So, your plan is to waste debate time and call yourself a Socialist.

No. That is a mischaracterization and oversimplification of what I wrote (like how did you get that from my second paragraph?). I’m already going to be called a socialist; and until the word and others like it are unpacked, they will always be used to fearmonger. Best to address it head-on and take away the power to demonize. I mean just see how many times Mamdani was asked about it during his latest interviews, including with NPR. You have to confront it because it’s a curiosity with the unknown for so many people.

At its core, you must rewire the literal circuitry of people’s brains to link policies -> socialism, or better yet, Nordic model. But if you don’t strongly link these policies to a ideological package, people will feel adrift. It’s why political parties are so attractive. People like pigeon-holing things. Granted, I would also say that I am not a socialist, but a social democrat and strong advocate of a mixed Nordic Model economy— which itself is overwhelmingly more palatable for swing-voters, and even some Trump supporters I’ve talked with.

Why not do something like say “This is what Ike backed back when he was President. Are you calling Ike a Communist?”

I’m open to saying that; but neither is that mutually-exclusive to what I intended to say. And if it was Trump I’m debating, he probably would say “yes, that Ike was a communist” or “no Ike couldn’t be a commie, he was a Republican!” And then ramble on incoherently about cats & dogs.

No doubt, you need quick-witted quips back in debates that go on the attack, I agree. In fairness my response is probably better suited for a town hall or interview.

As far as my decision-making on that would go, I think it would depend on if the actual electorate is believing that mischaracterization, and if I have access to actually respond directly to those people or not.

In a debate for instance, I’d aim to hand-wave that away in dismissal but then pivot and say, "let’s talk about what I really envision for our country and you can tell me if that sounds good to you…[explains]… And so for these great things, you’ll probably end up asking, “but how will we pay for it? [explains ROI, our excess costs now, the amount of wealth of the billionaire class and corporate coffers, etc.]”

If after that the debate moderator or opponent continues to push hard on, “but are you a socialist. Are you a communist!?” I’d take that as an invitation to say explain the differences and how the happiest countries of the world are properly mixed economies between the spectrum of socialism to laissez-faire capitalism.

I understand what you’re saying. Unfortunately the amount of right-wing propaganda out there will label any real challenger as being socialist whether that’s Mamdani or the “radical marxist socialist commie” that was… Kamala Harris?

So progressives must decide whether they hide from the term, enabling the fearmongering, or openly embracing it to show there is nothing wrong with it.

Second to that, I feel they should be pivoting the questions not just to policy but to definitionally explain the notion of socialism, democratic socialism, and social democracies; how in reality — as in actual, realized, tangible results, not utopian fantasies — some of the happiest and most successful countries by the data are ones who embraced a properly mixed economy; that is, social democracies or the Nordic Model.

I recently had what was maybe one of my biggest wins in a conversation with a maga by explaining it this way. They’re so damn confused and believe all trade and bartering, all markets, and any scale of monetary income will vanish. That big bad guv’mint isn’t necessarily so bad when it’s protected from outsized corporate and billionaire power and firmly in the hands Of the People.

This is neither sustainable for Russia nor does anything but further galvanize Ukrainians against the Russian terrorist invader.

They clearly learned nothing from London stoicism.

One underestimates the power and scope of right-wing propaganda, and especially how it taps into machismo idolization, sadly.

/u/ZombiFrancis can correct me if I’m wrong but I think what they’re saying is that the DNC was unable to redefine what is perceived as electable; tha tis, the stale notion that progressivism is not palatable to rural working class voters despite evidence to the contrary. Instead, we fall for the same old trope of watering down OUR vision and OUR policy platform that we KNOW must be done (e.g., climate change as just one), and end up just looking bland to these voters. We don’t stand for anything, except for the progressive caucus of this party.

So in short, we need a 50 state strategy; but a national vision that brings that all together and is adapted to modern times. Not this incessant pivot to the “center” that is arbitrarily defined by Republican lines in the sand.

Jesus just flooded a Christian camp; it may be a sign Jesus does not approve of Christians in America.*

*poor joke expressing my general frustrations, I confess. Indoctrinated children shouldn’t be responsible for the ignorance of their parents or state and federal officials who stupidly gut weather services and deregulate to the point a camp can be built literally on a fucking dry river bed.

Remember that these are the cultists who look at daily weather to disprove climate change. Recognizing overall trends is not their strongsuit.

I assume embarrassment on the world stage helped move this along given the Olympics?

The other four didn’t think this through because only one party had a subset of their coalition who opposed genocide, and also opposed 2 other genocides: the one Russia perpetrates against Ukraine, and climate change (leaving aside things like, you know, women’s rights and LGBTQ+ rights… And not as a case-in-point the internal genocide of poor people when 50,000 Americans will now die from being dropped from Medicaid thanks to a bill that only Republicans the cliff-divers would have passed).

I had a pledge that I would buy a Union-made American Flag and plant it firmly in my lawn if two things happened (1) Harris was elected President, and (2) Trump served any prison time.

Nationalism fuels fascism, but I think patriotism can be a healthy pride; sort of like how one distinguishes confidence from arrogance.

Ultimately patriotism is a neutral term and is decided upon whether you agree with your national identity in both where your nation is, and where it is heading. I naturally don’t agree with either at present, and so I’m not patriotic. Some are patriotic for the wrong reasons. If we get back to our roots, then I will perhaps one day have pride in being an American again.

“but hOw wiLl wE paY fOR iT?”

Besides the real answer being: return on investment,

I think the better question is how can we live like this?

I think the better question is: why does get 20 mansions while there is still 1 homeless child?

Another good question is: did anyone ask how we’d pay for the bombs dropped on Iran, or given to Israel?

The problem is that last one:

The vast majority of Americans (80%) support the U.S. government’s deportation of migrants without permanent legal status who have been convicted of a violent crime.

How far can “violent” and “conviction” be stretched in order to justify wrongful deportations?

Oh of course; in that case then Sanders, AOC, Warren, Jayapal, Omar, Tlaib.

There are some others who have really low amounts of donations, like Tim Walz which I’ll let slide; but if looking at FEC reports of the top offenders like Jeffries and Schumer, they’ve got millions from AIPAC.

Hence your substantive engagement on what I did mention?

I dish back that which has been dished out.

Never claimed this.

Implied.

Never claimed this.

So you are saying Democrats and Harris would’ve been better?

None of this is about hate, it’s about which policy decisions are better than others.

And Harris had overall better policy decisions, correct?

Again, never claimed.

So you agree Harris had overall better policy decisions, correct?

Everything you’re saying comes across as being less about “how do we improve things” and more “I need someone to be angry at.” I would propose directing that anger at the politicians instead of your fellow voters.

The two notions aren’t mutually-exclusive. You see, in order to improve things, fools asserting defeatist false equivalence fallacy rhetoric need to learn from their disastrous mistakes. Because you’re the one responsible, that is making you a bit uncomfortable, I suspect.

I would propose making fewer logical fallacies next election cycle.

If I was religious I would definitely think he was the devil quoting scripture.

Compounding deflections now, I see. Was a pretty simple question, really.

If we’re going with blind attacks then I think Ivanov has hit the vodka a little too heavy today, maybe?

What do you mean national stage? Because I can think of at least a handful.

I love how you dodged more than half of the issues, knowing you didn’t have jack shit. Respectfully, of course.

Sounds like one is complicit in genocide with respect to both climate change and Ukraine.

(by the way: you love mamdani; if they’re all the same, why did he run as a Democrat? You should hate him too, right? So I guess they’re not all the same and Democrats are, objectively better, is that right?)

So you’re condoning genocide and dodging the fact that Democrats were objectively better for the people of Ukraine?

Classic deflection.