4 ms·

I asked you, specifically, where your line was at. If the dems were losing because they thought people getting shot in the street by government agents were bad,

I asked you, specifically, where your line was at. If the dems were losing because they thought people getting shot in the street by government agents were bad, should they instead say 'actually, a little murder is alright'? What about gay marriage? First amendment rights? The notion that they should compromise with people whose ideals align with literally killing people or taking away rights is a notion I reject. I will never, ever vote for a democrat that compromises in the way you suggest so they can choose which side they want to try and get votes from.

eudamoniac 9mo ago
Well I typically vote Republican, so I can only speculate. But let's imagine that 70% of people support ICE, and those people would never ever vote against ICE, because they think that is evil; everything else is the same. In such a world, the Dems have no power, because they get 30% of the vote at most. They should stop fighting ICE so that they can at least do something on their agenda. The choice is between passing some good legislation unrelated to ICE, or never being able to pass any legislation. Obviously the former is better. At the end of the day it's a democracy. The people vote for what they want, and then get it. The people originate the ideas that are available to be implemented. The notion of a democratic representative refusing to do what is needed to get votes is meaningless. It's the notion of a political idea that is refusing to be believed in, so must become irrelevant. Anyway, your whole train of thought presupposes correctness and righteousness and that change to certain things is not on the table. If somehow the Democrats shrunk to the size of the Libertarian party because they held onto all that, you could keep voting for them, but real politics continues without you. I am suggesting they change before that shrinkage occurs, not after or never.
- SpicyLemonZest 9mo ago
  But your whole train of thought presupposes that activism can't change people's support and votes. The hypothetical you're describing played out with gay marriage over the past few decades, and the folks on the 30% side of the issue won completely - gay marriage is now completely legal, supported by a majority in every state, and so well-established that opposing it would be electoral poison.
  - eudamoniac 9mo ago
    True and good point, however I do not believe that activism can change anyone's support for abortion, for reasons I've stated. That specifically is a special case. Maybe it can implant ideas into the youth so they don't need their minds changed, but that's a long game.

eudamoniac 9mo ago

Well I typically vote Republican, so I can only speculate. But let's imagine that 70% of people support ICE, and those people would never ever vote against ICE, because they think that is evil; everything else is the same. In such a world, the Dems have no power, because they get 30% of the vote at most. They should stop fighting ICE so that they can at least do something on their agenda. The choice is between passing some good legislation unrelated to ICE, or never being able to pass any legislation. Obviously the former is better. At the end of the day it's a democracy. The people vote for what they want, and then get it. The people originate the ideas that are available to be implemented. The notion of a democratic representative refusing to do what is needed to get votes is meaningless. It's the notion of a political idea that is refusing to be believed in, so must become irrelevant. Anyway, your whole train of thought presupposes correctness and righteousness and that change to certain things is not on the table. If somehow the Democrats shrunk to the size of the Libertarian party because they held onto all that, you could keep voting for them, but real politics continues without you. I am suggesting they change before that shrinkage occurs, not after or never.

SpicyLemonZest 9mo ago
But your whole train of thought presupposes that activism can't change people's support and votes. The hypothetical you're describing played out with gay marriage over the past few decades, and the folks on the 30% side of the issue won completely - gay marriage is now completely legal, supported by a majority in every state, and so well-established that opposing it would be electoral poison.
- eudamoniac 9mo ago
  True and good point, however I do not believe that activism can change anyone's support for abortion, for reasons I've stated. That specifically is a special case. Maybe it can implant ideas into the youth so they don't need their minds changed, but that's a long game.