RihRihGirrrl Posted January 25 Posted January 25 (edited) On 1/25/2025 at 3:25 AM, Relampago. said: Honestly with how unqualified and incompetent the appointees are, I wouldn't be surprised if the admin just implodes on itself. They can "yes man" Trump all they want, but when **** inevitably hits the fan even worse than it already has, Trump will be looking for someone to scapegoat and this clown circus of appointees will likely be first on the chopping block. Expand Oh there will definitely be lots of back stabbing and finger pointing throughout this term....I would not be surprised if Vance doesn't make it through the 4 years lol. He seems like a non factor already with Elon being Trump's right hand and all Edited January 25 by RihRihGirrrl 1
ClashAndBurn Posted January 25 Posted January 25 On 1/25/2025 at 2:38 AM, Harrier said: Certain users argue that the next democratic presidential candidate should be Rashida Tlaib because she is the most leftist elected politican out there and thus palatable to their own beleifs. Expand Genuinely have no words for this absurd claim. Not a single leftist here has ever argued that Rashida should be a presidential candidate due to the fact that Islamophobia alone would be an insurmountable barrier, as well as the fact that members of her own party consider her a literal terrorist and threw her under the bus the first chance they got. 2
Elusive Chanteuse Posted January 25 Posted January 25 On 1/25/2025 at 2:57 AM, Vermillion said: Hegseth confirmed as defense secretary - Vance broke the tie 51-50 as I predicted Expand I am hoping 4 years of this is enough and it backfires on the GOP. This man is a disgrace.
CandyCoatedClouds Posted January 25 Posted January 25 I didn't realize RFK Jr. And his nonsense policies had so much appeal to the American public. So many people who would have otherwise not voted, or voted for Kamala, or would have split the ticket and still allowed Kamala to win ending up voting for Donald. It pisses me off greatly because it's the governments fault for allowing this amount of distrust to bleed into the public consciousness like this. Now we have idiots like Jewel and the Jonas brothers who'd otherwise have not voted, or maybe have voted for RFK that voted for Trump... because of RFK Jr. This country is so unserious all the time.
Rep2000 Posted January 25 Posted January 25 On 1/25/2025 at 2:51 AM, Relampago. said: It's quite the opposite actually. No one is deflecting from. It's actually "See how awful this is? This is exactly what we feared and what we tried to call out during Biden's admin. The consequences of allowing Democrats to run on the platform of being the party of 'lesser evil' results in their evils being built upon when takes office!" That is the narrative here. Why do liberals want people to only point out how bad is anyways? Don't we all already know that? The disagreement comes in with Biden, Harris and other establishment Dems being awful, so that's why it gets brought up more. Funny enough though, when people point out how bad is already, it turns into "see, this is what leftists caused/wanted!" It's blatantly obvious to me that many people just want to deflect from Biden and Harris's failures, rather than leftists trying to deflect from's heinous acts. I just can't understand why people are so dedicated to defending a party who is ready to ship them off to sea the moment it becomes increasingly popular to do so. The only explanation I can come up with is that maybe you and others feel that you *are* the Democratic Party and don't want to feel like you were wrong for supporting them or that these criticisms of the party are somehow inherently applicable to you. If that's the case, just know that's not true. This isn't some game of *** for tat or some exclusive club where you need to prove yourself a true progressive or something. It's really as simple as "Democrats' lackadaisical approach to governing and combating fascism is not working anymore and the people of the U.S. deserve better than to choose between mediocrity (at best) or fascism". Expand Let me introduce a new narrative if you can't see how unproductive this is: Hitler is now in power, but you still want to keep going back to Hindenburg. And I don't even want to defend Hindenburg. He has stopped being relevant to this conversation since he lost. And there's a difference between leftists and accelerationists. Can you tell the differences? 1
ATRL Moderator Bloo Posted January 25 ATRL Moderator Posted January 25 On 1/25/2025 at 4:57 AM, Rep2000 said: Let me introduce a new narrative if you can't see how unproductive this is: Hitler is now in power, but you still want to keep going back to Hindenburg. And I don't even want to defend Hindenburg. He has stopped being relevant to this conversation since he lost. And there's a difference between leftists and accelerationists. Can you tell the differences? Expand So, according to you, we should have no discussions about recent failures to beating Trumpism in hopes of learning from them to beat Trumpism in 2028? There an age old adage about this; I think goes something like: Quote Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. Expand 6 3 1
Elusive Chanteuse Posted January 25 Posted January 25 I don't have hope anyone is beating trumpism in 2028. No one watches the actual news and facts, social media is run by all ring wingers now (except reddit) and the progressive/leftists will continue to attack the next nominee in two years for the same reasons they always have. Its an uphill battle. I'm not sure if dems can even take the senate seats back in 2026. I'm honestly thinking about moving but right wing populism is everywhere now. 1
Vroom Vroom Posted January 25 Posted January 25 On 1/25/2025 at 5:01 AM, Bloo said: So, according to you, we should have no discussions about recent failures to beating Trumpism in hopes of learning from them to beat Trumpism in 2028? There an age old adage about this; I think goes something like: Expand The only thing that gives me hope that Trumpism will die when Trump leaves office is that Trumpism only works for Trump. The biggest MAGA candidates always lose in swing states, even when Trump is on the ballot with them. No one is able to successfully replicate Trump's appeal to independent voters But Vance already soft launched a new version of Trumpism during his debate with Walz. Trumpism hidden behind smiles and slightly rebranded It's scary to think about what the political landscape will be in 2028. Is this how democrats felt at the beginning of Reagan's second term? Shapiro is on track to be Dukakis 2.0 (A popular, at least in his home state, Democrat governor from a swing state that loses against the vp of the elderly incumbent mega conservative president) 1
Harrier Posted January 25 Posted January 25 On 1/25/2025 at 4:18 AM, ClashAndBurn said: Genuinely have no words for this absurd claim. Not a single leftist here has ever argued that Rashida should be a presidential candidate due to the fact that Islamophobia alone would be an insurmountable barrier, as well as the fact that members of her own party consider her a literal terrorist and threw her under the bus the first chance they got. Expand On 11/10/2024 at 10:37 AM, Harrier said: If what am saying isn't true, why not run Rashia Tlaib? On 11/9/2024 at 11:47 PM, Communion said: This would actually be perfect. Truly the only protege worthy of Bernie's legacy. Expand I'll fully own up to the fact that my post is a bit of a subtweet at Communion as part of my endless pointless war against our good Maoist sis, but yall never fight each other so eh
ATRL Moderator Bloo Posted January 25 ATRL Moderator Posted January 25 On 1/25/2025 at 6:13 AM, Harrier said: On 11/10/2024 at 10:37 AM, Harrier said: If what am saying isn't true, why not run Rashia Tlaib? I'll fully own up to the fact that my post is a bit of a subtweet at Communion as part of my endless pointless war against our good Maoist sis, but yall never fight each other so eh Expand You really need to learn the difference between an argument and a rhetorical “sure, why not?” 1
Harrier Posted January 25 Posted January 25 On 1/25/2025 at 3:07 AM, Relampago. said: I really hate that everything people say is blatantly misrepresented like this. Every leftist is an uncompromising, chronically-online brat who only exists to get what they want at the expense of the people they claim to want to help. I seriously believe 99% of the progressives on ATRL have all agreed that supporting a single-payer national healthcare system would be a huge step forward. Like, that's literally the bare minimum. I haven't seen anyone claim we need to immediately go full communism to win. It's literally just asking Democrats to support already popular policy in M4A, raising the minimum wage and promoting green energy while also pressuring the fracking and big oil companies. Ending genocide and stopping the endless wars would be nice too, but I know that's simply too much to ask sometimes. Literally no one is trying to take joy in what Trump is doing, not that you're accusing anyone of doing this, but it's more than a petty "I told you so!" it's a "Hey, this isn't ****ing working and we have to stop putting up with it ASAP because society is ****ing rotting." And to top it all off, Democrats have been moving right. I thought Harris had a decent shot to win, even though I was pretty certain Trump would win by the end of it all. Nobody in this thread was upset when that Selzer poll showing Harris +3 was dropped. We all generally wanted her over Trump even though she wasn't our fave. But the total humiliation and rejection of her campaign showed us that our compromising on voting for the lesser evil now wasn't even a viable winning option— the main argument for running candidates like Clinton, Biden and Harris, despite the fact candidates like Sanders had good polls against Trump too. So with the argument of running winning campaigns from the center right gone, and the mutual understanding that something has to change, why would we *not* want Democrats to move left? It bears repeating that the response from many liberal media pundits and even Democrats themselves was that the Harris campaign was "too woke" and too attached to trans/non-binary issues. No acknowledgement of other, actually meaningful shortcomings, just an immediate rejection of two groups that Democrats said they would support and defend. I don't know how anyone could want that, let alone continue to chase Republicans to the right in that direction. No one is asking the 2028 candidate to hop on Twitter and start making their platform based on the 🌹 accounts. It's literally as simple as starting with saying **** the current leadership, and pushing for popular programs that help the increasing population of struggling people in this country. Yes, leftists ask for alot. Because when you ask for a slice of bread, you get crumbs. When you ask for a loaf of bread, you can have a couple pieces of bread instead. That's negotiation 101. If you don't think that's a viable strategy, more power to you. But what I don't think is a viable strategy is supporting a party that either refuses to change or if they do change, they'd rather move right at the expense of myself and voters like me. Expand I hear what youre saying here and I should apologise in that sense that a lot of my post was not directed at you personally. Lets look at history to speak to the problem I'm talking about. Pro Sanders leftists & strident campaign surrogates ended the non aggression pact with the Elizabeth Warren campaign when she had momentum over... that her pay for medical for all wasn't good enough. Helped blunt her momentum as the first person to pass Biden in the polls. Then the Warren campaign, flailing and grumpy with some dumb sense of bretrayal, tried to undermine the Sanders campaign by... painting him as a sexist. Laughable. Then stubbornly refused to drop out. There is no path for a left wing that is so insanely purist and factional that the Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders cannot find enough common ground and end up at war. I'm about to receive replies telling me that Warren isn't even really a leftist - she isn't and neither is Bernie - or that she was some trojan horse to siphon progressive votes, whatever other conspiratorial nonsense. This in itself is reflective of the mentality I will continue to fight against. There was so much absurd hair splitting in the 2020 primary and that will happen again because the left learned nothing from the moderates defeating them. 1
GraceRandolph Posted January 25 Posted January 25 On 1/24/2025 at 6:08 PM, Bloo said: Frankly, I am of the opinion that I would prefer to see someone who has never held political office before. Expand 4
GraceRandolph Posted January 25 Posted January 25 On 1/24/2025 at 8:33 PM, Vroom Vroom said: Out of the possible 2028 candidates that we know of right now, Kamala seems to be the least evil Maybe Dems will have better luck in 2032 Watching Harris, Fetterman, Newsom, Shapiro and Pritzker debate is going to be soul crushing. Progressives will probably rally around Beshear but I don't think he will be able to go toe to toe with the previously mentioned names. Whitmer is kind of in the same boat, and it kind of looks like she is not interested in running for the presidency Expand Yeah none of these names are going to appeal to anyone not already a VBNMW type. 1
Recommended Posts