I literally do blame the Democrats for Trump, and if you don’t, you weren’t paying attention.

Plenty of us were critiquing Clinton’s campaign on those merits and were consistently talked down to in shocker the same way we’re being talked down to now. Shocker, she lost. I remember saying a few weeks before the election “We’re about to get Brexited.” I put my vote down for Clinton, because Trump is fucking insane, and that was clear before he was President. It was clear in the fucking 1980’s.

Being able to critique our leaders is supposed to be what is the difference between us and conservative voters. They’re the cult who unquestioningly believes all the bullshit that comes out of Trump’s mouth and diapers. I find it weird that people think we should be more like them in regards to our leaders like that would be a good thing.

  • Snot FlickermanOP
    link
    English
    2
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    The people campaigning against the people campaigning against fascists are the fascists.

    Wow, just wow. All right, good luck buddy, I really don’t even know how to respond to “if you want to critique democrats for not fighting fascism hard enough, it means you’re actually wish the fascists.”

    That’s the second time today I’ve gotten the George Bush “you’re either with us or you’re against us” schtick. It would be really helpful if you understood how deeply you are channeling Republican attitudes.

    (Which, last I checked, are fascist.)

    • MudMan
      link
      fedilink
      3
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      No, hold on, I didn’t say with us or against us.

      First of all, there is no “us”. That was my point up there.

      But more importantly, I said you can shut up. Shutting up is an option. At least until after the election. This is entirely about the campaign. In the campaign there are three camps: there’s the fascists, there’s the other guys, who the fascists are campaigning against… and there’s everybody else. Shutting up.

      And then, after the campaign and the winning and the narrowly averting the end of liberal democracy and the descent into fascism, then go nuts. No three camps there. Absolutely go wild and protest and raise havoc to try to achieve structural change. Set the country on fire. Flip over cars. At least put the same energy into it than the fascists taking over the Capitol.

      But during the campaign? You don’t have to campaign for the Democrats, but you also don’t have to campaign against them. And in a two party system there is only one type of people campaigning against them.

      • Snot FlickermanOP
        link
        English
        3
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        And in a two party system there is only one type of people campaigning against them.

        You literally just did it again! You can try to hide behind flowery description all you want, but in the end, the attitude is “if you’re not with us, you’re against us.”

        Just stop, this is sad. Admit to yourself that that’s how you feel and go have a beer something for fucks sake.

        • MudMan
          link
          fedilink
          36 months ago

          No, stop it. You need to try to keep track of more than two things at once or we’re not gonna get anywhere.

          Three groups:

          The fascists
          The guys the fascists run against
          The third group of people who shut up

          And that’s only during the campaign.

          Alright? Following me there? The number three? This is important, it’s not two, it’s three.

          So in a two party system there is only one type of people campaiging against the Democrats. The people who want the Republicans to win. That’s all you’re doing if you’re actively campaigning against them. No other options. Nothing else that can happen.

          And you can choose to be neither.

          The fact that you’re not even conceptualizing the notion of not actively involving yourself in the argument is kinda shocking. I don’t know if it speaks to polarization, entitlement or what, but… this is a hell of a conversation.

          • Snot FlickermanOP
            link
            English
            2
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            The fact that you don’t see your position as coercive and controlling, I don’t know what to say, my man. You’re literally telling me I can’t talk about things I have valid concerns with. You used the term “shut up” which is a pretty unkind way to put it, no less. Can you admit to yourself you’re being an aggressive asshole who wants to control when other people can talk and what they can say, and that this is a controlling attitude, or are you going to keep spinning in circles to justify a shitty opinion?

            • MudMan
              link
              fedilink
              36 months ago

              I am telling you maybe wait until it doesn’t risk the rise of fascism. If you can hold it in a few more months.

              Is this one of those where telling people to wear masks is an attack on their liberties? I lose track.

              Look, you can obviously say whatever you want, and I obviously can’t stop you, but I don’t know what you’re trying to achieve, and I’m increasingly doubtful that you do, either, honestly. You either want fascists in power or you don’t. And if you don’t then it’s an absolutely astounding position to be saying that somehow venting your opinion on social media takes precedence over that goal.

              And yet here we are. As always, the left is more concerned with their purity tests and their feelings of disappointment than with achieving any tangible improvement. I should be used to it by now, because man, it happens all the time. But nope, unlike what the OP suggested I’m not getting over it. At all.