The most important issue isn’t necessarily the one you run on.
From the TheMajorityReport’s subreddit.
But as far as last night’s speech, I have one major complaint. He listed all the people that another Trump administration would be hard for: women, children, immigrants, poor people, seniors, the middle class, the media, the justice system, and Ukraine. He didn’t mention the people in Gaza. We can’t be picky and choose who we want to have support for during this time and I felt like that was intentional.
Let’s not pretend these people aren’t completely insufferable.
3 Likes
https://x.com/quantian1/status/1854692350909374579
Seems instructive.
We have the same issue on this tiny forum and I’m guilty too. We have this tendency on the left to divide people into 100% agree with me or Satan.
This is what single-issue activist organizations were SUPPOSED to be for, until they started trying to weigh in on things outside of their purview. Stick with the one issue, and it makes a bigger tent.
Instead you have Planned Parenthood making a statement about Oct. 7th, then having to retract it because other people got pissed, and now a sizable chunk of their coalition is gone and their focus is scattered.
Like, someone can be pro-choice and pro-Israel, and exist in Planned parenthood activist circles alongside someone who is pro-choice and pro-Palestinian, as long as the planned Parenthood work stays singularly focused on abortion!
The YIMBY movement does it right. Consequently, there are folks from across the political spectrum that are YIMBY activists. CA YIMBY is one of the biggest and most effective housing activist groups in the state, because they are singularly committed to their issue and don’t stray outside of it.
3 Likes
I am really not trying to be a dick but can you provide evidence for this? or is it just because they’re the only advocate kind of a thing?
What are you talking about though? The thing that drives people away from what most people consider the left in the USA (which just means Democrats) is the purity testing of what they call “political correctness”. You still want to do that purity testing don’t you?
I think you’re kinda mad because you get purity tested for being a business owner or a capitalist, but you purity test people for not being sex positive enough. You might even purity test anyone who is at all religious out of the tent.
Also, the right does the same thing among themselves, it’s just happening in a bubble you’re not looking into.
2 Likes
dave portney voted for the guy quoting hitler because biden called trump supporters trash.
I literally said I was guilty as well but good gotcha. 
Completely this! I quoted the whole thing because mosdef is spot on. Bernie Sanders has always been right about everything!
Well, I read posts in order and that came later, so I don’t think that calls for an eyeroll. It’s not like it was in the same post.
I can’t stop having the takeaway that after all of this joe biden may go down as one of the worst presidents OAT. He had a complete and total mandate to go after trump after Jan 6 and did nothing with it, wouldn’t be seen in public, etc. Then resigning at the latest possible second which I think was definitely a variable in this landslide. I liked the direction the FTC was going (all of which is surely going to be dismantled quickly after trump takes office if not sooner) and lina khan’s direction was awesome. I never once believed though it’d result in big anti trust judgments like the one google was supposedly heading towards - to the point where it looked like the company could be split up - because in this country, bribery is essentially legal as long as you can maintain the most threadbare excuse of plausible deniability or even more lately just declare it as a “tip.” Do you think that wasn’t a factor in trump’s sentencing delay? Of course it was. They could easily do it so I must assume they would just do it because it’s in their extreme interest and they can. These companies have unlimited money. Of course they’re in the pockets of decision makers.
So for me, a disillusioned biden voter, even before the drop-out I was already ready to call it quits because of the way this had been going. I signed up for none of it.
That’s dumb as hell. I know he’s blaming the results on minorities like so many people are, so explain what it is that Kamala did that drove off the more conservative minorites there?
He might be shocked to find out what Kamala said about border security and enforcement for example.
Shouldn’t this be in the boomer meme thread…?
3 Likes
And insofar as it’s not dumb, the only prescription you can get from it is that the Dems need to be waving “Mass Deportation Now!” signs in order to win, which is probably true, but man, fuck that.
Need thoughts. I have a buddy who is in the final stages of being offered an IRS job. He is well established in his current job and it would be a pretty big risk to leave it but the perks way outweigh his current spot.
Obv he is devastated by the Trump win and with Trump’s rhetoric about the IRS he is nervous about saying yes and possibly blowing up a made thing for a job that could possibly be nuked by a madman.
You go and troll the fuck out of all of them. Post TR here.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/republican-party-platform-1968
this was nixon’s platform in 68. He was a terrible human being and an opportunist but can you see much of this that wouldn’t play today?
Some level of “purity testing” is of course inevitable, it’s what defines the limits of the coalition. It needs to be kept to a minimum though, especially on issues which don’t really affect policy goals.
An example I have used before is healthcare. It is acceptable within the Democratic coalition to say “I essentially support the current system where people in the richest country in the world just get bankrupted if they have a health issue at the wrong time in their life”. The amount of “purity testing” on this issue is more or less zero.
For something a bit more in the middle, look at Israel/Palestine. The Democratic coalition contains both hardcore Zionists and hardcore anti-Israel campaigners. Holding this coalition together completely in the face of the enormous salience of this issue currently was an impossible task. The Dems clearly made the decision for whatever reason(s) that they were going to keep all the Zionists in the coalition and accept some bleeding at the other end of the spectrum. But there was at least some rhetorical attempt to limit the damage. They didn’t get up there and be like “let me be clear: we are 100% behind Israel and if you’re not, you are not welcome here”.
Compare this to the furore in 2020 when Sanders went on Rogan. Rogan holds what some would argue are mildly socially regressive views. Not only are you not allowed to hold those views, your place in the Democratic Party is questioned if you even associate with someone who holds them. Or Rogan was criticized for platforming people with objectionable opinions, in which case you can’t go on his shows because you’re associating with an associate of objectionable people. These are vastly stricter parameters than other issues and the transgressions here are also the least consequential in actual policy terms. Many Democrats are oblivious to this because it’s just the air they breathe.
I don’t really have any answers, but I think the fact that speculation of Kamala going on Rogan this cycle caused very little backlash does point to a growing realization that standards will have to be relaxed, because the current parameters on what is acceptable in a Democratic coalition lead directly to a coalition which might already be too small to win elections and is shrinking at an alarming rate.
6 Likes