Dem Post Mortem

[Politesse]

The country consists of over 300 million people with varying desires, needs, hopes, and dreams

And the world consists of over 7 billion.

That doesn't act as a justification for selecting desires, hopes, and dreams that harm, or for tolerating that harm because it's happening to someone else.

You are as much of a casual fascist as Emily Lake and yes YOU are a fascist too, just a weaker and wimpier sort that I somehow have LESS respect for than the obvious Nazi, because at least the obvious Nazi doesn't hide their support for the nazification process behind self-unaware platitudes that they are only *leaning* right rather than running there.

You call Jimmy Higgins a "fascist" ?? Mr. Higgins impresses me as a rational centrist. Where in Heck do you get the idea he is a "fascist"?? Obviously it wasn't the post you quote. Can you point to anything that Jimmy has written that validates your insult? Note that staying home on Election Day 2024 or voting for Nader in the 2000 election -- if that's what the accusation is -- does not make someone a "fascist."

(Although perhaps irrelevant to my question, the very definition of "fascist" is controversial. I hold with those who define the term as an approach to obtaining political power rather than any particular social or economic ideology.)

I do not see much "rational" about "centrism". I see it as a vote to pretend that the knives are not being sharpened in preparation for our backs, especially over the last 30 years.

I just have no respect for that.

What makes someone a fascist is, I think, the utter spinelessness in the face of all of this, because of someone didn't want it to happen, they would not be doing the things folks like me have been saying for decades are the things that make that happen.

Eventually, this whole political powderkeg is going to ignite and I'm going to be right in the fucking middle of it, in Minneapolis, a stronghold of "progressivism".

I'm going to be in that mess when it comes here, and I can only hope that the work Info between now and then makes ANY difference for ANYONE.

I have heard Jimmy repeatedly talk about how "people" don't want this and "people" don't want that and "these policies are not popular enough" like their inability and disinterest in helping people understand and accept those policies isn't part of the reason.

I've lived long enough to know when people use "people" as a proxy, what they are really talking about is what they want.

Thr democrats lost because they could not deliver a message of "strength".

"Strength" can be delivered in a lot of ways, and what people of different walks of life understand as "strength" varies. For people on the right, it's being told all your life that someone is strong and associated with strong people and is good at stuff and is "successful". It means having all the right coincidences line up to be given power. It means not getting caught. It means being "stronger than the rules", and having and using leverage.

On the left, it generally means being strong in other ways. To me, it means holding to your principles, and having good principles, principles for the benefit of everyone, even when it hurts you personally.

On the right, it means being strong enough to stick someone's face in the fire. On the left it means being strong enough to pull someone out of the fire even if it means you get burned.

It has never ever meant shrugging your shoulders and doing nothing. It has never been rolling over.

I find 'centrism' and fence sitting in a world where people literally want to line up and shoot leftists in the streets, where this is preached to whole churches of nodding fools, as to be one of the least rational positions.

If conservatism is locking the lower decks off and underfilling the life boats and saving furniture, and leftism is people screaming to eat the rich as they drown behind the gates, Centrism, today, is "rearranging deck chairs". It has every appearance, every last one, of doing nothing at all while the world burns and hoping nobody doesn't notice that your number would be sufficient to overpower the guards and throw open the gates.

How are we supposed to interpret the higher interest in the trains running on time over the lower interest in keeping those trains from being loaded with minorities?

Then try harder. Nobody is saying that 3M people voting for the winner are not more responsible for his electoral win

That is literally what was said:

"You want to blame the pragmatic acceptance of the general American public with enabling fascism. No... the people in Florida that voted for Nader are responsible."

Jimmy wants us to excuse those who intentionally enable fascism, and attack those who may have lost one state in one election because they were tired of endless garland wars and wanted a president who could spell.

You accusing Jimmy of being a facist is similar to Barbos accusing Ukrainians of being Nazis!

One important difference is that I did not accuse Jimmy of being a fascist, whereas Barbos does routinely accuse Ukrainians of being Nazis.

 

[Jarhyn]

The country consists of over 300 million people with varying desires, needs, hopes, and dreams

And the world consists of over 7 billion.

That doesn't act as a justification for selecting desires, hopes, and dreams that harm, or for tolerating that harm because it's happening to someone else.

You are as much of a casual fascist as Emily Lake and yes YOU are a fascist too, just a weaker and wimpier sort that I somehow have LESS respect for than the obvious Nazi, because at least the obvious Nazi doesn't hide their support for the nazification process behind self-unaware platitudes that they are only *leaning* right rather than running there.

You call Jimmy Higgins a "fascist" ?? Mr. Higgins impresses me as a rational centrist. Where in Heck do you get the idea he is a "fascist"?? Obviously it wasn't the post you quote. Can you point to anything that Jimmy has written that validates your insult? Note that staying home on Election Day 2024 or voting for Nader in the 2000 election -- if that's what the accusation is -- does not make someone a "fascist."

(Although perhaps irrelevant to my question, the very definition of "fascist" is controversial. I hold with those who define the term as an approach to obtaining political power rather than any particular social or economic ideology.)

I do not see much "rational" about "centrism". I see it as a vote to pretend that the knives are not being sharpened in preparation for our backs, especially over the last 30 years.

I just have no respect for that.

What makes someone a fascist is, I think, the utter spinelessness in the face of all of this, because of someone didn't want it to happen, they would not be doing the things folks like me have been saying for decades are the things that make that happen.

Eventually, this whole political powderkeg is going to ignite and I'm going to be right in the fucking middle of it, in Minneapolis, a stronghold of "progressivism".

I'm going to be in that mess when it comes here, and I can only hope that the work Info between now and then makes ANY difference for ANYONE.

I have heard Jimmy repeatedly talk about how "people" don't want this and "people" don't want that and "these policies are not popular enough" like their inability and disinterest in helping people understand and accept those policies isn't part of the reason.

I've lived long enough to know when people use "people" as a proxy, what they are really talking about is what they want.

Thr democrats lost because they could not deliver a message of "strength".

"Strength" can be delivered in a lot of ways, and what people of different walks of life understand as "strength" varies. For people on the right, it's being told all your life that someone is strong and associated with strong people and is good at stuff and is "successful". It means having all the right coincidences line up to be given power. It means not getting caught. It means being "stronger than the rules", and having and using leverage.

On the left, it generally means being strong in other ways. To me, it means holding to your principles, and having good principles, principles for the benefit of everyone, even when it hurts you personally.

On the right, it means being strong enough to stick someone's face in the fire. On the left it means being strong enough to pull someone out of the fire even if it means you get burned.

It has never ever meant shrugging your shoulders and doing nothing. It has never been rolling over.

I find 'centrism' and fence sitting in a world where people literally want to line up and shoot leftists in the streets, where this is preached to whole churches of nodding fools, as to be one of the least rational positions.

If conservatism is locking the lower decks off and underfilling the life boats and saving furniture, and leftism is people screaming to eat the rich as they drown behind the gates, Centrism, today, is "rearranging deck chairs". It has every appearance, every last one, of doing nothing at all while the world burns and hoping nobody doesn't notice that your number would be sufficient to overpower the guards and throw open the gates.

How are we supposed to interpret the higher interest in the trains running on time over the lower interest in keeping those trains from being loaded with minorities?

Then try harder. Nobody is saying that 3M people voting for the winner are not more responsible for his electoral win

That is literally what was said:

"You want to blame the pragmatic acceptance of the general American public with enabling fascism. No... the people in Florida that voted for Nader are responsible."

Jimmy wants us to excuse those who intentionally enable fascism, and attack those who may have lost one state in one election because they were tired of endless garland wars and wanted a president who could spell.

You accusing Jimmy of being a facist is similar to Barbos accusing Ukrainians of being Nazis!

One important difference is that I did not accuse Jimmy of being a fascist, whereas Barbos does routinely accuse Ukrainians of being Nazis.

It's more, I really just wish a lot of the people enabling fascists would wake up and say to themselves "oh shit, have I been enabling fascism with my political choices? Maybe I have!" And then maybe live with a little more anxiety, in exchange for ceasing to enable fascism.

When someone is asked explicitly to do that, and told repeatedly over the course of decades that this is what is being done, and then doesn't do that, and instead leans towards the policies and concerns of the "center" between people who want to burn down the world and the people who want to reinforce it, now, against such burnings, what is someone to ascertain but that they are one of the people who do actually accept the burning?

 

[Politesse]

It would be nice. But everyone watches Andor and thinks they're Cassian...

 

[Harry Bosch]

The country consists of over 300 million people with varying desires, needs, hopes, and dreams

And the world consists of over 7 billion.

That doesn't act as a justification for selecting desires, hopes, and dreams that harm, or for tolerating that harm because it's happening to someone else.

You are as much of a casual fascist as Emily Lake and yes YOU are a fascist too, just a weaker and wimpier sort that I somehow have LESS respect for than the obvious Nazi, because at least the obvious Nazi doesn't hide their support for the nazification process behind self-unaware platitudes that they are only *leaning* right rather than running there.

You call Jimmy Higgins a "fascist" ?? Mr. Higgins impresses me as a rational centrist. Where in Heck do you get the idea he is a "fascist"?? Obviously it wasn't the post you quote. Can you point to anything that Jimmy has written that validates your insult? Note that staying home on Election Day 2024 or voting for Nader in the 2000 election -- if that's what the accusation is -- does not make someone a "fascist."

(Although perhaps irrelevant to my question, the very definition of "fascist" is controversial. I hold with those who define the term as an approach to obtaining political power rather than any particular social or economic ideology.)

I do not see much "rational" about "centrism". I see it as a vote to pretend that the knives are not being sharpened in preparation for our backs, especially over the last 30 years.

I just have no respect for that.

What makes someone a fascist is, I think, the utter spinelessness in the face of all of this, because of someone didn't want it to happen, they would not be doing the things folks like me have been saying for decades are the things that make that happen.

Eventually, this whole political powderkeg is going to ignite and I'm going to be right in the fucking middle of it, in Minneapolis, a stronghold of "progressivism".

I'm going to be in that mess when it comes here, and I can only hope that the work Info between now and then makes ANY difference for ANYONE.

I have heard Jimmy repeatedly talk about how "people" don't want this and "people" don't want that and "these policies are not popular enough" like their inability and disinterest in helping people understand and accept those policies isn't part of the reason.

I've lived long enough to know when people use "people" as a proxy, what they are really talking about is what they want.

Thr democrats lost because they could not deliver a message of "strength".

"Strength" can be delivered in a lot of ways, and what people of different walks of life understand as "strength" varies. For people on the right, it's being told all your life that someone is strong and associated with strong people and is good at stuff and is "successful". It means having all the right coincidences line up to be given power. It means not getting caught. It means being "stronger than the rules", and having and using leverage.

On the left, it generally means being strong in other ways. To me, it means holding to your principles, and having good principles, principles for the benefit of everyone, even when it hurts you personally.

On the right, it means being strong enough to stick someone's face in the fire. On the left it means being strong enough to pull someone out of the fire even if it means you get burned.

It has never ever meant shrugging your shoulders and doing nothing. It has never been rolling over.

I find 'centrism' and fence sitting in a world where people literally want to line up and shoot leftists in the streets, where this is preached to whole churches of nodding fools, as to be one of the least rational positions.

If conservatism is locking the lower decks off and underfilling the life boats and saving furniture, and leftism is people screaming to eat the rich as they drown behind the gates, Centrism, today, is "rearranging deck chairs". It has every appearance, every last one, of doing nothing at all while the world burns and hoping nobody doesn't notice that your number would be sufficient to overpower the guards and throw open the gates.

How are we supposed to interpret the higher interest in the trains running on time over the lower interest in keeping those trains from being loaded with minorities?

Then try harder. Nobody is saying that 3M people voting for the winner are not more responsible for his electoral win

That is literally what was said:

"You want to blame the pragmatic acceptance of the general American public with enabling fascism. No... the people in Florida that voted for Nader are responsible."

Jimmy wants us to excuse those who intentionally enable fascism, and attack those who may have lost one state in one election because they were tired of endless garland wars and wanted a president who could spell.

You accusing Jimmy of being a facist is similar to Barbos accusing Ukrainians of being Nazis!

One important difference is that I did not accuse Jimmy of being a fascist, whereas Barbos does routinely accuse Ukrainians of being Nazis.

It's more, I really just wish a lot of the people enabling fascists would wake up and say to themselves "oh shit, have I been enabling fascism with my political choices? Maybe I have!" And then maybe live with a little more anxiety, in exchange for ceasing to enable fascism.

When someone is asked explicitly to do that, and told repeatedly over the course of decades that this is what is being done, and then doesn't do that, and instead leans towards the policies and concerns of the "center" between people who want to burn down the world and the people who want to reinforce it, now, against such burnings, what is someone to ascertain but that they are one of the people who do actually accept the burning?

What exactly is a “fascist enabler”? Are you trying to say that people that you deem as fascist shouldn’t be able to vote? How specifically is Jimmy a fascist enabler?

 

[Jarhyn]

The country consists of over 300 million people with varying desires, needs, hopes, and dreams

And the world consists of over 7 billion.

That doesn't act as a justification for selecting desires, hopes, and dreams that harm, or for tolerating that harm because it's happening to someone else.

You are as much of a casual fascist as Emily Lake and yes YOU are a fascist too, just a weaker and wimpier sort that I somehow have LESS respect for than the obvious Nazi, because at least the obvious Nazi doesn't hide their support for the nazification process behind self-unaware platitudes that they are only *leaning* right rather than running there.

You call Jimmy Higgins a "fascist" ?? Mr. Higgins impresses me as a rational centrist. Where in Heck do you get the idea he is a "fascist"?? Obviously it wasn't the post you quote. Can you point to anything that Jimmy has written that validates your insult? Note that staying home on Election Day 2024 or voting for Nader in the 2000 election -- if that's what the accusation is -- does not make someone a "fascist."

(Although perhaps irrelevant to my question, the very definition of "fascist" is controversial. I hold with those who define the term as an approach to obtaining political power rather than any particular social or economic ideology.)

I do not see much "rational" about "centrism". I see it as a vote to pretend that the knives are not being sharpened in preparation for our backs, especially over the last 30 years.

I just have no respect for that.

What makes someone a fascist is, I think, the utter spinelessness in the face of all of this, because of someone didn't want it to happen, they would not be doing the things folks like me have been saying for decades are the things that make that happen.

Eventually, this whole political powderkeg is going to ignite and I'm going to be right in the fucking middle of it, in Minneapolis, a stronghold of "progressivism".

I'm going to be in that mess when it comes here, and I can only hope that the work Info between now and then makes ANY difference for ANYONE.

I have heard Jimmy repeatedly talk about how "people" don't want this and "people" don't want that and "these policies are not popular enough" like their inability and disinterest in helping people understand and accept those policies isn't part of the reason.

I've lived long enough to know when people use "people" as a proxy, what they are really talking about is what they want.

Thr democrats lost because they could not deliver a message of "strength".

"Strength" can be delivered in a lot of ways, and what people of different walks of life understand as "strength" varies. For people on the right, it's being told all your life that someone is strong and associated with strong people and is good at stuff and is "successful". It means having all the right coincidences line up to be given power. It means not getting caught. It means being "stronger than the rules", and having and using leverage.

On the left, it generally means being strong in other ways. To me, it means holding to your principles, and having good principles, principles for the benefit of everyone, even when it hurts you personally.

On the right, it means being strong enough to stick someone's face in the fire. On the left it means being strong enough to pull someone out of the fire even if it means you get burned.

It has never ever meant shrugging your shoulders and doing nothing. It has never been rolling over.

I find 'centrism' and fence sitting in a world where people literally want to line up and shoot leftists in the streets, where this is preached to whole churches of nodding fools, as to be one of the least rational positions.

If conservatism is locking the lower decks off and underfilling the life boats and saving furniture, and leftism is people screaming to eat the rich as they drown behind the gates, Centrism, today, is "rearranging deck chairs". It has every appearance, every last one, of doing nothing at all while the world burns and hoping nobody doesn't notice that your number would be sufficient to overpower the guards and throw open the gates.

How are we supposed to interpret the higher interest in the trains running on time over the lower interest in keeping those trains from being loaded with minorities?

Then try harder. Nobody is saying that 3M people voting for the winner are not more responsible for his electoral win

That is literally what was said:

"You want to blame the pragmatic acceptance of the general American public with enabling fascism. No... the people in Florida that voted for Nader are responsible."

Jimmy wants us to excuse those who intentionally enable fascism, and attack those who may have lost one state in one election because they were tired of endless garland wars and wanted a president who could spell.

You accusing Jimmy of being a facist is similar to Barbos accusing Ukrainians of being Nazis!

One important difference is that I did not accuse Jimmy of being a fascist, whereas Barbos does routinely accuse Ukrainians of being Nazis.

It's more, I really just wish a lot of the people enabling fascists would wake up and say to themselves "oh shit, have I been enabling fascism with my political choices? Maybe I have!" And then maybe live with a little more anxiety, in exchange for ceasing to enable fascism.

When someone is asked explicitly to do that, and told repeatedly over the course of decades that this is what is being done, and then doesn't do that, and instead leans towards the policies and concerns of the "center" between people who want to burn down the world and the people who want to reinforce it, now, against such burnings, what is someone to ascertain but that they are one of the people who do actually accept the burning?

What exactly is a “fascist enabler”? Are you trying to say that people that you deem as fascist shouldn’t be able to vote? How specifically is Jimmy a fascist enabler?

I think I saw it said best on Handmaid's Tale, in the very last episode: not fighting was how they ended up with Gilead in the first place.

What more can you say about someone who has had this pointed out to them, is on the doorstep of Gilead, and insists on "enlightened centrism" of not fighting, or at least supporting those who would?

 

[Harry Bosch]

The country consists of over 300 million people with varying desires, needs, hopes, and dreams

And the world consists of over 7 billion.

That doesn't act as a justification for selecting desires, hopes, and dreams that harm, or for tolerating that harm because it's happening to someone else.

You are as much of a casual fascist as Emily Lake and yes YOU are a fascist too, just a weaker and wimpier sort that I somehow have LESS respect for than the obvious Nazi, because at least the obvious Nazi doesn't hide their support for the nazification process behind self-unaware platitudes that they are only *leaning* right rather than running there.

You call Jimmy Higgins a "fascist" ?? Mr. Higgins impresses me as a rational centrist. Where in Heck do you get the idea he is a "fascist"?? Obviously it wasn't the post you quote. Can you point to anything that Jimmy has written that validates your insult? Note that staying home on Election Day 2024 or voting for Nader in the 2000 election -- if that's what the accusation is -- does not make someone a "fascist."

(Although perhaps irrelevant to my question, the very definition of "fascist" is controversial. I hold with those who define the term as an approach to obtaining political power rather than any particular social or economic ideology.)

I do not see much "rational" about "centrism". I see it as a vote to pretend that the knives are not being sharpened in preparation for our backs, especially over the last 30 years.

I just have no respect for that.

What makes someone a fascist is, I think, the utter spinelessness in the face of all of this, because of someone didn't want it to happen, they would not be doing the things folks like me have been saying for decades are the things that make that happen.

Eventually, this whole political powderkeg is going to ignite and I'm going to be right in the fucking middle of it, in Minneapolis, a stronghold of "progressivism".

I'm going to be in that mess when it comes here, and I can only hope that the work Info between now and then makes ANY difference for ANYONE.

I have heard Jimmy repeatedly talk about how "people" don't want this and "people" don't want that and "these policies are not popular enough" like their inability and disinterest in helping people understand and accept those policies isn't part of the reason.

I've lived long enough to know when people use "people" as a proxy, what they are really talking about is what they want.

Thr democrats lost because they could not deliver a message of "strength".

"Strength" can be delivered in a lot of ways, and what people of different walks of life understand as "strength" varies. For people on the right, it's being told all your life that someone is strong and associated with strong people and is good at stuff and is "successful". It means having all the right coincidences line up to be given power. It means not getting caught. It means being "stronger than the rules", and having and using leverage.

On the left, it generally means being strong in other ways. To me, it means holding to your principles, and having good principles, principles for the benefit of everyone, even when it hurts you personally.

On the right, it means being strong enough to stick someone's face in the fire. On the left it means being strong enough to pull someone out of the fire even if it means you get burned.

It has never ever meant shrugging your shoulders and doing nothing. It has never been rolling over.

I find 'centrism' and fence sitting in a world where people literally want to line up and shoot leftists in the streets, where this is preached to whole churches of nodding fools, as to be one of the least rational positions.

If conservatism is locking the lower decks off and underfilling the life boats and saving furniture, and leftism is people screaming to eat the rich as they drown behind the gates, Centrism, today, is "rearranging deck chairs". It has every appearance, every last one, of doing nothing at all while the world burns and hoping nobody doesn't notice that your number would be sufficient to overpower the guards and throw open the gates.

How are we supposed to interpret the higher interest in the trains running on time over the lower interest in keeping those trains from being loaded with minorities?

Then try harder. Nobody is saying that 3M people voting for the winner are not more responsible for his electoral win

That is literally what was said:

"You want to blame the pragmatic acceptance of the general American public with enabling fascism. No... the people in Florida that voted for Nader are responsible."

Jimmy wants us to excuse those who intentionally enable fascism, and attack those who may have lost one state in one election because they were tired of endless garland wars and wanted a president who could spell.

You accusing Jimmy of being a facist is similar to Barbos accusing Ukrainians of being Nazis!

One important difference is that I did not accuse Jimmy of being a fascist, whereas Barbos does routinely accuse Ukrainians of being Nazis.

It's more, I really just wish a lot of the people enabling fascists would wake up and say to themselves "oh shit, have I been enabling fascism with my political choices? Maybe I have!" And then maybe live with a little more anxiety, in exchange for ceasing to enable fascism.

When someone is asked explicitly to do that, and told repeatedly over the course of decades that this is what is being done, and then doesn't do that, and instead leans towards the policies and concerns of the "center" between people who want to burn down the world and the people who want to reinforce it, now, against such burnings, what is someone to ascertain but that they are one of the people who do actually accept the burning?

What exactly is a “fascist enabler”? Are you trying to say that people that you deem as fascist shouldn’t be able to vote? How specifically is Jimmy a fascist enabler?

I think I saw it said best on Handmaid's Tale, in the very last episode: not fighting was how they ended up with Gilead in the first place.

What more can you say about someone who has had this pointed out to them, is on the doorstep of Gilead, and insists on "enlightened centrism" of not fighting, or at least supporting those who would?

Yeaaaa, I don't agree! I think that your side, favoring candidates that are so far to the left that they are unelectable, benefits the "fascists" as you hurt dems that can reasonably win. There is no doubt that if Gore had won, that Trump would be weaker today because he wouldn't have the supreme court right now. A majority of voters have very clearly stated what they want: politicians who focus on the economy to make their lives better now. If that is too far right of a position for you to take then I can't help you.

 

[Politesse]

Yeaaaa, I don't agree! I think that your side, favoring candidates that are so far to the left that they are unelectable

If that's the real problem, the ballot box will take care of it in any case. But I am not exactly impressed with the calibre of "centrist Democrats" lately. You say we must back them or die, because they have mass popularity and Progressives do not. But they don't have mass popularity. If the Democrat status quo is as wildly popular with the mythologized middle American voter as centrists claim, why does a country whose citizens are only 46% Republican-leaning have a majority Republican government, currently poised to overthrow the government altogether with paltry resistance?

The numbers don't lie: Plenty of the "mostly Democrat but with reservations" types voted for Trump. Not for the good cop. So why does the DNC leadership keep putting wannabe good cops on the ticket, against the will of the party itself? Harris had to be appointed by dubiously legitimate means, because when she tried to run for the office the honest way, the primaries decimated her utterly, before her home state even had the chance to vote. Some popularity contest!

 

[Politesse]

A majority of voters have very clearly stated what they want: politicians who focus on the economy to make their lives better now. If that is too far right of a position for you to take then I can't help you.

And this is just ridiculous. No one is running on a ticket of "destroy the econmy". Progressives certainly are not. To be pro-labor is not anti-economy. To be pro-business is not pro-economy. Our economy is in free fall right now because of all this pro-corporate bullshit.

But hey, all of our crypto-Republican posters agree with your post! I'm sure they don't have any ulterior motives, lol!

 

[Jarhyn]

The country consists of over 300 million people with varying desires, needs, hopes, and dreams

And the world consists of over 7 billion.

That doesn't act as a justification for selecting desires, hopes, and dreams that harm, or for tolerating that harm because it's happening to someone else.

You are as much of a casual fascist as Emily Lake and yes YOU are a fascist too, just a weaker and wimpier sort that I somehow have LESS respect for than the obvious Nazi, because at least the obvious Nazi doesn't hide their support for the nazification process behind self-unaware platitudes that they are only *leaning* right rather than running there.

You call Jimmy Higgins a "fascist" ?? Mr. Higgins impresses me as a rational centrist. Where in Heck do you get the idea he is a "fascist"?? Obviously it wasn't the post you quote. Can you point to anything that Jimmy has written that validates your insult? Note that staying home on Election Day 2024 or voting for Nader in the 2000 election -- if that's what the accusation is -- does not make someone a "fascist."

(Although perhaps irrelevant to my question, the very definition of "fascist" is controversial. I hold with those who define the term as an approach to obtaining political power rather than any particular social or economic ideology.)

I do not see much "rational" about "centrism". I see it as a vote to pretend that the knives are not being sharpened in preparation for our backs, especially over the last 30 years.

I just have no respect for that.

What makes someone a fascist is, I think, the utter spinelessness in the face of all of this, because of someone didn't want it to happen, they would not be doing the things folks like me have been saying for decades are the things that make that happen.

Eventually, this whole political powderkeg is going to ignite and I'm going to be right in the fucking middle of it, in Minneapolis, a stronghold of "progressivism".

I'm going to be in that mess when it comes here, and I can only hope that the work Info between now and then makes ANY difference for ANYONE.

I have heard Jimmy repeatedly talk about how "people" don't want this and "people" don't want that and "these policies are not popular enough" like their inability and disinterest in helping people understand and accept those policies isn't part of the reason.

I've lived long enough to know when people use "people" as a proxy, what they are really talking about is what they want.

Thr democrats lost because they could not deliver a message of "strength".

"Strength" can be delivered in a lot of ways, and what people of different walks of life understand as "strength" varies. For people on the right, it's being told all your life that someone is strong and associated with strong people and is good at stuff and is "successful". It means having all the right coincidences line up to be given power. It means not getting caught. It means being "stronger than the rules", and having and using leverage.

On the left, it generally means being strong in other ways. To me, it means holding to your principles, and having good principles, principles for the benefit of everyone, even when it hurts you personally.

On the right, it means being strong enough to stick someone's face in the fire. On the left it means being strong enough to pull someone out of the fire even if it means you get burned.

It has never ever meant shrugging your shoulders and doing nothing. It has never been rolling over.

I find 'centrism' and fence sitting in a world where people literally want to line up and shoot leftists in the streets, where this is preached to whole churches of nodding fools, as to be one of the least rational positions.

If conservatism is locking the lower decks off and underfilling the life boats and saving furniture, and leftism is people screaming to eat the rich as they drown behind the gates, Centrism, today, is "rearranging deck chairs". It has every appearance, every last one, of doing nothing at all while the world burns and hoping nobody doesn't notice that your number would be sufficient to overpower the guards and throw open the gates.

How are we supposed to interpret the higher interest in the trains running on time over the lower interest in keeping those trains from being loaded with minorities?

Then try harder. Nobody is saying that 3M people voting for the winner are not more responsible for his electoral win

That is literally what was said:

"You want to blame the pragmatic acceptance of the general American public with enabling fascism. No... the people in Florida that voted for Nader are responsible."

Jimmy wants us to excuse those who intentionally enable fascism, and attack those who may have lost one state in one election because they were tired of endless garland wars and wanted a president who could spell.

You accusing Jimmy of being a facist is similar to Barbos accusing Ukrainians of being Nazis!

One important difference is that I did not accuse Jimmy of being a fascist, whereas Barbos does routinely accuse Ukrainians of being Nazis.

It's more, I really just wish a lot of the people enabling fascists would wake up and say to themselves "oh shit, have I been enabling fascism with my political choices? Maybe I have!" And then maybe live with a little more anxiety, in exchange for ceasing to enable fascism.

When someone is asked explicitly to do that, and told repeatedly over the course of decades that this is what is being done, and then doesn't do that, and instead leans towards the policies and concerns of the "center" between people who want to burn down the world and the people who want to reinforce it, now, against such burnings, what is someone to ascertain but that they are one of the people who do actually accept the burning?

What exactly is a “fascist enabler”? Are you trying to say that people that you deem as fascist shouldn’t be able to vote? How specifically is Jimmy a fascist enabler?

I think I saw it said best on Handmaid's Tale, in the very last episode: not fighting was how they ended up with Gilead in the first place.

What more can you say about someone who has had this pointed out to them, is on the doorstep of Gilead, and insists on "enlightened centrism" of not fighting, or at least supporting those who would?

Yeaaaa, I don't agree! I think that your side, favoring candidates that are so far to the left that they are unelectable, benefits the "fascists" as you hurt dems that can reasonably win. There is no doubt that if Gore had won, that Trump would be weaker today because he wouldn't have the supreme court right now. A majority of voters have very clearly stated what they want: politicians who focus on the economy to make their lives better now. If that is too far right of a position for you to take then I can't help you.

Amazing endorsements of that post you have there. Sorry @Swammerdami, you're in bad company there.

Look at this strawman of an argument! Your supported candidates were the ones who rolled over. Gore rolled over. If Gore had had the strength progressives demand of candidates, Gore wouldn't have lost.

But this isn't about Gore, however weak he was in the end This is about Hillary and Harris.

There is a really easy way to make sure that Dems who can win who are not going to bow to fascist aims win: vote for the Dems who are not going to bow to fascist aims. Support those Dems. Don't pretend that they are "unelectable" because their "unelectability" is a Tinkerbell effect, and it ends as soon as you stop letting yourself and your peers believe it without challenge.

It's really that simple.

Of course, the Dems you elect, the actual people you think can "win elections" do not make Americans lives better, now or ever really. All they do is, ironically, act conservatively to resist the backslide of the whole country, but in the weakest way possible.

They don't oppose citizens United or big money in politics.

They don't support corporate tax rates that would actually improve the lives of their constituents.

They don't even support raising the minimum wage.

They don't support single payer solutions.

They don't support taking big pharma down a peg.

If all you support is keeping the trains running on time, you will eventually be issued a ticket on a train you would rather not be on.

 

[southernhybrid]

The country consists of over 300 million people with varying desires, needs, hopes, and dreams

And the world consists of over 7 billion.

That doesn't act as a justification for selecting desires, hopes, and dreams that harm, or for tolerating that harm because it's happening to someone else.

You are as much of a casual fascist as Emily Lake and yes YOU are a fascist too, just a weaker and wimpier sort that I somehow have LESS respect for than the obvious Nazi, because at least the obvious Nazi doesn't hide their support for the nazification process behind self-unaware platitudes that they are only *leaning* right rather than running there.

You call Jimmy Higgins a "fascist" ?? Mr. Higgins impresses me as a rational centrist. Where in Heck do you get the idea he is a "fascist"?? Obviously it wasn't the post you quote. Can you point to anything that Jimmy has written that validates your insult? Note that staying home on Election Day 2024 or voting for Nader in the 2000 election -- if that's what the accusation is -- does not make someone a "fascist."

(Although perhaps irrelevant to my question, the very definition of "fascist" is controversial. I hold with those who define the term as an approach to obtaining political power rather than any particular social or economic ideology.)

I do not see much "rational" about "centrism". I see it as a vote to pretend that the knives are not being sharpened in preparation for our backs, especially over the last 30 years.

I just have no respect for that.

What makes someone a fascist is, I think, the utter spinelessness in the face of all of this, because of someone didn't want it to happen, they would not be doing the things folks like me have been saying for decades are the things that make that happen.

Eventually, this whole political powderkeg is going to ignite and I'm going to be right in the fucking middle of it, in Minneapolis, a stronghold of "progressivism".

I'm going to be in that mess when it comes here, and I can only hope that the work Info between now and then makes ANY difference for ANYONE.

I have heard Jimmy repeatedly talk about how "people" don't want this and "people" don't want that and "these policies are not popular enough" like their inability and disinterest in helping people understand and accept those policies isn't part of the reason.

I've lived long enough to know when people use "people" as a proxy, what they are really talking about is what they want.

Thr democrats lost because they could not deliver a message of "strength".

"Strength" can be delivered in a lot of ways, and what people of different walks of life understand as "strength" varies. For people on the right, it's being told all your life that someone is strong and associated with strong people and is good at stuff and is "successful". It means having all the right coincidences line up to be given power. It means not getting caught. It means being "stronger than the rules", and having and using leverage.

On the left, it generally means being strong in other ways. To me, it means holding to your principles, and having good principles, principles for the benefit of everyone, even when it hurts you personally.

On the right, it means being strong enough to stick someone's face in the fire. On the left it means being strong enough to pull someone out of the fire even if it means you get burned.

It has never ever meant shrugging your shoulders and doing nothing. It has never been rolling over.

I find 'centrism' and fence sitting in a world where people literally want to line up and shoot leftists in the streets, where this is preached to whole churches of nodding fools, as to be one of the least rational positions.

If conservatism is locking the lower decks off and underfilling the life boats and saving furniture, and leftism is people screaming to eat the rich as they drown behind the gates, Centrism, today, is "rearranging deck chairs". It has every appearance, every last one, of doing nothing at all while the world burns and hoping nobody doesn't notice that your number would be sufficient to overpower the guards and throw open the gates.

How are we supposed to interpret the higher interest in the trains running on time over the lower interest in keeping those trains from being loaded with minorities?

Then try harder. Nobody is saying that 3M people voting for the winner are not more responsible for his electoral win

That is literally what was said:

"You want to blame the pragmatic acceptance of the general American public with enabling fascism. No... the people in Florida that voted for Nader are responsible."

Jimmy wants us to excuse those who intentionally enable fascism, and attack those who may have lost one state in one election because they were tired of endless garland wars and wanted a president who could spell.

You accusing Jimmy of being a facist is similar to Barbos accusing Ukrainians of being Nazis!

One important difference is that I did not accuse Jimmy of being a fascist, whereas Barbos does routinely accuse Ukrainians of being Nazis.

It's more, I really just wish a lot of the people enabling fascists would wake up and say to themselves "oh shit, have I been enabling fascism with my political choices? Maybe I have!" And then maybe live with a little more anxiety, in exchange for ceasing to enable fascism.

When someone is asked explicitly to do that, and told repeatedly over the course of decades that this is what is being done, and then doesn't do that, and instead leans towards the policies and concerns of the "center" between people who want to burn down the world and the people who want to reinforce it, now, against such burnings, what is someone to ascertain but that they are one of the people who do actually accept the burning?

What exactly is a “fascist enabler”? Are you trying to say that people that you deem as fascist shouldn’t be able to vote? How specifically is Jimmy a fascist enabler?

I think I saw it said best on Handmaid's Tale, in the very last episode: not fighting was how they ended up with Gilead in the first place.

What more can you say about someone who has had this pointed out to them, is on the doorstep of Gilead, and insists on "enlightened centrism" of not fighting, or at least supporting those who would?

Yeaaaa, I don't agree! I think that your side, favoring candidates that are so far to the left that they are unelectable, benefits the "fascists" as you hurt dems that can reasonably win. There is no doubt that if Gore had won, that Trump would be weaker today because he wouldn't have the supreme court right now. A majority of voters have very clearly stated what they want: politicians who focus on the economy to make their lives better now. If that is too far right of a position for you to take then I can't help you.

Amazing endorsements of that post you have there. Sorry @Swammerdami, you're in bad company there.

Look at this strawman of an argument! Your supported candidates were the ones who rolled over. Gore rolled over. If Gore had had the strength progressives demand of candidates, Gore wouldn't have lost.

But this isn't about Gore, however weak he was in the end This is about Hillary and Harris.

There is a really easy way to make sure that Dems who can win who are not going to bow to fascist aims win: vote for the Dems who are not going to bow to fascist aims. Support those Dems. Don't pretend that they are "unelectable" because their "unelectability" is a Tinkerbell effect, and it ends as soon as you stop letting yourself and your peers believe it without challenge.

It's really that simple.

Of course, the Dems you elect, the actual people you think can "win elections" do not make Americans lives better, now or ever really. All they do is, ironically, act conservatively to resist the backslide of the whole country, but in the weakest way possible.

They don't oppose citizens United or big money in politics.

They don't support corporate tax rates that would actually improve the lives of their constituents.

They don't even support raising the minimum wage.

They don't support single payer solutions.

They don't support taking big pharma down a peg.

If all you support is keeping the trains running on time, you will eventually be issued a ticket on a train you would rather not be on.

I disagree. I think most Dems who run for office do support most of those things, but they are realistic and know that a lot of those things won't be passed. Most hate Citizens United, which we have SCOTUS to thank for. I'm sure that all Dems support increasing the minimum wage. But at least even Walmart is paying a starting wage of about 15 bucks an hour, low but better than 7.25. Many support single payer but single payer without premiums isn't going to work. The UK and Australia are having problems supporting their single payer system, at least that's what I've read over the past few years. Single payer with premiums based on income might work. That's sort of how Medicare works, but even Medicare is in trouble, due to imo, doctors over ordering procedures and patients demanding care they may not need, aggressive end of life care, as well as the high number of Americans who have very unhealthy lifestyles, which isn't an easy thing to overcome.

I'm fine with single payer, but I don't see it happening regardless of who wins the next election. Many if not most people fear it. So it's best to come up with plans that can be passed by Congress. Obama care isn't perfect, but it's helped millions of people have health insurance. My husband used it for a few years after losing his job and being too young for Medicare. My late sister used it as well and received lots of aggressive care for her cancer before she died. The expansion of medicaid that came wiht it until SCOTUS allowed states not to do it, helped a lot of low income folks receive healhtcare. Compromise is how life works and we must all learn to compromise if we want to return to a fairly decent government. There is no perfect canddiate, never was, never will be.

I will never understand the criticisms of Harris, who was highly qualified for the position. She reached out to both sides, but some on the right said she was far too liberal and some on the left said she wasn't liberal enough so they didn't vote or they voted third party or for Trump. I have always voted even when I wasn't crazy about the two choices, as one was always better than the alternative. Ive never voted for a Republican! Presidents are supposed to represent all Americans, not just those who voted for them. Trump only cares about his cultists. I'll take a decent moderate over that any day of the week, if my choice is between a right winger and a moderate who knows the improtance of compromise in order to make any progress at all.

Happy now dumbass jerks who were looking for a candidate who suited them perfectly! Any Dem was far superior to the mentally deranged felon we have now! Yes, it's too bad we didn't have primaries in the last election, but I doubt anyone further to the left would have won a Democratic primary. Most people don't even vote in primaries. Most of the world is turning to the right these days, but some of you expect the US to turn further to the left. Ain't gonna happen, at least not in my lifetime. Deal with it!

 

[Derec]

Jimmy wants us to excuse those who intentionally enable fascism, and attack those who may have lost one state in one election because they were tired of endless garland wars and wanted a president who could spell.

Gore was in favor of "endless garland wars" (whatever that means)? Gore could not spell? Next you'll try to tell us that there was "not a dime's worth of difference" between Gore and W ...

In post #1,836 you wrote about "an intentional crime" vs. "an honest mistake". I think you have those backwards. People who genuinely thought that Bush was better for the country than Gore made at most an honest mistake if they were wrong about that (and I agree that they were). If anybody is committing an "intentional crime", or at least an intentional act they know will lead to bad consequences, are the voters who thought that Bush was worse, but still voted against Gore because he was not good enough.
It was similar in 2024. Those who voted for Trump because they thought he would be better than Harris made an honest mistake. Those who thought that Trump was a fascist (or at least was disastrous for the country) and still helped him get elected, by e.g. voting for Jill Stein or staying home, committed an intentional act.

 

[Derec]

It would be nice. But everyone watches Andor and thinks they're Cassian...

 

[Derec]

I think I saw it said best on Handmaid's Tale, in the very last episode: not fighting was how they ended up with Gilead in the first place.

What more can you say about someone who has had this pointed out to them, is on the doorstep of Gilead, and insists on "enlightened centrism" of not fighting, or at least supporting those who would?

To the extent that you think we are "the doorstep of Gilead", do you think that leftists who refused to vote for Kamala Harris contributed to this position? And what do you think "fighting" should consist of? Setting cars on fire and circling around it on a motorcycle while hoisting the flag of a foreign nation?

 

[bilby]

The UK and Australia are having problems supporting their single payer system, at least that's what I've read over the past few years.

You shouldn't believe what you read.

The problems are largely engineered by people who want the systems to fail, for financial and/or ideological reasons.

Decent healthcare is unaffordable in exactly the same way that US budget deficits are unavoidable - only if you accept the unspoken premise that taxation is fundamentally evil and unconscionable.

Governments that have steadily cut taxes for decades are now struggling to meet the costs of running their countries; This is NOT an indication that those costs are somehow a disaster in need of intervention.

Just because Rupert Murdoch and his ilk would like us to think that all government activities are too expensive, and should (along with taxes) be cut and cut until the budget is balanced, there is no reason for us to concur with their propaganda claims that anything they want to axe is "having problems". (It's having problems because you are deliberately starving it to death you evil bastards).

 

[Derec]

If that's the real problem, the ballot box will take care of it in any case. But I am not exactly impressed with the calibre of "centrist Democrats" lately.

Which Democrats are you impressed with lately?

You say we must back them or die, because they have mass popularity and Progressives do not.

Indeed. Somebody like AOC would not be electable nationwide, no matter how much she is beloved by the base.

But they don't have mass popularity. If the Democrat status quo is as wildly popular with the mythologized middle American voter as centrists claim, why does a country whose citizens are only 46% Republican-leaning have a majority Republican government, currently poised to overthrow the government altogether with paltry resistance?

The electoral college favors Republicans. As do House district maps in most states. Even without gerrymandering, the fact that cities tend to be >75% Dem concentrates those voters and means that even non-partisan district drawing would result in some advantage for Republicans.
Then there is discipline. Republicans have it. They voted for Trump even if they have misgivings about him. Many Dems stayed home because Kamala Harris was not perfect enough for them.

The numbers don't lie: Plenty of the "mostly Democrat but with reservations" types voted for Trump.

[citation needed]
I know many Michigan Muslims voted for Trump even though they have been nominally aligned with Dems. They not only objected to Gaza, but also Dem LGBT policies. That shows the fallacy of mass migration, but that's an issue for another thread.

Not for the good cop.

And that's another issue. The #BLM/ACAB left vilified Harris for having been a prosecutor.

So why does the DNC leadership keep putting wannabe good cops on the ticket, against the will of the party itself? Harris had to be appointed by dubiously legitimate means, because when she tried to run for the office the honest way, the primaries decimated her utterly, before her home state even had the chance to vote. Some popularity contest!

Her 2020 campaign faltered before any state had a chance to vote, and in fact, even before 2020 rolled around.
But why are you laboring under a misapprehension that Kamala was some kind of centrist? She was one of the most left-wing senators during her short tenure there, and in the 2020 campaign, she contested the same left lane as Bernie and Warren.


In Kamala Harris, you guys got the progressive you say you wanted. Her running mate was also progressive.
And yet, she still wasn't left wing enough for the crazies in the Dem base.

 

[Derec]

And this is just ridiculous. No one is running on a ticket of "destroy the econmy". Progressives certainly are not.

Not in those words, for sure, but some fauxgressive policies would have that effect.

To be pro-labor is not anti-economy. To be pro-business is not pro-economy.

Businesses are the ones driving the economy. As far as unions, it depends on the policies. Some unions are way too powerful as is. For example the longshoremen union which has successfully resisted port modernization for decades, resulting in US ports being well behind other ports in the world when it comes to technology.

Our economy is in free fall right now because of all this pro-corporate bullshit.

The economy is not [yet] in free-fall, but if that does happen, it will surely be because of Trump's tariff bullshit, and not because of being pro-corporate.

But hey, all of our crypto-Republican posters agree with your post! I'm sure they don't have any ulterior motives, lol!

We are not the ones defending voting third party or staying home because the Dem candidate is not ideologically pure enough.

 

[southernhybrid]

The UK and Australia are having problems supporting their single payer system, at least that's what I've read over the past few years.

You shouldn't believe what you read.

The problems are largely engineered by people who want the systems to fail, for financial and/or ideological reasons.

Decent healthcare is unaffordable in exactly the same way that US budget deficits are unavoidable - only if you accept the unspoken premise that taxation is fundamentally evil and unconscionable.

Governments that have steadily cut taxes for decades are now struggling to meet the costs of running their countries; This is NOT an indication that those costs are somehow a disaster in need of intervention.

Just because Rupert Murdoch and his ilk would like us to think that all government activities are too expensive, and should (along with taxes) be cut and cut until the budget is balanced, there is no reason for us to concur with their propaganda claims that anything they want to axe is "having problems". (It's having problems because you are deliberately starving it to death you evil bastards).

Since I read some of those things in places like The Guardian, I never read or watch any Murdoch crap. I’m not convinced what i read wasn’t true. Medical care is far more expensive these days compared to what it was decades ago, so it makes sense that free care for all is becoming hard to afford. Like I said, the best way to do single care would be to have premiums based on income and copays based on income. I can afford my Medicare premiums and my copays. A poor friend of mine has Medicaid as her back up because she is too poor to afford her Medicare premiums. A friend who has a lot more income than we do, pays a higher Medicare Part B premium compared to most of us. I think that would be a good way to establish or maintain single payer care.


Anyway, that’s just my opinion based on what I know about the cost of healthcare these days. Doctors in the US are bitching about not making enough money if they are primary docs who mostly serve Medicare patients. Some support Medicare for all because they are sick and tired of dealing with insurance companies etc. Anyway, I don’t see single pay as being affordable in the US without substantial tax increases of premiums based on income.

 

[TomC]

Indeed. Somebody like AOC would not be electable nationwide, no matter how much she is beloved by the base.

Back in 2006,
How many people would have thought that a black guy named Obama would be elected president in 2008?

Not many. But the Republicans and their president managed to fuck up the USA so hugely that a black kid from Chicago kicked the ass of a rich white veteran dude.

OBAMA BEAT THE REPUBLICANS IN THE STATE OF INDIANA!

We are kinda the KKK champions, here in the Good Old Union. But still...
Tom

 

[bilby]

it makes sense that free care for all is becoming hard to afford.

It really doesn't.

"Free" care for all costs no more than "for profit" care for all; Indeed, it must by simple arithmetic cost less.

The only way to make it cheaper than that is to not allow "all" to have healthcare.

Faced with the choice of "These poor people get no care" vs. "These high income people pay progressively more income taxes", I plump for the latter as the only morally defensible option.

When "We can't afford healthcare for these people" meant "If you tax me enough to pay for it, I will go hungry", there might be some sympathy from me. When it means "If you tax me enough to pay for it, I will not own a private jet", My sympathy is less marked.

 

[Derec]

Look at this strawman of an argument! Your supported candidates were the ones who rolled over. Gore rolled over. If Gore had had the strength progressives demand of candidates, Gore wouldn't have lost.

In what way did Gore "roll over"? What do you think Gore should have done to win these "progressives" over? Note that he was already a fairly progressive candidate. Moving to the left may have helped him win some Naderites (but as we have seen with Kamala, the left-wing fringe is extremely hard to please!) but it would have lost him votes in the meaty middle of the ideological bell curve.

But this isn't about Gore, however weak he was in the end This is about Hillary and Harris.

Gore/Bush is a good object lesson because the situation was so clear-cut. Several hundred vote margin in Florida, and ~90k votes wasted on a no-chance third party candidate to Gore's left.

There is a really easy way to make sure that Dems who can win who are not going to bow to fascist aims win: vote for the Dems who are not going to bow to fascist aims. Support those Dems.

In what way do you think Gore, Hillary or Harris would have "bowed to fascist aims". Which candidates do you think would have been better in 2000, 2016 and 2024? I have an answer for 2016: Biden should have run. I think he would have won against Trump easily, and he would have been a more effective president because he was not as old back then. But I am sure you think he is too much of a hated centrist.

Don't pretend that they are "unelectable" because their "unelectability" is a Tinkerbell effect, and it ends as soon as you stop letting yourself and your peers believe it without challenge.

The US is not all 14th district of New York. Certain candidates are most certainly unelectable nationwide. I think Bernie would have fared worse than Hillary in 2016 for example.
Why do you think your preferred candidates would be electable? Without name dropping fictional characters please.

Of course, the Dems you elect, the actual people you think can "win elections" do not make Americans lives better, now or ever really. All they do is, ironically, act conservatively to resist the backslide of the whole country, but in the weakest way possible.

What do you think say Obama or Biden should have done? Obama passed the ACA, a major reform of US healthcare. Biden governed very progressively. But they are not good enough for you?

They don't oppose citizens United or big money in politics.

What do you think they should have done?

They don't support corporate tax rates that would actually improve the lives of their constituents.

The corporate tax rate proposed by Biden was already higher than other OECD countries.

And the existing rate wasn't exactly among the lowest either. How high would you like the corporate tax rate to go?

They don't even support raising the minimum wage.

Biden tried, but could not get it through Congress.

They don't support single payer solutions.

Is a "single payer" really necessary, rather than have a robust public option, like for example Germany?

They don't support taking big pharma down a peg.

What would that involve in practice?

If all you support is keeping the trains running on time, you will eventually be issued a ticket on a train you would rather not be on.

So the only alternatives in your mind are far left and far right? And everybody who is not with you is with the enemy?