Yes, we’ve established that. So, since you don’t like that, your plan is to keep trying the same “vote for lesser evil” plan that’s been failing for decades.
In the face of an dying empire (dying much faster now due to the Iran War), climate change, and the rest.
In my opinion . . .
When the US implodes because every sane person fled, the world will not be better.
Meh, as we’ve seen for a while, the US is a dangerous force against peace. So maybe the chaos being directed inwards instead of outwards for once will be better for the rest of us.
Neat. Your plan? Run from the responsibility vs violence? Still haven’t heard it beyond those two options. “Get out or get guns” is defeatist and surrenders the initiative to the chaos.
The US is a dangerous force against peace
When I was growing up, Russia was the global boogie man. I’d like to prevent the US from being the next one. Am I making things worse by trying to reverse our destruction? I don’t think I am.
Putting words in your mouth, you’re saying “it’s too late” and I should just run? What happens when the US is 100% “republican”? I don’t think that will help on the global stage and I think it will be worse for everyone when things fail here, so I’m trying to prevent that. I think we get an imperialist nation with crumbling infrastructure that needs to take what it can’t produce and will do so with force. We’re like mostly there - see Iran.
I guess one last try. Attack my position again without a solution and I’ll give up.
With some detail, and not in a one-liner, how do we make this better?
When I was growing up, Russia was the global boogie man
According to who? Americans?
The Soviets had lots of things bad with them. That said, the US was killing millions in Vietnam and Latin America. It just doesn’t compare.
What happens when the US is 100% “republican”?
The same as now? The exact problem is your supposed “lesser evil” strategy has wound up with them controlling all parts of the US government.
We’re like mostly there
Yes, you are.
how do we make this better
You overthrow your government and seize the funds of the rich? At this point, how do you actually think this gets better absent that? You’ve got wealth inequality worse than any other society ever measured, you’re the current leading cause of climate change per capita (maybe 2nd to Canada), you’re in so many wars I doubt you can even name every country you’ve bombed this year . . . .and it’s about to get far, far worse.
if you want my recommendation for what to do personally - yes, get armed, and get ready. Also create dual power systems. Organize, but not just in the failed political realm of the Democratic party. As you’ve seen, they will not do anything even if they have power.
You overthrow your government and seize the funds of the rich? At this point, how do you actually think this gets better absent that
I think I’m done. It’s been an interesting and introspective week. And for that, I thank you.
Your ‘solution’ is violence - and I get that. There’s a bunch of people with your opinion. I don’t have it. I think if we have to get to ‘overthrow’, then we make things really bad for a long time for a lot of people; whereas we can use the system to put better people in the places of power and make things more better-er in a shorter timeframe. It might also make things bad for different people for longer time. I can’t tell from where I sit. I happen to be one dude in a country of 350 million.
In all honesty, I’ve got a foot in both sides. When shit goes down, I’m in; but I’m not going to start it. I’ll leave that up to people braver than me. I will block you if you fight me on this stance.
You imply I’m stopping at the ‘lesser evil’ strategy and I can’t stress enough how much that’s a stepping stone and not, or even a significant part of, my whole solution or even what I advocate for (My old instance is shutting down, you can see my older comments as [email protected] and there are many versions of ‘join your local org’). I vote for lesser evil right now while actively trying to make better options later so I don’t have to and encouraging others to be part of the process.
I think we differ on whether that could actually work; which is a whole conversation on it’s own since, if it can’t, can democracy work at all? Do we all just shoot each other? And which side does that best serve?
My actually trying to make things better is done by being engaged with the processes that make decisions and tell others they can be engaged too. Back to the original original point. The ‘both sides’ one-liners reduce engagement. We should stop making them.
Don’t pick a phrase from above to reply to. Respond to this:
Should the average person attempt to be more or less engaged with their political systems?
and I can’t stress enough how much that’s a stepping stone and not, or even a significant part of, my whole solution or even what I advocate for
It will NEVER progress is exactly my point. You’ve chosen to always move to the right. The logic of why is not hard to understand.
Should the average person attempt to be more or less engaged with their political systems?
Of course. And that engagement should, in the US, primarily take the form of challenging the Democratic Party leadership as effectively as possible. They’re the largest obstacle to the left currently.
<comedian slow delivery>
Ok, now, hear me out, wait, gimmie a minute
primarily take the form of challenging the Democratic Party leadership as effectively as possible
What do you think I’ve been trying to say?
I’m one dude. My next more effective way of challenging the leadership will get me locked up and then I can’t challenge it again for like 10-20 years.
And you’re still sidestepping the point I was trying to make that was: engagement is helpful and discouraging it is not helpful.
Edit: and just to clarify, “both sides” kinds of comments are discouraging. – we can continue to argue about how to engage forever, I think, but this whole thread started with ‘stop saying both sides’.
This is nonsense. You’re claiming that saying, accurately, that Democrats support almost all the same evil positions Republicans do is “discouraging”?
Cool. Vote out the party leadership then.
You seem, like most Democratic loyalists, to think that if you wish really hard, THIS time your lesser evil strategy is going to work. Once again, you’ve been trying it for decades, and THIS is where it has brought you to. The GOP firmly in control of the government, while you continue to lose to an insane game show host.
I’ve told you how you can STOP doing that - and it STARTS with cleaning out the Democratic Party, and you ONLY do that by abandoning your lesser evil nonsense.
That’s literally what I’m trying to do. And I need help. We need more people in the process so that the leadership can be voted out if it doesn’t reflect us. The ‘both sides’ comments discourage others from getting involved. That’s what I pushed back on way back at the top of this thread.
What’s the other method, if not civic engagement? You seem to be hung up on the first half of my personal plan of less bad now while making more better later. I get that you think both sides are bad; but I think one side is less bad in general, and I see that making that party better requires more people to be part of it.
You seem to have given up on the idea it can be better. I haven’t. You said at the top that you had projects in your community that you were working on. Do they promote civic engagement, or are they palliative care for a terminal patient?
Given some of your phrasing, I don’t even think you are in the US, which is fine, but means we are talking more about the mechanics of politics than the details of US politics (though I get that they effect you; which is why the ‘get out’ part of your plan doesn’t work in my opinion).
My plan:
Be involved in local decisions. Join my precinct and either go or send people I trust to the district meetings. Support and vote for local candidates like mayor and city council, sheriff, dog catcher.
Encourage others online to do the same and push back when people discourage engagement. <-- we are here
(this one would be neat) Mold my city/county/state into a beacon of hope, where the government works for the people and is no longer captured by self-interest. Mamdani in New York is a pretty good example of what I mean, but that requires not just support in the populace, but also support in the rest of the government to allow them to function.
Get enough people in the districts to send people to the states to send people to the nation to elect people who aren’t millionaires to positions of power in the party.
Elect House, Senate and Presidents that are not millionaires or ancient and have the values of the people again.
You seem to think I’m stuck at #2 forever. Which is discouraging. Which is why I keep pushing back.
Aren’t you literally voting for them in the general, with your lesser evil strategy?
You’re conflating your strategy with civic engagement, as if that begins and ends with getting the vote out for Kamala.
You seem to have given up on the idea it can be better.
Not at all. I spend much of my time working on developing community projects for food, sharing, and the like - including software to enable those to work together (https://neighborsgoods.com/).
I don’t think things will get better in the US with your strategy - and as I’ve stated multiple times now, it’s because I’ve been a part of that too many times. It is self-contradictory. We see that even here, where you’re telling me you’re voting them out by voting for them.
Please consider what you’re doing, and spend your efforts in a more productive way.
Yes, we’ve established that. So, since you don’t like that, your plan is to keep trying the same “vote for lesser evil” plan that’s been failing for decades.
In the face of an dying empire (dying much faster now due to the Iran War), climate change, and the rest.
In my opinion . . .
Meh, as we’ve seen for a while, the US is a dangerous force against peace. So maybe the chaos being directed inwards instead of outwards for once will be better for the rest of us.
Neat. Your plan? Run from the responsibility vs violence? Still haven’t heard it beyond those two options. “Get out or get guns” is defeatist and surrenders the initiative to the chaos.
When I was growing up, Russia was the global boogie man. I’d like to prevent the US from being the next one. Am I making things worse by trying to reverse our destruction? I don’t think I am.
Putting words in your mouth, you’re saying “it’s too late” and I should just run? What happens when the US is 100% “republican”? I don’t think that will help on the global stage and I think it will be worse for everyone when things fail here, so I’m trying to prevent that. I think we get an imperialist nation with crumbling infrastructure that needs to take what it can’t produce and will do so with force. We’re like mostly there - see Iran.
I guess one last try. Attack my position again without a solution and I’ll give up.
With some detail, and not in a one-liner, how do we make this better?
According to who? Americans?
The Soviets had lots of things bad with them. That said, the US was killing millions in Vietnam and Latin America. It just doesn’t compare.
The same as now? The exact problem is your supposed “lesser evil” strategy has wound up with them controlling all parts of the US government.
Yes, you are.
You overthrow your government and seize the funds of the rich? At this point, how do you actually think this gets better absent that? You’ve got wealth inequality worse than any other society ever measured, you’re the current leading cause of climate change per capita (maybe 2nd to Canada), you’re in so many wars I doubt you can even name every country you’ve bombed this year . . . .and it’s about to get far, far worse.
if you want my recommendation for what to do personally - yes, get armed, and get ready. Also create dual power systems. Organize, but not just in the failed political realm of the Democratic party. As you’ve seen, they will not do anything even if they have power.
I think I’m done. It’s been an interesting and introspective week. And for that, I thank you.
Your ‘solution’ is violence - and I get that. There’s a bunch of people with your opinion. I don’t have it. I think if we have to get to ‘overthrow’, then we make things really bad for a long time for a lot of people; whereas we can use the system to put better people in the places of power and make things more better-er in a shorter timeframe. It might also make things bad for different people for longer time. I can’t tell from where I sit. I happen to be one dude in a country of 350 million.
In all honesty, I’ve got a foot in both sides. When shit goes down, I’m in; but I’m not going to start it. I’ll leave that up to people braver than me. I will block you if you fight me on this stance.
You imply I’m stopping at the ‘lesser evil’ strategy and I can’t stress enough how much that’s a stepping stone and not, or even a significant part of, my whole solution or even what I advocate for (My old instance is shutting down, you can see my older comments as [email protected] and there are many versions of ‘join your local org’). I vote for lesser evil right now while actively trying to make better options later so I don’t have to and encouraging others to be part of the process.
I think we differ on whether that could actually work; which is a whole conversation on it’s own since, if it can’t, can democracy work at all? Do we all just shoot each other? And which side does that best serve?
My actually trying to make things better is done by being engaged with the processes that make decisions and tell others they can be engaged too. Back to the original original point. The ‘both sides’ one-liners reduce engagement. We should stop making them.
Don’t pick a phrase from above to reply to. Respond to this: Should the average person attempt to be more or less engaged with their political systems?
It will NEVER progress is exactly my point. You’ve chosen to always move to the right. The logic of why is not hard to understand.
Of course. And that engagement should, in the US, primarily take the form of challenging the Democratic Party leadership as effectively as possible. They’re the largest obstacle to the left currently.
<comedian slow delivery> Ok, now, hear me out, wait, gimmie a minute
What do you think I’ve been trying to say?
I’m one dude. My next more effective way of challenging the leadership will get me locked up and then I can’t challenge it again for like 10-20 years.
And you’re still sidestepping the point I was trying to make that was: engagement is helpful and discouraging it is not helpful.
Edit: and just to clarify, “both sides” kinds of comments are discouraging. – we can continue to argue about how to engage forever, I think, but this whole thread started with ‘stop saying both sides’.
This is nonsense. You’re claiming that saying, accurately, that Democrats support almost all the same evil positions Republicans do is “discouraging”?
Cool. Vote out the party leadership then.
You seem, like most Democratic loyalists, to think that if you wish really hard, THIS time your lesser evil strategy is going to work. Once again, you’ve been trying it for decades, and THIS is where it has brought you to. The GOP firmly in control of the government, while you continue to lose to an insane game show host.
I’ve told you how you can STOP doing that - and it STARTS with cleaning out the Democratic Party, and you ONLY do that by abandoning your lesser evil nonsense.
We’re done here.
That’s literally what I’m trying to do. And I need help. We need more people in the process so that the leadership can be voted out if it doesn’t reflect us. The ‘both sides’ comments discourage others from getting involved. That’s what I pushed back on way back at the top of this thread.
What’s the other method, if not civic engagement? You seem to be hung up on the first half of my personal plan of less bad now while making more better later. I get that you think both sides are bad; but I think one side is less bad in general, and I see that making that party better requires more people to be part of it.
You seem to have given up on the idea it can be better. I haven’t. You said at the top that you had projects in your community that you were working on. Do they promote civic engagement, or are they palliative care for a terminal patient?
Given some of your phrasing, I don’t even think you are in the US, which is fine, but means we are talking more about the mechanics of politics than the details of US politics (though I get that they effect you; which is why the ‘get out’ part of your plan doesn’t work in my opinion).
My plan:
You seem to think I’m stuck at #2 forever. Which is discouraging. Which is why I keep pushing back.
Aren’t you literally voting for them in the general, with your lesser evil strategy?
You’re conflating your strategy with civic engagement, as if that begins and ends with getting the vote out for Kamala.
Not at all. I spend much of my time working on developing community projects for food, sharing, and the like - including software to enable those to work together (https://neighborsgoods.com/).
I don’t think things will get better in the US with your strategy - and as I’ve stated multiple times now, it’s because I’ve been a part of that too many times. It is self-contradictory. We see that even here, where you’re telling me you’re voting them out by voting for them.
Please consider what you’re doing, and spend your efforts in a more productive way.