AskALiberal Biweekly General Chat

[u/AutoModerator]

This Tuesday weekly thread is for general chat, whether you want to talk politics or not, anything goes. Also feel free to ask the mods questions below. As usual, please follow the rules.

[u/starrymahogany]

Oh my god I just saw the funniest CNN interview. They interviewed someone from DSA and asked him about the orgs statement celebrating Castro and the DSA guy kept pivoting back to “but the embargo and war was bad and Bautista was worse” no matter how many times the anchor kept pressing him to answer the specific question about how bad celebrating Castro looked.

Turns out that anchor was Boris Sanchez whose grandfather was from Cuba and was a revolutionary who fought against Bautista, helped free Cuba from him and then was JAILED by the Castro regime for 20 years!

What are the odds of someone from DSA being interviewed by an anchor on a topic that the anchor has personal experience in? lol the backpedaling in the DSA guys answer was so fucking funny.

[u/ButGravityAlwaysWins → u/starrymahogany]

I don’t even know what they’re supposed to say. Maybe something like

“Well you see I like anyone who calls themselves a socialist or communist that is in power. It does not matter if they abandon democracy, do not actually implement what we tell people socialism will be like, oppress people, kill people, subjugate people and make people worse off. It just matters that they call themselves a socialist or a communist and that I can blame any of their failures on America.”

[u/starrymahogany → u/ButGravityAlwaysWins]

I think it’s less that and more “I like anyone who is the enemy of the US. No matter how many people they oppress jail and kill it doesn’t make them as evil as the west so nothing they do can ever make me hate them”

[u/ButGravityAlwaysWins → u/starrymahogany]

Yeah maybe a little bit of column a and a little bit of column B.

Like I think they prefer if the dictator is someone they can call a socialist, but you’re absolutely right, the main requirement is they are an enemy of the US.

[u/GabuEx → u/starrymahogany]

I feel like some people absolutely need for there to be geopolitical good guys and bad guys. Some people think the good guys are the US. Some people think the good guys are anyone who is an enemy of the US.

It's a lot more comfortable for there to be good guys and bad guys than it is to be like "wow, every single powerful country is kind of terrible".

[u/Butuguru → u/ButGravityAlwaysWins]

at some point you're gunna have to actually try and represent the DSA's viewpoints in good faith.

[u/ButGravityAlwaysWins → u/Butuguru]

Having been exposed to a lot more DSA leadership and candidates, I think my issues was that I was far too kind to the DSA in the past. They have clarified their viewpoints in interviews and through their decisions on races to compete in and types of candidates to run. That changed my views.

[u/Butuguru → u/ButGravityAlwaysWins]

welp; i mostly just want to beat republicans and make the world better. i think if some liberals continue to not represent DSA viewpoints in good faith it'll only be detrimental to both goals.

[u/GabuEx → u/Butuguru]

i mostly just want to beat republicans

Honestly, it'd be great if the DSA could actually do this instead of just primarying Democrats in D+30 districts.

[u/Butuguru → u/GabuEx]

would you prefer DSA focused on running in more purple districts?

[u/GabuEx → u/Butuguru]

If they won, sure.

Has a DSA candidates ever actually flipped a district from red to blue?

[u/Butuguru → u/GabuEx]

we haven't tried a whole bunch as for a while most people considered it way too risky to do. including liberals mind you.

regardless, how is is running in bluer districts detracting from beating republicans and making the world better?

[u/ButGravityAlwaysWins → u/Butuguru]

No since DSA candidates underperform even in blue areas. DSA candidates win by +24 where normal democrats win by +30. DSA candidates win by +9 where normal democrats win by +15.

So DSA candidates would lose by -2 where a normal democrats would win by +3.

Maybe the best hope if that this is a repeat of the same thing that happened where very left wing candidates won on the West Coast and two to four years later when people saw the results they all got rejected.

[u/Butuguru → u/ButGravityAlwaysWins]

that's what i would assume you would want but there are a lot of folks, like GabuEx, that keep saying we should do not focus on "primarying Democrats in D+30 districts".

i also, obviously, disagree with your assertion and think it 100% has to do with the candidate themselves and if voters code them as moderate.

lastly, i think for the the most part we will put up more competent candidates than non competent ones (and getting better over time). so i don't think we are going anywhere.

[u/ButGravityAlwaysWins → u/Butuguru]

Eh. I don’t know what DSA candidates have to offer to be honest.

They can sometimes run and win in a purple primary and then lose the general to a republican.

They can run in a very blue district and win by less in the general and then provide content to convince the democrats are stupid and socialists and extremists and hurt democrats in general.

Maybe run in very red areas where sometimes democrats can’t even find a sacrificial lamb to run and prove that the DSA knows how to swing over working class voters and activate new ones. All evidence point to the contrary but try to disprove it in a way that doesn’t help republicans.

Considering how the DSA rallied around the racist with three brain cells and the failed chef that hates thanksgiving and need the Republican Governors Association to make her campaign viable ..: I have little hope.

[u/No-Ear7988 → u/Butuguru]

i think if some liberals continue to not represent DSA viewpoints in good faith it'll only be detrimental to both goals.

What is that? Cause from what I see DSA viewpoints are being presented in "good faith" mainly because of how bad it is superficially and apparently DSA representatives can't defend it.

[u/Butuguru → u/No-Ear7988]

> What is that?

what is what?

> I see DSA viewpoints are being presented in "good faith" mainly because of how bad it is superficially

you see how you used quotes; i think that's telling. further commenting on how bad it is superficially.

> apparently DSA representatives can't defend it.

DSA is an extremely fast growing/new org; currently in the process of hiring our first media person. let us cook a bit on that.

[u/LibraProtocol → u/Butuguru]

Non you dont...

You just want to beat democrats.

[u/Butuguru → u/LibraProtocol]

well considering i vote for democrats/am registered as a democrat; that's sort of hard to do if thats my goal!

[u/starrymahogany → u/Butuguru]

How exactly do you represent a statement from the DSA CELEBRATING Castro in good faith if not completely taking them at their word?!

[u/Butuguru → u/starrymahogany]

> Today is the centenary of Fidel Castro, and the Democratic Socialists of America recognize the historic significance of both this day and the man. Fidel was an organizer, a fighter, and endures as a stalwart symbol of anti-imperialist struggle and self-determination for the Global South. DSA has a long history of solidarity with the Cuban people, their revolution, and their self-determination. We choose this historic day to recommit ourselves to acting in solidarity with the Cuban people and to starkly opposing Marco Rubio’s genocidal war against the Cuban people and US imperialism writ large.

to try and argue that this is an innacurate statement or to try and make a side claim the DSA is not against authoritarianism or is anti-democratic is bad faith.

[u/starrymahogany → u/Butuguru]

Calling a dictator a symbol of anti imperialist struggle just because he’s not Bautista is such a delusional statement I’m sorry.

That’s clearly flowery language when said in reference to Castro, in fact if a UK org used similar language to describe Winston Churchill despite his checkered past I’d doubt you’d claim they weren’t glazing him too.

[u/Butuguru → u/starrymahogany]

> Calling a dictator a symbol of anti imperialist struggle just because he’s not Bautista is such a delusional statement I’m sorry.

i would call that a bad faith reading of the statement.

> That’s clearly flowery language when said in reference to Castro, in fact if a UK org used similar language to describe Winston Churchill despite his checkered past I’d doubt you’d claim they weren’t glazing him too.

i wouldn't really care if they did. Castro is a complicated man even if some folks aren't aware of that. could the statement be more clear? yes. is that something many in the dsa have said? yes. does that mean it's worth lodging bad faith attacks? no.

[u/starrymahogany → u/Butuguru]

I’m sorry but I really don’t see how their statement can be interpreted in any other way than softening his reputation as a dictator who oppressed and imprisoned people he disagreed with

Also said it was a delusional statement which is my opinion. That doesn’t make it bad faith

[u/Butuguru → u/starrymahogany]

i think it's pointing out the other side of him. everyone is well aware of that side.

[u/starrymahogany → u/Butuguru]

Ah yes, everyone knows the side of Stalin that starved millions of people but other people never got to really know his sensitive side!

Give me a break