for example -
…and the answer to that question is a big fat NO. Nobody remembers the Democratic Socialists of America. Almost nobody in this thread knew about the Democratic Socialists of America and nobody should really care about the Democratic Socialists of America.
I’m not a Democrat.
Are you even following along with this thread? Did you even understand the point I was making when you quoted my post? “Socialism” and “defund the police” and “the deplorable’s” and “her emails” are all the same thing: they are talking points used by the Republicans to win over low information voters. Socialism in itself isn’t objectively toxic.
As you can see, this strategy is quite effective at convincing low information voters.
As I’ve already pointed out, with a cite, the DSA literally considers themselves socialists. So that dog won’t hunt. (now I don’t think DSA members actually guide Democratic Party policy, but they are socialists)
If this Wiki page is to be believed then there are three Democratic Socialists of America currently in congress:
- Danny Davis
- Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
- Rashida Tlaib
Note that is not “eight” nor is Sanders on the list.
Looking at state level it seems only one lost an election this year (Isaac Robinson from Michigan).
More interesting though is the use of “socialist” as a blunt instrument with which to attack. There is no interest in nuance here. Are we talking about Karl Marx socialism? Mao? Lenin? Something else? Are we looking at their policy proposals?
Nah…it’s just yelling “socialist”!
So much pearl clutching.
Fair enough, that objection is withdrawn.
From the wilikedia page:
Cori Bush won her race. I’m having a hard time finding the results for the others.
It wasn’t pages IN Newsweek: it was the cover article.
The linked article has a picture of the cover.
Then there was this cover for New York Magazine:
(Photo of the cover in the linked article)
That Newsweek article is from 2009, and appears to focus mainly on the ways in which the Bush administration actually expanded government, contrary to their claimed ideology. Which has absolutely nothing to do with anything under discussion here. Also, I would like a cite for your claim that Democrats were “cheering” this article.
That’s all very inspiring, but to clarify, this seems to be listing candidates who were ENDORSED by DSA, who were not necessarily DSA members themselves.
And here we can see how this works, in a microcosm… Our Canadian Republican apologist working hard to stoke the fires against the “far left”, with 11-year-old articles, and being assisted by the more moderate Democrats. And not because he is trying to help the Democratic Party.
This is also how it plays on the national stage; the moderate (read: conservative) Democrats dance along to the tune of the supposed moderate Republicans, despite the fact that those Republicans will NOT vote for them, because they are missing that all important (R) next to their name on the ballot.
Here’s the thing that I’ve been trying to get across- some people don’t consider social justice to be the primary issue. It’s probably like third in their view, if they care at all.
And that’s ok- we don’t all have to think or act alike, regardless of whatever your opinion is about how certain people should or shouldn’t be treated. Or how much/where tax dollars should be spent. Or whatever the issue is. You (meaning the far leftists) have to respect others’ opinions and work with them, or you’re just as bad as they are, only half again as smug because you know you’re right. (exactly like the Christian right-wingers do, FWIW).
As for ‘Defund the Police’ actually iust meaning reform and more training and such, I guess that would be true in the sense that ‘All Cops Are Bastards’ (ACAB) just means some cops need a little more training, and ‘Abolish ICE’ really just means we should give them better uniforms or something. And wearing socks with cops represented as pigs on them, as Colin Kaepernick did, just means “I love the police as much as I love bacon!”
No one is fooled by this. When ‘Defund the Police’ started, it was serious. The claim was that the cops should be defunded and the money given to community orgnizers for ‘community policing’, social workers and others who would deal with crime from a humane and non-violent point of view, and the rest should go to the communities ‘because crime is a poverty problem.’
It wasn’t until polls showed that huge majorities of Americans were opposed to defunding the police that we started to be told that ‘defunding’ really just means reform, and hey, it could even mean MORE funding for training and such.
But of course unless Democrats are idiots, choosing the slogan ‘defund the police’ when you really meant mild police reform has to be the dumbest label since some local yokel in a Tea Party thought ‘tea baggers’ was a cool name.
…I beg to differ.
It means that even if you are a so called “good cop” you are part of an organization that enables the bad cops.
Right, some people don’t care how many “coloreds” get shot in the street, how many women are raped, or how many gay and trans people are driven to suicide, so long as their taxes get cut. Some people are shitty.
We much respect the South’s peculiar institutions or we are just as bad as they are. How they choose to treat their negroes is none of our business. It would be impolite to impose our opinions on them.
Yes but no one (no one serious or in power) was suggesting to be rid of the police.
Police are well paid, police departments are well funded and outcomes aren’t good. So the suggestion is to take some money from the police and use it elsewhere to improve the cities.
Think of it like the war on drugs. Staggering amounts of money have been spent on it. Massive police agencies exist to fight drugs and the results have been miserable. So, suggesting some money be taken from drug enforcement and be moved to other things like (say) rehabilitation programs and mental health may produce better results.
Yet again we see an incredibly nearsighted view of the issue and no real attempt to understand it. It is just, “OMG! They want to abolish the police!” (which was never, ever, even remotely a serious consideration).
The New York Times. But let me guess: “Literally abolishing the police” just means ‘figuratively abolishing the police by making them better.’
I support abolishing the police the same way you support beheading Dr. Fauci and Christopher Wray.
IOW: Because you found an opinion piece by somebody claiming anything whatsoever, doesn’t mean that represents any sort of mainstream or even strong minority position.
You go ahead and pick any position of ANY kind and we can find somebody somewhere that has written in support of it.