Most of the kids I know who have this attitude would also call IT if they accidentally opened the Command Prompt or BIOS.

Guess I needed to add an /s to that one.

…OK, that still would have a far-left opinion in American politics. It’s not like the country was divided between socialists and communists back then. Hell, it took the Great Depression just to get the moderate socialist reforms of the New Deal passed, and even then, its opponents thought it was communism.

Like, I don’t know what to tell you. I understand your point; you think anything that doesn’t involve the abolition of private property isn’t left-wing. But even pre-Cold War, even pre-McCarthyism, even during the Coal Wars, that position would be the far-left of American politics. I’m not trying to be a dick here, but when I, or the author of the article, or most Americans, are talking about, “the left,” we’re definitely not working from your definition.

Good thing we’ve got so many international allies and are known for being such a stable, reliable economic partner. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I haven’t read the news in two months and I need to catch up on current events.

I mean, fair enough, but there’s no point in America history where abolishing private ownership wouldn’t be considered far-left. I understand that compared to international standards or across the broader spectrum of political theory, the American left has never been particularly left-wing. When I say the Democrats are slightly center-left or center-right, I’m comparing them to themselves 30 to 40 years ago. Since 1980, they’ve slowly compromised their principles to the point where they can’t be considered, “left,” by any modern political metric.

To be fair, the roadrunner it was following somehow successfully ran into the painting.

Well, there’s a reason I said, “generously,” slightly left-of-center. It also depends on the Democrat. There’s enough of them that care about labor to get the PRO Act through the house, but not the Senate. I don’t think it would be unfair to call someone like Gary Peters center-left, given his strong pro-union track record, but someone like Schumer or Pelosi, who are squarely on the side of Wall Street and big tech respectively, are just conservatives masquerading as left-leaning centrists.

Even if what you’re saying about Schumer is true, it would still be gross incompetence to achieve this goal in the manner that he did. Even if you believe his whole, “Musk wants a shutdown,” argument, he allowed every single House Democrat, even those in vulnerable seats, to put themselves in a vulnerable position by refusing to fund the government, then threw them all under the bus by saying, “actually, funding the government is just too important.” Why would he damage his own party like that?

Let’s be real here; the stock market has been tanking all week because of the tariffs, it would have gotten even worse with a shutdown, and Schumer takes a shitload of money from Wall Street. The day before the vote, his donors started telling him how important they think funding the government is, he caves, and the stock market makes a decent comeback the next day. He sold out his party to the donors, and gave Trump a huge win in the process.

Why do you assume all Democrats are trying to put out the fire? Schumer and 10 Senate Democrats just sold out the rest of the party and handed Trump a huge victory. We need to look at every single Democrat and make sure their buckets are full of water instead of gasoline before we decide to work with them.

Absolutely. I’ve been calling my Senators since Thursday telling them that if they don’t publicly call for Schumer to step down, then they are culpable for his decisions. Supporting fascist enablers is supporting fascism.

I agree with a lot of this article, but it doesn’t really acknowledge the reality of the Democratic leadership’s obstruction. The party is, generously, a slightly left-of-center organization that prioritizes stifling their own left wing over defeating their far-right opponents. They’ve successfully held off two of Bernie’s presidential runs, redistricted Bowman out of his seat, and Pelosi has spent so much time and effort undermining the squad (and AOC personally) that it borders on pathological.

I agree with a lot of the criticisms of Bernie in this article, and beyond that, he’s just too old to be in the Senate, much less the standard bearer for the entire left, but the Democrats have spent decades making sure there’s no viable alternative. We need to move past Bernie, but we need to build an actual progressive movement that can get past Democratic obstruction to do that, and for now, Bernie is still the de facto leader of that movement.

TL;DR: the filibuster. The thing the Democrats say they can’t abolish because they need it to block the Republican agenda. Even though they just refused to use it to block a Republican agenda.

The only silver lining here is that it is very visible, undeniable proof of what leftists have been saying for years; the Democratic party is not, in any way, a progressive institution.

I guess I just want to say “in conclusion” that the vast majority of voters that didn’t vote were giving you your Starbucks or your Taco Bell.

This is a very clear and succinct description of something I’ve been struggling to articulate for years. Affluent liberals can tell their boss they’re taking a long lunch to vote, and they don’t understand why shift workers don’t do the same.

It certainly would have helped him turn the debate around.

My final straw with Reddit was a year ago, with an r/askreddit question, “Now that the Supreme Court has given Presidents immunity, what’s the funniest thing Biden could do?” I answered, “Shoot Donald Trump.” I caught a strike for inciting violence, appealed it, and got a clearly automated reply upholding the strike. Made a Lemmy account that day and never looked back.

Honest question, what do you think a Tankie is?

But it won’t. Hakeem Jefferies will have his members wear, “How will this lower the cost of eggs?” t-shirts as they’re obediently led in front of firing squads.

I actually think finding a bureaucratic loophole in a treaty to force your opponent to negotiate is a pretty great example of diplomacy.

I mean, they should have known that his anti-war stance was bullshit, but I don’t think anyone saw, “maybe we’ll invade Greenland,” coming. That was a batshit crazy foreign policy position he just pulled out of his ass right before he took office.