The left is pro 2A.
this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2024
76 points (80.6% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7182 readers
649 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
I respectfully disagree. Half of independents and a quarter of Democrats said they'd support militarized camps for undocumented people.
The corporate/conservative propaganda is working.
That polling was mentioned immediately in the article, but it then points to the wealth of issues where the headline is true.
None of that matters to me. You can be conservative and give renters a break. As long as they're the right renters. This idea of in groups and out groups that is the core of conservative ideology is gaining ground.
Edit to add - It's struck me that the article and I are actually talking about two different things. Their real complaint is that the Democrats are moving towards servicing the donor class more than their constituents. My complaint is that the constituents are getting too cozy with the idea of in groups, as long as they believe they're on the inside.
10 years ago I used to bring up how Biden was one of the biggest proponents of the murderous drug war and the police militarization that came with it, and how he should never be president because of all the blood on his hands. I used to get called extreme for it
Just a few months ago it was impossible to criticize this old segregationist rapist. The two US political parties are worse than cults.
As are the Republicans. In a country with only two ruling parties, that means the country is. It's quite simple.
The distinction being drawn is that popular sentiments aren't going rightwards like the parties are.
If that was the case wouldn't dems win every election? How can the people stay center or move left and it not cause a landslide for the more left leaning party?
Well, I would argue that that is like 95% where their votes are coming from, basically "This is still the 'left' option, I guess," rather than believing in any sort of positive vision on the part of the Democratic Party (it doesn't have one).
However, politics isn't just a 1-dimensional spectrum where things neatly slot into whatever is closest. The fact that they are lurching rightward, the apparent contempt they have for the left, the lack of any meaningful similarity between what a left-wing person wants and what the Democrats will even acknowledge is real (like action on the genocide in Palestine), means that what you are taking as similarity is in many cases difference. Just saying "Fuck you, vote for me because the other guy is worse" is really not a good strategy for getting votes unless you are holding getting votes as secondary to pandering to donors.
Like, do you think a new Republican candidate could just be blatantly pro-choice and not lose one or two dedicated blocs of the Republican voting base, just because "he's still the farthest right"? Of course not, democracy doesn't work that way. If you don't support people on the issues they care about most, a good number of them will tell you to go to hell while the others roll over as always.
Marketing
Affordable Care Act, LGBTQ rights, marijuana reform...not to mention a Black man was president, and a Black woman is the party nominee.
Yeah, it sucks that progress is so slow, and yeah, it sucks that some things have gone backwards. But there has been a huge amount of progress in the past however-many years. We went from "don't ask, don't tell" to having a Catholic president openly support gay marriage in a relatively short time.
Using Harris' Glock anecdote as evidence the party is moving to the right is just lazy editorializing IMHO. Almost as lazy as just asserting that the party is moving to the left because of the issues that you decided illustrate the left-right difference...
Affordable Care Act, LGBTQ rights, marijuana reform...not to mention a Black man was president, and a Black woman is the party nominee.
You forgot that the black woman is also the sitting vice president.
more 👏 representation 👏 in 👏 the 👏 oppressor 👏 class 👏
Affordable Care Act, LGBTQ rights, marijuana reform…not to mention a Black man was president, and a Black woman is the party nominee.
Oh do lgbt people have more rights now? Oh fuck, I'll let my trans refugee friends know.
The fact that your trans refugee friends continue to suffer is deplorable, but does not mean lgbt don't have more rights now. You're employing the same fallacy that anti-vaxxers use when they say it's pointless to get a vaccine when it doesn't 100% guarantee protection from the illness. Things are better for some people and still desperately need to improve for many others.
The fact that your trans refugee friends continue to suffer is deplorable, but does not mean lgbt don’t have more rights now.
Trans people are experiencing low key genocide but we also have more rights now?
Things are better for some people and still desperately need to improve for many others.
Things are desperately worse for some people and have improved slightly for others.
Genocide of trans people > gay marriage on the impact on the queer community
How does the early Roberts court being oddly chill about gay stuff represent the dems doing anything about anything nationally? The rights have not been driven by the DNC, they've been driven by culture (largely Queer Eye and Modern Family, which is why every two bit Disney+ writer thinks they're MLK these days), the court, which was mostly republican appointees, and a deep neo liberalism combined with gay male couples on average being the highest earning couples. I will remind you, Obama ran against gay marriage in the 2008 primary, part of why I voted for?... I think... Chris fucking Dodd or something? [Cringe] I'm in a state where your vote doesn't matter because it's too late, so I don't even remember. Obama had it sewn up failing the superdelegate revolt Schumer already Littlefingered Hillary on in the end anyway. But at any rate, I literally voted against Obama in the primary for being anti-gay in 2008, he shifted because the culture shifted.
Oh look, more vote-third-party slop pushed right before an election. What a coincidence!
Third parties are never even mentioned in the article. Is all left criticism of Harris "vote-third-party slop"?
What a coincidence!
This is one of those things where we all know what it means but you have deniability if someone calls you out on it. Just say what you mean instead of resorting to dogwhistling.
the democrats have received endorsements from dick fucking cheney and ex-reagan staffers. they have campaigned on building the border wall more efficiently, shutting down asylum and hiring more border guards. in the debate she promised the American military will be the most lethal fighting force in the world. democrats USED to campaign on medicare for all, a path to citizenship, ending forever wars, etc. the rightward shift of the party is abundantly clear to anyone not just playing team sports. you need to come to terms with the fact that your party has been assimilated by neoconservatives and push back on it, or it's only going to continue.
Including Obama who surrounded himself (top cabinet posts) with the most zionist neocon republicans in the democratic party, Biden and HRC, unprimaried Harris continues the tradition of Republican sympathizer nominee, as some desperate attempt to avoid a stronger fascism that DNC/media keeps humanizing. Media and Zionist first political donations is an insurmountable problem, though.
Have been my entire life.
The Dems have moved so far to the right that what used to be the far-right (Bush/Cheney) now supports them
This is all you need to know about the Democratic Party. How many years before they make Trump look sane?
I do think Bush/Cheney etc are also moving away from DJT.
It may well turn out that humanity chases itself towards more and more hate and scapegoating as they make the world they live in less liveable.