MarxMadness

You're just repeating yourself. It's not any more convincing this time around.

You deserve everything you voted for Palestine to get.

Differing treatment of nonprofits falls under "driving off the cliff at 95 vs. 100 mph." The bare minimum approach to the climate crisis would be something on the scale of the Green New Deal. Better treatment of nonprofits is probably more than canceled out by approving more fracking permits, too.

I'm also of the opinion that taking over the Democratic Party from within is a better strategy than trying to destroy it and start over, if only because of how large a task the latter is.

without the Democrats even having a proper seat in office, how are they supposed to even pass any policy, no matter how leftward they go on the political spectrum?

As we're seeing with Trump, you can do a lot with executive power and declaring an emergency. Over time you can translate this into more legislative support if what you're doing is actually good.

if the left continues fracturing and refusing to vote for them because “both sides are the same,” then all that happens is they keep shifting more and more right

Democrats chasing the right dates back to the 70s. It is what is causing the left wing of the party to stop voting for them, not the other way around. As Bernie showed, even a moderate social democrat can bring in those voters and then some. You also see lower-level candidates win by outflanking Democrats from the left, e.g., the whole progressive prosecutor movement.

Besides, the only way to get a politician to move towards you is to threaten not to vote for them. They don't chase voters they have in the bag; they chase voters who are on the fence. That's part of why they've been moving right -- they think they'll pick up more voters from the center than they'll lose from the left. The task is convincing them that unless they move left, they'll lose.

I said you voted for genocide because you voted for a party doing genocide. That's not the condescending shit you're doing, that's leveling a direct criticism.

And if you agree Dems are useless... what the fuck are you even saying anymore? They're useless, they're doing a genocide, but you still have to vote for them, because if you voted for someone opposed to the genocide, guess what, you actually voted for genocide!

Incoherent all the way down.

But if I’m going to do any kind of action to change that, I’m going to want the most favorable possible party in power.

I also used to make this argument. And for a few decades after Democrats stopped routinely trying to do major things for their constituents (the 60s), it had some merit.

But since the scientific community started really sounding the climate change alarm bells in the early 90s, we've had 20 years of Democrats in charge. They've failed to meaningfully address the issue, and failed to either keep Republicans out of office or implement policies strong enough to withstand Republican attacks. We tried it the way you're suggesting and it hasn't worked.

We're at the point where either Democrats need to be forced to radically change their platform, or the party needs to be destroyed so we can get at least one decent option. It doesn't help that the last 30+ years of inaction means we can't afford another 30 years of making small changes and hoping against hope that some new technology solves the problem for us.

I get the argument, I really do. I used to make it, too.

But this guy:

holding down the acceleration less, screaming about how he thinks we should go slower but isn’t taking his foot off the gas

Was told 30+ years ago that we desperately need to hit the brakes. He has failed to do so because he's wholly in the pocket of fossil fuel companies, and knows he's among the most insulated from the worst effects of the crisis.

The answer to "which would you rather convince" is that neither can be convinced. One just has to put up a bit of a facade because more of his voters take the issue (marginally) more seriously. If that guy hasn't done it in a generation, why would he do it now?

It's also getting harder to justify the "accelerating less" part when Democrats do stuff like that article describes.

It’s ok though, I understand you are struggling

What do you think you are accomplishing by being such an insufferable ass?

Democrats should be trying to win back voters like me -- voters who have supported lots of Democrats in the past, but who will not support genocide. They (and you) are instead telling those voters to fuck off. They (and you) make a lot of noise about wanting to win elections, but have no strategy besides browbeating voters, a strategy that just failed.

https://www.npr.org/2021/07/13/1015581092/biden-promised-to-end-new-drilling-on-federal-land-but-approvals-are-up

That's what you're calling a brake

Recently:

The case of Smart Shirts Limited vs Sheffield Hallam University was heard in the High Court, King's Bench Division, Media and Communications List. The judgment was delivered by Deputy High Court Judge Susie Alegre on December 17, 2024. The dispute centered around a libel claim brought by Smart Shirts Limited, a Hong Kong-based garment supplier, against Sheffield Hallam University (SHU) over a report and emails alleging connections to forced labor in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR)...

The court determined that both the email and the report were defamatory at common law, as they could adversely affect the attitude of others towards Smart Shirts. The judgment emphasized that the publications were presented as factual findings based on extensive research, thereby influencing their perceived credibility.

Notably, the truth is a defense in defamation cases. If I publish an article saying my extensive research shows you cheated on your taxes, you won't win a libel case against me if my research actually shows you did cheat on your taxes. That the university couldn't win by simply showing that their accusations were truthful is damning.

See also:

The resilient tale of an early morning Tiananmen massacre stems from several false eyewitness accounts in the confused hours and days after the crackdown. Human rights experts George Black and Robin Munro, both outspoken critics of the Chinese government, trace many of the rumor’s roots in their 1993 book, Black Hands of Beijing: Lives of Defiance in China’s Democracy Movement. Probably the most widely disseminated account appeared first in the Hong Kong press: a Qinghua University student described machine guns mowing down students in front of the Monument to the People’s Heroes in the middle of the square. The New York Times gave this version prominent display on June 12, just a week after the event, but no evidence was ever found to confirm the account or verify the existence of the alleged witness. Times reporter Nicholas Kristof challenged the report the next day, in an article that ran on the bottom of an inside page; the myth lived on. Student leader Wu’er Kaixi said he had seen 200 students cut down by gunfire, but it was later proven that he left the square several hours before the events he described allegedly occurred.

This should also be viewed in context of the U.S. directly funding anti-China media. If you aren't real interested in factual reporting to begin with and you add a heap of intentionally negative propaganda on top, the only reasonable conclusion is that most of your accusations range from grossly exaggerated to bullshit.

You looked at a party committing genocide -- the worst thing people can do to one another -- and made the decision to co-sign that. I voted for someone who opposed genocide.

No matter how desperately you want to water down the choice you made, it's not the same as the one I made. You don't actually have to shuffle along with genocide because Democrats lied about some half-assed loan forgiveness or something.

If they aren't trying to get my vote, why would I vote for them? They're telling me to fuck off!

A party that's moderately responsive to its constituents would see their usual voters defecting and try to do something to bring them back. Democrats don't even clear that low bar.

"no u"

Driving off the cliff at 95 mph vs. 100 mph, and trying to argue there's a difference