With the Democratic Party struggling to find a new direction, former President Joe Biden and former first lady Jill Biden have offered to jump in and help with fundraising and rebuilding.
Copy/paste of my other comment, the gist of what im saying:
LGBT, woke, and immigrant issues are amplified by those in power to get more votes on the right, and distract from the most important issues: oligarchy and wealthy elites who are exploiting the poor and working class.
This doesn’t mean these issues aren’t important, they are. They’re just used to distract from what’s more important, and energize bigots who end up supporting the right.
Anti oligarchy and the billionaire exploitation should be the most amplified issues talking points. This, done correctly, might even get some support from outside the left (remember luigi?, glimpses of far left and far right joining together).
This doesn’t mean throw minorities under the bus. It means switching priorities, to get power.
LGBT, woke, and immigrant issues are amplified by those in power to get more votes on the right
OK agreed!
and distract from the most important issues: oligarchy and wealthy elites who are exploiting the poor and working class.
I agree with you that they use them to distract from those issues, but I disagree with how you are ranking them. I will attempt to explain that at the end.*
This, done correctly, might even get some support from outside the left (remember luigi?, glimpses of far left and far right joining together).
I agree here too, but that support will be limited, insincere, a facade, a brittle alliance, because the moment they have to support policies that will help people not like them, or that require them to accept policies based on someone else’s deeper understanding of a topic than their own (for one example a global pandemic and the precautions an uncertain world needed to take until treatments and vaccines could be developed), they will go running back to maga, or at least to whatever is remaining of R at that point in time.
This doesn’t mean throw minorities under the bus
I believe you think it doesn’t. I think you can’t possibly be considering how such an approach will allow for harm to those groups until your plan bears fruit. (which it may not ever do)
It means switching priorities, to get power.
During the period of time between the switching and the power, it means willfully risking the lives of other people who are members of groups that (apologies for my assumption if I’m wrong) it doesn’t sound like you consider yourself a member of. The willfully is important. There’s no avoiding that we all make decisions that will have external impacts we haven’t considered, but there’s no way around that this is a choice to increase the vulnerability of those groups for an uncertain period of time.
For the next bit, I’m going to copy paste a bit from a prior reply also, with some edits.
and distract from the most important issues: oligarchy and wealthy elites who are exploiting the poor and working class.
I said I’d more thoroughly explain my disagreement with you on this point.
I am NOT queer, nor a minority. But if I were a member of one of those groups, I’d probably be pretty upset that you are telling me I should accept that I’m going to lose my gender affirming care or the protections of the civil rights act with nary an expectation of backing from allies, because for an indeterminate amount of time they have decided they need to let me and others like me suffer for a political gambit that may or may not pan out.
EDIT: So it’s a distraction to the RIGHT who eat up the fake bullshit about these groups. But to the people who are in those groups it’s a legitimate existential threat. (Forgot to tie it all together in the first draft)
IMO that sort of thinking brought us Hillary (vs Bernie) and Biden (vs Bernie) and contributes to the rightward walk of the Democrats exemplified by the latter half or so of Kamala’s campaign and by memes such as this:
Then you aren’t expressing yourself very well.
Agreed.
Copy/paste of my other comment, the gist of what im saying:
LGBT, woke, and immigrant issues are amplified by those in power to get more votes on the right, and distract from the most important issues: oligarchy and wealthy elites who are exploiting the poor and working class.
This doesn’t mean these issues aren’t important, they are. They’re just used to distract from what’s more important, and energize bigots who end up supporting the right.
Anti oligarchy and the billionaire exploitation should be the most amplified issues talking points. This, done correctly, might even get some support from outside the left (remember luigi?, glimpses of far left and far right joining together).
This doesn’t mean throw minorities under the bus. It means switching priorities, to get power.
OK agreed!
I agree with you that they use them to distract from those issues, but I disagree with how you are ranking them. I will attempt to explain that at the end.*
I agree here too, but that support will be limited, insincere, a facade, a brittle alliance, because the moment they have to support policies that will help people not like them, or that require them to accept policies based on someone else’s deeper understanding of a topic than their own (for one example a global pandemic and the precautions an uncertain world needed to take until treatments and vaccines could be developed), they will go running back to maga, or at least to whatever is remaining of R at that point in time.
I believe you think it doesn’t. I think you can’t possibly be considering how such an approach will allow for harm to those groups until your plan bears fruit. (which it may not ever do)
During the period of time between the switching and the power, it means willfully risking the lives of other people who are members of groups that (apologies for my assumption if I’m wrong) it doesn’t sound like you consider yourself a member of. The willfully is important. There’s no avoiding that we all make decisions that will have external impacts we haven’t considered, but there’s no way around that this is a choice to increase the vulnerability of those groups for an uncertain period of time.
For the next bit, I’m going to copy paste a bit from a prior reply also, with some edits.
I said I’d more thoroughly explain my disagreement with you on this point.
I am NOT queer, nor a minority. But if I were a member of one of those groups, I’d probably be pretty upset that you are telling me I should accept that I’m going to lose my gender affirming care or the protections of the civil rights act with nary an expectation of backing from allies, because for an indeterminate amount of time they have decided they need to let me and others like me suffer for a political gambit that may or may not pan out.
EDIT: So it’s a distraction to the RIGHT who eat up the fake bullshit about these groups. But to the people who are in those groups it’s a legitimate existential threat. (Forgot to tie it all together in the first draft)
IMO that sort of thinking brought us Hillary (vs Bernie) and Biden (vs Bernie) and contributes to the rightward walk of the Democrats exemplified by the latter half or so of Kamala’s campaign and by memes such as this: