I haven’t looked them up, but I’m guessing most who voted for it are in purple districts and trying to keep their seats.
But fuck that bill. Their anti-woke war is going to cause a talent drain across the federal government. If my family was living on a base in a state without reproductive protections I’d be looking for a transfer or a new job.
Ever notice how moderates claim they have to be more conservative than they want to win elections?
But to get them to move left it takes someone dragging them publicly left while they kick and scream?
You never thought that maybe they’re lying and just using republicans as an excuse to be more conservative than Dem.voters want because those moderates get donations from the same people conservatives do?
Far left to far right it’s all a scam. You’ll see people slam a policy and still come up with a reason to vote for that policy. Almost all raise money from the same corporate interests.
This only gets better with major election finance reform and ethics reform with teeth.
Dr. Jill Stein is, I would argue, a scammer. I was interested in the green party, but the more I read about their - and particularly her - positions on some issues and some of the things she claims, she’s either an educated idiot or a grifter. She certainly has some good positions, but also pushes a number of pseudoscience ideas from anti-vax and anti-gmo to scares about “Wi-Fi hurting our kids” (not Internet usage but electromagnetic waves from Wi-Fi). She also pushes Russian propaganda, especially around the Russia-Ukraine war, and has met with Russian officials (including Putin himself) on a number of occasions.
So unless you’re going to “No True Scotsman” the Green Party as not being leftist, then yes. There are grifters on the left as well. Further, you should avoid assumptions like “there aren’t any bad actors in OUR camp” because grifters and charlatans will find a place in any community should they figure out an effective method to do so, and letting your guard down because “we’re the good guys” is the fastest way to let that happen.
I agree that the Green Party is a grifting party, but they are the farthest left that has a national stage / ballot access. There are also decent leftists within the Green Party, because they want to affect change at a local level and that’s the closest thing to a party that would represent their views if the DSA doesn’t have a presence.
But I think it’s too dismissive to simply write them off as “not left” because at a surface level, they represent several leftist viewpoints, and they’re, unfortunately, a lot of people’s first exposure to leftist politics (especially back in the 2000’s and 2010’s before the DSA started growing). Like yes, they are at this point a grift, but they weren’t always that way and a lot of people aren’t aware that that is the case. They’re “not left” in the same Sense that the Tea Party was “not libertarian” - which is to say that they’re not good-faith proponents of the ideology, but are good at attracting people who don’t know better and have a corrupting effect on the movement.
So I think we largely agree on the situation, but the contention here is that we seem to disagree on branding and terminology. I am referring to them as “leftist” (though I don’t mean to say that they’re actually “far” left) because they present themselves as such. Their grift is centered on being the group for people that care about climate change, universal healthcare, UBI (IIRC, they may not advocate for that…), Unions/labor and other policies that are broadly considered “leftist” (even if the views are largely mainstream at this point.
I could see not calling them “far” left, at least in the international sphere, but they at least present as leftist, and have many people convinced that they are as such.
I’m the same way, Joel Osteen and the other “prosperity gospel” are grifters and charlatans PRESENTING as Christians. But when enough “Christians” believe them and support their policies, a simple dismissal of them as “not Christian” falls into the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. Doing so allows you to hand wave away more and more things that others within (your group) that you disagree with. Westboro Baptist Church? No True Christian. Church has an opposite opinion as you on LGBT rights? No True Christian. (And the Christian you’re talking to will have arguments on WHY they’re not really a Christian).
That issue is not unique to Christians, or to right-wingers, or to other groups that you and I are likely not a part of. But we must acknowledge that OUTSIDERS will regard them as leftist whether or not you or I do. And dismissing them out of hand tends to shut down dialogue and ostracize those who may be caught up in said grift. I myself used to be interested in the Green Party until I saw enough of their bullshit to realize that they were not a group I would want to represent me (probably around 2015-ish). But there are good people with good ideals that do identify with the Green Party either because they haven’t looked into enough of the problems surrounding the party or because they’ve been convinced of the bullshit after agreeing with good points the party has made.
They may be wolves in sheep’s clothing, but they certainly TARGET leftists, which is the point. That’s what grifters do.
I haven’t looked them up, but I’m guessing most who voted for it are in purple districts and trying to keep their seats.
But fuck that bill. Their anti-woke war is going to cause a talent drain across the federal government. If my family was living on a base in a state without reproductive protections I’d be looking for a transfer or a new job.
Ever notice how moderates claim they have to be more conservative than they want to win elections?
But to get them to move left it takes someone dragging them publicly left while they kick and scream?
You never thought that maybe they’re lying and just using republicans as an excuse to be more conservative than Dem.voters want because those moderates get donations from the same people conservatives do?
Far left to far right it’s all a scam. You’ll see people slam a policy and still come up with a reason to vote for that policy. Almost all raise money from the same corporate interests.
This only gets better with major election finance reform and ethics reform with teeth.
I’d love to hear what/who on the “far left” are a scam…
Because I less you’re using some weird definitions, the “far left” are the only ones fighting for major election finance reform
Dr. Jill Stein is, I would argue, a scammer. I was interested in the green party, but the more I read about their - and particularly her - positions on some issues and some of the things she claims, she’s either an educated idiot or a grifter. She certainly has some good positions, but also pushes a number of pseudoscience ideas from anti-vax and anti-gmo to scares about “Wi-Fi hurting our kids” (not Internet usage but electromagnetic waves from Wi-Fi). She also pushes Russian propaganda, especially around the Russia-Ukraine war, and has met with Russian officials (including Putin himself) on a number of occasions.
So unless you’re going to “No True Scotsman” the Green Party as not being leftist, then yes. There are grifters on the left as well. Further, you should avoid assumptions like “there aren’t any bad actors in OUR camp” because grifters and charlatans will find a place in any community should they figure out an effective method to do so, and letting your guard down because “we’re the good guys” is the fastest way to let that happen.
That’s what I thought they were thinking…
Calling the green party is “far left” is exactly why they get funding. So that people think moderates are actually moderate
The Green party isn’t “left” they’re grifters.
I agree that the Green Party is a grifting party, but they are the farthest left that has a national stage / ballot access. There are also decent leftists within the Green Party, because they want to affect change at a local level and that’s the closest thing to a party that would represent their views if the DSA doesn’t have a presence.
But I think it’s too dismissive to simply write them off as “not left” because at a surface level, they represent several leftist viewpoints, and they’re, unfortunately, a lot of people’s first exposure to leftist politics (especially back in the 2000’s and 2010’s before the DSA started growing). Like yes, they are at this point a grift, but they weren’t always that way and a lot of people aren’t aware that that is the case. They’re “not left” in the same Sense that the Tea Party was “not libertarian” - which is to say that they’re not good-faith proponents of the ideology, but are good at attracting people who don’t know better and have a corrupting effect on the movement.
They’re as “left” as Chinas government…
Like, how NK includes “democratic Republic of” in their name.
Stop just believing people off their words and not actions.
And if you’re defining them as “far left” then you’re doing exactly what the conservatives funding the Green Party want.
Erasing the actual rational people on the far left of the political spectrum.
You seem to understand most of that, but you can’t stick the landing.
So I think we largely agree on the situation, but the contention here is that we seem to disagree on branding and terminology. I am referring to them as “leftist” (though I don’t mean to say that they’re actually “far” left) because they present themselves as such. Their grift is centered on being the group for people that care about climate change, universal healthcare, UBI (IIRC, they may not advocate for that…), Unions/labor and other policies that are broadly considered “leftist” (even if the views are largely mainstream at this point.
I could see not calling them “far” left, at least in the international sphere, but they at least present as leftist, and have many people convinced that they are as such.
I’m the same way, Joel Osteen and the other “prosperity gospel” are grifters and charlatans PRESENTING as Christians. But when enough “Christians” believe them and support their policies, a simple dismissal of them as “not Christian” falls into the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. Doing so allows you to hand wave away more and more things that others within (your group) that you disagree with. Westboro Baptist Church? No True Christian. Church has an opposite opinion as you on LGBT rights? No True Christian. (And the Christian you’re talking to will have arguments on WHY they’re not really a Christian).
That issue is not unique to Christians, or to right-wingers, or to other groups that you and I are likely not a part of. But we must acknowledge that OUTSIDERS will regard them as leftist whether or not you or I do. And dismissing them out of hand tends to shut down dialogue and ostracize those who may be caught up in said grift. I myself used to be interested in the Green Party until I saw enough of their bullshit to realize that they were not a group I would want to represent me (probably around 2015-ish). But there are good people with good ideals that do identify with the Green Party either because they haven’t looked into enough of the problems surrounding the party or because they’ve been convinced of the bullshit after agreeing with good points the party has made.
They may be wolves in sheep’s clothing, but they certainly TARGET leftists, which is the point. That’s what grifters do.