Yup. And I agree that the easiest line for a national democratic candidate would be to other the rich and corporations.
It’s what Bernie and Liz are doing right.
I just don’t think Bernie and Liz are going hard enough at the other candidates over being more favorable to corporations. Maybe they are worried that they are decreasing the chances of the eventual nominee if it is not them, but I think it is worth the risk. I want this primary season to be much more nasty than it has been so far.
1 Like
In what alternate universe are Dems aggressively pushing LGBQT rights as a centerpiece of their campaign? They didn’t have a pro-gay marriage president until 2012, FFS.
3 Likes
Agreed.
Talk about bad messaging.
Hot take:
(Whispers)
Trump being credibly insane helps in foreign policy.
2 Likes
That’s where he was created. Fox adopted him after he was fully formed.
1 Like
Arguably. Definitely agree w/ the take that Obama being hyper-rational was a severe disadvantage that dearly cost the Ukrainian and Syrian people.
Putin just continuously engaged in escalations for years rightly judging that Obama would rationally decide that none of them individually were worth doing jack shit about.
You aren’t Obama, you aren’t AOC. And you certainly have been taking criticism appropriately.
1 Like
Who writes the legislation again? Who pays the people who write the legislation? The erosion of union power over the last 50 years is the result of legislation to protect workers…
It’s not hyper rational Putin correctly identified him as, it’s weak-tight.
Misrepresenting me isn’t criticizing me it’s being dishonest.
Maybe you didn’t catch the dog whistle?
Maybe you’re part of the problem? One line attacks on me for having constructive criticism and then saying I’m not taking criticism well is all I’ve really gotten from the other side of this argument in this thread. That’s probably because I’m on really firm ground here and you guys are reacting emotionally because you want to have a license to treat the other sides voters like subhumans.
Seriously the substance of your last two posts is ‘I know you are but what am I?’
I’ll clarify where I stand on this, because I was one of the ones responding to you but I think we’re mostly in agreement.
I like the messages that Bernie pushes out and his balance of economic vs social justice and think it is a good strategy. Bernie is my #1 candidate and iirc he is yours as well.
Where I think we disagree, and I disagree strongly with what I think you are arguing for, is that I think you are advocating for going silent on social justice issues because that would alienate racist voters who might otherwise be sympathetic to economic messaging alone. That’s where I do not want to pander to their racism, and that is where I actually think AOC is much better at messaging than even Bernie–she is able to hammer economics while also hitting social justice. I do not think dog whistling to social justice is enough, both because I don’t think it would be effective and because I think it is allowing racists to define our messaging in a way that makes it worse.
1 Like
I’m fine with social justice messages that are paired cleverly with economic issues to be palatable to voters that have some questionable views. This is what AOC does better than anyone and I really like it.
This is kind of like chopping up the vegetables, frying them, and serving them alongside some other fried thing the voter likes. That’s totally fine. It’s about how they perceive it far more than it is about the substance you’re feeding them.
We need to meet the voters where they are. We need to sell them a truly progressive platform in a palatable way. We need to stop expecting people to not just agree with us but agree with us in the right way. That’s not how this works. That’s never how this worked.
The majority of white voters over the age of 35 have at least some questionable views (which ones depends on the voter in question) and they are the simple majority of the electorate. Making them eat their vegetables is not how you win elections. If you’re going to serve vegetables make sure you spice them, fry them, and mix them with other components that they actually like.
2 Likes
ZOMG no. Five points.
-
Direct and democratic worker organization at the point of production, aka a union, can never be irrelevant. That doesn’t even make a lick-o-sense.
-
History says putting all your eggs in the mindless hope basket, and doing no work but poking a whole on a piece of paper every few years, while leaving it all up to the politicians/etc simply doesn’t work. In fact, the next time it works will be the first. Preying has a much better historical track record.
-
It can’t work, even in theory. That’s because the it’s the owning class’s government. By definition, under a capitalist regime, the government is the collective enforcement arm of the absentee owners against working folk.
-
Such a regime wouldn’t actually be protecting working folk, it would be locking in, be putting in concrete, owning class privileged. Everything that the politicians/etc don’t deem is a working folk right would be legally and effectively forbidden.
-
And, from the left, we have a great historical example: the USSR getting rid of the soviets and independent unions. How did that work out for working folk?
1 Like
Yea, and my preference is more of a “fuck you you’re wrong” [edit: that’s my attitude towards racist voters, not towards you]. I suppose it’s similar to discussions of incrementalism vs pushing for full-up change, where I’d rather push for full-up change.
Regardless, I think it’s been interesting but don’t think this is the thread for it.