Democrats already retreating from public option before DNC even starts

[Agema]

Maybe it's because Biden's attractive to Nazis :V

Maybe it's just fucking with people, because the modern far right have adopted the tactics of internet trolls.

Vocally throw their weight behind the Democrats, and see if they can put off enough voters.

 

[Revnak]

Maybe it's just fucking with people, because the modern far right have adopted the tactics of internet trolls.

Vocally throw their weight behind the Democrats, and see if they can put off enough voters.

Spencer’s more tactical than “just fucking with people.” His adoption of “memes” and “trolling” was done long after he’d already been groomed to be a far-right activist. All of that stuff is just an attempt to appeal to people outside of the traditional right-wing movement.

 

[Agema]

Spencer’s more tactical than “just fucking with people.” His adoption of “memes” and “trolling” was done long after he’d already been groomed to be a far-right activist. All of that stuff is just an attempt to appeal to people outside of the traditional right-wing movement.

It is tactical to make a bogus claim to support the Democrats to try to put off their voters.

 

[Cheetodust]

Well since I am here I may as well smack talk, Harris.

She...

Voted for the Trump military budgets... twice

Arrested people parents, and students for truancy

Arrested people for weed, and laughed about it

Defending and strengthening the prison industrial complex

The state of California was ordered to reduce prison overcrowding and Kamala Harris argued against it, largely because the state would lose a low wage workforce. She’s literally fought to maintain prison slavery.

She supported Trump escalating the war in Syria.

She declined to prosecute Steven Mnuchin after his bank’s fraudulent lending and foreclosure practices broke the law “over a thousand” times and ruined the lives of thousands of homeowners.

Accepted thousands of dollars of campaign funds from Donald and Ivanka Trump multiple times

Tried to deny transgender inmate healthcare and endangered trans women by forcing them into men's prisons

Mocks the activist call to “build more schools, fewer jails

She stopped the release of a man serving 27 years-to-life after being wrongfully convicted of possession of a knife under the three-strikes law she supported

And I am too tired...

But there are just pages of stuff she did on a twitter thread.

Edit: antivirus was acting up here are the sources

Yeah but she did it all with a D next to her name so she's one of the good fascists.

 

[Silvanus]

The Southern Strategy wasn’t a big part of Goldwater’s campaign so much as a general appeal to conservatism. That he carried that South was more a consequence of efforts by the Dixiecrats than his own actual planning. He mostly just wanted to kill Russians.

He's usually attributed with early conceptualisation of the Southern Strategy. Whether you agree or disagree with that isn't really relevant to the broader point: He was willing to explicitly attack Civil Rights and exploit racist sentiments, primarily in the South, during his Presidential campaign as well as outside of it. It's ridiculous to imagine that had he been victorious, he'd have suddenly been open to pressure in the same way as were the Democrats (who didn't pursue the same electoral demographics, by Goldwater's own choice).

Okay, why? Why don't we discuss the reality of 1968 and 1972 instead? Because that was the electoral fallout of the civil rights movement, the various civil rights acts, and actual shoddy candidates divorced from the assassination of a sitting US President? Why should one Kennedy's corpse matter to this conversation more than another?

Because it's relevant to the question of whether involvement in the electoral process is desirable for bringing about reformist legislation.

 

[Revnak]

It is tactical to make a bogus claim to support the Democrats to try to put off their voters.

DING DING DING! CORRECT!
I was waiting for someone to just directly state he was lying tbh, though more likely to ingratiate himself with the white suburbanites of the Democrats, but your reasoning is fine too. Spencer’s public persona is always a very specific lie that makes sense to him and few others. I kinda was curious if this thread full of people certain they had already “done the work” actually knew the most basic facts about one of the US’s most famous living Neo-Nazi.

 

[Eacaraxe]

Because it's relevant to the question of whether involvement in the electoral process is desirable for bringing about reformist legislation.

Which is an argument that can be made by looking at the realities of '68 and '72, without relying on hypothetical electoral outcomes that give people weasel-room.

 

[tstorm823]

In truth, the Civil Rights Act wouldn't have happened without both of those things. Had the mass movement gone ahead during a Goldwater presidency, there would have been no Act. As retrograde as the Democratic Party of the sixties was, it was still more sympathetic to the Act, and the only one of the two parties that would have implemented it in any circumstance.

Progressivism absolutely requires mass movement, direct action, protest, and civil disobedience. But these things cannot pass legislation. They can create pressure to do so, but you need at least some willingness in government to concede. With a Republican victory in '63, the US would not have had the Civil Rights Act in '64, mass movement or no.

Um, but, what, why, how, who, where, when? You do know America holds elections in even numbered years, right? Johnson got office in '63 because Kennedy was assassinated. The Civil Rights Act of '64 was in place before Goldwater was even the Republican candidate. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed primarily by Republicans, just like all the previous Civil Rights acts, all of which Goldwater personally supported.

Lol, Republican victory in '63.

 

[Silvanus]

Which is an argument that can be made by looking at the realities of '68 and '72, without relying on hypothetical electoral outcomes that give people weasel-room.

Uhrm, that's (obviously) a very different discussion. Repealing enacted legislation four years after implementation is not the same as enacting it, and Nixon was not Goldwater.

Um, but, what, why, how, who, where, when? You do know America holds elections in even numbered years, right? Johnson got office in '63 because Kennedy was assassinated. The Civil Rights Act of '64 was in place before Goldwater was even the Republican candidate.

Yes, the year of the election was an error. I should say, "With a Republican Presidency in 1964". The crux of the argument is that I don't believe a visceral racist and anti-Civil Rights president would have seen through the provisions of the Civil Rights Act.

 

[Eacaraxe]

Uhrm, that's (obviously) a very different discussion. Repealing enacted legislation four years after implementation is not the same as enacting it, and Nixon was not Goldwater.

Of course it is, because it's one founded in actual history, not hypothetical scenarios that have to be premised with "well, if literally the entire country had a different party system...".

Yes, the year of the election was an error. I should say, "With a Republican Presidency in 1964". The crux of the argument is that I don't believe a visceral racist and anti-Civil Rights president would have seen through the provisions of the Civil Rights Act.

In other words, if it was Nixon instead of Kennedy who won the 1960 election. And Nixon had ran on a more decisive civil rights platform than Kennedy had, because Kennedy had to stay his hand so as to not hack off Southern Democrats. What changed that race was JFK and RFK getting King out of jail.

 

[tstorm823]

Yes, the year of the election was an error. I should say, "With a Republican Presidency in 1964". The crux of the argument is that I don't believe a visceral racist and anti-Civil Rights president would have seen through the provisions of the Civil Rights Act.

Lyndon Johnson was a visceral racist, and was an anti-Civil Rights senator before he took on Kennedy's legacy. Goldwater was a Civil Rights proponent who voted against the Act of 1964 only because he thought the federal government constitutionally lacked the power to outlaw segregation done by private institutions.

Even the crux of your argument is based on ahistorical nonsense.

 

[Eacaraxe]

Goldwater was a Civil Rights proponent who voted against the Act of 1964 only because he thought the federal government constitutionally lacked the power to outlaw segregation done by private institutions.

Yes, and there's a bumper crop of statues across the South of Confederates who didn't personally approve of slavery, they just thought the federal government constitutionally lacked the power to outlaw it. Quit wiping your ass on your keyboard before pressing "send".

 

[tstorm823]

Yes, and there's a bumper crop of statues across the South of Confederates who didn't personally approve of slavery, they just thought the federal government constitutionally lacked the power to outlaw it. Quit wiping your ass on your keyboard before pressing "send".

And those confederates were wrong, if that's even an accurate portrayal of what they thought.

You're not going to get anywhere suggesting Barry Goldwater was a racist. Go ahead, research the man, all the claims of his racism come directly from Democratic propaganda from that election. Don't buy the crap.

 

[Buyetyen]

These guys have the ideology that democrats are worse than nazis since they are more progressive which means that no one will go further to the left while democrats are around. So they want republicans or nazis or whatever to totally take over because they think that will let the true leftists take over.

Which you might recognize as an argument from 2016. And yet, here we are.

 

[Agema]

Goldwater was a Civil Rights proponent who voted against the Act of 1964 only because he thought the federal government constitutionally lacked the power to outlaw segregation done by private institutions.

A man who distances himself from racism personally but knowingly facilitates it institutionally deserves condemnation all the same. This is what his gravestone may as well say:

'Here lies Barry Goldwater:
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice... moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
Betrayed his own words and beliefs in pursuit of the presidency'

 

[Worgen]

Which you might recognize as an argument from 2016. And yet, here we are.

They really are dedicated to remaining as politically ineffective as possible. But, pure enough so they can always say 'I told you so.' They want to do nothing and always be right.

 

[Buyetyen]

They really are dedicated to remaining as politically ineffective as possible. But, pure enough so they can always say 'I told you so.' They want to do nothing and always be right.

Notice that they were particularly hostile to my idea that progressives need to look at where we dropped the ball and do better. No, it's everybody else that needs to change. Hmm, where have I heard that before?

 

[Worgen]

Notice that they were particularly hostile to my idea that progressives need to look at where we dropped the ball and do better. No, it's everybody else that needs to change. Hmm, where have I heard that before?

They do seem extremely dedicated to the idea that they are perfect. I mean I do have to wonder if they are actually progressive or just trying to make progressives look bad. They certainly seem to be doing a much better job of making progressives look bad then of pushing progressive ideology.

 

[Buyetyen]

They do seem extremely dedicated to the idea that they are perfect. I mean I do have to wonder if they are actually progressive or just trying to make progressives look bad. They certainly seem to be doing a much better job of making progressives look bad then of pushing progressive ideology.

I think they do believe themselves to be progressives. But their pride is clouding their judgment and the label of "progressive" has become a tribal marker. You either agree with everything the tribe says, or you're exiled.

EDIT: Now that I think of it, they probably don't even care that protest voting doesn't work. But it makes them feel good about themselves for a moment.

 

[Worgen]

I think they do believe themselves to be progressives. But their pride is clouding their judgment and the label of "progressive" has become a tribal marker. You either agree with everything the tribe says, or you're exiled.

Maybe, but I'm pretty sure that at least 2 of them are full socialists so I would actually expect this from them since they seem to usually view people not as far left as them as more of a threat then those on the right.