Critiquing the dems while telling us how trump did some good things…
Is this… Yes, its supporting trump.
Otherwise, yeah, nail the dems to the wall.
(Oops. Forgot this was .ml. Trump is good for reasons.)
Well it was a reference to previous posts who only criticized biden
this is the reason why democrats keep losing.
Democrats keep losing because they have a fundamental misunderstanding of the game they are playing. Democracy is not a game of having the best ideas or plans or even character. You can win hearts and minds with passionate leadership and rational persuasion, but we’ll never win another election if that’s the only lever they want to press. It’s a progressive truism that people, given the same information and the same priorities, will reach the same conclusion. So therefore if a conservative has a difference of opinion, they must either not have the same information, or they must have different priorities. That’s why progressives are so frequently astounded at the hypocrisy and mental gymnastics required to support Trump while claiming any moral highground on any position.
How can they claim they want traditional family values when Trump is a thrice-divorced rapist with an obvious attraction to his own daughter? How can they oppose immigration when Trump has had two foreign national brides and Musk was an illegal immigrant? How can they oppose a woman’s right to choose when Trump has paid women to abort fetuses he sired? How can they claim to be patriotic while Trump gargles Putin’s sweaty raisin bag? How can they claim to want fiscal responsibility when Trump has driven his businesses into the ground, routinely declaring bankruptcy and using his political influence to line his own pockets? How can they claim to want lower costs of living when Trump plans to raise tariffs on imported goods, making literally everything more expensive?
The answer is that they don’t care. They don’t care about having all the information, or having true information. The conservative mind is not a rational actor. It’s not built on priorities or fundamental beliefs. There is only one core idea at the nexus of every conservative ideology:
Me good.
That’s it. That’s all there is. Dig down far enough, under all the bullshit and psychological spaghetti of beliefs, and you’ll find one nugget of truth. I am a good person, therefore whatever I want is good, and anyone that wants something else is bad. If it helps me to lie or cheat or murder, then I’ll do those things and they will be good because I did them to help me.
This has always been the comforting lie of conservative thought. Conservatives claim to want stoic preservation of national values, but the reality is that those values inexorably align with their own personal gain. It is not, as most conservatives prefer to believe, a resistance to change for change’s sake, but a narcissistic demand that all policies and decisions benefit themselves.
It’s more transparent now because Trump has worn thin the veneer of reasonable discretion, but the closer to the surface it gets, the more effective the messaging. It’s OK to be selfish, and ignorant, and cruel, and criminal, because deep down we deserve to do whatever we want. We deserve to get whatever we want. Anyone trying to keep it from us deserves to be destroyed. Anything we do to destroy those who would stop us is righteous. Cuz me good.
You’re never going to convince a conservative to vote for the lesser of two evils, because the greater of the two will simply lie to them. The greater evil will tell them they can have it all, that the dangers of climate change or viral pandemics aren’t real, that they don’t have to change their behavior or learn something new. They don’t have to get out of bed in the morning, they can stay warm under the covers and skip school or work or adulting, and everything will be just fine.
To win an election, you have to convince the conservatives that it is in their best interest to vote for the progressive candidate. That might sound like a tall order, but we already know how to do it. We already see the gameplan that works on all conservatives. We have seen how centrists and moderates and neoliberals win in conservative strongholds.
Progressives just need to start lying.
Progressives just need to start lying.
What do you mean “start”? They already have been.
About what?
Oh I don’t know, Gaza ceasefire, Biden being a one turn president and not fucking the party and the nation, pardoning your crackhead son, we can keep going all the way back to card check if you want won’t help.
Also my favorite saga of this presidency was price controls. 2 years ago the CHUDs had their gas is expensive meme phase with their “I did that” Brandon stickers and the entire Dem party went on the offensive of saying “THE PRESIDENT DOESN’T CONTROL GAS PRICES YOU ABSOLUTE MORON YOU ABSOLUTE IMBICILE” and then 2 years later Kamala Harris’ platform (the one that nobody actually read except to send as a PDF to people to prove that they’re wrong about her) says she can lower the price of groceries. Which one is it guys?
Dems lie all the time. There’s just an entire media ecosystem ready to give you a technocratic puppet theater about why or how it’s smart, or how it actually doesn’t count and how they’re still the good guys.
Hell Glen Kessler makes an entire department’s paycheck by writing “fact checking” where he picks and chooses the dumbest most obvious lies to call a lie, promotes the most innocuous irrelevant truths and then conveniently ignores the statements/lies that would actually impact the American people if they were fulfilled.
deleted by creator
Except it literally was during the election.
Good. That’s when Democrats should be criticized the most, because that is the only time you have the power to exercise any leverage over them. Why would you refuse to criticize them when you actually have a tiny bit of leverage and wait until you have no power at all and your criticism is completely irrelevant and will be ignored? That is just someone who wants to complain but doesn’t actually want anything to change.
Pretty dumb question ask after this particular election. Let’s see, if you had stock in a company who only sold a product once every four years, should you complain about the company and its products during the sale? Hmmm. Hmmm.
Only if you’re privileged enough that the failure of success of the sale won’t affect you. Yeah, we see you.
Ah yes, crying about “privilege” while you’re here demanding that people shouldn’t speak out against a literal modern day holocaust at the only time when they have the political power to make some sort of difference. Yeah, it’s totally those people who are “privileged” and not your white pasty ass who doesn’t have to worry about their extended family being slaughtered.
Hey y’all, at least Gaza is saved, right? Take that, Kamala! Haha! Both sides are the same! All of this definitely would have happened under Kamala, it’s so obvious! Two wings of the same bird amirite?!
Hey y’all, at least Gaza is saved, right? Take that, Kamala! Haha! Both sides are the same! All of this definitely would have happened under Kamala, it’s so obvious! Two wings of the same bird amirite?!
Don’t forget being called a tankie for daring to rightfully criticize the democrats for being the frauds they are.
Tankie basically means “any Leftist” at this point, though Marxists get the brunt of it.
Yeah, meanwhile the only actual tankies are the ones who cheerlead the USSR and PRC.
As an anti authoritarian, while I can see some redeeming qualities in those countries, overall I’m not a fan. Though I do love me some propaganda art from the time.
To be clear, the vast majority of Marxists support the PRC and USSR. The only major exceptions are Trots, who are mostly found in the Western Left due to their anti-AES slant aligning with the overall liberal Western hegemony, and small pockets in South America. Trots have produced no successful revolutions, so they pose little threat. Though I do think it’s funny that Trots love newspapers.
As for “anti-authoritarian,” I’m not really sure what that means unless you are either an Anarchist or have an arbitrary level of government you deem unacceptable.
Anarchist. I lean somewhere between anarcho communist and libertarian socialist. In the most basic sense, I’m suspicious of power because I believe power corrupts and no system of economics or government is immune to this.
Why do you believe Anarchism is better at solving this problem than Marxism?
Marxism already proved itself corruptable.
Can you elaborate? Moreover, can you explain why you believe Anarchism to be better at solving this percieved problem?
Corruption exists in all systems, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be fought against. Letting perfect utopia be the enemy of massive progress is fatal. Even in an Anarchist system, there can and would be differences in power and access to resources, only without a spread of power across the system.
Leading up to the election? Very reasonable. The Democrats are frauds, but they’re not as bad for the left as Republicans. It’s in our best interest to big tent with them for damage mitigation, to prevent the fascists from gaining power. Criticism, however deserved, helps the fascists.
After the election? Have at 'em. They’re not as terrible as the Republicans, but they’re awful nonetheless.
Having a big tent isn’t winning the election. They need to be offering seats at the table.
Big tents absolutely win elections, that’s really the only thing that does. Seats at the table are incentives to get people in the tent. But if they don’t get the votes , they don’t get the table, and any seats they offer are worthless.
You put me in a room with Democratic party leadership, and I’ll tear into them with all the rightful criticism they deserve. You put me in a room with voters, before the election, I will sing their praises. I’ll advocate their victories and downplay their flaws.
Not because the victories are substantial, and certainly not because their flaws aren’t terrible. But there are two tents big enough to win the office, and the other one is worse and backed by lockstep support.
Did the Dems gain significant votes by offering Liz Cheney a seat at the table?
Liz Cheney represents conservatives who don’t want to vote for Trump. That demographic represents more votes than leftists. That’s what happens when you play hard to get too hard, the person you’re after gives up and goes after someone else.
Id consectetur dolore eiusmod culpa.
Exactly, which is why Kamala won!
Just because it wasn’t successful doesn’t mean it wasn’t the rational choice. It’s very possible that she would have done worse if she hadn’t courted conservatives, and possible she would have done even worse than that if she’d gone full tilt toward progressives. Hindsight is easy.
