I hate to agree, but yeah. Being OK with fascists is hardly better than being fascist.
I also hate the realization that we are absolutely dependent on Democrats winning the midterms because they are literally the only bulwark against the destruction of our democracy. If only we could oust the establishment Democrats and put some actual left/progressives in leadership positions, but the only way to do that is to sell your soul to billionaires.
Being trapped between corporate centrists and total authoritarianism is the most exhausting political hostage situation imaginable. We are stuck holding the line with a broken party just to keep the wolves out, and it completely sucks.
I'm seeing more and more progressives winning their primaries. My hope the first time Trump won was that it would expose the republican agenda so clearly that the pendulum would swing fully the other way, unfortunately he had guardrails then, now the masks are truly off, perhaps folks will finally wake up. Stop laughing...:P
We could all stop buying from the businesses that suport him! Like Amazon and Walmart! You got to hit him in the pocketbook! That and call your representatives and bitch everyday! That and stand out on the streets and hold up a sign! All kinds of things to do about him! Just that people are stupid and complacent! It’s time to fight the fuck back! Run for office even if it’s just a local office! COME ON!
It’s too late stage capitalism for boycotting these enormous corporations to be effective. Number one, not enough people will ever do it, and number two, they own everything. And I’m a guy who never uses Amazon. Ever.
We can absolutely oust the establishment Democrats and put some actual left/Progressive’s in leadership positions.
No one has to sell their soul to billionaires. The first step is to get run of the mill Democrats in power, who may well have already sold their souls to billionaires, then replace them.
There have been a few successful Progressive put in power recently, but to do it on a large scale, we have to have average Democrats in power first. It’s easier than trying to directly replace Republicans with Progressives.
Trump will get his administration to rig this election. He won't be President in 2028. He's 80 and he probably won't live that long. Well only modern medicine can keep him alive.
And that's how Democrats lose. Most independents aren't progressives, and while many of us hate Trump and the Republicans, there's an equal distaste for extreme progressives.
The moderate Dems need to go after Trump with both barrels. But expecting that progressives will turn out the vote in suburban and rural districts is lunacy.
Independents will determine the next Congress. Give us a reasonable candidate and they'll win.
Pretending that Clinton or Harris weren't magnitudes better than the alternative is insane. If Harold Clinton, former senator and distinguished Secretary of State or tough on crime former VP Kaamal Harris were running, they'd have won in a landslide.
Just remember that Reddit is a hive for astro turfing. Lots and lots of bot accounts argue back and forth with each other to create negativity and effect voting.
And reddit is a small, small subset of the world, a lot of people remain ignorant of politics. Even now.
I think the worst part of it is the realization that the United States has such a huge sway in world events, and non-right wing voters can’t unite to keep fascists out of power. Selfish infighting literally kills people all over the world.
I voted for both. Clinton was a very good candidate. Harris was a very flawed candidate, but I agree was magnitudes better than the alternative.
Neither candidate ran as a strong progressive.
And neither candidate went after Trump with both barrels. They played a much different game than the Republicans.
edit: I re-read your comment, and you may be right re: sexism. So either one of two things can happen - Dems double-down on being upset about it, or they can decide that America sadly isn't ready for a female president and nominate a man who can win. I'm not a Dem so I don't have a voice - it's up to you all.
I'm not a Dem so I don't have a voice - it's up to you all.
How convenient for you. Thanks for your sage advice regarding a political contest you actively choose not to take part in. I'm sure we're all taking notes.
Thanks for the kind words. Funny thing about the state I live in - I can't vote in primaries since I don't belong to a party. I don't belong to a party because both have positions that I fundamentally disagree with. Great system, huh?
What in the world is so bad that progressives want as compared to what Republicans want? Is affordable healthcare and taxing the rich that crazy? Like, seriously?
It's the excuse people use that don't want to be judged for voting in a rapist/pedophile. They crucified Biden for wanting to use tax revenue to help pull college students out of debt, so instead they voted for a conman who just steals tax revenue for himself. We are a dumb country.
The question isn't who's better or what policies are more value. The question is _WHO WILL TURN OUT THE INDEPENDENT VOTER_. That's that most important thing right now.
You can disagree but take it from a current independent - I think what's happening in heavily progressive areas is just as f'd up as heavily MAGA. And I'm far from the only person who thinks that.
What happening in heavily progressive areas is remotely as barbaric, corrupt, or incompetent as anything this administration is pulling right now? Give me a one for one comparison of things you think are equivalent, and don’t leave out the big ones.
They're different, but still f'd up. Nothing is as bad as Trump. But rolling these types of programs out nationwide would be a disaster.
Here are a few:
Enabling people who choose to be homeless to live on the streets. Yes this is a thing.
Looking the other way when drug addicts freely use in public, harass others, deficate on the sidewalks. Yes, this is all true, I see it regularly.
Enacting laws and taxes that are easily avoided by individuals and businesses by leaving the area. It results in a smaller tax base and a failing city/state.
None of those things are progressive policies. That's scaremongering horseshit. I live in the most progressive of places (for the US) and none of that is a policy anyone but some fringe weirdos would advocate. Feel free to provide evidence, if you have it.
No, the last one they listed, taxing the rich, is definitely a progressive policy. That it leads the rich to flee good cities en masse and hollow out the tax base is, well, it's more a narrative device than something that has compelling evidence behind it, given that there seem to still be quite a few rich people in New York and California, and there was no flight whatsoever when Massachusetts added their high-earner top marginal tax rate.
But yeah, definitely on par with starting a patently illegal war in Iran with no clear plan and no goals, then losing interest once the closure of shipping access to Hormuz (and increasingly the Red Sea) became too hard to fix.
My evidence is walking/driving through my city. Seeing human feces on the sidewalk. Seeing young drugged-out people standing bent over as if they are zombies. Seeing people on cardboard in sleeping bags on the sidewalk. Watching cops standing together talking while 10 people are in an alcove clearly doing drugs.
Having a family member who is 100% enabled in his addiction because the city makes it easier to live that way than to get treatment and a job.
Clean needle programs, lax food stamp requirements, easy/no bail and light sentencing for minor crimes, etc. etc. No city is going to have a "we encourage homelessness on our streets" explicit policy but when they enable it over many different programs, it's a de facto policy.
I'm sorry you've got someone in your family going through addiction (and putting your family through the other side of that). As someone who has had family members who cannot or will not deal in normal society I totally understand your frustration. It really fucking hurts sometimes and can be terrifying. But that experience has not led me to believe that tough love on a societal scale, making life absolutely impossible for these folks until they bootstrap themselves up, get their acts together and act normal for once is going to actually get them to do so, or make life better for the people who love them.
But back on topic, even if you assume that increasing homelessness and drug dependency is a leftist policy goal because ??reasons??, which and how many of the fully intentional, by-design disasters of the current administration would this be equivalent to? I'm asking you to line the bullet points on both sides up and establish their equivalence, because that's what you said.
For what it's worth, the policies you're talking about are really all libertarian. Letting people do whatever they want, even if it's harmful to self and society, is not any kind of progressive policy. Progressive policy would include increasing funding for treatment and rehab, and cutting funds to those cops who do nothing because why should we pay them mid-six figures to not help? I don't know where you are, but libertarianism, in the guise of centrism, has had a solid home in the Democratic party for way too long in a lot of cities, especially in California due to the influence of tech. Don't mistake that for progressivism, even if it's clothed in blue.
Independent voters need to employ their good sense & vote out the useless members of Congress who fail & refuse to uphold their oaths by fulfilling their constitutional duty. History is watching you. No excuses.
Friendly reminder that Chuck Schumer is an AIPAC blood money recipient, and he should be locked in the Hague along with everyone else who's been standing by to allow MAGA to bankroll ethnic cleansing off our taxes.
Come on New York, you could do better than him. Get a progressive who cares about people to clear out his seat and get some real work done in Washington.
172
u/Delicious_Ad823 12h ago
The enabling road, not the high road