After Biden's meltdown, the Democrats are hoping to reenergize people with a supposedly "progressive" pick for Kamala Harris' running mate.
this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2024
2 points (100.0% liked)
Agitprop
80 readers
1 users here now
A community to share Agitprop in.
founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
On one hand you have this fake progressive guy:
And the other option was this:
During the wave of campus protests against the war this spring, Shapiro compared protesters to white supremacists and the KKK, contributing to rhetoric that led to state and vigilante violence against protesters across the country. He applauded the decision to send police to disband a pro-Palestinian encampment at the University of Pennsylvania, even though the school’s own faculty members condemned the “arrests and suppression of non-violent, anti-war protests” after riot gear-clad forces cleared and arrested students.
I stg whenever positive American politics or policies come up, this community throws out the dialectics and defaults to "america bad". Tim Walz is better for the country than every other option that was on the table, all the Newsoms and Buttigieges of the dem party. This is not a point of contention, this is the material conditions that we're under.
Serious question because I honestly don't know what your train of thought is on this: what is supposed to be dialectical about standing behind the vote blue no matter who crowd? It's no secret that the line between democrat and republican in the US is so paper thin as to be almost meaningless by this point. Enough people, however many of them may have included communists or not, went with that mentality in pushing Trump out to get Biden in. And Biden funded and supported an ongoing genocide. There's nothing I can find indicating Harris would be better on the genocide position than Biden was. And we can safely assume that if that kind of power establishment picked Tim Walz, they expect the same from him too. They don't look for the biggest reformer they can find and hope to put them in power. If that were the case, Sanders would have had a real chance, instead of being kneecapped by the "everybody else drop out and support Biden maneuver" in 2020.
I mean, even Harris herself recently used the line (I may be getting exact wording wrong) "keep doing that if you want Trump" in reference to a protester for Palestine interrupting her speech. This is how openly the line has become "we literally have nothing meaningful to offer you other than saying we're not the other candidate." And yet the track record doesn't even make them notably better by comparison; if it did, they'd have substantive things to point to, wouldn't they? Instead of saying "vote for me because I'm not them."
So I reiterate, what is dialectical about supporting that? Is it even harm reduction if possibly the most documented in real-time genocide in history is already being supported by their administration? My understanding of dialectical moves like that is you're supposed to be gaining something from them, in the compromise, such as allying with forces who might later turn on you. I don't see what is being gained. How is it even a compromise if there is no exchange? "Here, I support you continuing to have all the power and doing horrific things with it"? What is that accomplishing?
"Vote blue no matter who" means that liberals and more progressive people are supposed to support the Dems even if the party is entirely incompetent and outright harmful to the causes people support. Because the Republicans will fuck everything up even more. Harm reduction, right? So I am explaining that the recent decisions of the democrats were finally the opposite of that.
Tim Walz and his Democratic-Farmer-Labor party's record in one session:
Each of those issues is widely popular among voters, and are objectively progressive policies. So the Democrats are doing a smart thing by campaigning on them.
Now on the Palestine issues Kamala is currently doing the exact opposite. Morals aside, since we're talking about the materialist side of politics, this is an incredibly popular issue with Americans, 70% of whom are in support of a permanent ceasefire. The uncommitted movement is going to play a significant role in this election. And if she doesn't present a strong stance on this very soon, she might undo all the good decisions that the Dems made in the past month, like dropping Biden, supporting Kamala, and picking a progressive VP.
Where are you getting this information? Because this part:
Is in direct contradiction with what's in the OP, claiming he vetoed a bill that would have established minimum pay-rates for Uber and Lyft drivers and has family connections to Uber's top lawyer. As well as gutting a bill to prevent hospitals from understaffing nurses.