All of these were fought for with literal blood well before any liberals decided it was in their interest to push legislation. Don’t delude yourselves by thinking the libs did these things out of the kindness of their heart.

I think this type of thinking ends up being quite self defeating.

We should evaluate all politicians as vessels to carry out the will of the people.

When you consider them as such, not as people or entities to assign blame, as your goal is to be pragmatic, you look at their incentives and track records instead.

I think leftists often have this self defeating problem of being unable to stomach the fact that they will not get their ideal politician, and there will be no sudden uprising.

As a result, they often will criticize the politicians closest too them too loudly, ending up supporting “both sides” notions that cause voter apathy and let quite literally fascists win instead.

What I am saying is that we have to be pragmatic.

Particularly for the US, people have to realize that yes, while the DNC sucks, the democrats are the only practical, realistic way for people to actually end up winning.

Its long, slow, and no fun at all, but people have to support them publicly, and acknowledge their faults in ways that don’t dissuade voters from voting for them. They then must also vote in increasingly progressive candidates in primaries and local politics.

Anything else is simply grabbing a foot gun, because this imperfect system is very slow, and won’t change over night.

Or we could actually work to build up our own communities and set a real workers party up. Otherwise we are at the whims of fascists and fascist lite

This is not realistic and only results in the fascist coming to power.

A system that is all or nothing or first past the post mathematically results in a 2 party system as any time one side fractures, the other side wins disincentivising people from fracturing and creating only 2 groups. You can’t escape this reality, so truly, the only option forward is long slow and unfun as described, because what you’ve described is essentially what Russian backed Jill Stein is, and exactly why Russia want her to steal votes from democrats.

The system you want can only come about after years of the boring, long, unfun stuff I described resulting in proportional representation. Anything other than proportional representation pushes any political system back down to 2 major sides and any other parties being largely irrelevant. Parliamentary systems make them slightly more relevant with coalitions and such, but still, you just can’t win the way you’ve described.

Not with that attitude.

Not with any attitude. These are the realities of the american political system.

To ignore those realities is to support many many people being discriminated against and potential dying.

You can’t fix a system by ignoring it.

It is impossible, as in unlikely to the point that discussing it is counter productive, to start a new party, and win in the USA with its current system.

The presidency position is too powerful, gerrymandering, billionaire controlled media and voter suppression would make it too difficult to actually secure even one ounce of useful power in the house or congress, and you’d need to hit a critical mass quickly enough that fascism hadn’t already taken over (you’re already past this point).

Your only play, and I mean only, is somehow keeping democracy limping into 2026, campaigning your asses off for the democrats even though we all think they are mid, and somehow getting enough seats in the senate to impeach and remove trump.

There aren’t really any other viable win conditions.

We can’t just gleefully stick our heads in the sand and hope that wishful thinking cloud 9 dream idealistic goals will happen.

If you really think im advocating for ignoring the system, then you have completely misinterpretted my comments lmfao

How do you figure? I have explained why creating your own party cannot possibly work, so how would that be anything other than ignoring the system to chase an impossible goal?

Is ignoring the abandonment of the actual mechanisms of reform not ignoring the system? I think I am pretty justified in interpreting it that way, but you didn’t really expand and just game me a “Not with that attitude.” with your last comment.

Well you cant do anything close to what im proposing with that point of view so i just didnt see a point to continuing the conversation.

If you require someone to simply immediately believe your lofty premise to continue a conversation, I question how genuine that conversation is.

I explained in detail the problems I saw with your, I believe, completely idealistic and unrealistic approach, and you kinda just went “nuh huh”. that doesnt seem in good faith at all.

I pretty clearly said that i dont think youre worth conversing with lmfao. Take your “good faith” and shove it. Ill continue organizing and radicalizing the homies and you can continue licking boots, and we’ll see who has the prettier smile in the end lmao

You are simply hurting the cause you pretend to support by ignoring the only system you have in place to solve it.

It is simply impossible to get the amount of people needed for what you are talking about organized.

You’d need more than the third of maga voters.

It is crazy you aggressively eschew pragmatism/liken it to boot licking. Absurd, naive, and counterproductive behaviour.

Like i said, not worth conversing with. Not with that attitude lmfao

You’ve been the only one bring incivility to this conversation.

you refused to acknowledge any of my points when you disagreed.