Shocked? I can understand heartbroken but shocked? Really?
Didn’t see that coming a million miles away like a lot of us more left leaning and progressives did?
Maybe you guys should find a new profession then if you were shocked because you kind of suck at it.
One or the other makes a lot more sense than both.
We need to replace all the liberal democrats in our government with left leaning/DSA.
The people demand a party that will actually represent the working poor in this country, unapologetically, vehemently, with teeth, against corporations.
If you’re ever in a leftist space and you hear: “Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds.”
This is what we mean.
That doesn’t make any sense though, because the vast majority of politicians condemning her are liberals.
I don’t see how this URL is a response, but the site implies a conspiracy while also listing Democrats who “Rarely Rotate”, which seems to betray the whole premise of the conspiracy theory. Isn’t it a more likely explanation that some Democrats simply lean more conservative or vote based on their constituents? I mean, Marie Perez is literally a co-chair of the Blue Dog Coalition and competes in a district that went red in 2024.
The point is theres always just enough who vote with the obvious fascists so the agenda passes. Or just enough who go against the blue team so their agenda fails. Almost like it’s planned opposition. “Look guys, we tried to stop them, oopsies we’re so helpless! How could we know that exactly 3 people in our bloc from the safest blue districts would go against us?”
It’s seemingly every damn time there is a major policy fight. What immediately comes to mind is the last shutdown. Performative at best. The Dems had public support, but then people in safe districts just gave in.
Yet when a progressive runs or has support then the party finds their spine to undermine them.
It’s because “liberals speaking out against her” doesn’t mean anything when she is doing this for Israel. She is criticized by Chuck Schumer, who has stated that he is in his position to “support Israel”.
And a historical account of neoliberal voting records is not a “conspiracy theory”
WWE wrestling was the simplest pageantry that had “heroes” and “heels” and the rubes in the audience think it is all real. These terms are even used when people are on corporate media. People are assigned to be the conservative/liberal “heel”.
There is nothing new about rotating villains, and controlled opposition. Maybe learn something before you start running your ignorant mouth when answers are provided to you.
Until they get scratched.
Oh OK.
I get the saying, but if you piss off anybody you disagree with enough, they’re gonna hate you. I had a discussion with a friend about this very saying the other day. It also reeks of No True Scotsman.
The problem with this idiom is that it essentially just says there’s no such thing as [liberals], and that everybody but [True Scotsmen] are [not fascists], which is just absolutely not true.
It essentially leaves zero space for anybody to disagree with you, ever. Since as soon as they do, they should be treated as fascists, which is implied to be the absolute evil.
Which, okay, if that’s how you really feel, then that’s great for you, but then anybody who feels even remotely different is gonna see how absolutely tyrannical you are and move away. This is the exact attitude why people feel communists are either fucking dumb and annoying, or are actively right wing agents acting as a smear campaign against communism and leftism in general.
So, to conclude:
A) it’s not true
B) it’s not effective
C) it’s problematic as hell
D) it’s often outright counterproductive
You could just easily say like “why the fuck are so many moderate dems so shitty when it comes down to it?” I know you want to differentiate yourself from them as much as possible. And realistically, a LOT of people know and agree with you. But this is still not the way.
I can concede the sentiment sure. I’m sure there are well meaning liberals but there is a certain point when pressed where they either move left to resist growing fascism, or they become Haley Stevens. Fence sitting only gets people so far.
For most people, they’re along for the ride, and out of fear or whatever reason, cannot act. Challenging them by equating them to fascists is such a risky strategy. It OFTEN goes the wrong way. I do not have a good solution, but I do know and am concerned over the risks.
Sure and to the average voter that statement doesn’t really apply the ‘average voter’ also isn’t going to find themselves on Lemmy. I imagine to be frank the “average voter” thinks libs and the left are the same thing. To liberal POLITICIANS - It absolutely does. As for why I bring it up here, Lemmy, yes even .world has a left bent, people will be exposed to the saying on Lemmy it’s important to call it out when it happens.
No you just don’t know how politics works. Liberals and Fascists are ideologically alligned on most things. Liberals are just more into trying to whitewash their atrocities and use legalism as a shield. Fascism is just the final form of liberalism once all the fake smiles are gone. There’s PLENTY of ideologies that aren’t fascist. Liberalism and Fascism both fall into the category of corporatocracy. Rule via Corporations. and the wider category of capitalism. They are both right wing ideologies. Both anti-communist. etc. They have a LOT in common.
Omg people using legalism as a shield is so dumb…
Okay so, I do understand how the values differ. But I also know how being a dick to people makes them feel. It basically never wins them over. People put up their walls super fast as soon as they sense an agenda or hate. And yes, people can intuit hate in text over the internet.
So like when you start off your response to my consideration of an idiom with “no you just don’t understand how politics works” you sound like a child. You’re also entirely missing my point. I KNOW that fascism and capitalism are neighbors. I know that VERY well. There’s literally no need to condescend at me over this. You’re wasting your energy trying to explain to me this stuff because you’re preaching to the choir.
Your goal is to convince those people to rethink what they’re doing. And what YOU’RE doing is basically going “i am so smart and you’re a fascist” and then attacking them. That’s stupid as hell, and if anyone, you are the one that doesn’t understand how people work in systems where they believe they are free. Your strategy works when people are afraid of disagreeing with authority - which “liberals” are very much not. Liberals are afraid of disagreeing with money since they put it on a pedestal. So if you want to win those hearts, you have to speak their language and explain to them why that philosophy is bad.
For example: “money isn’t everything, and morality is important” will get responded to with “but I have to pay the bills” which you could respond with “what about all the harm you’re doing by your inaction which results in the companies and rich growing in power by YOUR SUBMISSION and executing atrocities?” Which then gets the real conversation started.
Saying you are a fascist and telling people how close capitalists are to Nazis is a waste of time and everybody’s walls going up and nothing changing, it’s a literal losing strategy, no matter if it’s true or not.
aw, did i hurt your feelings?
… What? No? Not even remotely. Though your super hostile questioning of that is, in itself pretty worrying. I mean no offense and am literally trying to break bread with you. Though if you continue… whatever this is, this conversation may end.
What a bizarre turn of attitude… maybe you think I’m acting out at you? If I’ve said something to offend you, I apologize, it wasn’t my intent. Though, maybe it wasn’t a turn of attitude at all?
But yeah, literally …Um, what? Maybe you’re trying to troll somebody else? Freudian mask slip? My feelings are not hurt, my day is not ruined, who are you, again?
You’re complaining about my tone and projecting your goals on to me. I am not trying to “convert” liberals. It’s annoying when you seem to think you know what I’m trying to do and tell me how I’m doing it wrong. When in reality we have entirely different goals. And we don’t agree on this stuff. Capitalism and fascism are not “neighbors” they’re the same fucking thing. That’s the entire point I was making earlier.
Your goal is to convince those people to rethink what they’re doing.
Not it isn’t. When I make a comment under someone I think is wrong I am not trying to change their mind. I am simply stating for anyone else who might also disagree with them that they are not alone in that. I have no interest in recruiting and allying with liberals. That’s just silly. Might as well try explaining to a Nazi why they shouldn’t be a Nazi.
I am literally telling liberals that I think they’re disgusting Nazi apologists. Why would I want to convert those people to my side?
So, I’ll admit maybe I was too dissmissive to you, and that I just sent that as a digital middle finger after reading you complaining about my tone without bothering to read the rest of what you said. I don’t agree with you though, and we don’t share the same goals or views. I’m not going to spend 2 hours laying out all the things I think but I can tell we’re quite different in how we see things. Like I said tho I’m not interested in changing your mind. So you keep on trying to make liberals see the light. As unfun as that sounds…
Lol, a smidge more complicated than that
Zionists are fascists, how is that more complicated?
Not sure how that disproves my point other than that she’s a Lib bought and paid for like Schumer, who then got scratched and went mask off.
She is going to be an AIPAC lobbyist now
Haley Sleazins
She does Democrat stuff in most of her policies, but she also has large donations from aipac, is converting to Judaism through marriage and she also lost to Abdul in 2019, I think. They never liked each other and she’s petty for letting that get in the way of working for the people like Abdul says he will.
Fun fact: you can convert to Judaism without becoming a racist and supporting genocide and selling out your party and ideology.
Just painting a picture of her possible mineset
Sure but if you are marrying a republican, it certainly helps.
She’s a grifter securing her new grift.
So does the republican party have a load of sleeper agents in the democratic party that it activates when needed?
Yes. Tricia Cotham in NC. She got elected to state level seat as a Democrat and switched parties. And voted opposite what she promised. Then NC GOP gerrymandered again.
Is the Democratic Party fundamentally a right-wing party?
Yes. The original meaning of left wing and right wing were the radical and conservative wings of the French parliament; the former being for liberalism, the later for monarchism. It has since kept its same meaning, progression or regression.
The DNC’s official party stances are objectively regression. Progression, at this stage of socioeconomic development for the US, would be socialism. Actually it’d just be social capitalism since we have the worst social safety net of all advanced economies in world history, but given the party’s opposition to medicare for all, it cannot even manage that.
The left wing starts at anti-capitalism in all places with established capitalist markets.
No. AIPAC mostly funds Democrats, who are neoliberal. So we only have two right wing parties. There isn’t anyone to “activate”. Corporate Dems believe in business interests as a priority and that is how they behave.
It’s not Republicans, it’s Israel and it’s both parties. Israel is worried because the progressive candidates have a real chance this election and are performing on not spending billions on Israel as well as health and wealth reform.
Yes, but also there’s plenty of Democrat bigots. A lot of them are “centrist” and/or “moderate.”
Fetterman 2.0 minus the stroke but double the Israel support.
At least she’s out of office in 3 months. We have Fetterman for 2 more years in PA.
deleted by creator
Stevens voice Israel comes to me in my dreams!
Seems like a lot of people in power or seeking power are there to make sure Israel continues to get American taxpayer money, endless weapons, legal immunity and the willingness to go to send American troops to die for Israel.
It is odd seeing someone do political self immolation for no reason at all. I’m starting to think Haley isn’t the brightest bulb in the pack.
It’s either money or blackmail. That’s what it is for most of those out there making questionable decisions that go against what is right and good. There is lots of money and lots of blackmail currently floating around right now.
The reason is obvious. She is falling on the sword to save Israel. The last 2 years may have done irreparable damage to my view on Israel. I don’t think I will ever vote for a candidate who takes aipac money or supports Israel for the rest of my life.
She appears to have united the party.
Do they have something on her? I’ve never seen something like this before.
She has an abusive husband who berated her in public for disappointing “them.”
Not husband, fiancee, and they’ve not been together a full year yet. He says he’s a democrat, but has donated to Republicans as well (Susan Collins just last year, to name one, and it was over 24k).
Incredible. From what I understand, she’s only been with this “fiancee” for 7 months, and this makes him seem more like a Handler than a fiancee. Is this a Mossad Honeypot situation?
“everyone is disappointed in you” is very much a mossad move
No. She’s never been the sharpest bulb.
I like this. Sharpest tool. Brightest bulb.
I call myself a rocket surgeon. I neither work on rockets nor engage in neurosurgery.
(graphic stolen somewhere years ago.)
She’s dumber than a 2nd coat of paint.
Good on them for taking a stand and following their conscience here. Anyone still working for her should be black listed from future Democrat campaigns and positions.
Can’t believe Stevens decided she wanted to go down in history for people to point at when they say some Democrats would rather lose elections than win by having a leftist, anti-Zionist win. Absolutely crazy she just went full mask off there.
I don’t see any way this is a politically coherent move for her. She just burnt her bridges with Leftist Democrats and corporate Democrats. She doesn’t have the look to be a talking head on conservative media. Michigan has early voting and many have already voted. It’s not like Republicans will respect her, but they use her for the moment.
I’ve seen some mentions of her Republican fiance effecting her, but she is a congressmen and has agency and ownership of her own endorsements. I am wondering if her mental stability is all there because I’m confused by her lack of coherency.
I don’t see any way this is a politically coherent move for her.
By choosing to run for Senate, she isn’t running for re-election in the House. So she’s out in January either way. She’s taking the AIPAC money she’s been getting for years already, and almost surely a lobbying position in exchange for trying to sabotage El-Sayed.
Agreed.
Tactically, if she wanted him to lose she should’ve just stuck to what she was doing, which was supporting him in words while undermining and maintaining plausible deniability. Then if he loses, you can lament that there was just no saving a flawed candidate.
Now if he wins, she’s a loser twice over, and if he loses it’s a phyric victory: she’s the villain who lost Democrats the seat, and instead of proving his politics can’t win in a swing state, the story is just that he got stabbed in the back by an ally.
I don’t see any way this is a politically coherent move for her.
The writing is on the wall. AIPAC is forever toxic for anyone with even a tiny amount of critical thinking skills. That only leaves the GOP and Zionist owned cable news shows as viable paid options.
Its the wrong move politically but the right move for AIPAC and that is all that matters for Mrs Israel comes with to me in my dreams.
republicans masquerading as democrats. she isn’t the first.
Not corporate Dems. They will swing towards the money any which way it comes.
Schumer already said it was despicable. He is about as corporate dem as it gets. I would definitely say she burned those bridges.
I wonder what Jeffries thoughts are. Schumer has taken about 500k from aipac while Jeffries has taken over 1.5m. My guess is he won’t say the quiet part out loud but I’ve been surprised before.
Jeffries spoke out against her too.
He will bend back the AIPAC direction the moment people stop looking. Haley will be welcomed back as prodigal daughter the moment she is endorsed by them.
Nah, she is now too visisble a liability and would be a bigger problem than any benefit.
AIPAC will happily compensate her for her service, but will move on to less obviously controversial folks. They have no shortage of “cleaner” options, so they don’t have to be especially loyal to any particular Congress figure. She can be an example of being treated well on the way out.
I don’t trust corporate dems anymore. They will literally give a peer permission to tank mildly progressive efforts and then performatively pretend to be upset by it.
They are better than the fucking Nazis on the other side of the aisle but the Democratic leadership are showing themselves to be just as disingenuous.
She’s AIPACS tool. She calls herself a “nonjewish zionist”. They hate for no reason whatsoever, based on ethnicity.
Wait, she’s not Jewish??
I say this as a Jewish anti-zionist: what the actual fuck?? Like… I grew up indoctrinated into zionism and left when I got old enough to start paying attention to news. So… what’s her damage?
Maybe this sounds silly, but I have a lot of pity for Jewish liberal zionists. It’s a cult. And I’m familiar with Christian Nationalist zionists (also a cult, but different one). I feel sympathy for people operating on childhood brainwashing.
And I kind of get folks like Biden, who probably formed an opinion before '67.
But what’s her fucking deal? I can have grace for people who were born into this or are really old, but she just sounds like she learned that Israel is an apartheid state in college and said, ‘Neato!’
I am so much more disgusted with her now than I was when I assumed that she was a member of the tribe. ULGH.
Fellow Jewish anti Zionist here. The answer is easy… AIPAC money. She could be an apocalypse seeking Nat-C, but most likely just the cash.
I don’t buy it.
You can find countless politicians – most of the Democratic party – who have learned how to support Israel in 2026: you promise in a closed door meeting to guarantee funding for Likud, never bring up Israel unprompted, and if asked, talk about how terrible Netanyahu’s leadership has been for Jewish security. And then you launder the cash as hard as you can and hope no one notices.
Most AIPAC candidates don’t talk about Israel these days. AIPAC is well known for running ads on whatever topic seems most likely to hurt their critics without talking about Israel.
I think Stevenson started from a place of being a pro-imperialist nat sec ghoul, but now is just having a public mental breakdown, tbh.
There’s also the possibility she’s just not very bright.
Apparently her fiancé is Jewish.
The parties reaction to this will be telling. Anything less than expulsion from the party is unacceptable. Her being the neoliberal establishment pick, even if she was clearly defeated. Makes me wonder if they’re just going to try to burn it all down on the way out.
“Congresswoman Stevens is not a current member of the Michigan Democratic Party, nor will she be in the future,” Michigan Democratic Party Chair Curtis Hertel wrote on X Sunday.
Yes, I just read your post down below. Good news is so rare. This is something worth celebrating a little.
I’ve never heard of this woman. Is she still running to maintain her seat in this election?
Haley Stevens is in the House. She did not run for re-election, choosing instead to run for the MI senate seat. She lost that primary to El-Sayed.
She will still be in Congress from now until the new one is seated in January. After that, she has no known job and is not running for anything at the moment.
Thank God.
The bar is so low that I’m impressed Chuck even condemned it. I hope they at least censure her.
Wait, he did? That’s low key shocking! As someone who likes working with them, its shocking that he spoke out against supporting them. Low bar indeed, but damn.
I imagine that Schumer and Jeffries are upset because it puts the spotlight on them for being publicly disloyal to Democrats that are not owned by AIPAC.
Haley Stevens is too dumb and gave away the game just like the Democratic ghoul James Carville did.
The DNC is an unfunded joke. There is an insurgent left wing coming up. This has all the makings of a dem civil war. Schumer and Jefferies are both AIPAC funded. I expect absolute and total shenanigans. Democrats will find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
AFAIK parties in America straight up can’t expel their members or otherwise control their membership. It sounds dumb but it’s the only way to make a two-party system even vaguely democratic.
Parties might not be able to purge voters from their membership, but at the very least, the Democratic Caucus can expel members by a 2/3 vote. Straight from their site, rule 1 on page 6 of the pdf they have embedded there. On the face of it, she should no longer be considered a member in good standing, and should be expelled from the Democratic Caucus as a result.
In order to maintain membership in good standing, Members shall not participate in campaign activities for any candidate in a partisan federal election who is not a Member of the Democratic Party.
I kind of figured there had to be a way for parties to prevent just anyone from running under their party, or the Republicans would have ran deliberately terrible candidates as Democrats in races to try and rig things long ago, by this stage.
To your second point: The centrists are already as terrible as they can realistically be and still win primaries (and they usually lose them anyway when progressives get serious), so that niche is already filled. There’s no point in running terrible candidates when they’re either going to lose their primaries or be Chuck Schumer clones.
Eh, I wouldn’t put it past them to run someone and keep handlers on them at all times to win the primary, and then let them loose on their own during the general election, if such a thing were feasible. The one thing I have confidence in the GOP to do, besides line their pockets, is any dirty trick they think they can get away with, no matter how crazy a scheme is involved, if it’ll let them get ahead and cement their own power. Besides, there was a point where those centrists certainly did play better with the general population than anyone even accused of being a socialist not all that long ago, and I don’t think the GOP of the time had much in the way of moral scruples back then, either.
That’s theoretically possible, but there’s a limit to how well people can repeatedly lie about their core beliefs. Also it’s not as if progressives aren’t watching out for stuff like that; most potential plants will have some kind of history that can be inspected to ascertain their intentions, and large-scale conspiracies have a tendency to leak. It’s not impossible (see: Fetterman), but the noteworthiness of Fetterman should tell you how hard it is to pull this kind of thing off, and even Fetterman had people warning about him during his campaign, not to mention he literally had a stroke. So basically the GOP doesn’t do this sort of thing more/at all because it’s really hard to pull off and would have diminishing returns as people wisen up (again the progressive attitude post-Fetterman is informative). They probably have better (meaning worse) things to be doing.
I’m kinda scratching my head over his statement but the party system in the US is weird. States have their own parties.
It IS entirely possible she never registered with the Michigan Party, and was backed by the DNC exclusively. The DNC has way more money and can get candidates to Primary quite easily.
Anyone “stunned” by corporate Democrats being DINOs isn’t paying attention.
Even the dems are sick of her shit - they kicked her out of the party right before she made this endorsement.
Oh shit, I thought it was after
From what I read, the announcement was after but the actual kicking-out was right before.
Weird, if that’s the case I’m curious as to why she was kicked out. Though everything I’m seeing is implying that endorsing Rogers was the final straw
It seems to have coincided with El-Sayed uninviting her from a campaign appearance on Sunday, after which she appears to have then decided to go endorse Rogers instead. Someone else linked an article in this comment section where they reached out to the mich. dems right after the sunday endorsement and it’s they had already kicked her out, so either they got to it crazy promptly or they’d ousted her amid all the outright hostility between her and El-Sayed.
(Sorry if that’s badly worded, I am still super hungover pls be kind)
Makes sense lol. It did seem really quick so your story did track, I just also could see it being the final straw and a very quick process because it was foreseen, and was trying to figure it out
Good luck with the hangover!
Yeah, my inner gossip hopes we get more details but eeh I’m sure there will be far more chaos to distract us.
And thank you! Liquid-IV to the rescue…
Ahh, spiteful bitch syndrome
Exactly. Schumer – the epitome of a corporate Dem – supported Stevens in the primary, and today is calling her flip a “despicable betrayal,” but until today his support for El-Sayed as the Dem candidate has only ever been unenthusiastic at best.
I mean that’s fairly honest from him. He doesn’t like the idea of the party moving left, but he knows it’s better then republicans destroying us all with their gigafascist tilt. Today he also said he was in support of AES, in response to the Stevens situation.
Today he also said he was in support of AES
After Stevens’ open defection he had no choice. If he doesn’t, he gets outed too, because he supported her so strongly in the primary.
Or to put it another way, she put a shiv in El-Sayed’s back, sure, but it could be argued that it was a much bigger shiv in Schumer’s back.
El-Sayed is surrounded by enemies of all kinds who are united in keeping the status quo unchanged. Schumer is not, and willingly brought the weight and power of his own position to help Stevens.
In the end Stevens is just more water off the back of El-Sayed, who is making his own way regardless of all those coming at him, always has, and he was not thrown off his own course in the slightest. On the other hand, Schumer is struggling in a number of ways.
So it begs the question: who bears the greater betrayal? It would have been very odd if Schumer had not vocally supported El-Sayed today. He may well need that favor back in days to come.
The state party officials need to expel her from the party. Even if it would only have a symbolic effect they need to make clear that this is unacceptable for anyone who calls themselves a Democrat. If moderates ask progressives to “vote blue no matter who” and then turn around to endorse collaborators then they need to get the boot.
Fun fact: in the US, political parties can’t expel anyone from their party. Anyone can choose to join any party at any time.
“Congresswoman Stevens is not a current member of the Michigan Democratic Party, nor will she be in the future,” Michigan Democratic Party Chair Curtis Hertel wrote on X Sunday.
“Senate Democrats are united in our support for Abdul El-Sayed, because we know he will fight for the economic interests of working families in Michigan, unlike Mike Rogers, who is a tool of Donald Trump and billionaire donors,” [Chuck Schumer] said.
For once Schumer is 100% right.
This coming from Schumer is honestly almost as shocking as Stevens choosing to completely burn her bridges with the Democratic Party.
Schumer says whatever toady thing he needs to to keep his job.
My Chinese room theory of politics: I don’t actually care whether anyone truly believes what they say. Words speak louder than thoughts and actions speak louder than words. As long as someone is useful as an implement to enacting progressive policy priorities, successful at shepherding legislation, and campaigns for the election of progressives, or can be strong-armed into doing the above three, I could not care less whether they actually believe in what they say.
At the margin, sincere belief is still better. Which is to say, Schumer should still be replaced with an actual progressive/leftist/socialist at the earliest opportunity, regardless of how he tries to pivot to act like one. I’ll appreciate the cynical pivot in the interim, but that’s as far as it goes.
As much as I don’t like Schumer he is as lukewarm as it gets which can be both good and bad. He does actually care about American interests for the most part.
Already removed her from the Michigan Democratic leader website, too.
If moderates ask progressives to “vote blue no matter who”
Worth saying that applies to the general only. I’m a progressive and I say: Vote progressive as far as you can. Always vote for the most progressive (or least regressive) candidate. In the general election, that’s gonna be blue over red. In the primary, that’s any progressive candidate. “Blue no matter who” is just expressing the pragmatic general rule of thumb. I haven’t seen any exceptions to that - I’ve never seen a Republican that wasn’t more regressive than an establishment Democrat option.
Thank you, I wish more people understood this.
What OP said, but also parties in America don’t get to control their membership. Anyone can run as a candidate of any party if they can win the primary.
Quick bit of pedantry - they dont get to control state registration, which is not the same as membership in the local party.
Man I wish I lived in MI just so I could have had the opportunity to vote against this nasty little gremlin in the primary.
She’s leaving her house of Rep seat in January and not going to be in office. Not sure what her next job will be.
I would say Fox News correspondent, but I don’t think she would last more than a month doing that.
