all 5 comments

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Those MAGA extremists are such a threat to democracy that the DNC decided to bankroll their campaigns...

u/FozzieBear

[–][deleted]  (6 children)

[deleted]

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    She didn't know anything in Atlanta and she doesn't know anything in DC.

    This is just more of the usual, desperate misinformation from the right-wing news media and in this case, the Harmsworth family. (MAGAtards aren't funded by the DNC.)

    My point had nothing to do with Keisha Lance Bottoms. I was attempting to point out the incongruity between labeling MAGA extremists as a threat to democracy on the one hand, and then intentionally bankrolling the campaigns of those same extremists on the other.

    You cant go crying about the continued existence of MAGA ideology when when you are spending money to keep it going in an effort to win elections

    There isn't any misinformation here. NYT has reported about this financing of MAGA extremists by the DNC as well, and this is an apporopriate time to mention it given Biden's speech decrying the existential threat of the MAGA ideology at the same time they are supporting it financially.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/16/us/politics/democrats-midterms-trump-gop.html

    I don't see how it could be possible to defend both of these things at the same time without contradicting yourself

    [–][deleted]  (4 children)

    [deleted]

      [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

      I see your points, but whataboutism doesn't explain away valid concerns about the rise of fascism

      Calling something a whataboutism seems like a bad faith way of dismissing a fair point that can't really be refuted on the merits of the facts.

      I'm not sure fascism is an accurate descriptive term, this is as much misused by the left as communism is by the right. These words both seem to now mean 'bad social tyranny by X party', rather than referring to very specific right and left wing economic ideologies which have historically been practiced by socially authoritarian governments

      Now, I actually tend to agree with you that there ARE some valid concerns about the ideology of the MAGA crowd (though I'm more likely to cite bigotry and lack of concern for the environment and social safety nets as my concerns of priority). Personally, I think the reasonable take on this is if MAGA ideology is indeed such a threat to democracy, we probably ought not to be recklessly funding these candidates and providing them with a platform to spread their extremely dangerous views. It seems both myopic and hypocritical, as they seem to be intentionally encouraging a destructive ideology because they think it isn't viable and there are some short term electoral gains to be had. Again, if this ideology is that dangerous, this seems highly irresponsible and unbelievably cynical

      [–]FozzieBear 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

      I would agree that these are all important points that we should keep in mind in this kind of political discussion. My personal political position years ago was 'independent' (as registeresd), and with the rise of increasingly aggressive right-wing approaches, over the past 40 years, I've wanted very much to see a Democrat leadership (in any branch) that would also respond aggressively to to the right. Bill Clinton's style was very interesting because it engaged fully in the deal-making process across the aisle, even if this had mixed results on all sides. That said, he dealt with Republicans (some of which are still in office) who were focused on stopping everything Democrats supported. After that presidency there were no aggressive challenges to the right wing, nothing that took on the uncompromising authoritarianism of the right. The pluralist democracy that would value alternating forms of leadership and balance in political discourses died in the late 1980s and has gotten worse. Whereas many Democrats were happy with Obama, he did not take on the authoriatarians in a direct, aggressive manner. This was costly, as was the nomination of Hilary.

      Anyhow - tl:dr - I like 'Dark Brandon's' aggressive dialogue and think Democrats should be much more vocal about their concerns about the right AND left, rather than act like the limp dicks of the past, even if it means stooping to the low level of the meanness of the right (and there are meannies on the left, but not mean enough). My greatest concern is with authoritarianism, though at times this is called fascism.

      [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      Thought I'd share an article I saw in the NYT today (yes i read the NYT believe it or not) that made some similar points to the ones I was attempting to make

      Here's a link to the same article that was printed in the Salt Lake Tribune, as the NYT article is paywalled

      https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2022/09/05/ross-douthat-does-biden-really/