Puja wrote: ↑Mon Oct 13, 2025 1:30 pm
In brighter news, socialist Zohran Mamdani is continuing to knock his campaign to be Mayor of NYC out of the park. Won the Democratic nomination, despite every bit of the party machinery supporting Cuomo as a 'moderate' because he's 'electable', and now is trouncing (a now independent candidate) Cuomo again, with polls showing him leading 46-33. The billionaire-owned newspapers are hard against him, the billionaire-owned social networks are hard against him, the Democratic party are hard against him because "no-one will vote for left wing policies or liberal policies" and yet he's still cutting through and showing that people *do* want these things and *will* vote for them.
Aboslutely loved this - not politically-savvy, but honest and kind and real and decent, and it appears that that is actually way more savvy than the career politicians are willing to give it credit for:
Puja
It says everything how hard the Democrats are against him. They want there to be no place for the left in US politics - they are the force that prevents left policies from happening.
Meanwhile, the anointed one,and next Democratic nominee (by acclamation, when they get around to holding a "contest"), Gavin Newsom has elected not to sign several bills on his desk that protect and codify existing trans rights. Due to the way California procedures work, they don't need his signature to pass into law, so there will be no effect on the actual laws. Plus, with various time limits and him having been galavanting off running for President already, these won't be the only bills that he won't sign, so it's possible that it's coincidence that these three bills have all evaded his pen. However, I'm willing to bet that he's using this as a loophole - he's not actively blocking protecting minorities, which is nice, but he's also making damned sure that no-one can tie his name to any kind of support for human rights that he might worry could be politically inconvenient to not throw under the bus. So godsdamned careful and mealy-mouthed that he doesn't stand for anything at all.
Puja wrote: ↑Mon Oct 13, 2025 1:30 pm
In brighter news, socialist Zohran Mamdani is continuing to knock his campaign to be Mayor of NYC out of the park. Won the Democratic nomination, despite every bit of the party machinery supporting Cuomo as a 'moderate' because he's 'electable', and now is trouncing (a now independent candidate) Cuomo again, with polls showing him leading 46-33. The billionaire-owned newspapers are hard against him, the billionaire-owned social networks are hard against him, the Democratic party are hard against him because "no-one will vote for left wing policies or liberal policies" and yet he's still cutting through and showing that people *do* want these things and *will* vote for them.
Aboslutely loved this - not politically-savvy, but honest and kind and real and decent, and it appears that that is actually way more savvy than the career politicians are willing to give it credit for:
Puja
It says everything how hard the Democrats are against him. They want there to be no place for the left in US politics - they are the force that prevents left policies from happening.
Meanwhile, the anointed one,and next Democratic nominee (by acclamation, when they get around to holding a "contest"), Gavin Newsom has elected not to sign several bills on his desk that protect and codify existing trans rights. Due to the way California procedures work, they don't need his signature to pass into law, so there will be no effect on the actual laws. Plus, with various time limits and him having been galavanting off running for President already, these won't be the only bills that he won't sign, so it's possible that it's coincidence that these three bills have all evaded his pen. However, I'm willing to bet that he's using this as a loophole - he's not actively blocking protecting minorities, which is nice, but he's also making damned sure that no-one can tie his name to any kind of support for human rights that he might worry could be politically inconvenient to not throw under the bus. So godsdamned careful and mealy-mouthed that he doesn't stand for anything at all.
Puja
As I have posted elsewhere about Hungarian politics, I have absolutely zero problem with sidestepping social issues. I understand it's a huge threat, but it's not a vote winner among "blue collar" voters, it's only a vote loser. So ignore it, don't get involved, and debate only on issues of fiscal policy.
You talk about social issues, and dog whistle politics will come up.
You ignore it completely, and the fascists have nothing to go on. No way to attack you, because they have zero comeback to your attacks on their fiscal policies, because their fiscal policies are extremely unpopular and awful, and the only way they get them through is by disguising them in "social" policies and dog whistle politics.
Yes, we may be offended by the fact these politicians are ignoring gay rights, trans rights, the environment, the Palestinians, Ukraine, etc., etc., but if that's what it takes to get into power, before sending these corrupt mfs to prison and pivoting to actually do something about the social issues...
Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Mon Oct 13, 2025 2:42 pm
It says everything how hard the Democrats are against him. They want there to be no place for the left in US politics - they are the force that prevents left policies from happening.
Meanwhile, the anointed one,and next Democratic nominee (by acclamation, when they get around to holding a "contest"), Gavin Newsom has elected not to sign several bills on his desk that protect and codify existing trans rights. Due to the way California procedures work, they don't need his signature to pass into law, so there will be no effect on the actual laws. Plus, with various time limits and him having been galavanting off running for President already, these won't be the only bills that he won't sign, so it's possible that it's coincidence that these three bills have all evaded his pen. However, I'm willing to bet that he's using this as a loophole - he's not actively blocking protecting minorities, which is nice, but he's also making damned sure that no-one can tie his name to any kind of support for human rights that he might worry could be politically inconvenient to not throw under the bus. So godsdamned careful and mealy-mouthed that he doesn't stand for anything at all.
Puja
As I have posted elsewhere about Hungarian politics, I have absolutely zero problem with sidestepping social issues. I understand it's a huge threat, but it's not a vote winner among "blue collar" voters, it's only a vote loser. So ignore it, don't get involved, and debate only on issues of fiscal policy.
You talk about social issues, and dog whistle politics will come up.
You ignore it completely, and the fascists have nothing to go on. No way to attack you, because they have zero comeback to your attacks on their fiscal policies, because their fiscal policies are extremely unpopular and awful, and the only way they get them through is by disguising them in "social" policies and dog whistle politics.
Yes, we may be offended by the fact these politicians are ignoring gay rights, trans rights, the environment, the Palestinians, Ukraine, etc., etc., but if that's what it takes to get into power, before sending these corrupt mfs to prison and pivoting to actually do something about the social issues...
Then do it, ffs.
I think it depends on the country or the particular issue - essentially on how popular an issue is (and is likely to be after arguing clearly for your position rather than aping the far right position). Agreed that there may be some issues (in some places) which while right are big vote-losers, so as you say it's best to avoid them (although IMO they need to be really big vote losers for this). But I think, in general, if an issue is currently somewhat unpopular it's probably because almost no one is making the right argument on them (eg migrants in the UK).
Meanwhile, the anointed one,and next Democratic nominee (by acclamation, when they get around to holding a "contest"), Gavin Newsom has elected not to sign several bills on his desk that protect and codify existing trans rights. Due to the way California procedures work, they don't need his signature to pass into law, so there will be no effect on the actual laws. Plus, with various time limits and him having been galavanting off running for President already, these won't be the only bills that he won't sign, so it's possible that it's coincidence that these three bills have all evaded his pen. However, I'm willing to bet that he's using this as a loophole - he's not actively blocking protecting minorities, which is nice, but he's also making damned sure that no-one can tie his name to any kind of support for human rights that he might worry could be politically inconvenient to not throw under the bus. So godsdamned careful and mealy-mouthed that he doesn't stand for anything at all.
Puja
As I have posted elsewhere about Hungarian politics, I have absolutely zero problem with sidestepping social issues. I understand it's a huge threat, but it's not a vote winner among "blue collar" voters, it's only a vote loser. So ignore it, don't get involved, and debate only on issues of fiscal policy.
You talk about social issues, and dog whistle politics will come up.
You ignore it completely, and the fascists have nothing to go on. No way to attack you, because they have zero comeback to your attacks on their fiscal policies, because their fiscal policies are extremely unpopular and awful, and the only way they get them through is by disguising them in "social" policies and dog whistle politics.
Yes, we may be offended by the fact these politicians are ignoring gay rights, trans rights, the environment, the Palestinians, Ukraine, etc., etc., but if that's what it takes to get into power, before sending these corrupt mfs to prison and pivoting to actually do something about the social issues...
Then do it, ffs.
I think it depends on the country or the particular issue - essentially on how popular an issue is (and is likely to be after arguing clearly for your position rather than aping the far right position). Agreed that there may be some issues (in some places) which while right are big vote-losers, so as you say it's best to avoid them (although IMO they need to be really big vote losers for this). But I think, in general, if an issue is currently somewhat unpopular it's probably because almost no one is making the right argument on them (eg migrants in the UK).
As above. The issue is that, if you don't push back against the egregious and make the point that it's not morally okay to be taking that position, then you are complicit when the Overton window shifts and it becomes politically fine to take that position (with the fascists then pushing for the next step along the track as well).
I would like to note that ending Section 28 and introducing civil partnerships were not popular policies back in 1997 when Tony Blair's Labour came to power - it would've been politically expedient to ditch the queers and focus on "the important things", but Blair (for all his faults) held to the promises made to the LGBTQ community (after their support during the miners' strikes) and kept them both in the manifesto. They eventually managed to pass through both Houses of Parliament and nowadays it would be an extreme opinion to say that gays shouldn't marry or have any presence in schools. Why? Because people running for power pushed back and declared that it was wrong to discriminate and deny rights, even when it wasn't a vote winner, and that push helped move public opinion, because people in power stood up and said it was wrong.
