Not really, it's about trying to strive for realistically best outcomes for those people we all care about. You can kick and scream all you want but it won't change the fact that you will need a coalition for power and without power you can't do shit.
Fuck you, fuck West Coast Patrick Bateman. trans rights are human rights. Stay at brunch Centrist trash, the adults are talking
Soft fascism is literally how we got here. We've tried your way and look what it got us. Fuck off and make room for the people who want better for ALL not just your comfort
Then why do you guys keep purity testing out everyone left of Center instead of forming a coalition with progressives?
are you allowed to use this argument? won't time cops show up?
I dunno who you think I am but I would advocate for trying to build the largest possible group, strongly leaning progressive/left. However the distribution is something like this 1112789 You can't have all the 1's excluding each other from the group when the 7 + 8 + 9 just want to say "r*****"
What the hell are you talking about
Imagine four balls on the edge of a cliff. Say a direct copy of the ball nearest the cliff is sent to the back of the line of balls and takes the place of the 1st ball. The formerly 1st ball becomes the 2nd, the 2nd becomes the 3rd, & the 4th falls off the cliff. Time works the same way.
I think he's saying that a winning coalition can't just be hot people, you need to court the fugly vote too
Oooooooh yeah okay I can get behind that
He's claiming that the vast majority of people (unclear if he means all Americans or likely Dem voters) are on the "right-wing" side of things. He's just expressing it in a weird way. He's saying if there were 29 voters, 9 of them are on the far-right, 8 are slightly less right-wing, etc.
His logic is that the left-side (which in his estimation is 3 to 5 people out of 29) HAS to reach rightward in order to get a majority. Of course, this is all predicated on what I believe to be a false assumption; that most voters are right-wing.
Pretty much all opinion polling and studies on the subject consistently find majority to super-majority support for left-wing policy and that politicians generally think their constituents are more conservative than they actually are.
What's your theory of the case here Andy, why did this super majority let Trump in? Either I'm right about the purity tests or right about the population leaning right? What's the reason. They let Trump in to teach dems a lesson and it's NOT a facepalm?
FYI, you can just say you like fascism. You don’t have to come up with excuses as to why we need fascist candidates.
They weren't being offered a reason to vote by either party.
if you let Trump in because you were not correctly massaged to the polling station then you are culpable and don't have any claim to a moral high ground over me.
Bro do you literally have no life?
So no heat for the Dem candidate/campaign who are actually responsible for letting Trump in?
Cool story man. If you want people’s votes actually earn them. When people explicitly tell you “if you support this genocide I will not vote for you” or “if you abandon this minority, I will not vote for you” and you just disregard that… well..
i got beat by a dang cheetoh, because of the leeeeft!!!
if trump beats you, buddy you aint even trying
How many people don't see a point in voting ya dingdong
Yeah but they don't vote cause they too busy in-fighting. [Looks around]
I'm sure you have data that backs up this absurd claim.
What country you want to look at? I'm down for it, you keeping an open mind yeah? I will if you will.
He's got Dukat as pfp, he doesn't know what he's talking about either
That's what I was gonna say....💁♀️
How do you build a progressive/left group around right-wing candidates in a right-wing party?
This is both prima facie nonsensical and also I don’t think we should let people who use slurs in our coalition because our coalition would also have the people who they call slurs in it. You would probably understand why this is bad if you weren’t a moron grasping for power at all costs.
Just tell us which marginalized groups you're happy to sacrifice to make the bad orange man go away for a term
What?
Your proposed "coalition": imgflip.com/i/a4pul4
Your coalition has been systematically shedding any ability or inclination to enact progressive change for the past 30 years and has become a flabby, greedy remnant of its formal self, so excuse me if your ~realpolitik~ shit doesn't stir me.
It's a fair point but show me the political cause that didn't eventually implode. I'm not advocating for any specific group or movement. I'm advocating for political activity within existing structures and coalition building in order to actually get power and affect change. Apparently that's fascist
It has been proven time and time and time again that voters respond to politicians taking principled moral stands and sticking to them. Bullshit weaselly focus-grouped triangulation does nothing but stir contempt. We're taking a stand here. People with backbones can join us, others can fuck off.
I think most of us would rather let it all burn than maintain existing structures that insist we keep sacrificing basic human rights. Hatred of the status quo is why Trump won. It's not like 70 million people just hate like that. Regular people were sick of it and thought he would be different. 🤷♂️
Most in this thread, I mean. Like... I don't feel represented and we just keep getting more cops and less rights so... Give us something decent or idgaf. I can move to Mexico.
Lol. Lmao, even.
What change? The "incremental reforms" democrats have sold us the last 40-some years have failed. They don't want to change. You don't want to change. You just want to be able to be able to safely ignore the horrors again.
i mean the existing structures *are* fascist, so, yeah
The problem is that therefore, absent complete revolution, you don't matter at all, right? Like, how do you make life concretely better for actual people, within their lifespans?
"All causes decay so we should simply accept the decaying structures around us instead of building newer, better ones that will actually work" is not the banger summation of political theory that you think it is. You already conceded that the Democratic Party doesn't work anymore. (cont)
The machinery is broken. Its usefulness for gaining and exercising power is EXPIRED. But you'd have us vainly try to puppet the corpse instead of finding our OWN way to power and inviting others to leave the grave with us. You fucking suck, dude. People like you are why we're in this mess.
What's it called when you do the same thing over and over expecting a different result?
liberalism
www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzjQ... They went on to try to wipe them all off the face earth. They defeated kings. Hitler was elected to serve the capitalists. Communism is only a threat to fascists capitalists&the ruling class. Only a revolution will end fascism&capitalism at the same time&they know it
Salvador aiunda
what “realistic best outcome” involved throwing trans people under the bus? enlighten me, quickly.
Okay, then why aren't you telling the Dem establishment to nominate someone more electable?
I will never allow transphobes into any coalition built from the left. Trans rights are human rights
Who are the people we all care about?
It kinda reads as "take the fucking crumbs we give you and be grateful because they'll give you even less, you swine!"
- LGBTQ+ - Gazans - Ukrainian's - People fleeing persecution - People suffering with lack of health care - People suffering from the cost of living crisis - School children who want to be safe and educated - Woman and their right to choose - People who want to live free from religion etc
"you will need a coalition" --guy who wants you to sacrifice members of your coalition
"...you will need a coalition for power and without power you can't do shit." Using your words, you are saying SOLIDARITY is the only way but then you say that it isn't for everyone, just everyone like you? Sounds like you agree, but then you say no you don't. Complicit isn't a good look.
Sounds like the Democrats should be listening to voters who oppose the genocide they were supporting, instead of trying to force people to accept genocide. You know, to grow a coalition. You have to listen to additional people to do that. Yon can't just demand people join your coalition.
Exactly, we have to be realistic and choose how to vote based on the reality. Childish purity tests like "vote blue no matter who" may make people feel good about themselves but they're not a serious way to do politics.
Vote with your heart in the primary, head in the general. If you won't vote blue in the general, you know what you get? Red. Not deep blue, not green. It doesn't work the way you wish it did. It just doesn't. Are you a member of a party?
if you vote for transphobes in the general you know what you get? transphobia.
I don't know what 'deep blue' is supposed to represent, but your whole argument seems to be based on the premise that I care what colour / party the victor is, as opposed to whether they have policies I agree with or not.
But I'm confused that you now seem in *favour* of "vote blue no matter who" when before you said you were against purity tests?
The left having purity tests means that they refuse to work with or vote for people not completely aligned with themselves. They mean "hold your nose and vote for this person cause the stinking dumpster fire of the right is so much worse". It's acknowledging the problem of less than desirables.
bsky.app/profile/my-r...
Right - and your purity test is that you'll refuse to work with or vote for anyone who's not the Democratic Party's candidate; you'll never hold your nose and vote for someone else if it's pragmatic to do so. It's exactly the same principle.
Like, if front runners in a certain race were, say, a communist and a fascist Democrat, I would vote for the communist *even if they had no chance of winning*, and you would vote for the Dem *even if they had no chance*. Because my purity test is 'no fascists' and yours is 'always the Dem'.
Some people would say "in general I tend to agree with Dems so I tend to vote for them, but of course I would never vote for a Dem who was a fascist". But people who say VBNMW have decided that the purity test of "are they a Dem?" is more important than anything else.
And like, this isn't a criticism of the principle of having purity tests - I have purity tests too, so I and the VBNMW advocate have the same approach to politics really. Of course, I think that anti-fascism is way more important than party loyalty so we disagree on the details, but that's all.
No, it totally is not, it's weird who you think you are arguing with. It's not me. I look at polling and I try to navigate to the best possible option. I am a member of a party and I try to influence it from within. This is how you change things. Not spit the dummy and toss the vote. You agree?
Oh sorry, I misunderstood - I thought you were an advocate of the 'Vote Blue no Matter Who' policy but I must have misunderstood.
I'm glad we're in agreement that it's a bad policy after all!
Meanwhile the fascists push the polls and you get endlessly dragged rightwards
Is that why the dems went right, tried appealing to trumps base, supported genocided, alienated the left, and lost anyway? Tell us oh wise one, do you have them exactly where you want them for your master plan?
Muslim and Arab Americans had voted overwhelmingly and consistently for Dems for the past 20 years. They inside and outside the Democratic party they lobbied for Dems not to genocide Arabs and Muslims. The Dems sole response was to send Bill Clinton to Michigan to tell them off.
Yes it is, and no amount of “nuh uh” will change that. I’m sorry reality is too hard for your fash ass
And how’s that been working out these last 20 years or so?
And your proof that this is not actually achieving better outcomes is what? I'm just saying that you need to think and vote tactically. It's hilarious how quickly everyone will jump and call me a fascist. Just totally proving my point really. You will alienate the people you need.
How flexible should one be on human rights? I think not at all, is that wrong?
No it means we have actual convictions like "genocide is bad" and "human rights are essential" and not having any means your party gets infiltrated by sinemas and manchins while you fund baby murder and eat shit in elections
With Trump you get genocide *and* racism. If you are indifferent to all the ADDITIONAL suffering that having Trump as president then you are scum. I'm not pro-genocide, I am ANTI ANTI ANTI ANTI ANTI ICE.
“Genocide *and* racism” Harris and the Dems literally ran on trying to out racism Trump and insist it was okay for THEM to support genocide. Seriously, none of your bullshit has any merit to it whatsoever due to your burning need to
defend Blue Fascism at all costs having disconnected you entirely from reality.
it's not us choosing to abandon voters.
If you vote for someone who will hurt me in the primary, I will vote for someone who will hurt you in the general. Take that into your calculations and fix your heart.
if the opposition party wins running on fascist policy then you didn't win. you just became a fascist.
It’s called having minimal fucking standards. You lot unironically would support 99% Hitler and I’ve seen people say so in as many words.
Coalitions can’t be formed by holding a group hostage and demanding they vote with you. A coalition is an agreed upon alliance by groups who have differences but can put them aside for mutual gain. Demanding that we accept genocide falls out of those bounds, we won’t do it, so no coalition
For some reason it’s always the leftists who are to blame for encroaching fascism because we don’t VBNMW but it’s never the fault of Democrats for continually propping up the worst, most unelectable candidates whose platforms are fascism with rainbows
This shit is why the liberal complaint that we’re purity testing rings so fucking hollow, because liberals have repeatedly shown they have no standards whatsoever. It’s at the point where demanding ANYTHING of a candidate is seen as purity testing, like we’re medieval vassals swearing fealty
Actually it’s worse, medieval lords needed to actually deliver material benefits to their vassals in order to get their support. Neoliberals promise nothing will significantly change because we aren’t their constituents, big money donors are
You said “trying to strive for realistically best outcomes for those people we all care about” but by accepting that people’s rights are expendable, you are very clearly showing that you do not care about all those people, you care about yourself and you want us to jump in front of a bullet for you
Again, that’s not how coalitions work. What you’re missing is that leftists are already a coalition of people with different experiences and passion causes and we know that solidarity is how we all win together. You can’t come in and say if you want MY support you have to cut off these people
You repeatedly show us you’re not interested in solidarity or coalition building, you want to throw your weight around and then blame us for being unreasonable when we see right through your bullshit
Well said 👏
What you don't understand: The most realistic way to win is NOT abandoning everyone who doesn't poll well. You're advocating for the strategy that lost in 2016 and 2024.
Way to support the OP's point, man. You're the guy he's talking about.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary fucking proof! If you cannot demonstrate to me, with statistical rigor, why the systematic maiming of transgender children is “good for the coalition,” then I am going to be really fucking mad at you for suggesting we do that! Lives are at stake!
I think the hypothetical votes you think this will gain are imaginary. My vote, however, is quite real As is my pain and fury at having to listen to sadistic ghouls like you casually suggest that killing and maiming transgender children and young adults is in any way “worth it”
stop calling “I refuse to allow the children in my community to come to harm” a “purity test” It’s demeaning, dehumanizing, disrespectful, and dismissive Either talk about this with the understanding that if we do it your way tens of thousands of trans children will be killed or maimed, or shut up
Oh, this strategy, as noted in 1937? I think we should learn from history instead. bsky.app/profile/will...
How well has tacking right actually worked for getting democrats into power? Did they win the 2024 election by getting that coveted Dick Cheney endorsement?
Nothing is "for us", WITHOUT US.
So.... trans people are NOT "people we all care about"?
If "don't agree with MAGA dipshits about human rights" is unrealistic, then we should probably just give up having a democracy at all.
You're right. Maybe we can't win. But without us you can't either, so we can sure as hell make sure everyone loses. Either stop supporting a transphobe or enjoy another 4 years of suffering alongside the people you wanted to abandon. Your choice.
you also need a coalition, and this is the exact opposite of what you should do to get it
Ah, okay, so trans people surviving isn't realistic, cool Hey, why is that? Can you explain to me why protecting trans people is unrealistic?
What rights are you willing to sacrifice to protect democracy?
Blud didn't read what SPD did leading to 1939. Go read a history book!
Man, shitlibs are such detestable people!
You're all so fucking tiresome. You use the same infantilizing language like "kick and scream" to flatter your ego that you're the sane, rational ones. All you do is make it clear where your allegiances lie when push comes to shove. You will always, ALWAYS, side with the fascists.
They side with corporate interests and oligarchs. They're the ones writing the massive bribes... er... campaign contributions that pay for top dollar political consultants who just happen to also be party insiders.
Sacrificing vulnerable minorities is a real shit way to "coalition build." Go fuck yourself.
Damn dude maybe don’t post this next time
I'm glad he did. This thread is fucking fantastic. I wish Dems would read this stuff instead of just going by polling numbers that clearly don't work.
lo, yeah, maybe, but IMO the despair and "they are all the same" is voter suppression so I feel obliged to try to stop it
Bro it's almost a whole day later and I see you're still replying to people in this thread. Sometimes online you just need to let it go even when you believe the other people are wrong
Funny how these coalitions can only exist if it's the pro-corporate establishment Dems who run for office and the progressives have to just shut up and vote for them. When the fuck y'all gonna endorse Mamdani or Fateh? When y'all forming a coalition around them? 🙄🤡
Nah its you looking out for your own self interests especially when the compromise is on genocide of poc in another country
without considering our needs you will never have our coalition. Without our cooperation you too lack power, no matter how much you believe you are entitled to it.
The sense of entitlement is consistent and I just realized THAT is what irked me about Clinton and Harris.
I don't believe I am entitled to it, I jumped in this thread only to defend myself from being called a piece of shit for advocating for Harris > Trump
do you believe that trans rights and Palestine are "purity tests"?
You are literally posting about all the people you should be allowed to murder. You don't get to demand your victims coalition with you.
The "purity test" argument, translated into English is, "I'm super pissed that other people have principles I will never possess" glad we had this chat
It’s so fucking tedious truly and it’s never about something nuisanced or debatable but always things like 「 should certain groups of people get to exist ? 」
Glad you’re back.
Me too and thanks
❤️
Enjoy losing again, dipshit
Good bit, Skrain
Lose the Star Trek pfp. You clearly did not internalize its themes so now you have to be gatekept.
I’m sorry you can’t handle lying won’t rewrite reality, just like every other fash cultist
How's that worked out for them? Like the Realpolitik argument for the Democratic party doesn't actually check out, because it's a proven fuckin loser of a strategy. The truth is they're ideological, not practical.
suck it from the back, neville chamberlain
Care to elaborate? You don't like that account?
Why was I blocked by her for posting a screenshot of one of her own posts - does she know how bad the join up w/ the Cheneys stuff looks now?
if you're not american why are you reposting the absolute worst of our liberals?
Lmao okay buddy pay me one of you $8k paychecks and I’ll explain the irony
You are a parody account I see
Nah, I think he’s just an 8th grade boy. No mature adult believes you can succeed without a coalition. These types are typically privileged, well-educated white males who, due to lack of success in adulting, turn to stompy-footed intransigence about “liberals” and a bipartisan system.
Or it’s Charlie Kirk.
sorry i can't hear you over the din of your collaboration
Righty-o, let's be having it. Which country you in, what's your coalition for power to ACTUALLY affect change? Show me the numbers and the plan for achieving what you want. Stop grandstanding, start trying to achieve.
my plan is to ignore complete failures like yourself
the quisling moves his lips yet nothing intelligible emerges
Sigh, good intentions, I get ya but just... I dunno, read a newspaper or something
the wind whispers "vichy....vichy" as it carries your words away
Get bent, fascist
show me the numbers you're using, cause so far everything you've said is just made up bullshit. abandoning large swaths of the voter base to appeal to fascists doesn't win.
it worked out so well when hilldawg was anointed - she polled fabulously against trump and none of these eggheads seem to notice that the gop doesn’t build coalitions maybe energizing the base is a good strategy?
The GOP has a solid coalition spanning moderates to extremists. They’ve even garnered black and Hispanic voters.
not a single person voting for trump is a moderate.
Centrist democrats have lost 2/3 recent presidential races, and profoundly failed with Biden the one time they did win. Even by your own standards you need to reassess what the realistic best outcomes actually are.
Okay, I am glad you are making an actual argument, or very close to one. I take it you think that by staking out a more left-leaning policy position you would get another bloc of voters that would counterbalance the swing voters who decide the elections. What is that bloc you are talking about?
You’re jumping forward to overlook having to admit that your preferred strategy has a disastrous track record. There’s more than one alternative that rational people can discuss, but wanting to keep doing the same thing while claiming to expect different results is either delusional or dishonest.
But yes, a more left wing candidates would pick up more votes, from three buckets. First, the disaffected lefties who y'all always blame. Second, working class nonvoters (a massive bloc for whom straightforward material appeals seem the most viable). Third, your vaunted “swing voters”.
Swing voters have idiosyncratic beliefs, they’re rarely centrists, and candidates who try to appeal to a mythic center come off as less genuine than candidate who have strong and consistent principles. Plus, left leaning candidates would pull the conventional wisdom left, the opposite of Dems…
Agreeing with Trump on underlying issue while proposing a more moderate “solution” (a la Palestine, or the border…). Plus, if elections are coin tossed anyways, running lefties means when Dems do win at least something might get accomplished to change the underlying balance of power.
If they ever win. I just think there are a fuck load of people waaay out to the right there, closed minded older generation who ACTUALLY vote. I do think we should have more left wing candidates tho, I 100% agree on trying to primary people and get more left leaning people as candidates.
I honestly think that's the media creating straw men of who the voters are, as if we aren't 360 million people across a vast country with different cultures. I think you're just hearing from the political bubble and the dem establishment wants to maintain the status quo to control the masses.
Congrats then, you’re halfway there. If you want to compromise in the privacy of a general election voting booth by all means, that’s rational enough. But if you want something you should argue for it! Build the case! Don’t preemptively concede and argue against your own preferred outcomes!
Older people are dying off, millennials will vote if they’re appealed to. Boomers’ parents were more left wing on most things than they were, generational lean is a function of the environment, so build a left wing chorus instead of trying to defuse it.
I hope that is true but if you look at the polling on young men and the split that is happening there, I am not convinced. So that's fine if what you say plays out NOW, but lets all be sure of our numbers before we start kicking people out the tent.
Biden easily beat trump in 2020 with a progressive platform, he got more votes than any candidate had in the past, and yes, this was after Trump was so horrible and we were still in covid times, but, simply looking at the platforms that lost to trump and the one that won, gives some insight.
![candidate in 2016.112] His 2020 campaign positions included codifying Roe v. Wade into statute, creating a public option for health insurance, decriminalizing recreational cannabis, passing the Equality Act, providing tuition-free community college, and passing a $1.7 trillion climate plan embracing the framework of the Green New Deal. Biden supported regulation of fracking as opposed to a complete ban on the practice.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:azealvj65povd3hw673krvdi/bafkreibkj5ajhly2bx33qzlp4q42cre5sl5u6wnch2t2hhwe3q36wimvki@jpeg)
I'm so glad Biden got those things done and kept his promises like Obama. That's what inspired me to believe in Harris.
My point is only that by the time you are down to Harris Vs Trump, you only need to be able to acknowledge that you minimise a lot of suffering in the world by encouraging a vote for Harris.
I'm not immune to that argument, I just think that when it comes to political strategy, I'm probably a hella less informed than the people whose full time job is assessing how to swing those votes. You might be right but it's a bit of a gamble/shot in the dark and I just disagree that it's worth it.
If you aspire to being a citizen of a democracy you’re going to need to develop more faith in your own political agency. The profession also have very obvious confounding personal incentives. And we’ve tried the alternative! Many times! It’s what brought us here!
As noted earlier, I love the "you are a nazi" posts because I have a cartoon baddy picture. They are EXACTLY making the point about the inability to have reasonable discussion on the points and the merits.
You love being called a Nazi. Wow. That’s totally normal and not a thing a Nazi would say.
Such good faith discussion from yourself 👍
The "reasonable discussion on the points and the merits" you have in mind: bsky.app/profile/diam...
You don’t have power cuz you refuse to follow the #science of taking it. And why? Cuz you’re too lazy to save your own kids. That’s why you’re muted, cuz you disgust me. www.ericachenoweth.com/research/wcrw
The democrats need us for their coalition though, they can’t win without us, so they have to offer up someone we will vote for, or else they lose again. Simple as.
Appropriate pfp
That is my favourite, when people are like "you are literally Hitler" because I'm a pragmatic leftie, who enjoys a baddie in a space opera.
"leftie" citations needed
There legit needs to be a litmus / purity test for using that label
there is now
I appreciated the Dale reference
Not practically. They may obviously not be leftists but transphobes and ableists and so on can still claim to be leftists
if your politics leaves anyone behind i don't recognize you as being on the left. that's not socialism.
Absolutely None of us are free until all of us are free
Never understood why people who hate leftists and progressives and everything we stand for want so badly to label themselves leftist or progressive. Brianna Wu comes to mind.
It’s quite annoying Only speculating but I think it’s that they know we’re right and want to get the cred for that but they also want to have their Porsche collection and not to have their taxes go up or otherwise be even mildly personally inconvenienced or even just to have others lifted up
Death does not leave us there, 💔hunger is killing us, and the world’s betrayal has become normal. No one feels for us except a few. 😔Please help me. 💔
I know :/ Shared your link fwiw
"Hello, my daughter Al-Ma is very sick and her life depends on your support right now. Please don’t ignore this, share the post and donate immediately. Every second of delay could cost her life."💔🙏
In Wu's case she's an opportunist. Her goal in life is to be some kind of thought leader. And, while she is very rightwing, she thought she had a better chance grifting to the left. She also doesn't realize just how rightwing she is. Because she is, frankly, not the sharpest....
Someone on Twitter found an interview with her when she was running for office, where she said she’s not a progressive and never was one. But suddenly she claimed to be a former progressive? I think most of them do it because they want to say “no I’m a good progressive!”
...Like I'm sure everyone calling the crap she said about finding the trans gene so we could get rid of it eugenics was a surprise to her. I don't think she knew that was a eugenicist opinion beforehand.
I don’t think she does now either because she has a great combo of having terrible beliefs but being ridiculously assured that she is correct and everyone else is wrong
no longer accepting “leftist” as a valid ideological identity, at least pick a tendency or be considered a temporarily embarrassed liberal and nothing more
I'm pro trans-rights, anti-genocide, pro Ukraine, environmentalist, socialist. I live in a country that has a fuck load more of these things than USA and it's partly down to how I vote.
Wait, you don't even live here? Oh my god fuck oooooooooooff
this thread also never mentioned country until I did so maybe you can account for the possibility it's not always all about yoo ess eh
We all live here when it's Trump in
Dumb grammatically incorrect platitude American hegemony doesn't end whenever a democrat is in office
which country is that? because if you say the UK cares more about trans rights than the US lol. lmao.
okay let's try that. if a democratic nominee says that he's willing to sell out ukraine should ukrainian-americans be harassed to vote him?
if you're "pro trans rights" then why are you advocating for avenues where trans people are thrown under the bus?
Fuuuuuuuuuuuck outta hereeeeeee
Writing what you have already in this post and then proclaiming you're "pro trans rights" is WILD. And I imagine you love to point out how hypocritical Republicans are.
Then shut the fuck up about America because Gavin Newsom and big tent Democrats represent precisely zero of your avowed beliefs. Mind your own fucking grass.
liberal then
(on a good day)
Are you bots?! So weird.
You’ve been sephiroth posting about a country you don’t even live in and want to know if WE’RE the bots? Get the fuck out of here
I’m just one person, actually.
then stick to your own country's politics nerd, you know fuck all about ours
get their ass
the next time I show up in someone's mentions lecturing them on how their country should do politics will be the first, it's a remarkably easy trap to avoid
Also given how the spelling of “favour” narrows it down? I very much fucking doubt it’s quite the “a fuck load more of those things” as we’re being told.
look at my profile... it's so funny to me that you would all attack someone like me. You reject someone who suggests building a coalition for power. Bloop. There you have it.
Hmmm space Hitler and nothing else. What's he trying to convey 🤔
why are we asked to make sacrifices for this coalition while no one else is if a democrat were overtly racist would you demand black democrats promise to vote for him?
It sucks that the coalition must be broad, I'm for proportional representation, but if you are in a FPTP system then the group you have to be part of is going to include a lot of people you don't like, unless you know how to bring the culture closer. You do them a favour by staying away.
answer the question, who else's rights are you willing to give up for a coalition? which of your rights are expendable?
British English detected
?
Is it broad, though? You're choosing to eject one set of people in favor of another, and the set you're choosing to favor already have a party.
You do what Zohran Mamdani is doing. You do what Graham platner is doing. You do popular left wing policies about making people's lives better and fighting against the oligarchy. That's how you win people over. You don't do that by throwing trans people under the bus. That's unacceptable.
No, you suck
How's that working out for Labour? From my perspective on the other side of the pond it seems like that strategy is just a quick way to turn your party into the thing you hate and normalize the right wing more throughout society.
Leftists dont vote for genocide or withholding healthcare. Hope this helps.
How did coalition building go in 2024? Did campaigning with Liz Cheney and touting Dick's support while endorsing genocide build a winning coalition?
such a coalition must reject transphobia and genocide in order to be meaningfully distinguishable from the enemy
You’re not pragmatic, just more conservative than you like to pretend
Lmao.
I don't see any indication that you're pragmatic or a lefty. Repeating a strategy that has consistently failed for over 40 years isn't pragmatic, and you have a very rightwing perspective on the political spectrum.
If the goal is to lose to a washed-up reality tv show host turned fascist mouth piece for the second time, y'all sure did a pragmatism, definitely
only liberals call themselves “leftie” you fucking loser
Political southpaw?
Describe the strategy for winning the election after you've sided with MAGA against the queer community, and criminalized gender nonconformity such that you lose a significant chunk of the 7% of the population who are queer (and who vote Democrat) to prison and death.
Kamala ran the ultimate centrist campaign last year and ate shit. It doesn't work. It's not pragmatic.
@miq.moe color
“I’m pragmatic in that I am willing to sacrifice others”
And they still lose. It's not even pragmatic. It's ideological.
Please, explain what is "pragmatic" about genocide?
You can think that the far right and the center are the same but they are not and to make them morally equivalent is to open the door to a load of additional suffering in the world
What center are you talking about? There's only far-right and moderate-right.
What does that have to do with the question that was asked? They are not morally the same. They are both morally okay with committing a genocide, though. Which is unacceptable regardless of their differences.
just answer the question What is pragmatic about genocide It shouldn't be hard to answer
…calculating…
Lol
damn they got REAL quiet
You really think this is a clever 'gotcha' thread?
Let’s pretend you’re making a good or relevant point. Surely you have some sources to back up your opinions?
Fascism is colonialism turned inward. You do not fight fascism by accepting genocide.
Gul Dukat would absolutely describe his actions during the occupation in this way.
maybe don't describe enabling genocide as "pragmatic" and ppl won't call you hitler, have you ever thought of that?
My favorite is when people twist "your pfp of a bad guy is appropriate for the shitty opinion you're spouting" into "you're bad because your pfp is a bad guy".
“Pragmatic” gonna stop you there, I don’t need to see the rest of whatever horseshit you’ve talked yourself into believing validates abandoning solidarity
Sucks to suck, Hitler
You know what, you're right. This is so unfair. We should be building statues of you!
You're a Republican.
Hello my friend, please do not let me down. I beg you to help me and donate. My daughter is dying before my eyes. I cannot pay for her treatment. I lost my daughter Maha in the war, and now I am facing the same loss and fear. Please help by donating.and share🥺🥺🥺🙏💔
With power we didn’t get shit. Maybe that “power” you think we get isn’t shit
yes really it's cool you found an excuse for your bigotry but don't expect us to buy it 👍
If you need a coalition for power it's probably a mistake to alienate a core part of that coalition by throwing trans people under the bus and doing fuck all about genocide.
If compromise and moderation was going to lead to power, Kamala would have won, replacing Hillary after her two terms. Now go flap your arms and fuck the sun
Realistically best outcomes for you. Not for the trans people, or women's bodily autonomy, or economic and racial justice, or a political economy where exploitation is punished. And no, I don't need a coalition of liberals waiting to destroy progress so you can be seen being magnanimous.
youtu.be/q_Msueu4a8I?...
archive.org/details/ho-c...
youtu.be/OMh0vlR5aHM?...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vjt5...
you aren't being realistic. you aren't playing 3d chess. you're being a fascist collaborator.
It's complying in advance. Trump is great at making people do that. Unfortunately, Dems came to NEED him because the whole platform was "not trump"
"We need a coalition for power. That means accepting compromises." "Ok, well here are our red lines if you want us to join this coalition..." "No, no, YOU make compromises, not us."
My comment on this is only about the timing on your interventions. Do push for left leaning candidates in primaries. Don't suppress the vote by spitting the dummy at the general.
Oh is there a general election happening now? Where?
A lot of US folks here so let's take the primaries for the U.S. midterm elections will take place from early 2026 through with the general election scheduled for November 3, 2026. So if you are going to activate poilitcally now, are you ready to vote in the primaries?
Oh so you're saying sorry, pig people, simply no time to build a coalition that takes your wants into consideration, democracy needs saving right now, compromise or you're to blame for fascism, as ever? Always Be Closing I guess.
No I'm saying, "vote in the primaries" that's how you get what you want. Not trying to do "vote denial" in the general.
Who gets a vote in the primaries? Is it everyone?
Realistically tho, the vast majority of Dems want to stop sending Israel weapons. Ridiculous that Dems won’t listen to their voters
What the fuck does “realistically best outcomes” even mean? If your best outcome includes genocide and transphobia then you’ve lost the plot
Its libspeak for "I don't care if my candidate is dogshit, their victory will let me go back to brunch"
YOU DON’T LIVE IN AMERICA GO AWAY
