Elissa, stop running your mouth and do it yourself if you have a better idea.
shes in the wrong party
And this is why fascism is winning.
I understand where people are coming from when they say “identity politics” are politics getting in the way of class struggle. I vehemently disagree with it, these are also important issues we need to stand up for even when they are sometimes unpopular, but I understand where it comes from.
But if she also thinks we shouldn’t be talking about class either, what the fuck does she want to do?
If you read the article, she’s saying the word oligarchy doesn’t resonate with voters and it should be replaced with the word “kings”. The woke part was about changing perception, not platform. She wants the party to take a more aggressive tone in opposition to trump and work to lose the reputation of being “weak and woke” as was reported by focus groups.
It’s an intentionally misleading headline
I understand where people are coming from when they say “identity politics” are politics getting in the way of class struggle. I vehemently disagree with it, these are also important issues we need to stand up for even when they are sometimes unpopular
The thing is, the things that help everyone helps everyone…
The people suffering from identity politics politicizing their existence as well
But when shit sucks, people lash out. If we were taking care of everyone, they wouldn’t need a Boogeyman to blame to distract them from the real problem.
Fixing the class issue makes it easier to fix societal issues.
You’re literally arguing to put the cart before the horse, to do things in the least effective manner to achieve all goals.
That’s why the wealthy use it to distract people, even though you think you understand it. You’re still missing the point and falling for it. It’s an effective strategy and loads of people keep falling for it. It exploits natural logic, because it should be easier to handle “identity politics” because it’s way less people.
Humans aren’t wired to think of more than like 220 people, and that fact is exploited by the wealthy constantly
Maybe before you say that the issues that you care about are obviously the first priority you should be asking why minority voters would ever trust white liberals (or leftists) to get to the things that are critical issues for their communities once the stuff whites prioritize gets done.
Your argument of “give the racists more money so they won’t be as racist” isn’t going to inspire solidarity from the people you’re supposed to view as allies. Prove you’re there for them before you start worrying about how you can convert Republicans. It’s still a dumb fucking plan when it’s from the left rather than from the middle. The left is never going to win by figuring out which part of the coalition can be pushed to the back of the line to attract those sweet sweet Republican converts. The situation doesn’t change if you swap out neocons for anti-woke tradesmen.
This class-first argument is almost solely promoted by white male leftists and FFS you guys should wonder why.
If we want to take care of everyone, then we need to be sure that we actually are taking care of everyone. We have to stand up against persecution and injustice. We have to proactively offer a hand up to those who need it most right now. When people are being oppressed, silence is complicity.
If you want to sweep issues under the rug when they feel politically inconvenient, then you can’t also say you’re taking care of everyone.
then we need to be sure that we actually are taking care of everyone.
Literally what I’m saying…
We’re not, we should be, and that should be priority 1 because everything else is easy.
You’re so close to understanding this.
Does taking care of everyone mean saying “sorry you can’t get HRT, it just doesn’t poll well enough”?
I take back what I said:
You’re so close to understanding this.
I’m sorry I can’t put this very simple topic in a way you can understand. Hopefully someone else has better luck
Cash donor checks and subjugate all poor people equally regardless of their race religion gender sexuality or ability status
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.
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
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.
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.
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
Slotkin is the new Sinema and can GFY, but there is a component to this that does deserve some discussion.
If you look back on the past 10 years of the Democrats climbing hills for issues, I think it’s out of sync with the majority of people. The staunch fight for identity politics is not what people seem to want or need right now, and they need to understand that. Maybe there was a time when this was what their constituents wanted, but no longer.
No they need to be really fucking strong on fighting the billionaires, pushing back against the front to vast majority of the country that has no wealth, and finding ways to make that flip around so that the wealthy who are imposing the enshitification of the lower and middle class are held accountable for doing so.
Forget the current struggles we’re forced to dread living through, and give people a clear plan and the hope that you’ll actually be attacking this things when elected. Seems pretty simple.
Who do you think are the voices who are really strong against billionaires? And who are the voices who are the strongest in support of this “identity politics” bogeyman? Because it’s pretty much the same people. This idea that the Democrats running interference for the rich are using wokeness to do it is just bullshit. The same people saying stop wokeness are the ones who also don’t want to talk about wealth inequality.
There’s no secret plot to distract with identity politics, just rich centrists chasing the golden age of Clintonism and white people thinking the only policies that should really matter are the ones that affect them.
more like, people like her is chasing the same money the gop are chasing, which megadonor moneys.
Sanders and Cortez are literally doing a tour right now AGAINST the Oligarchy bullshit.
Crockett, Porter, Durbin, Duckworth, Warnock, Kaine, Gillinrand (shocker) have all pushed bills to raise the ceiling on taxable income for Social Security, and higher tiered taxes exponentially for wealthy earners.
What in the hell are you talking about?
And would you consider either of them to represent the anti-woke strain of the Democratic party?
Anti-oligarchy and “identity politics” are not two camps in the Democratic party. The same people who are against focus on the oligarchy are the ones who are against focusing on “identity politics”.
class war vs culture war. she doesnt want that.
There is no “anti-woke”, because the only dipshits who believe there is “woke” in the first place are Fox News enthusiasts.
Stop buying into all this drama, my God.
and people pretending to be on the “left” but often use woke.
You’re the one who just made an argument to listen to the centrists and stop doing “identity politics”. You’re the drama!
Never said anything like that, but it’s obvious where your mind with it 🤣
The staunch fight for identity politics is not what people seem to want or need right now, and they need to understand that.
They’re paid a lot of money specifically so they don’t understand that…
The entire reason for the culture war is to distract people from the fact that the wealthiest are fighting a class war.
You think she can’t understand because she’s not able to. It’s a willful ignorance, and require lots of money for that cognitive dissonance
Did you actually read what she said? It’s a lot closer in message to what you just said than I think you might have expected.
I did. Her target is all wrong. She’s focused on some culture bullshit, and ignoring the real issue which is a full out fucking class war. She literally is trying to divert people’s attention away from the billionaires who own her ass. Fuck that.
Except she’s saying a different word polls better, not that we need to focus less on them.
I don’t see how saying a different word is more effective is the same as drawing attention away from the topic, or how saying Dems need to do better about avoiding being seen as ineffectual is an issue.
She claimed the word oligarchy doesnt resonate and it absolutely does. You are just buying into Slotkins pro business, pro aipac, manipulative narrative.
You’re being duped, ricecake. Snap out of it.
I’m really not.
I get that you prefer the word oligarchy. That’s fine. I’m not sure I feel strongly that we call them oligarchs or if we compare them to monarchs in our messaging how they’re bad.
I’m just not seeing how a disagreement on verbiage without a difference in content makes someone as awful as people seem to be reacting.
Its about who she is.
You keep trying to frame this narrowly and we all need to keep an eye on who people are with their actions, what their record is, and who is paying them.Slotkin is a member of the Problem Solvers Caucus, and a member of the New Democrats Coalition. She’s also far right as zionist supporter as they come, and she’s already chair on a committee on terrorism and intelligence-- as a jr senator elected 2 months ago.
The new democrat coalition is what the blue dog dems became, and inherited the members of that group. They are extremely pro business and anti immigration, and deficit focused (aka, republicans)
Remember the blue dogs? Their brand became so toxic they had to rebrand as new democrats. But its the same well funded group that is always for tax cuts for the rich, but shuts down anything for the people based on a vague deficit/fiscal austerity argument. They consistently block any advancements on health care, citing cost even though the CBO says it would save money and propel the economy-- but limit the complete market control of health insurance companies. (new democrats work for them, never us)
https://theweek.com/articles/713180/why-blue-dogs-destroy-democratic-party-again
https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/blue-dog-democrats-arent-making-sense-on-health-care-reform/
I’d urge you to actually read up on the new demcrts coalition and the problem solvers caucus and tell me how either one are good for the democratic party. Those are the only two caucuses Slotkin identifies with.
I’m not trying to frame it narrowly. The headline is misleading click bait. Everything you say could be 100% true and it wouldn’t change that she didn’t say what you’re saying she said.
I really don’t care if you want to make it about segments of the democratic party. You’re going to be hard pressed to convince me that suggesting a different word for criticism inverts the criticism, even if they are already on an intelligence and terrorism committee (which I have no idea how that relevant to anything).
Argue she’s awful if you want, I honestly don’t care, but that doesn’t make her statements in this case pro business, pro oligarchy, or anything particularly interesting.
And yes, I’ve looked at her voting records and donors. I don’t like everything I see, but it’s mostly fine, and definitively better than the other candidates.
The oligarchy pays me to pretend to fight for you! Wait. Cut that part.
You. Cannot. Build. A. System. Of. Social. Justice. In. A. System. Of. Political/Economic. Injustice.
There’s a reason why we got so much shit done in the 60-70s, socially, and why nobody really feels like we’ve progressed much since then.
Sorry what?
Are you implying that the 1960s and 1970s were more politically or economically just than today?
In the sense that the wealth disparity was less, okay? Maybe? Is that all that you mean?
In the sense that the wealth disparity was less, okay? Maybe? Is that all that you mean?
I mean, it’s the core of the problem.
Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) has urged her Democratic colleagues to stop attacking the “oligarchy” on Thursday, arguing that the word did not resonate with most Americans
Everyone believes that their politics are the politics of MOST Americans, but reality is more complicated than that. I’m not sure that anyone can say what most of the roughly 260 million voting age Americans think, about much of anything, really. Yes, polling can give us some insights, but polls are inherently flawed.
The fact is, the American people are complex. They believe many things, and some of the things they believe contradict other things they believe; and just because an American thinks a certain way today, that doesn’t mean they’ll think that way tomorrow. Plus, we just have such a large and diverse populace, spread out across fifty states. It’s difficult, if not impossible, to point to any one American and say, “that person represents most Americans.”
If I had to guess, I’d say that most Americans don’t give a rats ass about oligarchy or kings. If they could live their lives the way they wanted under an oligarchy or a king, they’d be fine with it. Kings, oligarchs, emperors, despots, who gives a shit, as long as the price of eggs doesn’t go up too much. I think what matters to most Americans isn’t semantic, philosophical or ideological, but material. I think if most would be perfectly content to live under a king, if under that king they were able to live a decent, middle class life.
But, that’s just my guess. Again, it’s hard for anyone to say what most Americans want or think or believe.
Slotkin is the kind of Democrat who will be literally seig heiling at the DNC convention in ten years if the party continues to pursue the policies of capitulation that she is advocating for here. Four decades of this approach by this party has enabled the rise of US fascism we are dealing with now.
Get her out, outdated mindset.
Ah another closet republican, nice
bye felicia
“I can’t believe the country doesn’t get this!? The Republicans won and they hate this stuff so we just need to be Republicans and then we can win!”
… /wrist
Literally, the opposite of what they should be doing. And saying Americans are too stupid to understand a word like “oligarchy” isn’t a good look, either.
