• FunkyStuff [he/him]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    678 months ago

    It’s not hypocritical or duplicitous to campaign as a progressive against racism but then turn around and support a segregationist’s presidential bid, and refuse to call for a ceasefire for months as Israel commits genocide?

    • HeavenAndEarth [she/her]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      398 months ago

      I mean, Bernie always said he would endorse the Democratic candidate if he lost and he was consistent in his career of being a liberal Zionist. So yes, he is not a hypocrite.

      • FunkyStuff [he/him]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        348 months ago

        That’s definitely true but I’d still say he was deceiving his supporters, even if those who read up on his history would notice the problem.

    • @infinitevalence
      link
      English
      48 months ago

      no, because what happens if he takes a hard line on this, he looses all his political capital and goes back to being a small fish. Unlike the democrats he does not have a large party backing him he has to make more compromises and pick and choose on the issues that he can meaningfully impact.

      Just saying no to everything for ideological reasons alone is what the Republicans do, and we have seen how effective their governance is.

      • FourteenEyes [he/him]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        538 months ago

        He is a small fish already and has no political future to speak of. We’re judging him as a person.

      • plinky [he/him]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        468 months ago

        What capital? What did it afford him in means of policy change?

        Here is an idea: call Israel genocidal state, leak all classified info he can get his hands on and punch biden. Probably will save more people that this barking

      • @SSJ2Marx@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        408 months ago

        we have seen how effective their governance i

        I mean, they’re absolutely awful, but in terms of accomplishing their goals Mitch McConnel’s strategy of saying no to everything in order to deny the Democrats a win has worked out brilliantly.

      • Tachanka [comrade/them]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        38
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        First of all, there is no “compromise” between “genocide palestinians” and “don’t genocide palestinians.”

        the plurality of 18-29 year olds, that is, the only group of people who supported sanders in his primary bids are also the group most likely to be against israel’s genocide of palestinians. with whom does he gain “political capital” by supporting israel? People who never supported him in the first place. with whom does he lose “political capital?” The people who supported him. Anyway I hope someone more sophisticated than me in the art of rhetoric and more patient in the art of education is able to exorcise your brainworms with respect to liberal “compromise” politics.

        Just saying no to everything for ideological reasons alone is what the Republicans do, and we have seen how effective their governance is.

        The republicans and the democrats both support israel, both support war against china, both support NATO expansion, both support capitalism, both support imperialism, both support racism. Demokkk-rats just do it more politely. They drive the car off the cliff at 90 miles an hour instead of 100 miles an hour. They drone strike the children instead of sending roided up marines to do it in person. Oh, and they have slight disagreements with their republican colleagues on matters of priority, like whether China or Russia is a bigger threat, but not on fundamentals.

        • dementor333 [she/her]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          228 months ago

          First of all, there is no “compromise” between “genocide palestinians” and “don’t genocide palestinians.”

          ok but what if we only genocide half the Palestinians?

      • GarbageShoot [he/him]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        388 months ago

        no, because what happens if he takes a hard line on this, he looses all his political capital

        Capital, that thing that you need to never spend because when you spend it you don’t get it back. Oh, sorry, that’s “The lives of genocide victims”, “capital” is something you do spend (“invest”) to get more of it.

      • Gay_Tomato [they/them, it/its]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        33
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Just saying no to everything for ideological reasons alone is what the Republicans do, and we have seen how effective their governance is.

        Your talking about how they direct how everything goes even if they aren’t technically in power to the point were their opposition claims that if they win just more one election they super win forever?

        • @Vncredleader@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          218 months ago

          like Rosa said

          Indeed, a bourgeois party, that is, a party which says yes to the existing order as a whole, but which will say no to the day-to-day consequences of this order, is a hybrid, an artificial creation, which is neither fish nor flash nor fowl. We who oppose the entire present order see things quite differently. In our no, in our intransigent attitude, lies our whole strength. It is this attitude that earns us the fear and respect of the enemy and the trust and support of the people.

      • ShimmeringKoi [comrade/them]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        30
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Just saying no to everything for ideological reasons alone is what the Republicans do

        “Obstructing your opponent for ideological reasons is what Republicans do”

        Yes, and it’s highly effective. Imagine if someone with a good ideology did that.

      • Maoo [none/use name]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        308 months ago

        Them: “but isn’t [all of these hypocritical things] hypocritical?”

        You: “No because that would be inconvenient”.

        This is your brain on liberalism.

      • Wheaties [she/her]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        278 months ago

        Just saying no to everything for ideological reasons alone is what the Republicans do, and we have seen how effective their governance is.

        In the last half-century, who’s policy has been more predominant, Republican or Democrat? You can’t deny that “saying no to everything for ideological reasons” has been an effective strategy for implementing their vision, regardless of how shitty it’s been in practice. Wouldn’t it be nice to have real victory for a change? Not just this “they go low, we go high” empty moral victory?