If Hilary hadn’t been a pile of shit doing private speaking engagements for billionaires that were so hush hush that they set up massive white noise generating speaker systems, people would have voted for her.
if Hilary had set a fucking foot in some of the states she lost, people would have voted for her.
if Hilary didnt make stupid fucking comments, people would have voted for her.
Maybe if you stopped blaming voters, and blamed the shitty fucking candidates, someone less awful would have run, and won.
Blame the DNC. They’re the one cramming shitty candidates down our throats. If OP is right, and voting for president is just changing the oil, it’s like getting charged $2000 for Dollar General oil.
Stop blaming voters. Field actual, progressive, leftist candidates. I am fucking sick of voting for right wing, war hawk Democrats to “save democracy.” We aren’t saving anything, just watching stock market addicted octagenarians kill the country slower than the other team.
Actual leftist candidates–or progressive candidates, because those are very much not the same thing–wouldn’t get even 10% of the primary votes, even if the DNC was entirely hands-off. They certainly wouldn’t get the kind of donations that they would need to run a successful national campaign. Genuine leftists simply aren’t popular in the US as a whole, even if Gen Z might trend more strongly towards certain aspects of socialism/communism/anarchism than people of my generation did.
Don’t be daft. You need to protest, demonstrate, educate, and engage in outreach and community building, and then when it’s time to vote, you need to vote strategically. Calling everyone a literal fascist that’s even a half-shuffle right of Bakunin isn’t going to help you.
Your comment implied that you lumped Democratic politicians into that as well.
And no, not all Republicans are fascists. However, there are currently very, very few principled Republicans that are currently serving at a national level, and more and more are getting forced out by the party. John McCain and Mittens Romney were both Republican based on their political principles, and, while I disagreed with their politics, I don’t believe that either of them could fairly be labelled as fascists. But one is dead, and the other is now out of politics, sooo…
Oh, I’m sorry, but in a two party system (something that anything not proportional voting will never be), people refusing to vote letting the fascists win does not in fact mean the other party is fascist as well.
Secondly, i rightfully don’t give two flying fucks if you feel like republican politician X Y or Z is fascist or not, they have been engaging in fascist rhetoric and ideology for over 50 years, just because they have gone more mask off about it under Trump doesn’t mean the party of “Mexicans are scary”, “blacks are all criminals”, “tough on crime”, “gay should be illegal”, “unquestioning patriotism”, “Judaeo Christian nation” etc… haven’t been fascist, they still very much fit any definition outside literally being part of the Italian Fascisti party.
This only works when you redefine fascism to mean, “support for any single policy to the right of Mikhail Bakunin”. Creating an overly and inappropriately broad definition for fascism that doesn’t align with any common definition, and then labeling everything you don’t like as fascist harms your cause more than it helps. Saying–for instance–that people who don’t want homeless encampments near their business are fascists makes other people see you as unreasonable and not worth engaging with. If you want to turn people off, then that’s a fantastic way to do it.
people refusing to vote letting the fascists win does not in fact mean the other party is fascist as well.
I can’t even parse your meaning here. MAGA Republicans are 100% supporting fascist policies. Establishment Dems support some aspects of fascism, but are not fascist. Likewise, traditional/principled Republicans (now called RINOs) support some fascist policies, but are not fascist.
Edit: this is perhaps the most “controversial” thing I’ve posted online and just wanted to say it is an odd thrill to have random internet strangers having a negative reaction to something you said. Brains are strange.
I see what you’re saying but if my comment would be considered getting on someone’s throat than I think it may be time to take a step back and take a deep breath.
Ok then her dipshit ass campaign took my state for granted, barely campaigned here, and lost Michigan and the election. The dumb fucking DNC gave up on any election that wasn’t federal after Obama and that didn’t help the fucking idiots either.
Haha, no, I don’t think so, but I’ve definitely been wrong before :) I guess it’s been something I’ve been trying to ask myself and felt like a valid thing to ask here.
If Hilary hadn’t been a pile of shit doing private speaking engagements for billionaires that were so hush hush that they set up massive white noise generating speaker systems, people would have voted for her.
if Hilary had set a fucking foot in some of the states she lost, people would have voted for her.
if Hilary didnt make stupid fucking comments, people would have voted for her.
Maybe if you stopped blaming voters, and blamed the shitty fucking candidates, someone less awful would have run, and won.
Blame the DNC. They’re the one cramming shitty candidates down our throats. If OP is right, and voting for president is just changing the oil, it’s like getting charged $2000 for Dollar General oil.
Stop blaming voters. Field actual, progressive, leftist candidates. I am fucking sick of voting for right wing, war hawk Democrats to “save democracy.” We aren’t saving anything, just watching stock market addicted octagenarians kill the country slower than the other team.
Actual leftist candidates–or progressive candidates, because those are very much not the same thing–wouldn’t get even 10% of the primary votes, even if the DNC was entirely hands-off. They certainly wouldn’t get the kind of donations that they would need to run a successful national campaign. Genuine leftists simply aren’t popular in the US as a whole, even if Gen Z might trend more strongly towards certain aspects of socialism/communism/anarchism than people of my generation did.
no, clearly we need to show our disapproval by letting the literal fascists win!
Don’t be daft. You need to protest, demonstrate, educate, and engage in outreach and community building, and then when it’s time to vote, you need to vote strategically. Calling everyone a literal fascist that’s even a half-shuffle right of Bakunin isn’t going to help you.
I’m sorry, are the republicans not literally engaging in fascism? I mean, they check almost every box
Your comment implied that you lumped Democratic politicians into that as well.
And no, not all Republicans are fascists. However, there are currently very, very few principled Republicans that are currently serving at a national level, and more and more are getting forced out by the party. John McCain and Mittens Romney were both Republican based on their political principles, and, while I disagreed with their politics, I don’t believe that either of them could fairly be labelled as fascists. But one is dead, and the other is now out of politics, sooo…
Oh, I’m sorry, but in a two party system (something that anything not proportional voting will never be), people refusing to vote letting the fascists win does not in fact mean the other party is fascist as well.
Secondly, i rightfully don’t give two flying fucks if you feel like republican politician X Y or Z is fascist or not, they have been engaging in fascist rhetoric and ideology for over 50 years, just because they have gone more mask off about it under Trump doesn’t mean the party of “Mexicans are scary”, “blacks are all criminals”, “tough on crime”, “gay should be illegal”, “unquestioning patriotism”, “Judaeo Christian nation” etc… haven’t been fascist, they still very much fit any definition outside literally being part of the Italian Fascisti party.
This only works when you redefine fascism to mean, “support for any single policy to the right of Mikhail Bakunin”. Creating an overly and inappropriately broad definition for fascism that doesn’t align with any common definition, and then labeling everything you don’t like as fascist harms your cause more than it helps. Saying–for instance–that people who don’t want homeless encampments near their business are fascists makes other people see you as unreasonable and not worth engaging with. If you want to turn people off, then that’s a fantastic way to do it.
I can’t even parse your meaning here. MAGA Republicans are 100% supporting fascist policies. Establishment Dems support some aspects of fascism, but are not fascist. Likewise, traditional/principled Republicans (now called RINOs) support some fascist policies, but are not fascist.
cough Michigan cough. Bitch took us for granted. The DNC shit the whole bed that election.
Did a gendered insult help make your point?
Edit: this is perhaps the most “controversial” thing I’ve posted online and just wanted to say it is an odd thrill to have random internet strangers having a negative reaction to something you said. Brains are strange.
Ya know, getting on each other’s throats because our words aren’t nice enough is a part of how this mess started.
I see what you’re saying but if my comment would be considered getting on someone’s throat than I think it may be time to take a step back and take a deep breath.
Ok then her dipshit ass campaign took my state for granted, barely campaigned here, and lost Michigan and the election. The dumb fucking DNC gave up on any election that wasn’t federal after Obama and that didn’t help the fucking idiots either.
I wasn’t saying your point was invalid, so I’m not sure why you repeated it here.
Does language policing make you feel good about yourself?
Haha, no, I don’t think so, but I’ve definitely been wrong before :) I guess it’s been something I’ve been trying to ask myself and felt like a valid thing to ask here.