"We are calling on every member of the incoming 120th Congress to vote against Hakeem Jeffries for Speaker in January 2027 and choose a different candidate."
If you think voters turning out for progressives and people advocating for new congressional leadership is “doing the same thing over and over” then your opinion is worth about as much to me as a roll of toilet paper that got rained on.
But hey, even if we’re condemned to roll the same boulder up the same hill over and over again, well that’s better than letting it roll down over us. You’re welcome to disagree, but in that case go ahead and show us what it looks like so the rest of us can move on
But hey, even if we’re condemned to roll the same boulder up the same hill over and over again,
We’re not. The planet is running out of time.
Since you’re unwilling to learn from those who have made the same mistakes before you, please just pay attention to what happens next.
People made mistakes in the past, yes. That’s no reason not to try again.
We can give up, and the planet will die.
Or we can keep fighting, we can try something new, and we may save it.
Me, personally, I’ll keep fighting until my dying breath if I have to, or until the battle is won and the planet is saved.
You can give up if you want to. But respectfully, stop encouraging others to give up too. Or else I’ll have no choice but to view you as an enemy. And I already have enough of those as it is.
The “trying something new” isn’t to keep falling for the same Democratic party snare over and over again.
The party exists to prevent you from “trying something new”.
You only hear “give up” because your imagination has been constrained to action within bounds that are acceptable to the ruling class. When people tell you “this isn’t going far enough” you somehow hear “do nothing”.
Or we can take the democratic party from within and accomplish the goal through political means.
We already saw maga do it to the republican party. They just happened to be fascists.
The same thing can happen on the left. Left-wing populism can overcome the corpo-establishment centrism in the party. I’ve already been seeing calls for a leftwing teaparty.
Why are you so thirsty for violence that you don’t even want people to try to achieve this without open conflict?
That’s the exact same play the US left has fallen for over and over again.
The fundamental difference is that the tea party takeover was billionaire approved and astroturfed.
Entryism to the Democratic party on the other hand is a no go from the party’s sponsors.
There are squabbling factions within the ruling class, but they are united against us. The overton window they define will always be far to the right of what the masses find acceptable (insofar as they are not stupefied by fascistic dreck and capitalist realism).
As for bloodshed, it’s happening all the time at a scale that makes knowledge of it a moral hazard.
You’re just insulated from it; much of it is omitted from news cycles or hidden behind layers of obfuscation.
Let’s take some “uncontroversial” examples: Tens of thousands of people die in the US each year from denied health care claims. Mass shootings are now so common they almost never make the news. Three quarters of a million people in the US are homeless. Many die of exposure (often after police clear out their camps right before a cold snap). Just because they weren’t stabbed or shot doesn’t mean they aren’t victims of violence.
The Socdems in Germany wanted to avoid bloodshed, too.
[The reformist] admits that the path of “bloody revolution” now becomes inevitable-after fifteen years of suffering, after the maximum strengthening of the class enemy, and therefore now involving far heavier sacrifice and bloodshed, that the so-called “peaceful” path is thus proved to involve in the end, not the avoidance of bloodshed, but the maximum of bloodshed.
Why are you framing seeking change outside of the electoral system as “giving up?” If you’re going to fight until your dying breath for change, then why pin it all on a strategy that has never worked, and completely reject what has? Nobody is arguing for giving up.
I think it’ll be the moment a good chunk of people remember realising the Democratic party can’t be reformed, yeah.
Oh you meant-
Not with that attitude.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting bourgeois politicians to represent you.
That said please forge ahead with all your might and make the newest object lesson all the clearer.
If you think voters turning out for progressives and people advocating for new congressional leadership is “doing the same thing over and over” then your opinion is worth about as much to me as a roll of toilet paper that got rained on.
But hey, even if we’re condemned to roll the same boulder up the same hill over and over again, well that’s better than letting it roll down over us. You’re welcome to disagree, but in that case go ahead and show us what it looks like so the rest of us can move on
We’re not. The planet is running out of time.
Since you’re unwilling to learn from those who have made the same mistakes before you, please just pay attention to what happens next.
You’re the one unwilling to learn.
People made mistakes in the past, yes. That’s no reason not to try again.
We can give up, and the planet will die.
Or we can keep fighting, we can try something new, and we may save it.
Me, personally, I’ll keep fighting until my dying breath if I have to, or until the battle is won and the planet is saved.
You can give up if you want to. But respectfully, stop encouraging others to give up too. Or else I’ll have no choice but to view you as an enemy. And I already have enough of those as it is.
The “trying something new” isn’t to keep falling for the same Democratic party snare over and over again.
The party exists to prevent you from “trying something new”.
You only hear “give up” because your imagination has been constrained to action within bounds that are acceptable to the ruling class. When people tell you “this isn’t going far enough” you somehow hear “do nothing”.
Your mind is shackled by crimestop.
Building power outside of the Democratic party is one of the barest prerequisites to getting things moving in the right direction.
Or we can take the democratic party from within and accomplish the goal through political means.
We already saw maga do it to the republican party. They just happened to be fascists.
The same thing can happen on the left. Left-wing populism can overcome the corpo-establishment centrism in the party. I’ve already been seeing calls for a leftwing teaparty.
Why are you so thirsty for violence that you don’t even want people to try to achieve this without open conflict?
That’s the exact same play the US left has fallen for over and over again.
The fundamental difference is that the tea party takeover was billionaire approved and astroturfed.
Entryism to the Democratic party on the other hand is a no go from the party’s sponsors.
There are squabbling factions within the ruling class, but they are united against us. The overton window they define will always be far to the right of what the masses find acceptable (insofar as they are not stupefied by fascistic dreck and capitalist realism).
As for bloodshed, it’s happening all the time at a scale that makes knowledge of it a moral hazard.
You’re just insulated from it; much of it is omitted from news cycles or hidden behind layers of obfuscation.
Let’s take some “uncontroversial” examples: Tens of thousands of people die in the US each year from denied health care claims. Mass shootings are now so common they almost never make the news. Three quarters of a million people in the US are homeless. Many die of exposure (often after police clear out their camps right before a cold snap). Just because they weren’t stabbed or shot doesn’t mean they aren’t victims of violence.
The Socdems in Germany wanted to avoid bloodshed, too.
Why are you framing seeking change outside of the electoral system as “giving up?” If you’re going to fight until your dying breath for change, then why pin it all on a strategy that has never worked, and completely reject what has? Nobody is arguing for giving up.
Cowbee gonna cowbee, tsk tsk
You’re fully capable of answering that question without rejecting me because of who I am.