This is a weird meme. The Democrats actively tried to court suburban white voters and other traditionally right-Leaning demographics. They tried to peel Republicans off. The democrats never offered socialists a cup labeled “liberalism”, they offered “moderate republicans” a cup labeled “Border Control and Bush era political icons” and they said “Bro. I already told you I will only ever vote for Republicans”.
need this comment pinned to the top of .world for the next months
> Democrats: Run most leftist administration in the history of the country
> Democrats: Pass law after law and EO after EO that are a wishlist of progressive and leftist policies
> Democrats: Put officers from the most famous leftist movement in a century in high and visible positions of power in the government
> Leftists online: We never get anything by voting for Democrats they have betrayed us and move to the right constantly
TBH, it’s long past time for the Democratic Party to actually start ignoring the fringe left and work for the American people.
Despite all the Biden administrations achievements, they still haven’t addressed what the left has been asking for over the last decade.
Stop supporting the war in Gaza? Nah.
Single-payer healthcare system? Nuh uh.
Housing crisis relief? If you’re good… maybe.
Courts and criminal justice reform? Lol.
Billionaire tax? Nope.
Livable minimum wage? Psh.
Legalize marijuana? Hah! No.
Sudent loan debt? …Maybe. Depends on how much I like you.
You mean the shit that keeps getting blocked by the courts? By judges appointed by Trump himself?
Jesus fucking christ. He’ll appoint yet MORE judges this time, maybe some more to SCOTUS, and you people will complain next time one of them blocks a Dem down the road… Fuck me.
Blocked by the corrupt courts. Our judiciary is compromised.
Maybe letting Trump appoint more will help.
How many of those could be done with the amount of control the Dems have had in the past 8 years? They had full control of the government with the barest of majorities for 2 years with 2 senators that were basically liberal Republicans. You got Gaza, but besides that the rest require Congressional action. While in control they did get the biggest investment in green energy ever, they did get substantial increases for infrastructure (including public transport), and they substantially increased the amount of tech that will be made in the US.
Why didn’t you get those things done? Because you didn’t have the power to do it, just like Dems didn’t.
You are about to find out just how much and how fast Republicans get things done when they have all three branches, as opposed to the Dems who are ALWAYS held up by just one vote from their own party or “the parliamentarian”.
I don’t disagree. Different parties have different makeups. Dems are big tent and Repubs are unified single issue voters.
Dems are absolutely NOT “big tent”; that is only a marketing term
They stopped trying to be “big tent” when they started courting Republicans instead of their own voting bases.
I’ve heard the argument from practicality for decades, but it just doesn’t pass the laugh test. When George Bush started the Iraq War, was that practical? No. When Donald Trump did everything Donald Trump does, was that practical? No. But they made big changes. Bad changes, but big changes.
So why is it that only the Republicans can make big changes? I think it’s because your position is the coward’s position. If you never try to make the country better in a major way, because you’re convinced it’s impossible, of course you’re always going to fail. And voters know this. We understand why people are afraid to take big steps, but we don’t respect it.
Few things here.
- The war didn’t take Congressional action to start. Bush started it unilaterally and was later authorized in a bipartisan manner.
- Republicans almost always act as a unified block regardless of what’s happening. There was one or two that acted like they might not vote with them but still had a 95%+ voting record. That’s why it was so amazing when John McCain prevented the killing of the ACA.
3.The Senate heavily favors Republicans because of the number of small states so it’s much easier for them to get 50+ members and the house mildly favors the Republicans because of gerrymandering. - It’s easier to kill things and change the tax code than pass positive programs/laws. Because funding/tax bills have to originate from the House, the Senate historically just requires an up/down vote instead of requiring 60 votes like normal. This in association with 2 means programs can be starved of funding and tax changes are much easier for Republicans.
- Democrats will vote for Republican sponsored things if it benefits the people. Like keeping the government open or the minor crime reform bill the was passed during Trump. The reverse largely isn’t true.
This isn’t defeatist. It’s a realistic understanding of how the systems work. The fact that we got so many major things passed with such a tiny amount of control and in such a small amount of time is amazing.
Marijuana probably could pass. They didn’t really try. It’s supported by most Republican voters. It’d be a death sentence for a lot of the Republicans to vote against it.
It helps maintain the status quo though, so they didn’t want it gone.
Again requires Congressional action and there have been multiple bills that have passed through a democratic controlled house or Senate but stalled in the other half of Congress because Republicans wouldn’t vote for it and there wasn’t a large enough majority of Dems to get it done. Go check out mpp.org for more info. It doesn’t take but 10-15 minutes of looking up information to find out Dems attempted to get it done but once again Republican obstruction (like has been happening since 2008) prevented real reforms.
Those likely wouldn’t have gotten through Congress but that’s a poor excuse to abandon the efforts entirely. Embrace those changes as part of the platform, fight for them, make the Republicans publicly oppose what the people want instead of taking the accountability for doing that yourself.
The Democrats’ insistence on working across the aisle with a coalition that has abandoned good-faith bipartisanship only cedes power to the Republicans.
Obama won in 2008 with a message of “yes we can” but since he left office the Democrats’ most consistent message to voters has been “no we can’t”.
Since when did Dems abandon those things? They have repeatedly had them in the platform or at least verbally supported them and have pushed bills in Congress to get them done. The complaint was that they weren’t done under Dems control not that Dems didn’t support the issues.
Dems will make compromises to get incremental change. I don’t fault them for that. They fight for every inch they can get. That’s not a flaw it’s a feature. Giving up something that is minor for bigger progress on something else can be worth it. Just like when Pelosi and Schumer gave up minor concessions to Trump for significant protection on the budget fight.
Their propensity for approaching issues with small, incremental change is why they’re losing to a populist while their constituents are being eaten alive by runaway capitalism.
So that’s why 15 Million less people voted this year for the democratic candidate? All because the Biden administration could only acomplish some of their goals? That 15 million would have voted if they were more stubborn and further left on policies, or if they had managed more of the goals? I don’t understand how that makes sense.
What tactic should they have used to get those big things passed? Shutting down the government is pretty much the only thing they weren’t willing to do.
Again incremental change is the only thing that could get done with the power they were given. They still support major change but they don’t have enough power to get it done. Yes it sucks that one party is trying to improve things and they can’t get more done. But what else would you have them do with the amount of power they were given?
Man, it’s a good thing Trump is going to implement all of those things.
It shouldn’t be a surprise that the people who believe politics no longer serves them aren’t motivated to participate in the political system.
It is also shouldn’t be a surprise that political system not only doesn’t give a shit but also doesn’t have an idea about people who don’t participate in it. Almost by definition.
So who’s going to change? The disillusioned voters? Or the politicians running for office? Or are we just going to keep on yelling at people who aren’t listening?
Oh, politicians will do the changing all right. They will identify the people who vote and will cater more to them, moving further right. Many of them don’t want that actually, but since getting votes is the only way to be elected, and left doesn’t vote, they just have to.
People though? I don’t know, right now I’m disappointed in all the America, so I don’t believe change is possible. I however will continue yelling at idiots who don’t want right wing politicians but don’t vote therefore don’t express their wants. I will also continue doing public communication, maybe less yelly though.
Can’t seem to get them from Democrats, either, so what’s your point?
The point is that if you have one party that won’t legalize weed and won’t criminalize abortion at the federal level, and you have another party that won’t legalize weed but will criminalize abortion at the federal level, the first party is better. Now apply this to other issues. Families will be forcibly separated when Trump begins his mass deportation, Bird Flu will be COVID 2.0 when RFK is in Trump’s cabinet, etc.
Everyone on .world and .ml is focused on what the Dems haven’t done or won’t do. Ok, put that aside for a second. Do you think that Trump is going to put into place any of the policies listed above? Do you think he will be a better president than Kamala Harris would have been?
If the answer to both questions is “no,” I truly don’t understand the logic in complaining about what Dems didn’t do in the last four years. Not voting for Harris because she wasn’t left enough is cutting off your nose to spite your own face. The country will be far worse under Trump.
If you answer “yes” to either, then we are too far apart to have any meaningful conversations.
Dude, the election is over. The only thing we can do moving forward is try to learn a lesson. Blaming other people isn’t a solution. We can only try to do better next time, which requires confronting what we could do better, not what others did wrong. We have no control over that.
If your only solution is that everything is other people’s fault, you’re not being constructive. You’re only angry and lashing out, which is understandable but keep that to places that’s wanted ideally. You’re pretty deep in a thread trying to solve problems, not just blame others.
Mate, if you think anything I’ve said is “angry and lashing out,” I don’t know what to tell you. I’m frustrated sure, but wasn’t the one who started to dole out blame. The original comment I responded to was blaming Dems lol.
Still interested in if you think the country will be better under Trump than under Harris.
Lay of the mushrooms dude. Those are some serious hallucinations.
most leftist administration in the history of the country
That’s hilarious
I want to live in your reality.
Hey why don’t you explain to me how any of that benefits the American people and specifically how it would benefit one of these voters?
Because materially it doesn’t.
Lmao. Yep. We’re boned. lol.
If after doing fuckall about real shit like grocery prices and rent you clowns lost so bad that no republican has had such a mandate since Reagan in 1980 this is your response?
Yeah, we’re cooked chat. Buy guns and dried beans. You’re gonna need em.
If that is really the path forward the y’all need to peel off
almost a sixthabout a tenth (Math is hard) of the Republican’s Presidential election year voting base while simultaneously not losing any additional support on the social democratic left wing of their own party. I’m not sure that’s realistic.You honestly think the US Democratic Party has any “fringe left” policy? ROFLMAO
I’d bet everything I own on your being from the United States. No other citizens are consistently this ignorant of political theory.
WHeRe iS tHe leFt uNiTy
Buried with all of the socialists and unions liberals have betrayed.
If you go further Left
Marxist-Leninists: “WhERe iS tHe leFt uNiTy?”
Buried with all the Anarchists and Trotskyists cold bloodedly murdered by Lenin and Stalin.
“Further” left is demonstrably incorrect on account of all the genocide, union busting, and heirarchy enforcement they did, but otherwise yes, also true.
Is that why you helped the fascist win? Cause that’s a better option?
You Americans refuse to take personal responsibility for your lack of duty and apathy. And you really don’t get it
My only hope is you morons stay where you are and reap what you sow, instead of coming to my country and infecting us with your toxicity
Who are you saying helped the fascists win? The democratic party courted war criminals like dick cheney, claimed that genocide must be carried out, and immediately insisted we run even further to the right after losing the election. Are these the ones you think are defending us from fascism? I suppose it’s the leftists’ fault for wanting to promote popular progressive policies instead of pretending everything is fine?
I would be interested in knowing which country you’re from since the neoliberal-fascism tag team seems to be running globally and I would be interested in knowing where this isn’t happening.
Removed by mod
Yeah seriously, if there’s a single thing we’ve learned from this whole election, is that the best thing for the left is to enforce absolute ideological purity!
We must not tolerate any unorthodoxy! Better to abstain than anything!
It’s like you want to take this loss and make the lessons permanent…
Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, “Don’t do it!” He said, “Nobody loves me.” I said, “God loves you. Do you believe in God?”
He said, “Yes.” I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?” He said, “A Christian.” I said, “Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?” He said, “Protestant.” I said, “Me, too! What franchise?” He said, “Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?” He said, “Northern Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?”
He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region.” I said, “Me, too!”
Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.” I said, “Die, heretic!” And I pushed him over.
- Emo Philips
You say that as if the DNCs campaign strategy wasn’t to absolutely abandon the left and try to court “moderate republicans”, which we very obviously just learned don’t actually exist.
Apparently it wasn’t so much that they don’t exist, but that people are generally stupid and if inflation spikes during your term you’re going to get the blame for it - even if your actions significantly limit inflation compared to the rest of the world.
Every government that was in power during the inflation rise and had an election this year lost voter share.
Enough. America is full of idiocy. Everywhere. This isn’t a campaign issue it’s an ignorance and bigotry issue.
try to court “moderate republicans”, which we very obviously just learned don’t actually exist.
Exactly. For all their effort, all the campaigning with Liz Cheney, all the promises of Republicans in the cabinet, and all the war hawk endorsements, Harris lost votes with Republicans compared to Biden.
Republicans don’t vote Democrat, stop running to the right to appease them. Democrats don’t want to hear that shit either and you need them to show up to win, so how about courting their vote instead.
…because taxing the rich, adding affordable daycare/child tax credits, a propose ban on price gouging, and other middle class incentives were abandoning the left…totes. The narrative that’s being pushed here is pretty bullshit. Her platform was on point for the middle class and below.
Sure. She campaigned in battleground states, more than any where else…but that was strategic. And it makes sense at the time.
Everyone just keeps saying “she abandoned the left” without adding literally any examples of it.
The DNC fucked up by not holding primaries, but Harris ran a pretty damn good game.
I mean, the lessons are likely to be permanent, regardless. This might be the last few months of peace before the US turns into an authoritarian terror wasteland via project 2025. Hopefully it won’t, but all three branches of government have been compromised, which leaves little hope.
y’all got any more of them checks and balances?
Checks and balances only work if the branches fundamentally care about their job and the country rather than their party. We just have a completely disfunctional parliamentary system where sometimes, just for funsies, the prime minister and cabinet are the minority party so nothing gets done. Oh and also we have a critical part of our legislature elected just from arbitrary lines.
I love how anything outside of what the democratic party wants to do is labelled “ideological purity” even though democrats endlessly shriek at anyone who does not toe the democratic party line. Democrats had their way, again, and lost, again. How about we try something new instead of democrats constantly trying to appeal to fascists while pretending to be the only thing to stand against fascism?
It’s like you want to take this loss and make the lessons permanent…
Yes. That’s the point. If they can’t have exactly what they want, then acceleration towards collapse is more desirable than comprise.
“I’m going to hurt you because they hurt me”
What axiom is the left ideology built on that allows it to be ideologically pure? For example, the right has property rights to build on, which itself is derived from the ownership of your own person. What fundamental truth does the left build their views on?
Life is suffering
Without a strong fundamental truth to base your beliefs on, how can the left ever expect to unify?
Was this meant to reply to my comment?
It’s like you want to take this loss and make the lessons permanent…
Yep. They don’t care what happens to workers or minorities. They just want to have someone to point their fingers at to blame for the world’s problems - and what better way to get that than handing over all power to literal fascists?
Seriously, it’s the emo version of politics, they get to sit at home and cry about how nobody gets them.
deleted by creator
Fixed that second panel because there isn’t even a pretense of respect
It’s good to see the old socialism vs liberalism appear again after the US-election. Cycles are a bit out of order lately.
Genuinely clueless and wanting to understand here
What’s the difference between liberalism and leftism? My understanding of them is very nebulous and there’s a lot of overlap
Liberalism is the ideology of capitalism.
In the US, socialism has historically been shunned and not represented in the political sphere, to the point that the right started using “liberal” derisively and associated the term with socialism. Internationally, the term retains more of its original meaning, for example, in the UK the “Liberal Democrats,” are more like libertarians.
Liberals are generally conservative, meaning they support the status quo or gradual change. US “conservatives” are sometimes more accurately called reactionaries or regressives, because they don’t just want to preserve the status quo but to actively roll back progress that has already been made.
Because leftism is a very broad term, it’s difficult to define exactly what leftists believe in an uncontroversial way, but generally speaking leftists support radical change away from capitalism.
Liberalism is also quite a broad term, which on its own can only really be said to constitute a belief in “equal rights for everyone including the right to private property”. The Liberal Democrats, for example, are so-called because they were formed from the merger of the (classically liberal) Liberal Party, and the Social Democratic Party. They are more like libertarians in the sense that they were broadly pro-market but less authoritarian than the tories, but their policy platform has always been more like something that would be described as social liberalism.
In my experience, the word liberal is generally not used so much in UK politics (outside of the name of the Lib Dems), but if someone self-described themselves as a liberal, I think it would be generally understood as socially liberal rather than libertarian.
I wouldn’t necessarily say that the left right spectrum is tied to economic views only, while economics are usually part of a political view judging only by that is a bit one dimensional (non us perspective)
Personally, I don’t draw a distinction between economic and social issues, because solidarity between oppressed groups is vital for building collective power necessary to confront capitalism economically and laws that make people more vulnerable also affect us economically. But admittedly there are people who do view them as separate issues.
Although wealth distribution isgood, Socialism is not good for economics
Economics is merely the study of how scarce goods are distributed. There are many ways to do that. Capitalists argue that their system is the most efficient, but even taking that claim at face value, efficiency alone isn’t the only measure. It also says little about how control of those resources consolidates power.
That depends on what your goals, methodology, and material conditions are.
If you have static and predictable demand for something, like, everybody needs enough food to eat and a roof over their heads, then the state can effectively plan for and deliver on that. When you have something that just needs to be done for its own sake, then introducing a profit motive isn’t necessary or beneficial, and can lead to enshittification and cutting corners. There are also “natural monopolies,” like for example cable where it doesn’t really make sense to build another set of cable lines so the consumer is going to be left with one choice anyway, and it would be better for that to be run by the state where there’s at least some democratic input on how things are done. There’s also what’s called “externalities” where for example building a train line makes an area more accessible and brings value to the surrounding area, beyond what can be captured by the line itself - and conversely, there are negative externalities, such as a factory putting out smog or dumping chemicals, that will lower the value of the surrounding area but the factory won’t bear the brunt of the costs. There are also natural resources where the supply is inelastic so taxing them doesn’t make the economy less efficient, as the Nordic countries do with their oil.
There are situations where private industry can make sense. Like, say people want plushies made of different anime characters. There’s no real reason for the state to run that. There’s a low barrier to entry, and different companies can use different methods to predict which character will be in higher demand and whether people will want higher quality or lower price. Or with cars, they can design different models balancing all sorts of factors from safety to performance to aesthetics.
There’s also many cases where a state doesn’t have the freedom to implement whatever system they want. Some states are rich in natural resources, but they are owned by foreign corporations that have owned them since colonial times. If they try to nationalize them, or even tax them, it would be beneficial to the economy but it could lead to sanctions, coups, or invasions. But generally the people in the country don’t benefit from those situations and the relationship is parasitic.
The cause of the confusion:
Liberalism is the political project which gave us the 18th century liberal revolutions of for instance, the US and France. It centers invidivual freedoms like free speech, association, and the right to own and use private property without interference from the government. It can be seen as a reaction by the land owning middle classes of the 17th and 18th centuries to the power of divine right monarchs, and is the founding principal of both the Democratic and Republican parties. It centralizes human rationality and debate of ideas as means of finding true paths to the future.
Leftism is an umbrella term which holds a few groups in it (Most notably Social democrats, Communist Socialist, and Communist Anarchist ideologies). It can be traced back through history to many times and places, but modern forms of it originate in the utopian socialism of post-revolution France. Leftism promotes the primacy of human well being and equality (or at least more equally distributed material wealth) over property rights. Generally this takes the form of support for the abolition of class society (owner class vs worker class), belief in worker-centered policy, trade unionism, worker cooperativity, and internationalism… but again, it is a big umbrella, and there is a lot of deviation from this formula. In place of rationalism and debate of ideas, Leftism generally centers material conditions and material outcomes of policy.
Liberalism is a moral philosophy based on individual rights, liberty and equality - this is universally agreed apon terminology almost everywhere apart from here on Lemmy. Here for some reason people keep referring to classical capitalism as liberals like it’s a historical discussion about the economic system of the 16th-18th centuries. We should really be using neoliberalism or libertarianism instead now days, because those are new words that evolved specifically to reduce confusion and refer to similar economic ideas but in modern context.
liberals tend to be democrats and support democrat views. leftists want something better and tend to vote democratic as there’s not really a better option. liberals tend to be center, even center right, while leftists are actually on the left
Here you go: https://youtu.be/33p-8QHZpzY
It depends on the person. For some liberalism is capitalism and leftism is socialism. The real cut is for some any capitalism is liberalism and any socialism is communist. So folks who want managed capitalism (regulations) for like selling crap but want social safety nets (government run programs) for necessary things like education and healthcare. Whelp one side says they are way right liberalists (classical) capitalist facists and the other says they are way left radical communist facists. Those who embrace the centerism (not very central now due to the overton window) disagree but are usually willing to give one way or another to get close to what they want. In the us they are called democrats (sorta, again, overton window).
This is why you idiots lost. Nobody was leftists enough for anyone and everyone was the enemy. Allies on the same side, instead of standing against fascism started calling each other Nazis. I’ve never seen so much bigotry, intolerance and even racism out of the left like I saw this election. And against each other! All cause we don’t fully agree with each other.
Meanwhile the right was unified and laughing at you. Congrats, the American left proves to be stupider than Maga. The right will continue to be unified as the left splinters into micro groups who hate each other.
The real idiots are the liberals, who knew they had to capitulate to the left to win and refused anyway.
That word means different things to everyone
Which one, “left”?
You’re not wrong but you also aren’t saying anything.
“Worker solidarity as long as the worker in question agrees with me about pretty much everything”
I don’t even think you can call them leftists at this point. Being a leftist is fundamentally about worker solidarity. This is something else entirely. It’s a purity spiral death cult!
You’re only further proving my point
Well they were agreeing with you, so yeah, of course they were further proving your point.
Not that your point is actually right, but the fact that you can’t even tell agreement from opposition shows your level of understanding of the issues
“I like center-left policies”
“I like my policies further to the left”
“Aight let’s fight and make sure as few people as possible vote”
Meanwhile, the conservatives are laughing all the way to the bank.
Yeah, the Bush/Gore race ended so poorly we never got a Democratic candidate that was left of center again.
That started with Bill Clinton who intentionally and very openly ran towards the right. Al Gore was more of the same.
I don’t understand the difference. What is this meme talking about?
Democrats and moderates are blaming leftists because they believe that because of their stances on Gaza and other issues that leftists didn’t vote for them. They are unable to reflect on why they actually lost and don’t realize the thousand plus issues with their own party so they are working overtime to try and shift the blame. They ran the most unappealing campaign since Clinton and independents didn’t show up or actively voted against her.
Removed by mod
The third panel should say “I prefer Trump to Harris”
Fucking too true.
Argued till I was blue in the face right here on Lemmy about sitting out and voting third party. The entire time I was thinking those who are fine with Trump must either be stupid or privileged so as not to be as affected by his bullshit.
You’ll be blue in the face 'til the end of time, 'cuz you’re still trying to blame the electorate for the failures of the party. Your conception of how voting works is so backwards you think that the party is owed the allegiance of the people rather than the people being owed the faithful representation of their interests regardless of who is in power.
“The Democrats can’t fail, they can only be failed!” That’s you. That’s what you sound like.
If you couldn’t see that one of the two parties would end up in power then you are the problem.
If you think that what happened before must inevitably happen again then you are the problem. The major parties only win because they have people like you convinced that they are the only option.
So how did voting third party work for you? Did they win?
I voted for Harris, how did that work for me? Did she win?
Wow, if only you’d voted for the Greens they would have won
And I wish I had a million dollars. It’s just not reality.
People should be smart enough to work backward from a foregone conclusion: We’re getting the Dem or Rep nominee. Picking the best of your two options is logical. Anything else is wishing. Grow up.
There’s no “wishing” going on here. I’m explaining how your concept of voting has cause and effect reversed and you’re pretending that it’s “wishes” instead of basic political literacy.
People should be smart enough to work backward from a foregone conclusion: We’re getting the Dem or Rep nominee.
Not if the voters vote for someone else. You’re only assuming that the two major parties are inevitable because you’re drinking their kool-aid.
If they can’t convince people to vote for them then they lose. It’s on them to convince us, but you’ve already decided that they don’t need to because they’re owed your vote. You have deliberately rejected your civic duty to the nation in favor of blind obedience to the party just like Washington warned us about.
Grow up.
You first.
Damn that’s crazy because here’s me before the election telling the future. How in the world did I perform this feat? Do I have amazing powers of precognition?
Again, you’re telling us what you’d wish would happen. I was telling them what would happen.
What’s more is this is a concept that both the GOP and their voters understand. It’s why the GOP funds campaigns like Stein and gets others like RFK Jr. to bow out. Everyone who doesn’t understand this should be deeply embarrassed to misunderstand something about the US election system that Donald fucking Trump understands. And he dumb as shit.
See you in 4 years when the next president is the Dem or Rep nominee. *holds hands at temples, activating powers of foresight*
Damn that’s crazy because here’s me before the election telling the future. How in the world did I perform this feat? Do I have amazing powers of precognition?
Did you ever write to your congressional representatives like they suggested?
Again, you’re telling us what you’d wish would happen. I was telling them what would happen.
If the result was inevitable then the voters have no agency and are in no way responsible for the outcome.
What’s more is this is a concept that both the GOP and their voters understand.
You’re giving the most heavilly propagandized segment of the most heavily propagandized country on earth a lot of credit when they can’t even seem to understand that a tarrif is a tax on imports.
It’s why the GOP funds campaigns like Stein and gets others like RFK Jr. to bow out.
You mean like how the Democrats promoted Trump thinking that he’d be an easy win for Hillary?
Did you ever write to your congressional representatives like they suggested?
No, because I don’t support a weapons ban. That’s beside the point.
If the result was inevitable then the voters have no agency and are in no way responsible for the outcome.
I think you’re smart enough to know how a FPTP voting system works. We had 2 real options. Voters have agency as to which one of the two are elected. Stop pretending like you don’t understand how this works.
You’re giving the most heavily propagandized segment of the most heavily propagandized country on earth a lot of credit when they can’t even seem to understand that a tarrif is a tax on imports.
How sad is it then that this group understands this better than you pretend to?
You mean like how the Democrats promoted Trump thinking that he’d be an easy win for Hillary?
No, it would be like funding a third party candidate that is close to Trump with the express purpose of peeling votes off Trump.
