politics

As someone that votes left, your comment still reads like someone that has faith in their representatives.

Are republicans trash? Yes.

But don’t, for a second, believe democrats are “of a higher moral ground”. They are human, and they are therefore just as capable of being shitbags as anyone else.

Not trying to be pessimistic, just realistic: 99% of these people are monsters that don’t give a shit if you live or die.

The main issue is that Republicans are, more often than not, pieces of shit who never argue in good faith, while Democrats try to act with the higher morale ground, when they really should be pushing harder against the Republican bullshit.

This right here is the problem. Democrats let republicans do their thing. In other words, they're complicit. That's why people point out they're really not all that different. Yes, there are differences and 10 times out of 10 I will vote for them over republicans, but I won't fool myself into thinking it'll actually make a significant change. At best I can expect a pause in the republican freight train of bullshit.

It would be fine if they were actually waging a real conflict, but neither want to do anything more than a performance as security for their economic interests.

This has allowed actual fascists to come in and wage one properly and the result is that they get everything they want. And it's the marginalised who are paying for it, trans people the most.

I'm not saying that culture war shouldn't be waged, ultimately what I'm saying is that it's only being waged by the fascists. Everyone else(with power) is doing absolutely fuck all. This has caused some significant problems within leftist circles as well, as some people have taken to completely opposing any "id politics" entirely because they see it as a distraction. Lenin also opposed this, stating that all issues should be fought, not purely the economic issue:

Is it true that, in general,[3] the economic struggle “is the most widely applicable means” of drawing the masses into the political struggle? It is entirely untrue. Any and every manifestation of police tyranny and autocratic outrage, not only in connection with the economic struggle, is not one whit less “widely applicable” as a means of “drawing in” the masses. The rural superintendents and the flogging of peasants, the corruption of the officials and the police treatment of the “common people” in the cities, the fight against the famine-stricken and the suppression of the popular striving towards enlightenment and knowledge, the extortion of taxes and the persecution of the religious sects, the humiliating treatment of soldiers and the barrack methods in the treatment of the students and liberal intellectuals — do all these and a thousand other similar manifestations of tyranny, though not directly connected with the “economic” struggle, represent, in general, less “widely applicable” means and occasions for political agitation and for drawing the masses into the political struggle? The very opposite is true. Of the sum total of cases in which the workers suffer (either on their own account or on account of those closely connected with them) from tyranny, violence, and the lack of rights, undoubtedly only a small minority represent cases of police tyranny in the trade union struggle as such. Why then should we, beforehand, restrict the scope of political agitation by declaring only one of the means to be “the most widely applicable”, when Social-Democrats must have, in addition, other, generally speaking, no less “widely applicable” means? -Lenin | What is to be Done?

The problem of course is that liberals do jack shit to actually genuinely fight these other issues. The only real opposition to the fascists genuinely waging this war is coming from those waving the red flag or the black flag.