Tulsi is a paleocon finally revealing to the five people she successfully grifted who she is. Her views are literally just Tucker Carlson minus the climate change denial.
Tulsi was the only one willing to call out the neoliberal ghouls (Kamala, Buttigieg) during the primary while Bernie did nothing to challenge them!
Other than, you know, running a campaign that vastly outperformed both of them. And running on policies they refuse to back is challenging them, even if it's not doing some WWE politics own on them at a debate.
Bernie’s campaign was so poorly run that even a mild scandal manufactured by the Warren team managed to have it shook.
Warren's snake moment happened a week or two before Iowa. It "shook" the Bernie campaign so hard it went out and won 3 or 4 states in a row.
The establishment was equally inept and only succeeded in coming together and push him out because of how poor his campaign was run.
Yeah, a popular two-term president working behind the scenes get every centrist candidate (but not Warren) to drop out and immediately endorse Biden screams "inept."
You know how many times I have heard people telling me that Kamala is a progressive who supports M4A?
Ironically the floor vote of M4A would only make that worse. All the fakers who cosponsored M4A can vote for M4A and avoid primary challenges , but when they run for higher office then they'll find the need to be "pragmatic" and not scare off the donors. But the votors can point to their vote, they voted for M4A
Assuming Republicans hold the Senate, every single House Democrat could vote for M4A and we still wouldn't get it.
Now if Democrats win the Senate, OK, then the House vote might make sense. You still would likely end up having 2-3 safe Democrats vote against it to tank the bill, but it could be spun as a strong showing of support at a high level. However, it could also be spun as a rejection of M4A, which might set the project back.
Good point on the filibuster. Unless the Biden-led Democrats go nuclear (lol), we could easily see a result where every single congressional Democrat votes for M4A and we still don't get it. Now the Democratic ghouls can all run on voting for a popular policy, and (assuming the party loses more seats in 2022) the issue will be spiked until 2024 at the earliest. I'm not seeing this as a do-or-die issue.
You know how many times I have heard people telling me that Kamala is a progressive who supports M4A?
I bet those people would tell you Bernie was too far left for them. However you slice it, Bernie distinguished himself.
Plus, no one supported Harris in the primary (she dropped out in December 2019), so either the folks you heard that from are out of touch themselves, or they were giving you the Democratic Party line after she was picked as VP.
Who are these "Harris is a progressive who supports M4A" folks you're talking about, and when did you speak to them? Because she had near-zero support until she got the VP nod, which was long after Bernie dropped out.
So we're talking about sometime around November 2019. Nearly two months before the primary and almost a full year before the actual election. The only people paying attention at that point were the ones who obsessively follow politics. Of course "normal" people hadn't really looked into her.
None of this translates into "Bernie should have been more negative about Harris's record as a prosecutor." The proof is in the pudding -- her campaign collapsed before 2020 even started. She never had any real support, and there was no upside to punching at a paper target.
When it comes to playing the game (the primary) that the establishment sets, it crumbles pretty much straight away from mainstream media blackout and people buying into the narrative that the establishment fed them.
Not at all -- they tried this with Bernie and it wasn't enough. It took the type of backroom dealing that's not always possible to do him in.
If they were truly competent, someone like Bernie wouldn’t have stood a chance
Competency isn't binary. They weren't competent enough to strangle Bernie in his crib, but they were competent enough to circle the wagons at the last minute. They can't always do this -- see the 2016 Republican primary, where the party didn't get its shit together fast enough to stop an outsider who they all openly despised.
No one's saying you can't criticize Bernie's campaign. It's just that criticism has to be grounded in reality to be worth anything. For example, criticizing the campaign over the Warren attack is flat-out laughable because it so obviously had no effect (Bernie immediately proceeded to have one of the best starts in primary history).
Ralph Nader didn't have to and he's the most successful american politician in terms of policy he passed and the amount of people he help through lawmaking.
EPA, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, seatbelts. Believe in electoralism, get dunked. lenin.jpg
Nader's activism successes occurred before neoliberalism took root in both parties, he never held an elected office, and he ate shit in every presidential race he ran.
Nader has undeniable policy achievements that helped you and me, our parents and our kids.
Bernie after 40 years in politics barely had any other than some inconsequential dissenting votes on the losing side (Iraq) and piling in on the wrong side of history (Kosovo war, Crime bill).
Maybe you should consider activism and direct action instead of electoralism
Activism has never achieved anything close to socialism in any context. It's good, it can do real things, but like any approach it has limits. We're not going to do impact litigation or awareness campaigns and get worker ownership of the means of production.
Bernie is largely the reason Medicare for All and socialism are mainstream political topics, which is a prerequisite to actually making them happen.
Sure Lenin was not an activist at all. He was just a lawmaker in the Russian Empire, got elected and passed a law to kindly ask the Russian royal family to step down. Sure, activism has never achieved anything close to socialism, yet every revolution in history ever started by activists.
Stop strawmanning. You said that activism has never achieved anything close to socialism. Lenin showed that activism can. Both Lenin and Nader use activism to be the change they wanted in the world. Bernie used electoralism, played politics and get btfo
the fact that this is downvoted when the "activism" in question is NADER, who is then immediately being compared to LENIN really goes to show that some chapos have reading comprehension skills on par with the average pre-k student.
Jimmy just likes people who sound angry and are vaguely talking about the issues he cares about (and it doesn't hurt if they are willing to go on his show or give him a plug).
That's why he can can sing the praises of Tucker Carlson even tho he is just being a fascist coopting populist grievances for fascists ends.
Or why he supports Tulsi over Bernie.
Your personal experience is that you think Jimmy Dore has some sort of positive impact on leftist discourse or exposure and shouldn't be disregarded out of hand.
That's fine, that's an opinion, and I'm sure people would be interested to hear you out on it.
The rest was your guess at other people's personal experiences and painting your opinion as the "Black-approved" one, which is then equated with the correct leftist view.
We see that tactic all the time when white liberals defend Bill Clinton.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Tulsi is a paleocon finally revealing to the five people she successfully grifted who she is. Her views are literally just Tucker Carlson minus the climate change denial.
Other than, you know, running a campaign that vastly outperformed both of them. And running on policies they refuse to back is challenging them, even if it's not doing some WWE politics own on them at a debate.
Warren's snake moment happened a week or two before Iowa. It "shook" the Bernie campaign so hard it went out and won 3 or 4 states in a row.
Yeah, a popular two-term president working behind the scenes get every centrist candidate (but not Warren) to drop out and immediately endorse Biden screams "inept."
yeah Bernie wanted to run on his policies not on legendary dunks
deleted by creator
He very clearly distinguished himself from the rest of the candidates -- what are you even talking about here?
deleted by creator
Ironically the floor vote of M4A would only make that worse. All the fakers who cosponsored M4A can vote for M4A and avoid primary challenges , but when they run for higher office then they'll find the need to be "pragmatic" and not scare off the donors. But the votors can point to their vote, they voted for M4A
Assuming Republicans hold the Senate, every single House Democrat could vote for M4A and we still wouldn't get it.
Now if Democrats win the Senate, OK, then the House vote might make sense. You still would likely end up having 2-3 safe Democrats vote against it to tank the bill, but it could be spun as a strong showing of support at a high level. However, it could also be spun as a rejection of M4A, which might set the project back.
Exactly! Even if Democrats take the Senate but keep the filibuster, you would need 10 Republican votes for M4A.
And with the current House majority, you need only 5 Dems to tank it in the House.
Good point on the filibuster. Unless the Biden-led Democrats go nuclear (lol), we could easily see a result where every single congressional Democrat votes for M4A and we still don't get it. Now the Democratic ghouls can all run on voting for a popular policy, and (assuming the party loses more seats in 2022) the issue will be spiked until 2024 at the earliest. I'm not seeing this as a do-or-die issue.
I bet those people would tell you Bernie was too far left for them. However you slice it, Bernie distinguished himself.
Plus, no one supported Harris in the primary (she dropped out in December 2019), so either the folks you heard that from are out of touch themselves, or they were giving you the Democratic Party line after she was picked as VP.
deleted by creator
Who are these "Harris is a progressive who supports M4A" folks you're talking about, and when did you speak to them? Because she had near-zero support until she got the VP nod, which was long after Bernie dropped out.
deleted by creator
So we're talking about sometime around November 2019. Nearly two months before the primary and almost a full year before the actual election. The only people paying attention at that point were the ones who obsessively follow politics. Of course "normal" people hadn't really looked into her.
None of this translates into "Bernie should have been more negative about Harris's record as a prosecutor." The proof is in the pudding -- her campaign collapsed before 2020 even started. She never had any real support, and there was no upside to punching at a paper target.
deleted by creator
Not at all -- they tried this with Bernie and it wasn't enough. It took the type of backroom dealing that's not always possible to do him in.
Competency isn't binary. They weren't competent enough to strangle Bernie in his crib, but they were competent enough to circle the wagons at the last minute. They can't always do this -- see the 2016 Republican primary, where the party didn't get its shit together fast enough to stop an outsider who they all openly despised.
No one's saying you can't criticize Bernie's campaign. It's just that criticism has to be grounded in reality to be worth anything. For example, criticizing the campaign over the Warren attack is flat-out laughable because it so obviously had no effect (Bernie immediately proceeded to have one of the best starts in primary history).
Bernie stayed silent about Assange persecution and paid some lip service to Russiagate hysteria
deleted by creator
Ralph Nader didn't have to and he's the most successful american politician in terms of policy he passed and the amount of people he help through lawmaking. EPA, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, seatbelts. Believe in electoralism, get dunked. lenin.jpg
deleted by creator
Nader's activism successes occurred before neoliberalism took root in both parties, he never held an elected office, and he ate shit in every presidential race he ran.
Nader has undeniable policy achievements that helped you and me, our parents and our kids.
Bernie after 40 years in politics barely had any other than some inconsequential dissenting votes on the losing side (Iraq) and piling in on the wrong side of history (Kosovo war, Crime bill).
Maybe you should consider activism and direct action instead of electoralism
Activism has never achieved anything close to socialism in any context. It's good, it can do real things, but like any approach it has limits. We're not going to do impact litigation or awareness campaigns and get worker ownership of the means of production.
Bernie is largely the reason Medicare for All and socialism are mainstream political topics, which is a prerequisite to actually making them happen.
Sure Lenin was not an activist at all. He was just a lawmaker in the Russian Empire, got elected and passed a law to kindly ask the Russian royal family to step down. Sure, activism has never achieved anything close to socialism, yet every revolution in history ever started by activists.
Comparing Ralph Nader to Lenin? In my chapo dot chat?
Get the fuck out of town
What happened to activism never achieved anything eh>
Ralph Nader is not Lenin. Someone needs to log off for a while
Stop strawmanning. You said that activism has never achieved anything close to socialism. Lenin showed that activism can. Both Lenin and Nader use activism to be the change they wanted in the world. Bernie used electoralism, played politics and get btfo
nader isn’t lenin log off
the fact that this is downvoted when the "activism" in question is NADER, who is then immediately being compared to LENIN really goes to show that some chapos have reading comprehension skills on par with the average pre-k student.
learn to context you fucking noodles
None of that has anything to do with him wiping the floor with Rat Boy and Top Cop Kamala.
Jimmy just likes people who sound angry and are vaguely talking about the issues he cares about (and it doesn't hurt if they are willing to go on his show or give him a plug). That's why he can can sing the praises of Tucker Carlson even tho he is just being a fascist coopting populist grievances for fascists ends. Or why he supports Tulsi over Bernie.
deleted by creator
This comment is a textbook example of using PoC's preferences (as you estimate them) as a stand- in for legitimacy in your reasoning.
And is the ultimate "white college educated middle class" thing to do.
A lot of Black women are inspired to be politically engaged by Neera Tanden. Does that mean Neera Tanden is good?
This line of rhetoric is very patronizing at best, objectifying at worse.
"Before I make my argument, let me just say, I have lots of Black friends..."
deleted by creator
Your personal experience is that you think Jimmy Dore has some sort of positive impact on leftist discourse or exposure and shouldn't be disregarded out of hand.
That's fine, that's an opinion, and I'm sure people would be interested to hear you out on it.
The rest was your guess at other people's personal experiences and painting your opinion as the "Black-approved" one, which is then equated with the correct leftist view.
We see that tactic all the time when white liberals defend Bill Clinton.
deleted by creator