Even so, I’m not sure I can agree that the best solution to dealing with the right is to fight the centrists first
We aren’t able to use electoralism to fight the right as long as the political platform and messaging of the democratic party is 95% the same as the republican’s.
The criticisms of the dem party don’t amount to “let the right win”, they amount to “the DNC prevents any political resistance to the right, they either need to be coup’d or destroyed if we want to stop the right from winning”
I wish I could link you the AI-translated hitler speeches, but they seem to have been removed from youtube.
Apparently a bunch of libs were going “Hey wait he was right” instead of “Holy shit I literally speak of immigrants and trans people the same way hitler spoke of jews”
The random meandering into completely unrelated topics is also fitting.
2030 is incredibly optimistic. Musk has been promising your tesla would be able to function as an automatic taxi when you’re not using it for a decade.
Lefties had nowhere else to go
See, you’re working under the idea that everyone votes for the candidate that’s ideologically closest to them.
By that understanding, running against the furthest-right candidate possible, and triangulating yourself to be 1 inch to the left of them should get you the entire electorate, except for the tiny percent of people who are more rightwing than Donald Trump.
This is observably false, hence why democrats eat shit when they move to the right as they did in 2016 and 2024 (and in most midterms).
In reality, every time you compromise a position or means-test a policy, you lose votes. “New parents will get $5,000” will always perform better than “new parents who fill out a this form and are making less than $50K and whose SSN is a prime number may be eligible for a tax break up to $5,000”
Anybody who likes the idea of parents getting money will support the first, and anybody who opposes it will oppose both. But there’s a big chunk of people who will like the first, and won’t care about the second.
Same reason “Free healthcare” will always perform better than “subsidies for health insurance for pell grant recipients who open a business in an minority neighborhood that operates for at least 2 years”
IQ only measures how good you are at taking IQ tests. They recalibrate score every year to maintain the same distribution of scores within a year. (they change what each question is worth so every year 50% of tests get above 100, 40% of tests are between 85 and 100, 40% of tests are between 100 and 115, etc.)
The impact is that they have to make the tests harder every year. If you applied modern standards to 1920, the average score would be ~70.
What makes more sense to you, that 8/10 people today would be considered near-geniuses 100 years ago, or we got much better at taking IQ tests?
Where do you see frequent trash cans and people regularly throwing trash out in the street?
Typically trash in the street means you don’t have enough trash cans, or a bunch of youth or homeless people whom society is failing.
Thieve are more likely to believe “everyone steals”.
I guess dudes who use sockpuppet accounts on lemmy assume everyone else uses sockpuppet accounts on lemmy too.
No, fascism isn’t when you break rules to be effective in government.
Would you call FDR a fascist?
Republicans care more about open-carrying to committee meetings than to get anything actually done
So go around them. Did you learn nothing from Obama giving the republicans half of the discretionary budget to appeal to their better nature, which the republicans voted against anyway? Or the compromised republican healthcare plan, Obamacare? West wing-brained libs claimed this was a stroke of genius, because everyone would see how civil and reasonable the dems were by reaching across the aisle.
And then the dems got blown the fuck out in 2010 because republicans saw their representatives fighting for them, and dem voters saw their representatives unilaterally passing republican policy despite having a super majority in the house and senate.
So either Dems have to go low, and lower the bar further, bend the rules more, and be just as guilty of breaking democracy
If you were elected to do X, and the rules get in the way, it’s antidemocratic to let them stop you.
Every time the democrats used the parliamentarian or the villain of the week or the republicans or norms or rules they themselves set in the senate as an excuse to do what their voters want (and their donors don’t want), they are breaking democracy.
Democrats don’t have to be perfect, they have to be effective. Republicans are effective, but only to do bad things. Democrats do manage to be effective sometimes, but only to do bad things, such as when Biden went around congress to keep arms shipments flowing to Israel.
Kyrsten Sinema is in her 40s, Bernie Sanders is in his 80s.
Age is not the factor here.
It just speaks to how dogshit the Dem strategy of chasing the <10% of republicans who claimed they didn’t like Trump was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Hamas_charter
Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine. Yet, it is the Zionists who constantly identify Judaism and the Jews with their own colonial project and illegal entity. Hamas rejects the persecution of any human being or the undermining of his or her rights on nationalist, religious or sectarian grounds.
Note that Hamas is not the only Palestinian faction, but as the one everyone sees fighting Israel, the other factions, and the people of Gaza support them. When the people of Palestine are no longer fighting for their existence, I have no doubt they will support more secular factions as they did before.
But killing and kidnapping hundreds of innocent civilians is. You have to be clear about that
I am being clear.
Would you condemn the Polish resistance because they killed some of the German settlers who came to settle Poland during the 1940s? The South African anti-apartheid movement because they burned some Boers and their collaborators alive? Or would you say the oppressor doesn’t get to judge the morality of the tactics the oppressed use?
Requiring every antizionist to constantly stop to condemn Hamas creates a false equivalency between the people who are inside a concentration camp and the people keeping them there.
That is my dream. Just people living together peacefully, no matter their religion.
This is what existed before Israel, and god willing, it’s what we’ll have after Israel.
Great-grandchildren are being punished because their relatives (might) have fought against Israel
Fighting against settler colonists who came and established an apartheid regime is not a crime.
I am only criticizing the Israeli government, […] Israel in general
Israel is a settler colonial project, an Israel that provided equal rights to all Muslims, Christians, and Jews living in its territory would be less related to the current state of Israel than modern South Africa is to Apartheid South Africa.
not Jews
Yes, we agree that it’s antisemitic as fuck to associate Jewishness with Zionism. When Israel is murdering children in public view, implying that Israel represents Jews is just blood libel with extra steps.
I’ve never seen someone haul a whiteboard into a coffee shop.
In 1948, during the Nakba, Israel ethnically cleansed much of Palestine. From that (and a good portion of the ethnic cleansing Israel has done since), many of the people were driven into Gaza.
In 2006, when Israel got kicked out of Gaza due to an uprising, they built a wall around it and restricted the amount of food, fuel, and other items, and banned the gazans from constructing wells, water containers, and other things that would allow the people in Gaza to stay alive longer if Israel cut off food/water supplies.
Nationalize Tesla and X too.
Hungary was never an SSR, Kruschev sent the tanks into the Hungarian People’s Republic at the behest of their elected government to put down an uprising that had been coopted by fascists.
But yes they literally did secede, that was the legal mechanism which the SSRs broke off of the USSR in the 90s. It was enshrined in the soviet constitution.
People elect representatives to represent them, not to compromise and pass the opposition’s agenda.
It’s forgivable if the representative failed to obtain enough power, but if they have literally any means at their disposal and don’t use it, an unwillingness to use all the power the people gave them to do what they elected them to do is a betrayal of those people.