Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) urged her Democratic colleagues to stop attacking the "oligarchy," arguing that the word did not resonate with most Americans.
      • kreskin@lemmy.world
        0·
        8 个月前

        Its great that you’re into solid research. I admire that. Maybe you could take a moment to read Slotkins wikipedia then.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elissa_Slotkin

        And google her caucus memberships. They tell you who she is, and its not great. And she’s another “Endorsed by Liz Cheney” Dem which is the coveted endorsement for liberals.

        Let me help get you started from that wikipedia page:

        Caucus memberships

        New Democrat Coalition

        Problem Solvers Caucus[

          • kreskin@lemmy.world
            0·
            8 个月前

            I know who she is. I believe you are incorrect in your take on her

            Great, explain her caucus memberships and being a top AIPAC recipient then. Go ahead, I’ll wait. Do you need me to google the mission of those caucuses for you? Even the stated mission would do it, we dont even need to look at the awful things they actually support or the various ways they have shafted members of the democratic party for decades.

      • Monument@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
        0·
        8 个月前

        Ah , see, that take is rationalizing. She’s a former CIA torturer who worked under Bush. Within Michigan she once moved into a lobbyists house to avoid getting primaried after redistricting. (The lobbyist’s house was in a safe democrat area that the Democrat party did not field a local candidate for.) Her ascension to state senator was equally questionable - all the other candidates dropped out after meeting with party officials.

        It’s clear she’s the Democrats new Joe Manchin, put there to avoid progress and force concessions if they ever win a plurality. All the Michiganders I know vehemently hate her.

      • Maeve@kbin.earth
        0·
        8 个月前

        Did you miss mediaite is another corporate propaganda rag to prop up the oligarchy kleptocracy?

  • Anas@lemmy.world
    0·
    8 个月前

    Outsider opinion: There are two sides who haven’t voted for you, one side who says they’ll vote for you if you change, and another side who says they’ll never vote anything but red. There seems to be an obvious vote to go after.

    • toolverine@lemmy.world
      0·
      8 个月前

      Capitulation to the right hasn’t worked for 20 years. The Third Way is dead and no one respects it.

      • Ledericas@lemm.eeBanned from communityEnglish
        0·
        8 个月前

        only if it enriches thier pockets, and it worked. so they will keep placating to the right, who are on the same page anyways with alot of DINOS.

        • The_Caretaker@lemm.eeEnglish
          0·
          8 个月前

          Yep, I voted for the Green Party, for this very reason, and all I get from people is criticism. Democrats who don’t oppose fascism aren’t worth voting for. If they want to be Blue MAGA they can go after Trump’s voters and see where that gets them.

          • skisnow@lemmy.caEnglish
            0·
            8 个月前

            Good for you. What people from the “a vote for third party is a vote for Trump” camp don’t understand is that the two-party system is exactly how fascism was able to become standard Republican Party policy in the first place.

            A decent multi-party democracy would have enabled traditional non-fascist conservatives to break off into their own party whilst still holding seats in Congress, but instead we’ve got a whole party full of people who denounced Trump as a fascist way back in 2014 but have now kissed the ring. Likewise parties like the Greens would be able to enjoy votes from the millions of people who agree with all their policies, and be able to have members speaking and voting in Congress.

            But the only way any of this can happen is if people stop being so short-sighted about every single election, and stop trying to whip each other into toeing the line of a demonstrably pisspoor party.

  • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    0·
    8 个月前

    Dumbass’ term ends this year, hopefully the DNC outright replaces her because her genius strategy of attracting Republican voters is about to backfire spectacularly and hand a seat to the enemy.

    • goferking (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
      0·
      8 个月前

      her genius strategy of attracting Republican voters

      That’s been the dnc strategy for how many years???

      Plus world be unlikely after they had her do the response to the state of the union

  • SabinStargem@lemmy.todayEnglish
    0·
    8 个月前

    Fuck that noise. Geronocrats and Turdpublicans brought us here. Both need to be removed from any meaningful position in society.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    8 个月前

    We don’t need more “pro-israel centrists”

    The reason Dem turnout in generals is depressed, is our choices are CIA war criminals like Slotking or a republican.

    She is the problem, not the 99.9% who don’t want an oligarchy

    • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
      0·
      8 个月前

      I completely agree, but it’s also likely a reasonable representation of her Michigan constituents. It’s not a terribly diverse state.

      • Kowowow@lemmy.ca
        0·
        8 个月前

        Maybe they should encourage some more aggressive left wing people to compete against them to broaden horizons of the dabates, like bringing a ‘communist’ along with ‘socailist’ to debate a republican

      • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
        0·
        8 个月前

        I mean Michigan was the epicenter and main stronghold of the Uncommitted Movement; there’s obviously a good amount of support for progressive Palestine policy there.

        • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
          0·
          8 个月前

          Michigan has the second highest population of people from the mideast in absolute numbers, and the highest proportionally.

          While racial background doesn’t determine support for a cause, it’s not surprising that people would turn out in higher numbers to advocate for the lives of people more closely related to them.

        • unconfirmedsourcesDOTgov@lemmy.sdf.org
          0·
          8 个月前

          You’re pointing to a Mossad coordinated disinformation campaign as evidence that Michigan is a good spot to look for popular national support? The campaign designed to create a wedge issue in the 2024 election by simultaneously driving disinformation down politicians’ throats while stoking anti-Israel sentiment among progressive communities?

          I’m not saying it’s a bad take because obviously I can’t prove to you that Mossad played a part, but think about the result of the “Uncommitted Movement” and who in Israel benefits by having Trump in office.

          Disclaimer for the incoming troll replies: I’m not pro-genocide, I’m simply in favor of choosing the best of possible outcomes, of which Harris was clearly a better outcome for Palestine. Can you even imagine her announcing the Riviera of the Middle East?

          • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
            0·
            8 个月前

            Good to know there are still Americans who haven’t learned a goddamn thing from November. This situation is directly the result of Democrat-voting Americans crying about the lesser evil while shutting down all attempts to make it not evil.

            You’re pointing to a Mossad coordinated disinformation campaign as evidence that Michigan is a good spot to look for popular national support?

            God not everything you don’t like is a foreign disinformation campaign.

            I’m not saying it’s a bad take because obviously I can’t prove to you that Mossad played a part, but think about the result of the “Uncommitted Movement” and who in Israel benefits by having Trump in office.

            Uncommitted wasn’t about giving Trump the White House, but about getting Harris and the DNC to stop supporting the genocide and then win in November. That obviously didn’t work out because rather than support them or even stay silent people like you kept shutting them down and dismissing their concerns about both the election and their loved ones being brutally murdered by goddamn modern Nazis.

            Can you even imagine her announcing the Riviera of the Middle East?

            No, but I also couldn’t imagine her winning, which is exactly the problem here.

            • unconfirmedsourcesDOTgov@lemmy.sdf.org
              0·
              8 个月前

              I’m not God, I’m just a regular person.

              I provided instructions for trolls in my post, but you seem to have missed that part in the bits you quoted. Despite my policy on feeding trolls, I’ll repeat that I’m not endorsing the actions of the Netanyahu government.

              If you want to put your head in the sand and pretend that foreign intelligence isn’t influencing nearly every flavor of social media on the internet, that’s on you.

              I believe your understanding of how voting works is flawed. A vote only matters if it is cast. Withholding votes does not motivate politicians in any democratic system in the world. The math simply doesn’t work.

              As you’ve clearly come to understand, the uncommitted movement was an abject failure. That you continue to cling to the idea that it failed due to rational progressives makes me wonder if you are a troll yourself.

              Uncommitted is not how political shifts happen in the United States. Increasingly it is single issue voters like you, who don’t like how a candidate positions on a single issue and chooses to abstain or vote for the other side. To be clear, that’s your choice and I wouldn’t fault you for standing on your principles if you weren’t simultaneously complaining about the outcome of standing on those principles.

              As it is, you promoted a failed political strategy that, not wholly but certainly in part, led to the reelection of Trump and the MAGAs. I voted for the candidate who would most plausibly bring about a less horrific end to the Gaza conflict. This was NEVER about dismissing concerns about a group of people on the other side of the planet, it was ALWAYS about making the best choice for THIS country.

              I think some part of you knows that, but I totally understand being irrationally angry with the world, random internet commenters, whatever. Shit is getting crazy out here, and tbh we all need each other more than ever. Please take my deepest apologies if the truth of what I’m saying is upsetting. Progressivism has never been about getting everything you want in a perfect candidate, it has always been about compromising in order to achieve incremental improvements. You don’t have to align with that view, but your passion certainly would be welcomed.

              • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
                0·
                8 个月前

                I provided instructions for trolls in my post, but you seem to have missed that part in the bits you quoted. Despite my policy on feeding trolls, I’ll repeat that I’m not endorsing the actions of the Netanyahu government.

                I know, but also don’t care.

                f you want to put your head in the sand and pretend that foreign intelligence isn’t influencing nearly every flavor of social media on the internet, that’s on you.

                Of course it is, but that’s neither here nor there. The implication that outrage at Biden’s support for Israel is mostly a result of that influence is, however, fucking ridiculous. Why do you believe that people can’t exercise their right to hold their elected politicians accountable without it being a Russian or Israeli plot?

                Withholding votes does not motivate politicians in any democratic system in the world. The math simply doesn’t work.

                Threatening to withhold votes certainly does, because those politicians are at least ostensibly trying to get elected. That’s why Democratic politicians throw breadcrumbs for their constituents and have a milquetoast-but-better-than-nothing stance on civil rights, and it’s what Uncommitted tried to do.

                As you’ve clearly come to understand, the uncommitted movement was an abject failure. That you continue to cling to the idea that it failed due to rational progressives makes me wonder if you are a troll yourself.

                I’m trying really hard not to break rule 3 right now. What kind of pressure campaign would have satisfied your rational sensibilities?

                Uncommitted is not how political shifts happen in the United States.

                Then how do they?

                Increasingly it is single issue voters like you, who don’t like how a candidate positions on a single issue and chooses to abstain or vote for the other side. To be clear, that’s your choice and I wouldn’t fault you for standing on your principles if you weren’t simultaneously complaining about the outcome of standing on those principles.

                This isn’t the outcome of anti-genocide principles; it’s the result of decades of lesser evil politics, which America is clearly done with. This downfall of American democracy did not start in 2024. Ever heard of the gambler’s ruin? Well welcome to the centrist’s ruin, where you keep betting your democracy until the far right eats it all.

                As it is, you promoted a failed political strategy that, not wholly but certainly in part, led to the reelection of Trump and the MAGAs.

                Again, what better strategy would you have promoted that would have led to change?

                I voted for the candidate who would most plausibly bring about a less horrific end to the Gaza conflict. This was NEVER about dismissing concerns about a group of people on the other side of the planet, it was ALWAYS about making the best choice for THIS country.

                What less horrific end? Genocide with rainbows? And in the first place do you seriously think a government that ran on dismissing genocide would be anything but an appetizer to fascism? If they don’t care about brown people on the other side of the world, they don’t care about you.

                Please take my deepest apologies if the truth of what I’m saying is upsetting. Progressivism has never been about getting everything you want in a perfect candidate, it has always been about compromising in order to achieve incremental improvements.

                Has anyone ever told you you’re patronizing? And in the first place what improvements? Your program of compromise and incremental change has led to, or at least failed to prevent, capital F Fascism in the United States. Maybe try something else next time, if there is a next time.

                PS: Now is probably a good time to mention that I’m not American.

            • Keeponstalin@lemmy.world
              01·
              8 个月前

              But demanding opposition to genocide and neoliberal policies is purity testing!

              Why can’t the left just accept liberal capitalism instead of purity testing human rights?

              Surely the problem is with leftist individuals who hate liberalism so much they must secretly support Trump.

              It couldn’t be any systemic or material issues that have compounded over decades, leading to populist sentiment and opposition to the status quo, as people demand solutions to the cost of living crisis that they’ve seen only ever get worse. It was surely not a mistake to not run of overwhelmingly popular democratic socialist policies that would’ve directly addressed those issues, or run on no weapons embargo despite it’s overwhelming support. The DNC did nothing wrong, it’s all the voters fault, especially those anti-genocide ones. Who cares if they had loved ones killed by Israel, they should have known better, it’s a simple trolley problem.

              /s (this kind of sentiment is so annoying)

          • Zaktor@sopuli.xyzEnglish
            0·
            8 个月前

            It’s a 50/50 state and the Republican party is overwhelmingly white. 73% white likely means Democratic voters are 50%+ minority. We have to stop pretending we need to appeal to anti-woke Republicans. Even in less diverse states, it’s still a diverse party.

            • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
              0·
              8 个月前

              I was only saying it’s possible that’s the message she’s getting from her constituents, which is any resident of Michigan. It was educated speculation, not fact, nor is it my personal opinion of these issues. I’d like to see Democrats become an opposition party, as far from the Republicans as possible, just the same as you.

  • defunct_punk@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    8 个月前

    You. Cannot. Build. A. System. Of. Social. Justice. In. A. System. Of. Political/Economic. Injustice.

    There’s a reason why we got so much shit done in the 60-70s, socially, and why nobody really feels like we’ve progressed much since then.

    • iknowitwheniseeit@lemmynsfw.com
      0·
      8 个月前

      Sorry what?

      Are you implying that the 1960s and 1970s were more politically or economically just than today?

      In the sense that the wealth disparity was less, okay? Maybe? Is that all that you mean?

      • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.worldBanned from communityEnglish
        0·
        8 个月前

        In the sense that the wealth disparity was less, okay? Maybe? Is that all that you mean?

        I mean, it’s the core of the problem.

  • missingno@fedia.io
    0·
    8 个月前

    I understand where people are coming from when they say “identity politics” are politics getting in the way of class struggle. I vehemently disagree with it, these are also important issues we need to stand up for even when they are sometimes unpopular, but I understand where it comes from.

    But if she also thinks we shouldn’t be talking about class either, what the fuck does she want to do?

    • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world
      0·
      8 个月前

      Cash donor checks and subjugate all poor people equally regardless of their race religion gender sexuality or ability status

    • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
      0·
      8 个月前

      If you read the article, she’s saying the word oligarchy doesn’t resonate with voters and it should be replaced with the word “kings”. The woke part was about changing perception, not platform. She wants the party to take a more aggressive tone in opposition to trump and work to lose the reputation of being “weak and woke” as was reported by focus groups.

      It’s an intentionally misleading headline

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      8 个月前

      I understand where people are coming from when they say “identity politics” are politics getting in the way of class struggle. I vehemently disagree with it, these are also important issues we need to stand up for even when they are sometimes unpopular

      The thing is, the things that help everyone helps everyone…

      The people suffering from identity politics politicizing their existence as well

      But when shit sucks, people lash out. If we were taking care of everyone, they wouldn’t need a Boogeyman to blame to distract them from the real problem.

      Fixing the class issue makes it easier to fix societal issues.

      You’re literally arguing to put the cart before the horse, to do things in the least effective manner to achieve all goals.

      That’s why the wealthy use it to distract people, even though you think you understand it. You’re still missing the point and falling for it. It’s an effective strategy and loads of people keep falling for it. It exploits natural logic, because it should be easier to handle “identity politics” because it’s way less people.

      Humans aren’t wired to think of more than like 220 people, and that fact is exploited by the wealthy constantly

      • Zaktor@sopuli.xyzEnglish
        0·
        8 个月前

        Maybe before you say that the issues that you care about are obviously the first priority you should be asking why minority voters would ever trust white liberals (or leftists) to get to the things that are critical issues for their communities once the stuff whites prioritize gets done.

        Your argument of “give the racists more money so they won’t be as racist” isn’t going to inspire solidarity from the people you’re supposed to view as allies. Prove you’re there for them before you start worrying about how you can convert Republicans. It’s still a dumb fucking plan when it’s from the left rather than from the middle. The left is never going to win by figuring out which part of the coalition can be pushed to the back of the line to attract those sweet sweet Republican converts. The situation doesn’t change if you swap out neocons for anti-woke tradesmen.

        This class-first argument is almost solely promoted by white male leftists and FFS you guys should wonder why.

      • missingno@fedia.io
        0·
        8 个月前

        If we want to take care of everyone, then we need to be sure that we actually are taking care of everyone. We have to stand up against persecution and injustice. We have to proactively offer a hand up to those who need it most right now. When people are being oppressed, silence is complicity.

        If you want to sweep issues under the rug when they feel politically inconvenient, then you can’t also say you’re taking care of everyone.

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          8 个月前

          then we need to be sure that we actually are taking care of everyone.

          Literally what I’m saying…

          We’re not, we should be, and that should be priority 1 because everything else is easy.

          You’re so close to understanding this.

          • missingno@fedia.io
            0·
            8 个月前

            Does taking care of everyone mean saying “sorry you can’t get HRT, it just doesn’t poll well enough”?

            • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
              0·
              8 个月前

              I take back what I said:

              You’re so close to understanding this.

              I’m sorry I can’t put this very simple topic in a way you can understand. Hopefully someone else has better luck

  • just_another_person@lemmy.world
    0·
    8 个月前

    Slotkin is the new Sinema and can GFY, but there is a component to this that does deserve some discussion.

    If you look back on the past 10 years of the Democrats climbing hills for issues, I think it’s out of sync with the majority of people. The staunch fight for identity politics is not what people seem to want or need right now, and they need to understand that. Maybe there was a time when this was what their constituents wanted, but no longer.

    Now they need to be really fucking strong on fighting the billionaires, pushing back against the front to vast majority of the country that has no wealth, and finding ways to make that flip around so that the wealthy who are imposing the enshitification of the lower and middle class are held accountable for doing so.

    Forget the current struggles we’re forced to dread living through, and give people a clear plan and the hope that you’ll actually be attacking these things when elected. Seems pretty simple.

    • Zaktor@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      0·
      8 个月前

      Who do you think are the voices who are really strong against billionaires? And who are the voices who are the strongest in support of this “identity politics” bogeyman? Because it’s pretty much the same people. This idea that the Democrats running interference for the rich are using wokeness to do it is just bullshit. The same people saying stop wokeness are the ones who also don’t want to talk about wealth inequality.

      There’s no secret plot to distract with identity politics, just rich centrists chasing the golden age of Clintonism and white people thinking the only policies that should really matter are the ones that affect them.

      • just_another_person@lemmy.world
        0·
        8 个月前

        Sanders and Cortez are literally doing a tour right now AGAINST the Oligarchy bullshit.

        Crockett, Porter, Durbin, Duckworth, Warnock, Kaine, Gillinrand (shocker) have all pushed bills to raise the ceiling on taxable income for Social Security, and higher tiered taxes exponentially for wealthy earners.

        What in the hell are you talking about?

        • Zaktor@sopuli.xyzEnglish
          0·
          8 个月前

          And would you consider either of them to represent the anti-woke strain of the Democratic party?

          Anti-oligarchy and “identity politics” are not two camps in the Democratic party. The same people who are against focus on the oligarchy are the ones who are against focusing on “identity politics”.

          • just_another_person@lemmy.world
            0·
            8 个月前

            There is no “anti-woke”, because the only dipshits who believe there is “woke” in the first place are Fox News enthusiasts.

            Stop buying into all this drama, my God.

            • Zaktor@sopuli.xyzEnglish
              0·
              8 个月前

              You’re the one who just made an argument to listen to the centrists and stop doing “identity politics”. You’re the drama!

            • Ledericas@lemm.eeBanned from communityEnglish
              0·
              8 个月前

              and people pretending to be on the “left” but often use woke.

      • Ledericas@lemm.eeBanned from communityEnglish
        0·
        8 个月前

        more like, people like her is chasing the same money the gop are chasing, which megadonor moneys.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      8 个月前

      The staunch fight for identity politics is not what people seem to want or need right now, and they need to understand that.

      They’re paid a lot of money specifically so they don’t understand that…

      The entire reason for the culture war is to distract people from the fact that the wealthiest are fighting a class war.

      You think she can’t understand because she’s not able to. It’s a willful ignorance, and require lots of money for that cognitive dissonance

    • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
      0·
      8 个月前

      Did you actually read what she said? It’s a lot closer in message to what you just said than I think you might have expected.

      • just_another_person@lemmy.world
        0·
        8 个月前

        I did. Her target is all wrong. She’s focused on some culture bullshit, and ignoring the real issue which is a full out fucking class war. She literally is trying to divert people’s attention away from the billionaires who own her ass. Fuck that.

        • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
          0·
          8 个月前

          Except she’s saying a different word polls better, not that we need to focus less on them.

          I don’t see how saying a different word is more effective is the same as drawing attention away from the topic, or how saying Dems need to do better about avoiding being seen as ineffectual is an issue.

          • kreskin@lemmy.world
            0·
            8 个月前

            She claimed the word oligarchy doesnt resonate and it absolutely does. You are just buying into Slotkins pro business, pro aipac, manipulative narrative.

            You’re being duped, ricecake. Snap out of it.

            • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
              0·
              8 个月前

              I’m really not.

              I get that you prefer the word oligarchy. That’s fine. I’m not sure I feel strongly that we call them oligarchs or if we compare them to monarchs in our messaging how they’re bad.

              I’m just not seeing how a disagreement on verbiage without a difference in content makes someone as awful as people seem to be reacting.

              • kreskin@lemmy.world
                0·
                8 个月前

                Its about who she is.
                You keep trying to frame this narrowly and we all need to keep an eye on who people are with their actions, what their record is, and who is paying them.

                Slotkin is a member of the Problem Solvers Caucus, and a member of the New Democrats Coalition. She’s also far right as zionist supporter as they come, and she’s already chair on a committee on terrorism and intelligence-- as a jr senator elected 2 months ago.

                The new democrat coalition is what the blue dog dems became, and inherited the members of that group. They are extremely pro business and anti immigration, and deficit focused (aka, republicans)

                Remember the blue dogs? Their brand became so toxic they had to rebrand as new democrats. But its the same well funded group that is always for tax cuts for the rich, but shuts down anything for the people based on a vague deficit/fiscal austerity argument. They consistently block any advancements on health care, citing cost even though the CBO says it would save money and propel the economy-- but limit the complete market control of health insurance companies. (new democrats work for them, never us)

                https://theweek.com/articles/713180/why-blue-dogs-destroy-democratic-party-again

                https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/blue-dog-democrats-arent-making-sense-on-health-care-reform/

                I’d urge you to actually read up on the new demcrts coalition and the problem solvers caucus and tell me how either one are good for the democratic party. Those are the only two caucuses Slotkin identifies with.

                • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
                  0·
                  8 个月前

                  I’m not trying to frame it narrowly. The headline is misleading click bait. Everything you say could be 100% true and it wouldn’t change that she didn’t say what you’re saying she said.

                  I really don’t care if you want to make it about segments of the democratic party. You’re going to be hard pressed to convince me that suggesting a different word for criticism inverts the criticism, even if they are already on an intelligence and terrorism committee (which I have no idea how that relevant to anything).

                  Argue she’s awful if you want, I honestly don’t care, but that doesn’t make her statements in this case pro business, pro oligarchy, or anything particularly interesting.

                  And yes, I’ve looked at her voting records and donors. I don’t like everything I see, but it’s mostly fine, and definitively better than the other candidates.