It pisses me off to no end when people conflate legitimate criticism of Democrats with tankie rhetoric. The Dems are complacent, listless, corrupt, and lazy. They refuse to stand up to the Republicans until it’s too late or doesn’t matter.
The people want progressive politics: universal healthcare, living wage, affordable housing, education, and food. We want a sustainable future and an end to corporate greed.
The donor class, superpacs, and other sources of dark money in politics are what keep nearly everyone corrupt. Its addictive.
It pisses me off to no end when people conflate legitimate criticism of Democrats with tankie rhetoric.
Last election season went something like this:
Progressives: “Please stop sending weapons to a genocidal maniac who is using them to murder children in order to grab land. And stop actively protecting said genocidal maniac from consequences in the international community.”
Establisment: “STFU tankie!”
Completely wrong, Tankies weren’t just promoting primarying Biden, a pretty obvious lost cause from the start given his incumbent status, they were promoting voting against Biden in the generals. That is NOT advocacy against genocide in Gaza. Trump is a single-state supporter.
Except that there are 2 groups: progressives and a more extreme left group. Progressives who were arguing in good faith against genocide were lumped in with the latter group.
The establishment Democrats were engaging in censorship and suppression of anything that was critical of Israel. Now Trump has stepped up this censorship/suppression, but it was definitely happening under Biden.
I’m a consequencialist, so while I acknowledge there is a minority of extremists who think burning down the state itself is progressive, I personally don’t view them as such. If anything I think those extremists were being prodded along and supported by the conservatives who benefit from splitting the left and also agitated by Tankie psyops who benefit from the USA’s fall from grace.
Just elect 60 democrats to the senate so we can get universal healthcare, reduce homelessness, tax the rich, reform the courts, expand ballot access, draw fair election maps, remove money from elections, protect human rights, and protect the environment. Everything I just listed are core DNC stances. If we can’t do that then we’re just going to suffer on this wild ride until societal collapse and replacement with something worse.
Removed by mod
Incorrect, Biden sold Tank Munitions to Israel, but the nuance here is that Tankies has always described militarily aggressive, dictatorship loving, self-proclaiming Communists otherwise that would be fair.
To even bring up Biden is whataboutism.
Maybe if progressives in partisan primary states registered as Democrats and voted in the primaries, they wouldn’t be complaining about all the centrists in office.🤔
Are you implying there was a Democratic presedential primary that didn’t break it’s own rules to make sure Biden was the only candidate on the ballot (edit) in many states (/edit)?
If so, you’re living in a fantasy.
This is the one-two step for Democratic party apologists.
-
Blame leftists for their lack of representation in the party.
-
Rig the processes to make sure that the left wing of the party has no internal representation.
-
Goto step one.
The best part of this dance from their view? Internal party politics and processes are boring, and the media won’t cover it when they cheat.
No. The presidential incumbent primary is a joke. I’m referring to the congressional primary that saw less than 20% attendance. Congress is the primary approval for military aid for Israel. POTUS can use drawdown power, but that can be challenged by Congress.
We have three branches of government, two of which are elected, yet people pretend we have one vote every four years.
Congress is the primary approval for military aid for Israel.
lmfao I love when liberals are fully committed
Firstly, I’m a progressive. Secondly, what is incorrect about that statement?
What if i told you, you could get more done towards your moral project if you werent an absolutionist? Would you continue?
That sounds like tankie rhetoric
-
So you’re ok with centrists supporting and actively protecting perpetrators of genocide?
What about my comment gave you that impression? I’m saying that if progressives voted in Democratic primaries with the same conviction they use to criticize the DNC, we wouldn’t have as many centrists in Congress.
Democratic congressional primaries are decided by ~20% of registered Democrats. You can look at PAC funding and vote for the Democrat that isn’t funded by AIPAC, who will have a better chance of winning the election than a third-party protest vote.
My point is that Democrats, whether progressive or centrist, shouldn’t be supporting this. It shouldn’t matter (on this particular topic) if progressives aren’t voting; I’m not willing to give centrist Democrats a pass and will condemn them just the same.
I keep hearing that progressives aren’t voting in the numbers that they should be, but there might be another problem: there simply aren’t that many progressives to get offices. As a “Reddit refugee”, I realized that we are overrepresented in a lot of these online echo chambers.
I’ve been left of the Democrats and stumping progressives/greens/independents since the 90s. Most people don’t even know if they live in one of the 30 partisan primary states. Copious amounts of New Yorkers were turned away at the polls in 2016 because they didn’t know they had to be registered as a Democrat to vote for Bernie in the primary. I’m sure that happened in other partisan primary states as well.
Yet in my experience, asking a progressive to register as a Democrat is the fastest way to get them to stop listening, even though it’s statistically far more effective than voting third-party. People need to stop voting with their feelings and start playing the game that we’ve been losing for decades.
What primary? The DNC shut down real primaries last election. To the point where undecided was the protest vote.
A race between Biden, Williamson, and Phillips isn’t a real primary.
A real primary would have been something like Biden, Newsom, Whitmer, and maybe Shapiro.
There is no point voting in a rigged primary.
The presidential incumbent primary is a joke. I’m referring to the congressional primary that saw less than 20% attendance. Congress is the primary approval for military aid for Israel. POTUS can use drawdown power, but that can be challenged by Congress.
We have three branches of government, two of which are elected, yet people pretend we have one vote every four years.
Accountability is one think these people will not take. Has me questioning where they get off calling themselves progressive. They can’t even handle the mere suggestion which is evident by the number of downvotes that occurs when it’s mentioned.
For sure. It’s also easier to shout into an echo chamber and get an upvote than it is to convince someone in the street to take action. I hold no respect for apathy.
That exactly what you’re doing
Here, yes. This is far from all that I do.
How will you get any of that without tanks?
Are you trying to say we can’t have universal healthcare without leftist authoritarianism or do you not know what a “tankie” is?
A) yes, it is impossible to reform an embedded regime of wealth. You need revolution, which will likely require tanks even in the age of drones.
B) tankie is anything to the left of burning children alive for warmth, at least how it’s used on this site.
A) yes, it is impossible to reform an embedded regime of wealth. You need revolution, which will likely require tanks even in the age of drones.
Plenty of countries managed to enact universal health care coverage, facing down the same embedded regime of wealthy special interests, without full revolution. You’re just flat out wrong.
B) tankie is anything to the left of burning children alive for warmth, at least how it’s used on this site.
Lol k
Plenty of countries managed to enact universal
And those countries have tanks
A) those countries had far less embedded capitalists. They did not reform, they advanced in a linear direction.
B) you’re a north American, half of you are fascists and the other half are conservative Catholics. Don’t you people specifically still kill native women so regularly there’s multiple euphemisms about it?
Don’t you people specifically still kill native women so regularly there’s multiple euphemisms about it?
I can’t say this is familiar to me, at all.
Any Canadian that doesn’t know about ‘starlight tours’ at this point is either sheltered or willfully ignorant to the plight of native women in Canada.
Canada has this nice image and all, but they’re still committing genocide.
A) those countries had far less embedded capitalists. They did not reform, they advanced in a linear direction.
This is based on literally nothing. The way that health care was funded and delivered was reformed completely, many times in many countries, and was opposed on exactly the same lines, and that opposition was overcome. Your insistence that the whole system must be torn down or whatever is without rational or historical backing, and will guarantee failure.
B) you’re a north American, half of you are fascists and the other half are conservative Catholics. Don’t you people specifically still kill native women so regularly there’s multiple euphemisms about it?
Nobody knows what you’re talking about, including you.
A) no it wasn’t. The vast majority of healthcare reforms in the EU took place shortly after WWII and explicitly due to the fact fascism was fresh in everyone’s mind so they could just remind everyone of nazi healthcare practices.
B) Assuming you’re on ca due to your location, look up literally anything about native Americans in your country since you failed to learn about it in school (or went to school before courses on actual Canadians were added). Starlight tours still happen to this day and native women still disproportionately ‘go missing.’
Though some temporary concessions might be had through labor militancy.
Have you said tanks once?
That’s cause “tankie” is right wing propaganda for exactly that reason. It blunts progressive discourse dead in its tracks.
What’s worse is that sometimes I can’t tell if it’s Right Wing trolls or truly insane hard leftists.
I consider myself hard left progressive, but I have caveats like anyone. Tankies are so cartoonish, I don’t know how to react.
Yeah you’ll never know for sure. Actual tankies are what like a small subset of the small percent of progressives. Fractions of a fraction. Statistically they are non-existent. There is an outsized presense online. So one could reason that most of them you encounter are acting in bad faith. It’s been a very effective weapon on information warfare.
My philosophy is to abide by the oldest rule of the internet. Don’t feed the trolls.
Removed by mod
and yet they are head and shoulders above the trump cult
anyone that can’t see that or chooses to campaign and vote against the democrats is so corrupted by socialist fundamentalism that they enabled fascism
So when they agree to vote for Trump’s demands, they’re fundamentally better? Gutting Section 230 is the better choice because Trump said it, but they voted for it? Appointing Trump’s batshit cabinet picks? Bombs are inherently less deadly if a D signed off on it instead of a R?
Is my governor, Newsom of California, inherently better for being a democrat as he invites Republicans like actual open nazi and helper of Trump’s rise to power, Steven Bannon? Is he inherently better when he agrees with Charlie Kirk that trans people don’t have a place in society? Giving them not just a soap box, but a microphone and a speaker to the masses, and agreeing with them?
This is better? Agreeing to their demands and pretending you’re not helping their fascism?
you couldn’t see the difference before the election and you still can’t see the difference now?
for real?
come ooooon
at least talk about bernie and aoc or something vaguely convincing
You did not answer my question, please try again with a bit more brain power.
Is my governor better for inviting Republican dipshits and agreeing with them, because he’s a Democrat? Are bombs used for murder better with a Blue pen instead of a Red pen?
And Bernie and AOC are cool, they won’t be any positions of power because of Schumer and Pelosi.
you’re still campaigning so hard for trump, this is what i mean about how corrupt the socialists are
to answer your questions: bombs are all the same. you don’t have to agree with all dems to see they are better than the cult
but you can’t see that?
bernie and aoc are not in a position of power now because you encouraged people not to vote for them
the logic is pretty simple
I literally have never once praised Trump. I am saying “If Democrats are voting yes with his fasicst demands, they are doing a bad job at stopping Trump.”
bernie and aoc are not in a position of power now because you encouraged people not to vote for them
Point to me ever once saying “Do not vote for Bernie or AOC” in my entire account history. Any and all of it. Please, if it’s so clear as day, use my words against me. Screenshot it so I can’t edit or delete it too. Document me lying to you and the public.
Let me make it clear: Trump is evil. If someone agrees with him, they are complicit in his evil. That includes, voting for his demands. That includes giving him what he wants drawn up by Republican house/senators, and voting with it.
I like Al Green. I like AOC. I like Bernie. I like Booker. They have stood up for my kind more than most politicians. If the entire Democratic party was filled with them, I’d have a lot less to complain about. Instead we have Schumer saying he won’t vote yes on Trump’s demands, and then last minute gives Trump what he wants. Instead we have Pelosi in a hospital voting to prevent AOC from gaining rank in the House.
Once again, is my governor, promoting actual, unironic Nazis who enabled Trump’s rise of power good for America because he’s a Democrat? Richard Bannon literally sig heiled to Trump 2 weeks before the podcast episode featureing and agreeing with him. Is this good?
And please try to use grammar and spelling like we do when we speak English.
Booker voted to fund Israel, unfortunately. He’s not the worst, and is in the limelight right now, but he’s got a mixed and spotty voting record.
Some stuff I can forgive, but not supporting genocide.
I say this fully aware that I voted for Harris because I know she’d have been better than Trump.
you seem a little confused; quite typical of myopic socialists that can’t see beyond the current protest
the OP was about how people like yourself raged against the democrats by taking fundamentalist positions that made you predictably blind to the bigger picture of preventing the actual fascists getting to power and shooting the causes you thought you were supporting in the foot, and causing other immeasurable damage
and you’re still doing it!
attempt to wrap your head around that, i know looking more than 1 move ahead really isn’t your forte
Hell lemme help you, here’s a post from 3 days ago, unedited, saying I want more Democrats to be like Bernie and AOC, and stop voting for Trump’s bills.
EDIT: I’m gonna catch some Z’s because I’m not gonna stay up waiting for you to gather a lack of evidence to support claims you made up in your own head. Might as well try to accuse me of being DB Cooper or something else.
lol, hope you had a good sleep, x
I’m just punching right. Tell the Dems to stop standing there.
And it was the Dems who sued the socialist candidate off of the ballot in my state. Not the GOP. They occupy leftist space to prevent leftward movement, while Dems ally with the GOP to push through fascism.
Yep, generalizations work across the board. /s
Bernie and AOC are democrats. The Republicans and Democrats, although I could understand arguments against this, are humans. They can be greedy, shitty, liars, awesome, for the people and and for the oligarchs.
I’m always a little suspect when someone in the face of the r’s having convicted rapists, some of them pedos, on their platform, taking away constitutional rights, and tanking the stock market, say the left is too right. Are they? Some, but let’s focus on putting out the fire, not the dumpsters paint job.
I don’t really know what to do with this comment.
I don’t know who you think the left is, or what actions you associate with putting out the fire.
I believe that the Democratic party leadership is extremely hostile to socialist policies, despite their enormous populist electoral power. Universal healthcare is good policy and good politics. So are jobs guarantees and basic minimum incomes and paid sick leave and free college. I have found that most Democrats who have the power to decide whether they would like voters to associate them with these policies or would like to avoid being associated with them choose the later.
I’ll vote for the lesser of two evils, because I’m a highly educated supervoter news junkie. But ultimately what costs Democrats their power was not the criticism and anger I and people like me posted online: it was ignoring that criticism when we were warning them that they were running unpopular candidates on unpopular platforms.
As far as I’m aware, conversations like this one are not hindering the good guys. What’s hindering the good guys is their choices and lack of integrity. The reason people like Chuck Schumer can’t stop Trump is not because I point out that he’s incapable of stopping Trump. It’s the other way around. I point that out because despite all efforts on the part of people like me, Chuck Schumer is unable to decide to stop Trump. That’s an internal problem and most critics of Democrats – which now includes most Democratic voters – are just spectators pointing to this problem.
Bernie & AOC are center right at best. They’re both still feverishly advocating for sending more arms to extremists in Europe and the Middle East.
I’m not sure you’ve even seen the left, based on this comment.
…that’s not a right wing policy. That’s just a policy you don’t like.
LoL. So arming far right extremists is a leftwing principle now?
Oh so now they’re far right extremists.
Heard a lot of that said about the IRA as well. Ironically mostly funded by american left wingers.
Sounds like you just generally having an issue differentiating good and evil.
Not really, I just know that the difference between “terrorist” and “Freedom fighter” is usually very very political.
Technically, no, Bernie is an independent who caucuses with dems and runs on their presidential primary ticket. But Bernie supports the dems and I’m with Bernie Sanders on like 95% of policy.
“Tankies” made no measurable difference in the 2024 election. There’s next to none of them in the USA. Go ahead: ask real people in your offline life what a tankie is, and see if even one single person has even heard that word.
Unless, of course, you’re just applying that word to anyone whos not a Republican that’s criticizing the dems. Then I suppose you’ll find “tankies” everywhere.
It feels like a word that’s just being used to divide the left.
It’s the lib version of “woke”; it’s not even used for its original meaning anymore
“All the tankie college kids who love Hamas lost Kamala the election” ok Kristen I’m sure they’re tankies. Please just finish watching your DVR of the Today show
Thank you for clarifying, because I was confused. Like… ‘Are the Tankies in the room with us now, OP?’
What you’re saying sounds correct, because I don’t know anyone to the left of Harris who didn’t recognize that Trump was worse. While I think that I might have one friend who refused to vote for her in a swing state, I think that the BlueAnon folks really misunderstood the actual consequences of losing support on the left.
It wasn’t really, imo, that those folks wouldn’t show up. The problem was that I think a lot of folks never realized how much young blue-haired leftists dragged Biden across the finish line in 2020 by knocking on doors and convincing their uncles to vote Dem. I said throughout the election that losing those people wasn’t really a risk of losing their votes, it was a risk of losing the core enthusiasm and turnout organizing that Democrats had largely outsourced to Bernie Sanders’ base. And I could be wrong, but all that I’ve seen seems to affirm that this is exactly what happened.
If someone has evidence otherwise, though. please let me know.
What you’re saying sounds correct, because I don’t know anyone to the left of Harris who didn’t recognize that Trump was worse. While I think that I might have one friend who refused to vote for her in a swing state, I think that the BlueAnon folks really misunderstood the actual consequences of losing support on the left.
I do find it funny that .world and their ilk will swear up and down that Blue MAGA and BlueAnon aren’t real things, but then will swear Tankies are a thing non-stop in American politics when none of them can agree on what they look like or do.
You ask a Republican to define woke, you wont get an answer beyond “Anything I don’t like to the left of me.” You ask a Democrat on here to define Tankie, you won’t get an answer beyond “Anything I don’t like to the left of me.”
So long as the person doesn’t defend authoritarianism and any hypocrisy of their preferred candidate, I’ll consider them an ally to me.
Tankies aren’t left, the word means exactly what it has always meant: supporters of Russian and Chinese Dictatorships. People who would side with the Tanks in their respective massacres of civilians.
I really wish we lived in a world where psyops and social media made no difference in elections.
If it’s “always meant supporting Russia” but the term was coined when Russia was run by the communist party and part of the USSR? Do you not think the communist that supported Russia “the Tankies” would be against the capitalist Oligarchy that Russia currently is?
You’re just using a term to mean what you want it to. Definitely not what it’s “always meant”.
-
Lemmygrad, ML, and Hexbear Tankies support all three with no distinctions.
-
Economically Russia has transformed structurally it has not. More specifically it has regressed due to Putin ignoring term limits and empowering a loyal Oligarchy. Putin has even said publicly that he wants to restore the former Russian Empire.
Lemmygrad, ML, and Hexbear Tankies support all three with no distinctions.
Hahahahaha. You haven’t visited those instances one single time, I guarantee. I’m a Hexbear user, and it’s patently obvious that you haven’t even bothered to check. Hexbear users routinely criticise Putin for being the fascist scum he is. He’s attacking the rights of women and minorities, defundign the welfare state, and enacting policy exclusively on behalf of oligarchs. What hexbear/ML/grad users don’t do, is uncritically swallow russophobic state propaganda (e.g. claims of "evil Russian ghost fleet destroying internet cables with anchors, backed up by 0 evidence whatsoever), and they will not put the interests of the imperialist west above those of the imperialist Russia, as libs routinely do such as clapping in support of war budgets of the EU going to Rheinmetall.
Economically Russia has transformed structurally it has not
Literal braindead take. A capitalist oligarchy DID NOT EXIST in the USSR. Policies of universal free healthcare, universal free education to the highest level, universal good pensions, and fostering of unionisation, are all incompatible with a system that’s ruled by an “oligarchic minority profiting from the rest”. That’s why those things were all dismantled as soon as capitalism was restored. Russia suddenly started engaging in unequal exchange by importing cheap labour and products from the global south (which would have been beneficial in all economic senses for the USSR but it didn’t do because of its strong anti-imperialist stance)… There’s a million things proving the structural change. But you’re too russophobic and too bootlicker of the west to understand any of that or to do any reading on the topic.
Right instead of a few high ranking families and one brutal dictator the USSR was run by…
A few high ranking families and one brutal dictator…
Fucking tankies bro stg
the USSR was run by a few high ranking families
You literally cannot point to “high ranking families” in the USSR because there was not such a thing. Tell me, what did Stalin’s son rule over? Khruschchev’s? Maybe Brezhnev’s? Nothing. You’re just making shit up as you speak because gommunism bad. Meanwhile, the US has literally family clans in politics (Clintons, Bush, Kennedys). Every accusation is a confession.
one brutal dictator
Stalin was brutal… if your source is US State Department propaganda / Wikipedia (same thing). If you’re genuinely interested in learning about the red scare lies you’ve absorbed as a westerner (there’s a reason why Stalin isn’t demonized in places like South America or most of Asia), I recommend you to check out the ongoing podcast episodes of Proles Pod called The Stalin Eras, or Dominico Losurdo’s book “Stalin; The History and Critique of a Black Legend”. If you’re willing to have an honest and open discussion on the topic, feel free to bring up any questions or points that you want to make
Removed by mod
-
There are definitely tactics being used to divide the left and the word tankie is not one of them. Purity politics is the death of left wing politics. The fact that people moved out of the way of blocking a legitimate facist government because Harris wasn’t quiiite right is utter insanity
There are definitely tactics being used to divide the left and the word tankie is not one of them. Purity politics is the death of left wing politics.
Why, then, are we running around calling people tankies when that is an ill-defined word that tends to change from person to person? I’ve seen it applied to everyone from left anarchists to starry-eyed idealists who call themselves communists, to actual Stalin-Did-Nothing-Wrong types (this last group deserves criticism, all twelve of them).
The fact that people moved out of the way of blocking a legitimate facist government because Harris wasn’t quiiite right is utter insanity
Focusing on an incredibly online, vocal minority is insanity, especially when your previous statement is about purity politics.
Shouldn’t you question why Harris and the democratic establishment couldn’t beat actual fascism? Could it be that Trump used real issues in our political environment for his messaging? He lies constantly about why the cost of living is going up, why good jobs aren’t here anymore, etc, but Harris ran on a platform of “Vote for me, nothing will fundamentally change” and voters didn’t find that attractive for some reason.
Even when voices within the party point out problems they are shouted down. Sure, Bernie is an independant, but he’s been voting with the Dems the entire time, and they even pretended to let him run for nomination for president.
The democratic party has been shifting right for decades, and the only messaging they have to offer is that approved by their donors. It’s bullshit and it repels people.
So you’re just gonna sit there and act like propaganda influence on voters is not a thing
“Oh why could harris not beat fascists why did trump win i guess she just suuucked” is the awareness level of a potato
So you’re just gonna sit there and act like propaganda influence on voters is not a thing
You chose to speak to me, someone who is talking about the word tankie and it’s application here. If you’d like to talk about “propaganda influence” outside of the word tankie, I invite you to make your own top-level comment.
If you’re implying tankies themselves have amazing propaganda brainwash powers that caused Harris to lose the election, I invite you to touch grass.
Are you of the opinion that the propaganda last election made Trump’s victory inevitable? As in, there were no possible candidate or campaign that could have beaten him?
That’s a question that sets up its own answer as a foregone conclusion. Rephrase please.
I’m just interrogating your statement. Yes, oppositional propaganda is a known phenomenon. It isn’t new. If you are campaigning for election, your job is to overcome it somehow and win. Harris wasn’t lacking funds and she had the (arguable) advantage of running from an incumbent administration, as well as the advantage of running against a clown like Trump.
There were loud and numerous warnings to and criticisms of her campaign from the left. She ignored that. I can’t prove that’s definitely what cost her the election, but there is no question that she could have run a very different campaign. Blaming her loss on propaganda is weak and defeatist. Find ways to win, not excuses to lose.
Purity politics is the death of left wing politics.
Having standards isn’t “purity politics”. Having no standards got us here.
What a stupid post. Yeah it’s progressives’ fault mango Mussolini is POTUS /s. This is a talking point manufactured by MAGA handlers that some broadly Dem-supporting people choose to broadcast, now outside the US. This is a type of brainrot that undermines critical thinking, divides the left, and helps elect the right. Canada deserves better
Tankie are leftists, they are not progressives.
And progressives are not leftists, they are centrist liberals. Sanders is never going to call abolishing private ownership of the means of production.
Idk why you’re being downvoted, you’re right.
Because some other db0 user is angry with me and is downvoting everything I say regardless of content.
deleted by creator
Left is Progress, Right is Conservation of old ways (Conservative)
Tankies are not Leftists, even
Trump is progressive by that logic because he is dismantling the old ways.
The old ways didn’t have a system of laws to prevent discrimination and unethical greed. He is taking us back there.
That’s the very old ways. You can’t conserve them when they are gone.
Of course one could argue that there has never been a time with a system of laws to prevent discrimination and unethical greed.
People are alive today that remember the times without restriction very very clearly. Namely the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the following welfare programs that saved or improved millions of lives, politicians on the right want to tear that down.
helps elect the right
Trump, the farthest right viable candidate, was elected because he got the most votes.
Regardless of your feelings about her, Kamala was the most viable opposition to Trump.
Some people were most active being anti-Kamala.
In your opinion, did the anti-Kamala influencers hurt Trump’s election, or did they help Trump’s election?
Kamala was the most viable opposition to Trump.
You really believe that, huh?
Who, in our shitty 2 party system, had a better chance?
Anyone else. Throw Bernie’s half animated corpse up there as the candidate. Congrats he would’ve won. Because he wasnt a cop trying to get elected to the anticop party, nor far right economically trying to get elected to the center right party.
The fact you’re reduced her to a cop is showing you’re headfirst in the koolaid
She was literally responsible for police reform. You know, shit like making them wear body cams and undergo training to recognise bias, as well as community programs to get people back into the community as opposed to branded criminals for life. You know, the shit you want to happen. And all that for one state - one of your most progressive.
But over the years, she has proudly labelled herself both a “top cop” and a “progressive prosecutor”.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/12/kamala-was-a-cop-black-people-knew-it-first/
She’d even proudly declared herself California’s “top cop” in 2016 —two years after the Ferguson protests. Marcotte has things backward. In a climate where Democrats still felt they had to pander to the law-and-order crowd, “Kamala is a cop” was the nuance.
These legitimate critiques, not trolls hiding behind computer screens, gave the “Kamala is a cop” meme its power. Black Americans, who have wildly disproportionate contact with police and prisons, had cause to be wary of a presidential candidate, even a Black woman, who not only made her bones in the criminal justice system but adduced her work there to the case for her presidency. On Black Twitter, the meme was a reminder, not an explanation. Early on, Harris struggled to attract Black voters. Some were concerned about her electability, while others were truly mistrustful of her record and her promise to be the “progressive prosecutor” candidate.
https://www.c-span.org/program/campaign-2016/new-york-delegation-breakfast/450152
At 00:32:19 her speech begins, which has (via the transcript):
ELECTED FIRST WOMAN OF COLOR TO BE DISTRICT ATTORNEY IN STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN 2003. [APPLAUSE] AND I NOW STAND BEFORE YOU AS THE TOP COP OF THE BIGGEST STATE IN THE COUNTRY, NO OFFENSE ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN. [LAUGHTER]
Bernie’s name wasn’t on my ballot so he couldn’t have been a viable opponent. The only person on the ballot with any chance of beating Trump was Harris.
Bear in mind, I think the Dems could have run a much a stronger ticket with someone other than Harris but that doesn’t change the fact that she was the only viable competition in the election that actually happened.
Cool, you know you can write in the candidate, right?
In any case if dems wanted to be elected, they could try not being republican. Even in the face of fascism no self respecting person would vote for a republican.
Would love to have whatever drugs you need to think writing someone in would have actually been a good idea
The key wordyou seems to be missing is “viable.”
Removed by mod
Bernie, AOC, Andrew Yang off the top of my head
Lmao
Bernie is too old, didn’t want to run. AOC was too young until less than a month before the general election, didn’t want to run. Andrew Yang is actually kind of a weirdo in the bad take a look closer (check out the description of his Forward Party).
Anybody else?
So you asked for who is better, but since you dont like any of them, they wont do. Rocket dragon is the decider of all things politicians guys.
You should have just said so in the first place and we coulda saved time.
I love Bernie and AOC both, but what’s your plan, hold a gun to their head and force them to run?
Which of those 3 were nominated?
I’m not saying they wouldn’t have been better options. They simply weren’t options.
Gee I wonder why they werent options!
At the moment, yes. I’m also frequently wrong, there’s too much information in the world for me to process it all, so that’s the best conclusion I can make with the information I have.
If you can make an argument for anyone else being a more viable candidate against Trump, then give it to me.
Exactly what the other guy said.
This is bullshit though, please actually explain how Kamala is the most viable opposition to Trump? Trump is far right, and Kamala is a centrist conservative. America is further right than you think it is, Kamala is in no way shape or form an opposition.
Kamala is right wing. Trump is further right wing, guess who is gonna win?
You mentioned opposition, then where is your opposition party? Trump is a by product, you just explained how you get fascism.
Removed by mod
Just a Wealth tax lmfao, and thats it? Fuck. How’d that work out?
Shes a neoliberal and def right wing. America is so far right wing you think anyone that calls themself a democrat is an opposition. America’s two party system keeps going further right
But demonrats bad, what’s so hard to understand?
“Both parties are the same” is muddying the waters in ways that always benefits the fascists.
They didn’t say both parties were the same. In fact they made a point to distinguish the two I think. They just said both were right wing. There’s lots of different right wing parties in the world. They’re not all the same. Not even remotely the same.
They did not distinguish the parties in any meaningful way. Right and left are just labels, and if you make your entire personality about purity testing most of the world into not being left enough to be in your in-group, you will cultivate no worker solidarity.
She was objectively much better than Trump. Hopefully in the future Americans have the single transferable vote for presidential elections so they can vote for other candidates in other parties.
Anti- Biden/Kamala influencers helped elect Trump. The biggest of those influencers were the mainstream media. The double standard of reporting (Biden/Harris vs Trump) is very well documented. (And the ring-kissing is approaching authoritarian levels now.) Ideas that actual grassroots would-be Democrat voters sabotaged the the Democrats’ success in the election is much less certain, but perhaps a more attractive version of reality than the big-money-funded pro right-wing system we’re up against. Less in-fighting amongst the left please
Kamala is right wing. Trump is further right wing. Guess who is gonna win?
Progressives are separate from tankies. You can have leftist ideals without supporting authoritarians.
You must understand that under first-past-the-post the party that receives the most criticism tends to lose. It’s much easier to pressure democrats into doing the right thing then with republicans.
There was a lot of pressure for the most banal, milquetoast, form of representation ever in the form of having a Palestinian speaker at the Democratic national convention with a vetted speech that involved nothing that would have criticized Israel at all.
Even that was too far.
Either the progressives are powerful enough that you have to take them seriously and give them concessions, or they aren’t and you get to ignore them.
What you don’t get to do is give them nothing and blame them when you lose. Or, I guess you do if you’d prefer to lose the general over letting a progressive win the primary.
Huh, funny that, who knew there is a lot of levers and controls that a primary winner, even one that lost the general, gets.
No one calls themselves a tankie. It is a pejorative term for a progressive. It is used to silence legitimate criticism and helps right-shift politics
(Edit: I think your frustration is really more with the mainstream media and what news they choose to cover and amplify)
It’s the term that describes those communists who cheered on the Soviet Union’s violent crushing of the 1956 Hungary revolution protests.
The term is often used when someone claims they support leftist ideals but pushes for authoritarianism.
I get the original etymology. Nowadays it’s carelessly used and appropriated like ‘woke’
What about “lib” and “zio”?
Those are kind of new and exciting. All the kids are doing it.
I’m pretty sure those are used accurately as specific types of fascists.
the Soviet Union’s violent crushing of the 1956 Hungary revolution protests.
Did you know that was recently revealed (through Trump’s jfk doc dump) to be yet another CIA backed fake color revolution?
Removed by mod
Tankie is in no way a pejorative for Progressive. Hell progressives are usually the ones using it. I wouldn’t even say tankies pretend to be Progressive.
Removed by mod
So Bernie and AOC are tankies to you?
It’s pretty easy to identify tankies. Here, I’ll draw some out for you:
Mao and Stalin were just as evil as Hitler. China is engaging in a genocide of the Uyghur people. Putin is a genocidal war criminal fighting a war of imperialism.
So anyone who doesn’t engage in Double Genocide Theory, a recognized form of Holocaust denial, is a “tankie”.
deleted by creator
A tankie is anyone who objects when I do this: shits pants
Wow, lots of tankies in here taking the bait lol
deleted by creator
Really not beating the allegations that “tankie” is just an ill-defined snarl word
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Progressives are not leftists, they are centrist liberals. No matter how many times Sanders calls himself a socialist, he is never going to call for abolishing private ownership of the means of production.
Removed by mod
The difference is we don’t expect anything good from Republicans. We expect libs to at least try but they’d rather punch left than effectively govern.
6 months in and Liberals are still trying to blame their election loss on the left.
If centrists wanted criticism of republicans, they could have done that more.
But then they might not have got the endorsement of dick cheney. establishment democrats punched left and embraced the right.
Current US: a neoliberal capitalist nightmare being ruined by CEOs
Your most intelligent American: This is definitely the socialists’ fault
As always, point me towards someone supporting Trump on here and I promise I’ll give them an earful. There just aren’t a lot of them on here. If I spend less time arguing against voting for Trump it’s for the same reason I don’t spend much time on here arguing against puppy murdering - because most people already agree that murdering puppies/voting for Trump is bad.
Sorry for disrupting the circlejerk, I guess? Like yeah I guess we could spend all our time denouncing puppy murderers and complementing each other over being enlightened enough to recognize puppy murder as bad, but I’d really rather not.
Feel free to visit the new conservative comms and have at it.
Which one? Do you mean the one that’s exclusively anti-conservative posts?
The ee com is the sarcastic one. There’s a new one in world, and another new one somewhere else that are both serious.
https://lemmy.world/c/conservative is described in the sidebar as, “A community to satirize conservtive and right-wing “ideals”.” So no, that’s not serious.
I guess I just need to find the one that’s “somewhere else.” As I said, point me towards someone supporting Trump and I’ll give them an earful." Notably I did not say, “vaguely reference the existence of a conservative boogeyman and I will scour all ends of the fediverse until I find a community with single digit subscribers and I’ll give them an earful.”
The fact that you can’t even point me to it proves my point exactly. Even if it is out there somewhere, it isn’t large enough for people to see and engage with on a regular basis. Also, you’re clearly not seeking them out either, so it seems pretty hypocritical to expect me to do so.
You’re taking this way too seriously. Have a nap or something. Enjoy your day.
Lol.
Removed by mod
I think that’s kind of the point. In all my time on .ml, I saw daily posts and comments that were anti-Harris/Biden (and for very good reason). I never saw one that was explicitly anti-Trump. I assumed because he is very pro-Putin.
So, to make your analogy more accurate, it’s like everyone focusing on puppy-murder #1 and ignoring puppy, cat and goldfish murderer #2 because he also likes my sports team.
Like, it’s super easy… Fuck Biden because he allowed Palestinian genocide, but fuck Trump too because he has advocated for worse. I rarely, if ever, saw the latter on .ml.
Unless things have gotten better for the Palestinians since he took office. It doesn’t seem to be the case, but I sincerely hope so.
I never saw one that was explicitly anti-Trump.
How many posts and comments did you see that were explicitly anti-puppy murder? I think you’ve missed the point of the analogy.
I assumed because he is very pro-Putin.
What? No, absolutely not. Nobody on .ml is pro-Trump, and anyone who was would be attacked and banned in short order.
This is just liberal brainrot where you ignore everything we actually say and assign us made up stances based on your own preconceptions.
Wow…came out awfully aggressive there (which I guess is part of why ml gets such hate). I’m more than willing to admit I’m wrong. I’m just sharing my experiences in the ml community. Lots of good stuff going on there, but there’s definitely some issues. I’ve seen you a lot and I know you like to pick fights, but I’m mostly on your side. All I said was I never really saw any explicit anti-Trump sentiment. The absence of it is just weird. You cherry-picked a couple lines and never addressed that observation.
You attempted to discredit my claim (with no proof), then said I missed the point of the analogy (with a terrible false-equivalence).
You attacked the idea that ml is pro-Trump (which I never claimed).
Then you brought out the tired liberal brianrot line, assuming incorrectly that I am a liberal. It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so fucking wrong.
If you want to engage in good faith, I’m here. I think you’re a pretty smart dude, but ignoring some of the problems of the ml community doesn’t help it grow and affect more good.
P.S. I haven’t been on ml in a few months. If there are any anti-Trump posts, I would love to read them. I could be way off base here.
You attacked the idea that ml is pro-Trump (which I never claimed).
I never saw one that was explicitly anti-Trump. I assumed because he is very pro-Putin.
Right. So you said that the reason that you didn’t see anti-Trump content on .ml is because he’s pro-Putin, but how could I possibly interpret that as you claiming that .ml was pro-Trump?
then said I missed the point of the analogy (with a terrible false-equivalence).
It’s not a “false-equivalence.” You can’t just drop “false-equivalence” and dismiss any comparison you don’t like, you have to actually explain why it isn’t equivalent.
People don’t say things that don’t need to be said, and things don’t really need to be said if everyone reading them already agrees with the thing. I don’t go around randomly saying things like, “wood comes from trees,” or, “the sun is hot,” or, “puppy murder is bad.” That doesn’t imply that I think wood doesn’t come from trees or that I think the sun is cold or that murdering puppies is good, and if anyone came around saying any of those things, I would very firmly correct them on it.
What you’re trying to claim is that us not circlejerking about Trump being bad - something that’s already widely agreed upon in our spaces - means that we’re pro-Trump. Oh, excuse me, your claim isn’t that we’re pro-Trump, it’s that we give preferential treatment to Trump because he’s pro-Putin, important distinction 🙄. The same logic could be used to argue that we - or .world, or any other instance or community - is pro-puppy murder because there aren’t enough posts denouncing it (even though if anyone who was actually pro-puppy murder came around they’d be banned immediately).
P.S. I haven’t been on ml in a few months. If there are any anti-Trump posts, I would love to read them. I could be way off base here.
Estimated 100 000 In NYC Alone Protesting Today As Part of Nationwide 50501 Protest Against Trump & Musk - 311 upvotes
US stock markets see worst day since Covid pandemic after investors shaken by Trump tariffs - 111 upvotes
Dow drops 1,400 as US stocks lead worldwide sell-off after Trump’s tariffs ignite a COVID-like shock - 102 upvotes
China hits back hard at ‘bullying’ Trump tariffs as global recession fears grow - 73 upvotes
All of those were posted within the last 3 days.
Thanks for the links. THAT is something actually substantive that goes against the narrative in the OP. I’ll try to explain the errors in your interpretation and expand on the false-equivalence claim tomorrow.
I (*very explicitly and vocally not a communist) left .ml because of all the shit flinging from .world and yes sometimes .ca, among others. It was the only negative experience I had in over a year of keeping my account there that was related to where my account was.
@StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world is exactly correct.
And here we are again, the monthly “Tankies are the bane of Lemmy!!11!!” post, wherein we have:
- People who claim to not know what the term means.
- People arguing about what the term means.
- People arguing about what the term should mean.
- People who swear they’ve never met one on Lemmy.
- People who apparently find them so often it ruins Lemmy for them.
- A lot of assumptions about folks just for being members of .ml.
- In sum, a lot of angst over something people can solve themselves if they are truly that aggrieved, by blocking individual users or the entire instance.
Fucking A people, you largely control your own experience on the Fediverse, that’s one of the things that makes it great.
In addition, when choosing an instance (both times) I made sure to pick one that was defederated from Threads, because that was important to me. I’m sure there are instances that are defederated from .ml. If blocking the entire instance yourself or individual users yourself is somehow not enough, no one is stopping you from picking an instance that is defederated from .ml or asking your instance admin (who may very well tell you to FO as is their right) to defederate.
Edit: And you are welcome to search my username at .ml and see how much of what I posted was anti-Trump. Spoiler alert: nearly all of it.
I’m not sure if you meant to reply to me. I never said anything about Tankies, although I can see how offering my observations as a small critique of .ml could be seen as tacitly agreeing with the OP.
First of all, I’m sorry you left ml because of external pressure. That’s not right or fair. I guess there’s some truth in all the leftist infighting memes.
I agree with practically everything you said, particularly the comparison between ‘tankie’ and ‘woke’. I don’t utilize any blocking, though, because I like to be open to all viewpoints.
I hate crawling someone’s history, but since you asked I did take a look. It’s great to see that kind of content. I should have been more specific, but my .ml observations are older than your history (mainly the run-up to the US election). So, admittedly, I’m a bit guilty of “A lot of assumptions about folks just for being members of .ml” since I haven’t been there in months.
Right. So you said that the reason that you didn’t see anti-Trump content on .ml is because he’s pro-Putin, but how could I possibly interpret that as you claiming that .ml was pro-Trump?
Because you became instantly defensive and jumped to a conclusion. I get it. There are a lot of people that are rabidly against ml. I’m offering one small critique based on my observations there. One more time, just to be clear, I saw a ton of anti-Biden/Harris chatter and practically zero anti-Trump. This does not mean ml is pro-Trump. I am not claiming and never claimed ml is pro-Trump. I’m not saying that I saw pro-Trump content. It was just this weird black hole of direct criticism surrounding him. Now, this was all in the lead up to the US election, so I’m happy to see that perhaps this has changed (based on your links).
It’s not a “false-equivalence.” You can’t just drop “false-equivalence” and dismiss any comparison you don’t like, you have to actually explain why it isn’t equivalent.
Sorry, I thought it was fairly obvious. I was speaking about specific anti-Biden/Harris vs anti-Trump content. You tried to generalize it back to puppy murder. Those two things are not equivalent. Let’s ditch the analogy. If I understand you correctly, you are saying it’s good enough to criticize the bad actions the US is taking without having to denounce each and every bad actor and I mostly agree. What I’m saying is I saw specific (well-deserved) criticisms of, for example, how terrible Harris would for Palestine, but most brushed aside comments about how bad Trump would be. I saw people trying to get commentors to say one bad thing about Trump and they just wouldn’t do it. I mean, at that point, it’s dance monkey dance so I can understand how they would dig in their heels.
I really wanted to like it there and I think I’ll give it another shot. It just seemed, at least during the election, the point was more to destabilize than to actually further leftist ideals.
This does not mean ml is pro-Trump. I am not claiming and never claimed ml is pro-Trump. I’m not saying that I saw pro-Trump content. It was just this weird black hole of direct criticism surrounding him. Now, this was all in the lead up to the US election, so I’m happy to see that perhaps this has changed (based on your links).
It just seemed, at least during the election, the point was more to destabilize than to actually further leftist ideals.
I don’t have a lot of patience for this style of communication. If you have something to say, say it. You’re just accusing us of shit while dancing around it and acting all “Who, me? Why, I would never suggest such a thing,” while plainly suggesting it. The accusation that you’re trying to get people to believe is that .ml gave preferential treatment to Trump with the intent of helping him to win and cause instability. So stop trying to split hairs and pretend that you’re not accusing us of being pro-Trump and say it to my face.
You tried to generalize it back to puppy murder. Those two things are not equivalent. Let’s ditch the analogy.
The analogy is valid, so no, let’s not.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying it’s good enough to criticize the bad actions the US is taking without having to denounce each and every bad actor and I mostly agree.
No, this isn’t what I’m saying. Please read what I said again.
What I’m saying is that our opposition to Trump is already understood so there’s not really a lot of reason to just reiterate it over and over, with everyone agreeing with each other. That’s not how discourse works. Uncontroversial, mutually understood points are boring and unnecessary to repeat.
We do, of course, denounce Trump. You know, when it comes up. The same way, if you ask me if grass is green, I’ll tell you yes, but I’m not just going to walk up to you and go, “Hello, grass is green.” I assume that since that analogy doesn’t help your conclusion, it’s a “false equivalence” and you’ll say we should “just ditch it.”
I saw people trying to get commentors to say one bad thing about Trump and they just wouldn’t do it.
Did you now? I’d love to see a link to that. My standard is, “If someone claims something happened on the fediverse without providing a link, they’re lying.”
So stop trying to split hairs and pretend that you’re not accusing us of being pro-Trump and say it to my face.
I’m not sure how I can be more clear. I will try a more direct, succinct approach. I AM NOT ACCUSING YOU (OR ML) OF BEING PRO-TRUMP. I’m saying I observed a lack of anti-Trump sentiment in the run up to the election RELATIVE to the anti-Harris rhetoric. That is all. Lack of “anti” sentiment DOES NOT EQUAL “pro” sentiment.
No, this isn’t what I’m saying. Please read what I said again.
Apologies for misrepresenting you. That’s why I tried to remove the imperfect analogy and talk actual facts.
What I’m saying is that our opposition to Trump is already understood so there’s not really a lot of reason to just reiterate it over and over, with everyone agreeing with each other.
That’s a perfectly reasonable viewpoint. What I don’t understand, then, is that MLs opposition to Biden and Harris were also understood, yet it was reiterated again and again.
Did you now? I’d love to see a link to that. My standard is, “If someone claims something happened on the fediverse without providing a link, they’re lying.”
Being able to remember exactly which approximately 7 month old post it was and dredge up the exact comment is a tall order. I don’t bookmark this stuff to use as gotchas months later. It probably involved a couple of you big dogs like brain or flyingsquid.
This has all gotten wildly off base, though. This is my only claim: In the run-up to the US election, I observed a lack of anti-Trump sentiment in the run up to the election relative to the anti-Harris rhetoric. It was extremely frustrating then as those of us that had to deal with his first term saw the danger and now as I have to deal with these fascists dismantling my country.
Now, you can claim I’m full of shit, that I’m wrong, that there was exactly as much anti-Trump rhetoric as anti-Biden/Harris, that I moved the goalposts by not initially stating this was months ago (fair), but that is what I saw and why I left. Obviously, .world has it’s own issues, but I’ve spent entirely too long on this site already.
The accusation that you’re trying to get people to believe is that .ml gave preferential treatment to Trump with the intent of helping him to win and cause instability.
Edit: I just reread this part and should address it.
The accusation that you’re trying to get people to believe is that .ml gave preferential treatment to Trump with the intent of helping him to win and cause instability.
You’re correct. I’ve posited a couple theories trying to make sense of the imbalance of critiques and that is one of them. I have no proof of that and should just stick to the facts. Thanks for pointing that out.
You talk like a politician and that is not a complement.
I assumed because he is very pro-Putin.
What a stupid fucking assumption.
Perhaps. I’m smart enough to know that, like everyone else, I can be fucking stupid sometimes.
I was deliberate to use the word assumed, because it was just based on a hunch. That hunch, however, was predicated on observations of how nothing critical could ever be said of Russia.
For example, I was confused about how everyone was (rightly) denouncing the invasion of Palestine, but not the invasion of Ukraine. The most explicit reason I ever received was, apparently, Ukraine is just chock full of Nazis and Putin is simply liberating the innocent Ukrainians. I know there is a lot of history to distill and this is not the best forum for it. It just seems like such a waste of lives on all sides.
So, it stands to reason since ml is reticent to criticize anything about Russia and I see a lack of criticism about Trump (who is buddy buddy with Putin), that may be the cause.
I know your main shtick is to be incendiary, but I just thought I would expand on my reasoning just in case you wanted to have a human conversation.
was predicated on observations of how nothing critical could ever be said of Russia.
Well, no, because things critical of Russia absolutist can and are said.
but not the invasion of Ukraine.
Plenty of people would, I certainly do. But the people who don’t certainly don’t not because they’re pro-Putin or anything.
So, it stands to reason since ml is reticent to criticize anything about Russia
We really aren’t.
I see a lack of criticism about Trump
How do you see a lack of something? What would be the acceptable amount of criticism for Trump? certainly you won’t see anyone there unironically praising him. If there’s more criticism of Dems, it’s because opposition to Trump is already consensus, so there isn’t really more to say about the matter, where as people on Lemmy still have some support for the Dems.
How do you see a lack of something?
In regards to Trump, by measuring it relative to the critiques of other liberals, especially when they are in a race for the US presidency.
If there’s more criticism of Dems, it’s because opposition to Trump is already consensus, so there isn’t really more to say about the matter, where as people on Lemmy still have some support for the Dems.
Extremely well said, and a good point. I’m not sure it explains everything, but it’s something I should definitely consider.
Extremely well said, and a good point. I’m not sure it explains everything, but it’s something I should definitely consider.
Keep it in mind and I think you’ll find it does a pretty good job explaining everything. Think about it like this: I have never seen a single person who is openly pro-MAGA, I don’t know if I’ve even seen someone who’s pro-GOP. On the other end, we’ve been in this Trump dominated political purgatory for almost a decade. What’s the point then, of reiterating criticisms that have been repeated ad-nausea, to a community that universally has already heard them a thousand times and already agrees.
To people who view politics as a spectator sport rather than a power structure for changing the material world, you gotta keep cheering for the home team and booing for the away team, until the end of time.
I’m punching to the right, it’s not my fault the Dems are always standing there 🤷
yeah the like 10 tankies in the US really threw that election…? The takes from people on lemmy are so fucking strange.
Seriously blaming the tankies again? How bourgeoisie of you lol
If you want to blame something, blame the media. Both news and social media have completely sold out for profit. You CANNOT have a democracy if vast parts of your population is being misinformed. And this started with talk radio in rural areas many decades ago. And the democrats did nothing - because they are not left. Thanks for all the empty “Hope and Change” Obama!
So yeah, blame socialists all you want but their critique was valid.
You need a revolution or reformation. A massive change in who owns the means of communication to have a free press again that is not purely profit driven. Can you even imagine that? Is that something you would say? No. You’d rather blame and denigrate socialists and call them tankies. Look at the mass protests, it seems the libs aren’t even calling for Trump to step down and demand new election lol. People would rather bow to unjust laws and simplistic principles than believe in democracy. Of course they are all being stage managed.
But this is just pathetic.
I thought Democrats were better than Republicans because Democrats will at least listen. Why would I waste my time criticizing the side that doesn’t listen.
Republicans are always evil. They don’t do anything good. Ever. They’re a known quantity. That’s what we expect of them.
We expect the Dems to be better. And they get the smoke when they fail at that. Cutting Corp taxes. Border crackdowns. Genocide. Those are things that should exclusively be the pervue of Republicans. If dems run to the right they will always lose because the right was so triggered by Obama that policy doesn’t matter to them whatsoever. It’s purely teamsport for them. You can’t appeal to them in any way. They see a (D) and vote against that person. Dems would never lose another election if they went only as far left as Bernie Sanders. We would have a perpetually booming economy and a high standard of living. But even that is far too far for the DNC Services Corp. So we get a gameshow host and a car salesman destroying everything.
Really…? I feel like all the tankie (tanky?) discourse I’ve personally seen has only had vile hatred to say about trump. (namely hexbear)
