Democrats never get anything done? Guess none of us have ACA insurance or subsidized energy bills. I guess I'm hallucinating the massive jump in food stamp funding a few years back. I must also be making up Massachusetts providing free access to community college for literally everyone over 25 who doesn't have a degree.
I suppose it means literally nothing that Democrats have provided safe harbor for people seeking abortions from states that outlaw it. Bummer about all those marriages that didn't happen because Democrats never secured marriage equality.
It's cool, though. I'm sure the Republicans will actually go do all that stuff the Democrats totally haven't done.
If we're going to pretend that state-level victories should magically be credited to a do-nothing Federal Government controlled by Democrats, then let me remind you that 2/3 of the states are controlled by Republicans, and in 2/3 of the US states it's still perfectly legal to pay someone $7 an hour.
It matters that Biden, Harris, and their ilk don't do anything meaningful and rule as conservatives.
ACA, energy subsidies, and food stamps are all related to federal funding.
Biden's historic climate bill is nothing. Ok comrade.
What's historic is the amount of war spending and the fact that our country and president are actively supporting child genocide.
Second thought has been groomed into being a Tankie. His words should generally be distrusted.
What did he say that is factually incorrect? Did you even watch the video?
Nope; I'm done with him at this point. If you pay attention, my comment isn't criticizing the video itself but warning about potential inaccuracies.
I don't need to watch a video to comment on the trustworthiness of its creator.
Edit: your comments about Kamala and Trump being politically similar makes me think you shouldn't be trusted either.
I don't need to watch a video to comment on the trustworthiness of its creator.
LOL
Okay.
This is something I occasionally hear and keep not understanding, and it makes me wonder if the word "tankie" is being thrown around a bit fast and loose. Last time I heard this, the reasoning referenced a Vaush video, which is... less than convincing.
My working definition of "tankie" would be someone who unironically full-on likes China*, which is not a take I've ever known J.T. to have. Do you use a different definition than me, or do you have specific things you're upset about?
My understanding of the full story, which comes from my personal observations of how his positions and rhetoric have changed paired with information people I trust have conveyed to me, is that Hakeem (a known Tankie) bragged about becoming Second Thought's personal confidant and shifting his position on several issues as he was becoming more educated in the left as a whole. His rhetoric shifted from liberal to left-leaning followed by several instances of him using tankie talking points and I remember at least one explicitly tankie video, which is around the time I gave up on him.
Tankies are authoritarians posing as leftists. People who lionize Mao, the Kim Regime, Stalin, Lenin, etc. Tankies always despise America as a concept and will usually give support to whatever they think is worst for America, regardless of how it affects the people not just of the United States, but of the world. I once had a tankie justify this stance and their position that anyone who isn't a tankie by telling me that the CIA had a program where they would make leftists movements that could ally with American hegemony, so anyone who didn't hate America was a fake leftist. These are the individuals you see who say that the GOP and DNC are equally bad, talk about how Russia invading Ukraine is fine actually, and how China invading Taiwan is actually good, because Taiwan is full of delusional people denying their heritage to pretend to be white. This is a series of talking points I had with an actual person over a conversation that lasted more than a week. I have since decided that I won't waste my time trying to talk to them anymore.
So that's my perspective on it. I can't promise it's perfect or even that it's any good, but it's the one I have. Hope that helps.
Edit: also, I'm fading in and out of a migrane nap, so apologies for the potential errors/lack of coherence/etc.
Late response (sorry!) but wanted to let you know that I appreciated the comment and details. Personally, this doesn't convince me he's a tankie, but that's largely because I'm not familiar enough with Hakeem to know he's a tankie, nor do I know what video you were referring to. Which is not to say you're outright wrong — just that I would want to see more specifics to change my opinion, is all. All the same, I appreciate the effort and am happy to better understand your position.
I do somewhat agree with your definition of a tankie, for what it's worth. I don't think saying the GOP and DNC are both bad is necessarily tankie behavior, but the rest makes sense. This said, I've personally seen extremely little defense of Russia from any far-left discourse, including communities close to Second Thought, and from what I hear from those communities China is still very divisive. You've clearly encountered worse though, and my experiences are limited, so take them for what you will.
We're internet strangers no need to apologize. 😂
Ty for the response, though. 💝
I mean he has done two AMAs on hexbear so clearly he is
Remember how excited people were when Kyrsten Sinema was elected? This was an out, fabulous lesbian from a decidedly red state. Her seat was almost certainly going to lead to progressive movement.
But nope.
And now the people are telling me I have to be excited about another bootlicker for the billionaires because she's a woman and a person of color, but no.
TLDR: This video is on point. Harris is going to rule as a conservative and it doesn't matter that she's a Democrat, a woman, or a POC.
So who do you propose who isn't a "bootlicker"
It's too late for that. You guys had Williamson in the primary, but I'm apparently the only one who voted for her.
(deleted - moved instance)
It's unfortunate that we have to take the time these days to consider whether the constant drum of gloom and doom is actually genuine concern or straight up astroturfing. It certainly does seem like the people who constantly spout this stuff and ignore all evidence that they're completely off base are being a bit disingenuous for some reason, though.
Sure, man.
When your 80 year-old parents have to borrow your car to drive for DoorDash because if they don't they'll starve, then maybe you'll understand why some of us, despite the fact that we're progressives (NOT neoliberals) might actually like for Dems to use their power for good someday.
Instead of making and breaking promises and then shoveling money into war and child genocide.
Not a man.
My apologies. Just a figure of speech here in the US.
Worth remembering that many responses in politics are made impulsively due to frustration, and angry, impulsive arguments tend not to be well-researched. We're all tense, here — it's hard not to be, these days.
Yeah, that could be. But it's also worth remembering that disingenuousness is literally the conservative playbook right now. Sometimes a duck is actually Ed Gale in a costume being voiced by Chip Zien, but other times it's just a duck.
Who is going to bother astroturfing beehaw, right before we switch platforms of all things
If I were strategizing for the Trump campaign I would absolutely be trying to target smaller leftist-specific spaces to pull them away from the Democrats and inject talking points of benefit to the campaign. Beehaw has small numbers, but it has a very leftist and pretty vocal user-base. It's a small pool that it wouldn't be hard to change the narrative in by injecting the same opinions over and over again. Which is what we see.
It makes way more sense to focus on small communities like Beehaw where a small number of messages can have a larger impact on the thinking of people who use it regularly, than exclusively on huge social media spaces like Facebook and Twitter where they're shouting into the void.
Get some talking points stuck in the minds of a small pool of people, get them to normalize it, and they'll spread it for you.
I'm not who you were replying to, but:
It's not so much that Trump and Kamala are the same. They aren't, obviously – and for the record, the video agrees – it's more that the Democrats here don't really fix anything the Republicans break. Sure, Kamala is pro-abortion, et cetera, but how certain can I be that she'll actually act on the principles she espouses? If the Biden admin is anything to go by, I can expect the occasional half-measure at best. Meanwhile, there are solid odds that she will continue to fund or otherwise enable the genocide in Gaza, at least tacitly.
I'm going to vote for her, but not because she's going to help me or anyone I care about. I'm voting for her because it is harm reduction; Kamala may be a neoliberal pro-cop warmonger, but the alternative is neo-Hitler. As far as presidential tickets go, I don't have much of a choice, here.
kamala and Trump are complete opposites
Personality-wise, definitely.
Politically, not as much as you'd think, judging by how we always end up being ruled by conservatives.
(deleted - moved instance)
(like Obamacare)
Obamacare isn't universal health care. The access it promises only exists if a person can afford to be price-gouged for their health care, and the majority of this nation can't.
Again, it doesn't matter what your view is if you have power and choose not to wield it. By default, Democrats have sided with corruption by doing nothing to stop it.
Trump is the only world leader I know of who is a bully with a victim mentality. Kamala is not
You must not be familiar with US foreign policy then.
(deleted - moved instance)
I genuinely think now you’re a paid lobbyist. There is so much evidence
Look, I get you strongly disagree with them, but please don't fall into the trap of thinking people who disagree strongly with you aren't real.
Anti-capitalists have many, many issues with the Biden admin and Democrats generally, for a whole host of reasons. It doesn't mean we want Trump to win, think he's equally as bad, or want you to not vote. And it most certainly doesn't make us paid shills. It just means we want better, and we are often frustrated at how "better" is never an option.
I can't speak for what Flash Mob's beliefs are directly, but I can absolutely say I've been in a similar position. It is beyond aggravating to have no options that actually represent your beliefs, but to nonetheless have so many people around you insist that you should be happy about one of the awful options because the candidate in question – who is doing the things you hate – sometimes pays lip service to what you actually wanted. Or because it's a woman doing it, now. Or, most frequently, because the Republicans managed to dig to an even deeper circle of Hell this time.
Our options are terrible, and we're pissed about it. But it doesn't make us not real. All that accusations like that do is prevent people from being understood.
(deleted - moved instance)
For the record, I 100% agree.
It seems we're going around in circles.
Until the 49% that vote the party line every single election decide to vote Libertarian or Green, that is what we're going to get.
It doesn't matter that this time the conservative in sheep's clothing is a woman and a person of color. The result will be the same.
Unfortunately, I don't think voting is going to be what changes any of this, sadly. At least, not on a federal level.
That, and I don't think I want to see the Libertarians win either, if I'm honest.
Same. The Libertarians are scary in their own right.
The point is, nothing will change without the upset of the established order.
I mean, think about it. A week ago 99% of voters were arguing for two clearly brain-damaged candidates who support child genocide. Both sides also theink they're the good guys.
I do think that the DNC isn't going to budge without a voter revolt (which this essentially was, though not nearly far enough), but I think throwing that support to Libertarians or Green Party is a mistake; they're no more beholden to actually act on voter demands than anyone else, and making one of them President means either a) abandoning any hope of party-line support from congressional democrats, or b) forcing a coalition-building exercise in congress, which is more likely to make them shift Rightwards.
We need to do to the DNC what Trump did to the RNC, from the Left. Kamala isn't that- obviously- but Biden and the DNC (once again) fucked us out of being able to do anything about that (and not just because of Biden's belated withdrawl, but because they didn't hold a real primary in the first place). Kamala's saving grace is that she at least is more likely to beat Trump, which Biden had no chance of.
And frankly, there aren't any good candidates I can think of to banner a reform movement now that Bernie is too old. I'd love for AOC, Omar, or Tlaib to run, but I don't get the impression they want to. And apart from them, I'm not sure who I actually believe would reform the system. We need that person, or we're just going to risk handing power over to another Sinema.
Democrats never get anything done? Guess none of us have ACA insurance or subsidized energy bills. I guess I'm hallucinating the massive jump in food stamp funding a few years back. I must also be making up Massachusetts providing free access to community college for literally everyone over 25 who doesn't have a degree.
I suppose it means literally nothing that Democrats have provided safe harbor for people seeking abortions from states that outlaw it. Bummer about all those marriages that didn't happen because Democrats never secured marriage equality.
It's cool, though. I'm sure the Republicans will actually go do all that stuff the Democrats totally haven't done.
If we're going to pretend that state-level victories should magically be credited to a do-nothing Federal Government controlled by Democrats, then let me remind you that 2/3 of the states are controlled by Republicans, and in 2/3 of the US states it's still perfectly legal to pay someone $7 an hour.
It matters that Biden, Harris, and their ilk don't do anything meaningful and rule as conservatives.
ACA, energy subsidies, and food stamps are all related to federal funding.
Biden's historic climate bill is nothing. Ok comrade.
What's historic is the amount of war spending and the fact that our country and president are actively supporting child genocide.
Second thought has been groomed into being a Tankie. His words should generally be distrusted.
What did he say that is factually incorrect? Did you even watch the video?
Nope; I'm done with him at this point. If you pay attention, my comment isn't criticizing the video itself but warning about potential inaccuracies.
I don't need to watch a video to comment on the trustworthiness of its creator.
Edit: your comments about Kamala and Trump being politically similar makes me think you shouldn't be trusted either.
LOL
Okay.
This is something I occasionally hear and keep not understanding, and it makes me wonder if the word "tankie" is being thrown around a bit fast and loose. Last time I heard this, the reasoning referenced a Vaush video, which is... less than convincing.
My working definition of "tankie" would be someone who unironically full-on likes China*, which is not a take I've ever known J.T. to have. Do you use a different definition than me, or do you have specific things you're upset about?
^*^ ^Bear^ ^in^ ^mind^ ^I^ ^mean^ ^"likes^ ^China"^ ^here,^ ^not^ ^"thinks^ ^China^ ^and^ ^the^ ^U.S.^ ^are^ ^equally^ ^bad."^
My understanding of the full story, which comes from my personal observations of how his positions and rhetoric have changed paired with information people I trust have conveyed to me, is that Hakeem (a known Tankie) bragged about becoming Second Thought's personal confidant and shifting his position on several issues as he was becoming more educated in the left as a whole. His rhetoric shifted from liberal to left-leaning followed by several instances of him using tankie talking points and I remember at least one explicitly tankie video, which is around the time I gave up on him.
Tankies are authoritarians posing as leftists. People who lionize Mao, the Kim Regime, Stalin, Lenin, etc. Tankies always despise America as a concept and will usually give support to whatever they think is worst for America, regardless of how it affects the people not just of the United States, but of the world. I once had a tankie justify this stance and their position that anyone who isn't a tankie by telling me that the CIA had a program where they would make leftists movements that could ally with American hegemony, so anyone who didn't hate America was a fake leftist. These are the individuals you see who say that the GOP and DNC are equally bad, talk about how Russia invading Ukraine is fine actually, and how China invading Taiwan is actually good, because Taiwan is full of delusional people denying their heritage to pretend to be white. This is a series of talking points I had with an actual person over a conversation that lasted more than a week. I have since decided that I won't waste my time trying to talk to them anymore.
So that's my perspective on it. I can't promise it's perfect or even that it's any good, but it's the one I have. Hope that helps.
Edit: also, I'm fading in and out of a migrane nap, so apologies for the potential errors/lack of coherence/etc.
Late response (sorry!) but wanted to let you know that I appreciated the comment and details. Personally, this doesn't convince me he's a tankie, but that's largely because I'm not familiar enough with Hakeem to know he's a tankie, nor do I know what video you were referring to. Which is not to say you're outright wrong — just that I would want to see more specifics to change my opinion, is all. All the same, I appreciate the effort and am happy to better understand your position.
I do somewhat agree with your definition of a tankie, for what it's worth. I don't think saying the GOP and DNC are both bad is necessarily tankie behavior, but the rest makes sense. This said, I've personally seen extremely little defense of Russia from any far-left discourse, including communities close to Second Thought, and from what I hear from those communities China is still very divisive. You've clearly encountered worse though, and my experiences are limited, so take them for what you will.
We're internet strangers no need to apologize. 😂
Ty for the response, though. 💝
I mean he has done two AMAs on hexbear so clearly he is
https://hexbear.net/post/240228
https://hexbear.net/post/712631
Remember how excited people were when Kyrsten Sinema was elected? This was an out, fabulous lesbian from a decidedly red state. Her seat was almost certainly going to lead to progressive movement.
But nope.
And now the people are telling me I have to be excited about another bootlicker for the billionaires because she's a woman and a person of color, but no.
TLDR: This video is on point. Harris is going to rule as a conservative and it doesn't matter that she's a Democrat, a woman, or a POC.
So who do you propose who isn't a "bootlicker"
It's too late for that. You guys had Williamson in the primary, but I'm apparently the only one who voted for her.
(deleted - moved instance)
It's unfortunate that we have to take the time these days to consider whether the constant drum of gloom and doom is actually genuine concern or straight up astroturfing. It certainly does seem like the people who constantly spout this stuff and ignore all evidence that they're completely off base are being a bit disingenuous for some reason, though.
Sure, man.
When your 80 year-old parents have to borrow your car to drive for DoorDash because if they don't they'll starve, then maybe you'll understand why some of us, despite the fact that we're progressives (NOT neoliberals) might actually like for Dems to use their power for good someday.
Instead of making and breaking promises and then shoveling money into war and child genocide.
Not a man.
My apologies. Just a figure of speech here in the US.
Worth remembering that many responses in politics are made impulsively due to frustration, and angry, impulsive arguments tend not to be well-researched. We're all tense, here — it's hard not to be, these days.
Yeah, that could be. But it's also worth remembering that disingenuousness is literally the conservative playbook right now. Sometimes a duck is actually Ed Gale in a costume being voiced by Chip Zien, but other times it's just a duck.
Who is going to bother astroturfing beehaw, right before we switch platforms of all things
If I were strategizing for the Trump campaign I would absolutely be trying to target smaller leftist-specific spaces to pull them away from the Democrats and inject talking points of benefit to the campaign. Beehaw has small numbers, but it has a very leftist and pretty vocal user-base. It's a small pool that it wouldn't be hard to change the narrative in by injecting the same opinions over and over again. Which is what we see.
It makes way more sense to focus on small communities like Beehaw where a small number of messages can have a larger impact on the thinking of people who use it regularly, than exclusively on huge social media spaces like Facebook and Twitter where they're shouting into the void.
Get some talking points stuck in the minds of a small pool of people, get them to normalize it, and they'll spread it for you.
I'm not who you were replying to, but:
It's not so much that Trump and Kamala are the same. They aren't, obviously – and for the record, the video agrees – it's more that the Democrats here don't really fix anything the Republicans break. Sure, Kamala is pro-abortion, et cetera, but how certain can I be that she'll actually act on the principles she espouses? If the Biden admin is anything to go by, I can expect the occasional half-measure at best. Meanwhile, there are solid odds that she will continue to fund or otherwise enable the genocide in Gaza, at least tacitly.
I'm going to vote for her, but not because she's going to help me or anyone I care about. I'm voting for her because it is harm reduction; Kamala may be a neoliberal pro-cop warmonger, but the alternative is neo-Hitler. As far as presidential tickets go, I don't have much of a choice, here.
Personality-wise, definitely.
Politically, not as much as you'd think, judging by how we always end up being ruled by conservatives.
(deleted - moved instance)
Obamacare isn't universal health care. The access it promises only exists if a person can afford to be price-gouged for their health care, and the majority of this nation can't.
It doesn't matter what your stance is if you're content to just let the worst happen and then use it to raise money, which is what Democrats did. (The cost of our bodily autonomy was $80 million, in fact.)
Again, it doesn't matter what your view is if you have power and choose not to wield it. By default, Democrats have sided with corruption by doing nothing to stop it.
You must not be familiar with US foreign policy then.
(deleted - moved instance)
Look, I get you strongly disagree with them, but please don't fall into the trap of thinking people who disagree strongly with you aren't real.
Anti-capitalists have many, many issues with the Biden admin and Democrats generally, for a whole host of reasons. It doesn't mean we want Trump to win, think he's equally as bad, or want you to not vote. And it most certainly doesn't make us paid shills. It just means we want better, and we are often frustrated at how "better" is never an option.
I can't speak for what Flash Mob's beliefs are directly, but I can absolutely say I've been in a similar position. It is beyond aggravating to have no options that actually represent your beliefs, but to nonetheless have so many people around you insist that you should be happy about one of the awful options because the candidate in question – who is doing the things you hate – sometimes pays lip service to what you actually wanted. Or because it's a woman doing it, now. Or, most frequently, because the Republicans managed to dig to an even deeper circle of Hell this time.
Our options are terrible, and we're pissed about it. But it doesn't make us not real. All that accusations like that do is prevent people from being understood.
(deleted - moved instance)
For the record, I 100% agree.
Until the 49% that vote the party line every single election decide to vote Libertarian or Green, that is what we're going to get.
It doesn't matter that this time the conservative in sheep's clothing is a woman and a person of color. The result will be the same.
Unfortunately, I don't think voting is going to be what changes any of this, sadly. At least, not on a federal level.
That, and I don't think I want to see the Libertarians win either, if I'm honest.
Same. The Libertarians are scary in their own right.
The point is, nothing will change without the upset of the established order.
I mean, think about it. A week ago 99% of voters were arguing for two clearly brain-damaged candidates who support child genocide. Both sides also theink they're the good guys.
Generally I agree with you, but a week ago (and even before that) 65% of Democrats were against Biden continuing in the race, not arguing for him.
I do think that the DNC isn't going to budge without a voter revolt (which this essentially was, though not nearly far enough), but I think throwing that support to Libertarians or Green Party is a mistake; they're no more beholden to actually act on voter demands than anyone else, and making one of them President means either a) abandoning any hope of party-line support from congressional democrats, or b) forcing a coalition-building exercise in congress, which is more likely to make them shift Rightwards.
We need to do to the DNC what Trump did to the RNC, from the Left. Kamala isn't that- obviously- but Biden and the DNC (once again) fucked us out of being able to do anything about that (and not just because of Biden's belated withdrawl, but because they didn't hold a real primary in the first place). Kamala's saving grace is that she at least is more likely to beat Trump, which Biden had no chance of.
And frankly, there aren't any good candidates I can think of to banner a reform movement now that Bernie is too old. I'd love for AOC, Omar, or Tlaib to run, but I don't get the impression they want to. And apart from them, I'm not sure who I actually believe would reform the system. We need that person, or we're just going to risk handing power over to another Sinema.