843
this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2024
843 points (98.4% liked)
politics
19236 readers
3179 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It is, in fact, bad to sell classified documents that you stash in your bathroom and jeopardize the safety of all Americans. It is, in fact, bad to rape people. It is, in fact, bad to ignore scientists during a global pandemic. It is, in fact, bad to raise taxes on the working class while cutting taxes for billionaires. It is, in fact, bad to be racist. It is, in fact, bad to pay illegal hush money bribes to protect a campaign. It is, in fact, bad to say that democracy will end after you gain power.
I could do this all day.
Would you say that any of the things I listed are good? Or are you just going to not address facts and reality?
I asked a direct question and you refuse to answer it. Since you can clearly read, I am forced to assume that you know all of those things are bad but admitting it hurts your feelings so you instead rely on avoidance behavior instead of confronting reality.
Edit: I also didn’t say any of the things you claimed I did. You are just lying at this point. It’s pathetic.
Which of the things I listed is good?
Removed, civility.
Yep it sure is crazy to dislike rapists.
What looks crazy and disingenuous to me is how you can't answer simple, direct questions. It makes it look strongly like you're arguing in bad faith.
You know what I find even crazier and more disingenuous? This user has scrubbed almost their entire history up to about 6 hours ago. Deleted a year's worth of posts and comments, most of which are downvoted. Isn't that just a little suspicious? I don't think this guy was ever here to participate in good faith, and is trying to hide their past. Good thing Boost keeps records of deleted comments and posts.
Yep, that's weird.
I've always found this "criticism" pretty funny.
I get the point of it is to be absurdly reductive, and to insinuate a reflexive, unthinking mindset where it doesn't matter what Trump does; the response will always be, "Orange Man Bad". Use of the "orange man bad" criticism ends up being more of an indictment of those who wield it though than it is of his critics. It's not like there's a failure to elaborate the specifics of each of his misdeeds. The information is out there and widely available to anyone who cares to take a look. That being the case, when specifics are given and Trump supporters or other malcontents dismiss it as "orange man bad" they are really displaying that they don't care to see why the complaint exists. It's a tactic of ignoring a legitimate problem, and hand waving it away under the pretense that there's nothing behind it. It's lazy and/or willful ignorance.
Beyond that, I don't think I've ever seen a Trump critic unironically use that phrase. If you'd like to see it though, here you go. Ultimately, this "criticism" fails to take into account that yeah, actually "orange man bad". Like, that's the legitimate reality of the situation. Trump is awful and he provides near endless examples of that. The guy is genuinely, unambiguously bad.
That's just blatantly untrue. I don't see any Dem calling for disbanding the Department of Education. Stances on environmental protection are also starkly different between the two parties. Voting rights protections, abortion rights, access to medical treatment for transgendered people, funding of and access to Medicaid and food programs... how many more do you want?
The phrase "hold your nose and vote for _______________" exists entirely because voters turn out for candidates who they aren't 100% with.
You'd agree that the 2020 primary is quite a bit different from the current scenario we're looking at, yeah? As the Brits say, chalk and cheese.
As far as prescriptive policy, yeah, I'd love to see more, and wish it were more politically viable. That's the point where we need to start talking about extended strategy, which the US citizenry needs to get a better grasp on if we're going to claw our way forward. In the mean time harm reduction is a valid mindset.
I largely agree with this. That's different than saying that the two parties as they currently exist are mirror images of one another though.
As far as the content of your post, that's where the need for extended strategy comes in. Until enough progressives/leftists work their way into the structure of the Democratic party on a state and federal level what you're describing is unlikely to change. Bemoan the two party duopoly as much as you like, but it's a reality. The way to change it is to infiltrate it and fundamentally alter the mechanisms that perpetuate it. It's not going to work to just hope for one progressive/leftist at the top of the ticket, and complaining that the person at the top isn't progressive/leftist enough can frankly be met with, "well, yeah, not much of a surprise there." The Tea Party is the template. They completely turned their party to shit (well, more so anyway), but successfully infiltrated the party apparatus to reflect their political preferences. If the left does something similar we can actually make 3rd parties viable and no longer be beholden to the Democratic party, but that's most probably a decade+ long project if we're being honest about it. It's unfortunate that the left is as fractious as it is; it only makes something like this more difficult.
I'm undecided as to whether you're a troll or just an unfiltered idiot. I am sure that there's not a third possibility though.
Troll. They have a year-long posting history they deleted to try and hide their bad-faith bullshit. They're just here to be an asshole.
If winning an election requires dumbing things down for the idiots to the point that nuance and substance disappears then maybe America is a failed experiment. Either way, you're obviously not participating in good faith here.
I do a lot of complaining about the Democrats and their offputting tactics, but I'm having a hard time believing you're actually engaging with any of this in good faith and simply bothered by the unfriendly responses.
These complaints just seem like repeating slogans rather than engaging with the actual failings of the Democratic party because the idea that they have no policy beside "Orange Man Bad" is just obviously untrue. Plenty of real criticisms, but that one's just nonsense. Add to that that the "Orange Man Bad" refrain originated with and is primarily in use by conservatives and this whole thread just doesn't pass the sniff test.
And here is the predictable moving of the goalposts. Now the bar isn't that Democrats have no economic policy, it's that the primary policies weren't grand enough. Except in the primary that elected Joe Biden the major topics of discussion were just as grand and the super moderate who won still greatly increased anti-trust enforcement and canceled student debt. The most salient difference being the Democrats had a weak super majority in 2009 and the slimmest possible majority in 2021.
But anyway. Why do you use 4chan alt-right slogans as the core of your complaint, fellow leftist?
It's a simple question dude. Why do you use those terms? You chose them. I didn't put them in your mouth. They're specific words from a years-old /pol / the_donald meme. Because you sound like a channer cosplaying rather than anyone actually immersed in the critiques of the Democratic party by the skeptical left. Plenty of true believers around. They make better arguments and use their own memes.