Republican Bidens and the Failure of the Democratic Party

[Sommerswerd]

Dancing about the thing you once again didn't answer clearly. I asked a simple question. In the interests of ending the tangent, I'll ask it again:

Are you blaming voters for the actions of any future hypothetical Republican government based on the vote they cast?

Its not hypothetical. The reversal of Roe isn't hypothetical. The reversal of the voting rights act isn't hypothetical.

Yeah, I don't really care that you don't care. That's not the argument.

It is the argument. Its my argument, but my argument is inconvenient to the strawman that you want to keep knocking against... so round and round we go.

I've said a number of times I'm not strawmanning anything, and you keep telling me I am.

Because you are.

Tagging me has nothing to do with it. I have nothing to do with it. It was you saying that everyone who doesn't vote Democrat is going to lead to all these bad things the Republicans have yet to do. Nah. They're not responsible for that at all.

Especially considering how much you consider yourself not responsible for jack. It's hilarious to see that all of this came out you trying to pin Republican policy on progressive voters. But you're not responsible for anything yourself? Talk about convenience

Again, your argument makes no sense, as I've already said that I'm going to vote for Biden. I just think that your point... at least what seems to be your point, is illogical and incorrect.

 

[NinjaCow64]

This story indeed starts with Obama's betrayal of the "Hope and Change" he sold.

Obama is a character that ought to be studied carefully. His is very much a product of inbred american elites, regardless of race. Parents were probably CIA or close to it, with cover stories. Obama was the high tide of the takeover of the state's politics by a portion of its permanent bureaucracy. There is always promiscuity in politics with the permanent bureaucracy, in any country and type of politlca regime. But the US centralized, the bureaucracy grew in numbers, and this promiscuity got more pronounced there ever since WW2. The result, in any country, is always an emptying of democracy: the ritual of elections remains but the policies are decided and enacted regardless of what the voters want.

Thus the betrayals by Obama. There would be no change. He represented the existing trend winning again. Betraing all electoral promises and immiserating citizens while bailing out the wealthy, during the crisis.

Trump was the reaction of the voters. Which was regarded as high heresy by the permanent bureaucracy, for what he said even if not for what he managed to do. They chose to rally for a reaction in the Democratic Party, as dictated by the dual nature of US politics of the time. The bureaucracy never forgave the sting of losing to Trump, hence the lawfare during his term, and now to prevent any repeat of that, a continuation of the fight since. In this they turned the Democrats into the party of the permanent bureaucracy, and consequentially eased the takeover of the republicans by an apparent, and to some degree real, opposition to them. The "populist" faction now has much firmer control within the Republican Party, Trump is running an organized and well-backed campaign this time.

The Democratic Party has turned its back on the deplorable population of the country. As it eagerly allied with the offended state bureaucracy, it inevitably merged with it, with its interests. Politically that will either lead to its failure as a democratic party, or a supression of formal democracy in order for it to take and hold power. Because a party openly allied to a (by definion) small elite and its interests cannot be popular and win elections. The Democrats are attempting to be politically competitive by relying on the faults of their only rivals (the Republicans), public disinterest in politics, and advantages in propaganda and cash spent. This only works if the system is so controlled that "the alternative is worse". In a real democracy there will always be rivals winning populatity and beating them. Long term, this "merger" of the party with small elite grups and their narrow interests as a class causes its failure as a competitive party in a democratic regime.

I don't disagree with this. Obama is a huge traitor to the people who voted for him. However, I think you are overstating the influence of the permanent bureaucracy/deep state/CIA in recent elections. If they considered Trump to be a genuine threat to their future, Trump would have committed suicide through five bullets in the back of the head by now. And Trump is even more willing to engage in lawfare than the Democrats or the permanent bureaucracy is. I think that Trump's willingness to "drain the swap" is mostly an act, I don't think he'll come close to implementing Project 2025 because he won't want to.

The Democrats and the Republicans are both effectively the party of the bourgeoisie. The Democrats are the party of bourgeoisie who wish to uphold the status quo, "Nothing will fundamentally change". The Republicans are the party of bourgeoisie who dream of Fascism. I really think it is that simple.

 

[NinjaCow64]

There's no way some of the outrage stuff isn't egged on by agent provocateurs. The left willing to admit these types infiltrated say BLM protests but to admit they're in their discord or Facebook groups or WhatsApp chats is a bridge too far. No one wants to believe they're capable of getting mind-f-ed. They want to believe they've assessed the world on their own terms and come to their own decisions.

God I wish the extreme Left was anywhere near as influential in America as you thought it was.

 

[NinjaCow64]

Nah you're right, the systematic support of authoritarian, genocidal governments and constant defense against criticism toward them is actually a sign of supporting justice

Dear Akka,

Good sir, I ask this as respectfully and as politely as I am capable of doing so, where is the evidence that Crezth supports "authoritarian, genocidal governments"?

If required I will take this into another thread or DMs.

Yours Sincerely,

NinjaCow64.

 

[Akka]

Dear Akka,

Good sir, I ask this as respectfully and as politely as I am capable of doing so, where is the evidence that Crezth supports "authoritarian, genocidal governments"?

If required I will take this into another thread or DMs.

Yours Sincerely,

NinjaCow64.

Just look at any thread about Russia and China and notice who is happily supporting both ?

 

[Gorbles]

Its not hypothetical. The reversal of Roe isn't hypothetical. The reversal of the voting rights act isn't hypothetical.

Once again, you're avoiding answering a pretty easy question. I included hypothetical because the original post I took issue with contained things that had not yet happened.

So let's rephrase the question, again, and see if you can answer it. I hope Ziggy and Gori are watching, because man I'm trying my best here.

Are you blaming progressive voters for any actions taken by a Republican administration, based on said progressive voters' votes cast?

Or are you not? Because from where I was sitting, you were.

 

[Zardnaar]

Edward I don't think I've ever agreed with one of your posts as much as I've agreed with this one lol.

The same is true in Australia. The Greens aren't owned by big money nearly as much as the other two major parties but they barely get over 10% of the vote and some of their policies aren't good enough for me IMO. Also they embarrass themselves quite a lot. I joined them briefly but I decided it wasn't worth my time so I haven't renewed my membership. I don't consider myself a Green and I would vote for a better candidate if one emerged.

Same problem Greens have here.

 

[Zardnaar]

Just look at any thread about Russia and China and notice who is happily supporting both ?

And supporting Stalin, Mao etc. If you oppose America though everything's OK.

 

[Narz]

And supporting Stalin, Mao etc. If you oppose America though everything's OK.

These online revolutionaries don't hate America/the West.

They're like a teenage suburban girl who is bored of her milktoast boyfriend and fantasizes about a more exciting guy from the ghetto or maybe Brazil. They enjoy living in the fantasy but it's not like they're actually gonna leave the comfort of stability, it just feels exciting to dream.

Revolution seems cool on a screen, if you had to smell it, to see how they same mofos will rise to the top anywhere, the yarns they spin, the ethos they sell might be different but their characters are the same you might be disappointed.

Or maybe little kids are their memes are right this time and we're just old and jaded.

 

[NinjaCow64]

Just look at any thread about Russia and China and notice who is happily supporting both ?

I don't think that is a fair interpretation of her posts. But okay.

These online revolutionaries don't hate America/the West.

Incorrect. We do.

They're like a teenage suburban girl who is bored of her milktoast boyfriend and fantasizes about a more exciting guy from the ghetto or maybe Brazil. They enjoy living in the fantasy but it's not like they're actually gonna leave the comfort of stability, it just feels exciting to dream.

This is a weirdly racist and sexist analogy.

Saying that someone isn't a genuine Socialist because they're not literally Che Guevara is like saying that someone isn't a genuine Christian because they're not one of the 12 Apostles.

Revolution seems cool on a screen, if you had to smell it, to see how they same mofos will rise to the top anywhere, the yarns they spin, the ethos they sell might be different but their characters are the same you might be disappointed.

I don't believe in this circular view of history. Change does happen. I believe in it. If change didn't happen we'd all still be living under the rule of divinely appointed absolute monarchs.

Or maybe little kids are their memes are right this time and we're just old and jaded.

Yes.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I hope Ziggy and Gori are watching, because man I'm trying my best here.

Here's how I've sized up the reason you two seem to be talking past each other. It has to do with things that different people bring to statements as assumed, omitted material.

Sommer will say something like: "If progressives don't vote for Biden, Trump is likely to win. If Trump wins, he will likely implement policies even less appealing to progressives than Biden's disappointing policies have been." (Don't make me actually dig back through the thread for the actual statements.) Both of those are pretty sound as predictions.

You hear him saying, "And therefore progressives will only have themselves to blame for those crappy Trump policies." He hasn't actually said that last part. You think of it as a logical extrapolation of what he has said. Not least because he has also said (something along the lines of), "every person is responsible for the results that issue from his or her vote." But he insists that he has just registered two likely predictions and a banal truism about the nature of democracy.

If change didn't happen we'd all still be living under the rule of divinely appointed absolute monarchs.

Trump (and others around the world, of course): "Hold my beer."

I don't think he'll come close to implementing Project 2025 because he won't want to.

One part of it, I think he will. Generally, at the turnover of administrations, there's some number of govt positions (I think I remember 5000) that a new administration replaces with people of its own party. Project 2025 calls for something like 25,000 or something (again, don't quote my actual number). Trump would love nothing better than ousting some EPA chemist who tracks chemical levels in drinking water with some loyalist who says "Dunno. Tastes fine to me." So if the project 2025 organizers can give him a list of names of people who have as their core qualification for a government position loving Trump, he won't hesitate for one second to make those changes.

 

[Senethro]

These online revolutionaries don't hate America/the West.

They're like a teenage suburban girl who is bored of her milktoast boyfriend and fantasizes about a more exciting guy from the ghetto or maybe Brazil. They enjoy living in the fantasy but it's not like they're actually gonna leave the comfort of stability, it just feels exciting to dream.

Revolution seems cool on a screen, if you had to smell it, to see how they same mofos will rise to the top anywhere, the yarns they spin, the ethos they sell might be different but their characters are the same you might be disappointed.

Or maybe little kids are their memes are right this time and we're just old and jaded.

Our conclusion should be: Revolution is unpleasant, therefore we should try to prevent it by good reform.

Not: Revolution is unpleasant, therefore it cannot happen.

 

[Gorbles]

You hear him saying, "And therefore progressives will only have themselves to blame for those crappy Trump policies." He hasn't actually said that last part.

I agree he hasn't said that. Because that's not what he's saying. It's nothing do with progressives (or whoever, for want of a better description) having themselves to blame.

It's Sommer finding an out-group to blame. It's external. He doesn't consider himself at all responsible for the consequences of any action (including his own; posting on a web forum). But they're the cause of anything the Republicans have done or will do. He's said it enough times, in my eyes. I'm just trying to get him to say it clearly so it's evident to others, or refute it clearly so we can both put it to bed.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I don't think Sommer is blaming at all. I think he's sizing up the situation simply in terms of its dynamics, with questions of blame out of the picture.

(I have a RL acquaintance who is always 1) blaming people for things that I don't think require an assignment of blame at all and 2) extremely quick to think I am blaming, when I feel like all I'm doing is dispassionately describing. It's made me aware that I have a much wider range of "s*** just happens" than this person does. For lots of situations, I can just see and say how they have or will play out without having to assign blame to any party for their playing out. Is gravity to blame for a glass breaking? Is even the person who dropped it?)

The test will be if this nightmare scenario plays out, I believe you will nowhere on this forum hear him say, "well it's progressives not voting for Biden who are to blame for our having to endure another Trump term."

For whatever it may be worth, I myself regard Sommer as the single most "responsible" poster on this site.

But I think there are forum limits about how much we're supposed to talk about another poster, when he's fully capable of making his own voice heard.

I'm thinking of this from the forum rules

In the forums, we expect everyone to treat other posters equally and fairly. As such, threads that suggest that some members are better, funnier, more popular etc, and threads that discuss specific forum members, either positively or negatively are not allowed.

It says "threads." Maybe the occasional post is okay.

I'll just bring it back to myself. It comes back to why O'Donnell's thesis resonates with me. It resonates in psychological terms. Why would we not expect people who believe in change, who like change, who think that one the whole change tends to be positive, who desperately need society to change in particular ways to be more disappointed with politicians who fail to deliver on their promised changes than people who don't like change, tend to think change is a negative, etc. are when the people they elect fail to deliver on their promises? It almost feels to me like a no-brainer. So I'm not going to blame someone for seeing things in a way that is a direct result of who they are as a person (let alone when it is the basic way I myself view things, so I share the perspective in my own degree). But one can, from a detached position, predict how those psychological dynamics may well play out.

 

[KMRblue1027]

I can't speak for him directly but in general Democratic circles yes they absolutely blame both Republicans and leftists for the complete collapse of SCOTUS because it's simple math. Duverger's Law is 100% a fact in 1st past the post election systems like the United States. You ether vote for one of the two major parties that's closest to your views or you're effectively voting for the other side. This is why strategic voting is a thing. If Progressives didn't sit out 2000 or 2016 none of this would have happened in their view.

​

 

[Narz]

Incorrect. We do.

So where you want to move to when you grow up?

 

[Gorbles]

I don't think Sommer is blaming at all. I think he's sizing up the situation simply in terms of its dynamics, with questions of blame out of the picture.

Well, this is kinda exactly what I'm trying to get him to clarify. What anyone else thinks of his motivations comes secondary to what he actually says. And given the explicit reference to Roe as a non-hypothetical, I think more than ever I'm closer to the real opinion there.

And I'm not saying this as though he thinks it's a negative. I'm sure he thinks it's fair. But that's what disagreement is.

I'll just bring it back to myself. It comes back to why O'Donnell's thesis resonates with me. It resonates in psychological terms. Why would we not expect people who believe in change, who like change, who think that one the whole change tends to be positive, who desperately need society to change in particular ways to be more disappointed with politicians who fail to deliver on their promised changes than people who don't like change, tend to think change is a negative, etc. are when the people they elect fail to deliver on their promises? It almost feels to me like a no-brainer. So I'm not going to blame someone for seeing things in a way that is a direct result of who they are as a person (let alone when it is the basic way I myself view things, so I share the perspective in my own degree). But one can, from a detached position, predict how those psychological dynamics may well play out.

Because "being disappointed" and "not voting" are two separate things. The assumption that links them is one that people who don't see the structural issues reach for, because they don't see the structural but still require a rationalisation.

A great example of this is KMRblue's post above. Everything would've been fine if "that lot" had just "voted more". That's pretty much where I think Sommer is coming from. I agree with him that he's not looking to convince anyone. Looking for an excuse; someone to blame? As I've already said: yep.

 

[Gori the Grey]

The assumption that links them is one that people who don't see the structural issues reach for, because they don't see the structural but still require a rationalisation.

Well, that snuck into our consideration because there are at least two here who have indicated they don't mean to.

His reference to Roe was indicating that when this happens it does have actual consequences, not hypothetical ones.

 

[Gorbles]

His reference to Roe was indicating that when this happens it does have actual consequences, not hypothetical ones.

When what happens, exactly?

 

[Gori the Grey]

Whenever we, for any reason and in any way, allow Republicans to control things!