Harris-Walz / Dems
- Thread starter Teufel
- Start date
The thing with politics is there’s never going to be a definitive conclusion.
If Mamdani loses, some people will say he was too progressive while others will say his ethnicity hurt him. Others might say that with two other “nominal” Democrats on the ballot (Adam’s and Cuomo) they bled support from each other and he would’ve won if he were the only Democrat, etc
If Mamdani loses, some people will say he was too progressive while others will say his ethnicity hurt him. Others might say that with two other “nominal” Democrats on the ballot (Adam’s and Cuomo) they bled support from each other and he would’ve won if he were the only Democrat, etc
The risk is in thinking that voters want left wing extremism, when they really just want (more moderate?) left wingers who won't abuse people.
I want to make sure we actually win elections, first and foremost. If we push politicians that would do what we want, but they can't get elected, it does us no good.
Creating the conditions for the population of new york city to be able to afford to continue living in new york city... is extreme?
In the US? Anything that doesn't involve funneling more money up to the rich is extreme radical leftism.
No one running in any serious capacity. Anywhere in the US is even *close* to approaching “left wing extremism”
AOC, Bernie, Mamdani, etc would barely be center left in a civilized Country.
left wing policies of course having majority support among BOTH Democrats and Republicans. So long as you don’t describe them as left wing policies. You ask 10 random people if they think working 40 hours a week should pay you enough to live or if Healthcare or Homes should be affordable and you’re going to get 6-7 people agreeing with you.
I'm very much interested in your definition of left wing extremism. What positions do you think are so extreme that they deserve that title?
Advocating for universal healthcare and a minimum wage are left-wing extremism in the States, aren’t they?
(I don’t mean that facetiously. It seems like the idea of a basic welfare state is extreme over there.)
(And yes I don’t like actual left-wing extremists, like Trots, etc. They can be as bad as the Trump lot when it comes to thuggishness and inability to engage with anyone slightly ideologically different.)
(I don’t mean that facetiously. It seems like the idea of a basic welfare state is extreme over there.)
(And yes I don’t like actual left-wing extremists, like Trots, etc. They can be as bad as the Trump lot when it comes to thuggishness and inability to engage with anyone slightly ideologically different.)
Right wing media has been portraying it as such for like 30 years and unfortunately Fox News and its more unhinged brethren are insanely popular here.... We wouldn't be in this state if Reagan hadn't killed the fairness doctrine back in the 80s.
No, but the echo chambers wouldn't be quite so loud or prevalent if corporate media was actually required to tell the truth. Which is an INSANE statement to make, really.
Social media is part of the problem, but the issue started before social media became dominant. The term Moral Majority started being used in the 1970s and rose to prominence in the 1990s. Social media isn't the underlying cause, it just helped accelerate things.
A lot of the ones you, specifically, have promoted tend to leave me thinking you'd be okay with active violence, although you've routinely denied it, so I'm not sure I can answer that question in a way that will be helpful. It's not that I don't believe you (that you don't actually support violence) so much as I don't think we use terms the same way, as we clearly don't understand each other.
Last edited:
The problem is when private ownership of media decided they would put their thumb on the scales. Now they know how easy it is to manipulate the public discourse. This is a problem that will only grow. There are no easy solutions or answers.
Truly independent media is, at this point, a pipe dream. NPR and the like are the closest we have and we see how easy it is for a deranged lunatic to yank the funding and put the entire system in jeopardy.
Truly independent media is, at this point, a pipe dream. NPR and the like are the closest we have and we see how easy it is for a deranged lunatic to yank the funding and put the entire system in jeopardy.
Please, I'm asking for your view, your definition. Take your time, I'm genuinely curious.
Responding now just so you don't think I'm ignoring you. I'm going to take your advice to take my time. I'm trying to look up specific policies that, in my opinion, cannot generate sufficient popular support to win elections, while simultaneously being real positions advocated by real candidates we might actually be talking about. This won't necessarily mean that I, personally, am opposed to them (sometimes it might, but that shouldn't be assumed). It will simply serve to illustrate things that I think are too extreme for the electorate.
(Comments elsewhere in the thread pointing out that what constitutes "extreme" here in the US might not be extreme at all, especially not in other countries, while certainly true, would miss the point I'm shooting for, which is electability. When this is all said and done, I'm interested in what works, and what actively helps us to get out of the horrible situation we find ourselves in, while not violating my own core principles. Some things, like assassination... just to use an obvious example... are decidedly off the table... not that I'm accusing anyone of advocating for that here... at least not seriously.)