I mean, you're not entirely wrong for sure. I'm gonna upvote because it's a really good point, worth thinking about. But I do disagree, somewhat. Trump isn't McCain. The majority of D voters are looking for someone more left, and the ones who aren't, are definitely driven by beating Trump. It's the party leadership that is mostly a problem here. If Biden went rogue and endorsed a leftist, which he wouldn't do, the DCCC Democrats would be desperately scrambling to undermine that candidate, any way they could, even at the expense of losing to Trump. But that's also, I think, kind of aside from Ensign Crab's point, as if Biden had chosen to support another candidate, it would not be a leftist.
docAvid
joined 2 years ago
You aren't wrong, in a way. I'm nearing fifty and Biden is arguably the most progressive president in my lifetime. The problem is, that says more about the quality of presidents in my lifetime than it does about Biden, and with the climate crisis and encroaching global fascism, we don't have anymore time to wait. The Democrats are doing more, now, because pressure from the left has convinced them that they have to, but the leadership is still dragging their feet in defense of corporate profits as much as they can. The fact that they are doing more doesn't mean it's time to lower the pressure - it means the pressure is working, and we need to dial it up.
But that's just not what Biden said, at all. Here's what Biden actually said: "he’s a dictator in the sense that he is a guy who runs a country that is a communist country that’s based on a form of government totally different than ours."
This isn't nuanced, it's an ignorant and belligerent hot-take. He clearly indicated that either having a different form of government from ours, or being communist, or perhaps the combination of those two things (which is redundant), makes a country a dictatorship. That's not a straw man reading, it's what he said, in pretty clear terms. He didn't say, or even approach saying, any of the things you suggested, except the "yes he is" bit.
Biden spews toxic nonsense almost as badly as Trump, sometimes. Thankfully, not as constantly.
Who do you think is going to do this expelling? Do you imagine that there is some meta-governmental body, at the highest level, that can be relied upon to block anybody who isn't following the rules, other than a court? Nobody 24 runs, because they know they would be ruled ineligible. Ultimately, government works because of functioning institutions. The Supreme Court is not, currently, a functioning institution.
But nevermind that. The point is that, if you wanted to suggest that a ruling wouldn't, or shouldn't, be necessary, you could have said so, but you did not. You said that, if no legal authority had ruled him ineligible, that must mean the Constitution has zero legal authority. The Constitution doesn't make rulings. Your comment was entirely unrelated to the comment you were responding to, because you ignored the word "ruled", whether you think a ruling is necessary or not.
All of these are classically liberal positions, and most of them are compatible with progressivism, and with socialism. Admittedly, since liberalism is the foundation of the USA, and the global norm today, classical liberalism is technically a conservative perspective, now, but it really isn't what most people have meant by "conservative" for the last hundred years or so.
You seem to have missed the key word, "ruled", but nice rundown.
What? Liberals love Biden, they're only slightly annoyed at his more leftist moves, and love his right-liberal moves. Progressives and socialists, though, are not so enamored of him. I do agree that, since it looks like he will be the candidate, we do need to vote for him, but these words are not all synonyms. Liberalism is conservative in our current political spectrum.
"(derogatory) Biased communication aimed to influence an audience to further an agenda, encourage a particular perception or provoke an emotional response." (https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/propaganda)
Other dictionaries give similar definitions. The Oxford Languages definition, given by Google, which doesn't seem to be linkable, says: "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view." That's the only one I've seen that does indicate something like the word "misleading", but even there it is only "especially" information of that sort, not always.
Generally, the word "propaganda" indicates an intent, not an inherent property. Although it is a derogatory term, which people are unlikely to use to describe things they agree with, it is certainly possible for completely true and well-sourced works to qualify as propaganda.
The videos in question are neither true, nor well-sourced, but that isn't why they are propaganda. They are propaganda because they are produced with the intent of provoking an emotional response (fear and disgust at trans people), of encouraging a particular perception (that trans people are dangerous and mentally ill), and of furthering an agenda (of taking away human rights from trans people).
None of that speaks to whether it is the right decision by the platforms. I don't think it is, but I also don't think that the videos should be deplatformed simply because they are propaganda. They should be deplatformed because they are hate-speech and because they are dishonest.
Thank you, it drives me batty that it's become so hard to discuss the problems of actual fake news, much of which benefits Trump and needs to be called out, without people thinking we're MAGA conspiracy loons.
But also, I kind of chuckled, because your use of past tense made it sound like those things don't happen anymore, rather than being the cornerstone of right wing media today.
Thank you, it drives me batty that it's become so hard to discuss the problems of actual fake news, much of which benefits Trump and needs to be called out, without people thinking we're MAGA conspiracy loons.
But also, I kind of chuckled, because your use of past tense made it sound like those things don't happen anymore, rather than being the cornerstone of right wing media today.
Thank you, it drives me batty that it's become so hard to discuss the problems of actual fake news, much of which benefits Trump and needs to be called out, without people thinking we're MAGA conspiracy loons.
But also, I kind of chuckled, because your use of past tense made it sound like those things don't happen anymore, rather than being the cornerstone of right wing media today.
It takes explaining to understand exactly how it gives us better results, but the rules for the "players" are simple, just pick your first preference, second preference, and so on for all candidates. Probably simpler than tic tac toe.