I would like an AOC run but I feel like she's going to struggle more this time because of how she lightened her stances and became more in line with Democrats instead of sticking to her guns. If she does what Harris did in trying to appeal to the moderates, she's very likely going to lose.
I think that is our main disagreement then.
www.dropsitenews.com
I dunno.
No, but my only assertion was that incrementalism works better than radicalism (demonstrably) because I can demonstrate the successes of the Democratic party in the past by listing the lasting (keyword: lasting) changes they've made to America through incremental change and moderate-minded efforts. Sure, America's democracy is deteriorating now, but it can be fixed with the same efforts that allowed it to reach its pre-Trump state to begin with.
Because of the novelty of this election and the previous one, I'm not sold on that being the actual problem. I don't think we can look at the Trump winning the popular vote and minimize it to "just be more radically left if you want to win".
Not true how? What argument do you think I'm making with that list? I'm only making 2 points. 1: that Democrats did it and 2: it was done through incremental change by non-radical people.
...I was too busy checking reddit to see if the Switch 2 reveal was announced yet to ask anything about him. I don't know shit about Brazil.
When did that ever happen, that comeback from a democracy falling apart by incrementalism? Even in the cases in which moderate left people win after a rightwing surge, like Starmer in UK, they cannot stop the trajectory and play with anti migration and police state pushes themselves.
Why can we not? Economy was the biggest issue of this election, people getting ever poorer, having high rent. In short, effects of inequality. Radically left means nothing else than diminishing inequality. That is something FDR did and Sanders/Warren wanted to do, but which Biden, Obama, Kamala or Clinton did not commit to. These policies (like a wealth tax) also tend to be very popular in opinion polls even with Republicans. I mean, hell, look at the Luigi Mangione thing. If 20% of the people are happy about a CEO being killed, a high taxation of giant companies and billionaires with proper communication is hardly something the public hates.
Not true because Democrats were not the mainreason for these reforms. All of them happened in western countries with conservative governments too. And they happened to a large extent because people outside of politics fought for them, often illegally and physically. Some democrats were responsible for pushing for very ambitious policies and got something better than what a republican would have done, that is true. But some also destroyed what former generations accomplished. They have a mixed record, and right now, they are less FDR and more Bill Clinton in their proposals.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
I am super curious too because I dont think any of these allegations was ever proven. But what you say is my point exactly: If we overlook democrats flaws because voting blue no matter who is the way we go, then we give up necessary standards for our politicians. And we end up with people who are not meaningfully better than republicans. That is why holding politicians we vote for to these standards can be more important than winning.
Radicalism is pretty much the currency of south american regimes. Lula was involved in vast corruption pertaining to oderbretch (a brazilian company that paid bribes to politicians in brasil and beyond) along with ridiculous corruption in petrobras (brasil's state owned oil company). But a lot of this is lost on the international front due to a combination of brasil's comically corrupt justice system (which has contextless folk going "Look! he was exonerated") along with corruption of folk on the other end of the political aisle (his immediate successor for instance placed the owner of a paper company or something like that in charge of policy concerning chopping trees for instance) and bolsonaro was awful. And even that's barely the tip of the iceberg (though I can't claim to be THAT familiar with the details of Brazilian day to day policy, as you can imagine that's A LOT).
Well okay then. This seems to be some more of the "No bad strategies, only bad people" stuff I was talking about. Surprise surprise.
That's fine. I don't agree. If we're talking about radicalism the way I have been throughout our entire back-and-forth (meaning resorting to extreme actions to achieve your political goals), then the radical action would be telling Israel to finish it. Or, for America to glass Gaza themselves.
Isn't that like saying radical is everything we do not somewhat do right now? Then my question would be why we are even using the category "radical" instead of thinking what is good and necessary. Sometimes, these things are things that are far away from the current partylines.
She's already sort of done that in a bid for more influence in congress and she still got passed over...so...
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
The political right has already done this, and plan to do more of it. And all it took was Obama. The high-road, play-by-the-rules approach has achieved what?
Trump and normalizing of racism and bigotry! =D
High road? Playing by the rules? I'm not condemning playing dirty, I'm condemning extremism. And no, I don't consider them to be the same thing. Think about back during the supposed Red Wave when we found out Democrats were promoting MAGA politicians in certain areas because they knew it would be easy for their Dem candidates to win. This would be an example of "Playing dirty", and I'm totally fine with that. What I wouldn't be okay with would be shit like the false electors scheme Trump did, or January 6th. That's extremism. That's radical.
Not in my understanding of radical. I pretty much use it as a synonym for "extreme". And extreme would be everything we don't do because it's either counter to/outside of the accepted rules of engagement we're all adhering to as a society, or it potentially results in the destruction of other norms that can't easily be corrected for. Changes in the system that can be corrected without much damage? Normal. Changes outside of the system that ignore potential damage to said system? Radical.
Oh yeah, you did understand it. And if that's the case, good then. And supporting Israel wouldn't be radical. Attacking Palestine would be radical. Supporting allies is not radical. Starting war with your ally's enemies IS radical. That's not to say we aren't complicit in the deaths of Palestinians. We certainly are. Not arguing against that at all.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
Isn't that just a rephrasing? What is radical here is to support a state that undertakes a genocide with weapons and thus enabling that kind of crime. That is radical because geopolitical goals are claimed to outweight human lives. Attacking Palestine obviously would be radical, too, as it does the same. But stopping weapon deliveries because support for a genocide is wrong is not radical, as it does put human lives over geopolitical goals.
If we stay in your analogy, isn't the core of the argument rather that you exclude certain puzzlepieces from the solution because you deem them as radical? I can assure you I would not lie to someone that he is doing fine when I think he works towards something that is wrong. I do look at the end, I look at the end of it all very much.
Nope. Context matters. If I sell a gun to someone who has the right to defend themselves and bear arms, but secretly they plan on committing a mass shooting at a school, I'm complicit in the school shooting, but I'm not promoting the school shooting. I'm not pro school shooting.
Yes, but that's the correct thing to do. I exclude puzzle pieces that haven't been demonstrated to be the correct piece or, at worst, have been shown to be an unfitting choice, evidenced by the damaged edges, torn pieces, and the amount of force xi0 applies to get it in there. And maybe you're right that you look at failed results and change your mind instead of continuing to pursue them. But I think you're more likely to come to failed results by resorting to radical action to pursue your ideals.
That, by the way you have defined it before, is radicalism. And then I do not understand how you can say that it is amoral to risk losing an election by fighting for what is right rather for what (seemingly) makes you president easiest. After all, my prime reason (among others) for favouring that approach was that it will make it more likely down the road to be able to push legislature that prevents collapse. You argue that it is amoral because shortterm, even a bad democrat government is better than Trump. The difference here is that I would never want to actually support Trump or Magas even if I thought that would be beneficial later down the road (so risk lives for my own goals). That is something democrats did and you commended it. But then how can you say this:
What you say there is absolutely true, but you are championing it whenever democrats do it (or claim to do it)
But you do not exclude pieces based on what was shown, you exclude them because you say they are radical (as in, they diverge from the very narrow current partylines). And my claim is that thus you exclude the solution and want to try winning a puzzle over and over with missing pieces.
Respect for sticking to what you think is right on this. I also read up on this a little and I think he did not do himself a favor with his reaction to this on his subreddit. He seems to be willing to fight this rather than just apologize.