Jump to content

The Social Democrat & Democratic Socialist Thread 🌹


Buddy
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

 

Oh my GOD. They seriously had a full panel of right-wing reactionaries on today complaining about the overreach of environmentalism? I hate it here. :gaycat6: 

 

No Brie, no Olayemi, no Ryan. Instead they got BATYA. I can't :gaycat6: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 122
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • rihannabiggestfan

    15

  • ClashAndBurn

    34

  • Bloo

    9

  • Communion

    16

You know it's bad when we're missing RYAN :gaycat6: The Hill, sis...

Edited by rihannabiggestfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, rihannabiggestfan said:

You know it's bad when we're missing RYAN :gaycat6: The Hill, sis...

I guess The Hill didn't like how militant she was in defending transpeople from being deadnamed, so they've demoted her to just being a guest again. :gaycat6: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ATRL Moderator
2 hours ago, ClashAndBurn said:

I guess The Hill didn't like how militant she was in defending transpeople from being deadnamed, so they've demoted her to just being a guest again. :gaycat6: 

Shocking cause it made me watch Rising for the first time in months. Olayemi brought Rising some attention. :coffee2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bloo said:

Shocking cause it made me watch Rising for the first time in months. Olayemi brought Rising some attention. :coffee2:

The audience really hated her. They complained about her being combative and off-putting. Now they're celebrating because there's peace with three reactionaries on the panel and no actual left voice.

 

I dunno if Brie is also gone for good and Batya's here to stay or if she was just out for the week of July 4, but I guess we'll find out in about 9 hours. If Ryan Grim is really the only left-wing host left and he only shows up on Friday, then Rising really is dead-dead. :katie: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ATRL Moderator
8 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said:

The audience really hated her. They complained about her being combative and off-putting. Now they're celebrating because there's peace with three reactionaries on the panel and no actual left voice.

 

I dunno if Brie is also gone for good and Batya's here to stay or if she was just out for the week of July 4, but I guess we'll find out in about 9 hours. If Ryan Grim is really the only left-wing host left and he only shows up on Friday, then Rising really is dead-dead. :katie: 

I mean, it wouldn’t shock me. Krystal and Saagar’s audience after the Dem primary was nearly all right wingers (and their audience on Breaking Points is like that still). So it doesn’t surprise me that they inherited that problem. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bloo said:

I mean, it wouldn’t shock me. Krystal and Saagar’s audience after the Dem primary was nearly all right wingers (and their audience on Breaking Points is like that still). So it doesn’t surprise me that they inherited that problem. 

I just feel it reflects really badly on them that they'd can the two black women for being "loud, pushy, combative, etc." when literally what Robby and Kim were pushing for was the right to disrespect and dehumanize transpeople by deadnaming them with zero repercussions. That Muhammad Ali example Kim tried it with on Twitter was also really gross. :gaycat6: 

 

I still think the reason Krystal and Saagar went independent was because The Hill's editorial board wanted them to embrace Stop The Steal more. Youtube's algorithm woulda bopped them though, so :bibliahh:

 

It's the left's fault for tuning out and falling apart completely after Bernie's loss, I guess. There's really not even a market for us anymore, it feels like. :katie:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bloo said:

I mean, it wouldn’t shock me. Krystal and Saagar’s audience after the Dem primary was nearly all right wingers (and their audience on Breaking Points is like that still). So it doesn’t surprise me that they inherited that problem. 

And this is why I never agreed with the whole "left-wing populists aligning with right-wing populists" thing. Right-wing populists are just fascists. And if they ever did agree with the left on any economic goals like uplifting the working class, they would still never support any specific policies that would actually have that effect - which are only ever left wing policies and never right wing policies. Or even if they did support a few specific leftist policies such as raising taxes on the rich, they will still always only support right-wing politicians - who would never adopt those specific policies - over left-wing politicians. If "right-wing populists" were truly committed to economic populism, they would have sacrificed their views on cultural issues and supported the only true economically populist candidate in Bernie. But they chose to instead support a Hollywood/Vegas-esque billionaire who was born with a gold spoon in his mouth and is the definition of a coastal elite.

 

Now, that's not to say that I think anyone who considers themselves right-wing or has ever voted Republican should be written off. And if there is an opportunity to get them to support leftist goals they agree with us on, I'm all for that. But I do think these voters have to be approached in the right way. Unfortunately, I think certain leftist media figures such as Jimmy Dore have done quite the opposite of that. Krystal is guilty to an extent too, as much as I do like her and do think her intentions are good. (For the record, I also think she's been getting better.) Because they position themselves alongside righties and tell their audience "Democrats bad", but where we often take "and Republicans bad too" for granted because duh, that doesn't seem to be registering with The Hill's or Breaking Points' audience. And it seems like where some of these left-wing populists and right-wing populists are finding common ground is just an aversion to wokeness. For the lefties, it's usually opposition to a prioritization of superficial diversity over substantive change for marginalized groups. For the righties, it's just opposition to uplifting marginalized groups period. That's why both groups can come together to lambast corporate Pride pandering, but they're not doing it for the same reasons. So I think it's disingenuous to muddy those waters in order to try to form this alleged left-wing populist / right-wing populist alliance. And I don't think it's right to metaphorically profit off right-wing outrage over culture war issues, when I don't think they're leading their audiences to the right conclusions. See Jimmy Dore selling Let's Go Brandon merch on his online store, when yeah "**** Joe Biden" of course, but Let's Go Brandon is a slogan from right wingers who incorrectly believe Joe Biden has gone too far left.

 

I also think we already have too much of an epidemic of right-wingers who call themselves "independent thinkers" and think they're unbiased because they don't watch MSNBC or CNN or whatever as it is, that I don't see The Hill, Breaking Points, or Jimmy Dore helping that if you have both left-wingers and right-wingers constantly regurgitating right wing talking points and attacking the left. I also don't see how anyone can constantly find opportunities to "hand it to" Marjorie Taylor Greene while only bashing AOC any time she's mentioned but then still claim to be a good faith actor on the left. Because yeah, AOC isn't perfect, but she's still one of the only fighters for a left wing agenda that we have in Washington currently; whereas MTG may have solid takes on Assange but she's still one of the most psychotic fascists in office. :skull:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, The Hill is corporate media. They are notable for giving a platform to alternative voices, but at this point, as I said, if Batya is a regular host AND Brie is gone after they’ve demoted Olayemi for daring to show respect to trans people while her cohosts were openly shitting on and dehumanizing them, then they can go to Hell as far as I’m concerned.

 

MTG’s takes on Assange are only salient because AOC and the rest of the Squad have been completely silent. Other than Ilhan, where even she took an astonishingly long time to finally speak up. It’s like… either they’re too scared of Pelosi or they’ve also bought into the idea that Assange deserves to be punished for exposing Obama and Clinton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oof at that drag, but it's not too late to support Assange, Bernie :gaycat6: 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ATRL Moderator

@i spit on haters I have nothing to add. I agree with everything you said. Spot on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, ClashAndBurn said:

I just feel it reflects really badly on them that they'd can the two black women for being "loud, pushy, combative, etc." when literally what Robby and Kim were pushing for was the right to disrespect and dehumanize transpeople by deadnaming them with zero repercussions. That Muhammad Ali example Kim tried it with on Twitter was also really gross. :gaycat6: 

 

I still think the reason Krystal and Saagar went independent was because The Hill's editorial board wanted them to embrace Stop The Steal more. Youtube's algorithm woulda bopped them though, so :bibliahh:

 

It's the left's fault for tuning out and falling apart completely after Bernie's loss, I guess. There's really not even a market for us anymore, it feels like. :katie:

LMAO "independent" my ass.

 

Saagar is a Hudson Institute shill. More neocon than even his former boss Tucker Carlson.

 

Krystal is there to gather the progressives and independents so they get exposed to Hudson Institute's garbage (neocon BS).

 

Breaking Point's formula is exactly like The Hill's: throw in elite propaganda like easter eggs in between economically populist stuff that the viewers came to watch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Raiden said:

LMAO "independent" my ass.

 

Saagar is a Hudson Institute shill. More neocon than even his former boss Tucker Carlson.

 

Krystal is there to gather the progressives and independents so they get exposed to Hudson Institute's garbage (neocon BS).

 

Breaking Point's formula is exactly like The Hill's: throw in elite propaganda like easter eggs in between economically populist stuff that the viewers came to watch.

Independent here meaning that they broke off from their former corporate backing at The Hill to do their own YouTube podcast show.

 

Elite propaganda? You realize the neocons and elites want to mire us in an endless proxy war in Ukraine, right? Breaking Points has its issues, but it being “neocon” isn’t one of them when they expressly hate neocons and drag liberals for cuddling up to Liz Cheney constantly. You probably think neocon means right-wing populist, when really they’re both shitty opposing factions within the Republican Party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said:

Independent here meaning that they broke off from their former corporate backing at The Hill to do their own YouTube podcast show.

 

Elite propaganda? You realize the neocons and elites want to mire us in an endless proxy war in Ukraine, right? Breaking Points has its issues, but it being “neocon” isn’t one of them when they expressly hate neocons and drag liberals for cuddling up to Liz Cheney constantly. You probably think neocon means right-wing populist, when really they’re both shitty opposing factions within the Republican Party.

Yes elite propaganda. Neocon ideology = 100% elite ideology. There is not one iota, not one gram of genuine populist nature about that ideology.

 

You can't be a neocon populist. That's an oxymoron. Yet that's exactly what Saager is. That's how you know that, by definition, he is a con artist.

 

Saagar specializes in saying "yes guys, Krystal has a point, but nevertheless lemme tell you this other thing...." That is his entire shtick: to pretend to be the good fox in the henhouse.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Raiden said:

Yes elite propaganda. Neocon ideology = 100% elite ideology. There is not one iota, not one gram of genuine populist nature about that ideology.

 

You can't be a neocon populist. That's an oxymoron. Yet that's exactly what Saager is. That's how you know that, by definition, he is a con artist.

 

Saagar specializes in saying "yes guys, Krystal has a point, but nevertheless lemme tell you this other thing...." That is his entire shtick: to pretend to be the good fox in the henhouse.

 

 

Agreed, about Saager. He was really able to hide all of this to rebrand himself as whatever the ****, and have some left leaning people gobble it up. 

After seeing all these "progressive" people lean heavily into more right wing rhetoric, and framings. It made it clear for me to disregard any media person that runs away from the label of socialist. These independent media people are not politicians running in races where the label might hurt them. It is all, because being unabashedly a leftist would keep them from right wing money to fund their patreons shows or whatever. @Briahna Joy Gray @Kyle Kulunski @Krystal Ball 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Raiden said:

Yes elite propaganda. Neocon ideology = 100% elite ideology. There is not one iota, not one gram of genuine populist nature about that ideology.

 

You can't be a neocon populist. That's an oxymoron. Yet that's exactly what Saager is. That's how you know that, by definition, he is a con artist.

 

Saagar specializes in saying "yes guys, Krystal has a point, but nevertheless lemme tell you this other thing...." That is his entire shtick: to pretend to be the good fox in the henhouse.

 

 

 

4 hours ago, A Bomb said:

Agreed, about Saager. He was really able to hide all of this to rebrand himself as whatever the ****, and have some left leaning people gobble it up. 

After seeing all these "progressive" people lean heavily into more right wing rhetoric, and framings. It made it clear for me to disregard any media person that runs away from the label of socialist. These independent media people are not politicians running in races where the label might hurt them. It is all, because being unabashedly a leftist would keep them from right wing money to fund their patreons shows or whatever. @Briahna Joy Gray @Kyle Kulunski @Krystal Ball 

I... don't disagree? The entire point of NatSoc ideology (Tucker and Saagar) is to be a honey pot to draw people in with populist ideas only to lurch far to the right in actual practice. That's what Hitler did with the Nazis (literally National Socialists in branding) who used his position to go after the actual socialists and communists and make them his political prisoners.

 

The most value any of these programs have is "Biden bad" which is hilarious because they of course railed on MSNBC and CNN for their coverage being "Trump bad" 24/7. When are right, and both Biden and Trump were both exceedingly bad. Any other leftist show that isn't "Biden bad" though is basically "-reluctant sigh- I know guys, Biden sucks, but we have to vote blue no matter who because fascism is always worse." There's no more substance on the online left than those two flavors, and that's all I'm really getting at.

 

Calling Saagar a NeoCon is a misnomer, imo. In fact it serves to make him more of a cozy figure like Michelle Obama's painter best friend who gives her candy and hangs out at basketball games with Ellen DeGeneres. It white-washes the danger he poses. NatSocs are far more dangerous extremist ideologues than NeoCons. The worst you'd have to worry about from a NeoCon is that they'd lie their way into invading another country and killing their populations by the millions in order to enact regime change to an America-friendly despot. With a NatSoc, you get the potential for that AND domestic policy hell, including concentration camps for undesirables if they can get away with it. Which... with SCOTUS ruling on Moore v. Harper next year, it looks like they might have a chance depending on how that ruling ends up.

 

You're arguing with me for calling Saagar "independent" when I'm specifically only referring to their franchise being separate from their former corporate entity, The Hill, not his ideology, which is neither independent nor NeoCon, but far to the right of the NeoCons who have actually been infiltrating the Democratic Party. :deadbanana4: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said:

 

I... don't disagree? The entire point of NatSoc ideology (Tucker and Saagar) is to be a honey pot to draw people in with populist ideas only to lurch far to the right in actual practice. That's what Hitler did with the Nazis (literally National Socialists in branding) who used his position to go after the actual socialists and communists and make them his political prisoners.

 

The most value any of these programs have is "Biden bad" which is hilarious because they of course railed on MSNBC and CNN for their coverage being "Trump bad" 24/7. When are right, and both Biden and Trump were both exceedingly bad. Any other leftist show that isn't "Biden bad" though is basically "-reluctant sigh- I know guys, Biden sucks, but we have to vote blue no matter who because fascism is always worse." There's no more substance on the online left than those two flavors, and that's all I'm really getting at.

 

Calling Saagar a NeoCon is a misnomer, imo. In fact it serves to make him more of a cozy figure like Michelle Obama's painter best friend who gives her candy and hangs out at basketball games with Ellen DeGeneres. It white-washes the danger he poses. NatSocs are far more dangerous extremist ideologues than NeoCons. The worst you'd have to worry about from a NeoCon is that they'd lie their way into invading another country and killing their populations by the millions in order to enact regime change to an America-friendly despot. With a NatSoc, you get the potential for that AND domestic policy hell, including concentration camps for undesirables if they can get away with it. Which... with SCOTUS ruling on Moore v. Harper next year, it looks like they might have a chance depending on how that ruling ends up.

 

You're arguing with me for calling Saagar "independent" when I'm specifically only referring to their franchise being separate from their former corporate entity, The Hill, not his ideology, which is neither independent nor NeoCon, but far to the right of the NeoCons who have actually been infiltrating the Democratic Party. :deadbanana4: 

I wasn't arguing with you. I apologize if it came across like that. I just wanted to rant about those people, because frankly they irk me. A "progressive" capitalist is a gross concept to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, A Bomb said:

I wasn't arguing with you. I apologize if it came across like that. I just wanted to rant about those people, because frankly they irk me. A "progressive" capitalist is a gross concept to me. 

That part wasn't specifically directed at you. But yeah, honestly anybody who would ever call Saagar or Tucker a progressive or socialist, like Glenn Greenwald, doesn't deserve to be taken seriously in most, if any at all, cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ClashAndBurn said:

 

I... don't disagree? The entire point of NatSoc ideology (Tucker and Saagar) is to be a honey pot to draw people in with populist ideas only to lurch far to the right in actual practice. That's what Hitler did with the Nazis (literally National Socialists in branding) who used his position to go after the actual socialists and communists and make them his political prisoners.

 

The most value any of these programs have is "Biden bad" which is hilarious because they of course railed on MSNBC and CNN for their coverage being "Trump bad" 24/7. When are right, and both Biden and Trump were both exceedingly bad. Any other leftist show that isn't "Biden bad" though is basically "-reluctant sigh- I know guys, Biden sucks, but we have to vote blue no matter who because fascism is always worse." There's no more substance on the online left than those two flavors, and that's all I'm really getting at.

 

Calling Saagar a NeoCon is a misnomer, imo. In fact it serves to make him more of a cozy figure like Michelle Obama's painter best friend who gives her candy and hangs out at basketball games with Ellen DeGeneres. It white-washes the danger he poses. NatSocs are far more dangerous extremist ideologues than NeoCons. The worst you'd have to worry about from a NeoCon is that they'd lie their way into invading another country and killing their populations by the millions in order to enact regime change to an America-friendly despot. With a NatSoc, you get the potential for that AND domestic policy hell, including concentration camps for undesirables if they can get away with it. Which... with SCOTUS ruling on Moore v. Harper next year, it looks like they might have a chance depending on how that ruling ends up.

 

You're arguing with me for calling Saagar "independent" when I'm specifically only referring to their franchise being separate from their former corporate entity, The Hill, not his ideology, which is neither independent nor NeoCon, but far to the right of the NeoCons who have actually been infiltrating the Democratic Party. :deadbanana4: 

I don't see NeoCon and NatSocs as "opposing camps" the way you do.

 

They are two peas in one pod: both weapons of the elite. One could say both are sub branches of one same ideology since economically they are the same: pro grifting of big business.

 

You can add other groups too, like libertarianism, a corporate-invented (Koch brothers etc) scam ideology that pretends to be separate from conservatism.

 

Don't fool yourself with all the different sub-divisions of the right. They all serve the same masters up the chain. Their difference is only in who they are aimed at to propagandize: one of those ideologies may be more focused at diverting the attention of the middle class, the another is more tailor made to control & divert the lower/working class, yet another of their ideology may be more narrowly focused on manipulating the educated class (students in uni's, and so on and so forth.

Edited by Raiden
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SmittenCake said:

 

 

Seems like what the person is saying was not true. Odd to leave further context out. :gaycat:

 

Even further evidence that anyone who lives in the West or who chooses to make their stay in the West, be it being educated in the West or what have you, should decided if they want to have agency over the West or agency over countries they claim to have connection to but no longer live in.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Communion said:
out. :gaycat:

Even further evidence that anyone who lives in the West or who chooses to make their stay in the West, be it being educated in the West or what have you, should decided if they want to have agency over the West or agency over countries they claim to have connection to but no longer live in.

 

i didn't read anything you said. and i wont read anything from anyone who supports the CCP genocide (but pretends to care about muslims in israel) all im saying is that i don't like islamaphobes and fascists. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SmittenCake said:

i didn't read anything you said. and i wont read anything from anyone who supports the CCP genocide (but pretends to care about muslims in israel) all im saying is that i don't like islamaphobes and fascists. 

Americans are fascists because they rather focus their resources on improving their lives than helping you and others lead color revolutions?

 

Often times these discussions are riddled with "diaspora" who end up being the children of those from very well-off and educated backgrounds who want to weaponize their experiences with xenophobia or the like in their new homes to frame themselves as experts on societal issues elsewhere despite that they very often are on the side of the privileged back from where their parents and grandparents are from. And it's one thing to take interests in places where you have loved ones living, bit that's different than using your alleged personhood to advocate for geopolitical conflict and America involving itself in foreign affairs. 

 

No one thinks any country in the world is a safe haven for trans people. The actual issue is that whatever happens in China is not the business of anyone besides native Chinese. And that Americans who look outward are participating in a virtue signaling that is only made worse given the mass hypocrisy at home. 

 

I mean, literally look at the account you posted. One of their most recent tweets from today is literally complaining about the US needing to send Taiwan more military equipment and weaponry. Why are these things always a 1:1? Why does everyone else's foreign policy issues and geopolitical conflicts require being funded by the American tax dollar?

Edited by Communion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, SmittenCake said:

 

 

BS

 

The original quoted poster wasn't claiming China had no LGBT problems. He or she only wanted to highlight that America was regressing.

 

The fact that queers in China may be better or worse (whichever one is the case) makes do different to the fact that American LGBT rights are increasingly coming under threat from both politicians and judges / the supreme court (where 6 of the 9 justices are Catholic, altho that includes one who's not on the evil side (Sotomayor).

 

So the gay neocon Taiwan simp from Georgetown (a Catholic university controlled by a hardcore anti-abortionist church) who got triggered by the original tweet, has no valid progressive point.

Edited by Raiden
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Communion said:

 

 

The actual issue is that whatever happens in China is not the business of anyone besides native Chinese. 

 

No wonder why you and the other Tankies are perfectly fine with the genocide of Muslims in Israel but not China; because you pretend its not happening. Also, think about why people of Taiwan do not want the CCP to take over. Its truly unfathomable how you people can point out everything wrong with America but China can do no harm. You people are no different from Trump cultists tbh. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...