Yes (midwest.social)
submitted 2 years ago by [M] to c/memes@midwest.social
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 97 points 2 years ago (36 children)

For those in here that take offense to this distinction:

2 party political systems function to collapse diverse political perspectives into one of two camps and normalize an 'average' view for both parties. Leftists take issue with this collapse because it erases dissenting views within each party in service of defeating an 'other' at the expense of pursuing our real political goals.

The label matters to those of us who want to make the point that the US democratic party does not really represent our interests; at-best they represent a less-objectionable flavor of the same ideological framework, but one that needs to be dismantled all the same.

"Stop trying to divide us!" is a refrain spoken by those who are better served by the party than we are.

Put another way: "We are not the same"

  • source
  • hideshow 36 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 2 years ago (32 children)

    I think the current best demonstration on this is how hard people are pushing Mark Kelly as VP.

    They push a center-right president onto the stage and then dangle another "centrist" to try and, what? Appeal to Never Trumper Republicans? Racists?

    How about you offer actual progressives some goddamn enticement for once and offer it to Jamaal Bowman, who the Dems primaried in favor of a genocidal AIPAC stooge?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 32 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (17 children)

    If he was that popular and progressives that numerous he wouldn't have lost his primary, especially as the incumbent. Simple as.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (11 children)

    You are clueless as far as actual policies supported by actual Americans. Policy wise, there is pretty much a super majority of Americans that support actual progressive policies

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (8 children)

    If that was the case then maybe they should get off their asses and vote then huh?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago

    As soon as there's a candidate that actually represents them... Imagine if the 2 candidates were Trump and Romney, both running as Republicans... Would libs be crying that everyone needs to vote Republican or the Republicans will win? Replace Republican with conservative in that last sentence, and maybe it will clear up why progressives don't bother voting... There is no one to vote for

    (I'm voting for Kamala, so should everyone)

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -7 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    You really do have the solution for everything maybe you should run for office

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    Don't be mad at me that he either sucks or progressives can't be assed to go vote.

    Im just pointing out your suggestion is laughable because he can't even win his primary as an incumbent.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (4 children)

    Yes because Israel lobby spent the most money in history for any primary seat of congress. One district rep for congress is a little different than the whole country, but yes, money needs to be taken out of politics.

    In other news the capital of Israel is about to get bombed by Iran, which is too bad I guess

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Except he was down like 17 before that money even came in.

    Try again.

    Make more excuses.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I agree with you, money in politics has no influence over our politicians. If someone gave me 100 million dollars I wouldn’t feel obligated to give them taxpayer money or weapons. Lobbyists are just good people trying to make an honest living.

    I totally agree with you

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Policy wise, there is pretty much a super majority of Americans that support actual progressive policies

    There's a huge trust gap in implementation. That's why Donald Trump threaten a national victory via votes from dying Boomers convinced he's going to unleash fantasy free health care technology while Bernie Sanders can't squeak through a primary on the promise of increasing Medicaid enrollments.

    People may want the same things, but they are deeply cynical in who they trust to deliver those policies.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

    If he was that popular and progressives that numerous he wouldn’t have lost his primary

    Propaganda works. You can bombard people with media attacks on a progressive politician to trick people into thinking he's reactionary. In this case, a heavily Jewish district was flooded with "Jamaal Bowman is antisemetic" messaging for months straight and it cost him the election.

    This has nothing to do with his popularity or his progressive bonafides and everything to do with his cash on hand to run counter-programming.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    That you’re being downvoted for this totally reasonable comment only inches away from a top level comment lamenting a system that silences dissenting views is nice.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    Lol because he's citing the system being critiqued as evidence to make the case that progressive politics aren't popular

    "This system disadvantages dissenting views"

    "Dissenting views just arent popular, just look at the outcome of this system"

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago* (13 children)

    They push a center-right president onto the stage

    Like, 90% of the US Senate is center-right or worse. You're in a country that is governed overwhelmingly to the right of the popular political view. I don't think the VP pick is going to meaningfully shift any of that. Running Walz as your VP isn't going to turn the US Senate into the Minnesota Governor's Mansion.

    How about you offer actual progressives some goddamn enticement for once and offer it to Jamaal Bowman, who the Dems primaried in favor of a genocidal AIPAC stooge?

    Because the US has a huge geopolitical strategic interest in staying friendly with Israel and a vanishingly small interest in cultivating support among progressive New Yorkers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    Because the US has a huge geopolitical strategic interest in staying friendly with Israel and a vanishingly small interest in cultivating support among progressive New Yorkers.

    This is an excellent explanation for the way things are but a really terrible reason to keep them that way

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (11 children)

    Am I the only one who thinks we need to pick someone no older than ~50 for VP? Based on the idea that VP is an understudy position?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (10 children)

    It's not an understudy position. The role of VP has historically been a way to "balance the ticket" between factions in the party. So, a Kennedy from Massachusetts and Johnson from Texas. Or California's Reagan with a Connecticut Bush.

    More recently, the VP has been a means of whipping votes in the House (Cheney and Ford) or the Senate (Gore, Biden, Pence) and raising money from affiliate donor networks (all of the above, but Harris and Vance more than ever).

    If you want a Presidential job training program, look to the governor's mansion or the State Department. But by the time you're VP, you're not training. You're in the game.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (9 children)

    It's absolutely been used as an under study position in the past. It can be all those things too.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (8 children)

    It’s absolutely been used as an under study position in the past.

    Name one VP who was a practical understudy for the job of President and I'll name you ten that were equally if not more qualified for the job.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (7 children)
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (6 children)

    Explain how Dick Cheney was an understudy to Bush Jr.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (5 children)

    Cheney was a very unique case. In some ways he wielded more power than Bush. That's not normal in any sense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (4 children)

    Cheney was a very unique case.

    The VP after Cheney was Biden, a man with more years in the Federal Government than any three 2008 primary rivals combined.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (3 children)

    Did you look at the list at all? It's not at all uncommon for the VP to be considered the next presumptive nominee. Which is what an understudy does.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

    It’s not at all uncommon for the VP to be considered the next presumptive nominee.

    That's very different from being less experienced

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    I never said less experienced. You're supposed to have experience. Under study means you're getting an inside track to be ready if you need to step in and then you should have a better resume next time hiring is done.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Under study means you’re getting an inside track to be ready if you need to step in

    When you've got Timothy Chalmette as your President and Anthony Hopkins as your VP, the concern isn't whether Hopkins will have the exposure to fill the role.

  • source
  • parent