Democrats, liberals, and progressives have become some of the biggest hawks in Washington.

[King Kreole]

The Iraq War was not good and was unnecessary

However, in trying to demonize Democrats for voting for the "war" you ignore the fact that it would have been political suicide to do so at the time, which would have led to an even greater GOP infestation in US politics.

And the Obama approach, drone strikes, which minimizes the amount of US personnel casualties that would occur otherwise, was the best approach, as simply "leaving" would not only destabilize those regions even more, but would put US Military in danger.

Like I said, shortsighted...

I reject the entire framing of your narrative.

By invoking "political suicide", you're placing political gamesmanship above any moral consideration, which only furthers the widespread belief of politics as simply a bourgeois game of winning and losing played by elites with nothing on the line. I mean, supporting civil rights in the 1950s and 1960s was political suicide for many, but we laud them for their moral courage, and righteously cast aspersions on those who didn't for their moral cowardice. At great moral inflection points, such as the lead up to this unending "War on Terror", having Democrats' primary motivation be leaning into the evil so as to save their own seats is an inexcusable symptom of total political failure. "In order to prevent a greater GOP infestation in US politics, we must become like the GOP" is some galaxy brain shyt. There is absolutely no reason to ascribe some hidden moral long-term gameplan to these people when they're literally being paid by military industrial complex lobbyists to vote for these heinous policies. America's national religion is Military Supremacy and American Exceptionalism, and the Democrats worship at that altar side-by-side with Republicans.

And if you want to talk about shortsightedness, this approach to politics erodes the long-term legitimacy and trust in the democratic process, choking out the participatory lifeblood of democracy, which has lead to the current political circumstance. It's a large reason why America has one of the worst democracies in the West. Trump didn't happen by accident, the path was cleared by these actions and ways of thinking by Democrats who should have been a bulwark against it.

As for your reference to Obama's inhumane and illegal program of drone war crimes, in many ways, I would have preferred the boots on the ground. Having Americans coming back in body bags brings the issue to the fore in a more undeniable way than Obama obfuscating the cost of faceless thousands being indiscriminately exterminated from the sky because they are brown and don't speak English and occupy a home that America sees geopolitical value in. So not only did he refuse to challenge the underlying problems with American foreign policy, he exacerbated them by veiling them. You're regurgitating military industrial complex paternalistic propaganda by insinuating that these nations and peoples should be forbidden from determining their own current and future state of affairs. That you instinctively frame it in costs to American lives and the American military is testament to this.

 

[ExodusNirvana]

I reject the entire framing of your narrative.

By invoking "political suicide", you're placing political gamesmanship above any moral consideration, which only furthers the widespread belief of politics as simply a bourgeois game of winning and losing played by elites with nothing on the line. I mean, supporting civil rights in the 1950s and 1960s was political suicide for many, but we laud them for their moral courage, and righteously cast aspersions on those who didn't for their moral cowardice. At great moral inflection points, such as the lead up to this unending "War on Terror", having Democrats' primary motivation be leaning into the evil so as to save their own seats is an inexcusable symptom of total political failure. "In order to prevent a greater GOP infestation in US politics, we must become like the GOP" is some galaxy brain shyt. There is absolutely no reason to ascribe some hidden moral long-term gameplan to these people when they're literally being paid by military industrial complex lobbyists to vote for these heinous policies. America's national religion is Military Supremacy and American Exceptionalism, and the Democrats worship at that altar side-by-side with Republicans.

And if you want to talk about shortsightedness, this approach to politics erodes the long-term legitimacy and trust in the democratic process, choking out the participatory lifeblood of democracy, which has lead to the current political circumstance. It's a large reason why America has one of the worst democracies in the West. Trump didn't happen by accident, the path was cleared by these actions and ways of thinking by Democrats who should have been a bulwark against it.

As for your reference to Obama's inhumane and illegal program of drone war crimes, in many ways, I would have preferred the boots on the ground. Having Americans coming back in body bags brings the issue to the fore in a more undeniable way than Obama obfuscating the cost of faceless thousands being indiscriminately exterminated from the sky because they are brown and don't speak English and occupy a home that America sees geopolitical value in. So not only did he refuse to challenge the underlying problems with American foreign policy, he exacerbated them by veiling them. You're regurgitating military industrial complex paternalistic propaganda by insinuating that these nations and peoples should be forbidden from determining their own current and future state of affairs. That you instinctively frame it in costs to American lives and the American military is testament to this.

All of this doesn't change the fact that I'm correct, that any Dem, voting against the Iraq War or Afghanistan, during a period in American politics where voting against those military actions would be political suicide.

This post is just a more fleshed out essay on just HOW shortsighted you are in terms of American political history and the current political landscape. It's naivety breh, plain and simple.

If you were talking about gerrymandering, voter suppression, yeah you might have a point. Perhaps if certain districts were redrawn in certain ways that would allow more progressive candidates as representatives...but such is not the case here

This is what I mean when I say that I like Liz Warren, but she has no chance of winning the WH. You wanna play the game of politics, but you keep trying to change the rules in the 4th Quarter and you not up! You're down by like 20!

It doesn't work that way, fam. And it never has. You are speaking the words of a man who does not understand American politics and has a narrow view of geopolitics in general.

It's literally one of the reasons why Trump is President right now.

You just don't understand American politics

 

[King Kreole]

All of this doesn't change the fact that I'm correct, that any Dem, voting against the Iraq War or Afghanistan, during a period in American politics where voting against those military actions would be political suicide.

Barbara Lee was the sole nay vote in the House for AUMF, is still standing, and is in fact now a frontrunner for next Speaker because she has the credibility by taking the moral stand

This post is just a more fleshed out essay on just HOW shortsighted you are in terms of American political history and the current political landscape. It's naivety breh, plain and simple.

If you were talking about gerrymandering, voter suppression, yeah you might have a point. Perhaps if certain districts were redrawn in certain ways that would allow more progressive candidates as representatives...but such is not the case here

This is what I mean when I say that I like Liz Warren, but she has no chance of winning the WH. You wanna play the game of politics, but you keep trying to change the rules in the 4th Quarter and you not up! You're down by like 20!

It doesn't work that way, fam. And it never has. You are speaking the words of a man who does not understand American politics and has a narrow view of geopolitics in general.

It's literally one of the reasons why Trump is President right now.

You just don't understand American politics

I don' think it's shortsightedness breh, I acknowledge your way of thinking was the status quo for the past, oh, 30 or so years amongst People Who Know™. It's the entire reason we're in the place we're in now. What I'm trying to explain to you is that you're still trying to abide by conventional logic in unconventional times. Your way of looking at politics is outdated. Not only does this centrist, placating Republicans shyt produce Republican outcomes, nowadays it gets you killed in the primaries because the people who have been purposefully harmed by it are waking up. Like, your ideology never contends with the fact that American voter participation rates are some of the lowest in the "developed" world. You've capitulated to Republicans by letting them define and frame the discourse around populations beneficial to them. "We can't run a progressive because this is a conservative country. We can't vote against AUMF because Serious Thinkers will call us fools." It's a weakness and fear of power endemic to the Democratic Party and their thought leaders that is self-defeating at best, and intentionally designed to squash the democratic power of those they're claiming to represent at worst.

For anyone legitimately looking to wield power to progressive ends, this centrist shyt is a sucker's game being peddled by Republicans. Anyway, don't take my word for it, take OG historian Rick Perlstein's: How Can the Democrats Win?

Thing never change...until they do.

 

[ExodusNirvana]

Barbara Lee was the sole nay vote in the House for AUMF, is still standing, and is in fact now a frontrunner for next Speaker because she has the credibility by taking the moral stand


I don' think it's shortsightedness breh, I acknowledge your way of thinking was the status quo for the past, oh, 30 or so years amongst People Who Know™. It's the entire reason we're in the place we're in now. What I'm trying to explain to you is that you're still trying to abide by conventional logic in unconventional times. Your way of looking at politics is outdated. Not only does this centrist, placating Republicans shyt produce Republican outcomes, nowadays it gets you killed in the primaries because the people who have been purposefully harmed by it are waking up. Like, your ideology never contends with the fact that American voter participation rates are some of the lowest in the "developed" world. You've capitulated to Republicans by letting them define and frame the discourse around populations beneficial to them. "We can't run a progressive because this is a conservative country. We can't vote against AUMF because Serious Thinkers will call us fools." It's a weakness and fear of power endemic to the Democratic Party and their thought leaders that is self-defeating at best, and intentionally designed to squash the democratic power of those they're claiming to represent at worst.

For anyone legitimately looking to wield power to progressive ends, this centrist shyt is a sucker's game being peddled by Republicans. Anyway, don't take my word for it, take OG historian Rick Perlstein's: How Can the Democrats Win?

Thing never change...until they do.

You should do some more research on Barbara Lee's district. It is solidly Blue and it's in Oakland. She has very little chance of losing that seat barring some unforeseen shyt. Also, she wasn't against military action, she was against writing a blank check for war. Two very different things.

Moving along...

Donald Trump is President

Let's say the Russians DID'NT interfere in the elections. Let's say Gerrymandering and Voter Suppression wasn't a factor.

Conventional Logic dictates that Hillary should have gone to the places in MI, WI, FL, and PA where Bernie won and her numbers were low. But she didn't. And thus, she lost those states. Morals had little to do with it.

And it's not a weakness or fear....it's American politics. Which you do not understand.

Hillary Clinton (and I acknowledge foreign interference being a factor) tried your method. And she failed.

You disliking her doesn't make it any less true...and for the record, I did NOT vote for her in November.

 

[King Kreole]

You should do some more research on Barbara Lee's district. It is solidly Blue and it's in Oakland. She has very little chance of losing that seat barring some unforeseen shyt. Also, she wasn't against military action, she was against writing a blank check for war. Two very different things.

Again, this argument avoids the fundamental truth about lack of democratic access in America. Yes, Lee has been representing a solidly Blue district (there are a lot of solidly blue districts, and she was the only one to vote against AUMF, so what were the others' excuse), my point is that the centrist logic of appealing to this Republican myth of conservative national character is suppressing the true national character from coming out. You should do some research of voter turnout and what it looks like in many of these Purple/Red districts. Racially and economically marginalized people have been systematically suppressed from exercising their democratic rights, and instead of using that fact to energize and engage these citizens, the Democratic logic of this past era has been to write them off and play on the Republican-defined field. Looking at States/Districts of these Dems who vote for hawkish policies, what percent of their constituents are helped by those hawkish votes? The homeless, the jobless, the disenfranchised, the discriminated against, what message is being sent to them about the democratic process when their political representatives in the Democratic Party do this shyt? It's self-defeating for Democrats long-term.

Let's say the Russians DID'NT interfere in the elections. Let's say Gerrymandering and Voter Suppression wasn't a factor.

Conventional Logic dictates that Hillary should have gone to the places in MI, WI, FL, and PA where Bernie won and her numbers were low. But she didn't. And thus, she lost those states. Morals had little to do with it.

And it's not a weakness or fear....it's American politics. Which you do not understand.

Hillary Clinton (and I acknowledge foreign interference being a factor) tried your method. And she failed.

You disliking her doesn't make it any less true...and for the record, I did NOT vote for her in November.

My point is that morals did have a lot to do with why she didn't go to those places. These are places that have been disproportionally harmed by the existing order, and she wrote them off because she wasn't able to make a credible, moral case for her policies there because her policies weren't based in morality. She followed the logic you're prescribing of following Republicans around and letting them set the terms of power, and racked up a shytty record for the majority of non-elites in doing so. Bernie hasn't done so, which is why he was able to make that argument credibly. The entire basis of his campaign and movement was morality. Hers was the political expediency that led her, and other Dems, to cast those votes in favour of AUMF and Iraq and a whole host of regressive policies that asphyxiated democracy in America to the point where Trump was viable. The problem is that both you and she have confused politics for power. The former is a game being played by the elites, the latter is the foundation of civic life. She didn't try my method, she tried yours, and she failed for it. "Universal healthcare will never, ever come to pass" was framed as the Smart Way™ to avoid the political suicide of supporting big, moral, leftist ideas. The same basic logic you're using to justify Democrats enabling war crimes is the same basic logic her people used. Her whole campaign was tut-tutting leftists for being naive and childish (read: too moral) because they didn't understand how politics truly works, which is back-door deals with Republicans. Meanwhile, Trump embraced the anti-political power of big ideas and that's why he's in 1600 and Hillary is at home pining. This immoral shyt only works when things are going well for people in general. When shyt hits the fan, people start to realize this shyt isn't a game, and revile people who treat it as such.

 

[ExodusNirvana]

My point is that morals did have a lot to do with why she didn't go to those places. These are places that have been disproportionally harmed by the existing order, and she wrote them off because she wasn't able to make a credible, moral case for her policies there because her policies weren't based in morality. She followed the logic you're prescribing of following Republicans around and letting them set the terms of power, and racked up a shytty record for the majority of non-elites in doing so. Bernie hasn't done so, which is why he was able to make that argument credibly. The entire basis of his campaign and movement was morality. Hers was the political expediency that led her, and other Dems, to cast those votes in favour of AUMF and Iraq and a whole host of regressive policies that asphyxiated democracy in America to the point where Trump was viable. The problem is that both you and she have confused politics for power. The former is a game being played by the elites, the latter is the foundation of civic life. She didn't try my method, she tried yours, and she failed for it. "Universal healthcare will never, ever come to pass" was framed as the Smart Way™ to avoid the political suicide of supporting big, moral, leftist ideas. The same basic logic you're using to justify Democrats enabling war crimes is the same basic logic her people used. Her whole campaign was tut-tutting leftists for being naive and childish (read: too moral) because they didn't understand how politics truly works, which is back-door deals with Republicans. Meanwhile, Trump embraced the anti-political power of big ideas and that's why he's in 1600 and Hillary is at home pining. This immoral shyt only works when things are going well for people in general. When shyt hits the fan, people start to realize this shyt isn't a game, and revile people who treat it as such.

Breh did you pay attention to that campaign at all or do you just really NOT like the Democratic Party?

The man insulted every single demographic except White Christian Males. He didn't win because of morals. He won because he appealed to white voters xenophobia (Hillary wants open borders), the idea that all Americans are just temporarily embarrassed millionaires (tax cuts for the rich), and the idea that Hillary Clinton is a bytch or thinks that she's better than you.

There was no morality there. He made boasts about what he could do for the country, with no explanation how to do these things, and he insulted everyone along the way.

She lost because she couldn't convince the people to vote for her in the places that Trump won and because she didn't campaign enough in those places.

She lost because she DID'NT play politics and thought she could cruise to victory just because she was more qualified than Trump, which, as you can see, did not pan out.

SHE tried the morals route, ie. "deplorables" and was punished for it.

He took advantage of the fact that the average American voter is a dummy...his big ideas only work on people who don't know better, which is where the election was won, by constantly visiting the places where people didn't know better.

You're Napoleon vs Russia right now...the winter isn't some condition that you can ignore just because you don't want to be part of the weather system.

 

[King Kreole]

Breh did you pay attention to that campaign at all or do you just really NOT like the Democratic Party?

The man insulted every single demographic except White Christian Males. He didn't win because of morals. He won because he appealed to white voters xenophobia (Hillary wants open borders), the idea that all Americans are just temporarily embarrassed millionaires (tax cuts for the rich), and the idea that Hillary Clinton is a bytch or thinks that she's better than you.

There was no morality there. He made boasts about what he could do for the country, with no explanation how to do these things, and he insulted everyone along the way.

She lost because she couldn't convince the people to vote for her in the places that Trump won and because she didn't campaign enough in those places.

She lost because she DID'NT play politics and thought she could cruise to victory just because she was more qualified than Trump, which, as you can see, did not pan out.

SHE tried the morals route, ie. "deplorables" and was punished for it.

He took advantage of the fact that the average American voter is a dummy...his big ideas only work on people who don't know better, which is where the election was won, by constantly visiting the places where people didn't know better.

You're Napoleon vs Russia right now...the winter isn't some condition that you can ignore just because you don't want to be part of the weather system.

I'm talking about Bernie in the sentence you highlighted, not Trump. Trump's campaign was built on the foundation of power, Bernie's campaign was built on the foundation of morality (which is, itself, a form of power), and Hillary's campaign was built on the foundation of...politics. By politics, I mean the means-tested, consultant-generated, power-devoid, morally vacuous, status-quo gamesmanship of Washington, DC. It's the ideology of the entire political journalist class that sold her as an inevitability. She lost because there isn't a strong enough appetite for that politics in this current environment, and that's all she, and the Democratic establishment, knows how to do. The people that lost her the election are the ones that didn't come out because they see nothing morally inspiring in her message. Contrary to what the political journalism class has sold us, the "deplorables" statement was probably the closest she came to a winning message. Not because it was mean, but because it spoke to an underlying moral truth that the disaffected and disenfranchised masses can believe in. And to bring it full circle, she also didn't have the credibility to prosecute that case further because she has spent her entire career making immoral AUMF-type votes because she's an adherent to the ideology you're promoting. It's telling that she immediately apologized and dropped it and returned to her bland, centrist, morally-devoid nothingness.

To your point about the average voter and Trump, his big ideas "worked" because there was no other alternative in the political landscape. If I feel like I'm drowning, I'm going to grab whatever hand I can see. Hillary didn't even offer her hand.


And yes, I really do hate the Democratic Party. They're a totally feckless, hypocritical organization, and I'm glad they're being destroyed so something genuine and powerful can rise out of its ashes. At least Republicans work on behalf of their true constituents (White, Wealthy Men). Democrats just sit there and get slapped around because they're constitutionally incapable of wielding power.
That's a good Napoeleon reference though

 

[ExodusNirvana]

I'm talking about Bernie in the sentence you highlighted, not Trump. Trump's campaign was built on the foundation of power, Bernie's campaign was built on the foundation of morality (which is, itself, a form of power), and Hillary's campaign was built on the foundation of...politics. By politics, I mean the means-tested, consultant-generated, power-devoid, morally vacuous, status-quo gamesmanship of Washington, DC. It's the ideology of the entire political journalist class that sold her as an inevitability. She lost because there isn't a strong enough appetite for that politics in this current environment, and that's all she, and the Democratic establishment, knows how to do. The people that lost her the election are the ones that didn't come out because they see nothing morally inspiring in her message. Contrary to what the political journalism class has sold us, the "deplorables" statement was probably the closest she came to a winning message. Not because it was mean, but because it spoke to an underlying moral truth that the disaffected and disenfranchised masses can believe in. And to bring it full circle, she also didn't have the credibility to prosecute that case further because she has spent her entire career making immoral AUMF-type votes because she's an adherent to the ideology you're promoting. It's telling that she immediately apologized and dropped it and returned to her bland, centrist, morally-devoid nothingness.

To your point about the average voter and Trump, his big ideas "worked" because there was no other alternative in the political landscape. If I feel like I'm drowning, I'm going to grab whatever hand I can see. Hillary didn't even offer her hand.


And yes, I really do hate the Democratic Party. They're a totally feckless, hypocritical organization, and I'm glad they're being destroyed so something genuine and powerful can rise out of its ashes. At least Republicans work on behalf of their true constituents (White, Wealthy Men). Democrats just sit there and get slapped around because they're constitutionally incapable of wielding power.
That's a good Napoeleon reference though

You're right....I misread that as Trump and not Bernie

I still disagree, but we'll see over the course of the next year just how useless political gamesmanship truly is

As you can see, Liz Warren is learning that lesson early this go around