Support NeoGAF

[water_wendi]

No, we must win in places where Republicans have dominated since political realignment in the 70's! If we don't, PANIC!

This is a fallacy. Trump won the district by one percent.

In the previous election for that seat it was +20 R, but the Dems ran a candidate that no one has ever seen, had no website, made no public appearances, and spent literally $0.

The fact that the Dems went from +20 to +4 shouldn't give you confidence in the party it should make you further doubt how bad they're run, when a sack of potatoes that no ones heard of gets 40% of the vote and they still don't campaign in the district.

Then when there's national attention they spend $400 per vote (!!) but Ossoff still got less votes than the previous candidate who basically didn't exist.

i reposted what MrGerbils posted earlier because its a great recap.

From what i can tell there is not even a picture of Rodney Stooksbury out on the internet. They won +20 against someone whose actual existence is up for debate.

 

[Father_Brain]

Certainly I see the justification for this position, given what the Labour party have been going through in the UK after Coybyn took over, but the most recent election seems to have steered more people to looking favorably on Corbyn even though he lost.

But I really choke on lines like 'greatest failure'. It was a close election where the DNC picked up seats, despite losing the executive branch. What I, and I think a lot of other people, underestimated was just how deeply people hated Clinton, to the point where her policies and her opponent didn't matter one jot to more than enough people.

In retrospect that was one of the factors that cost the dems the election. Fair or not, after decades of negative stories, that stuff was in deep and many on the left bought into it wholesale too.

Give me a time machine and of course I'd let Sanders have a shot, even if I'm not convinced the outcome would have been any better. I'd still love to roll that dice again.

What I don't see it as, however, is a repudiation of Clinton's policies or way of doing politics. Everything I heard people say as to why they didn't vote for her was about her character.

I don't think distrust of Clinton's character is as easily separable from her ideology as you imply.

I would point to "America is already great" as the moment from last year that, in hindsight, most foreshadowed Clinton's defeat. That faith in the innate goodness, decency, and strength of America's institutions is the guiding belief that led Team Clinton to think they could get away with making the election a referendum on Trump's character rather than policies, which had the side effect of also making it largely about Clinton's own character.

 

[dynamitejim]

Presidential elections just go to whoever runs the flashier candidate.

I mean, Gore and Clinton both won the Popular vote. They were literally more popular among the general electorate than their opponents. But we give land area more importance than people in choosing the President..

 

[Angry Grimace]

I mean, Gore and Clinton both won the Popular vote. They were literally more popular among the general electorate than their opponents. But we give land area more importance than people in choosing the President..

All of these elections swing on relatively populous states, and changing the electoral college isn't a constructive or worthwhile strategy.

 

[ThLunarian]

With regard to Presidential elections, the Democrats need flashier candidates. Those elections almost always just go to whoever runs the flashier candidate. It's true, just look at every election since Nixon, and even he beat the original HHH, Hubert Horatio Humphrey.

As for the overall strategy, I still think the Democrats' problem is both an image problem and a problem with messaging. Democrats constantly come off as completely tone-deaf all of the time. Perception is reality to many voters; telling voters you know what's best with them while sipping a $6 latte isn't getting you votes.

There has to be a coherent, uniform message when you oppose building a giant wall around the Mexican border. That message can't be "that's racist." That's not addressing the concerns of people that believe (true or not) that Mexican immigrants are "stealing their jobs." When coal miners and other blue collar workers talk about their jobs disappearing, you don't say, "well that job pollutes the environment anyways." That's not addressing the concerns of people who are being put out of work. That's not a policy message that wins votes. When you oppose blocking immigration from specific Muslim countries, you can't just say "that's racist." That's not addressing the concerns of people that believe (true or not) that Muslim immigrants are endangering their safety. This is because people who support the ban largely don't consider it racist or religious suppression - they consider it a pragmatic security strategy. That may not actually be true, and it IS religious suppression. That doesn't mean it's a good primary policy message to win votes.

The Democrats are all over the map and their loud, whiny media outlets and constant demands for progressive ideological purity don't help at all.

That's the problem - that ignorant people believe outright falsehoods regardless of the messaging you throw at them. When people are that deeply dug down even in the face of overwhelming reality, what can you possibly say to them to change their minds?

All this scrambling is happening because there is no easy answer to that question. No one knows how to reverse the damage that right wing rhetoric has done to these people.

The only real option in the short to medium term is to rally the people who are already on your side and power through the ignorance with sheer numbers. But the divide between 'centrists' and the extreme left is complicating that strategy, too.

It seems likely that the Democrats will take over Congress in 2018. But we still need someone who can unite the left and the center for the presidency in 2020. Although probably almost anyone could take down Trump with the numbers he's producing, we would still want a uniter to maximize our chances.

 

[Widdle Puppy]

Meh, the party has time to work whatever this is out. Elections are a ways away. If not owell 2020 then.

 

[kirblar]

That's the problem - that ignorant people believe outright falsehoods regardless of the messaging you throw at them. When people are that deeply dug down even in the face of overwhelming reality, what can you possibly say to them to change their minds?

All this scrambling is happening because there is no easy answer to that question. No one knows how to reverse the damage that right wing rhetoric has done to these people.

The only real option in the short to medium term is to rally the people who are already on your side and power through the ignorance with sheer numbers. But the divide between 'centrists' and the extreme left is complicating that strategy, too.

It seems likely that the Democrats will take over Congress in 2018. But we still need someone who can unite the left and the center for the presidency in 2020. Although probably almost anyone could take down Trump with the numbers he's producing, we would still want a uniter to maximize our chances.

(This is why we have a primary coming in 2020!)

Opposition parties normally don't have a singular figurehead in the US- which I think is something that might be coming as a shock to a lot of political neophytes?

 

[yrba1]

Not sure why there's doom and gloom here. We managed to turn an R-safe district to an R-lean one. One aspect I'd want the Dems to reform on is standardizing a chunk of their platform on a federal level (i.e. legality of guns on a one-size-fits-all standard)

Dems have to understand that it's manageable to run on a coalition of progressives/moderates, they simply can't neglect either side too much *cough* Clinton *cough*. Simply articulate a message that involves appealing to their respective demographics. That's gonna require a charismatic speaker that can send the message coherently. Would also help if they have a voice for working class Americans (the ones that voted for Obama and Trump).

I'll be keeping an eye out in 2018 & 2020. If they nominate Clinton again or a carbon copy of her, expect Trump to have a good shot of being in office for another term. Until then, this is just a test. Let's see how the Dems perform on swing states this time around.

 

[plagiarize]

If dems would just drop their stance on gun control they could really start making headway into the Midwest and a lot of southern states. Anecdotally, I know a ton of Trump voters that would have voted differently if it wasn't for the lefts view on gun control. Single issue voters that feel like gun ownership is the only concrete thing that the government can change.

It may sound crappy to lot of you guys, but there are a lot of ppl around here (Midwest) that feel that way.

Most of them believe the lie that the DNC want to take their guns away even though the party already says they don't. So I'm not sure how fixable that is.

 

[Angry Grimace]

(This is why we have a primary coming in 2020!)

Opposition parties normally don't have a singular figurehead in the US- which I think is something that might be coming as a shock to a lot of political neophytes?

I don't know, who's the rock star in this party that isn't going to get hit with complaints about ideological purity who can also appeal to the lower-middle class voter?

Most of them believe the lie that the DNC want to take their guns away even though the party already says they don't. So I'm not sure how fixable that is.

Instead of lobbying for federal-level gun control, change it to giving the individual states greater control over gun control within their territories.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Most of them believe the lie that the DNC want to take their guns away even though the party already says they don't. So I'm not sure how fixable that is.

Guns is one issue of many the DNC needs to rework if they want those votes.

No Compromise on principle vs winning elections.

 

[plagiarize]

I don't think distrust of Clinton's character is as easily separable from her ideology as you imply.

I would point to "America is already great" as the moment from last year that, in hindsight, most foreshadowed Clinton's defeat. That faith in the innate goodness, decency, and strength of America's institutions is the guiding belief that led Team Clinton to think they could get away with making the election a referendum on Trump's character rather than policies, which had the side effect of also making it largely about Clinton's own character.

I do. I mean, if Obama could have run in November do you think he'd have failed too?

Making the election a referendum on Trump was a bad move, and I was nervous about it as it was happening. I bemoaned the remain campaign not telling people about the benefits of the EU and just trying to convince everyone that leaving would be a disaster. It's saddening to see coal states go for the 'free candy!' guy, but it's hard to blame them when Clinton's policies (which would have been much better for them) weren't communicated to them.

But again, we aren't talking a repudiation of her policies here, by pointing out it was dumb to campaign on 'Trump is horrible, vote Clinton'.

 

[Zertez]

Better late than never I guess...

 

[plagiarize]

Instead of lobbying for federal-level gun control, change it to giving the individual states greater control over gun control within their territories.

Anything other than a loosening of gun control law is shot down. I think we all know this. Even the sort of sensible changes that gun owners support... is shot down. People have bought into the 'they're going to lie to us and then take our guns away when they get power' aren't reachable I don't think.

But maybe I'm just being pessimistic.

 

[Theonik]

This is true only if we also accept that classes are complex entities that are economically constrained but feature further divisions. There are classes on the same economic strata that are still in genuine opposition like, say, white rural evangelicals against urban black christians

Income is a very poor way of forming one's understanding of class. Social classes can be seen as the stratification of people in groups of common interests whether those are economic or social. A poor white person in Ohio is not in the same situation as a poor black person in Detroit.

Similarly though, most of their differences can be described by their relative economic power or otherwise put their access to the means of production. An economically fair society is also a socially fair society. Most institutional racism is geared towards trying to maintain the status quo which is to keep minorities away from prosperity but similarly, a poor white person living in a minority dominated area is opportunity deprived.

Some of the most successful programs to help combat racial inequality were actually scrapped by Reagan and were those imposed on the south with respect to mixed schools. Moving poor black students to richer white schools and vice versa had a huge effect in economic and racial equality but that programme was scrapped? Why? You can say this is because of racism but the reality is that these kinds of systems are doomed to fail ultimately like any system that seeks to help a disadvantaged minority. What they fail to achieve is getting actual popular support that helps them endure cuts. It is significantly harder to cut a policy that benefits a majority of people than it is one that targets minorities, because these programs are viewed as unfair, which they are, after all that's the whole point. (to correct systemic injustice by trying to move imbalance) But to create a fairer and enduring society that will never work because as soon as the original problem is addressed the majority will just turn and go 'why am I not getting all that cool shit muh tax money' and it all falls apart. Thusly, policies that are pursued should take this into account, doing otherwise simply wastes everyone's time.

All of these elections swing on relatively populous states, and changing the electoral college isn't a constructive or worthwhile strategy.

Its happening anyway. Hopefully can be in place by 2020.

 

[Angry Grimace]

Guns is one issue of many the DNC needs to rework if they want those votes.

No Compromise on principle vs winning elections.

I mean, they could just advocate to give states control over things that are generally easily separable from the overall party platform.

 

[kirblar]

I don't know, who's the rock star in this party that isn't going to get hit with complaints about ideological purity who can also appeal to the lower-middle class voter?

Probably someone that most people aren't talking about right now. (i.e., not Warren/Biden/Sanders and the old crew.)

 

[Angry Grimace]

Probably someone that most people aren't talking about right now. (i.e., not Warren/Biden/Sanders and the old crew.)

I mean, I knew Obama was headed for big things the moment he ran for office. They had him speaking at the convention in 2004 because they knew that. The party should be identifying these people.

 

[Kin5290]

But then you're glossing over the fact that he ordered the DOJ to change their focus on drug-related offenses prosecution. It has been so relevant that producing countries like Colombia are beginning to take notice and try to take a less punitive aim in prosecution.

I'll give you the deportations part, considering he's the president with most deportations under his belt. EDIT: But thinking it well, you're gonna have to provide me with sources that state that the War on Drugs was a big part of the Obama's administration deportations.

This is insanely incorrect, and due to bureaucratic illiteracy on the part of journalists and undocumented immigrant advocates. Obama's "increased deportations" are due to a classification shift that expanded the definition of deportation to also include those stopped at the border, and not an actual change in enforcement.

 

[Dr. Benton Quest]

Meh, the party has time to work whatever this is out. Elections are a ways away. If not owell 2020 then.

That's some fucking privilege righ there.

Where did this myth of the racist leftist that Pigeon and Excel keep pushing come from?

The entire point of leftist politics is equality. No one wants to abandon 'identity politics' except a small minority. What's really sad is supporting a party that only seeks to carve out a niche for minorities in an oppressive system and then asks them to shut up.

Liberals fight for more welfare; leftists fight for collective ownership.

Liberals fight for equal pay for women; leftists fight for the the abolition of gender.

Liberals are afraid to tax the wealthy too highly; leftists know that wealth belongs to the nation that built it.

Liberals ask minorities to wait for a more convenient season; leftist ask them help us crush their oppressors.

Liberals are slaves to corporate interests; leftists know they are our enemy.

Liberals say everything thing is fine as their house burns down around them; leftists want to put the fire out.

 

[Angry Grimace]

That's some fucking privilege righ there.

Where did this myth of the racist leftist that Pigeon and Excel keep pushing come from?

The entire point of leftist politics is equality. No one wants to abandon 'identity politics' except a small minority. What's really sad is supporting a party that only seeks to carve out a niche for minorities in an oppressive system and then asks them to shut up.

Liberals fight for more welfare; leftists fight for collective ownership.

Liberals fight for equal pay for women; leftists fight for the the abolition of gender.

Liberals are afraid to tax the wealthy too highly; leftists know that wealth belongs to the nation that built it.

Liberals ask minorities to wait for a more convenient season; leftist ask them help us crush their oppressors.

Liberals are slaves to corporate interests; leftists know they are our enemy.

Liberals say everything thing is fine as their house burns down around them; leftists want to put the fire out.

...what?

 

[Dr. Benton Quest]

...what?

Where's your issue?

 

[boiled goose]

Christ the Dems are not Diet Republican....

And wait are you now saying it's the Dems' fault the GOP moved right?

Reliance on Donor money moved both parties right .

 

[LegendofJoe]

I'm tired of these brainless hot takes. You don't run an all out progressive campaign in a right leaning district. Candidates and messages have to be recruited and crafted to appeal to their respective districts.

Oh no everyone panic we lost in a historically very Republican district. The sky is falling!!!!!!!

 

[The Technomancer]

That's some fucking privilege righ there.

Where did this myth of the racist leftist that Pigeon and Excel keep pushing come from?

The entire point of leftist politics is equality. No one wants to abandon 'identity politics' except a small minority. What's really sad is supporting a party that only seeks to carve out a niche for minorities in an oppressive system and then asks them to shut up.

Liberals fight for more welfare; leftists fight for collective ownership.

Liberals fight for equal pay for women; leftists fight for the the abolition of gender.

Liberals are afraid to tax the wealthy too highly; leftists know that wealth belongs to the nation that built it.

Liberals ask minorities to wait for a more convenient season; leftist ask them help us crush their oppressors.

Liberals are slaves to corporate interests; leftists know they are our enemy.

Liberals say everything thing is fine as their house burns down around them; leftists want to put the fire out.

Ah liberals are for bad things and leftists are for good things. Got it

 

[kirblar]

Where's your issue?

We could start with that whole insane "abolish gender" thing, for starters. Trying to make an androgynous society is not something people actually want or desire!

 

[pigeon]

That's some fucking privilege righ there.

Where did this myth of the racist leftist that Pigeon and Excel keep pushing come from?

The entire point of leftist politics is equality. No one wants to abandon 'identity politics' except a small minority. What's really sad is supporting a party that only seeks to carve out a niche for minorities in an oppressive system and then asks them to shut up.

Liberals fight for more welfare; leftists fight for collective ownership.

Liberals fight for equal pay for women; leftists fight for the the abolition of gender.

Liberals are afraid to tax the wealthy too highly; leftists know that wealth belongs to the nation that built it.

Liberals ask minorities to wait for a more convenient season; leftist ask them help us crush their oppressors.

Liberals are slaves to corporate interests; leftists know they are our enemy.

Liberals say everything thing is fine as their house burns down around them; leftists want to put the fire out.

I mean, great. By this definition I'm a leftist. I agree with all these things.

In fact I'm the only leftist in this conversation, because I call out the people who claim to be leftists but don't support social justice, while people like you would rather tolerate and downplay them and pretend they don't exist because it suits your purposes to accept their support.

Why don't you stop betraying the leftist movement, you neoliberal shill?

 

[Kid Kamikaze10]

If the "Progressives" want to take over, they need to win. And gain a history of winning.

Politics is partially about trust. And I may agree with progressives most of the time, but I don't trust a bunch of them on building a stable political platform or win anything but local races in very blue districts.

If they want to overtake the establishment, that needs to change. Corbyn did it.


Oh, and throw us "identity politics" folks (aka the marginalized) under the bus and lose. Through black people they are your base.

 

[Dr. Benton Quest]

We could start with that whole insane "abolish gender" thing, for starters. Trying to make an androgynous society is not something people actually want or desire!

That's not what that means. Gender is a societal construct that forces people by immense peer pressure to conform. We can help end gender inequality by removing that societal construct.

BTW, aren't you the guy who says capitalism is great for poor people?

 

[Hickbilly Deluxe]

We just turned an R+20 district into an R+4 district. TIME TO PANIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Only cost them what, 50 million? That's a hefty price tag for a loss in a special election. Not sure if that's the number, but it the one I've heard the most.

 

[Angry Grimace]

Where's your issue?

That the entire post is a meaningless distinctions apparently based on basically nothing, while also mostly being incoherent?

I mean, I have no idea what you are attempting to even say beyond some bizarre purity testing.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

That's some fucking privilege righ there.

Where did this myth of the racist leftist that Pigeon and Excel keep pushing come from?

The entire point of leftist politics is equality. No one wants to abandon 'identity politics' except a small minority. What's really sad is supporting a party that only seeks to carve out a niche for minorities in an oppressive system and then asks them to shut up.

Liberals fight for more welfare; leftists fight for collective ownership.

Liberals fight for equal pay for women; leftists fight for the the abolition of gender.

Liberals are afraid to tax the wealthy too highly; leftists know that wealth belongs to the nation that built it.

Liberals ask minorities to wait for a more convenient season; leftist ask them help us crush their oppressors.

Liberals are slaves to corporate interests; leftists know they are our enemy.

Liberals say everything thing is fine as their house burns down around them; leftists want to put the fire out.

are you sure you don't want to add a few more quantifiers? i'm not sure your purity test is insane enough yet

 

[kirblar]

That's not what that means. Gender is a societal construct that forces people by immense peer pressure to conform. We can help end gender inequality by removing that societal construct.

BTW, aren't you the guy who says capitalism is great for poor people?

Gender is not a social construct! Otherwise, Trans people would not exist! How gender is expressed is a social construct (pink is for girls, blue is for boys) but gender itself is very much an innate and essential part of people's identities that you're trying to handwave.

And yes, capitalism has been very, very good at reducing poverty! Getting vastly more efficient at harvesting and distributing resources is a good thing!

 

[Dr. Benton Quest]

I mean, great. By this definition I'm a leftist. I agree with all these things.

In fact I'm the only leftist in this conversation, because I call out the people who claim to be leftists but don't support social justice, while people like you would rather tolerate and downplay them and pretend they don't exist because it suits your purposes to accept their support.

Why don't you stop betraying the leftist movement, you neoliberal shill?

I have yet to see a leftist defend neoliberals as hard as you have the last few days. It has basically been your job to run around this forum attempting to refute every legitimate issue with the Democratic Party. You can say you're a leftist, but you rabidly support people who clearly aren't.

are you sure you don't want to add a few more quantifiers? i'm not sure your purity test is insane enough yet

I'm just laying out our differences. I am willing to compromise of course and have voted for many liberals in my life. Liberals however, don't want to give us the same treatment.

Gender is not a social construct! Otherwise, Trans people would not exist! How gender is expressed is a social construct (pink is for girls, blue is for boys) but gender itself is very much an innate and essential part of people's identities that you're trying to handwave.

You aren't making sense. Gender is real but any gender can be expressed in any way? Under that definition it has no meaning at all.

 

[Henchmen21]

Reliance on Donor money moved both parties right .

Actually the Dems started moving rightward back when the Neolibs took over which allowed the Repubs to move further right in opposition.

Also lol at centrists saying the Dem party hasn't moved right. When you bring out HENRY "WAR CRIMINAL" KISSINGER" during the convention and tout him as a close personal friend & confidant you have NO right to say the dems haven't moved right.

 

[Father_Brain]

I do. I mean, if Obama could have run in November do you think he'd have failed too?

Making the election a referendum on Trump was a bad move, and I was nervous about it as it was happening. I bemoaned the remain campaign not telling people about the benefits of the EU and just trying to convince everyone that leaving would be a disaster. It's saddening to see coal states go for the 'free candy!' guy, but it's hard to blame them when Clinton's policies (which would have been much better for them) weren't communicated to them.

But again, we aren't talking a repudiation of her policies here, by pointing out it was dumb to campaign on 'Trump is horrible, vote Clinton'.

I will agree that Clinton's platform being less progressive than I'd have preferred was much less of an issue than her failure to actually run on that platform, and that a more charismatic candidate would have won. I don't think those things are mutually exclusive with "America is already great" being a highly revealing, unflattering glimpse into the underlying ideology of Team Clinton and much of the Democratic Party as it's currently constituted just because an Obama would be able to elide over that ideology.

 

[David H Wong]

That's not what that means. Gender is a societal construct that forces people by immense peer pressure to conform. We can help end gender inequality by removing that societal construct.

BTW, aren't you the guy who says capitalism is great for poor people?

Capitalism has objectively raised the standard of living of poor people faster and higher than any other system devised by mankind. 100% of the data supports this.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

I mean, they could just advocate to give states control over things that are generally easily separable from the overall party platform.

Exactly what democrats should do. But they won't because they seem to like losing. That's what I and Bernie Sanders has said time and time again and while I don't agree with him on everything he's right about one thing: Wisconsin and NYC are different places and will require different gun laws and the people in those states should be a part of crafting policy that best helps them do that. But if you just demonize you lose on the issue.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

Nothing is a bellwether. Certainly not GA-6.

Dems need to get serious about their methodology, most significantly propaganda and the use of cognitive linguistics. Conservatives will continue to eat our lunch because they are willing to get down in the dirt. They don't care. If you care and they don't care, you're going to be at a disadvantage.

 

[Dr. Benton Quest]

Capitalism has objectively raised the standard of living of *SOME* poor people faster and higher than any other system devised by mankind. 100% of the data supports this.

FTFY.

Billions live in squalor bud. Hell children are starving right here in the leading capitalist nation in the world.

 

[kirblar]

You aren't making sense. Gender is real but any gender can be expressed in any way? Under that definition it has no meaning at all.

Gender noms and stereotypes differ from culture to culture, yes! This should not be hard to grasp.

 

[Suikoguy]

Actually the Dems started moving rightward back when the Neolibs took over which allowed the Repubs to move further right in opposition.

Also lol at centrists saying the Dem party hasn't moved right. When you bring out HENRY "WAR CRIMINAL" KISSINGER" during the convention and tout him as a close personal friend & confidant you have NO right to say the dems haven't moved right.

You must view the world in an exclusive FP lens. Let me guess, you don't actually live in the US do you?

 

[David H Wong]

Actually the Dems started moving rightward back when the Neolibs took over which allowed the Repubs to move further right in opposition.

Also lol at centrists saying the Dem party hasn't moved right. When you bring out HENRY "WAR CRIMINAL" KISSINGER" during the convention and tout him as a close personal friend & confidant you have NO right to say the dems haven't moved right.

Federal entitlement spending as a percentage of GDP has gone up, unabated:

https://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/16/what-is-driving-growth-in-government-spending/

...and the current party wants to increase it. The party moved to the left on gay rights and trans rights - on what issues have they moved rightward?

 

[Dr. Benton Quest]

Gender noms and stereotypes differ from culture to culture, yes! This should not be hard to grasp.

So how is it not made up?

Edit: We're really off topic now. PM me if you want to continue.

 

[jakonovski]

Capitalism has objectively raised the standard of living of poor people faster and higher than any other system devised by mankind. 100% of the data supports this.

History of labor begs to differ. The standard of living started to rise for everyone only once the poor started threatening to throw capitalists over. And even now the capitalist has no interest in bettering the lot of minorities.

 

[Father_Brain]

I have yet to see a leftist defend neoliberals as hard as you have the last few days. It has basically been your job to run around this forum attempting to refute every legitimate issue with the Democratic Party. You can say you're a leftist, but you rabidly support people who clearly aren't.

Are you new to political discussions here, lol? pigeon is vastly more concerned with angrily denouncing as many people as possible as racists or apologists thereof than in advancing the leftist policies he claims to support.

 

[David H Wong]

FTFY.

Billions live in squalor bud. Hell children are starving right here in the leading capitalist nation in the world.

Worldwide poverty has been slashed in half in just 30 years:

https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty/

The standard of living worldwide in third world countries has skyrocketed since the industrial revolution. This isn't opinion, or feelings - these are numbers. No one disputes them.

 

[Misha]

You aren't making sense. Gender is real but any gender can be expressed in any way? Under that definition it has no meaning at all.

Gender Identity and Gender Expression are different things

 

[flkraven]

That's some fucking privilege righ there.

Where did this myth of the racist leftist that Pigeon and Excel keep pushing come from?

The entire point of leftist politics is equality. No one wants to abandon 'identity politics' except a small minority. What's really sad is supporting a party that only seeks to carve out a niche for minorities in an oppressive system and then asks them to shut up.

Liberals fight for more welfare; leftists fight for collective ownership.

Liberals fight for equal pay for women; leftists fight for the the abolition of gender.

Liberals are afraid to tax the wealthy too highly; leftists know that wealth belongs to the nation that built it.

Liberals ask minorities to wait for a more convenient season; leftist ask them help us crush their oppressors.

Liberals are slaves to corporate interests; leftists know they are our enemy.

Liberals say everything thing is fine as their house burns down around them; leftists want to put the fire out.

This comes off as petty, childish, and uninformed.

 

[kirblar]

So how is it not made up?

Edit: We're really off topic now. PM me if you want to continue.

Gender is not something made up. Trans people who desperately want to transition are not "making up" that their internal gender identity matches the one associated w/ the opposite sex.