Discuss
Yes
Not only because funny But also because true
Only in the sense that the point of liberalism is to enable fascist leaders to take power mostly unchallenged once the liberals fail at being secret fascists.
Obama roasting Trump at the House Correspondents video is supposedly what convinced him to run in the first place and he never would have gotten traction in the election if Hillary hadn’t leaned into the Pied Piper strategy.
I understand the criticisms of the democrats and have often made them myself, but sometimes I worry that the focus on the dems diminishes the agency of the actual Trump supporters.
The dems didn’t conjure up the settler colonial ideology in 2016. The dems didn’t create wholesale a legacy of racism, colonialism and genocide in 2016. White Americans were not some pure innocent race tempted into evil by Hillary Clinton.
The dems’ role in the rise of trump is more of a “just the way it happened to play out.” As capitalism and empire collapse, climate crisis is ramped up, a figure like Trump in the American landscape was an inevitability. The dems have nothing to do with this, at least not any exceptional role. But the fact that it was Trump in 2016 - the fact that it happened how it happened - that’s the dem’s fault. But it wouldn’t have happened at all, even if the dems did everything the same, if the US populace had not been primed for the entire country’s history to embrace fascist rhetoric. The dems should be criticized for the actions they did take, and the dems and liberals in general should continue to be criticized for inaction. But in terms of the rise of trump, I just find the focus on the dems sort of useless, as if shitty electoral strategy allows us to ignore the entirety of settler colonial and fascist ideology that’s baked into the American landscape.
Nah, that letting them set the terms. Yes, if the DNC is not allowed to meaningfully use power than their hands are tied. However, the ontl reason they have that rule is because they want to let the GOP win. So no. That’s all fake.
Don’t understand what you’re trying to say
You are wrong. If we assume the DNC is acting in good faith and not lying to you your position makes sense. However we have no reason to assume they are anything other than untrustworthy mass murderers
Sorry, maybe I’m still misunderstanding, but I don’t see how this responds to what I was saying above. Whether or not the dems are lying (I’m assuming lying about being anti-trump and against the current hard right turn) I don’t believe contradicts my point that when explaining the rise of trump settler colonial ideology, the racial landscape of the us, and the collapse of empire are more important than any action by the dems. Things like the pied piper strategy commonly blamed for the rise of trump are important and should be criticized, but the only reason those things had the effect they did is because of the things cited above that are baked into the American landscape. Without Clinton and the dnc’s actions in 2016 we still get a trump-like figure, though maybe not in 2016.
In terms of the furtherance of settler colonial ideology and the maintenance of racial hierarchy, the dems are to blame, but I don’t believe more than any other bourgeois capitalist. I think this this is what you mean when you’re talking about how the dems are lying, like they’re not really against trump and the inaction is deliberate. But they’re a bourgeois party so any action (or inaction) is due to that imo, not anything specific to the dem party. In terms of actions specific to the dem party, there’s still important stuff to criticize there, but to me the focus tends to be skewed when the rise and continuing support of trump is really rooted in things that go far beyond the dem party.
If they were simply little guys doing their best that would be one thing.
They are a fundamental part of our government. They helped create those vibes. They have blood on their hands from the lives spent to enshrine their power over vibes here in the country. They are responsible for creating and they do the most work in defending it. Down to the last intern they deserve the wall for their sins.
I haven’t argued they have no blood on their hands. But their responsibility in creating and sustaining settler ideology and empire is not fundamentally different or greater than any other part of the bourgeois class or the colonial power structure. I take issue with your idea that they somehow do the most work in defending settler ideology. They shouldn’t be treated as an exceptional force in the maintenance of settler ideology and I’m wondering how your statement could even be quantified. I also take issue with the idea that they are responsible for creating something (what it is you don’t say). The Dems are about 200 years old. Settler ideology and the colonial power structure stretch back 500 years. The dems are one expression of that settler ideology, not the other way around.
And specifically we’re talking about the rise of trump and the maga movement. For all we can say about the dems, for all of their fault in helping to unleash that force, at the end of the day it didn’t come from their camp. It came from something with a long history in this country that greatly predates the dems that has been present on the American landscape since the first European settlement. The dems are a part of that force which I think is what you’re saying, but I don’t think the dems can truly be blamed except as one part of a wider condemnation of capitalism, colonialism and empire. To single out the dems in assigning blame for the rise of trump to me just seems to be missing the forest for the trees.
Of course not. They did everything in their power to stop his rise.
They didn’t promote his 2016 primary run because they thought it would make the election a shoo-in for Hillary if he won the nomination.
They didn’t ratfuck the only candidate who paid even lip-service to addressing the economic contradictions inherent to capitalism which immiserate the populace. They didn’t choose to run a corporate-owned, deeply unpopular warmonger instead. They ran a strong candidate who was universally beloved by Americans, someone who is so radiant and pure of heart that she is light itself.
They didn’t play into every provocation from Trump to act as part of his PR machine a la the Streisand effect.
They didn’t bungle governance for 4 years so badly that people were eager for a change.
They didn’t handle Covid worse than Trump and get far more people killed and disabled by it with their grand reopening.
They didn’t doggedly commit to genocide even knowing it would cost them votes in key battleground states.
The Democrats did nothing to help Trump rise to power and did everything they could to stop his rise, but Trump was too much of a political mastermind and he was willing to break rules to win. He’s only won because he lies and cheats, which the Democrats never do.
Frankly, it is concerning and problematic of you to even ask that question because everyone knows the answer is obviously “No”. Would you ask other questions where the answer is obviously no, such as “Does a bear not shit in the woods?”, “Did NATO expansion trigger Putin’s invasion of Ukraine?”, “should the US stop funding and arming Israel?”
I’m getting really strong Russian bot vibes from this poster. Mods, where are you? Why haven’t you banned this propagandist yet?
Just you wait, “/u/Dirt_Owl”, if that’s your real name – or should I say грязная сова – I’ve summoned the mods and they’ll soon deport you back to RuZZia.
If Democrats hadn’t cheated in 2016, Bernie would have won in 2016 and 2020.
If Democrats hadn’t cheated in 2020, Bernie would have won in 2020 and 2024.
Simple as
I don’t think Bernie would’ve had two terms, he would’ve face constant attack from the media and both parties, and literally 0 of his planned “make the boot of capital stomp slightly less hard” strategies would’ve actually been passed, and the media would be calling him a failure nonstop and saying “this is what happens when you elect a socialist.”
Alternatively, Bernie being malleable imperialist succdem would do what every succdem ever do when elected and he would be a second coming of Obama.
I guess it depends heavily on how quickly he folds. He would either pay lip service to social policy (and be vilified) or abandon it entirely and lose popular support even as the media praises him for “reaching across the aisle”
Yeah, in case such like this i remember Roosevelt New Deal that was aimed at saving capitalism, but the capitalist hated him so much they tried to coup him. So obligatory reminder that ruling class is not monolithic and not entirely rational even in case of their class interests (as the election of Trump also clearly shows!).
“I saved them and they never forgiven me for this” (to paraphrase Zhukov famous saying)
