You're viewing a single thread.
"Democrats will be doing a disservice [...] if they don't come together and decide to support whichever candidate has the most support among them"...
what do you think a primary election is? it is literally seeing who has the most support among democrats. so this guy is the one who is doing the disservice of not deciding to support Zohran
Yeah but the people don't know who they want. The DNC knows who the people want. This is why I nominate Hillary Clinton as NYC mayor.
It’s been so fucking ridiculous to watch the US left spend three decades just completely buying into the conservative smear job against the Clintons. Just licking up every drop of the trash they’ve fed you.
Perfect? Not by a long shot. But you’ll be goddamn lucky to ever get another president as qualified and capable as Bill or Hillary ever again.
Bill "Epstein Island" Clinton?
Hillary "Let's promote Trump and sabotage Bernie" Clinton? Very capable politicians. Have a "ButHerEmails".
How the Hillary Clinton campaign deliberately “elevated” Donald Trump with its “pied piper” strategy
In its self-described “pied piper” strategy, the Clinton campaign proposed intentionally cultivating extreme right-wing presidential candidates, hoping to turn them into the new “mainstream of the Republican Party” in order to try to increase Clinton’s chances of winning.
The Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee called for using far-right candidates “as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right.” Clinton’s camp insisted that Trump and other extremists should be “elevated” to “leaders of the pack” and media outlets should be told to “take them seriously.”
___
Pat Buchanan would be so fucking stoked to hear anyone on the left parroting this
Pat Buchanan drinks water and you drink water, therefore you are as bad as Pat Buchanan /s
Are you claiming it's false? Of are you just mad it's true?
But you’ll be goddamn lucky to ever get another president as qualified and capable as Bill or Hillary ever again.
Provided you're a billionaire.
“No, I’m not at all susceptible to right wing media messaging”
I mean, I'm not buying your support of two center-right corpodems.
And who are literally a mile to the left of anyone the DNC has to offer.
American “leftists”: ready to throw fists in defense of 1990s Rush Limbaugh talking points but absolutely incensed at the suggestion that they’re not doing enough to stop the fascist overthrow of their government. 🤡
And who are literally a mile to the left of anyone the DNC has to offer.
The clintons and soulless corpodems exactly like them are all the DNC is willing to offer.
American “leftists”: ready to throw fists in defense of 1990s Rush Limbaugh talking points
Why would rush limbaugh say that they're too far to the right? Just because the clintons are to your left, that doesn't mean they're acceptable.
The Clintons are far to my right. They’re also far to the left of anyone you’ve ever put up that’s actually qualified.
Define "qualified"
Was Obama "qualified" in 08?
When has "qualified" ever mattered except when Hilary tried to use it as a campaign slogan and lost repeatedly (first to Obama, then to trump)
They’re also far to the left of anyone you’ve ever put up that’s actually qualified.
Where "qualified" means "have the last name Clinton."
2016 was eight years ago, get over it.
yeah, let's stop "cannibalizing each other's support" by attacking the nominee and giving support to others. very sound strategy, mr paterson.
sheessh. can't he SEE that the democrats need new blood
Democrats would rather lose to Republicans than let a single social policy happen.
Ok this is either comedy (if you know) or happenstance (if you don’t know)…
But David Paterson is blind.
And not like “blind allegiance to the party” but actually, legally blind.
Either way, he cannot SEE that the democrats need new blood.
Democrats and Republicans work for the same billionaires. You are about to witness Democrats working against Mamdani like they never have against Republicans.
In a fight between socialism and fascism, liberals will ALWAYS support the fascists.
I really hate statements like this. Not because you are right or wrong, but because your word choices obscure your true meaning when used this briefly.
In the context of this thread, which is clearly US politics, "liberal" has a somewhat different meaning to the majority of the audience than I think you are using. I almost think you are just making rage-bait, but I've seen it so many times that I have to respond to someone.
We have a clear dichotomy of our political parties, since we effectively only have two... some words I might use are 'republican', 'conservative', 'democrat(ic)', 'liberal', 'progressive', 'socialist', 'fascist', 'leftist', 'right-wing'
Because of human language, these may signify different things based on context.
I identify as a "liberal" in my country. I am also a "democrat", as well as a "socialist" and a "leftist". I am anti-trump. I would vote for Mamdani, but I'm not in the area.
When you make absolute statements like "liberals will ALWAYS support the fascists," you ignore the context. Perhaps in the dictionary sense of the words, a liberal will prefer a fascist government where wealth makes power and they get all the benefit of their work over a socialist one where their input helps everyone. That describes a giant swath of business owners for sure, as well as the 'taxes are theft' people. In the US, though, a liberal could mean a person more focused on bodily autonomy, social equality, social safety nets and other more 'socialist' concepts.
Another way to put this is that the political words are a 3D venn diagram. When you put your line of liberal = capitalist against someone who is thinking liberal = democrat, you are going to have friction because, based on context, that word lands in different places. I'm going to ignore any 'all democrats are capitalists' arguments, or complexities around our election systems. See my post history if you want my opinions there.
If anything, I'd recommend that people clearly define their words, such as a liberal vs a liberal. And even then, you can see that both are capitalist by those definitions even though, colloquially, a person may identify as liberal while preferring socialist ideals.
Basically, any absolutes, especially in the realm of political ideology, makes you a Sith (probably). Also basically, anyone firing off a one-liner in a conversation this fraught is a troll (probably).
I believe equally strongly in personal freedoms and individual rights. I think that makes me liberal. Fascism definitely has significantly less of both compared to socialism which is also not what I think of when reading Mamdani's policies.
"Taxation is theft" people are deranged imo, not liberal; pointing their frustration at the wrong part of the system. Are those the people everyone thinks of when the word liberal comes up?
I believe equally strongly in personal freedoms and individual rights. I think that makes me liberal.
Depends what freedoms and rights you're talking about. Everyone says they're for freedom and rights, more or less, the difference is in what they consider freedom, and what they consider rights.
Are those the people everyone thinks of when the word liberal comes up?
Nah, those are libertarians.
Got it, ty.
By personal freedoms I mean that you should be allowed to persue the lifestyle you want to live as long as it doesn't directly infringe on others living the life they want. I don't care what substances someone wants to use in their own home. Heroin and other hard drug possesion is up to that person and shouldn't be a crime in and of itself. Similarly you can have whatever oversived monstertruck you want that's unliscensed, but it should only be allowed on property you own, not public space and it can't overstep reasonable noise limits if you have neighbors closeby. Don't want to vaccinate your kids, you're a neglectful dipshit parent, but it shouldn't be illegal (as much as I wish it would be mandatory). The child shouldn't be allowed at any school, daycare, or public setting due to health risks for everyone who does vaccinate.
Rights should include food, water, books, internet, public transit, legal representation, and some form of shelter even if it's just a cheap pod hotel. I also think it is rediculous to punish someone for public urination if there are no public restrooms reguardless of the individuals intentions, so I guess bathrooms or port-a-potties also need to be available.
the DNC arnt liberal though, they are center right, Dinos for the most part.
Liberal just means they support capitalism as opposed to socialism or feudalism, it covers everyone from Scandinavian social democrats to Javier Gerardo Milei.
Liberalism: A Counter History is free on Annie's Archive, it goes through the major liberal philosophers, their role in society, and how they handled the contradictions of liberalism.
He can, and he knows he ain't it
For DNC democrats are the donors and most probably AIPAC. Democrat citizenry are not the target for them.
For AIPAC Mamdani is antithesis to Israel, which is much more important than US.
I was thinking this myself.
Yeah, but socialists don't count, obviously. \s