Fuckkk off 9th American oblast.
We don’t need more “pro-israel centrists”
The reason Dem turnout in generals is depressed, is our choices are CIA war criminals like Slotking or a republican.
She is the problem, not the 99.9% who don’t want an oligarchy
I completely agree, but it’s also likely a reasonable representation of her Michigan constituents. It’s not a terribly diverse state.
No CIA member is a good representative of their state.
Maybe they should encourage some more aggressive left wing people to compete against them to broaden horizons of the dabates, like bringing a ‘communist’ along with ‘socailist’ to debate a republican
I mean Michigan was the epicenter and main stronghold of the Uncommitted Movement; there’s obviously a good amount of support for progressive Palestine policy there.
You’re pointing to a Mossad coordinated disinformation campaign as evidence that Michigan is a good spot to look for popular national support? The campaign designed to create a wedge issue in the 2024 election by simultaneously driving disinformation down politicians’ throats while stoking anti-Israel sentiment among progressive communities?
I’m not saying it’s a bad take because obviously I can’t prove to you that Mossad played a part, but think about the result of the “Uncommitted Movement” and who in Israel benefits by having Trump in office.
Disclaimer for the incoming troll replies: I’m not pro-genocide, I’m simply in favor of choosing the best of possible outcomes, of which Harris was clearly a better outcome for Palestine. Can you even imagine her announcing the Riviera of the Middle East?
Good to know there are still Americans who haven’t learned a goddamn thing from November. This situation is directly the result of Democrat-voting Americans crying about the lesser evil while shutting down all attempts to make it not evil.
You’re pointing to a Mossad coordinated disinformation campaign as evidence that Michigan is a good spot to look for popular national support?
God not everything you don’t like is a foreign disinformation campaign.
I’m not saying it’s a bad take because obviously I can’t prove to you that Mossad played a part, but think about the result of the “Uncommitted Movement” and who in Israel benefits by having Trump in office.
Uncommitted wasn’t about giving Trump the White House, but about getting Harris and the DNC to stop supporting the genocide and then win in November. That obviously didn’t work out because rather than support them or even stay silent people like you kept shutting them down and dismissing their concerns about both the election and their loved ones being brutally murdered by goddamn modern Nazis.
Can you even imagine her announcing the Riviera of the Middle East?
No, but I also couldn’t imagine her winning, which is exactly the problem here.
I’m not God, I’m just a regular person.
I provided instructions for trolls in my post, but you seem to have missed that part in the bits you quoted. Despite my policy on feeding trolls, I’ll repeat that I’m not endorsing the actions of the Netanyahu government.
If you want to put your head in the sand and pretend that foreign intelligence isn’t influencing nearly every flavor of social media on the internet, that’s on you.
I believe your understanding of how voting works is flawed. A vote only matters if it is cast. Withholding votes does not motivate politicians in any democratic system in the world. The math simply doesn’t work.
As you’ve clearly come to understand, the uncommitted movement was an abject failure. That you continue to cling to the idea that it failed due to rational progressives makes me wonder if you are a troll yourself.
Uncommitted is not how political shifts happen in the United States. Increasingly it is single issue voters like you, who don’t like how a candidate positions on a single issue and chooses to abstain or vote for the other side. To be clear, that’s your choice and I wouldn’t fault you for standing on your principles if you weren’t simultaneously complaining about the outcome of standing on those principles.
As it is, you promoted a failed political strategy that, not wholly but certainly in part, led to the reelection of Trump and the MAGAs. I voted for the candidate who would most plausibly bring about a less horrific end to the Gaza conflict. This was NEVER about dismissing concerns about a group of people on the other side of the planet, it was ALWAYS about making the best choice for THIS country.
I think some part of you knows that, but I totally understand being irrationally angry with the world, random internet commenters, whatever. Shit is getting crazy out here, and tbh we all need each other more than ever. Please take my deepest apologies if the truth of what I’m saying is upsetting. Progressivism has never been about getting everything you want in a perfect candidate, it has always been about compromising in order to achieve incremental improvements. You don’t have to align with that view, but your passion certainly would be welcomed.
I provided instructions for trolls in my post, but you seem to have missed that part in the bits you quoted. Despite my policy on feeding trolls, I’ll repeat that I’m not endorsing the actions of the Netanyahu government.
I know, but also don’t care.
f you want to put your head in the sand and pretend that foreign intelligence isn’t influencing nearly every flavor of social media on the internet, that’s on you.
Of course it is, but that’s neither here nor there. The implication that outrage at Biden’s support for Israel is mostly a result of that influence is, however, fucking ridiculous. Why do you believe that people can’t exercise their right to hold their elected politicians accountable without it being a Russian or Israeli plot?
Withholding votes does not motivate politicians in any democratic system in the world. The math simply doesn’t work.
Threatening to withhold votes certainly does, because those politicians are at least ostensibly trying to get elected. That’s why Democratic politicians throw breadcrumbs for their constituents and have a milquetoast-but-better-than-nothing stance on civil rights, and it’s what Uncommitted tried to do.
As you’ve clearly come to understand, the uncommitted movement was an abject failure. That you continue to cling to the idea that it failed due to rational progressives makes me wonder if you are a troll yourself.
I’m trying really hard not to break rule 3 right now. What kind of pressure campaign would have satisfied your rational sensibilities?
Uncommitted is not how political shifts happen in the United States.
Then how do they?
Increasingly it is single issue voters like you, who don’t like how a candidate positions on a single issue and chooses to abstain or vote for the other side. To be clear, that’s your choice and I wouldn’t fault you for standing on your principles if you weren’t simultaneously complaining about the outcome of standing on those principles.
This isn’t the outcome of anti-genocide principles; it’s the result of decades of lesser evil politics, which America is clearly done with. This downfall of American democracy did not start in 2024. Ever heard of the gambler’s ruin? Well welcome to the centrist’s ruin, where you keep betting your democracy until the far right eats it all.
As it is, you promoted a failed political strategy that, not wholly but certainly in part, led to the reelection of Trump and the MAGAs.
Again, what better strategy would you have promoted that would have led to change?
I voted for the candidate who would most plausibly bring about a less horrific end to the Gaza conflict. This was NEVER about dismissing concerns about a group of people on the other side of the planet, it was ALWAYS about making the best choice for THIS country.
What less horrific end? Genocide with rainbows? And in the first place do you seriously think a government that ran on dismissing genocide would be anything but an appetizer to fascism? If they don’t care about brown people on the other side of the world, they don’t care about you.
Please take my deepest apologies if the truth of what I’m saying is upsetting. Progressivism has never been about getting everything you want in a perfect candidate, it has always been about compromising in order to achieve incremental improvements.
Has anyone ever told you you’re patronizing? And in the first place what improvements? Your program of compromise and incremental change has led to, or at least failed to prevent, capital F Fascism in the United States. Maybe try something else next time, if there is a next time.
PS: Now is probably a good time to mention that I’m not American.
I’m bored with you so best of luck in our shared future hellscape. I definitely LOL’d when I saw you weren’t American.
But demanding opposition to genocide and neoliberal policies is purity testing!
Why can’t the left just accept liberal capitalism instead of purity testing human rights?
Surely the problem is with leftist individuals who hate liberalism so much they must secretly support Trump.
It couldn’t be any systemic or material issues that have compounded over decades, leading to populist sentiment and opposition to the status quo, as people demand solutions to the cost of living crisis that they’ve seen only ever get worse. It was surely not a mistake to not run of overwhelmingly popular democratic socialist policies that would’ve directly addressed those issues, or run on no weapons embargo despite it’s overwhelming support. The DNC did nothing wrong, it’s all the voters fault, especially those anti-genocide ones. Who cares if they had loved ones killed by Israel, they should have known better, it’s a simple trolley problem.
/s (this kind of sentiment is so annoying)
Stalin, I hate engaging with commies, but I can’t resist a good pun.
The left doesn’t have a cohesive platform, nor any political power. Your indignation is not righteous, and your sentiment does not inspire. US politicians are generally idiots, yes, but I disagree that calling for a more moderate path in the face of a populist criminal was a bad take. We are seeing it play out in real time, and we’re all in the same boat so I hope you’re enjoying the ride.
That ‘more moderate path’ has been an abject failure, as evident by the election.
Neoliberalism ideology is what has paved the way to rampant fascism in American politics. Neoliberalism, and even liberalism for that matter, will never be a successful opposition to fascism. Being beholden to corporate interests, at the expense of the voters interest nonetheless, will and has only ever normalized if not accelerated fascist policies.
The only way to have a genuine opposition to right-wing populism is by running on a platform of left-wing populism. Ignoring the material harms people are experiencing and aware of is a losing strategy.
Left-wing populist positions are overwhelmingly popular, they are even popular with independent and Republican voters. Those positions directly benefit everyone in the working class. The only issue for the neoliberal administration in charge of the DNC is that those policies come at the expense of billionaires and massive corporations, the people who fund their convention and races to secure their interests over the general population.
Human rights is nonnegotiable. If anyone is willing to throw a group of people under the bus for any reason, they are no ally.
If the DNC prioritized running on those popular policies and actually attempted to earn as many votes as they possibly could by offering concessions to as much people as they could, they would have won. Trump would not be president. We wouldn’t be funding one genocide while ramping up concentration camps for ‘enemies within’. But the DNC has proven themselves to priorities their corporate backers over the people. Only a small few like Bernie, AOC, and The Squad are genuinely interested in opposing the fascism of the Republican party. If they gain control of the DNC, we may have a chance out of this through legislation and reform. If the DNC continues to prop up corporate interests over progressives, then the way out will become much much bloodier.
Fascism does not compromise. Appeasement is the problem. Opposition is necessary.
Edit: after seeing your other comment, I’ll provide polls that support my point, on the large support of both on the weapons embargo and on left-wing populist policies.
Progressive policies that a majority of Americans support
Here Are 34 Polls That Show A Ceasefire & Weapons Embargo Help Kamala Win
Kamala Would Have Won With A Weapons Embargo
Democrats’ Working-Class Failures, Analysis Finds, Are ‘Why Trump Beat Harris’
2024 Post-Election Report: A retrospective and longitudinal data analysis on why Trump beat Harris
How Trump and Harris Voters See America’s Role in the World
Majority of Americans support progressive policies such as higher minimum wage, free college
Democrats should run on the popular progressive ideas, but not the unpopular ones
Here Are 7 ‘Left Wing’ Ideas (Almost) All Americans Can Get Behind
Finding common ground: 109 national policy proposals with bipartisan support
Progressive Policies Are Popular Policies
Tim Walz’s Progressive Policies Popular With Republicans in Swing States
Michigan has the second highest population of people from the mideast in absolute numbers, and the highest proportionally.
While racial background doesn’t determine support for a cause, it’s not surprising that people would turn out in higher numbers to advocate for the lives of people more closely related to them.
I was more referring to her point about distancing themselves from advocating for diversity. It’s probably not their biggest priority when 73% of the state is white and 61% are Christians.
https://datausa.io/profile/geo/michigan
https://www.pewresearch.org/religious-landscape-study/state/michigan/
It’s a 50/50 state and the Republican party is overwhelmingly white. 73% white likely means Democratic voters are 50%+ minority. We have to stop pretending we need to appeal to anti-woke Republicans. Even in less diverse states, it’s still a diverse party.
I was only saying it’s possible that’s the message she’s getting from her constituents, which is any resident of Michigan. It was educated speculation, not fact, nor is it my personal opinion of these issues. I’d like to see Democrats become an opposition party, as far from the Republicans as possible, just the same as you.
The oligarchy pays me to pretend to fight for you! Wait. Cut that part.
Ah another closet republican, nice
Here’s who her donors are, if that’s of interest to anybody
https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/elissa-slotkin/summary?cid=N00041357
What does “Retired” mean for top donor?
These are donations from retired individuals
That’s broken down by profession of individual donor.
It shows that her biggest group of individual donors is boomers, who aren’t exactly known for being progressive.
It’s by donor profession. So things like “lawyer”, “student” or in this case “retired”.
Look, I get what she’s going for: simplify the messaging, make the GOP respond to Dem labels instead of the other way around.
Here’s the thing: She can just do that. We don’t need someone navel gazing in the public square. This is the kind of thing you work out in think tanks or private rooms, and then execute the plan. Why discuss strategy in public? It’s self-defeating.
Come on, she doesn’t have the funds to- Oh, what’s that? She’s an ultra-wealthy heiress?
Hmm…
And one of most ardent zionists. She’s take 656k from AIPAC. she’s one of their top recipients.
https://www.trackaipac.com/congressAnd last cycle 51 million from the “Mitten PAC”. which doesnt disclose where funds are donated from.
If anybody wanted to read the article (ha! yeah, I know) she’s not saying we should lose ‘woke’ ideology or stop attacking ‘oligarchy’. She says the opposite of those things, which was phrased by mediaite this way for clickbait reasons.
What she’s saying is to use the word “kings” instead of “oligarchy”. Which I get. Sure - do that. Makes sense. Same argument, same vitriol, more punch.
As for the ‘woke’ part, she said:
Detailing her plan, Slotkin – a former analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) – argued that the Democratic Party needed to lose its “weak and woke” reputation and “fucking retake the flag,” adopting a “goddamn Alpha energy” inspired by Detroit Lions coach Dan Campbell.
She’s mad as fuck and doesn’t want to explain why people need to be treated with respect - it should be a given and we don’t need to explain it.
So there’s sixty comments on here so far, most of them railing against her but I don’t see it. I think she’s been misinterpreted, deliberately, in the case of the mediaite headline writer.
What she’s saying is to use the word “kings” instead of “oligarchy”. Which I get. Sure - do that. Makes sense. Same argument, same vitriol, more punch.
It does not make sense and is not the same argument. She’s part of a New Democrat Coalition campaign to absolve corporate interests from any responsibility for their lobbying of congressman for whatever filthy outcome they want. She doesnt care about doing the right things, she wants boycotts stopped, and to keep the public busy attacking figureheads.
Do you consider yourself an informed person when it comes to how the system works?
Look how desperate you are to turn any point around into an ad hom attack. Gotta derail that last point instead of talking about it, eh.
New Democrats coalition, bud. Explain why Slotkin is a member of that caucus (AKA the blue dogs) and how the work of that caucus is good for voters. After that we can talk about her other caucus memberships and votes.
Nah, this headline gets it right by ignoring Slotkin’s transparent spin
Slotkin voted for the Laken Reilly act and hasn’t ever said shit about the CIA being held accountable for torturing people, so she doesn’t want to “fucking retake the flag” in any way that isn’t just a new reign of terror for brown people
The negging about the word “oligarchy” (which she was happy to use against wealthy Russian assholes who support Putin up until very recently) is continuing a very long tradition of her being against whatever AOC is doing at the moment. She can’t come right out and say “I don’t like her policies” because those are popular and that would be political suicide, so she’s just focusing on AOC’s rhetoric and playing to Republican talking points about progressives being the out of touch ones.
Slotkin is a toxic divisive piece of shit who’s bad on policy, bad on politics, and drags the whole Democratic party’s image down whenever she wants to advance her own career.
I’m not seeing that from this article, but you seem to know a lot about her - what are some other things she’s done?
Off the top of my head - she said she’s more than “just an AOC,” said Rashida Tlaib was supporting terrorism when Tlaib asked the Biden administration to stop funding Israel, said multiple times in interviews that the Green New Deal could never pass because it had controversial ideas like universal healthcare, said multiple times in interviews in 2020 during the height of the George Floyd protests that she would never ever support defunding the police, and on and on. She constantly signal boosts Republican talking points about progressive lawmakers and progressive policy ideas to tear them down and only then turns around and says “Hey Michigan, if you don’t want to deal with a Republican party that went completely insane around 2020* I guess you’re stuck with me!”
*I forget the exact details, but MAGAts purged their party’s leadership for some “say the quiet parts through megaphones” types and then there was some sort of scandal with their finances, so MIGOP has been a barely functional shell of itself for a few years now
What she’s saying is to use the word “kings” instead of “oligarchy”. Which I get. Sure - do that. Makes sense. Same argument, same vitriol, more punch.
Still don’t agree with that. Oligarchy is a very specific thing that we are currently living in. We don’t have a king, not even by the most new-speak of definitions.
Detailing her plan, Slotkin – a former analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
Also hard pass. The CIA should be shuttered they will never be able to provide solution to the problems of capitalism, because their number one goal is to secure “US Interests Abroad” meaning, prop up the oligarchy.
Well you can argue the words or the pronunciation thereof but I don’t think you’re on the right side of that one. Language is central to reality and you’re talking about a wide swath of people’s reality where oligarch has little meaning but king has a lot.
As for CIA-bad, no argument there but CIA-bad-therefore-anyone-who-worked-there-bad I’d also disagree with. We gotta have someone to run and if she’s progressive and firey, I’ll take it. If the left wants to primary her for someone else, fine - so long as they can win. But in most cases they don’t have anyone.
Thank you, Lemmy is looking like a slippery slope back into Reddit today with everyone just screaming at the headlines without knowing the full stories or context.
Thank you, Lemmy is looking like a slippery slope back into Reddit today with everyone just screaming at the headlines without knowing the full stories or context.
Have you read the article? You should it pretty short, and the Headline absolutely gets it right.
There are a lot of people here who pat themselves on the back for their lack of education and understanding.
This from the guy who insta-pivots to ad hom attacks on anyone who tries to dig into Slotkins caucus membership and voting record, and then runs away.
So we’re all stupid huh? Your boos mean nothing to us, rowrowyourbot, we’ve all seen what makes you cheer.
Trolls are so tiresome.
I for one, greatly appreciate all the comments on this thread that arent pro Slotkin trolls. You give me some hope that the voters of the dem party (or what the dem party should be anyway) have some hope of getting this country back on some sort of track, and flushing the filthy slotkins and republican fascists down the tubes bak into the shameful silent background where they always belonged.
Willfully or blindly ignorant, but the result is the same.
Punt her.
It’s almost like she is insulting her fellow citizens.
The implication that I see (based on her statement) is that other people in her country lack the capability to comprehend the notion of oligarchy or they are too corrupt themselves to support anti-corruotion reform.
or they are too corrupt themselves to support anti-corruotion reform.
Maybe. Or maybe they just shove the honest out of sight, or ridicule them with heavy projections.
You might be surprised how many people have little to no understanding of political philosophy.
See, I don’t you need know anything about political philosophy to understand how oligarchs function and to well, identify oligarchs.
I think you need it to be able to identify oligarchy and why it is an issue.
Agreed, but do you really need knowledge of political philosophy to do that?
The impression I got from living in the US is that it’s not so much a problem with identification, but more like a desire to avoid rather uncomfortable topics.
I don’t know, maybe I just don’t get it. I will admit that I could be wrong, I am just thinking out loud based on my experiences. 😀
It’s not even an uncomfortable topic among the people. You can go into a bar of any political persuasion anywhere and loudly complain about those goddamned rich assholes running everything into the ground and screwing over regular folk and all you’ll get is hearty agreement. It’s only an uncomfortable topic among the wealthy and their political lapdogs.
Support working class people and idealism. THAT Is what the dems need to do, win over the middle\right folks that can’t stand the MAGA shit and want their real country back, not some perverted fucked up version the GOP would like to create.
this. defend public education and improve it. get universal healthcare. social safety nets to provide support as people are falling rather than after they hit the ground.
Man I figured this was paraphrased because I can’t trust a headline nowadays even if it used quotes but nope. Used those exact terms in that way. Says to retake flag energy. Fuck that nationalist shit. Definately need to redefine patriotism around the constitution and civil rights but sure as shit not around the flag. The flag is a symbol of the ideals that should be respected not a thing itself to respect.
Patriotism is bad don’t redefine it abolish it.
I think patriotism is fine if your espousing a good functioning system. Patriotism for patriotisms sake is the issue to me. Its like every time I see a god bless america sign I want to get a sign that says americans be deserving of gods blessing. Your country is not good because of the name of your country but if your country is good if its actually free and equitable.
National pride can be a powerful motivator towards doing good. The belief in a nation as a group of people working towards a common goal is fundamental to collectivism.
When patriotism turns into nationalism, that’s where it becomes toxic.
National pride absent something like a colonizing force always has an out group and always abstracts the interests of real people to the interests of the elite of the abstract “nation”.
What if the out group is fascists and kings?
A king is kind of in group by definition
You don’t need “nationhood” to be anti-fascist and anti-monarchy.
Spoiler alert.
It won’t be.
First, if patriotic imagery works when it comes to campaigning why shouldn’t they do it? Why not adopt winning tactics?
Second “ She said Democrats should stop using the term ‘oligarchy,’ a phrase she said doesn’t resonate beyond coastal institutions, and just say that the party opposes ‘kings,'” wrote Wren, who reported that Slotkin was planning to deliver a series of speeches in the coming months about her plan.”
that sounds a lot more like suggesting we don’t talk over the heads of the voters than suggesting we shouldn’t confront the problem. Do you take issue with this?
I think after decades of the term “oligarch” being used in popular culture and nationwide news coverage, people in the “forgotten middle” know what oligarchy is. She’s doing the exact thing “liberal elites” get accused of doing all the time which is insulting her constituents’ intelligence.
its just chasing the ignorance and redefining. They have assigned me to woke that is all about trans and such as opposed to realizing we don’t have a free and fair and functioning system. Maybe they can get other times of voters but talking to dumbed down will alienate my kind.
Kings are single actors. Oligarchy is a group which includes corporations. She is part of a pro business caucus and she is one of the worst zionists in the party. Can you stop trying to whitewash her? She is a monster who needs to be removed, not understood.
You think kings are singular actors? Have you ever studied any real life monarchy closely? That’s an inaccurate claim.
Im not trying to whitewash her I am addressing the errors in your comment.
Stop trying to claim moral high ground we are not arguing here. You made an extremely ignorant comment that was completely incorrect and all I am doing is pointing that out. You shouldn’t be this proudly incorrect
just say that the party opposes ‘kings,'”
This is incredibly dangerous
It argues that a pseudo King like Trump is the problem. That is a lie. It is the oligarchs who prop up dictators like Trump who are the problem
This is an issue of systems, not of individuals. She’s intentionally trying to individualize a systemic issue. This is because she serves those oligarchs and is protecting them by attempting to scapegoat Trump.
We must reject this
Sure stop pamdering to the wealthy and make plans to support and luft the general populace in all areas and you will stop being “woke”.
And guess what, the best way to pay for it is to get the fiar share of taxes back from those that are avoiding paying completely by paying laakers privately.Wow, so easy, much fun.
Let’s get back to our controlled opposition roots.
So abandon economic justice and civil rights.
Is there anything left?
