I understand and respect optics arguments, but I think this is why I don’t know that we agree to the degree you think we do.
It seems that you think we should be cautious of the optics of unjustly invoking phasing that you don’t feel is justified for the democratic party. To put it a bit more plainly it seems that you are quicker to try and reframe it in such a way that the criticism is not applicable for democrats. To me it seems utterly vital that we use language that is both true and harsh. Openly means without the secret channels governments often use, and nothing about the dems support of Israel is obtuse.
I think this is vital because I don’t think we can let slip the genocidal support of the previous administration be forgotten in the haze of the terrors of the current one.
The democratic party is a vicious and evil group that in the face of massive mounting evidence, continued to defend, and fund an on going genocide. In an age of perpetual wars and bombings, our ‘progressive’ party claimed they would ensure we would have “the most lethal military in the world.”
I don’t want to shy away from this because I think they are blood thirsty people, and should be portrayed as such, especially when it’s literally true.
If you imagine (fantasize, really) about a pragmatic person with liberal ideas, what party would they join? I think Democrat. I just don’t want to classify all those people as evil.
Clearly we disagree on somethings but the important things are:
genocide, bad
democratic Party, not great (at least)
That’s a fair point, and I accept your argument. Honestly, I’ll think on it more.
My point isn’t so much about the party they should ‘join’. I know we are having this conversation in the context of a country that largely aware of the different parties and broadly what they feel about them. Be seeing as this a time of necessary reflection for the democratic party, and in turn reflection for their base, I think it’s worth looking harshly at what they really were before the currently administration. That a party that was offered as pro-worker, anti-war, pro-immigration, pro-trans issues, has become a party of, ‘strike breaking’, ‘most lethal military’, ‘tough on illegals’, and ‘following the law’.
I think it’s valid to classify many in the party as evil because they are either doing evil or capitulating to it, and we need to have a conversation about how much about them needs to change.
I understand and respect optics arguments, but I think this is why I don’t know that we agree to the degree you think we do.
It seems that you think we should be cautious of the optics of unjustly invoking phasing that you don’t feel is justified for the democratic party. To put it a bit more plainly it seems that you are quicker to try and reframe it in such a way that the criticism is not applicable for democrats. To me it seems utterly vital that we use language that is both true and harsh. Openly means without the secret channels governments often use, and nothing about the dems support of Israel is obtuse.
I think this is vital because I don’t think we can let slip the genocidal support of the previous administration be forgotten in the haze of the terrors of the current one.
The democratic party is a vicious and evil group that in the face of massive mounting evidence, continued to defend, and fund an on going genocide. In an age of perpetual wars and bombings, our ‘progressive’ party claimed they would ensure we would have “the most lethal military in the world.”
I don’t want to shy away from this because I think they are blood thirsty people, and should be portrayed as such, especially when it’s literally true.
If you imagine (fantasize, really) about a pragmatic person with liberal ideas, what party would they join? I think Democrat. I just don’t want to classify all those people as evil.
Clearly we disagree on somethings but the important things are:
That’s a fair point, and I accept your argument. Honestly, I’ll think on it more.
My point isn’t so much about the party they should ‘join’. I know we are having this conversation in the context of a country that largely aware of the different parties and broadly what they feel about them. Be seeing as this a time of necessary reflection for the democratic party, and in turn reflection for their base, I think it’s worth looking harshly at what they really were before the currently administration. That a party that was offered as pro-worker, anti-war, pro-immigration, pro-trans issues, has become a party of, ‘strike breaking’, ‘most lethal military’, ‘tough on illegals’, and ‘following the law’.
I think it’s valid to classify many in the party as evil because they are either doing evil or capitulating to it, and we need to have a conversation about how much about them needs to change.
Fair enough.
Full disclosure: I’m not American.
Good to know, I am sorry our politics are such a fucking problem for everyone!
Hopefully, us rational people will get through this! Hope you have a nice day!
You as well!