Bipartisanship is a joke. Democrat to Republican: “Will a 10% reduction in expenditures for the Build Back Better plan move us closer together?” Republican reply: “You literally groom children for sex slavery before draining their blood in the pizza shop basements for your unholy immortality rituals.” Democratic riposte: “How about 15%?”
Unfortunately, I think the 60’s especially looking at electoral politics is a situation where the winning side learned to try to keep doing the thing that worked and the losing side learned to change strategies.
The 60’s were relatively unique in that the faction that wanted to maintain undemocratic rule was relatively isolated on the national level as a minor party within a party that was losing influence over that party. Now they run one of the political parties and they have the ability and will to block federal legislation that could reform any of this. Meanwhile the other party thinks that we’re still in the LBJ era and can achieve these reforms via an overwhelming consensus like (as they see it) the way we used to do things in spite of how anomalous the 60’s were, in terms of the reform that was possible on a bipartisan basis, in American history.
IMHO what happened is the emergence of social media where anyone can say anything, unchallenged, and have a lot of other people believe the lies, and then get all worked-up and be willing to take action and/or confront anyone and anything they perceive to be at odds with their cultivated hatred and misinformation. The bubbles social media creates and is creating are what’s changed since the 1960s.
And that’s the problem. The majority of people in the U.S. are anti-fascist. We are capable of doing everything at once. But we won’t get a change unless we are actually trying to make that change. Telling someone to hold off on their priority is blocking someone on our side. Don’t do that! They can work on making the changes they want while you work on making the changes you want.
As I said at the beginning of the thread:
Don’t let fascists divide and conquer us.
Asking others to stop working for change is not helpful:
Blaming others for not doing enough is not helpful:
Criticizing how others work for change is not helpful.
Direct your frustrations at the enemy. Yes, I know your allies are flawed; you don’t need to explain exactly how.
Well, don’t do that, and then expect them to vote for you.
It’s incredibly helpful to the people the change is supposed to benefit; less so for the well-meaning blunderer looking to feel good about themselves no matter how ineffective their efforts are. I believe the refrain you’re looking for is “You just can’t help these people!”
The fascists appreciate your targeting of their enemies.
Remember, the whole idea behind Big Brother is that he claims to be doing what’s best for you. Sounds like I’ve got more than one set of enemies.
Turning friends into enemies does that. A flawed friend is better than any enemy.
Actually, he’s worse - he can stab you in the back, while you’re more wary of your stated enemies. The “flawed friend” that wants you to settle for half-measures is always better off than you, you’ll note.
Can we stop now? I’ve had this argument with family members since 8th-grade Civics. Your well-meaning toxicity is never going to win me over.
Canada solved this problem in 1964.
Have you ever won anyone over with your malicious toxicity?
Anyway, I don’t see @Pleonast as trying to win you over, that seems a fool’s errand. I see them just giving opportunities for you to provide evidence as to what a piece of shit you are, and I can see that you are not one to waste an opportunity.
And you’re also stabbing our allies in the back for not meeting your standards. I’m saying we all need to stop that.
Yes, we all wish everyone were more dedicated to our goals, but energy spent attacking allies is wasting our efforts and actively helping fascists. Instead of attacking allies, help them do better.
I am foolish. 
You don’t see that as contradictory? Helping these alleged allies do better would mean criticizing their efforts at least somewhat, and you’ve twice characterized any criticism as attacking them and aiding the enemy.
Tired: The paradox of tolerance
Wired: The paradox of unity
It’s possible to criticize without attacking, convince without criticizing, and assist without convincing. Do what you can, and stay out of the way if you can’t. No one is perfect.
Being on the side of morality is always harder than being on the side of hate. They want us to get frustrated and lash out at our own diversity and then give up. And our diversity is not just race and orientation, but all kinds of motivations and approaches.
See, why do you do things like that? Everyone can see that this is just a straight up lie. Do you think that anyone will believe it, that they can’t read for themselves that what you have claimed is false?
I’m not Princhester. But as a guy who has said we should be prioritizing voting rights, I’ll respond to this.
I do not feel that focusing on voting rights is an abandonment of other very important battles. I see it as a more effective tactic in winning those battles.
If we fight all of the individual discriminatory laws that Republicans enact, we divide our efforts and resources over a multitude of battles. I think we’d be better putting our collective efforts and resources into preventing Republicans from getting electing by unfair means. Doing so would put an end to all of the bad laws that result from Republicans holding power.
We can keep fighting the battles. Or we can fight the war. If we win a battle, there will just be another battle to fight. If we win the war, all the battles will end.
But what does that mean? What should legislators be doing to “prioritize voting rights?” What does it mean to focus on them?
Sen Manchin has already said that there will be no voting rights legislation passed by this Senate, so what else is there to do there?
OTOH, you have people who are being harmed, right now by policies put into place, or lack of policies that are being actively blocked by right wing governments.
What is the point of fighting for voting rights, if you abandon the people who you want to vote for you, especially when you fail to secure those voting rights that you compromised your constituents for?
Voting disenfranchisement moves the needle by a couple percent at best. Far, far, far more people stay home on election day, especially at the midterms, than are turned away by voting restrictions. Getting those people to the polls will do far more good for your party than fighting a battle on voting rights that you are not going to win.