Harris-Walz / Dems

[Rhinox]

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.

 

[Rhinox]

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.

Please, I'm asking for your view, your definition. Take your time, I'm genuinely curious.

 

[G.B.Blackrock]

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.)

 

[Stepwise]

Throwing this in just because -

It's cool to see people in general, and you guys specifically, working so diligently to understand each other.

 

[NovaSaber]

(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.)

Being perceived as caring more about getting elected than about what to do once elected is itself a thing that can make someone actually disliked by voters.

And it's literally what is making establishment Democrats unpopular in recent years.

 

[MrBlud]

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.

I don’t think anyone (here, and on the left more broadly) thinks violence is a preferable state of affairs; but we have the right *literally* building concentration camps and selling ******* MERCHANDISE for them.

That’s just so ghoulish and inhumane that even those words do not capture the depth of atrocity.

Schumer being “very concerned” for the millionth time hardly seems to be what the moment calls for.

 

[G.B.Blackrock]

Being perceived as caring more about getting elected than about what to do once elected is itself a thing that can make someone actually disliked by voters.

And it's literally what is making establishment Democrats unpopular in recent years.

I think I hear what you're saying, but to use that as a criticism of my position strikes me as singularly unhelpful.

Suffice it to say, *I'm* not the politician, and policies DO matter.

 

[G.B.Blackrock]

I don’t think anyone (here, and on the left more broadly) thinks violence is a preferable state of affairs; but we have the right *literally* building concentration camps and selling ******* MERCHANDISE for them.

That’s just so ghoulish and inhumane that even those words do not capture the depth of atrocity.

Schumer being “very concerned” for the millionth time hardly seems to be what the moment calls for.

But what, then, would you argue the moment calls for? It's clearly an important, if unanswered, question.

Point blank, if there's violence involved, I'm going to be against it. This is non-negotiable.

 

[NovaSaber]

I don't think Mamdani has called for violence.
This whole discussion started because you said you didn't want "left wing extremism" to be the takeaway from that election.

If Mamdani, specifically, is not an "extremist" by your definition, then why did you even say that?

 

[MrBlud]

*Which* violence though?

People have already died in ICE custody and it’s not like things are getting *better* over there. They have no regard for *anything* that isn’t basking in their own power and using violence against anyone who isn’t white.

You’ve so far, in this very thread, went out of your way to decry “left wing extremism” and “if there’s violence involved, I’m gonna be against it” yet the violence is already here. It may not be aimed directly at *you* currently but it’s happening RIGHT NOW for a lot of other people.

 

[NovaSaber]

Being consistently, absolutely against all violence is actually more "extreme left wing" than any actual American politician, since it would require wanting to disarm the police and completely abolish ICE.

 

[G.B.Blackrock]

I don't think Mamdani has called for violence.
This whole discussion started because you said you didn't want "left wing extremism" to be the takeaway from that election.

If Mamdani, specifically, is not an "extremist" by your definition, then why did you even say that?

The question of definitions is more for the discussion I'm still putting together with Rhinox, but please note that I have NOT called Mamdani a left wing extremist. I have expressed concern that his opponent's harrassment issues seem not to be considered as part of the discussion about why Mamdani won, such discussions seeming entirely based on Cuomo's status as "the establishment's choice" and Mamdani's being (apparently) more willing to take the fight to the GOP than Cuomo (interesting aside, as I've started doing research for my discussion with Rhinox, I'm finding very little policy difference of note between Mamdani and Cuomo. Rather, discussions about them have tended to suggest Mamdani's comparative ideological superiority). My contention was simply that sexual harrassment probably made a difference that the pundits weren't acknowledging, and I'm disturbed that they haven't been.

"Extremism" is nothing more than shorthand for "anti-establishment" insofar as it relates to that election, specifically, and the issues that it raises in my mind.

But I'm not really trying to answer "why does Mamdani seem extreme?" I honestly don't know that he is. I'd never even heard of him before I was seeing all of the news articles touting his victory over Cuomo, despite the establishment's attempts to promote Cuomo.

I am, now, trying to articulate what "extremism" might mean, and I've started to compile a list of items, but I'm not ready to engage that just yet. At that point, Mamdani is likely to be little more than a footnote, given the surprising similarities I've found thus far regarding actual policy.

 

[G.B.Blackrock]

Being consistently, absolutely against all violence is actually more "extreme left wing" than any actual American politician, since it would require wanting to disarm the police and completely abolish ICE.

I'll admit to a bit of inconsistency in myself at that point, but it actually is one of the items on the list I'm working through....

 

[G.B.Blackrock]

*Which* violence though?

People have already died in ICE custody and it’s not like things are getting *better* over there. They have no regard for *anything* that isn’t basking in their own power and using violence against anyone who isn’t white.

You’ve so far, in this very thread, went out of your way to decry “left wing extremism” and “if there’s violence involved, I’m gonna be against it” yet the violence is already here. It may not be aimed directly at *you* currently but it’s happening RIGHT NOW for a lot of other people.

I won't deny that. But their violence can't justify my own.

 

[Corvus]

Would you call yourself a pacifist?