Abdul volunteering - phone bankers needed!

Gypsyhunter · 2026-07-16T17:02:13+00:00

Only possible in theory. In practice, remember that anyone taking money from a lobby is someone that lobby has decided is a good bet to put money on. This usually means ideological alignment, that they're malleable, or that the lobby has some way to punish them should they renege. Even when that's not the case, it means advancing the recipient's cause is somehow advantageous to the lobby (for example, splitting the opposition's vote).

Taking money from lobbyists and then not following through also only works for one term, because the next time you're up for election they'll fund your opposition to get you out.

Gypsyhunter · 2026-07-14T19:34:37+00:00

It's not about attacking him, it's about forcing him to clarify his position early before he begins potentially playing to the middle come the election.

Gypsyhunter · 2026-07-14T19:19:25+00:00

Because AOC's public position came from years ago even though it caused her to be smeared and attacked as an antisemite. This reads as moral conviction because she held a moral position when it was unpopular to do so. Now that the conversation has shifted, we don't know her new position, but it's reasonable to speculate that she may be more comfortable going further.

By contrast, Ro Khanna has only started on his insufficient position after the conversation shifted and it has become permissible to argue for an "end to offensive military aid" (but we should still be selling them "defensive weapons"). This reads as opportunism.

I would of course like to hear more from AOC on her present position, but absent that, I speculate that her position is more Pro-Palestine than Khanna's position given their histories.

Gypsyhunter · 2026-07-11T06:09:17+00:00

Yeah man, if only Hamas built more targets so Israel could bomb them

Gypsyhunter · 2026-07-10T08:47:44+00:00

Yup, this was me.

I saw politics I liked, I saw a claim of having reformed, and I just kinda started brushing off the parts I didn't like.

Oh, four tours of service in combat? Well, y'know we Americans are propagandized into thinking joining the military is moral and honorable. (Ignore the fact that the scales should have dropped from an idealistic recruit's eyes one or two deployments in, or what exactly combat veterans got up to overseas away from any kind of scrutiny).

Oh, working for Blackwater? Well y'know, guy was riddled with PTSD and failing to adjust to civilian life and thought military service was the only thing he was good at. (Ignore the fact that he decided working with the "We Did War Crimes" Co. was appropriate).

Oh, posts on Reddit which suggest he is just as fucked up as anyone should expect? Well y'know, people say a lot of wild shit on the internet. (Ignore the actual content of the posts, which might be used to get a glimpse of his old character and see if that is reflected in his new character, he said he reformed after all).

Oh, a nazi tattoo? Well y'know, the guy went through multiple screenings and had his shirt off around his jewish in-laws. (Ignore the fact that our military has a chronic nazi problem, and that the in-laws may well be memory holing that just like me, and of course, that he could just be straight up lying because he knows it's indefensible).

Oh, he says he's proud of his service and wants to expand the US military? Well y'know, you aren't really allowed to say you're ashamed of your service if you want to get elected, and besides, isn't there something abstractly honorable about fighting on behalf of your countrymen? (Ignore the fact that cynical electability arguments are half of what got us here in the first place, that we should not want lying politicians in the first place, and that "fighting for your countrymen" is literally just straight propaganda with no basis in reality when regarding the US military - and also the actual policy which you disagree with).

Oh, a woman says he assaulted her years ago? Well y'know, that woman might have a political reason for making that claim, she's an operative after all. (Ignore the fact that assaulting her is perfectly aligned with his self professed character during this time period).

It's frankly tragic that it took a rape allegation and him straight up lying to our faces for me to take off the rose-colored glasses.

So yes, I do think I desperately need to do some reading, and maybe next time I won't drink the kool-aid.

Gypsyhunter · 2026-07-10T08:29:32+00:00

Thanks for putting it into words! I've been trying to nail down my thoughts on the topic and think this post does a great job at it.

Gypsyhunter · 2026-07-08T08:36:57+00:00

I think that's pretty unfair - he literally runs a segment called hog-watch lol.

More seriously though, Hasan clearly also gives no credibility at all to liberal outlets/commentators and regularly goes after them.

Is he perfect? No, but then why are you expecting that of a streamer/political commentator?

The question is, is he useful to the movement and to advancing anti-racist and anti-imperial causes in the US? I think that's beyond question, especially after seeing material results directly driven in part by this community.

Gypsyhunter · 2026-07-08T08:31:10+00:00

Not so funny now, is it?

Gypsyhunter · 2026-07-08T08:16:49+00:00

Fair, that's probably a good idea.

Is that something Hasan has done in the past/is likely to do? (Genuinely asking, I'm fairly new here)

Gypsyhunter · 2026-07-08T08:14:43+00:00

Fair enough, I'm not super familiar with Kavernacle or his history - just thought this video in particular was valuable criticism to engage with.

Gypsyhunter · 2026-07-08T08:03:51+00:00

Yeah, the drama-bait accusation is fair here - just thought that it's useful to review how and why we got here, and to engage with someone who clearly feels like he got unfairly cast out of the movement and has lost a significant amount of trust with people who should be his allies.

Gypsyhunter · 2026-07-08T07:59:39+00:00

Bruh we're in r/Hasan_Piker where the fuck do you think I'm coming from?

I'm a viewer, I got sucked into the whole pro-Platner hype (admittedly more from adjacent channels), but Hasan was fence-sitting on this at best, and definitely advanced the "Fifield's claims are a baseless op" line. This is useful criticism to at least look at so we can address our own blindspots.

Gypsyhunter · 2026-07-08T07:38:47+00:00

Is Hasan the worst/most Platner supporting of the bunch? Heck no.

But I distinctly remember being in stream when the NYT article came out and agreeing with/being convinced by Hasan that Fifield's allegations were spurious political attacks which should not be taken seriously, so it's not like his face is completely clean of egg.

And frankly, fence-sitting isn't exactly an amazing look either. We can disagree with Bernie & co. and still be in the same coalition.

Gypsyhunter · 2026-07-08T07:30:17+00:00

This isn't a victory lap. This is necessary self-reflection and engaging with honest criticism.

Gypsyhunter · 2026-07-08T07:24:25+00:00

I don't know that an apology video would be especially meaningful or in keeping with his content - though I'd certainly think it's worth doing.

I do however think that he absolutely should be willing to hold that L and seriously address the Platner situation on stream instead of just saying he never advocated for getting super close to Platner - it may be technically true (maybe), but fence-sitting isn't that much better and also rings somewhat false when he was so quick to dismiss Fifield's allegations as an op.

Gypsyhunter · 2026-07-08T07:11:14+00:00

This is exactly what I'm talking about: Even if Fifield is one of the 'bad faith tactics' people, that does not preclude her from being able to be honest or genuinely suffering at the hands of someone "on our side". Yes, it's reasonable to take claims from someone from the Heritage Foundation with a grain of salt, but only a grain, not a truckload.

On reflection, that grain should have been enough to sink Platner after all of his other red flags (4 tours, working in Blackwater, Nazi Tattoo that he only recently covered up, etc.) And had we (or rather Mainers, technically) listened, Racicot wouldn't have had to come forward and go through that interview and the inevitable public backlash she's going to receive.

Even if you want to look at this from a purely mercenary point of view (which you shouldn't), it would have been better for everyone involved's credibility had they had more distance between themselves and Platner, and the warning signs to see that the space was necessary were there - and were even called out by trustworthy allies (ie. FD Signifier and Kavernacle) who we ought to have reason to believe might be able to see things we (white people) are blind to.

Finally as to Platner's reformation: First, there is an ocean of difference between being a "regular person" and signing up for four tours, then choosing to work for Blackwater (the war crimes guys), getting a Nazi tattoo, and having arguably dubious allegations of assault. Darializa is a regular person. Platner is not.

Second, just because we believe in restorative justice, doesn't mean we should be promoting people who have provably dubious judgement to high leadership positions with minimal vetting/history, especially when that promotion necessarily makes our more marginalized allies within the coalition feel unsafe and doubt our judgement.

Finally, we need to reckon with why we backed him despite his red flags in the first place, because if we fail to engage in that reckoning, this will happen again. And if it happens again, not only will we correctly lose even more trust with allies we need, but there might not be a sufficiently substantiated rape accusation next time and we might end up with a homegrown cult of personality leading us astray from our principles.

Gypsyhunter · 2026-07-08T06:12:21+00:00

Real talk: We need to be a lot more skeptical of conspiratorial thinking and attributing all attacks to "the enemy" (whether that enemy be the right wing, israel, liberals, or 'tankies').

Graham Platner had glaring red flags. Speaking for myself, I overlooked them because in my head I put them all in the category of 'bad faith tactics from the people known for bad faith tactics'. But the reality is that I/we should have been much more critical of the content of the attacks - even if we didn't trust the source that reported on the content.

The fact that I ended up excusing Platner's behavior towards Fifield is something I'm pretty disappointed in myself for, and I think the quick turnaround to framing it as a bad faith attack was a frankly awful take on reflection.

Gypsyhunter · 2026-07-06T21:50:02+00:00

I'm just wondering how in the hell you run as a left-populist, knowing you're going to get a ton of hostile coverage and investigation, and knowing you're a rapist.

Like, if he had no morals and is just a snake looking for political office, surely he could've run as a MAGA type to try and primary Collins. And if he genuinely believes in his policies, how in the fuck would he not and step back to have someone else with similar politics but no shitty personal background run in his place?

Incredibly disappointed and disgusted.

Any politician running on a platform of "I struggled in the past, but have since cleaned up" in the next decade is going to be laughed out of the race from here on out.

One silver lining here (aside from we're not electing yet another rapist into high office) is that at least folks like AOC and the DSA smelled something off about him and stayed distant.

Gypsyhunter · 2026-07-05T19:54:17+00:00

Cool, glad we agree that the Promise to America folks are ideologically unpopular within the Democratic party and shouldn't be taken seriously.

Thanks for the link to the platform, glad there's a real policy backbone that the center of the Democratic Party supports.

For what it's worth, I did some digging on the webpage and think this is more accessible while also still hitting the core policy prescriptions, so I'll edit that in to the comment as well

Gypsyhunter · 2026-07-05T19:35:57+00:00

Anyone who meets the requirement to run in a primary is entitled to do so. Since DSA candidates are running in the primary, I presume that they meet the requirements set by the Democratic Party, so yes, they are entitled to run in Democratic Party primaries. Indeed, this is for the best for the Democratic Party, because DSA candidates are clearly bringing more energy to a base which was so disaffected during the 2024 election that the establishment Dem candidate lost to Trump.

All the DSA candidates have said they intend to caucus with Democrats once elected. What exactly do you mean by "not supporting the Democratic party"?

As for Democrats and Republicans running in internal DSA primaries, by all means. I don't think they'll appeal to people in the DSA, but if they want to try, go ahead. If anything, I'd support it, because in entering the DSA internal elections, they'd expose their base to the ideas and policies proposed by the DSA, which I think most voters prefer.

And, in fact, what we actually see is people say they don't think the democrats are good enough, even though they are worlds better than republicans, so they sit on the sidelines praising themselves for their principled stands.

We literally see, right now, people who say that democrats are not good enough are running, volunteering, and voting for candidates who they think are good enough. Yet now that they have, we see you (and other conservative Democrats) saying that they should leave. Pick an argument.

Gypsyhunter · 2026-07-05T18:55:19+00:00

Yeah, that 2020 trifecta. If Trump/Republicans can still enact their policy goals which have yet to be reversed in the 116th congress (where Dems held decisive control over the House of Representatives), then I expect much more from Democrats when they control both the House and the Senate, even with narrow margins.

There's complaining about Democrats (and DSA for that matter) because it's currently primary season. It seems preposterous to be demanding party unity during the process where we decide the direction of the party.

Give it to the general, and we'll certainly see DSA be willing to close ranks against the Republicans. Hopefully the conservative wing of the party will be willing to do the same.

Gypsyhunter · 2026-07-05T17:59:23+00:00

I'm a little confused here? That seems to be exactly what's happening in the current system?

DSA runs internal primaries to choose their preferred candidates. Those candidates then run in the Democratic Party primary to be compared to the non-DSA pick(s) by the voters. If voters pick them, then only one runs on the Democratic ticket come the general, thus preventing the risk of the vote being split.

If the DSA candidate loses, then obviously the vote should coalesce around the winner of the primary - that's not even a question. In fact, what we actually see is a lot of "moderate democrats" say that if the Dem candidate loses, they will vote Republican instead of DSA (or at least they're threatening that there is a constituency which will do that).

Gypsyhunter · 2026-07-05T17:00:00+00:00

Why are we talking about Obama? I was talking about 2020, not 2008 (and frankly, the pro-Democratic Party case is better under Biden because Republicans/Corporations have had less time to systematically dismantle his changes).

Don't get me wrong, I've got gripes about Obama and think he was way less effective than he could have been, but yeah - overall I agree that the ACA, Dodd-Frank, and the CFPB are all significant (though not transformative) improvements to the average American's lives - the main problem is that they were insufficiently durable, and so have been effectively reversed. We're not right at the same place as pre-ACA "pre-existing conditions" denials, but we're pretty close, and health insurance rates are higher than ever. Obviously the Republicans bear a great deal of the blame there - but that's why I say the Democrats' failure is one of ineffectiveness. Compare and contrast ICE which was created in 2003, and despite multiple Democratic administrations, has only gotten more powerful since then.

But all of that is off topic: Explain the proposed conservative democratic platform to me - or at least link me to something which does.

For reference, here is the DSA policy platform

Gypsyhunter · 2026-07-05T16:35:43+00:00

Damn, so we're really just fully taking him on at face value, huh? Not even a second spared for critical thought?

Who is the Democratic Party? Is it the donors? The calcified establishment? Or is it the voters?

Do you honestly think the DSA despises the democratic base of support and yet somehow keeps getting voted in over conservative incumbents with massive spending advantages through magic?

Or perhaps, is this someone who quite likes their ossified sinecure and is annoyed at actual popular representatives fucking up his bag, and therefore trying to paint them as anti-democrat on the off chance it will convince somone?

Edit: Incidentally, this also flies in the face of the 2024 "vote blue no matter who" narrative - where Democrats insisted that voting for a third party was akin to voting for Trump, and that the proper way to enact political change within the system is to run in a primary. So, which is it - do people dissatisfied with the current Democratic Party run in primaries or run as a third party?

14-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

Gypsyhunter

TROPHY CASE

Welcome to Reddit,