Then I don’t know why we’re even having an argument.

I said that agencies like the CIA being competently run was a bad thing because it would mean that they’re better at doing bad shit like hunting down leftists. You accused me of not being a leftist for saying that and corrected me to say that the CIA being competently run was a bad thing because it would mean that they’re better at doing bad shit like hunting down leftists. Then I said that I don’t have any sympathy for the CIA. You accused me of not being a leftist for saying that and then said that you don’t expect me to have sympathy for the CIA. Like, what even is this conversation? You’re just agreeing with everything I say in a bizarrely combatative way.

What’s really happening is that you’re twisting yourself into knots trying to reconcile the inherent contradiction between the obvious fact that the CIA sucks shit and the obsessive need to paint everything the Orange Man does as THE WORST POSSIBLE THING EVER and anyone who isn’t on the same page about whatever the latest story of the week is The Enemy, no matter what their actual positions are. And of course, if you can reaffirm your loyalty to the state and pass yourself off as “one of the good ones,” all the better.

Some of us are capable of recognizing that Trump is bad without 24/7 freaking out about everything he does, to the point of this bizarre doublespeak you’re doing about how the CIA is both bad and good. All it does is discredit the left and allow people to paint us as representatives of the widely (and correctly) hated establishment, which helps Trump (ridiculously) pass himself off as an outsider, while at the same time crying wolf and discrediting the left when we call out the actually heinous shit he does.

Of course, the US intelligence community is a much larger threat to what semblance of democracy we have than Russian intelligence could ever dream of. To say otherwise is to suggest that they lack either the capability or the willingness to interfere, both of which are absurd. The last president who seriously went against what the wanted was JFK, when he fired the guy who’s job was assassinating world leaders, then got assassinated shortly after, with the guy he fired being placed on the investigative committee into his death. Do you seriously believe that the agencies that would overthrow democratic governments around the globe if it meant a banana company could make 3% more quarterly profits didn’t put contingencies in place for Americans electing a socialist, or just anyone who would get in their way? Or do you think that Russian spies are just so much more competent that they have more influence than American spies do, even in their home field?

Oh, but those American spies are American, is the difference, isn’t it? Nevermind which class they work for, we have to put aside all those pesky class divisions and unite on national lines against the foreigners, amirite? But, like, in a totally leftist way.

Yes, clearly my insufficient level of sympathy for the fucking CIA proves that I’m just a misanthrope who hates everyone.

Or, alternatively, it’s precisely because I give a shit about the vast majority of humanity, which has been harmed by them, that I despise the CIA.

Again, y’all’s ideology is completely incomprehensible. Anyone who’s unsympathetic towards the CIA can’t possibly be a real leftist, right? Where the hell do you even get this ideology from? Is there, like, a book I can read that makes Anarcho-CIAism make sense?

Boo hoo. I don’t give a shit about protecting people who hate me or their agenda.

The only thing I disagree about is that persuing leftists is an objective they previously had. The intelligence community is, always has been, and always will be, an enemy.

You’re trying to pick a fight with me for some reason, but nothing you said contradicts anything I said, but does contradict the article’s position. You’re saying that the agencies will be just as competent, but wrongly directed under Trump, which I completely agree with. The article is whining that they won’t be competently run, which is only a problem because of the assumption that their objectives would be good things. If that assumption isn’t true (it isn’t) and the things they’re trying to do are bad, then it would obviously be better if they persued those objectives ineffectively, and the article would make no sense.

Gabbard is stunningly unqualified for almost any Cabinet post, but especially for ODNI. She has no qualifications as an intelligence professional—literally none. She has no significant experience directing or managing much of anything.

Any reasonable person on the left should recognize that an incompetent and unqualified person being in charge of Trump’s spy network is the best case reasonable possibility. The idea of anyone claiming to be on the left clutching pearls about the intelligence community being incompetently run under Trump is completely absurd and laughable.

Not the intelligence community 😢

Tulsi Gabbard is a shitty person and an opportunist but if she actually undermined the effectiveness of the intelligence community (which remains to be seen), it’d be a good thing. Like, oh no, what if they get mismanaged to the point where they can’t infiltrate leftist groups or coup governments? What if they don’t assassinate Assad and create a power vacuum for a group like ISIS to take over? The horror!

People have such bizarre, incomprehensible politics. “Trump is a fascist, but it’s super important that we make sure he has a highly effective spy network.” What? It boggles my mind that even in “normal” times, people care about the effectiveness of organizations that are illegally spying on all of us and which have brought chaos and war to every corner of the globe.

Anarcho-CIAism, not even once.

But I’ve been repeatedly informed that the democrats are secretly pro-Palestine and were only pretending to support Israel to win over Zionist voters. Now that Biden has nothing to lose, why isn’t he doing anything? Could it be that all those people were full of shit?

“Why should I break my head about the outside world? Let the outside world break it’s own head!”

“He’s right. As the good book says, if you spit in the air, it lands in your face.”

“Nonsense! You can’t close your eyes to what’s happening in the world.”

“…He’s right.”

“He’s right, and he’s right, they can’t both be right.”

“You know, you are also right.”

That’s completely upside down. Democracy means the people within the government structure are supposed to uphold the values of the broader population. If you think the people in the government structure should be the ones to set the values, then maybe democracy isn’t for you.

The US pulling out of the UN would allow them to pass all sorts of cool stuff, like recognizing and admitting Palestine and calling for a ceasefire, recognizing the universal rights of children, and condemning the far-right, all of which the US used its veto power to stop against overwhelming support on the other side.

Alright, well “expecting them to do the bare minimum” isn’t a winning strategy either. Expecting people to do things they’ve demonstrated they won’t do doesn’t make any sense.

This mentality is what the Dems keep applying and it doesn’t work. Trying to shame people into voting isn’t an effective message. You can argue that it should be, but what matters is how things actually are and how a party can act most effectively based on that. It’s either adapt or keep railing against reality and lose.

I would love nothing more than for this to be true and to hit that one RFK fan we have on lemmy with it, but the article doesn’t really give much evidence to support the title.

Yeah pretty much. 2016 was crazier than this one for sure. This one didn’t have a competitive primary on either side, and it was predicted as a toss-up whereas in 2016 every poll and media outlet was saying it was impossible for Trump to win, and there was no precedent to predict what would happen when he was in office. This is like, after people have had eight years to come to terms with Trump being a thing in whatever form that looks like. The general trend though is that things are getting crazier, and that trend is likely to continue.

Too late lmao

If that’s why Kamala lost, then explain why Tammy Baldwin is winning Wisconsin and Elissa Slotkin is winning in Michigan.

It’s not really all that complicated. The Democrats represent the status quo. The status quo sucks. The Republicans present themselves as an alternative to the status quo. So, people vote Republican.

All the centrist messaging just makes it worse. The Republicans can explain why things suck by scapegoating the poor and marginalized. But the Democrats won’t call out the rich and powerful who are the actual reason things suck, so instead they just try to tell people that things don’t suck at all. They “reach across the aisle” to people like Dick Cheney who are clearly part of the political establishment which only serves to help Trump present himself as an outsider. They adopt all these right-wing positions on immigration, the military, etc, but the people that appeals to already have a party waiting on them hand and foot, giving them exactly what they want. And all the bad shit he does doesn’t matter to them because they believe in lesser evilism and hate the establishment.

Of course, Trump is part of the billionaire class and isn’t any sort of real alternative to the existing system, but as long as Republicans are able to paint themselves that way, and are the only “alternative” game in town, people are going to turn to them when they dislike the way things are going, no matter how shitty they are.

I felt surprised and confused in 2016 when Trump won, but it’s been 8 years. It’s long past time to start figuring out where the Trump phenomenon came from.

Grifters grifting grifters lol.

Not that specific example, but I have used that approach before. I think the first time was about 10 years ago. There were a couple queer people in my friend group who would throw around the f-slur, which was whatever, but one night when we were drinking one of my straight friends called me it, and that bothered me. So the next day I sent a group message talking about how it made me feel uncomfortable and I didn’t like it being normalized. It was a little awkward, but from then on everyone stopped using it and we all remained friends. In the long term, I think people actually respected me more for standing up for myself (since I was generally more of a pushover), and it stopped a behavior that had been making me uncomfortable and driving a bit of a wedge between us.

Most of the time, stuff like this don’t come from malice, but from people having different norms or expectations and not understanding each other. They might get defensive in the moment, but once they’re aware of it there’s a good chance they’ll stop. While people can be dicks, we are fundamentally social creatures and wired to avoid friction.

I will say it’s easier to confront people when you have a voluntary relationship with them, because if they’re dicks about it you can always just not hang out, but you can’t do that with coworkers. If they attack you for expressing how their behavior makes you feel, then you can probably bring it to HR and you’ll have a stronger case to say it’s malice.

Voting isn’t actually support

On the other hand, making a deliberate choice not to act does mean supporting whatever happens without your action

Interesting. So, by drag’s logic, a Trump voter isn’t responsible for supporting Trump, but a nonvoter is.

It’s amusing to see the kinds of ridiculous knots y’all tie yourselves into trying to twist around language in an attempt to resolve your cognitive dissonance and punch left.