that's goofy
(midwest.social)
Flippanarchycross-posted from: https://quokk.au/c/mop/p/828160/that-s-goofy
Not liberals, democrats. Let's use labels that actually describe the group that's being discussed. Democrats for the most part are conservative, ever trying to maintain the status quo and unwilling to try anything else (meanwhile republicans are fascist not conservative).
Of course, democrats will continue to call themselves liberal and republicans will continue to call themselves conservative no matter how much I insist that they're wrong, but I'll continue to assert this point whenever a convenient opportunity arises.
Not liberals, democrats
Potato tomato. Neoliberalism (the kind of Liberals the DNC leadership are) is the ideology of Thatcher and Reagan and refers to laissez faire economic policy, not ACTUAL liberty for all.
Democrats for the most part are conservative, ever trying to maintain the status quo and unwilling to try anything else
Yup. Still Neoliberal.
meanwhile republicans are fascist not conservative
Yeah, those fascists are textbook ultra-regressive
Of course, democrats will continue to call themselves liberal
Because over 99% of them are. Liberalism ≠ Leftism.
They'll also keep calling themselves progressive, though, which IS left wing and thus NOT what the vast majority of Democrat politicians are.
and republicans will continue to call themselves conservative
Because blatantly lying about what they are and what they do is THE pillar supporting all GOP election success since the 60s if not sooner.
no matter how much I insist that they're wrong
I mean, you're right about one of them and wrong about the other 🤷🏻
I'll continue to assert this point whenever a convenient opportunity arises.
Which part(s)? The part you're right about about, or both?
Fun fact, the guy who did the goofy goes to trial (from the meme here) ended up as the director of smiling friends
https://youtu.be/umvgwXINJBE
The guy who invented the Harlem shake was a firefighter on 9/11
And so was Steve Buschemi!
American liberals deserve Trump until they get the damn message. You may be able to shame some people on the internet into voting for corporate captured candidates, but come voting day people simply won't turn out for them.
It's just bad strategy. They're addicted to failure.
Oh. Are you not American?
Most media-defined liberals here are better called "neoliberals". I really doubt they're over a third of the population here.
We call the people that think healthcare is a human right, education should be affordable or even "free", and wars are a total disaster progressives politely and woke libtards pejoratively, or just libs. These people make up about 70% of the population.
They're already out here trying to lay that groundwork for the next election with the shaming. They know all they have to do is get some actual decent candidates but that's obviously a bridge too far and they'll put forth some ungodly combination of Newsome, Harris, and don't forget Klobuchar waiting in the wings.
shapiro, too. please don't elect shapiro.
Forgetting about Pete Buttigeig is both homophobic and a liberal hate crime. We have to remember that he emerges from the depths of some liberal think tank every four years to throw his hat in the ring. Come on, it's 2026....... Gay men can do crimes for the CIA too.
What the fuck?
Sarcasm.....well except for the CIA thing. Buttigeig worked for the Mckimsey company in irag and Afghanistan after his military service. The McKinsey company is used as an operational front for a lot of CIA projects overseas.
Pete exists to take enthusiasm from an actual progressive and move it to the front runner whenever he inevitably drops out of the race. He launders votes upstream by splitting votes downstream. Him and Elizabeth Warren play this role frequently.
Yeap, he's basically the human embodiment of chase bank rainbow washing their image a month out of every year.
lay that groundwork for the next election
The fact that "next election" to you means the presidential election is very telling. There are more progressive candidates penciled on the midterm ballots (let alone the active primaries) than there have been in living memory. And that's not counting local progressive candidates that are already in office from this election cycle.
But to hear everyone talk, anything short of a leftist presidency is a failure in the same way that anything short of a spontaneous revolution isn't worth doing. A milquetoast neolib president shackled by a progressive Congress by far the best option in the realm of possibility.
This is what drives left infighting, a complete disconnect on what's desired and what's possible. Some limitations are just so obvious that I don't know how people ignore them.
- All media is controlled by billionaire corporate interests who have a ton to lose from the left gaining power. The revolution will not be televised and your left political wave will not come through social media. This will not change and you don't have the wallet to fight it.
- Related, there will never be a viable third party no matter how much wishcasting you project. FPTP firmly entrenched the two party system and it would take a herculean reform effort to uproot it. There's a reason that the Republican and Democratic platforms have shifted all over the map since the 1800s, you can't splinter and keep any power.
- Following that, the road map for usurping the DNC has already been shown to us. Power is displaced from the bottom up and a presidency is the last thing captured. Unfortunately, as they act as party of controlled opposition, the fight to disrupt that will be harder than it ever was.
- Finally, the floodgates have been opened to a fascist takeover of the USA. To a certain extent, there's no closing Pandora's box and expectations and plans need to be adjusted for the new world.
So look at those facts and ask simple questions. Can reform by electoralism be attempted in this environment? What is the best chance for harm reduction here? Do the old rules apply in the same way (eg. is not voting blue even an option now)? Can this regime even be removed from office by normal means? What battles will you pick?
If you've really thought through all of that and landed on complaining about Harris and Newsome then I don't know what to say. That is so far down the branch of things we can't change (media narrative control, DNC establishment power, nascent progressive bloc still solidifying) that it's not worth discussing.
I mean when talking about presidential candidates running for a presidential election, it does kinda make sense to use "next" even though there is technically another one before then, because the "true next" one doesn't involve presidential elections. It's called context. That doesn't mean that they're not voting at midterm elections, it just means that they understand that presidents aren't elected until presidential elections and we can disregard midterms when talking about presidential candidates.
It's like saying "I'll see you at the next baseball game" to your friend when leaving the stadium, and him understanding that you mean the next home game not flying to Chicago to see them play at Wrigley on Tuesday.
To be fair, they are also doing work to discredit the left flank for the midterms, too.
They are neo liberal, thats is, capitalists, just ok with people not being wasps. Thats the only difference.
Max left.
I think the frustration is their complete inability to compromise.
How many war crimes are permissable do you reckon?
Zero.
Yea... We were thinking a positive number closer to infinity.
No.
You're assaulting me! I'm going to stand my ground!
....
Oh they compromise all the time, just not with anyone left of Reagan.
The world's smallest circle jerk.
Point.
They dont want to. They are getting what they want, money.
Its not just money. Its exploitation.
She wasn't unelectable if people had actually looked at her voting history.
That must be why she won, eh?
I'm sorry your reading comprehension is bad.
I'm sorry your candidate got such a lukewarm reception despite running against the worst opponent ever. She should run again!
