If you claim to care about the things on the right side of the scale (and even Palestinians and Ukrainians)
I’m not even sure what this means, except that it seems to suggest that leftists care about right-leaning policies? I’ve seen a lot of loose usage of the right-left definitions lately, and it’s worth pointing out that the two geopolitical topics you specifically called out don’t exactly fit a strict ‘left-right’ political scale (having to deal with hierarchies and egalitarianism, generally). Different branches within the left political thinking have different lenses to judge international conflicts (an ML will look at those conflicts differently than an anarchist). Although we all see those conflicts differently, we all tend to agree that the US has historically never been a benevolent actor in them and we regard the US’s involvement skeptically, to say the least.
Yet threaten to let the guy who will do this on a scale orders-of-magnitude worse win…
The US political system simply does not provide egalitarian opportunities for dissent through it’s democratic process, so of course we threaten the system that is hostile to our involvement. Political dissent is the only tool available to us. It just so happens that this particular election provides quite a bit of leverage, because while the posture toward existing hierarchical structures is the same between the two parties, one party is desperately in need of support for self-preservation. Moderates have to work with us this time, and boy do they seem pissed about it.
Then you just aren’t thinking logically or with any foresight whatsoever.
Hardly, you just seem to think leftists are on ‘your side’. Liberals have always been the largest roadblock to progress, and have always been our target for agitation. We threaten the Liberal coalition by withholding support, and that gives us leverage.
In the meantime go ahead and ask a Palestinian and Ukrainian who they’d prefer to have in the White House.
LOL, Biden has been actively supplying the weaponry being used against Palestinians, and Ukraine has nearly been left to defend itself for the last year as Putin’s war machine has been slowly gaining momentum. I don’t think either group thinks of Biden fondly and you’re deluding yourself if you think they give a fuck about the US’s presidential race. I actually think they’d be rooting for the political agitators trying to get Biden to deal while he’s still in office, but I can’t speak for them (and funny that you think you’re able to yourself).
Whoa, slow down there slick. I was merely referring in context to the submission meme. Do you or do you not care about the things on the scale?
The US political system simply does not provide egalitarian opportunities for dissent through it’s democratic process, so of course we threaten the system that is hostile to our involvement.
Why of course it does! For starters, they’re called Primaries. The problem is your numbers are so tiny that your coalition of course cannot punch above its weight-class. You seem to believe you’re the only group in America who matter and don’t seem to understand the concept or caucusing or coalitions.
As a result you don’t seem to grasp that if Biden pulls too hard to “work with you,” he risks alienating more fragile, less-informed, less-educated more gullible parts of the electorate and then it’s all for nothing because now we have to deal with the significantly-worse guy and party for 4 years, and everyone including Palestinians and Ukrainians will have nobody to blame but folks such as yourself because you tried to leverage beyond your weight-class.
Hardly, you just seem to think leftists are on ‘your side’. Liberals have always been the largest roadblock to progress, and have always been our target for agitation. We threaten the Liberal coalition by withholding support, and that gives us leverage.
Considering it was those darned liberals who won pretty much every notable piece of advancement and progress in our nation’s history, I’m going to call bullshit on that. Thank a liberal for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in Congress. It sure wasn’t you or any tankies, now, was it?
LOL, Biden has been actively supplying the weaponry being used against Palestinians, and Ukraine has nearly been left to defend itself for the last year as Putin’s war machine has been slowly gaining momentum. I don’t think either group thinks of Biden fondly and you’re deluding yourself if they give a fuck about the US’s presidential race. I actually think they’d be rooting for the political agitators trying to get Biden to deal while he’s still in office, but I can’t speak for them (and funny that you think you’re able to yourself).
Obvious deflection aside, I’m pretty sure Ukraine recognizes the obstruction in aid is entirely on Republicans. That you seem to muddy the waters suggests even more bad-faith arguing and now leans even more heavily to right-wing wedge-driving. It’s getting a bit too obvious for me now. Just go ahead and follow through, will you buddy? Because I’ve yet to see a Palestinian or Ukrainian say they’re rooting for Trump over Biden. Good luck, though.
Pretty sure they give a big fuck about the Presidential race because in Ukraine it determines the outcome of aid, and in Palestine it determines whether they get Biden who is stepping away from Israel, versus Trump who has openly embraced steam-rolling Gaza. Quite foolish really to believe otherwise.
LMAO, I stopped reading after you said I should thank a liberal for the Civil Rights Act
If leftists were such a small demographic then our voting patterns should be of no concern to your precious coalition, dipshit. But I’ll take that as an admission that your ire at us is purely theatrical.
Keep preaching of pyrrhic victories from the comfort of your home as – checks notes – not a single Tankie was in Congress who voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, now, did they? So yes, thank a Liberal for actually getting shit done. Don’t have much to list for winning rights for the American people now, do you…?
If leftists were such a small demographic then our voting patterns should be of no concern to your precious coalition, dipshit. But I’ll take that as an admission that your ire at us is purely theatrical.
LMAO tell me you don’t understand zero-sum without saying it. Yes, congratulations: If tankies back out they might throw the election for the true fascist and accelerate the deaths of Palestinians, Ukrainians, and cripple rights on the home front from women to trans – great job! But now, you’ve just jeopordized an even LARGER chunk of the electorate in voting against you and now you still lose because you sacrificed the larger voting-bloc for the smaller voting-bloc. Totally wise move there, buddy! Way to think that one through!
Yet who am I kidding – you seem to blame Biden for the lack of aid going to Ukraine, so there’s really no use in discussing any further.
Keep preaching of pyrrhic victories from the comfort of your home as – checks notes – not a single Tankie was in Congress who voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, now, did they? So yes, thank a Liberal for actually getting shit done. Don’t have much to list for winning rights for the American people now, do you…?
I just have to jump in here to point out how utterly, completely, cataclysmically wrong you are about this. First, let’s start with the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Yes, it’s true that no, “Tankie,” was in Congress to vote for it, but attributing it’s passage to Liberals shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how the parties functioned at the time.
Economically, the party positions were mostly the same, with Republicans promoting fiscal conservatism while Democrats supported labor rights and the social safety net. However, in terms of the Civil Rights movement, the divide was centered around geography, not party; Republicans and Democrats from northern states were far more likely to support the Civil Rights movement than southern states. In fact, more Republicans voted for Civil Rights Act than Democrats (a point disingenuous Republicans will bring up without acknowledging the Southern Strategy, but that’s a separate issue), so fiscally, the Civil Rights Act was passed with more conservative than liberal support.
Second, the Civil Rights movement in general was a far-left movement that clashed with Liberal Centrists. Martin Luther King was far more aligned with Socialists and Democrat Socialists than Liberals, and was downright anti-capitalist, saying, “Capitalism has often left a gap of superfluous wealth and abject poverty…[creating] conditions permitting necessities to be taken from the many to give luxuries to the few,” and that, "capitalism has outlived its usefulness.”
King also had no patience for moderate Liberals. In a speech in 1960, he said, “There is a pressing need for a liberalism in the North which is truly liberal…[that] rises up with righteous indignation when a Negro is lynched in Mississippi but will be equally incensed when a Negro is denied the right to live in his neighborhood.” Even in his famous 1963 Letter from a Birmingham Jail he said:
I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will.
So, in summary, attributing the Civil Rights Act to Liberals is patently wrong. Economically, more members of Congress who voted for the Civil Rights Act would identify as conservative than liberal. Socially, the Civil Rights movement was often at odds with Liberal pragmatists who pushed for slower, more moderate action. Finally, given your comments, I’m pretty sure that if Martin Luther King were alive today, you’d think he was a Tankie.
So let me get this straight: You say I’m, “cataclysmically wrong” about this but in the very next breath confirm precisely what I said that not a single leftist / tankie / social democrat / democratic socialist / socialist / commie in Congress actually moved this to a law…? So I guess I’m cataclysmically correct. I had to read your comment twice over to make sure
What you’re discussing is the great ideological-party realignment of the 20th century; a transitioning point beginning in the FDR days and going all the way forward with Goldwater and Nixon’s Southern Strategy. I’m painting broad strokes certainly, but it is abundantly-clear that the liberals of today were largely the Republican of yesterday. Does it seem likely that Southern Democrats would be the advocates of Civil Rights when it was the Northern Abolitionists who fought to end Slavery and the Southern Democrats advocating for slavery and issuing the “Southern Manifesto”? Consider a map of WHERE those votes for the 1964 Civil Rights came from, specifically, where the majority of NAY votes came from. In summary: The exact same people who more greatly supported labor rights and social safety nets were also the ones who voted YAY for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Those were neither socialists nor southern conservatives; those were predominantly northern liberals.
Moreover:
Robert Gordon, a legal historian and law professor at Stanford University, told PolitiFact the post’s claim is misleading and pointed to Democratic support of the bill.
“The nay Democratic votes were all from the Southern bloc of the party. The former Confederate states had been effectively one-party states since Reconstruction,” Gordon said. “The Civil Rights Act was promoted by a former Southern Democrat, President Lyndon Johnson of Texas, and passed with the help of Northern Democrats and 27 Republicans.”
At the end of the day I feel my point remains the same: It was those very liberals who turned his words into law. We can be grateful to the grassroots organization, but at the end of the day there is a coalition that needs to be had to get things actually done at the highest level of law creation.
Man I aced reading-comprehension to the point of scholarships; with that I’ve now read it three times and I’m still no closer to having enough ink to connect those dots.
Isn’t it a bit ironic that you quote MLK in 1963 when those very “white moderates” came to be the ones to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964? I’m really trying to understand you here, so help me.
OK, I’ll try to make this simple enough for you; the kind of Liberal pragmatists that you’re congratulating for Civil Rights Act simply weren’t responsible for passing it. Civil Rights leaders were, by and large, much farther left than Liberals, and they often complained that Liberals were obstructing the movement as much as segregationists. Leaders from Martin Luther King to Malcom X identified Liberals who preached incrementalism as a hindrance to Civil Rights.
However, if you were to trying to attribute passage of Civil Rights Act purely based on the vote totals of Congress, you’d still be wrong. Segregationist southerners from both parties opposed the bill while northerners from both parties supported it, and it passed with a bipartisan coalition that was majority Republican. While these Republicans were anti-segregation, they were still free-market, anti-labor, fiscal conservatives, and you don’t get to retroactively turn them into Liberals because of the Southern Strategy.
So, the Civil Rights Movement was led by leftists, Liberals were an obstacle to the Civil Rights Movement, and when a bipartisan coalition passed the Civil Rights Act, fewer Liberals voted for it than (what we would today call) moderate conservatives. From the decades leading up to the Civil Rights Act to the passage of the Act itself, Liberals were not the driving force.
Anyway man, I didn’t get a, “reading comprehension,” scholarship, but one of my scholarships was a work-study where worked as a writing tutor, and I’m pretty sure I’ve stated this point as clearly as possible. If you still don’t get it, I can’t really help you.
Keep preaching of pyrrhic victories from the comfort of your home as – checks notes – not a single Tankie was in Congress who voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, now, did they?
lol checkmate, tankie
Yes, congratulations: If tankies back out they might throw the election for the true fascist
I will gladly accept these congratulations on behalf of all tankies
I’m not even sure what this means, except that it seems to suggest that leftists care about right-leaning policies? I’ve seen a lot of loose usage of the right-left definitions lately, and it’s worth pointing out that the two geopolitical topics you specifically called out don’t exactly fit a strict ‘left-right’ political scale (having to deal with hierarchies and egalitarianism, generally). Different branches within the left political thinking have different lenses to judge international conflicts (an ML will look at those conflicts differently than an anarchist). Although we all see those conflicts differently, we all tend to agree that the US has historically never been a benevolent actor in them and we regard the US’s involvement skeptically, to say the least.
The US political system simply does not provide egalitarian opportunities for dissent through it’s democratic process, so of course we threaten the system that is hostile to our involvement. Political dissent is the only tool available to us. It just so happens that this particular election provides quite a bit of leverage, because while the posture toward existing hierarchical structures is the same between the two parties, one party is desperately in need of support for self-preservation. Moderates have to work with us this time, and boy do they seem pissed about it.
Hardly, you just seem to think leftists are on ‘your side’. Liberals have always been the largest roadblock to progress, and have always been our target for agitation. We threaten the Liberal coalition by withholding support, and that gives us leverage.
LOL, Biden has been actively supplying the weaponry being used against Palestinians, and Ukraine has nearly been left to defend itself for the last year as Putin’s war machine has been slowly gaining momentum. I don’t think either group thinks of Biden fondly and you’re deluding yourself if you think they give a fuck about the US’s presidential race. I actually think they’d be rooting for the political agitators trying to get Biden to deal while he’s still in office, but I can’t speak for them (and funny that you think you’re able to yourself).
Whoa, slow down there slick. I was merely referring in context to the submission meme. Do you or do you not care about the things on the scale?
Why of course it does! For starters, they’re called Primaries. The problem is your numbers are so tiny that your coalition of course cannot punch above its weight-class. You seem to believe you’re the only group in America who matter and don’t seem to understand the concept or caucusing or coalitions.
As a result you don’t seem to grasp that if Biden pulls too hard to “work with you,” he risks alienating more fragile, less-informed, less-educated more gullible parts of the electorate and then it’s all for nothing because now we have to deal with the significantly-worse guy and party for 4 years, and everyone including Palestinians and Ukrainians will have nobody to blame but folks such as yourself because you tried to leverage beyond your weight-class.
Considering it was those darned liberals who won pretty much every notable piece of advancement and progress in our nation’s history, I’m going to call bullshit on that. Thank a liberal for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in Congress. It sure wasn’t you or any tankies, now, was it?
Obvious deflection aside, I’m pretty sure Ukraine recognizes the obstruction in aid is entirely on Republicans. That you seem to muddy the waters suggests even more bad-faith arguing and now leans even more heavily to right-wing wedge-driving. It’s getting a bit too obvious for me now. Just go ahead and follow through, will you buddy? Because I’ve yet to see a Palestinian or Ukrainian say they’re rooting for Trump over Biden. Good luck, though.
Pretty sure they give a big fuck about the Presidential race because in Ukraine it determines the outcome of aid, and in Palestine it determines whether they get Biden who is stepping away from Israel, versus Trump who has openly embraced steam-rolling Gaza. Quite foolish really to believe otherwise.
LMAO, I stopped reading after you said I should thank a liberal for the Civil Rights Act
If leftists were such a small demographic then our voting patterns should be of no concern to your precious coalition, dipshit. But I’ll take that as an admission that your ire at us is purely theatrical.
Oof, that one kind of hit hard then, didn’t it?
Keep preaching of pyrrhic victories from the comfort of your home as – checks notes – not a single Tankie was in Congress who voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, now, did they? So yes, thank a Liberal for actually getting shit done. Don’t have much to list for winning rights for the American people now, do you…?
LMAO tell me you don’t understand zero-sum without saying it. Yes, congratulations: If tankies back out they might throw the election for the true fascist and accelerate the deaths of Palestinians, Ukrainians, and cripple rights on the home front from women to trans – great job! But now, you’ve just jeopordized an even LARGER chunk of the electorate in voting against you and now you still lose because you sacrificed the larger voting-bloc for the smaller voting-bloc. Totally wise move there, buddy! Way to think that one through!
Yet who am I kidding – you seem to blame Biden for the lack of aid going to Ukraine, so there’s really no use in discussing any further.
I just have to jump in here to point out how utterly, completely, cataclysmically wrong you are about this. First, let’s start with the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Yes, it’s true that no, “Tankie,” was in Congress to vote for it, but attributing it’s passage to Liberals shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how the parties functioned at the time.
Economically, the party positions were mostly the same, with Republicans promoting fiscal conservatism while Democrats supported labor rights and the social safety net. However, in terms of the Civil Rights movement, the divide was centered around geography, not party; Republicans and Democrats from northern states were far more likely to support the Civil Rights movement than southern states. In fact, more Republicans voted for Civil Rights Act than Democrats (a point disingenuous Republicans will bring up without acknowledging the Southern Strategy, but that’s a separate issue), so fiscally, the Civil Rights Act was passed with more conservative than liberal support.
Second, the Civil Rights movement in general was a far-left movement that clashed with Liberal Centrists. Martin Luther King was far more aligned with Socialists and Democrat Socialists than Liberals, and was downright anti-capitalist, saying, “Capitalism has often left a gap of superfluous wealth and abject poverty…[creating] conditions permitting necessities to be taken from the many to give luxuries to the few,” and that, "capitalism has outlived its usefulness.”
King also had no patience for moderate Liberals. In a speech in 1960, he said, “There is a pressing need for a liberalism in the North which is truly liberal…[that] rises up with righteous indignation when a Negro is lynched in Mississippi but will be equally incensed when a Negro is denied the right to live in his neighborhood.” Even in his famous 1963 Letter from a Birmingham Jail he said:
So, in summary, attributing the Civil Rights Act to Liberals is patently wrong. Economically, more members of Congress who voted for the Civil Rights Act would identify as conservative than liberal. Socially, the Civil Rights movement was often at odds with Liberal pragmatists who pushed for slower, more moderate action. Finally, given your comments, I’m pretty sure that if Martin Luther King were alive today, you’d think he was a Tankie.
So let me get this straight: You say I’m, “cataclysmically wrong” about this but in the very next breath confirm precisely what I said that not a single leftist / tankie / social democrat / democratic socialist / socialist / commie in Congress actually moved this to a law…? So I guess I’m cataclysmically correct. I had to read your comment twice over to make sure
What you’re discussing is the great ideological-party realignment of the 20th century; a transitioning point beginning in the FDR days and going all the way forward with Goldwater and Nixon’s Southern Strategy. I’m painting broad strokes certainly, but it is abundantly-clear that the liberals of today were largely the Republican of yesterday. Does it seem likely that Southern Democrats would be the advocates of Civil Rights when it was the Northern Abolitionists who fought to end Slavery and the Southern Democrats advocating for slavery and issuing the “Southern Manifesto”? Consider a map of WHERE those votes for the 1964 Civil Rights came from, specifically, where the majority of NAY votes came from. In summary: The exact same people who more greatly supported labor rights and social safety nets were also the ones who voted YAY for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Those were neither socialists nor southern conservatives; those were predominantly northern liberals.
Moreover:
At the end of the day I feel my point remains the same: It was those very liberals who turned his words into law. We can be grateful to the grassroots organization, but at the end of the day there is a coalition that needs to be had to get things actually done at the highest level of law creation.
Buddy, you need to reread my comment, and this time go past the second paragraph.
Man I aced reading-comprehension to the point of scholarships; with that I’ve now read it three times and I’m still no closer to having enough ink to connect those dots.
Isn’t it a bit ironic that you quote MLK in 1963 when those very “white moderates” came to be the ones to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964? I’m really trying to understand you here, so help me.
OK, I’ll try to make this simple enough for you; the kind of Liberal pragmatists that you’re congratulating for Civil Rights Act simply weren’t responsible for passing it. Civil Rights leaders were, by and large, much farther left than Liberals, and they often complained that Liberals were obstructing the movement as much as segregationists. Leaders from Martin Luther King to Malcom X identified Liberals who preached incrementalism as a hindrance to Civil Rights.
However, if you were to trying to attribute passage of Civil Rights Act purely based on the vote totals of Congress, you’d still be wrong. Segregationist southerners from both parties opposed the bill while northerners from both parties supported it, and it passed with a bipartisan coalition that was majority Republican. While these Republicans were anti-segregation, they were still free-market, anti-labor, fiscal conservatives, and you don’t get to retroactively turn them into Liberals because of the Southern Strategy.
So, the Civil Rights Movement was led by leftists, Liberals were an obstacle to the Civil Rights Movement, and when a bipartisan coalition passed the Civil Rights Act, fewer Liberals voted for it than (what we would today call) moderate conservatives. From the decades leading up to the Civil Rights Act to the passage of the Act itself, Liberals were not the driving force.
Anyway man, I didn’t get a, “reading comprehension,” scholarship, but one of my scholarships was a work-study where worked as a writing tutor, and I’m pretty sure I’ve stated this point as clearly as possible. If you still don’t get it, I can’t really help you.
lol checkmate, tankie
I will gladly accept these congratulations on behalf of all tankies
Haha great memes, kid!