- 11,997
- 3,286
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The thing I find so annoying about the whole “Hillary TRIED to warn us” tropes, is that it was obvious that Trump was a racist, it was obvious that the GOP is monomaniacally focused on controlling the US Federal Courts. We all knew this. Clinton was not a doomed prophet, she was a politician hoping to win purely on negative mobilization in the hopes of having a modest and therefore donor-friendly platform and administration.
It did not work.
She and her supporters should take the same advice you all gave after Bernie Sanders was defeated such as “take this L,” “you need to reassess,” and “it’s time for introspection.”
It’s five years on and the consensus take on Clinton’s campaign is that it didn’t fail, it was failed.
The irony is even richer because she lost largely for the same reason that Sanders lost his bid for the Presidency, neither turned out enough black voters in the States that they needed to win. Sanders’ failure is seen as evidence latent white supremacy on the part of him and his supporters and yet, no sinister motives are attached to Clinton’s failures.
All that said, Clinton did get three million more votes than Trump. She was robbed but not by Susan Sarandon, she was robbed by an anti-majoritarian political order. I would describe that order as broken but truthfully, it’s working as intended.
By all means, let’s fight fascism at the ballot box as best we can. But it’s painfully clear, or it should be painfully clear that this existing order has got to go. If we stay in a position where we have to beat the GOP every single time, then the left/liberal/social justice project that we’re currently undertaking is remarkably fragile and we all need to find out how to make it more resilient. I don’t know exactly how to do that but I suspect it will involve a strategy that doesn’t entirely depend on voting for politicians whose will to win is tempered by a desire to placate moneyed interest who benefit from this current political order.
Is this **** is supposed to mean something to me?
Hilary was a flawed candidate who ran a bad campaign.
and some leftist behaved in irrational and counter productive ways post 2016 primary.
both things can be true.
And despite Clinton running a general election campaign designed to embrace Republicans and distance itself from leftist priorities, we still delivered a ton of support for her and you STILL blame us.
We wanted to beat Trump more than she wanted to beat Trump.
osh kosh bosh As far as Bernie goes, in retrospect, his losing wasn’t the problem.
The problem is how divorced American politics is from public opinion. If Bernie had won the primary and gone on to win the general and assuming he wasn’t denied the presidency by faithless electors, or federal courts willing to listen to spurious claims of voter fraud, or removed in a preemptive coup, he’d have his agenda stalled by the same forces holding up Biden right now.
I think Bernie would have done more with Executive Orders and fought harder against the Senate. He may have organized protests in DC but capital would win in the end.
Without far more robust organizing, that puts pressure directly on Capital, electing Bernie or any other socialist politician won’t change things
Those tweets are dumb and pointless
Those tweets are dumb and pointless
Of coursewell you won't be surprised to find out
I think they are smart and to the point.
Of course
A hot take that over inflates the importance of a topic, and distorts what is actually happening just to criticize Progressives seems like something you would love.
Sorry for spoiling your fun
You either think I don't have or know how to use Google on my PC.The tweets didn't make any value judgment on how important or not the phraseology drama is or isn't'
it's merely an observation on how quickly corporations adopted the language.
and then a joke/criticism at the expense of a certain kind of progressive.
i don't really see what's being inflated or distorted.
This capital vs labour frame work can be illuminating, but it's often limiting.
It obscures realities about the American electorate.
I see literally zero evidence that Americans want the broad base tax increases
that would come with a Nordic style social safety net.
like literally none at all.
and I see little evidence that Americans want a massive upheaval in the structure of American socitey.
America is a rich country, and a lot of yall seem to like living there.
so this idea that capital is standing between you and nordic socialist utopia I think is fantasy.
The voters are as well.
and one of the biggest frustrations facing young Americans, the housing crisis,
doesn't fall neatly into this captial vs labour framework either.
You either think I don't have or know how to use Google on my PC.
Before I checked, I knew what happened to motivate those tweets, a Politico article that just dropped.
I doubled checked before I made my first post regarding the tweets and I was right.
He is responding to the Politico article. Which deals with the words and how it affects Dems prospects with voters...
You also didn't include the entire Twitter thread.
So yeah Osh, in context it doesn't seem like it is just a take on corporations adopting a certain language, and a joke about a certain type of progressive.
It went beyond that. It even passed judgment on the words themselves
-And I know what is coming now. Your transition to, "oh yeah, I think it hurts Democrats too" steez
Whatever, Fair enoughoh, I hadn't read the politico piece when i posted that. so i didn't realize it was a response to anything.
i didn't include the second tweet because it felt redundant. i didn't think omitting it changed the context.