump.
  You really believe that, huh?
  
  Who, in our shitty 2 party system, had a better chance?
  
  She lost to trump
  
  Anyone else. Throw Bernie's half animated corpse up there as the candidate. Congrats he would've won. Because he wasnt a cop trying to get elected to the anticop party, nor far right economically trying to get elected to the center right party.
  
  The fact you're reduced her to a cop is showing you're headfirst in the koolaid
  She was literally responsible for police reform. You know, shit like making them wear body cams and undergo training to recognise bias, as well as community programs to get people back into the community as opposed to branded criminals for life. You know, the shit you want to happen. And all that for one state - one of your most progressive.
  
  https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election/kamala-harris-police-biden-vp-pick-california-senate-a9662801.html
  But over the years, she has proudly labelled herself both a “top cop” and a “progressive prosecutor”.
  https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/12/kamala-was-a-cop-black-people-knew-it-first/
  She’d even proudly declared herself California’s “top cop” in 2016 —two years after the Ferguson protests. Marcotte has things backward. In a climate where Democrats still felt they had to pander to the law-and-order crowd, “Kamala is a cop” was the nuance.
  These legitimate critiques, not trolls hiding behind computer screens, gave the “Kamala is a cop” meme its power. Black Americans, who have wildly disproportionate contact with police and prisons, had cause to be wary of a presidential candidate, even a Black woman, who not only made her bones in the criminal justice system but adduced her work there to the case for her presidency. On Black Twitter, the meme was a reminder, not an explanation. Early on, Harris struggled to attract Black voters. Some were concerned about her electability, while others were truly mistrustful of her record and her promise to be the “progressive prosecutor” candidate.
  https://www.c-span.org/program/campaign-2016/new-york-delegation-breakfast/450152
  At 00:32:19 her speech begins, which has (via the transcript):
  ELECTED FIRST WOMAN OF COLOR TO BE DISTRICT ATTORNEY IN STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN 2003. [APPLAUSE] AND I NOW STAND BEFORE YOU AS THE TOP COP OF THE BIGGEST STATE IN THE COUNTRY, NO OFFENSE ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN. [LAUGHTER]
  
  Bernie's name wasn't on my ballot so he couldn't have been a viable opponent. The only person on the ballot with any chance of beating Trump was Harris.
  Bear in mind, I think the Dems could have run a much a stronger ticket with someone other than Harris but that doesn't change the fact that she was the only viable competition in the election that actually happened.
  
  Cool, you know you can write in the candidate, right?
  In any case if dems wanted to be elected, they could try not being republican. Even in the face of fascism no self respecting person would vote for a republican.
  
  The key wordyou seems to be missing is "viable."
  
  Well Harris wasn't a viable candidate, as proven by her ridiculous loss against one of the most hated men in history.
  Same goes for Clinton. And Biden was polling worse than Harris before his handlers finally made him pull out.
  So which neoliberal is a viable candidate again?
  Are we just going to do the same thing in 2028, with, using your word, a nonviable candidate?
  
  Are we just going to do the same thing in 2028, with, using your word, a nonviable candidate?
  Probably. If we're still doing elections that is.
  You all seem to think I'm saying that Harris was a good candidate. My only point is that she was the ONLY other option we had on the ballot. That, in and of itself, is a massive problem.
  
  The problem was she wasn't a choice for a lot of people. That's something you guys have consistently failed to understand.
  For people that actually suffered under the Obama or Biden regime, Harris did not represent a greater future than Trump. If you are given a choice of either shooting yourself, being shit, or ignoring the entire thing while trying to to find a way to survive being shot; most people will choose the latter option, which is simply not voting.
  Homelessness hit a record high under Biden, and only climbed throughout his term. Credit card debt soared, yet consumer spending on nonessentials went down. People aren't worried about the status quo or the collapse of the US, people were worried about tomorrow.
  When you have that situation, they don't give a fuck about a status quo candidate lying to their face about how great the economy is and how much nothing different they'll be doing.
  Their choice was not Harris or trump, their choice was vote or not vote. And given their experience during Biden's term, they chose to not vote.
  
  Would love to have whatever drugs you need to think writing someone in would have actually been a good idea
  
  It had a better chance than a rightwing cop trying to get elected to the dem party, or an even more senile Biden.
  You can't run incredibly right wing candidates and expect anyone to vote for them, unless you're running them in the furthest right party.
  
  Bernie, AOC, Andrew Yang off the top of my head
  
  Which of those 3 were nominated?
  I'm not saying they wouldn't have been better options. They simply weren't options.
  
  Gee I wonder why they werent options!
  
  Bernie is too old, didn't want to run. AOC was too young until less than a month before the general election, didn't want to run. Andrew Yang is actually kind of a weirdo in the bad take a look closer (check out the description of his Forward Party).
  Anybody else?
  
  So you asked for who is better, but since you dont like any of them, they wont do. Rocket dragon is the decider of all things politicians guys.
  You should have just said so in the first place and we coulda saved time.
  
  I love Bernie and AOC both, but what's your plan, hold a gun to their head and force them to run?
  
  Or Pelosi and co can just tell literally anyone "Hey, our polls have Biden at 5% chance, and Kamala couldn't even win her own state in the primary. Your policies poll better than anyone else in congress, if you don't run, Trump will win."
  But it would have been easier just to tell Kamala "Hey, these are the policies that will give you the best turnout, free healthcare, free college, rent control/lower housing costs, tax cuts for the workers, increased taxes on billionaires." and tell Biden "Here's a stack of executive orders, they directly improve the conditions of the people we need to vote for us. The SCOTUS will complain, laugh at them. Also stop sending weapons to Israel you fucking monster"
  
  People don't vote on policies. Do you think Trump won because everyone loved his concepts of a plan?
  People vote on vibes. Right wingers vote on the vibes of how much they can own liberals and the left. Liberals vote to protect themselves from the right. Leftists vote... just kidding leftists don't vote, they let everyone know how pure and clean their hands are and how voting doesn't work anyway, and then wonder why they don't get representation.
  
  You only believe that because the democrats almost exclusively run on the most compromised versions of policies that 9/10 people assume won't help them. Look at social democracies, and how touching people's healthcare is so toxic even conservatives run on bolstering healthcare. Obama won by a huge margin in 2008 because people thought they'd get free healthcare. Then they got means-tested subsidies for health insurance through an employer they could buy on a marketplace.
  Voters understand "You will go to a doctor and they will treat you and give you medicine for free, you won't have to pay $10,000 a year for health insurance, and then more when you actually need healthcare, and you won't have to fill out any complicated forms". And everybody knows someone who has been fucked by medical debt or forgone medical care because they couldn't afford it or put it off to another year because they didn't meet that year's deductible.
  They understand "free child care" or "monthly check for $500 per child", but "tax credits based on eligibility" and most voters will assume it won't help them, but they will be paying for someone "undeserving".
  
  Lmao
  
  At the moment, yes. I'm also frequently wrong, there's too much information in the world for me to process it all, so that's the best conclusion I can make with the information I have.
  If you can make an argument for anyone else being a more viable candidate against Trump, then give it to me.
  
  Exactly what the other guy said.
  
  This is bullshit though, please actually explain how Kamala is the most viable opposition to Trump? Trump is far right, and Kamala is a centrist conservative. America is further right than you think it is, Kamala is in no way shape or form an opposition.
  Kamala is right wing. Trump is further right wing, guess who is gonna win?
  You mentioned opposition, then where is your opposition party? Trump is a by product, you just explained how you get fascism.
  
  Just a Wealth tax lmfao, and thats it? Fuck. How'd that work out?
  Shes a neoliberal and def right wing. America is so far right wing you think anyone that calls themself a democrat is an opposition. America's two party system keeps going further right
  
  But demonrats bad, what's so hard to understand?
  
  "Both parties are the same" is muddying the waters in ways that always benefits the fascists.
  
  They didn't say both parties were the same. In fact they made a point to distinguish the two I think. They just said both were right wing. There's lots of different right wing parties in the world. They're not all the same. Not even remotely the same.
  
  They did not distinguish the parties in any meaningful way. Right and left are just labels, and if you make your entire personality about purity testing most of the world into not being left enough to be in your in-group, you will cultivate no worker solidarity.
  
  She was objectively much better than Trump. Hopefully in the future Americans have the single transferable vote for presidential elections so they can vote for other candidates in other parties.
  
  Anti- Biden/Kamala influencers helped elect Trump. The biggest of those influencers were the mainstream media. The double standard of reporting (Biden/Harris vs Trump) is very well documented. (And the ring-kissing is approaching authoritarian levels now.) Ideas that actual grassroots would-be Democrat voters sabotaged the the Democrats' success in the election is much less certain, but perhaps a more attractive version of reality than the big-money-funded pro right-wing system we're up against. Less in-fighting amongst the left please
  
  Kamala is right wing. Trump is further right wing. Guess who is gonna win?
- Progressives are separate from tankies. You can have leftist ideals without supporting authoritarians.
  You must understand that under first-past-the-post the party that receives the most criticism tends to lose. It's much easier to pressure democrats into doing the right thing then with republicans.
  
  Your democrats sent more tanks than the USSR
  
  Progressives are not leftists, they are centrist liberals. No matter how many times Sanders calls himself a socialist, he is never going to call for abolishing private ownership of the means of production.
  
  There was a lot of pressure for the most banal, milquetoast, form of representation ever in the form of having a Palestinian speaker at the Democratic national convention with a vetted speech that involved nothing that would have criticized Israel at all.
  Even that was too far.
  Either the progressives are powerful enough that you have to take them seriously and give them concessions, or they aren't and you get to ignore them.
  What you don't get to do is give them nothing and blame them when you lose. Or, I guess you do if you'd prefer to lose the general over letting a progressive win the primary.
  Huh, funny that, who knew there is a lot of levers and controls that a primary winner, even one that lost the general, gets.
  
  No one calls themselves a tankie. It is a pejorative term for a progressive. It is used to silence legitimate criticism and helps right-shift politics
  (Edit: I think your frustration is really more with the mainstream media and what news they choose to cover and amplify)
  
  It's the term that describes those communists who cheered on the Soviet Union’s violent crushing of the 1956 Hungary revolution protests.
  The term is often used when someone claims they support leftist ideals but pushes for authoritarianism.
  
  I get the original etymology. Nowadays it's carelessly used and appropriated like 'woke'
  
  What about "lib" and "zio"?
  Those are kind of new and exciting. All the kids are doing it.
  
  I'm pretty sure those are used accurately as specific types of fascists.
  
  the Soviet Union’s violent crushing of the 1956 Hungary revolution protests.
  Did you know that was recently revealed (through Trump's jfk doc dump) to be yet another CIA backed fake color revolution?
  
  Tankie is in no way a pejorative for Progressive. Hell progressives are usually the ones using it. I wouldn't even say tankies pretend to be Progressive.
  
  tankie
  I'm a litteral tankie. Yes, I own a tank. Quit assuming my political opinion, it's just a hobby
  
  So Bernie and AOC are tankies to you?
  
  It's pretty easy to identify tankies. Here, I'll draw some out for you:
  Mao and Stalin were just as evil as Hitler. China is engaging in a genocide of the Uyghur people. Putin is a genocidal war criminal fighting a war of imperialism.
  
  Was Biden as evil as Hitler? He did send a lot of tanks to israel
  
  So anyone who doesn't engage in Double Genocide Theory, a recognized form of Holocaust denial, is a "tankie".
  
  A tankie is anyone who objects when I do this: shits pants
  Wow, lots of tankies in here taking the bait lol
  
  Really not beating the allegations that "tankie" is just an ill-defined snarl word
  
  Oh when you put it that way, it definitely sounds like a serious political descriptor and not just a gotcha used by trolls /s
  
  Ok, well I'm not a "Russian and Chinese" imperialist, so you've already contradicted yourself. Which is unsurprising given you basically tried to treat "tankiesayswhat" as a serious political definition.

602 comments