Democratic Party direction post-Harris

I mean, to be fair, he was directly funding and supporting a genocide. He could simply have stopped doing that if he didn't want to get called names. :)

Seth Moulton has openly made transmisogynistic statements. Do you think he shouldn't be held accountable for those? This isn't a slip of the tongue he made. He has defended these statements.
 
Wouldn't be surprised if some of that was fake, but then again some of the takes I see on this forum are so absurd it's hard not to believe those espousing them are plants to goofify & spread confusion (iirc that's pretty common in Russia)
Idk, I don't think it was.

Warren really got the "Sanders is sexist" narrative rolling and as for "Sanders is racist" that was partly because he refused to engage with idpol for a time, famously avoiding black churches. Fairly prominent leftist thinkers get accused of racism on the regular.

It's definitely got a...politburo vibe going on. Racism as a machiavellian figurative dagger seems to me to be there sometimes.
 
When you are anti-racist only as a show, without substance, it would be terrible for you if someone with substance is not tarnished. So naturally you go for what you peddle, the fake anti-racism, and hope there are enough morons that the racism accusation sticks.
 
What 'good people'?
Me. Voters with a conscious who don't think every statement is a tactic to outmaneuver the others in a media game but have actual real values. People who don't think truth is weakness and a vulnerability to expose but something to hold fast and be outspoken. People who choose to work with the slow uncomfortable reality rather than the fast life and death lottery of unfettered anything. I'll make it simple: all the solutions are boring. Sanders is boring. Working out is boring. We can chuck it all away and most people will make it, but more won't than if we're boring. And who doesn't make it won't be fair. Half will be obvious (decided by fascists) half will be random (whoever dies of whatever disease etc).

The Democrats appeal to good, decent people. People who took on debt to learn to string complex sentences to understand real solvable problems that they know other people who aren't them face because they combine abstraction with empathy. People who will slow down their own convictions to account for their own biases. People who speak softly so that you can come to your own conclusions. But also educated enough to recognize Nazis the moment the arrive and ID them in public.

But there's great weakness in all of that as well. Speaking the truth softly, to all, while hesitating to check your bias, those are compensations against what works to mitigate damage. Mitigating damage is not an activity of construction. You who builds things DONALD TRUMP BUILDS WALLS. My dead great grandfather, meanwhile, is mitigating damage harder than anyway. DONALD TRUMP MAKES AMERICA GREAT AGAIN


Beware anyone who defines themselves by what they are not. <- Most democrats afraid of criticism by other democrats or "leftists"
Better those who define themselves by who they are.
Best are those who define themselves by what the do. <- This is where we go from here.
 
Shunning people who don't share your values, won't vote for your policies, and will generally be disruptive to whatever it is you're trying to do isn't "shunning". "shunning" is a moral argument. Excluding people who will not help you achieve your goals is logical. Rational, even.

This is exactly why the Democrats don't embrace the left wing either. But I don't see them being criticised for "shunning" in that case.
If we were a really efficient machine party, we would take in the RFKs whose media magnetism forces them to the table. Then we would give them the assignment of "do the thing you do that's actually cool" which is support healthy lifestyle changes.

And we would magically have a way to keep redirecting him positively instead of watching him crash all over into the chairperson in charge of of "do good disease science" as his ... personality.. demands he pick the fight while we've just amplified him with the other position.

Since we do not have the structure or leadership to manage that, he has to be kept out. As you put it, he does not help us achieve our goals aka cure diseases and have good medicine.
 
And RFK would broaden it? I feel like that's a value judgement.
Potentially, yeah.

Hygro is correct to say that he can't really be given meaningful power in a party committed to the Dem course.

Rumor is, IIRC, that Harris wouldn't take his phone call or a meeting, though. He may not have wanted meaningful power, or may have been convinced to settle for a position more along the lines of something Hygro also mentioned, the creation of some hokey office that deals with wellness, or head of some special committee on one of his pet issues. Something not particularly consequential, but maybe enough for him.

In the process you'd signal to an electorate in an anti-establishment mood that you are able to tolerate their views, an issue which is in some doubt. That's more important than courting libertarians specifically(who you aren't gonna get mostly anyway).

Like the Cheney issue, the desirability is really impacted by the level of commitment to the reach out and the manner of role he'd be given(if any). Straight up not listening at all was just sorta a wasted opportunity.
 
Me. Voters with a conscious who don't think every statement is a tactic to outmaneuver the others in a media game but have actual real values. People who don't think truth is weakness and a vulnerability to expose but something to hold fast and be outspoken. People who choose to work with the slow uncomfortable reality rather than the fast life and death lottery of unfettered anything. I'll make it simple: all the solutions are boring. Sanders is boring. Working out is boring. We can chuck it all away and most people will make it, but more won't than if we're boring. And who doesn't make it won't be fair. Half will be obvious (decided by fascists) half will be random (whoever dies of whatever disease etc).
The opposing side believes these same things about themselves with an equivalent moral clarity. How you meet with such differences and govern is the question of our era, when it really comes down to it.

If you hold fast, and they respond likewise, it's not particularly conducive to meeting the challenge. There is a strength in moral clarity, yeah, but the creation of a framework that can successfully govern is gonna become increasingly important going forward. It's the era of fragmentation baby. Comm tech, greater mobility, silos are being created and are likely to become more influential, not less.

How do you get people to trust your leadership in the event that your deep moral convictions bump up against their own? No framework presently exists. It's been tried. Obama failed on it due to Republican obstruction. Clearly the lesson is that cooperation should not be expected with Republican leadership. IDK what path remains except to win their base through populism, which kinda does require ugly gamesmanship, deceptions, concessions, and most especially yeah, figuring out some sorta framework that allows the religious and traditionalists, just those who are departing from old school values more slowly in general, to maintain their views while hopping aboard(at least for a time)
 
I mean, to be fair, he was directly funding and supporting a genocide. He could simply have stopped doing that if he didn't want to get called names. :)

Seth Moulton has openly made transmisogynistic statements. Do you think he shouldn't be held accountable for those? This isn't a slip of the tongue he made. He has defended these statements.
I touched on my position in the post directly above, but explicitly, it's hard to imagine either team will convincingly win the culture war within my lifetime, so as a matter of general principle, I'm usually very skeptical of ideological purity as beneficial to either the party or the left.
 
I touched on my position in the post directly above, but explicitly, it's hard to imagine either team will convincingly win the culture war within my lifetime, so as a matter of general principle, I'm usually very skeptical of ideological purity as beneficial to either the party or the left.

The problem for you and many others is that you confuse "having things you actually believe in" with "ideological purity", leading you (and many others!) to argue that the Democrats should just do whatever polls well, and then some elected Democrats listen to you, which in turn leads to the widespread (and fairly accurate) perception that Democrats are just careerist horsehockeyheads who believe in nothing.
 
The problem for you and many others is that you confuse "having things you actually believe in" with "ideological purity", leading you (and many others!) to argue that the Democrats should just do whatever polls well, and then some elected Democrats listen to you, which in turn leads to the widespread (and fairly accurate) perception that Democrats are just careerist horsehockeyheads who believe in nothing.

Have you noticed 0you views represent less than 1%?

To wield power in USA you have to court public opinion to some extent.
 
The problem for you and many others is that you confuse "having things you actually believe in" with "ideological purity", leading you (and many others!) to argue that the Democrats should just do whatever polls well, and then some elected Democrats listen to you, which in turn leads to the widespread (and fairly accurate) perception that Democrats are just careerist horsehockeyheads who believe in nothing.
Was the implication in the first line of my post directly above the one you quoted lost? "equivalent moral clarity" is a recognition both sides are deeply committed to the righteousness of their beliefs.

I'm not sure what path you're offering. Cooperation and bipartisanship proved impossible, and, what, you think you're gonna rout em up the center directly, after (probably) observing the numerous BJ vs CI debates? On the present trajectory, similar greyhairs will be going at it on soon-to-be outdated platforms like Reddit. Where's the decisive flanking maneuver gonna come from, exactly?
 
If I may speak in defense of @Lexicus, his personal beliefs hardly steer the platform of the Democratic Party in such magnitude so as to instill within it his feelings to the exclusion of others.

Merely pointing out that political parties have to account for popular opinion to some extent.
 
The problem for you and many others is that you confuse "having things you actually believe in" with "ideological purity", leading you (and many others!) to argue that the Democrats should just do whatever polls well, and then some elected Democrats listen to you, which in turn leads to the widespread (and fairly accurate) perception that Democrats are just careerist horsehockeyheads who believe in nothing.
There's a balance between paying lip service to whatever is the issue of the day is and 'believing in nothing'. They go hand in hand really.

It's like the other side of the coin of Trump, Dems pretend to care about gender, Trump pretends not to care (or be up in arms about it), in actuality no one cares, just go piss wherever & get back to things.
 
Me. Voters with a conscious who don't think every statement is a tactic to outmaneuver the others in a media game but have actual real values. People who don't think truth is weakness and a vulnerability to expose but something to hold fast and be outspoken. People who choose to work with the slow uncomfortable reality rather than the fast life and death lottery of unfettered anything. I'll make it simple: all the solutions are boring. Sanders is boring. Working out is boring. We can chuck it all away and most people will make it, but more won't than if we're boring. And who doesn't make it won't be fair. Half will be obvious (decided by fascists) half will be random (whoever dies of whatever disease etc).
A : We live in an entertainment culture with attention spans shrinking like a dick in an ice bath, boring simply won't get eyeballs, won't be promoted doesn't work anymore, look at Republican primary of 2016 as an example, people don't have the attention or work ethic to slog away like you idealize. Like that kid in your thread, overwhelmed by cleaning up after himself but happy to spend hours lashing out at strangers online.

B : A boring slog towards progress sounds motivational and might even work IF people had faith in systems & institutions, that if they worked hard they would be rewarded, that recycling their cans & paying a bit more for gas & doing community service would be worth it in the long run. But they don't have that trust. Maybe during JFK's time people could keep their heads down & work hard & be patient & ask what they could do for their country but that's light years away.

C : The people who think working out is boring don't work out. Anyone's who's successfully integrated fitness into their lives finds a way to make it fun in the moment or at least rewarding somehow (w tracking progress, pairing w music, caffeine, competing w their friends, whatever). People are utterly overwhelmed in today's world, even in the best of world's people have hard time prioritizing 'shoulds', you gotta find the reward inside and 'a little feeling inside that you're doing the right thing' doesn't cut it for most people most of the time.

The Democrats appeal to good, decent people. People who took on debt to learn to string complex sentences to understand real solvable problems that they know other people who aren't them face because they combine abstraction with empathy. People who will slow down their own convictions to account for their own biases. People who speak softly so that you can come to your own conclusions. But also educated enough to recognize Nazis the moment the arrive and ID them in public.

But there's great weakness in all of that as well. Speaking the truth softly, to all, while hesitating to check your bias, those are compensations against what works to mitigate damage. Mitigating damage is not an activity of construction. You who builds things DONALD TRUMP BUILDS WALLS. My dead great grandfather, meanwhile, is mitigating damage harder than anyway. DONALD TRUMP MAKES AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
I got a bit lost about your grandpa but I think I understand your point that mitigating damage is not constructive. That's the issue w Dems is they're generally ANTI. They're the ninny telling you to be careful, don't do that, don't say that, we could do that but it might go sideways and hurt a seal or someone's feelings. Trump is cracking eggs & making omelets consequences be damned. Action bias in action.

Beware anyone who defines themselves by what they are not. <- Most democrats afraid of criticism by other democrats or "leftists"
Better those who define themselves by who they are.
Best are those who define themselves by what the do. <- This is where we go from here.
What the left is is pretty blurry. Every thread about it there's people saying American left isn't really left (usually every 20 posts or so), even Bernie is a mild conservative meanwhile Repubs calling Harris a Marxist. Its a mess.

If we were a really efficient machine party, we would take in the RFKs whose media magnetism forces them to the table. Then we would give them the assignment of "do the thing you do that's actually cool" which is support healthy lifestyle changes.

And we would magically have a way to keep redirecting him positively instead of watching him crash all over into the chairperson in charge of of "do good disease science" as his ... personality.. demands he pick the fight while we've just amplified him with the other position.

Since we do not have the structure or leadership to manage that, he has to be kept out. As you put it, he does not help us achieve our goals aka cure diseases and have good medicine.
We're in a populist age and the Dems are not populist.
 
Last edited:
Of course not. They kicked that senator to the curb for posting a joke photo with some woman sleeping on a plane (forget the dude's name this was 2015 or 2016 I think). Any little thing that makes you look bad, you're out, nevermind any upside. So you end up with the most milquetoast and wonder why they can't win.

Al Franken is who you're thinking of.

He also was accused by around 8 other women of groping or forcibly kissing them. The photo got all the attention, but it wasn't the only part of the story.
 
Al Franken is who you're thinking of.

He also was accused by around 8 other women of groping or forcibly kissing them. The photo got all the attention, but it wasn't the only part of the story.
Right that guy. Biden was also accused of rape. Tara Reid I think was lady's name.

Also being overly and inappropriately huggy.

Heresay not a good enough reason to throw someone under the bus.

One good thing about the mass surveillance age we live in now is hopefully more misbehavior can be caught... Although with deepfakes improving and audio and even video being able to be fabricated it will probably muddy the waters even more.
 
Have you noticed 0you views represent less than 1%?

To wield power in USA you have to court public opinion to some extent.
[Citation Needed]

Not saying that Lex's view represent a majority of Americans (obviously not), but don't exaggerate like that if you want people to respond in good faith.
 
[Citation Needed]

Not saying that Lex's view represent a majority of Americans (obviously not), but don't exaggerate like that if you want people to respond in good faith.

Self vowed communist type. Don't think there's to many of them in America.

15k Communist Party of Amerixa.

American Greens are around 1%.
 
Top Bottom