Jonathan Van NessVerified account

these aren't fringe candidates. these people are winning elections. this is not hypothetical to me. it's my name, it's my family. and yes, everyone on the right is bad if they are associating with a party that elects these people. it's not demonizing. it's logic.

take it from a fellow white gay person; we still have a LOT of privilege here, and there are a lot of people we need to be listening to. and telling your fans, who are largely minorities, that they need to recognize the very fine people on both sides is not the way.

Why is calling for greater understanding privilege? Northern Ireland spent years beneath the tone of endless slaughter because no one wanted to talk to each other.

calling for people to sympathize with people who literally want them dead because you think whether or not people nazis can march in our streets is a difference of opinion is privilege. the problem is not that i am not talking to nazis. you're out of your depth here.

I submit that is not what Jonathan is advocating. Justice, reform, peace. You advocate for the things you love and value, or you become what you hate. An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

nope, there is zero risk i'm going to become a nazi, but thanks for playing. equating me hating someone for their hateful belief, for the fact that they have chosen to want me dead, to them hating me for my last name and my religion and my ethnicity, is offensive and wrong. bye.

I’m in no way saying your a nazi Hannah! But what motivates a nazi is hatred. We are *all* capable of succumbing to hatred and becoming a person that swims with that poison in our veins. I don’t equate you with Nazis, I equate hatred with hatred no matter what it’s source.

I hear you but what do I need to compromise on? My access as a woman to healthcare? My husband’s rights as an immigrant? My friends rights as members of the LGBTQ community? My friends of color’s safety? None of the things I want are extreme. I shouldn’t have to compromise.

I compeltely understand where you’re coming from. I think one of the things he is saying is that you don’t have to necessarily compromise on those things, but we won’t get anywhere with those things if we continually demonize every single republican or even the Republican Party.

They will always be part of this country, so if we want to get things done for immigrants, and the LGBTQ community, and people of color we need to be able to work together and to understand that the other side isn’t all racist hillbillies.

It's not about demonizing the right. It's about offering a viable alternative through a coherent ideological story that'll appeal to the masses. The center-left and a message of compromise won't achieve that. Of course compromise is essential, but that comes after the politicking

I think his point is that more mainstream candidates can win in right-leaning districts/states. The shift rightward within the Republican party creates political opportunities for candidates who are more palatable to a moderate electorate.

I get that, and it's a legitimate point. I just think we can't forget about providing the electorate with a credible narrative with substantive policies that'll significantly improve their lives. The center-left as a whole isn't doing that. They've run out of big ideas.

I’m sorry, but it seems most “mainstream” Dems have adopted Medicare for all, criminal justice reform, etc? I just don’t see that much daylight between Bernie Sanders and the party platform.

Well, that's what happened after Sanders ran for President, got the base on his side, leading many mainstream Democrats to adopt those policies to fend off primary challengers. How did Sanders do that? By offering a clear narrative. Something Clinton and her ilk failed to do.

Yes—if only Hillary had had the idea for universal healthcare before Bernie invented it in 2016!

Bernie didn't invent anything. He, however, made medicare for all - i.e. healthcare paid and provided for by the state - palatable for the masses. Something unthinkable 10 years ago. Hillary wasn't offering an alternative. Just more of the same. The electorate didn't want that.

I mean, I don’t wholly disagree with you, but a coalition party is filled with idealists and pragmatists. I think both can coexist without denigrating one another.