I can’t take you seriously. Not after you post a lazily constructed list of links, some of which are your response to me calling your border claim false, only for you then to be like “no actually wait here are more links for what I was actually trying to say”, only for the links to still not back your BS that democrats went “to the right of republicans”. (If you wanna point at anything specific to actually attempt to make your point, then go for it, but if it doesn’t actually back you then stop wasting my time with this).
Also not after you again ignore the specific question she was asked (do you support gender affirming care) and the answer I already quoted her giving (yes, it’s a matter between doctors and patients) so you can claim to know that the precise reason she used her words and not yours is “she thinks trans people are a liability to her campaign and she's hard pivoting to the right.”
Not after claiming to believe that Biden doesn’t care about climate change - no wait, that maybe he does, but not “in a meaningful, taking it as seriously as the end of the world doomsday scenario it is” kind of way, as though the policy matching that intensity (shutting off all fossil fuel production tomorrow) isn’t a move that’ll DEFINITELY get Trump elected so he can steer us full speed ahead into a climate catastrophe.
Not after acknowledging yourself that “you're not going to flip any single voter by saying you want to end the fillibuster” but playing that off like it’s just a random “given single policy issue”.
And certainly not after evoking Bernie Sanders as a positive figure, who is himself urging people to vote for Kamala.
The rest of your comment makes it very clear that you’re dug in, that you earnestly believe your projection onto all 70+ million people who are gonna vote for Trump, and that if Kamala was exactly the candidate you wish she was, that she’d magically sway people inundated with Fox News 24/7 because you have it all figured out.
Based on what you’ve said I wouldn’t be surprised if you either intend to vote for Stein or De La Cruz, or just want to push other people to do that.
I appreciate the sources but c’mon dude, you could at least format stuff a bit.
First off, to your immigration sources: they’d support a claim like “Democrats are appealing to conservatives on immigration policy”, not “Democrats ran to the right of fascists on militarizing the border”. That’s a BS exaggeration.
To your link to Harris’ interview: She was asked if she trans people should have broad gender-affirming care access. Her answer was “I believe that people, as the law states, even on this issue about federal law, that that is a decision that doctors will make in terms of what is medically necessary. I’m not going to put myself in a position of a doctor”. That’s a 2-for-1 answer - “decisions should be left to doctors and patients” + “To any conservatives listening, that’s not just my belief, that’s the fucking law”. Saying “She just got on national TV and refused to support trans rights” is completely inaccurate.
To your economic sources: sure, those are food for thought. Here’re some more:
Nobel Laureate Letter of endorsement for Harris’ Economic Plan Perspective of former US Treasury Chief Economist Perspective by Economic Professor at University of Regensburg Perspective by NHC Perspectives of various other economists
Her implementation of the plan will matter more than what’s on paper, but that’s true of virtually any other economic plan she could propose. In any case “she’s not going to meaningfully redistribute wealth” is still a matter of what you define as “meaningful”, and I assert that your definition is different from that of the average middle American.
To your climate sources: All this is saying is that drilling may likely go up under Harris. If that were all that mattered, I bet you’d say Biden ”isn’t committed to climate change” either, since oil went up under him too. And I’d disagree, because what matters isn’t just reducing dirty energy production, it’s about accelerating clean energy production. So again, BS exaggeration.
> What has she offered besides vague rhetoric on this? Is she going to end the fillibuster to restore abortion access? Is she going to reign in the extremest Supreme Court? Are they finding creative solutions with the FDA to regulate mifepristone? Will she proactively use the powers of the presidency to save lifes or is she going to talk about how important it is to codify Roe and then never do it?
What a loaded last question. “And never do it” like she’ll choose not to sign roe codification into law if given the chance.
Yes, I know that’s probably not what you meant, but your only legitimate questions are the filibuster question and the “reigning in question” (The FDA already approves mifepristone, expanding approval doesn’t mean jack if the SC knocks it down).
To both those statements, to your entire post as a whole, and to this little quote in particular:
> You're missing the point. Its NOT ENOUGH to be marginally better than Trump. You need to present a coherent alternative worldview, which she is failing to do by running to the center and saying as little as possible.
I say: you’re the one missing the point, by ignoring the context of the thread you started. You opened with your opinion on why Trump’s fascism appeals to people, and you claim she has to give an “alternate worldview” to turn people away from that.
You can’t seriously think Harris could sway those people by talking about ending the filibuster, or reigning in the SCOTUS. Nor will she sway those people by talking more strongly about resolving the climate crisis, about protecting trans rights, about supporting abortion, about chilling out on illegal immigrants, etc. There is practically no one who wants her to take stronger left-leaning stances on all those things AND will vote for Trump instead. I only say “practically” because if the odds of that were say, 1:100mil, then hey, maybe a couple voters will do that. Everybody else? Not bought into Trump at all.
If you really do honestly feel Harris needs to go way farther left, then you’re just projecting what YOU want onto the people who are okay with Trump’s fascism.
It sounds like you’re coming at this from the perspective that Trump voters like Trump because his fascist talk makes them feel like he’ll wield Presidential power to “fight the evils of the people at the top of society”, but I disagree. I think for a lot of Trump voters it boils down to at least one of a few feelings:
a) abortion is murder, I’ll vote against the side that clearly supports abortion more
b) Immigrants and LGBTQ+ people are the devil
c) I want to afford the stuff I wish I had, and Trump will help me do that.
d) Every left-leaning person of power of any kind is a demon and should get what’s coming to them
IMO only the MAGA voters care about d). The average non-MAGA-but-still-Trump voter doesn’t care really care about “shadowy figures” “getting what’s coming to them”, they just want better lives for themselves as in c).
To sway those people, she doesn’t have to provide a “diametrically opposed worldview” to fascism - that makes it sound like what you think she needs is to run on creating a completely different way of living. It just means appealing to those in the camp of a), b) and/or c). Swaying believers of a) or b) without actually appealing to anti-abortion, anti-immigrant, or anti-LGBTQ+ reform is tricky, and tackling c) comes down to her positioning herself as the better candidate economically, but people in that camp have varied ideas on what’s best for the economy, so that’s tricky too.
But regardless, everyone who cares about the election and isn’t already in any of those camps isn’t gonna vote for Trump anyway, no matter how Harris campaigns.
She just got on national TV and refused to support trans rights.
Not sure exactly what you’re referring to, but if you’re referring to the Fox News interview, I think she addressed trans rights as well as she possibly could’ve to…a Fox News audience…without completely losing them.
Democrats ran to the right of fascists on militarizing the border.
I call BS.
She isn’t committed to climate change
That’s too strong a statement. She co-sponsored the Green New Deal, gave an entire speech about climate change at COP28 and again this past July, and has an entire “Lower Energy Costs and Tackle the Climate Crisis” section on her issues page. On top of that, actions speak louder than words, and the one meaningful action she can wield as VP - casting tie-breaking Senate votes - was used to enact the Inflation Reduction Act, which works in a meaningful way to combat climate change.
She’s not going to meaningfully redistribute wealth. Looking at how desperate Americans are right now do you really think that coming out with a plan to raise the top marginal tax rate from 30 to 35 percent or whatever is some massive rallying cry that’s going to make people re-evaluate their worldviews?
Idk what your metric for “meaningful wealth redistribution is” but the kind of “wealth redistribution” many middle Americans want is the kind where they can afford to start a new family, and/or afford their first home, and/or afford to start a new business. All of those have been addressed explicitly by Harris and her policy plan, and they go meaningfully beyond what we have now. Your other comment that she’d ‘raise the top marginal tax rate by 5% or whatever’ makes it sound like that’s literally the only action she’d take to make the lives of middle-class people better.
She’s not even that strong on abortion rights.
You’re not outright saying she’s weak on abortion, b/c I think you and I both know she isn’t - she is clearly far more outwardly pro-choice than Trump.
Meyotch is an interesting suffix to a person’s name.
“I am Professor Patrick”
“Professor?”
“Meyotch Professor Patrick!”
/s
Idk why you got nothing but downvotes when you’re a) 100% right about national polls and b) giving a nice, detailed overview of some relevant polling data and your take on it
Edit: “Nothing but downvotes” at the time I saw this. That’s clearly corrected itself lol
My bad, I didn’t read your comment correctly. I think it was a combination of lack of a /s, and me being half-asleep at the time lol
What’s the one country you say got public health right?
Relevant link for those interested in what OP is talking about.
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/3-microreactor-experiments-watch-starting-2026
I’m not yet convinced this technology is the future or anything, but it does look pretty promising. We’ll know better when DOME testing begins in 2026.
100% agree, when I see something I disagree with on its face I try to default to “I probably don’t get something they’re saying, given that it’s only a couple sentences of written word, and a different person’s brain who wrote them”.
It always makes for more useful conversation than defaulting to “ha what a dumbass”
I think downvoters are just expressing disagreement with your opinion. Personally I don’t hate git but I wouldn’t call myself a “fanboy” either - I just don’t think “distributed” has to be mutually exclusive from “decentralized”, which is a term not rigorously defined in this context anyway.
But thanks for informing me about patch theory, that’s something I’ll probably make a small hobby out of studying.
Isn't decentralized itself since it's not a platform
I think I see your definition of “decentralized” a little better now, if you only want to apply it to platforms.
I think your definition may be too strict, and that “decentralized” and “distributed don’t have to be mutually exclusive, but eh, that’s just my take.
What version control software in particular do you find better than git?
Your point about users often managing git projects via centralization is taken and valid. I was just pointing out that you don’t have to use git that way - different clones can separately develop their own features - so the earlier claim someone made that “git isn’t decentralized” is still wrong, imo.
Git itself isn't decentralized is about people copying it and sometimes mirroring it.
Not sure what you mean. My understanding is that git itself is decentralized insofar as each clone can develop its own history without ever needing to push to the origin, but that what OP is referring to is actually the “distributed” nature of git, where i.e. it’s easy to copy the entire history of an instance.
Ah, that’s fair. That’s a pretty key difference between us, and I’m fine agreeing to disagree.
Thanks for the spirited discussion.
I don’t really know what you’re getting at, but if all you’re saying is “wow, this dude doesn’t hate capitalism”, then…sure? I consider myself a social democrat.
Kind of a weird thing to fixate on. Especially after proclaiming you were done responding.
I'm not engaging with this anymore, you've obviously not understood my perspectives here (intentionally or not).
You’re free to choose not to engage any further. But I’d wager to say you haven’t understood my perspective either. At least I’ve tried to make sense of what you’ve said so far, and provide citations to enforce my perspective. I get the sense that you think you have an insight into unions and working class people that I could never fathom, or something like that. Hopefully I’m wrong.
I'm speaking to a very specific material conditions that a particular subset of the electorate is experiencing and liberal policies fail to address, and you've dismissed them yet again.
Okay…so you believe that liberal policies can’t address the problems of certain people? That seems bizarre, given what you said a few replies up:
The more socialized benefits available to small town workers, the less pressure there will be to remain employed in a dying industry. That includes childcare, healthcare, housing, food; basically everything they're afraid to campaign on because republicans will accuse them of being radical socialists.
I figured your main beliefs were in that quote, and that a lot of what you’ve said thus far was just an effort to empathize with conservative-minded workers. Guess you’re a more befuddling guy than I thought.
It's extremely calloused to ignore the economic hardships experienced by these workers when the industry that supports them and their community is broken into pieces and replaced by another, and I don't think you're in the right place to see or acknowledge those.
Buddy, I’m just some guy on the internet, same as you. At the end of the day we don’t really know a thing about each other. At least I’m not assuming you “fail to see” this or “aren’t in the right place to see” that.
Maybe that's just a function of where we are in the election cycle. A part of the way capitalism works is by holding the means of survival hostage to coerce labor to protect it, and when democrats turn a blind eye to the trap those people are stuck in it solidifies reactionary political perspectives.
Man, I get it, you hate capitalism. That’s okay. IMO economic systems don’t really matter nearly as much as the rules and regulations above those systems. That’s okay, too.
I don't give a shit what O'Brian's personal politics are or what Teamsters endorsement or platforming at the RNC means to the democratic campaign. He represents a segment of the population that is experiencing conditions not addressed by current or proposed democratic policies, and he's using his platform to put pressure on both parties to address them by dangling Teamster's influence, and I think that's a fine (good, even) strategy.
I don’t care what it means “to the democratic campaign”, either. I just care that he might help Trump win, because IMO that’s bad for his constituents. Trump doesn’t care about workers, teamsters included, and Harris is the successor to the guy who you can’t deny at least cared enough to give them the largest pension bailout in US history. To me, that’s what’s most practical to care about.
On top of that, the House feels like it really ought to be fixed. The number of representatives has been fixed for almost 100 years, yet the country’s population has more than tripled.
I don’t think legislators of the time expected the population to get so big.
To address your first 3 paragraphs…you’re acting like all I care about is O’Brien’s non endorsement. I guess I’ll spell out the thing I’ve said in every single comment on this thread: Not endorsing democrats = fine. Not endorsing democrats + speaking at the RNC and NOT directly calling them out on their bs = fucking stupid. You keep treating the non-endorsement like it’s in a vacuum. And you can disagree with my math, but if you continue to pretend that this isn’t what I’m saying, then you’re just straw-manning me.
Rust belt unions are less concerned with expanding union protections than they are concerned with their industry going bankrupt. A coal mining union isn't concerned with having better legal protection for going on strike, they're concerned that the entire coal industry is getting replaced elsewhere by renewables and wont have anyone to negotiate with.
Yes, it’s understandable that workers feel like they won’t survive if their industry dies…but in the specific case of coal, the solution isn’t to bolster that industry. Much of the solution is to create new jobs in growing industries that coal workers could transfer into, and to set guarantees that those new jobs aren’t exploitative. Democrats have fought, with real action, to do both the former, and the latter (I won’t source the latter again, read any of my pro-union sources).
I already said that the PRO act is an excellent bill, and that dems should be campaigning on it,
Yes, and not only do they campaign on it - they consistently vote in favor of it. But go on.
but that's simply not why they're losing union support in the rust belt. Millions of americans are afraid that they're going to loose their livelihoods to changing economic priorities, and democrats are allergic to taking any action that addresses that fundamental apprehension because they're terrified of being called socialist.
Yes, I get their fear. And that’s why the liberal solution to those fears is making it easier to switch jobs and to provide better childcare, healthcare, housing, food, unemployment, all on top of pro-worker reform…all LEFT-LEANING policies that the modern GOP will NEVER ENDORSE.
It sounds like you’re just trying to explain what many workers see as the solution. They think the tried-and-true solution is to bolster their industries, instead of all the stuff I just listed. But that’s a conservative solution to the problem.
It sounds like you want the democrats to have liberal policies in general, which is what I want too. But what, in your head, does O’Brien want? If he wants conservative industry-first policies, then AOC isn’t punching left at the guy, end of story. And if he actually wants liberal, boosting-quality-of-life-policies (the kinds of policies I want and you seem to want), then he’s an idiot or a coward, or both, for not getting mad at the modern GOP for spinning all of that negatively as socialism.
Because the democrats haven't proposed anything that actually addresses their concerns, and they're frustrated that the things democrats have proposed are targeted in other places of the economy and callously ignores their material interests. They're convinced that democrats will never solve their problems - but the GOP is promising to preserve their industries by passing tarrifs, removing environmental protections, stopping the growth of renewables and tech that threaten to put them out of business....And those are simple, believable solutions to their problems. You and I understand that those are problematic in a million different ways, but from their perspective everyone else seems to be fucking over everyone else to get their bag, so why not them? Democrats simply don't have a response to that, especially when they're insistent on stopping short of breaking with neoliberal economic policy.
You’re not addressing the subtlety that while they feel democrats aren’t proposing good solutions, and while you seem to feel democrats aren’t proposing good solutions…your solutions and their solutions are different. You’ve said you want more of the kinds of solutions they’d call “radical socialism”. (I want those solutions too, but imo Democrats are already working on it, they just have an uphill battle against conservatives.) (And sure, many conservative workers probably just don’t realize that they’d love those solutions, too, but in the meantime they’re duped into supporting the GOP and their worse, pro-some-industries, anti-other-industries solution.) Are you under the impression that the reason O’Brien isn’t capitulating to democrats is they’re not embracing those solutions? Do you think that when O’Brien cozies to the GOP, that he’s secretly trying to get the GOP on board with those solutions? When there’s negative evidence of that?
I'm exhausted by having this same conversion over-and-over again. Moderate democrats have this way of middling their way out of grasping the underlying issues voters are experiencing and instead try to bandaid over huge gaping wounds, then cry bloody murder when voters don't act as grateful as they think they should. Liberals are never going to understand why they're losing support if they aren't able to even conceptualize the concerns of the working class in small-town economies.
If you’re trying to say that pro-worker policy is the bandaid, and widespread policies that provide better childcare, healthcare, housing, food, and unemployment are your solution, then I don’t disagree, other than that pro-worker policy isn’t as much a band-aid at it is part of that solution. But if that’s O’Brien’s solution, then he’s a bad leader for helping the republicans who reject that solution. If that’s not O’Brien’s solution…then attacking his leadership isn’t “punching left”.
How? Maybe it's more like making a public statement about private negotiations that damages the reputation of the partner company, but 'going to work for another company' doesn't track. They're threatening to harm the democratic campaign by publicly shaming them, not self-immolating
I reject your analogue. There have been no “public statements about private negotiations” with the GOP. We don’t know the GOP to’ve made ANY negotiations.
Don’t like my original analogue? Fine, replace “choosing to” with “threatening to”. The part you’re dancing around is the “more exploitative” part -the part where the side O’Brien is threatening to support isn’t a not-Dem-but-pro-union party, it’s a not-Dem-but-anti-union party. And I suspect he’s playing ball with them IN SPITE OF not having any appreciable consolidations made by republicans in favor of his union. Don’t bother suggesting “we don’t know there weren’t consolidations”, neither of us know. Though there’s plenty of indirect evidence that the modern GOP just doesn’t care - case in point, every party-line PRO Act vote in the past 5 years.
I already answered this - no, i do not agree, and I especially don't think it's 'pointless pendantry'. AOC is a dem soc, she should know that it's the job of the union to negotiate via collective bargaining and that democrats are not owed an endorsement.
You make it sound like AOC is only frustrated with O’Brien for not endorsing Harris. From my very first comment in this thread: that’s not \all he’s done*.
Your next 4 paragraphs…I’ll get back to those.
He represents their interests, it's his literal fucking job
Then he should act like it and not help the leopards that’ll eat his face.
There absolutely is a difference in political ideology, but our disagreement isn't over whether 'the left is more aligned with worker's rights' or not. We disagree about whether or not direct action ought to be targeted at the democrats at all, and that's something I don't think we'll see eye-to-eye on.
I wasn’t saying that was the disagreement, I was saying there’s some core disagreement we probably have, that’s probably flying under both our radars. And no, you haven’t magically identified what that is. I never said “unions shouldn’t target democrats at all with direct action”, I’m saying actions that directly aid another party, where that other party is the modern GOP, are fucking stupid.
Back to those 4 paragraphs…finally, a little actual substance.
And you know what I have to say about it? I have to say that I actually feel even MORE strongly that O’Brien is a bad leader.
You went on about issues that rust belt union members are having. But the Democrats don’t control the rust belt…the GOP does. And they are fucking over their own union constituents. Trump’s last term saw him hire an anti-union Reagan-era lawyer to the NLRB, stacked the courts with anti-union judges, took various other anti-union actions, and neither him nor any Republicans proposed a single page of legislation. They didn’t even support the PRO Act, legislation that helps unions everywhere, rust belt included, and was introduced even before Dems took back the WH (meaning Democrats didn’t stand to look good if it got passed). And the GOP still voted heavily against it, and have done so ever since.
Biden might not be perfect in your eyes, but he immediately fired Trump’s NLRB appointee and the similarly minded deputy replacing them them with a pro-union labor lawyer who took on captive audience meetings, non-compete clauses, and consequential damages. And like I already said, it was DEMOCRATS who’ve been pushing for the PRO Act this whole time…and yes, Harris has campaigned on signing the PRO Act, fyi.
Why aren’t the teamsters…openly mad at the GOP? The party of people who, in your own words, would “accuse [democrats] of being radical socialists” for proposing action that helps working class people? Denying Trump an endorsement doesn’t go far enough - O’Brien either shouldn’t’ve gone to the RNC, or should’ve flipped the bird at everybody there. Don’t just leave an endorsement out of your speech - actually say “I wanna endorse you, but you fuckers are letting us down”. I could see that acknowledging their incompetence to their faces MAYBE moving the needle on the GOP, or at least, it’d be a respectable attempt.
I get you feel like unions need bipartisan support to make a permanent, lasting difference. And y’know what? I think I agree with you on that. But that doesn’t mean I agree that it’s worth giving the modern GOP anything, so much as an RNC speech, now. They should work for it. BY ACTUALLY VOTING ON PRO-UNION POLICIES AND ACTIONS. Then, it makes sense to play both sides. Until then, let them know that they’re not getting an ounce of support.