Yeah you get the compromise first, people realize that it’s great, and push farther from that. Taking the big leap, while not impossible, is much harder and less likely to succeed the way you want.
But you don’t really seem to care about nuance and just want more excuses to insult people who aren’t as left as you are. Obviously even liberals think ubi is the best option
Obviously even liberals think ubi is the best option
And leftists don’t.
UBI is a bandage for capitalism, it’s not a real solution anyone should be pushing for and will remain at risk of being cut for as long as it’s ever implemented.
That’s what politics is, compromise. That’s why “they” say to shoot for the biggest thing you want, because half way there is still better than when you first started.
When was the last time a lib compromised with a socialist or anarchist? With anyone to the left of mecha-thatcher?
Do you even know off the top of your head the compromise positions on police abolition Zionism worker control of the means of production/not living in exploitative tyranny half your waking life abolition of borders universal housing bodily autonomy massive inequality/billionaires the elimination of precarity or environmental sustainability? Like, have you ever heard any of them articulated by a lib?
Edit: has anyone ever in their life heard a lib articulate what a compromise with the left might look like? Once? One single time?
Leftists always have to shut up and fall in line. If we don’t we’re fracturing and we’re the problem, yet the centrist libs never make an effort to compromise or meet our modest expectations on the value of human life.
I think this stance isn’t quite the full picture. The issue I see in the US is that over 50% of the people in power federally, Republicans, don’t want even those very moderate positions voted in.
It’s not an issue of leftists being too left, but an issue of there not being enough people sold on leftists views in all the red/purple states. When the 40 hour a week requirement isn’t even getting sold, of course those people further right aren’t voting in a more considerate option.
Really, I feel the issues stem from many people believing that we were close to getting the liberal goals passed federally. Now, it looks like we’re starting back several steps with how much 2024 was a backstep. At this point, trying to get those leftist programs implemented at the state level is most logical thing to do, specifically in blue states.
I think blue states held off on implementing most of these programs since it is very expensive and it would have made way more sense to fund all these programs federally, but that’s not realistic now. Blue states need to be willing to go into debt to fund these progressive programs, and only after they are implemented and the people are benefiting is it likely that purple/red states also buy into trying these programs.
Don’t get me wrong, the corporate Dems aren’t the ones trying to get these programs implemented at the state level. For that reason, we should primary the non-progressive Dems. Better yet, we should try to get an alternative voting system implemented in each of our states so we get more politicians like Mamdani in office.
Because the ratio of libs to leftists is like 10:1 at minimum. Obviously they control the conversation, that’s how democracy is supposed to work. We can’t control the conversation from the minority.
Right but have you literally ever heard a shitlib say what compromise with the left might look like? Like ever? Any proposal? An elected figure or your cringe shitlib aunt or literally any of them?
Or do they just mean ‘compromise the left’ as in ‘to a permanent end’?
What do you mean? Compromise on what issues exactly?
I agree with pretty much everything under the sun with left leaning policy. I’m a leftist-liberal since I don’t think those points are inherently mutually exclusive.
I’ve seen more of this type of accelerationist, cultist talk cropping up lately. As a leftist-liberal, I don’t think it’s mutually exclusive where we can’t be pushing for that incremental positive change while still wanting more.
The fact that over 50% of those on the right, who are in power, don’t want positive change at all -even that incremental change- is what is the worrying sign.
We should be pushing for progressives to be in office and implement these progressive policies at the state level, as it’s clear that we have a big up-hill challenge to get any progressive policies passed federally.
Walking in the direction of only one.
Because the other is merely a stop on the way.
If you don’t strive for the best option, you’ll settle for compromise.
Yeah you get the compromise first, people realize that it’s great, and push farther from that. Taking the big leap, while not impossible, is much harder and less likely to succeed the way you want.
But you don’t really seem to care about nuance and just want more excuses to insult people who aren’t as left as you are. Obviously even liberals think ubi is the best option
And leftists don’t.
UBI is a bandage for capitalism, it’s not a real solution anyone should be pushing for and will remain at risk of being cut for as long as it’s ever implemented.
That’s what politics is, compromise. That’s why “they” say to shoot for the biggest thing you want, because half way there is still better than when you first started.
When was the last time a lib compromised with a socialist or anarchist? With anyone to the left of mecha-thatcher?
Do you even know off the top of your head the compromise positions on police abolition Zionism worker control of the means of production/not living in exploitative tyranny half your waking life abolition of borders universal housing bodily autonomy massive inequality/billionaires the elimination of precarity or environmental sustainability? Like, have you ever heard any of them articulated by a lib?
Edit: has anyone ever in their life heard a lib articulate what a compromise with the left might look like? Once? One single time?
Leftists always have to shut up and fall in line. If we don’t we’re fracturing and we’re the problem, yet the centrist libs never make an effort to compromise or meet our modest expectations on the value of human life.
I think this stance isn’t quite the full picture. The issue I see in the US is that over 50% of the people in power federally, Republicans, don’t want even those very moderate positions voted in.
It’s not an issue of leftists being too left, but an issue of there not being enough people sold on leftists views in all the red/purple states. When the 40 hour a week requirement isn’t even getting sold, of course those people further right aren’t voting in a more considerate option.
Really, I feel the issues stem from many people believing that we were close to getting the liberal goals passed federally. Now, it looks like we’re starting back several steps with how much 2024 was a backstep. At this point, trying to get those leftist programs implemented at the state level is most logical thing to do, specifically in blue states.
I think blue states held off on implementing most of these programs since it is very expensive and it would have made way more sense to fund all these programs federally, but that’s not realistic now. Blue states need to be willing to go into debt to fund these progressive programs, and only after they are implemented and the people are benefiting is it likely that purple/red states also buy into trying these programs.
Don’t get me wrong, the corporate Dems aren’t the ones trying to get these programs implemented at the state level. For that reason, we should primary the non-progressive Dems. Better yet, we should try to get an alternative voting system implemented in each of our states so we get more politicians like Mamdani in office.
Because the ratio of libs to leftists is like 10:1 at minimum. Obviously they control the conversation, that’s how democracy is supposed to work. We can’t control the conversation from the minority.
Right but have you literally ever heard a shitlib say what compromise with the left might look like? Like ever? Any proposal? An elected figure or your cringe shitlib aunt or literally any of them?
Or do they just mean ‘compromise the left’ as in ‘to a permanent end’?
What do you mean? Compromise on what issues exactly?
I agree with pretty much everything under the sun with left leaning policy. I’m a leftist-liberal since I don’t think those points are inherently mutually exclusive.
Gave a shortish list elsewhere in this thread, find it or don’t.
No, that’s what centrism is, compromise with the right.
We fight for what we want, and we don’t stop halfway sorry.
Sure you do buddy, how is that working out?
I’ve seen more of this type of accelerationist, cultist talk cropping up lately. As a leftist-liberal, I don’t think it’s mutually exclusive where we can’t be pushing for that incremental positive change while still wanting more.
The fact that over 50% of those on the right, who are in power, don’t want positive change at all -even that incremental change- is what is the worrying sign.
We should be pushing for progressives to be in office and implement these progressive policies at the state level, as it’s clear that we have a big up-hill challenge to get any progressive policies passed federally.
Did you reply to the wrong comment?
Nah I’m agreeing with you; I’m talking about the type of person you replied to though.