tumblr

hideshow 34 child comments

parent

[–] pjwestin@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago* (22 children)

Off the top of my head, he was going to bailout the mortgage holders, reign in the banks, close Gitmo, end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, pass universal healthcare, and end warrantless wiretaps. He either abandoned those objectives (sometimes when he held a super-majority) or technically did something but not really (like ending the warrantless wiretap program but creating a mass surveillance program). Anyway, maybe, "radical leftist," is a little hyperbolic, but he ran further to the left than anyone had since the 70s and he governed slightly to the left of George W.

hideshow 22 child comments

parent

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (20 children)

It's more accurate to say he made leftist promises, and then turned out to be just another conservative asshole with amazing oratory skills.

hideshow 20 child comments

parent

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (15 children)

I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where Obama stripped gay people of their rights

hideshow 15 child comments

parent

[–] pjwestin@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (14 children)

He didn't really do anything for gay rights either. He didn't even support gay marriage until his second term. Gay marriage only became law because of the Supreme Court.

hideshow 14 child comments

parent

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (13 children)

Imagine the privilege of someone unable to tell the difference between casual indifference and outright hostility.

hideshow 13 child comments

parent

[–] pjwestin@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (12 children)

OK, well what the hell are you talking about? Who, "stripped gay people of their rights?" Because in my lifetime, there have been two major changes in gay rights. One was DOMA, which rejected gay marriage, and was passed by a Republican congress and signed by Bill Clinton. The other was the Obergefell v. Hodges, where a conservative leaning Supreme Court legalized gay marriage. So why is this your litmus test? Why does being ambivalent on gay rights for half his Presidency mean Obama can't be a, "conservative asshole?"

hideshow 12 child comments

parent

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (11 children)

I don't even know where to start with this idiocy

hideshow 11 child comments

parent

[–] pjwestin@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (10 children)

You just argued that Obama wasn't a conservative based entirely on the fact that he had a, "casual indifference," towards gay rights, but sure, I'm the idiot.

hideshow 10 child comments

parent

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (9 children)

Yeah. That's centrist, especially for 20 years ago. Republicans literally want to kill all gays. That's conservative.

hideshow 9 child comments

parent

[–] pjwestin@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (8 children)

OK, we'll just set the hyperbole aside for a second, 'cause I really want an answer on this...why is gay rights your only barometer for what a conservative is? Like, if I want to lower taxes on the wealthy, cut social programs, increase military spending and ban abortion, but I don't have any problem with gay people, does that mean I'm not a conservative?

hideshow 8 child comments

parent

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (7 children)

I just picked the first topic that came into my head. There's really a thousand different examples where Democrats are good or neutral but Republicans are mustache twirling evil.

hideshow 7 child comments

parent

[–] pjwestin@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (6 children)

OK, here's the thing; the Republicans are generally mustache twirling bad guys, but the Democrats are rarely good or neutral, especially at the federal level. They have nice rhetoric, but they never live up to it. Clinton gutted welfare, expanded mass incarceration, and ended Glass-Steagall (which directly led to the 2008 housing market crash). Obama abandoned universal healthcare, reneged on his promise to bailout homeowners, and created the largest domestic spying program in human history. Again, even in the topic you came up with, Democrats did literally nothing to advance gay rights, it was the Supreme Court.

It's very tempting to boil politics down to a binary, good/evil choice, especially now that at least half of the Republican party is openly supporting facism, but you can't just assume the Democrats are the good guys. If their voters don't hold them accountable for their broken promises and inaction, the country will continue to slide into this right-wing hellscape we're all facing.

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (5 children)

If the voters punish democrats for not immediately bringing utopia, it will ensure a slide into right wing fascism.

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[–] pjwestin@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (4 children)

You should punish the Democrats when they act like conservatives. If you don't, you don't have ideals, you just like rooting for a team, and you might be happier following sports, not politics.

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (3 children)

But you don't understand the difference between "not being Leftist" and "being conservative". There's a big gulf between those two.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] pjwestin@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

You're talking in vagueries and I'm dealing in specifics. Address any of the concrete examples I've given of the Democrats taking explicitly conservative positions or just stop.

parent

[+] the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

[deleted]

parent

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago

No, because as soon as I talk about one you'll just immediately pivot and move the goal posts to something else. I'm not dumb. Getting into specifics is a trap. You just cherry pick things to set a false narrative that's not representative of democratic politicians as a whole.

The end result is that every politician must be perfectly in line with everything you want, with no compromise, at all times, or they're just as bad as the people actually opposing you. Which is why Leftists never win elections. No politician is ever good enough for you because politics involves compromise.

parent

[–] HandBreadedTools@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

LMFAO

parent

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Heavy sits the crown

I think it might actually be impossible to remain a good person as a president, even if you manage to somehow be a good person who can become president (also rare)

parent

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

The president definitely has to be an asshole to some extent, because it's impossible to make everyone happy in this country.

With that said, we've seen presidents do what they say they're gonna do, even as progressives. We sat through four years of Trump using every possible resource to do the awful stuff he did, and there's no good reason why anyone should look at Biden and expect less than that.

Democrats deserve credit for ruling as conservatives. They reinforced the narrative that voting is pointless, at least in terms of federal elections.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Eccitaze@yiffit.net 2 points 2 years ago

Expecting Biden to rule like Trump is absolutely fucking insane. He ignored or broke any rule that stood in his way, and it got many of his policy initiatives shut down by the courts until he went back and did it the proper way, with the end result being that he was so busy fighting in the courts he didn't have time to do everything he wanted. He tried to exploit his powers to persecute his opponents and got impeached over it. He shut down the government over border wall funding and got nothing for it. The only areas he was actually successful in pushing the boundaries of acceptability were in grifting the government by staying at his properties and charging inflated prices I'm violation of the emoluments clause.

I'm a leftist because I believe government can be a force for good, and because I believe in the rule of law and in fighting against corruption. If Biden or any democrat acted like Trump did, I'd vote them out in a heartbeat.

parent

[+] the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

[deleted]

parent

[+] the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

[deleted]

parent

[–] Grass@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago (9 children)

By my understanding, radical left for Americans and also slightly less so but also Canadians is kinda center right for the rest of the world. I've also heard people start calling politicians radical when they bait and switch even though that's not really how that word works.

hideshow 9 child comments

parent

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 years ago (8 children)

radical right/far right, is pushing neo nazi territory. Radical left/far left, is people who like socialism and communism.

hideshow 8 child comments

parent

[–] Soggy@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (7 children)

"Radical" just means "outside the status quo". "Extremist" is more the term you want there.

hideshow 7 child comments

parent

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Radical has a customary meaning in this context - someone calling for systemic change

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] Soggy@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

That is a better way of putting it, thanks. Not just outside the status quo but pushing to change it. I still think it carries a milder connotation than neo-Nazis or Anarchists and different language should be used for the fringe than just further-than-mainstream politics.

parent

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

I don't know many honest people for whom the current system is working great, so I'd warrant that not being some kind of radical might be the more extreme position

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Soggy@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

You wouldn't be the first to float some form of "centrism is an extreme position" and I can't say I disagree.

parent

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

if we're talking extremists we're talking our boy the unambomber, and uh, the people that bombed abortion clinics, maybe.

I dont actually have a good second handle for extremists on the right lol. I guess hate criming nazis? That kind of shit.

parent

[–] Soggy@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

"Terrorist" works fine.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago

i was thinking explicit actions, more so than vague terms, kind of defeats the whole point of describing "radical right/left wing" if we simply go back to using another vague term doesnt it?