Human nature has nothing to do with it, and whoever gave you that theory was selling something.
“Progressives” are a form of liberal that seek to preserve the status quo by allowing minor alterations to relieve the pressure of the system’s internal contradictions. “Conservatives”, in contrast, are liberals who want to preserve the status quo by enforcing its hierarchies against whoever they perceive as being an outside influence.
Classical Liberals, the whole lot of them.
Because that would explain why you can’t smell the fascism in genocide…
Because that would explain why you can’t smell the fascism in genocide…
Do you have Covid?
And it’s backfiring, which is part of why the Democrats are going to win the presidency in this election.
We know the Democrats aren’t going to do anything to stop Israel, so the only real question left is whether or not the Republican party will fracture after Trump loses again.
I’m a single-issue anti-genocide voter. My political ideal is a mashup of Library Socialism and Anarchism. The election can’t be subverted, it’s already been decided that Harris is winning.
I might as well have been quoting the wikipedia article:
I only have one vote for the Presidential seat and it is entirely symbolic because I don’t live in a swing state.
You say we need to capture the party, but I’m watching it be captured by “moderate” Republicans who suddenly seem very eager to endorse Harris.
This election didn’t have a primary, so it sounds like there never was a chance for a “real push”.
If we’re not allowed to be realistic about our expectations, then yes it very much is toxic positivity.
Discussing such activities is illegal in the USA.
“Those guys” are part of the problem, voting for them before they stop helping genocide the Palestinians does not incentivize them to stop being part of the problem.
My encouragement to you is to do more than just voting. It’s necessary but insufficient on its own.
You misunderstand, I’m trying to point out that a “Democracy” that offers only the illusion of choice is anything but.
There’s nothing anti-democratic about having a “dangerous” option on the ballot, but if there’s only one “safe” candidate then there is no real choice to be made and democracy is impossible.
If there’s only one option to “save democracy”, then democracy is already dead.
Not great, so people should continue to apply pressure.
Cool. Tell all your Democrat friends that they can have my vote when they start doing the bare minimum and embargo arms sales to Israel.
How’s Palestine going?
Don’t misunderstand, part of me is glad that it’s going to be Harris and Walz, but I have to be realistic with my expectations. A slightly slower crawl towards fascism and mass climatic genocide seems the best I should expect, but I would love to be pleasantly surprised.
It’s a fait accompli.
Time to start planning for another business-friendly Democrat administration. It probably won’t have majorities in both houses, but it wouldn’t matter much even if they did manage to pull that off. Bipartisanship is the name of the Democrat game, and the next question is whether the Republican remnant will play ball or fall into infighting after whatever bloody nonsense their nutjobs get up to this time.
The root cause is immaterial, because those people don’t like Trump. They like an idea of who Trump is, an idea that is informed almost exclusively by PR teams and marketing campaigns.
The appropriate way to “deal with” people who are trapped in a media filter bubble is to ignore them. They are of no consequence until they try to leave their bubble and interact with those outside it, at which point they are forced to either come to terms with their deception or else double-down and retreat even deeper into it.