In your point, you seem to be taking the position that one’s support for or opposition to certain specific policy points is an accurate predictor of voting behavior. This is not at all the case. Just because 70% of Americans support Medicare for All does not mean that 70% of Americans would automatically vote for a political party that ran on a Medicare for All platform.
You either seem to think that Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema are representative of all Democrats or that the Democrats are in a position to do anything about all of those things without the help of Manchin and Sinema.
Here is my advice for you: Look at the state level. Look at the states where Democrats are in charge of the legislature and see what they have done and are doing in those states. Look at the healthcare / income equality / environmental protection situation in those states where Democrats actually are in a position to do something about it and then tell me that the Democrats are just pretending to care about those things.
P.S. Your comments read like Russian propaganda designed to get on-the-fence left-leaning voters to give up on participating in democracy at all rather than some kind of earnest attempt to fix things. You should probably work on that too.
The absolute worst thing for fascists is to become laughing stock. Their whole schtick is Strong Man Authoritarianism. If they become a punchline, maintaining the Big Man image is way tough. So I have no problem with making them the butt of the joke. They already made themselves butts, I am just making the best of it.
I don’t know whom you are replying to, or whether you are speaking in your own voice or sarcastically paraphrasing someone else, or what action you are advocating. Explain to me like I’m a rather slow five year old.
I get that they weren’t clear, but I am inclined to give Glerg the benefit of the doubt and think it is a description of the impossible task that is constantly asked of the left, to somehow be everything at once. Like I wrote here:
I honestly feel like this is the whole point of this sophistry, to present opponents with an impossible task. The Trump supporters are somehow are excused of agency. But you are asked to be simultaneously fierce and gentle, vocal and silent, honest and calculated, to talk to people like children while respecting them like adults, to stand against their beliefs without criticizing their beliefs.
Fail at any of these contradictory things and they are going to do exactly what they said they meant to do, only now it is your fault for not handling them in precisely the right way. Better luck next time, hopefully you can be both more and less accommodating then. And sorry to anyone who doesn’t make it to next time but like I said, we’ve already excluded them from the narrative.
I wonder how many progressive movements in history succeeded by trying to thread this moving needle, instead of by actually standing up for what they believed in? Because from where I am standing, it does not seem like many. Almost like this is advice from people who don’t want them to succeed.
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.