Honestly i get both sides of this, like im in the UK and probably not going to vote Labour next election because theyve gone really out of their way to show the left how much they hate us, despite the fact its probably going to come down to Labour or reform, but the difference is here smaller parties are actually somewhat viable. So i think in the US it does make sense to vote Dem no matter what in the actual election, but put your effort into getting actual leftits on the ballot in the first place like Mamdani.
post
You know how before the elections we say that it's not the time to nitpick the Democratic Party because it's more important to have it win so that the fascist won't win?
Well, now we are not before elections, which means that now it is the time to nitpick the Democratic Party.
Hell yeah. Nitpick away. Push for actual left politicians. Go canvas for a candidate who better meets your ideals. Don't forget to vote in primaries and local elections.
Also don't forget that we need to actually make it to having elections for the next 4 years to even start trying to turn this ship around.
That's what pisses me off about these tribalists coming out to parrot the post-defeat "it wasn't our fault for not trying to be appealing, it was the fault of the plebes for not supporting us" DNC propaganda.
"Always blame the peasants, never the kings!"
It's hilariously subservient and the avoidance of change inside the Democrat Party that this "let's not criticize our leaders" aims to achive pretty much guarantees a similar result next time the Democrats face a Republican populist - Fascism - and that part is the very opposite of hilarious.
It's also seriously hypocrite to cloak yourself in a "we want to protect trans people" cloak whilst fighting against the criticism of the Democrat Party that can change the very leaders whose choices and strategies resulted in the current situation where trans people are getting harmed: if they genuinelly wanted to protect trans people from harm, they would not spend their time trying divert criticism away from their holy cows.
Nitpicking ain't the same as doing the work to get a more progressive candidate through primaries of a major party & onto the ballot.
I know, right? How many of the people shitting on everyone right of Emma Goldman and Mikhail Bakunin ever did any real community organizing, volunteering, or political canvassing? How many have actively worked to push the Democratic party farther left, rather than just shitposting online about how awful Dems are? Sure, we all want (well, a lot of the people here, I suspect) want socialist candidates that are smart and tough on the ballot. But are we doing to work at a local level to get there? This shit doesn't happen overnight; you start work locally, work up to a state level, and then go national, once you've got that base of support.
And you have shit libs still clabbering about how the 2024 General ended up.
Can we not pivot and look to the future? Are Democrats secretly wanting to Make Democrats Great Again, like they once were?
Ffs
And our nitpicking and low approval of the Democrats is now a key talking point for Republicans. I may be ignorant but I'm not seeing changes in leadership which is why the approval rating is low. We want something locked and loaded and with sure footing by the midterms so that, at minimum, messaging is on point. But so far they haven't done anything to appeal to people and actually create a platform that energizes people. They need a leftist issue that makes people as irrationally angry as trans girls in high school sports does for MAGAts.
Two different things, "nitpicking" and then, you know, voting (for Dems).
What does that have to do with what I'm saying?
Where did I say "Don't criticize the Dems!"
I'm saying "Next election that comes about, maybe don't fucking purity politics us into literal Nazi death camps like you did this time, you twats"
also time to nitpick fundamentalist beliefs and deradicalize before the inevitable bullshit wedge issue campaigns in the run up to the next elections
Thank you. I really don't get those people.
And I mean, the Democratic party doesn't exist in a vacuum. If you don't try to change anything, of course the awful "moderates" stay in charge. But it is possible to overtake them, just look at Mamdani. But some people won't even try that because "it's a lost case"…
He now holds the primary attendance record in NYC. It was only 30% of eligible voters, up from 21% in the last election. That’s literally all it takes. We just need to show the fuck up.
Congressional primaries see less than 15% attendance. We’ve been letting retirees pack our ballots with centrists for 40 years, then complain about our choices in the general elections. We wouldn’t be calling for term limits if we consistently participated in primaries.
Well that and ranked choice, right?
He won majority first round. Granted, I’d love to see ranked-choice in our federal elections, but that didn’t matter in Mamdani’s case.
Would people have felt empowered to vote for him first if it wasn't ranked choice?
No "progressive" will have an answer for you on this. Voting isn't the answer, blah blah blah. But it seems no one ever really tried. Otherwise maybe they'd just organize people into voting in every primary.
They are either trying to trick people into not voting against the GOP or they have been tricked themselves.
“Both sides are the same” has been a bad faith argument I’ve heard from conservatives for decades.
The point is that socialism cannot be achieved by electoral means. At best, if the masses in the street really pressure those in power, you get social democracy. That being said the choice for Americans was neoliberalism or fascism. The reasons for fascism winning go deeper than "the left was to whinny", but that's beside the point being made here.
neoliberalism
People here keep using that word uncomprehendingly like they're a dumb AI matching & associating on the root liberal.
Neoliberalism is free market capitalism, a conservative ideology embraced by Margaret Thatcher & Ronald Reagan. Democrats are for many things: environmental regulation, social safety nets, market regulation, spending on social programs, labor protections, consumer protections, etc. That's a far cry from free, unregulated markets.
The Democratic platform is a far cry from proper safety nets and regulations.
Every Democratic president since Clinton was a neoliberal. Now that Trump is going with protectionism, they are in essence more neoliberal than the Republicans.
In the most recent elections, Kamala talked good shit initially, until her corporate allies talked her down, and like the good little neoliberal she is she started sputtering out market-based "solutions" to everything.
Every Democratic president since Clinton was a neoliberal.
Nah: they passed the ACA, expanded Medicaid, passed Dodd-Frank Wall Street reforms, started the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, tried to ban non-compete clauses, tried to enact rules for "click to cancel" subscriptions & end junk fees, standardized disclosure of fees for finance services, voted in the FTC to enforce right to repair, sustained social programs. That & much more happened after Clinton (whereas Republicans defunded Medicaid, added restrictions, defunded SNAP, defunded school lunch programs, rolled much of this back).
You just have a memory deficiency.
The ACA is not that different from Romneycare or the old Republican HEART bill that was proposed in opposition to Clinton's attempts at passing universal healthcare. It remains a market-based solution.
The establishment of the CFPB, like the passing of the ACA, was a stripped-down pro-market version of what could have been.
In terms of foreign policy, the Democrats have enthusiastically supported and continued to support the globalisation of capital through such agreements as NAFTA and continued various imperialist adventures (Obama's use of drones is legendary).
In terms of workers rights, a lot of the bullshit from the Reagan years is still alive and well, unquestioned by the mainstream of either big party (it is frequently said on Lemmy and elsewhere that nearly everything wrong with modern America can be traced back to Reagan). Antitrust measures remain largely unenforced.
Stuff like this is well within the preview of other neoliberal parties like Fianna Fail/Fine Gael or the CDU. They too have limited market-based "solutions" to social problems. Just tax carbon emissions and the market will fix climate change. Stimulate more housebuilding and homelessness will be solved. This pattern continues.
Only during Biden's term was there some deviation from the old formula, in the form of stimulus checks and more investment in infrastructure, along with some support of trade unions. These were good steps in a shift towards the social-liberal wing of the party. Kamala leaned into this early in the campaign but then towards the end she decided it was better to get the endorsement of people like Dick Cheney.
The matter is simple. Yes or no: are they for market regulation & intervention? Yes. Therefore, they're not neoliberal.
You can hue & cry all you want, but words mean things. If you want a word that means not anti-market, then find that word. Neoliberal isn't it.
Your criticisms of those social programs & market regulations only amount to claiming they don't go far enough even though they definitely are market regulations & interventions. If they weren't social programs & market regulations, then the Republicans wouldn't have anything to cut & deregulate as they are doing: the current administration is rescinding consumer & labor protections proposed by the previous administration & they're restricting & defunding major public programs (Medicaid, SNAP, medical research, public health programs, national weather service, public broadcasting). While you seem to take these programs & regulations for granted, treat them like nothing, & act like they weren't a significant undertaking that could only barely scrape through our political obstacle course, they make a significant difference in people's lives.
What Republicans offer with their senseless trade war & cuts isn't protections to the working class, but the illusion of protections to some domestic businesses while exploiting other domestic businesses (reliant on international trade), labor (losing protections from defunded regulatory agencies & programs), consumers (shafted with consumer protection losses, tariff costs, less affordable goods & services) & while transferring income from the poor to the rich.
Calling market regulation & social programs neoliberal indicates you don't know the meaning of words. Market intervention & regulation isn't free, unregulated market, ie, neoliberalism. Any policy in support of a mixed economy with regulated markets suffices to not be neoliberal.
Comrade, the only people who are for complete nonintervention are right-"libertarians".
To call the Democratic ideal a mixed market is kinda wild. Nearly everything that could be privatized already is, besides perhaps the post office.
I will not pretend that the current programs are not significant or that cutting them will not kill people. But the fact of the matter is that it's peanuts compared to the social-democracy that reigned in Western Europe for most of the Cold War or even the social-liberalism of the pre-Reagan US.
I am not sure what your talk of the Republicans has to do with this. I am certain they're not really neolibs though. They're fascists, or close to it.
You can't have your cake & eat it too. This is simple logic.
You're talking about differences in degree the words do not imply. You're confusing mixed market with rejection of markets & muddling words.
You don't have to agree with their policies to understand they don't fit the definition. Definitions don't imply your approval/disapproval.
If they are for unregulated, free markets, then they are absolutely neoliberal. If they are not for that (eg, they're for regulated markets & public services), then they are not neoliberal.
Unless you can refute a definition, you're just fighting logic (in vain).
Okay, so, which is easier for socialists to organize under? Neoliberalism, or fascism?
Neoliberalism, obviously. Kamala probably wouldn't be in favour of people being abducted off the street and shoved into unmarked vans.
Playing devil's advocate here. It's probably much easier to grow a resistance against fascism than neoliberalism, as neoliberalism is comfortable enough for most people.
Don't you see? Only when it's all ashes can we start the utopia. /s
There are goals before socialism that ARE achievable electorally which are still worth pursuing in the meantime, like stalling fascists, or prevent genocide of immigrants and queer folks
We need never be afraid of the vote of informed Americans. It is only the ignorant voter we have to fear, ignorant politically, no matter how fine his house or how expensive his schooling. Such people have never experienced democracy; they have merely enjoyed its benefits. It is hard to explain what democracy is; it is necessary to participate in it to understand it.
The former Berlin businessman I referred to earlier told me that he blamed his own group, people with the time and the money and the opportunity to know better, for what happened to Germany. "We ignored Hitler," he said. "We considered him an unimportant fellow, not quite a gentleman, not of our own class. We considered it just a little bit vulgar to bother with him, to bother with politics at all."
They thought of the government as "They." The only possible route to a clear conscience in politics is to accept political responsibility, either as an active member of the party in power or as an equally active member of the loyal opposition.
—Robert A. Heinlein, Take Back Your Government
If you don’t try to change anything, of course the awful “moderates” stay in charge.
Trying to change thing is exactly what the Uncommitted movement tried to do. And while they failed to move the needle in the 2024 election, in 2028, the Democrats will have to think a lot more about whether they want to keep losing in exchange for supporting genocide.
Remember, it's always "the most important election ever." Every election is billed as that. But sometimes you need to be willing to accept a short-term loss in exchange for long-term progress. Myopically focusing on just the election right in front of you is how we got into this mess in the first place.
Kamala losing gave space for someone like Mamdani to win. It's clear that corporate DNC centrism is a toxic losing brand. If Kamala had won, it is extremely unlikely that Mamdani would have won the NYC primary.
Every election since I could vote (early 2000s) has been the most important.
Why? Because the results built the Supreme Court that curtailed every progressive policy achievement and accelerated our current descent into fascism.
Without GWB you don't have Roberts or Alito. Without Trump you don't have Gorsuch, Cavanaugh, or Barrett.
Those fuckers have lifetime appointments. One lost election sets us back decades. The only good time for a protest vote is the primary.
Trying to change thing is exactly what the Uncommitted movement tried to do
Where did I say anything bad about them? It was about the primary and not about the general election.
I actually get your point in theory as you could see elections in a game theory type of setting. The problem is that the last elections have been "the most important election ever" because well… they have gotten increasingly more significant and important. 2016 allowed Trump to shift the Supreme Court long-term and change decades-old consensus. It alone almost got him to do a coup. 2020 could have very well literally enabled that, and 2024 well… just look at everything that is happen. This is not the beginning of fascism, that's well some steps inside.
I get the theory, and if the opponent was a McCain I could even understand your thought. But if it's the election of 1930, where every vote counts to defeat the bigger evil, it's not the time to sit it out for future benefits.
I voted for Harris, am I allowed to be mad that the Democrats are still gung ho about Israeli genocide yet? Or do I need to shout blue no matter who for another few decades?
Not voting and voting for trump were both stupid choices. But attacking people who didn't vote for trump instead of those who did is fucking bananas and I don't get the point of this. Are we expecting a resounding vote in 2028 for Harris again is going to fix everything? Come the fuck on.
Being pissed about Israeli genocide and thinking that it's okay to welcome in Nazis who promise to intensify the genocide if you feel really strongly that reducing genocide isn't good enough are two entirely different concepts.
Asspatting the latter is a request for them to play purity politics if we ever get a chance to vote again. And if we dig ourselves out of this fucking hole, the last thing I want to see is for us to jump right back into it because "The Dems aren't opposing genocide enough! We NEED to let the pro-genocide candidate win and murder a few million extra people to teach the DNC a lesson!"
People were saying up to a year before the election that they wouldnt vote democrat unless they stopped supporting genocide. Maybe if reductionists like you hadn't been shouting over them calling them russian trolls and pledging your undying support to the democratic candidate no matter who they are, then they would have seen how it was affecting their polls and pivoted. Instead you continue to prove to them that they can get away with anything. I dont uderstand the obtuse refusal to see that laying down an ultimatum and drawing a line in the sand is the only bargaining power you have, even if you dont intend to follow through with it, it wouldve been worth withholding support from biden and harris as long as possible.
You make an ultimatum, you better be ready for the consequences. You bet that removing support from Israel would get the Dems more votes than it would lose them, net. The Dem campaign disagreed - rightly or wrongly, it's uncertain, but probably wrongly.
Now, because of that game of chicken you played, Donald Trump is discussing how bigly he's going to help Israel genocide Gaza and the West Bank, millions are projected to die from the aid cuts already executed, immigrants are being rounded up in concentration camps, and the death penalty is being discussed for LGBT folk.
Welcome to the consequences.
Why is the blame placed on individuals that would be lucky if they made up more than 1% of the population that makes up the "online leftist"?
Seriously. How is the only opposition party not the one that decided they would "play chicken"? You blame people for playing "chicken" but ignore the actual political party with money and organization that clearly decided to play chicken themselves. Hell, they're the ones that literally decided to play that game.
Somehow the criticism and blame is placed on unorganized "online leftist".
It wasn't the online left. It was the vast majority of normies that thought about their vote for all of 30 seconds and said : "Yeah, I don't like all the dead babies I keep hearing about. I'll stay home or vote Trump i guess"
Stop pretending it's some cringe online leftist. You're delusional.
Seriously. How is the only opposition party not the one that decided they would “play chicken”?
Holy fucking shit, for the millionth time, more than one actor can be guilty at once
Am I discussing quantum physics to you people or something?
It's because actions speak louder than words, you dolt.
Your actions are "only ever criticize the actual left" and so you are regarded as insincere because WERE ON THE SAME SIDE. But instead you NEED to be morally superior and make sure everyone knows it. It's the same as the people who didn't vote for Harris and their constant whinging about how the Dems never listen and theirs was the only MORAL vote. I think that shit was dumb, too, but at least they have principles.
If you just look at your actions, it appears you want to delegitimize the left in favor of the "centrist" dems as though moving right is a viable strategy that has worked for the Dems in the past. Basically, we see a clown.
If you were explaining quantum mechanics you'd probably start with the fundamentals of understanding momentum and position.
It's funny you make an analogy like that. Because you're completely ignoring both the position that the Democratic party is in AND the momentum they have in driving discourse.
Do I have to explain it to you?! Do you think the comparison between "online leftist" and the Democratic party is in the same "quantum level"? (Yes I'm stretching the satire here it's a joke don't take it too seriously.)
But seriously, it's not about "guilty parties" it's about the degree in which they are able to influence the political landscape.
You are critizing the smallest sliver of the nearly non existing left in order to avoid criticism of the only party that had any chance of preventing the rise of fascism we are experiencing now.
And that party did absolutely fuck all to prevent it. So, please. Explain to me you're "enlightened centrist" take on why the failure of the Democratic party and it's outright genocide were the fault of the "online left".
I'd really love that physics lecture.
So what about your own guilt in being a pushover that never needs considering?
That might be more compelling if the people I fucking vote for in the primary decided to disregard my opinions when they got to the general.
Instead, I have to deal with the fact that I'm an electoral minority whose options in the primary never get to the general because my fellow progressives would sooner sit at home and jerk off during primary season instead of voting, which is why Bernie only garnered 25% of the fucking vote in 2020 to Biden's 50%, despite Biden being a centrist ghoul. Which means I have to deal with the majority choice of both parties entering into the general, which is "Centrist ghoul vs. Literal Nazi" since 2016.
You act like Biden wasn't also complicit or selling bombs to Israel. In fact, this started under him and his failure to act is why this was even a dilemma to begin with. So now im supposed to pretend that if we elected a dem he wouldnt have done the same thing biden was already doing. Lol
If I don't want to genocide people or be a party to war crimes with my tax dollars, is there any substantial difference between parties?
You do realize that support of Israel is a scale and not a boolean, right?
If your answer to "do you support genocide?" is anything other than "no", it's a deal breaker for me.
Cool, so you would have supported not a single candidate in the history of the US. I'm sure all the Black folk campaigning for civil rights would have been thrilled.
The black community I am part of knows that civil rights was not won at the ballot box but on the streets. Just read Malcolm Xs Message To the Grassroots. He outright tells it like it was and rightly calls out MLK as being nothing more than a figurehead, worried more about fundraising than anything else.
Jesus fucking Christ.
Heres an interesting example if you just want to go one at a time. Did you know the NRA and the democrats actually agreed on gun control in California? But it was only after members of the Black Panthers started open carrying. Interesting huh?
Do you not remember who was governor of Cali at the time.
I guess facts are inconvenient when you have narratives to peddle.
The Mulford Act which i referenced was passed by 34 democrats and 28 republicans.
Championed and pushed by a Republican governor. But you keep peddling your incredibly bizarre and repulsive "MLK Jr. was just a figurehead interested in fundraising and did nothing for civil rights" pov. Malcolm X said let us try the ballot, but it seems you would prefer to support Nazis.
Now now. You are twisting my words and Malcolms. Please read the letter to the grassroots which I referenced above. Here is specifically what Malcolm X said,
I would like to just mention just one other thing else quickly, and that is the method that the white man uses, how the white man uses the "big guns," or Negro leaders, against the Negro revolution. They are not a part of the Negro revolution. They are used against the Negro revolution.
When Martin Luther King failed to desegregate Albany, Georgia, the civil-rights struggle in America reached its low point. King became bankrupt almost, as a leader. The Southern Christian Leadership Conference was in financial trouble; and it was in trouble, period, with the people when they failed to desegregate Albany, Georgia. Other Negro civil-rights leaders of so-called national stature became fallen idols. As they became fallen idols, began to lose their prestige and influence, local Negro leaders began to stir up the masses. In Cambridge, Maryland, Gloria Richardson; in Danville, Virginia, and other parts of the country, local leaders began to stir up our people at the grass-roots level. This was never done by these Negroes of national stature. They control you, but they have never incited you or excited you. They control you, they contain you, they have kept you on the plantation.
As soon as King failed in Birmingham, Negroes took to the streets. King went out to California to a big rally and raised I don’t know how many thousands of dollars. He came to Detroit and had a march and raised some more thousands of dollars. And recall, right after that Roy Wilkins attacked King. He accused King and CORE [Congress Of Racial Equality] of starting trouble everywhere and then making the NAACP [National Association for the Advancement of Colored People] get them out of jail and spend a lot of money; they accused King and CORE of raising all the money and not paying it back. This happened; I’ve got it in documented evidence in the newspaper. Roy started attacking King, and King started attacking Roy, and Farmer started attacking both of them. And as these Negroes of national stature began to attack each other, they began to lose their control of the Negro masses.
The Negroes were out there in the streets. They were talking about how they were going to march on Washington. Right at that time Birmingham had exploded, and the Negroes in Birmingham--remember, they also exploded. They began to stab the crackers in the back and bust them up ’side their head--yes, they did. That’s when Kennedy sent in the troops, down in Birmingham. After that, Kennedy got on the television and said "this is a moral issue." That’s when he said he was going to put out a civil-rights bill. And when he mentioned civil-rights bill and the Southern crackers started talking about how they were going to boycott or filibuster it, then the Negroes started talking--about what? That they were going to march on Washington, march on the Senate, march on the White House, march on the Congress, and tie it up, bring it to a halt, not let the government proceed. They even said they were going out to the airport and lay down on the runway and not let any airplanes land. I’m telling you what they said. That was revolution. That was revolution. That was the black revolution.
It was the grass roots out there in the street. It scared the white man to death, scared the white power structure in Washington, D. C. to death; I was there. When they found out that this black steamroller was going to come down on the capital, they called in Wilkins, they called in Randolph, they called in these national Negro leaders that you respect and told them, "Call it off." Kennedy said,
I voted for Harris, am I allowed to be mad that the Democrats are still gung ho about Israeli genocide yet?
Sure are.
Because you did the right thing to help your country, despite being upset about a single issue.
You are not part of the problem.
This is such a tired narrative. You guys really want to focus on the leftists when half the country voted for an authoritarian?
Every movement has its radical fringe. Virtue signaling either your ideological purity or your solidarity with the only viable opposition are equally feeble attempts at clinging to a notion of victory in the face of total defeat.
EDIT: I wasn't expecting this comment to generate discussion but since it did, let me elaborate on what I meant by "total defeat." The defeat is not an electoral loss, it's the fact that we have relinquished so much political power that all we have left is voting for one of a set of compromised politicians every few years. It's a tired argument because it assumes that it's possible to vote our way out of the mess we're in, and it simply isn't. We need to attack the point of production because it's where the ruling class derives its power. And arguing about our sham elections is getting us nowhere.
This is such a tired narrative. You guys really want to focus on the leftists when half the country voted for an authoritarian?
Scratch a liberal, a fascist bleeds
see now this is doing the same room temp IQ shit as fugjesus
Not All Leftists: are anti-DNC purity non-voters
Not All Liberals: are the MLK "white moderate" type who will vote Republican if lefties are mean to them
Sure, that might be true of individuals but that phrase, or at least variants of it (ie. "The Social Democrats are The Left-Wing of Fascism"), have existed since the rise of the Nazis.
The idea being that liberal institutions will sooner do the work of fascism by punching left, rather than making common cause to fight fascism. And this meme isn't helping that perception by punching left.
Phrases existing does not mean there is truth, just that there is an aspect that feels true, look at all the people that have adopted "hard men create good times" etc as a mantra.
I don't think making hostile comments (saying all libs are fascists) is productive at all, and obviously individuals are not responsible for entire institutions, or even other people that share their principles but are also assholes.
OP is a Democrat stooge. Look at comment history.
I'm a Democrat stooge too because
-
I've reviewed their voting history.
-
I've reviewed their criminal conviction history compared to Republicans.
-
I've been around long enough to know they occasionally get significant wins for middle/lower class Americans.
-
I know the alternative is fascism.
3rd parties are not viable and won't be anytime in the foreseeable future. This isn't a hard decision if you're in the middle/lower classes. So yeah, I'm going to simp for the party that is WAY better for me and everyone I know instead of pretending there's some other magical option to hold out for.
This is a bad metaphor. I agree harm reduction helps, but Democrats are not owed a vote and the obsession with blaming what is apparently a small minority of voters or the sole reason Democrats lost depending what is convenient, is truly damning of liberals.
If libs put half the effort into courting leftists they do in blaming leftists perhaps they'd win. Instead a group of people who would by and left never vote for a dem anyway, didn't vote for them.
This is the bed they made and now they want to blame everyone else for shitting their pants.
The bottom line is the left has a problem with members who choose their own moral superiority over the wellbeing of the nation and themselves.
That's a problem that needs to be talked about.
Someday some country will vote to bomb your loved ones
You have to understand, the other guy was worst.
Anyway here's your daughter corpse lmao (well what's left of it, white phosphorus is no joke)
I can't find any news story about camps opening up for trans people, is this just random meming or is there substance to the claim?
It's a valid concern moving forward.
The Republican party has made a HARD turn toward fascism. No marginalized group is safe from fascism. Unchecked, I absolutely believe conservatives would be onboard with camps for trans people. They've happily waltzed past every red line so far.
So in other words, "we have the fucking camps opening" is not true (with regards to trans people).
We can all extrapolate into the future from current events and see where things are heading, but @Rekorse was asking about the present.
Edit: can't believe I'm getting downvoted here, really curious if one of you downvoters would tell me what about this comment is problematic.
The camps that are being referred to are the concentration camps that are being opened to house immigrants. Most of these are people that were legal immigrants, but people that the Trump administration has turned in to illegal immigrants.
Jizz those leopards are really eating my face. So sad 😓 I voted to throw them them the arabs, I wasn't planning to face them myself
That's a legitimate question. Alligator Auschwitz has opened for immigrants. Mostly it's a warning that concentration camps are opening, and that the targeting of trans people means that they are in serious danger of being one of the next demographics to be sent.
Just like the Nazi concentration camps did not begin with mass deportations of Jews, so too is the case here.
Delusional lib cope. They want more camps so their fash team will "win" next time.
They're currently one Adderall fueled tweet away from being locked in cages, the electoral loss has already occurred.
Yeah. And yet, despite this clear and present fascism, those same leftists who bragged about how pure they are are still bragging about it and claiming it as left praxis.
If we have another meaningful election, it will be no thanks to them - and doubtlessly, if we have another meaningful election, they'll try to peddle this same exact 'trick' in service to fascism since they still think it was the best thing they've ever done in their lives. Which is why it's important to point it out as the pro-genocide pro-Nazi bullshit that it is before the metaphorical ten minutes before election day.
You are delusional, please show me all the posts by leftists happy about the state if things.
What we do see, and this post is a prime example of, is democrats bashing leftists, as per the norm, for their incompetence and losing. It's like you don't even want to win
You misunderstood the post. The person you're replying to is noting that the non-voters who have yet to realize the mistake they've made are yelling about how proud they are to have not voted for everything that's happening, when in fact they didn't vote against it either, making them complicit at best.
The reality of the situation is much more complex, and PugJesus knows that and intentionally resorts to name calling, false equivalence, victim blaming, etc instead of coming to terms with the fact that the Democratic party leadership failed in the moment to do what was necessary to save the country from the outcome.
Leftist unity doesn't exist because the further left you go the more purity tests you run into. The Dems weren't elected to lead the country because too many people are too stupid to understand how bad their decision making faculties are.
it's your job to decide if you want to participate or not, and then it's also your job to decide if all your purity tests are worth more than literally everything happening right now. The Dems are not in charge right now. The people who stayed home or voted for their perfect candidate instead of against the fucking nazis last election are getting what they voted for, whether they understand that or not. And it's their fault, whether they understand that or not.
So, no, any "leftist" that cares more about their purity tests than living in a semi functional world doesn't get to cry when they get the future they didn't help prevent.
the reality is dead simple, you're wrong in that. The world's most evil people conned a bunch of fucking idiots into putting them in charge, and here we are.

top 96 comments