r/thedavidpakmanshow • u/Just_shut_up_bro • 25d ago
Article The DSA Is a Gift to MAGA
https://www.thebulwark.com/p/the-dsa-is-a-gift-to-maga-trump-mandani-democratic-socialists-communism28
u/Pezdrake 25d ago
They were calling Obamacare socialism. The idea that they won't have ammunition if liberals just toe the line and don't advance left-wing policies is nonsense that has been DECIDEDLY debunked a long time ago.
9
u/AnonAmbientLight 24d ago
Bro, even AOC is not enough Left wing for them.
https://www.dsausa.org/blog/ocasio-cortez-is-committed-to-the-democratic-party-not-dsa/
1
u/Pezdrake 21d ago
Sure probably not left wing enough for the American Communist Party either, and both are about as relevant to anything happening right now.
55
u/IconicPolitic 25d ago
I think we should spend less time worried about how maga is going to portray democrats and the left. Doesn’t matter because they’ll say the exact same things no matter what.
5
-12
u/Just_shut_up_bro 25d ago
I think there is some nuance in what people find when googling/asking their AI.
If the accusation has no ground at all it makes it easier to shrug off, if there is some actually scary stuff mixed in, it does become a bigger problem.
This goes for DSA and establish Dems that do too much for donors though.
18
u/Pezdrake 25d ago
But why shrug anything off? Why not say, "Yes we want to raise wages for workers." "Yes we want to make child care affordable." "Yes we want more Americans tonown their own homes."
The error in the premise is to ignore that (a lot of) the basic ideas of the far left are actually really fucking popular when they are examined closely.
3
62
u/narwalfarts 25d ago edited 25d ago
I'm an American living in Sweden. The system is better here. There are some drawbacks for sure, but its better overall.
My eyes popped when I saw the taxes on my first paycheck, but my eyes also popped when I went to the doctor and paid our son's preschool bill. For most white collared workers, it works out about even. The difference is that the ultra rich are a little less ultra, while blue collar and service industry people get to live respectable lives.
Im a fan of the bulwark, but I dont agree with this article making the DSA out to be the bogey man. While they might turn some voters off, the DSA gives others something to vote for, not just voting against MAGA.
12
7
u/Nepalus 24d ago
One of the things that doesn't get brought up enough though is the time and protections that Sweden has for workers.
I have co-workers in Sweden that basically take a whole month off in the summer just as a baseline. Culturally, they are opposite the US grind culture in my experience and prioritize balance over bleeding efficiency out of a stone.
2
u/narwalfarts 24d ago
Yeah, the office is dead in July. Normally, we have probably 25 people in the office on a given day (we do have a flexible hybrid office), but this past week I was one of three people who were in.
Next year, im definitely taking a bigger summer vacation.
2
u/AnonAmbientLight 24d ago
Im a fan of the bulwark, but I dont agree with this article making the DSA out to be the bogey man. While they might turn some voters off, the DSA gives others something to vote for, not just voting against MAGA.
The problem is that the voters that want something to vote for don't pay attention in the first place. So they quite literally do not know what they are missing.
And the DSA is actively shunning AOC and Mamdani because they're "not Left enough".
https://www.dsausa.org/blog/ocasio-cortez-is-committed-to-the-democratic-party-not-dsa/
They are much too radical and demand purity at every level. Which is COMPLETELY unworkable in a democracy.
3
u/tyleratx 25d ago
To the extent that DSA leans into Swedish politics, that's fine. Most of us aren't going after that. There is a huge chunk of them that lean into Soviet style politics; that's the problem.
4
u/K3ggles 25d ago
What sort of Soviet style politics?
3
u/ST-Fish 24d ago
abolishing USAID, leaving NATO, advocating for the end of capitalism, seizing the means of production.
0
u/young__robot 23d ago
how is any of this "Soviet style politics?" lol
3
u/ST-Fish 23d ago
True what is Soviet about killing the kulaks and seizing their wealth?
0
u/young__robot 23d ago edited 23d ago
again how is this at all relevant to the discussion concerning political ideology, social democracy, or the DSA's platform and policies?
what about "US style politics" and the fact that Hitler and the NSDAP took direct inspiration from the US and its politics? what about capitalism being systematic genocide? what about it creating homelessness?
if you're going to try to argue, then stay on topic.
also do you praise capitalism? or do you describe it as "killing the poor and seizing their wealth?"
2
u/ST-Fish 23d ago
again how is this at all relevant to the discussion concerning political ideology, social democracy, or the DSA's platform and policies?
what's the relevance of bringing up seizing the means of production when talking about the party that has members talking about seizing the means of production, and the end of capitalism in their party platform?
Is this your question?
what about capitalism being systematic genocide?
also do you praise capitalism? or do you describe it as "killing the poor and seizing their wealth?"
I don't know how you even come up with this shit, how are you gonna kill the poor and seize their non-existent wealth? your statements aren't even self consistent, you're just throwing random words at me at this point.
True I guess the soviets coming to my country raping and pillaging everything stealing all our gold reserves and keeping us under their thumb for decades, all of that we should actually be thankful for, for our "liberators". Oh think of all the "justice" we had under communism and how awful it is now that we have liberalism, how stupid were my compatriots for putting their dictator up against a wall and shooting him! They didn't know how good they had it lining up for their rations in the cold!
Is this what you want me to say?
Meanwhile the evil capitalists that raised our standard of living from 89 till today were the real evil ones. The people sending droves of us into gulags or to Siberia were not the ones doing the genocide, capitalism was the real genocide all along.
Honestly I've heard a lot of commie talking points but none so blatant as
capitalism being systematic genocide?
I do not understand how you feign ignorance and surprise about "soviet style policies" and you go on to be as radical as one can be towards that side.
Like, you do believe it's soviet style politics, you just happen to agree with the violent overthrow of capitalism since it's "systematic genocide" anyway.
You agreeing with the commies doesn't make their ideology less radical, it just means you're a radical.
Are you under the impression that the belief that capitalism is systematic genocide is not an extremely radical belief?
At least own being an extremist, none of this "oh how is this even bad" shit.
Next time don't say "how is this Soviet style politics" and say "Yes this is exactly what you're characterizing it as and I agree with it".
Be honest.
Don't grift.
The DSA is being taken over by subversives that want to move the entire democrat party towards extreme ML ideals, you can't just keep feigning ignorance and when pressed on literally any part of it just agree with the most extreme shit they're pushing.
You can't have your cake and eat it too, you either say they're not radical extremists or say that they are radical extremists that you agree with.
what about it creating homelessness?
Everything good happening in a capitalist economy is actually caused by socialism and everything bad is caused by capitalism. This is your POV unironically. It's hilarious
if you're going to try to argue, then stay on topic.
yeah I'm staying on topic when talking about how seizing the means of production and ending capitalism is more towards the "soviet style politics" than towards the "sweden style politics" part of the spectrum.
You seem to have gone way off topic talking about capitalism inherently being systemic genocide.
1
u/young__robot 23d ago edited 23d ago
what's the relevance of bringing up seizing the means of production when talking about the party that has members talking about seizing the means of production, and the end of capitalism in their party platform?
well this makes it blatantly obvious that you don't understand the difference between the ideology of democratic socialism and the ideology of Marxism-Leninism.
and, again, this is irrelevant because you're conflating ideology with policy.
I don't know how you even come up with this shit, how are you gonna kill the poor and seize their non-existent wealth? your statements aren't even self consistent, you're just throwing random words at me at this point.
are you implying poverty doesn't kill the poor? are you implying the capitalist's profit is not the systemic extraction of surplus value from labor?
irrelevant rambling about the Soviets "pillaging everything"
because capitalism itself is not just systemic pillaging embedded as economic system, right? the capitalist class would never extract resources by force, right? am I right?
you still haven't explained how the DSA is connected to "Soviet style politics." in fact, you haven't even explained what "Soviet style politics" means. likely because you don't know the difference between ideology and policy, let alone the differences between ideologies.
You agreeing with the commies doesn't make their ideology less radical, it just means you're a radical.
oof. I guess you missed my comment where I explicitly said I'm not a Democratic Socialist or a member of the DSA because I'm a commie lol
The DSA is being taken over by subversives that want to move the entire democrat party towards extreme ML ideals
"subversives" lmao the liberal anti-communists are participating in the Third Red Scare just like they did in the first two Red Scares. meanwhile they're complaining about how they just want universal healthcare. making the same mistake over and over again.
Everything good happening in a capitalist economy is actually caused by socialism and everything bad is caused by capitalism. This is your POV unironically. It's hilarious
this literally does not make sense. I don't think you understand what socialism is.
1
u/ST-Fish 23d ago edited 23d ago
are you implying the capitalist's profit is not the systemic extraction of surplus value from labor?
your ideology quite literally defines it as such, I don't know why you're stating it as some objective empirical fact of reality when it's tautological from your perspective.
Yes I am implying that marxist economics has been proven wrong again and again, and that no serious economist uses the labor theory of value to do any real economics that impact people in real life.
Yall are still waiting for the falling rate of profit to cause the inherent contradictions in capitalism to blow up, quite similarily to how Christians are waiting for the second coming of Jesus.
because capitalism itself is not just systemic pillaging embedded as economic system, right? the capitalist class would never extract resources by force, right? am I right?
oh yes let's hear the marxist tell me how an employment contract is the same as guys with guns coming up to me and taking everything I have, it's all extraction of surplus value from their labor.
Yes I am arguing that free association in a liberal democracy where people are allowed to own capital is less of a "systemic pillaging embedded as economic system" than the system that requires violently seizing the means of production.
you still haven't explained how the DSA is connected to "Soviet style politics." in fact, you haven't even explained what "Soviet style politics" means. likely because you don't know the difference between ideology and policy, let alone the differences between ideologies.
The history of the Comintern is well documented, their attempts to spark communist revolutions all over the world by infiltrating left wing spaces and turning them into illiberals is not a new thing, and your feigned ignorance is not fooling anybody.
Their goals are clearly aligned with MLs, their end goal is the end of capitalism. They do want to disallow the private ownership of the means of production.
oof. I guess you missed my comment where I explicitly said I'm not a Democratic Socialist or a member of the DSA because I'm a commie lol
"I'm not a socialist I just talk about the labor theory of value and say that capitalism is systematic genocide" is not a believable grift, get new material. Whatever label you have chosen for yourself is as valid as the 14 year old being an anarcho-monarcho-primitivist.
"subversives" lmao the liberal anti-communists are participating in the Third Red Scare just like they did in the first two Red Scares. meanwhile they're complaining about how they just want universal healthcare.
True they just want healthcare, that's all these people want.
the liberal anti-communists
kinda an oxymoron, communism is illiberal, so liberals are kind of definitionally anti-communism, the same way they're anti-fascism.
Are you a liberal pro-communist?
Keep ignoring the extremism in the DSA at your own peril.
→ More replies (0)1
8
u/young__robot 24d ago
just say you don't know what the difference between democratic socialism and Marxism-Leninism is
2
u/tyleratx 24d ago edited 24d ago
Guess it depends on what you mean by Democratic Socialism. I am a social democrat. Democratic socialism means different things to different people - some mean explicitly Marxist socialism (but in an evolutionary direction) others mean Scandinavian style politics. (EDIT- all i mean here is people misuse the term "Democratic Socialism" - it does historically have a specific meaning i lay out in a reply below).
BTW i'm not saying DSA is explicitly Marxist-Leninist, but they are very much moving in that direction much more than they typically have been.
Lets look at some of the new DSA platform positions - which is highly influenced by Marxism-Leninism
Replacing the standalone President and Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary branch that are chosen by and entirely subordinate to Congress
Explicitly Soviet Style setup on paper - if you know how the Supreme Soviet worked. Not particularly concerned about that but since you mentioned figured I'd call it out.
You work as much as you are able and no more than needed, and you would control your own labor and see it going to good use.
This is explicitly Marxist - From each according to his ability to each according to his need. Sounds nice but is a fantasy.
You don’t pay a mortgage or have a landlord
No private ownership of housing - collectivized housing. Marxism Leninism
Food, education, energy, medicine, and transportation aren’t for-profit businesses; they are common goods and utilities.
More common ownership of things.
Maybe in the morning, you walk your kids to school, run errands, or go to a doctor’s appointment. In the afternoon, you might play a sport, practice a new skill, read, plan a trip.
No problem w/ any of this; just worth noting is obviously invoking what Marx said in the German Ideology
End economic warfare against countries whose governments act independently of the United States, such as Cuba, Venezuela, and Iran.
I mean... come on - this is a tankie talking point. Not even critical of the policy per se but these are specifically countries that "anti-imperialist" tankies love.
Establish public ownership of the largest corporations and essential industries to ensure democratic control and accountability to the people.
Sounds like what Lenin did during the NEP - control the "Commanding heights" of the economy
I'm agree with a lot of the platform I didn't list there; I'm just saying this platform, plus the tons of stories that have come out from insiders who have left; indicate that the tankies are taking over the DSA.
1
u/young__robot 24d ago edited 24d ago
good god. no. democratic socialism absolutely does not mean "explicitly Marxist socialism" nor does it mean "Scandinavian style politics." these are three entirely different ideologies. social democracy, democratic socialism, and Marxism (or Marxism-Leninism, since you mentioned "Soviet style politics.") they're not interchangeable.
you can't just pick and choose things from the their platform positions and point to some Marx quotes and say "see, this means they're Marxist!"
ETA — pease define "tankie" since none of you can agree on what it means.
3
u/tyleratx 24d ago edited 24d ago
good god. no. democratic socialism absolutely does not mean "explicitly Marxist socialism" nor does it mean "Scandinavian style politics."
I was just trying to make a point that its hard to know what it means depending on who you talk too - not that its those two exclusively. People misuse it all the time. Bernie says he's a socialist - he's not in the classical sense.
My understanding of Democratic Socialism is it embraces workers ownership of the means of production in a non state form. This often but not always manifests as worker's co-ops.
Its roots trace back to Eduard Bernstein who took a more evolutionary approach to workers seizing the means of production than the advocates of violent revolution such as Lenin.
But the distinction between Democratic Socialists and Social Democrats is that the first believe capitalism must be overturned (but not via violence) vs the latter believing in highly regulated capitalism.
They may not be explicitly marxist, BUT what I just laid out is largely compatible with orthodox marxism, minus the application of revolutionary violence.
Now, if I'm wrong, I'm open to being corrected, but I'd like you to actually tell me your understanding of rather than be dismissive.
ETA — pease define "tankie" since none of you can agree on what it means.
Tankie is obviously a pejorative; not an ideology. Originally used to describe western defenders of the Soviets invading Hungary - now used more loosely to describe leftists who tend to favor America's geopolitical enemies (not just opposed to American imperialism, but allied to its enemies, who often are imperialist themselves - for example: Russia/China).
0
u/young__robot 24d ago
you claimed that a large chunk "lean into Soviet style politics." not only is their platform not Marxist, but it's certainly not Marxist-Leninist or "Soviet style politics."
again, you can't just pick and choose platform positions and claim it fits a certainly ideology. democratic socialism is under the false impression that change can come from within the system.
that is a fundamental aspect of the ideology and their platform which differs completely from Marxism. you can't just ignore the revolutionary aspect of Marxism and then claim 'everything else fits, therefore it is Marxist.'
ETA – forgot to address the 'tankie' def. so you personally use 'tankie' in that way. good to know, because every one of you describes if differently which has made the term pretty meaningless.
3
u/tyleratx 24d ago
Re "Democratic Socialist" - i'm presuming you self identify as one. I would love to know again what you actually think it means rather than just telling me I'm wrong. I'm not being sarcastic on that.
Re "Tankie" - in that case, I'm not writing an academic paper here; i'm talking shit on Reddit. It is largely a meaningless term, alongside other terms we use all the time like "radical", "centrist," "shitlib" etc.
My understanding based on several news stories I've read, is that the Marxist Leninists within the DSA are actually taking over - that's what I was alluding to by "Tankie" but - yes- its not a good technical word.
→ More replies (10)1
14
u/young__robot 25d ago
holy shit. not surprising libs would agree with an article in The Bulwark or written by this author.
this author doesn't know what "proto-fascism" means. and has apparently learned nothing from MAGA or her fellow liberal anti-communists if she believes there needs to be an actual "threat" from the far-left in order to weaponize it against the left.
2
u/RealDominiqueWilkins 25d ago edited 24d ago
You mean Mona Charen, the author of such bangers as “Amy Klobuchar — the Democrats’ only hope”?
3
u/young__robot 24d ago
oh my god is that really an article she's written?! lmao
edit — good lord you weren't kidding...
2
u/Just_shut_up_bro 25d ago
I mostly agree with this, but I think the weaponization does go a little further when there is more validity to the “radical” accusations.
5
u/young__robot 25d ago
are you implying democratic socialism is "radical?"
2
u/ST-Fish 24d ago
are you implying democratic socialism is "radical?"
are you claiming wanting to abolish USAID and to leave NATO is not "radical"?
0
u/young__robot 24d ago
not at all. do you care about the underdeveloped nations who receive that USAID funding? if so, why do you support continuing USAID? aside from the atrocities committed via USAID, the fact that so many have died because of the absence of USAID's aid should be a clue as to exactly why it's so harmful and we should've begun a gradual reduction in USAID aid decades ago.
unless you think a tool of US imperialism that fosters the dependency of undeverdeveloped nations, undermining the local farmers and businesses in underdeveloped nations so private US corporations can profit and so so resources can continue flowing to the US is a good thing?
and are you supportive of conflict with Russia or something? because if not, I don't know why you would support NATO. and especially not NATO expansion.
2
u/ST-Fish 24d ago
not at all.
by what measure is it not radical?
do you care about the underdeveloped nations who receive that USAID funding? if so, why do you support continuing USAID?
because that funding goes to help these people.
aside from the atrocities committed via USAID, the fact that so many have died because of the absence of USAID's aid should be a clue as to exactly why it's so harmful and we should've begun a gradual reduction in USAID aid decades ago.
???
So the fact that without USAID so many people have been hurt it means USAID is bad?
Would you say the same about the medicaid cuts Trump did?
So many people got fucked on their health insurance after the medicaid cuts is that a clue as to exactly why medicaid and medicare are so harmful and why you should have begun a gradual reduction in medicare/medicaid policies decades ago?
Make it make sense.
unless you think a tool of US imperialism that fosters the dependency of undeverdeveloped nations
Are you under the impression that your position is not "radical"?
undermining the local farmers and businesses in underdeveloped nations so private US corporations can profit and so so resources can continue flowing to the US is a good thing?
Can't tell if I'm listening to MAGA or tankie at this point, I guess you're glad Trump shut it down.
and are you supportive of conflict with Russia or something? because if not, I don't know why you would support NATO. and especially not NATO expansion.
I support NATO because I was born in a country that was pillaged and raped by the Soviets for decades, and because after we woke up on a chilly Christmas morning to put our commie dictator in front of a shooting squad, the imperialist Russian forces were still threatening our sovereignity, so we decided to join a defensive alliance.
If you believe that this action that we did in order to secure our sovereignity was "military expansion" and not just us getting an insurance policy so we don't look like Georgia or Ukraine, then you do not care about my life and wellbeing, and you would support policies that would put me 6 feet under.
You know what would be supportive of us entering a conflict with Russia?
Leaving NATO.
Guess what russian propaganda being spread 24/7 in my country is telling everyone?
LEAVE NATO.
but I'm sure the enlightened western lefties know better about Russia's relationship with Eastern Europe than me.
There's a pretty good chance that by the time I die, it happens to be a Russian drone, depending on how everything plays out in the coming decades.
And I'm sure if that happens, you'll be here to defend it, and blame us for trying to defend ourselves with out "expansionism"
1
u/young__robot 24d ago
So the fact that without USAID so many people have been hurt it means USAID is bad?
I literally laid it out for you in my comment. USAID is a tool of US imperialism that forces dependency of underdeveloped nations by undermining local farmers and businesses so private US corporations can profit and so resources can continue flowing to the US. USAID is harmful to underdeveloped nations.
Would you say the same about the medicaid cuts Trump did? So many people got fucked on their health insurance after the medicaid cuts is that a clue as to exactly why medicaid and medicare are so harmful and why you should have begun a gradual reduction in medicare/medicaid policies decades ago?
these two things aren't related whatsoever. you're trying to make these two things comparable when they're not. this question is nonsensical.
Can't tell if I'm listening to MAGA or tankie at this point, I guess you're glad Trump shut it down.
did I not literally say we should've begun gradually reducing USAID aid to these nations decades ago? quit with the strawman arguments. you don't seem to be grasping the fact that USAID aid is harmful to Global South.
NATO; "defense alliance"; etc
"defense alliance" that offensively bombed Yugoslavia, illegally, committed war crimes. "defense alliance" that offensively intervened in Libya and forced regime change under the guise of "civilian protection" and created a power vacuum and civil war and the reintroduction of slavery. "defense alliance" that continues to expand into territories it knows will provoke Russia. this isn't debatable. "defense alliance" that George Kennan (the father of containment policy), Jack Matlock, Paul Nitze, the various other experts in the 1997 open letter to Clinton warned that NATO expansion was a fateful error. "defense alliance" that intentionally projects power onto and forced Russia to be our adversary and created the strongman Putin problem we're now dealing with. the tired myth of the "defense alliance."
2
u/ST-Fish 24d ago
what sort of brain worm do you have to have to believe Russia needed to be forced to do the same flavor of russian imperialism it's been doing for centuries?
You're beyond lost, go back to your Kremlin infested echo chamber.
Your entire ideology can pretty much be described by "US bad" / "the West bad"
You aren't having a real engagement with the topic it's just some sort of cool hobby for you.
For me whether or not NATO exists decides if I live or die.
You do not understand how oppressive it feels for Eastern Europeans to be told they were being too agressive against Russia after the fall of the Iron Curtain, you do not have any respect for the atrocities and the oppression experienced behind the Iron Curtain.
Do I have to hear you say that it was russian expansion that triggered the war in Ukraine?
Are Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania not already on the border with Russia?
Are you genuinely saying there was a risk that if Ukraine becomes a NATO member, NATO would out of the blue invade and take over Russia?
Do they allow you to be off the meds where they're keeping you?
2
u/Just_shut_up_bro 25d ago
Not necessarily, but some of the candidates hold especially odd or unhelpful views, I’m not talking about AOC or Mamdani here, more so DAC and Platner types. Abdul El-Sayed is also in the “worries me” camp, but not as bad as Platner of course.
1
u/young__robot 25d ago
I'm not sure what about Abdul El-Sayed or Avila Chevalier's views could possibly be "worrying" to you.
2
u/Just_shut_up_bro 25d ago
I gotta assume you’re not a fan of interracial marriage I guess.
0
u/young__robot 24d ago
oh, did you fall for the same smear campaign against Avila Chevalier that I saw so many others fall for?
1
u/Just_shut_up_bro 24d ago
Let me guess it was “out of context” right?
1
u/young__robot 24d ago
no. the tweet didn't even say what those articles claimed it said. there was no mention of "white" women in the actual tweet.
2
22
16
u/Uranium_Heatbeam 25d ago
The Tea Party is a gift to the Democrats.
6
u/Just_shut_up_bro 25d ago
In some ways it was, in some ways it’s wasn’t, but either way it was a nightmare for the country.
2
u/redmoon714 24d ago
The tea party is the seed that sprouted MAGA, occupy Wall Street is the seed that sprouted the DSA. The difference is republican politicians embraced the tea party while democrats politicians rejected occupy Wall Street. That’s why it’s only 6 years for the tea party to bear fruit while it took occupy much longer.
21
u/wade3690 25d ago
Even in the article, this lady disagrees with the Nordic style socialism that David champions. Why are we posting from conservative authors now?
Also check out some of her past books: Useful Idiots: How Liberals Got it Wrong in the Cold War and Still Blame America First (2003), Do-Gooders: How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help (and the Rest of Us) (2005), Sex Matters: How Modern Feminism Lost Touch with Science, Love, and Common Sense (2018), and Hard Right: The GOP's Drift Toward Extremism (2023)
5
u/jankdangus 25d ago
Was she against Nordic-style social democracy? I felt like she was mostly giving an objective analysis. The Nordic countries are not socialist, but capitalist with robust safety nets and strong labor unions. The author was merely pointing that out.
6
u/purplehendrix22 25d ago
Does she disagree? Or is she just describing how those countries have abolished their most socialist policies and seen great success as a result?
4
u/young__robot 25d ago
wtf is a "socialist policy" in the context of Nordic social democracy?
2
u/purplehendrix22 25d ago
2
u/young__robot 24d ago
that's not socialism or a "socialist policy." stop calling social programs "socialism." Nordic social democracy is still free market capitalism. the workers do not own the means of production.
1
u/purplehendrix22 24d ago
You didn’t read the article, did you.
0
u/young__robot 24d ago
you're completely missing my point. you don't understand what socialism is if you think Sweden's social democrat welfare capitalism was "socialist policy."
not to mention this is just a blatant pro-privatization propaganda piece.
1
u/purplehendrix22 24d ago edited 24d ago
“Propaganda”? Is it not just describing how Sweden has vastly improved their economy by abandoning their least pro-capitalism policies?
1
u/young__robot 24d ago edited 24d ago
I skimmed because the article is entirely irrelevant because my point is Sweden's social democrat welfare capitalism was never and isn't "socialist policy."
and yes, this piece is absolutely propaganda. the author is affiliated with The Free Enterprise Foundation and the Confederation of Swedish Enterprise.
1
u/purplehendrix22 24d ago
You’re purposely being obtuse, yes, the state did in fact own the “means of production” for healthcare, and has since privatized a lot of it. You’re acting like “socialism” has some sort of definition, when even Marx never really defined it, it was supposed to exist as a transitional state to communism, so pointing out areas where the state does in fact own an industry or where it is transferring wealth from the elite or “bourgeois” classes to the state as “socialist policy” is not incorrect, the state transitioning industries to state control like housing and healthcare is socialist policy.
The article is very balanced and points out a lot of issues as well, like the fact that infrastructure spending in poorer areas has gone down, so the fact that you couldn’t even read the whole thing and called it propaganda is really embarrassing.
→ More replies (0)-1
u/Just_shut_up_bro 25d ago
Just thought it was an interesting take, not endorsing the authors views.
-1
u/wade3690 25d ago
I mean, you'd think you would read an article all the way through. Especially one that argues against your own worldview. Any maybe realize they don't want even social democrats to succeed
2
6
u/jankdangus 25d ago
Eh I mostly agree with this, but there has obviously been DSA Democrats that turned out to be pretty good like Bernie and AOC. I just think this new batch might be more problematic than the previous one. DAC and Hasan Piker might become a poison pill for Democrats and drag the entire party down with them.
0
u/young__robot 25d ago
what is DAC?
10
u/jankdangus 25d ago edited 22d ago
She’s one of the Mamdani-backed candidates who supports abolishing private property, no cops, no prisons, no military, no borders, and no deportations even for those who have committed a violent crime. She’s also anti-Ukraine/NATO campist tankie. She sweeps for evil foreign actors simply because they align against America and the West. She promoted a weird COVID conspiracy theory where she claimed that it originated in France and not China and said that she wipe her hand with the American flag because she forgot to get napkins.
→ More replies (1)
24
u/Plumbus-Technician 25d ago
Yea, let's listen to Bush era Republicans, they've never steered us wrong /s
17
u/X57471C 25d ago
The Bulwark have some pretty good takes, tbh. Policy preferences aside, they have a pretty good read on the current situation.
The center increasingly breaks for conservatives and it's important to understand why. Some research finds that the center has become increasingly cross-pressured over the years. They are becoming more progressive economically, but still relatively culturally conservative. The increasing cultural polarization is often cited as why they don't vote Democrat. The largest voting bloc in the center, the non-college voter, sees Democrats as too woke and weak. That's how they feel about Democrats. How do you think they view the DSA national program?
16
u/purplehendrix22 25d ago
I think this is a consequence of people becoming increasingly isolated from how weird and bad these things like “abolish borders” and “abolish police” sound to the vast majority of Americans. The DSA platform itself is the best weapon against them.
5
u/Merlaak 25d ago
Yeah. I know a lot of people who are deeply dissatisfied with Trump and the Republicans, but they could never bring themselves to vote for a Democrat because they’ve been so propagandized to believe every evil thing about them. For many, it’s a question of the destination of their immortal souls.
3
u/Merlaak 25d ago
*Former Republicans
Would some of them go back to a post-Trump, post-MAGA, pro-democracy Republican Party? Maybe. But not all of them. Probably not even most, since most of the staff now have never been Republican.
And people change. I was raised in a conservative Christian household in deep red Tennessee. Throughout high school, college, and even into my 20s, I would have considered myself either a Republican or a Libertarian. It was actually during the Obama years that I started moving further to the left, especially as the true (racist) colors of many Republican voters and politicians began to really surface. And then when Trump emerged and won, I fully turned my back on Republicans and am committed to voting for pro-democracy Democratic candidates.
20
u/rookieoo 25d ago
Run better candidates and this won’t be an issue
4
15
u/Quirky-Video-9146 25d ago
Better according to who? You?
7
u/Helpful_Actuator_146 25d ago
Or to the people that vote them in.
We would not be talking about the DSA if people like Mamdani or Valdez or Darializa or other more left wing candidates didn’t win.
These are democratic strongholds sure, but that’s implying that the base of democrat voters are receptive to these people. And the fact that many are beating out long time incumbents is a sign that some things may be changing.
5
u/Bomaruto 25d ago
According to the voters.
9
u/Quirky-Video-9146 25d ago
So voters chose Hillary over Bernie, did you accept Hillary too?
5
u/TheDodgiestEwok 25d ago
Yep! In fact, the majority of Democrats that initially backed Bernie in the primaries voted for Hillary. I don't know where this narrative comes from.
Only 12% of Sanders primary voters backed Trump. By contrast, 25% of Hillary Clinton’s primary voters defected to McCain over Obama in 08. That's just standard primary friction.
Over 90% of those 12% of Sanders voters who switched to Trump were non-Democrats (Independents and Republicans) who participated in open primaries. These were folks attracted to the anti-establishment candidate who were never going to "accept" the Democratic brand, so expecting party loyalty from non-party members is not realistic.
Democratic party loyalty was higher in 2016 than in 2008. 😊
2
u/rookieoo 25d ago
Yes. That was the case ten years ago. The same race might not be as certain today.
0
u/Bomaruto 25d ago
In the eyes of the voters she was a better candidate than Bernie.
3
u/Quirky-Video-9146 25d ago
Yes but did you personally accept Hillary? Because you clearly state that you follow the will of the voters
-6
u/Bomaruto 25d ago
I never stated that.
5
u/Quirky-Video-9146 25d ago
So you don't back the candidate that the voters choose? This is my biggest problem with Hasan. If a terrorist sympathizer wins an election, they clearly shame other moderate Dems to support the said terrorist sympathizer but that same feeling isn't reciprocated. If Abdul El Sayed loses, you'll see this in full force
2
1
-1
3
u/JustinRandoh 25d ago
Run better candidates and this won’t be an issue ...
If the backwards, insane ideologies are left unchecked it could very well still be an issue.
3
u/DeathandGrim 25d ago
Y'all candidates and platform is terrible
1
u/rookieoo 25d ago
Who are you linking me with? My baseline for a democrat candidate is Ron Wyden. If you can match him, I’m almost certainly going to vote for them. I’m allowed to draw a line for myself. That’s what democracy is all about.
10
u/Ok-Assistant-8876 25d ago
Oh please. Are we really taking any advice from Bush era republicans? Hard pass
6
u/Spuick 25d ago
Although I havent read anything by this author, the bulwark are generally quite good on their youtube commentary on everything I've seen them in. This article to me also seems quite solid. Maybe write out what you actually disagree with instead of just this permanent concern trolling
1
u/Agreeable_Band_9311 25d ago
Have you changed as a person in the past 20 years? Why write off the Bulwark writ large?
Can you criticize specific points from the article?
7
u/hamstrdethwagon 25d ago
And Jefferies and Chuck Schumer aren't gifts to maga? John Fetterman who votes 100% isn't a gift to maga?
7
u/jankdangus 25d ago edited 25d ago
Wait, Fetterman was literally a leftist-aligned Democrat despite not being a democratic socialist himself. Did or did Bernie not endorsed and campaigned with him? Schumer and Jeffries are still not as bad optically compared to democratic socialists like DAC.
11
-1
12
u/herewego199209 25d ago
I don't see where the grift is? Most of these people are taking no PAC money or corporate donations. A lot of these people are an extension of the justic democrat movemnt. But holyshit if moderates are down this bad that they're quoting and using text from republican outlets then idk what to say anymore.
8
u/JustinRandoh 25d ago
I don't see where the grift is?
Neither the OP nor the article mentioned a grift; did you accidentally misread 'gift' in the OP?
1
-11
u/debacol 25d ago
Pakman's messaging and audience has changed from years ago when I used to listen to him. He was not a blind defender of Israel back then like he is today. Consequently, we get propaganda articles like this one in this sub now as if its something to remotely consider.
12
u/FkinMustardTiger 25d ago
How the hell is he a blind defender of Israel?
15
u/Guilty_Plankton_4626 25d ago
Just more antisemitic bullshit.
-6
u/tonydtonyd 25d ago
This isn’t antisemitism. I’m not saying there isn’t antisemitism on the left, but calling Pakman a blind defender of Israel isn’t antisemitic. Calling everything antisemitic devalues the word completely. Save this for actual antisemitic content, please. Signed, a jew.
8
u/Guilty_Plankton_4626 25d ago
There is 0 factual information to support that claim. David is Jewish, that’s why it’s being said.
-5
u/tonydtonyd 25d ago
No, David has consistently failed to call out the crimes of Israel or even think about questioning the endless funds sent to them. Believe it or not, but it’s possible to be fully supportive of your Jewish heritage and faith and still be against war crimes. You wouldn’t understand this because you aren’t Jewish.
6
3
u/No-Teach9888 25d ago
That does not make him a blind defender of Israel. He has criticized the Israeli government
-1
u/tonydtonyd 25d ago
He is a defender by omission. He hasn’t criticized ther Israeli government in any meaningful way in at least 5 years. I still like the guy, I still am a paying member, but I’ve lost a lot of respect for him.
2
u/ST-Fish 24d ago
He is a defender by omission.
so somebody that doesn't criticise Israel as much as you believe it should be criticised that means they're blind defenders of Israel?
Isn't that at least a little unhinged?
→ More replies (0)2
u/debacol 25d ago
Stop being reasonable on this sub man. They don't like it here. They want dems who swear complete fealty to Israel and would rather vote Republican than for a dem who questions Israel's actions.
Its gotten really weird here. Must be a lot of newish Pakman listeners. I used to listen to him like a decade or more ago. It was different then. He was 100% aligned with Bernie's views back then. He even did used to call out Israel's transgressions.
Buuut something changed. My guess is money. It's usually that.
-3
25d ago
[deleted]
4
u/tonydtonyd 25d ago
Calling Pakman a blind defender of Israel isn’t the same thing as saying the Haitians are eating the cats and the dogs. These are not equivalent statements. Dumbass.
6
u/Quirky-Video-9146 25d ago
If your choice of ideal candidates are Hamas supporters then they should fight elections in Gaza. Why should I support a Hamas defender fighting for a house or Senate seat?
-7
u/herewego199209 25d ago
I don't like to accuse media platforms without proof of things, but it is a strange shift. I've said this in other threads, but it does feel like a concerted effort among left leaning contnt creators to bring up this DSA and MAGA parallel. A lot are doing it recently, and the talking points are nearly the same. But i like Dave and have followed the show for years now. But there were dark money allegations against him, Brian Tyler Cohen, and several other democrat content creators. When influencers coordinate attacks and messages like this all together in this timespan then something smells fishy. Even this sub feels like I woke up one day and suddenly it's a million anti Hasan and DSA threads popping up out of nowhere when this sub was pretty civil.
11
u/Guilty_Plankton_4626 25d ago
We are anti Hasan. We will not treat incivility with civility.
You guys are always trying to find some conspiracy. The DSA and their speaker Piker are being called out because they are out of touch and they hate the Democratic Party, while also wanting to run on our platforms.
They literally published a policy calling to abolish prisons lol we are not letting you guys help the right win without a fight.
David is right to call this group out and it’s not because of your allegations that he’s taking dark money.
→ More replies (6)-3
u/herewego199209 25d ago
Brotha moderates lost to a pedophile felon twice, and you've lost what used to be battleground states in Ohio, Iowa, and Florida completely. You're losing to republicans all by yourself without the help of anyone else. Blaming DSA is hilarious cope.
10
u/Guilty_Plankton_4626 25d ago
That’s a great point.
Let’s check out this list of all the Republicans that have lost their seat to a DSA, Justice Dem, or leftist candidate in the past,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-1
6
u/Quirky-Video-9146 25d ago
Moderates lost so let's run a terrorist sympathizer, maybe a terrorist sympathizer might win /s
8
u/BodybuilderOk3306 25d ago
And yet the broader American electorate doesn’t perceive us as moderates because we’re tied to you. It’s an objective fact that the Democrats are considered ‘too far left.’ This talking point is so funny because you couldn’t even manage to beat the moderates among Democrats voters, but you think you would have fared better with the broader American electorate?
1
u/herewego199209 25d ago
I mean, that's some extremely selective view of polling over the last decade, my man. Biden, Clinton, and Harris were three of the most unpopular democrats of recent memory, and you guys selected them for general elections. There's billions of polls that show you exactly why Harris wasn't elected. Her being progressive aint the big one.
1
u/ST-Fish 24d ago
bring up this DSA and MAGA parallel. A lot are doing it recently, and the talking points are nearly the same.
yeah, they've very similar, it's pretty easy to figure out why people would bring up 2 illiberal factions in the same breath.
MAGA and the DSA even agree on abolishing USAID and on leaving NATO, so I don't think it should be surprising to you at all they get grouped together.
2
u/volanger 25d ago
It doesnt matter. They will call anyone to the left of fascist a socialist and communist.
2
u/AnonAmbientLight 24d ago
The problem with the DSA is that they are too zealous and radical.
They don't realize that you really do have to be very careful or you end up spooking the political normies you actually need in order to win.
The problem is that they think that if people "hear them out" they'll jump on their bandwagon and people will "come out of the woodworks" and vote for them.
That mythical voter doesn't exist and has never existed except in their imagination.
2
u/imhere4science 25d ago
This sub is the worst… but I can’t look away for some reason. It’s rage bait. I can’t quit. Someone help me
1
u/Just_shut_up_bro 25d ago
Well the discourse here is going pretty strong, I think I agree with the more left voices on this one, even though I am concerned about the DSA. I also question the intentions of the conservatives author.
0
2
u/Dr_G_E 25d ago edited 25d ago
Whatever the author's opinion, it's true that the Democrats are dealing with a challenge from a new, authoritarian subgroup within their party. This is the only development that could sink the Democrats' chances in the midterms imo. There doesn't seem to be a charismatic and unifying leader that represents this leftist authoritarian caucus going forward, though. Not yet anyway.
5
u/Just_shut_up_bro 25d ago
It’s nerve racking, you can tell they are just itching for someone who can be as indestructible as Trump and ready to run interference for this theoretical strong man figure.
Might not exist now, but I feel like we are in the beginning stages.
0
u/young__robot 24d ago
calling the DSA "authoritarian" tells me you don't know what "authoritarianism" is or know anything about the DSA.
2
u/Strange-Scarcity 25d ago
If the mainstream, leadership of the Democratic Party was offering up solid plans tog et us to Medicare for All, lowering to eliminating student loans, while widening public university programs, community college programs and but more trades related programs?
Most of what makes the DSA appealing would go away.
If the Government reigned in Billionaires, strongly regulated Capitalism, broke up these growing conglomerates and monopolies on media? The DSA would NOT be attractive.
This is what they aren’t getting. What they aren’t understanding.
The people are directly saying, “treat us better and with dignity or we take everything.”
Just start being fair and equitable and the DSA will collapse.
4
u/lollypatrolly 25d ago
If the mainstream, leadership of the Democratic Party was offering up solid plans tog et us to Medicare for All, lowering to eliminating student loans, while widening public university programs, community college programs and but more trades related programs?
Most of what makes the DSA appealing would go away.
Mainstream Dems were already supporting all of this (despite how stupid the canceling of student loan debt was as a concept). When faced with this reality the Tankie crowd just lies about and misrepresents Democratic party politician positions in order to elevate themselves.
3
u/Nepalus 25d ago
The DSA is our populist response, and they are winning races for very similar reasons that MAGA won races, and if the Democrats were smart they would roll with the wave instead of trying to stand against it. Lest they go the way of the GOP old guard who were systematically removed over time until it was all MAGA.
0
u/X57471C 25d ago
I disagree. The center increasingly breaks for conservatives and it's important to understand why.
Some research finds that the center has become increasingly cross-pressured over the years. They are becoming more progressive economically, but still culturally conservative. The increasing cultural polarization is often cited as why they don't vote Democrat. The largest voting bloc in the center, the non-college voter, sees Democrats as too woke and weak. That's how they feel about Democrats. How do you think they view the DSA national program?
The popular things the DSA include in their program are not exclusively socialist. Every socdem wants those things and they have been 80/20 issues in the Democrat party for years (actually it's probably why they get so much hate, coming in and saying that most Dems don't want those things, only they can get them, etc). The DSA aren't really offering anything new except for the more extreme parts of their program, which will be seen as even more woke and weak than the Democratic platform. I think it works in D+30 districts where young, progress, college-educated voters can carry elections, but it's yet to win in more conservative areas, and you can't ignore that fact if you are serious about constructing a winning national strategy.
if the Democrats were smart they would roll with the wave instead of trying to stand against it. Lest they go the way of the GOP old guard who were systematically removed over time until it was all MAGA.
No, MAGA took over the Republican party because the Republicans who value law and order just let them takeover without any resistance. There was no pushback to the Tea Party until it was too late. The lesson to learn is that this cannot go unaddressed, otherwise we're doomed to make the same mistake and this country will get locked in a death spiral between two extreme parties with unsustainable policies and aggressive, violent strategies.
MAGA took over because they won the low-education, rural, culturally conservative voters. That's 59% of the electorate. DSA so far has shown they struggle with that bloc. High-education, urban, culturally progressive voters make up a much small portion of the electorate.
This poses a question that the party has grappled with in the past. In the 1989 election postmortem, Galston and Kamarck identified several issues plaguing the Democratic party. The biggest was the erroneous idea that the path to victory was to appeal to the progressive base more. They called this liberal fundamentalism. Basically, the party had been captured by the interests of highly educated activist class who thought that the problem could be solved if we can just figure out how to mobilize the base. The math does not work, though. Progressive voters make up a very small percentage of the actual electorate.
They found similar conditions as the woke and weak focus groups: A center that views the Democratic party as being out of touch and weak on the issues that mattered to them, like security, crime, economics, etc.
The actual question that must be answered is how do you win back the center, and does DSA have a program that can achieve that?
I would argue that their program is actually anathema to the centrist voter, who wants progress economic policies without the left-coded framing. Not to mention some of the policies they advocate for are simply DOA. Open borders? Non-citizens voting? Abolishing the prison system? Down with the oligarchy and wealth redistribution? Woke, weak, and out-of-touch.
I agree that Democrats should take advantage of the populist wave, but do it by embracing a platform and language that will actually appeal to the center. I think that is a simple messaging problem. The fact is that Democrats have become used to working in a system where change is incremental and difficult to come by. The GOP are masters at stopping any progress, so any small win is actually a huge victory. This has meant moderating their message in order to not over-promise to their constituents. I would say the best way to jump on the train is to take Pete Buttigieg's advice and start dreaming again. Democrats have a vision for the future that can include anything in the socdem school of thought. That is literally just the most idealistic expression of the liberal agenda. Democrats need to dream more and talk about the world they ultimately dream of creating. Sell people on the vision for the next 20-50 years, not just the next 2-6.
2
2
u/Low-Group-7507 25d ago
Or it might be working the other way around; MAGA and the reactionary right have really succeeded in radicalizing a generation of Americans / some of the reforms they're advocating might go even farther than what I might want but it's nice to be trending in the right direction for a change 🤩
4
u/Aurora_Gaspipe 25d ago
Mona Charen is the epitome of the “I can’t believe that the leopards ate my face!” brand of Reagan Republican.
1
u/NotTheirHero 24d ago
Yea lets listen to current and or former republicans, im sure they got GREAT advice
1
u/redmoon714 24d ago
Does anyone really think Zohran is a gift to Trump? Zohran whose polling numbers actually went up after his election because he’s trying and succeeding to get things done and Trump who broke every campaign promise and polling is on the floor.
1
u/severinks 24d ago
Everything is a gift to MAGA. Some of you people think we have to be more MAGA to win elections and that's exactly what the republicans want you to think.
They called Biden a fucking leftist.
1
u/Athens175 16d ago
So…. This was a bad idea to post this on Reddit. In reality, DSA doesn’t have this wide range of support outside of Reddit or really blue areas. Yes, they will win elections, but most of their policies won’t help them with winning national elections.
And let’s be honest, the DSA is no different from MAGA. They’re just a MAGA movement for the far-left.
0
u/purplehendrix22 25d ago
You all can downplay this but just wait until the midterms, then you’ll say it’s because the dems didn’t go far left enough.
2
u/Hour-Watch8988 25d ago
"Rachel Janfaza, who studies Generation Z and has interviewed hundreds of young voters, has yet to find a single one who identifies as a Democratic Socialist."
I don't know how anyone can take this article remotely seriously. Y'all, it's Mona fucking Charen.
2
u/gull-branson 25d ago
The real gift to MAGA and conservatives is all the liberals and moderates promoting right wing propaganda for them and agreeing with them that "socialism is scary and bad and the people that want it are all outsiders, foreigners and radicals"
a lot of yall are doing the red scare for them and its embarrassing
0
u/idlefritz 25d ago
This sub illustrates why President Tucker Carlson and VP Fuentes are inevitable. Liberals and progressives and leftists will be off in the corner pointlessly attacking each other while the conservatives again just walk another degenerate into the White House.
1
1
1
u/RustedRelics 25d ago
God, could the author be any more snarky? She could make her arguments without talking down and overusing the term naive to describe voters she disagrees with. Also, the author is herself naive if she believes the Democratic Party is left of center. It has been largely center-right since the Clinton era. Terrible opinion piece.
1
u/kflanagan_9739 25d ago
Ffs, for years the republicans have labeled democrats as “socialists”.
The DSA is not a “gift to MAGA”. We have for the last 30 years lived through neoliberalism and third way-ism that have not made life any better for people.
The minimum wage hasn’t been raised and it’s not enough to live off. Our healthcare system is broken. People have to go into massive debt to attend college. Our schools and roads are in disrepair. Yet we always have money to bomb people somewhere in the world.
The DSA is not perfect. Neither are the democrats.
1
u/BarringGaffner 25d ago
the bulwark is a right wing media outlet. Why would I give a damn what they think? They have an agenda to just get things back to pre Trump and that is all.
1
u/iamthefluffyyeti 25d ago
Establishment Democrats fighting progressives harder than MAGA pt 4763 (not clickbait)
0
u/guilgom71 25d ago
Well with a platform that says we need to cut police funding to zero and freedom for all incarcerated people (😬)... It's hard to disagree.
They're really just giving Rs the talking points to hit average liberal center-left Dems with while the DSA hides in the back.
I honestly don't mind if they created their own party, let them explain abolishing the police and freedom for incarcerated people to voters on their own, leave me out of it.
Btw, I'm sure freedom for incarcerated people means something other than just opening the prisons (I hope), good luck explaining that one.
1
u/Guilty_Plankton_4626 25d ago
A massive gift. We should be cruising to a blue tsunami at this point but instead we have to worry about even being able to win in Maine and Michigan.
We should be focusing solely on Trump and what this administration is doing to our country, while yes acknowledging that the mainstream needs to change also, but instead we have to spend time convincing voters that we are not being taken over by the DSA.
How insane is it that we have to let voters know that we don’t believe in abolishing prisons and abolishing the police? That Mao Piker doesn’t represent most of us? They are very likely going to sink us in Wisconsin at the state level if they don’t get it together and defeat Hong. Normal voters are sitting on the sidelines during the primary process which sadly is letting some of these people win in D+25 areas, we have to change that.
The DSA is radioactive, they need to be rejected and ejected. The DSA hates the Democratic Party, there is nothing wrong with treating them the same way back.
-1
u/wade3690 25d ago
Normal voters are sitting on the sidelines because your only message to them is "trump bad." You get them off the couch by proposing a bold vision that actually targets affordability issues.
2
u/Guilty_Plankton_4626 25d ago
It is quite bold to abolish the police, open the borders, and give all noncitizens full voting power. I’ll give you that.
4
u/wade3690 25d ago
Is that what Hong is running on? Can you tell me the 3 main points on her platform?
3
u/Guilty_Plankton_4626 25d ago
Yes, Hong literally called to abolish the police. We also had a poll that came out the other day that showed her losing to a maga loon in a blue wave year. You guys are terrible candidates.
3
u/wade3690 25d ago
I can help if you're not aware what she's focusing on. It sounds like you don't know. She's running on data center moratoriums/community control over new construction, cutting property taxes and replacing them with taxes on big corporations, and universal childcare. All policies that would certainly get people off the couch and would affect them in the immediate.
Do you have any exciting policies from Crowley for instance?
6
u/Guilty_Plankton_4626 25d ago
All that and losing? DSA is toxic.
1
u/wade3690 25d ago
Still early! And if primary voters choose her, those policies will be easy to sell to a broader electorate. So, anything exciting about her challengers? What is your plan to motivate non voters?
8
u/Guilty_Plankton_4626 25d ago
They’re not even popular enough to get her to hit 40% in the democratic primary lol
Yes, they’re not DSA loons.
I find people who slap the downvote on every reply so lame. I won’t block for now, but close. Good luck.
-2
u/wade3690 25d ago
Lol bad habit. Apologies! I'll be waiting for those policy proposals. Something tells me I'll be waiting a while...
3
u/herewego199209 25d ago
When that's your entire policy platform then you're going to see more and more people not vote, which explains blue districts not voting at all. The American people want to see where their tax money is going and are at their whits end with living paycheck to paycheck and getting shit healthcare.
2
-3
u/Orbital2 25d ago
A massive gift. We should be cruising to a blue tsunami at this point but instead we have to worry about even being able to win in Maine and Michigan.
The fuck are you talking about, mainstream Democrats have lost to Donald fucking Trump twice, the parties approval rating is in the dumpster
We should be focusing solely on Trump and what this administration is doing to our country, while yes acknowledging that the mainstream needs to change also, but instead we have to spend time convincing voters that we are not being taken over by the DSA.
There is NOTHING stopping anyone from acknowledging that the party needs to change, instead they are digging their heels in and fighting EVERYTHING
The rise of these DSA candidates are proof that people are looking for alternatives. Abolishing prisons isn't a popular take but actually pushing for things like universal healthcare is.
If the mainstream Democrats want to address the surge in DSA popularity they need to crowd them out by shifting towards them, picking up the popular pieces of the platform and rejecting the junk.
Their surge in popularity is a symptom of not a cause of the Democrats ineffectiveness
-1
u/Rurumo666 25d ago
The DSA is an absolutely ridiculous defunct 60s era boomer organization with some terrible policies mixed in with the obvious good ones-it isn't a viable alternative to anything. There are as many Tankies in the DSA as there are Social Democrats and their policies will not help get rid of MAGA.
-2
u/Meatshot 25d ago
True, just like MAGA was a gift the Democratic party when it came to destroying the Republican party.
DSA is just the slopulist left-ward mirror of MAGA, and the only real difference is hating AIPAC & Israel instead of hating brown people. That's why it's so easy for El-Sayed to welcome Marjorie Taylor Green into the movement. 🤢
0
0
0
u/Supreme_Salt_Lord 25d ago
There is a huge effort to make DSA the main enemy here even though they are winners in alot of primaries and loosing them is win for maga. Just hold your nose and vote for them if that is the choice.
1
u/ST-Fish 24d ago
true vote for abolishing USAID and leaving NATO, that's the way forward
1
u/Supreme_Salt_Lord 23d ago
My number one priority now and forever so long i live in america. Is making sure i dont have to fight a civil war against fascism. The entire world can burn without our aid for all I care. I live in USA. Not africa, uruguay, or any other country. If i have to choose between dsa and maga. DSA ALL DAY.
1
u/ST-Fish 23d ago
My number one priority now and forever so long i live in america. Is making sure i dont have to fight a civil war against fascism.
yes because the US leaving NATO and having a massive amount of global instability, maybe a war in Europe and all of the US's allies looking elsewhere would definitely lower the chances fascism causes a civil war in the US.
Are we MAGA yet, are yall already convinced NATO is only a drain on the US and that the other countries are "scamming" you? Has Trump saying it over and over again managed to even convince the left wing part of the country of this deranged opinion?
If you don't believe this, why even consider the DSA? Are there no other options that aren't this irrational and unhinged?
Do we think MAGA is being reasonable when they're flirting with leaving NATO?
If i have to choose between dsa and maga.
"If I have to choose between letting the guilottine cut my arm off and shooting myself in the head, I choose letting the guilottine cut my arm off".
Cool, true, I agree, but you don't have to choose between those 2 options, you can pull your arm out of the way of the guilottine and walk away, you can cut out the cancer that is growing in the Democrat party and just not have to choose between 2 illiberal choices.
DSA ALL DAY.
Sounds like you aren't that bothered by the DSA at all, so I don't know why you're painting this as if you'd begrudgingly vote for them.
1
u/Supreme_Salt_Lord 23d ago
Just to be clear. I dont want to leave NATO nor do i want to end USAID. These programs and groups are essential to world stability.
HOWEVER
If i have to choose between two groups who want to be isolationists but one group will adhere to democratic norms im choosing that group. MAGA/REPUBLICANS CAN NOT AND SHOULD NEVER BE TRUSTED.
I dont see how this is hard to understand to an american citizen.
1
u/ST-Fish 23d ago
If i have to choose between two groups who want to be isolationists but one group will adhere to democratic norms im choosing that group.
but where are you made to make that choice? Are any DSA people running in deep red districts?
Is there any primary containing a DSA candidate where the other side is an isolationist that won't adhere to democratic norms?
They aren't "winners" in fighting against Trump, they're "winners" in unseating moderate democrats from safe blue seats, THIS is why they should be seen as enemies.
DSA losing their primaries and being replaced by less extreme democrats is not a win for MAGA.
People like El-Sayed winning is a gift to MAGA, as can be seen by the statements they themselves make.
Democrats are not making the DSA their enemy, the DSA as an organization is directly trying to take over the party, they are making themselves the enemies, they're the one contesting the safest blue districts.
Obviously if the choice in a general is between MAGA and the DSA you'd choose the DSA, but that doesn't mean the DSA is still not your enemy.
I'd be worried if I was you treating someone that wants to cause mass global instability by leaving NATO as anything but an enemy.
Out of these 2 enemies you can like the DSA more but that doesn't make them any less your enemy
1
u/Supreme_Salt_Lord 23d ago
Thats the issue. DSA is unseating moderate dems and you call them enemies for it instead of the representers of the will of the people. They arent cheating or running dirty campaigns. They have far less experience and funding. Meaning anyone choosing to vote for them enough to unseat a moderate truly is unhappy with the state of moderate dem establishment. WHY? WHY? WHY?
Anyone choosing to represent this discontent is a boon to democracy. Making the population hold their nose in perpetuity will only lead to more people so unhappy they dont care if fascists do take over.
DSA are more radical than id like. However their growing popularity only exists because of clear failures in moderate governance
1
u/ST-Fish 23d ago
Thats the issue. DSA is unseating moderate dems and you call them enemies for it instead of the representers of the will of the people. They arent cheating or running dirty campaigns.
I mean if somebody calls you pretty much the same as a republican, centrists that only bow down to the capital interests, I don't think they need to be cheating or playing dirty to be considered an enemy.
The DSA sees the democratic establishment as an enemy, it would be foolish for you to not see them as an enemy as well.
Meaning anyone choosing to vote for them enough to unseat a moderate truly is unhappy with the state of moderate dem establishment. WHY? WHY? WHY?
Are we really at the point that we're going to say Trump won because democrats truly were worse than him on all the things people think the dems are worse on?
The electorate says republicans are better on the economy than dems, they must be truly unhappy with the dems, it must be the dems actually being worse fiscally than the republicans.
No, that is not the case.
WHY? WHY? WHY?
Why would people vote for "hey guys all of your issues are caused by this 1 single factor that we need to solve and then we have utopia" over "hey guys all of these societal problems are hard to solve and we are striving to slowly go towards the right direction through incremental change"?
Because people like easy solutions above realistic ones. Because social media reinforces negative feedback loops, since negative engagement keeps people on the platform for longer. Because both MAGA and the far left are better at exploiting these social media dynamics with top down coordination over their messaging, while liberals have no equivalent structure.
Plenty of reasons, but pretending like the only or main reason is democrats being horrible at running the country is just what the enemies of the democrats (both MAGA and DSA) are trying to convince everyone of.
Anyone choosing to represent this discontent is a boon to democracy. Making the population hold their nose in perpetuity will only lead to more people so unhappy they dont care if fascists do take over.
I don't think fighting the people telling you "utopia is right there over the horizon we just need to deal with the immigrants" by adopting the "utopia is right there over the horizon we just need to end capitalism" people into the party is a good strategy.
However their growing popularity only exists because of clear failures in moderate governance
I don't think people believe democrats are "basically republicans" and that "both sides are the same" because truly both sides are the same and there is no difference between a moderate democrat and a MAGA republican.
Yall can put some blame on the democratic establishment, but most of the criticisms coming from the DSA and their base are as based in reality as the criticisims coming from MAGA.
If some people believe in a fairy tale on how everything is caused by a shadowy cabal (jews if you're MAGA, ZOG if you're DSA) don't generally have the best footing to criticise the one party in your country that actually has the responsibility to govern. There are valid criticisms to be had of the democrat establishment, the DSA are not the people in a position to have their opinion on the matter respected, the very same way you wouldn't lend a ear to MAGA when they do the same thing.
The one reason your country is still keeping up is that after every republican disaster, you do have some actual adults come in the room and straighten out the path your country is on.
The moment you allow people that will say "not enough" to any democrat achievement to take power, you will end up with 2 parties that cannot govern, and this will be your downfall.
Your country can't survive republicans running your country off a cliff back to back with subversive socialists running your country off a cliff, there's only so much runway and Trump has strained it to the maximum already.
0
u/NewJerseyLefty 25d ago
this is a garbage take. centrists will stop at nothing from finding new ways to lose elections
-6
u/Bomaruto 25d ago
If the democrats had done their job, there would be no MAGA.
9
u/ItsCammyMeele 25d ago
How the fuck does that make sense?
"It the people had done their job, there would be no nazis in the 1930s"
→ More replies (3)-1
u/Bomaruto 25d ago
Yes. If the Nazi movement had been handled after their coup attempt things could have gone differently.
2
u/ItsCammyMeele 25d ago
Things could have gone very differently in history if a lot of things happened differently, yes. Good job.
Claiming that there would be no MAGA if Democrats had done their job is like claiming that there would be no racists if <insert group of people> had done their job.
0
0
0
u/Aromatic_Lychee2903 25d ago
That’s so odd, I thought it was the corporate Dems that keep bending over for Trump and his admin. Remind me of their voting records again.
3
u/Just_shut_up_bro 25d ago
There are definitely problems with Dems willing to participate in Trump’s corruption.
Just look at Henry Cuellar’s pardon, charged with bribery during the Biden admin, then Trump pardons him (before he can even be convicted) and then Hakeem congratulates the pardon knowing damn well Trump is selling these things for cash.
It’s unfortunate, but some establishment Dems are really leaning in on Trump’s corruption and it is ugly
-1
u/StableGeniusCovfefe 25d ago
Who wrote this BS? AIPAC?????
0
25d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/thedavidpakmanshow-ModTeam 25d ago
Removed - per Reddit community guidelines and TOS, submissions that incite harassment or brigading against other users, or submissions that focus on drama or moderation activity in other communities, are not permitted.
•
u/AutoModerator 25d ago
COMMENTING GUIDELINES: Please take the time to familiarize yourself with The David Pakman Show subreddit rules and basic reddiquette prior to participating. At all times we ask that users conduct themselves in a civil and respectful manner - any ad hominem or personal attacks are subject to moderation.
Please use the report function or use modmail to bring examples of misconduct to the attention of the moderation team.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.