On corporate whoredom? Absolutely.

My pushback is that now is not the time for both-sides-ism. It needs to be addressed but most voters are poorly informed or vote their emotions and that talking point needs to go in the back pocket for later, if there is one.

I get your point, and the other one stating that Democrats are not "the left", but they are the the least worst option that a 2 party system offers.

The game is rigged, but this quote nails it:

On Undecided Voter s: "To put them in perspective, I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. “Can I inter est you in the chick en? ” she asks. “Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broke n glass in it?”

To be undecided in this elect ion is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chick en is cooked.” ― David Sedaris

▲

forgetfreeman 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

"My pushback is that now is not the time for both-sides-ism"

Of course, and that line of reasoning has consistently failed at the polls since it was deployed as a readguard attempt to bolster Clinton's failed presidential campaign. Like, how many times does the DNC have to stick a fork in this particular outlet before it becomes transparent that this line of rhetoric simply doesn't produce the desired results?

Not only is it absolutely time, it is well and truly past time to underline the functionally identical economic policies of both parties, how the economic turmoil this causes drives identity politics and political division in this country, with a clear eye towards bringing an end to all of that through any means available.

	▲	pstuart 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Let me try this again. A two party system is a rigged game. Period. The Democratic party absolutely needs to be taken to task and none of their bullshit should be tolerated or defended, ever, except one small exception: election day, in the general election -- because we can't fix the government if it's no longer a democracy.

▲

romanhounds 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

will you give up identity politics for the deplorables vote?

▲

johnnyanmac 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Identity politics hasn't been a national debate topic... ever? Unless you count "the presidential candidate is a woman/black" as identity politics. Harris was quiet on trans issues in her campaign and Obama didn't talk much at all about gay marriage in 2008. Maybe he was more accommodating in 2012, but it didn't come up in his campaign.

If you read through any of the DNC talking points of any given campaign, you're not going to see much on social issues until you maybe get to Kennedy. It's just not really something that's a pressing issue for a presidential run.

And honestly, I can't think of any social policies in the last 50 years that was seriously pushed by a sitting president. They at best pay lip service by painting a rainbow on some building, often years after the actual legal and legislative battles were won.

----

Now, to directly answer your question: I'd rather not rely on deplorables to vote progressive. the nature of how they approach life simply won't allow that, even if they are otherwise in full agreement with every point. We need to energize the entire 3rd of the country that took one of the most important elections in the past 60 years and simply shrugged, staying home. We need to give them someone who will fight for them.

▲

defrost 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Non-US PoV - US identity politics as an actual threat to panic and pearl clutch about seems to be largely a creation of the US right.

Actual US identity expression "issues" (visible drag queens, actually trans people, sports questions) seem to be small number small beer problems that should fall under US principles of "We let Nazi's march, so why not Furries" ?

	▲	pstuart 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> an actual threat to panic and pearl clutch about seems to be largely a creation of the US right. "woke" has been a goldmine for the Right. Who needs policy when fear, panic, and anger get the voters in those booths? After all, drag queens and trans people are scary -- think of the children!

▲

pstuart 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> will you give up identity politics for the deplorables vote?

That phrase gets used a lot, I'm curious what you mean by that.

If you mean "woke", then you're probably missing the irony of how that is actually used politically. Based on the phrasing of your question, I'm guessing you might have an irony deficiency. But please go on.

Political discussion here is frowned upon because it usually devolves into partisan name calling -- which justifies it not being tolerated.

But if you want to discuss policy or "hacking society", please do. I am of no political party and am more than happy to acknowledge the foibles of those I might associate with, as well as any of my own because everybody makes mistakes, no?

▲

romanhounds 5 hours ago | parent [-]

identity politics is used as a distraction to class politics, if you materially make peoples lives better they will vote for you.

▲

defrost 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

So, who in the US is actually using identity politics as a distraction?

I ask because as an outsider I overwhelmingly see US identity politics issues being raised by the new "Republicans" and to a lesser degree by the old Republicans.

> if you materially make peoples lives better they will vote for you.

This doesn't explain the last election in the slightest unless relaxed to "if you pinky promise to materially make peoples lives better..."

▲

pstuart 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I agree with the former, and conceptually with latter. But we've seen people vote against their best interests because of the promise of destroying those who've they've been taught to hate. Contemporary US immigration "policy" is a case in point.

	▲	bigstrat2003 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		No, we haven't. People do not "vote against their interests", as much as commenters online love to claim that. What actually happens is that they believe what they vote for will advance their well-being, and you disagree with their assessment. That's a very, very different thing. The idea that there are any significant number of people out there deliberately hurting themselves for hate's sake is a complete myth. People reach for it because it feels good to imagine that your opponents are hate-warped idiots, but there is not a shred of evidence to support such a claim. When you actually talk to people (and not just assume you know what's in their heads), you find out that they, like you, are just trying to do good in an imperfect world.