Image is of a Colombian campaign rally in support of Iván Cepeda of the left-wing Historic Pact.
As always, my weekly preamble is in spoiler tags below.
preamble
The unstable stare-down in the Middle East continues. Yet again, there's been little region-level change, but there have been some big escalations. Namely, the entity has decided to go further into Lebanon, with all the casualties and destruction that will bring them, while simultaneously abandoning bases elsewhere in the theater due to constant pressure by Hezbollah. Seeking to pressure Hezbollah away from their successful strategy of attrition on IOF forces that attempt to advance only to receive rapid onset symptoms of FPVdroneitis, they have also decided to resume airstrikes on Beirut, which is an obvious violation of the region-wide ceasefire that Iran may or may not militarily respond to, but they do seem very diplomatically displeased as of me writing this sentence. Meanwhile, Iran has responded to US drone incursions with strikes on Kuwait military bases. Trump has escalated his demands lately, so a return to war seems more likely than ever.
In Bolivia, Paz appears to be escalating in response to undiminished general strikes, with Congress allowing him to declare states of emergency at will, and therefore get the military more easily involved. In Colombia's runoff elections, far-right candidate Espriella won the first round of the runoff election with 43.7% of the vote ahead of left-winger Cepeda's 40.9%. Every poll had Cepeda beating Espriella by varying margins, so this appears to be a fairly standard case of the US putting their thumb on the scale; as the saying goes, they do not trust the population of Colombia to do democracy correctly and they couldn't risk them accidentally electing the wrong person.
Over in Sudan, the conflict appears like it is moving in a pro-SAF direction, with some significant military gains against the UAE-backed RSF, although the military situation is still fairly complicated. A potentially notable news item that I missed a couple weeks ago is that the US seems to have ended their strategic ambiguity over who they consider the true government in Sudan, as they now firmly recognize the SAF over the RSF. Why exactly this has occurred is a little beyond me. Could be because they see how the winds are blowing militarily; could be because they want to fuck over the UAE for some perceived slight (to be America's ally is fatal etc etc). The humanitarian situation appears no better though, with millions of people remaining in incredible hardship and near-starvation, and RSF-backed genocidal atrocities of the kind that Zionists would nod approvingly at.
Thankfully, China is looking at all these manifold crises and has dramatically escalated the speed at which they are writing strongly worded letters and are calling for a revitalized UN.
Last week's thread is here.
The Imperialism Reading Group is here.
Please check out the RedAtlas!
The bulletins site is here. Currently not used.
The RSS feed is here. Also currently not used.
The Zionist Entity's Genocide of Palestine
Sources on the fighting in Palestine against the temporary Zionist entity. In general, CW for footage of battles, explosions, dead people, and so on:
UNRWA reports on the Zionists' destruction and siege of Gaza and the West Bank.
English-language Palestinian Marxist-Leninist twitter account. Alt here.
English-language twitter account that collates news.
Arab-language twitter account with videos and images of fighting.
English-language (with some Arab retweets) Twitter account based in Lebanon. - Telegram is @IbnRiad.
English-language Palestinian Twitter account which reports on news from the Resistance Axis. - Telegram is @EyesOnSouth.
English-language Twitter account in the same group as the previous two. - Telegram here.
Mirrors of Telegram channels that have been erased by Zionist censorship.
Russia-Ukraine Conflict
Examples of Ukrainian Nazis and fascists
Examples of racism/euro-centrism during the Russia-Ukraine conflict
Sources:
Defense Politics Asia's youtube channel and their map. Their youtube channel has substantially diminished in quality but the map is still useful.
Moon of Alabama, which tends to have interesting analysis. Avoid the comment section.
Understanding War and the Saker: reactionary sources that have occasional insights on the war.
Alexander Mercouris, who does daily videos on the conflict. While he is a reactionary and surrounds himself with likeminded people, his daily update videos are relatively brainworm-free and good if you don't want to follow Russian telegram channels to get news. He also co-hosts The Duran, which is more explicitly conservative, racist, sexist, transphobic, anti-communist, etc when guests are invited on, but is just about tolerable when it's just the two of them if you want a little more analysis.
Simplicius, who publishes on Substack. Like others, his political analysis should be soundly ignored, but his knowledge of weaponry and military strategy is generally quite good.
On the ground: Patrick Lancaster, an independent and very good journalist reporting in the warzone on the separatists' side.
Unedited videos of Russian/Ukrainian press conferences and speeches.
Pro-Russian Telegram Channels:
Again, CW for anti-LGBT and racist, sexist, etc speech, as well as combat footage.
https://t.me/aleksandr_skif ~ DPR's former Defense Minister and Colonel in the DPR's forces. Russian language.
https://t.me/Slavyangrad ~ A few different pro-Russian people gather frequent content for this channel (~100 posts per day), some socialist, but all socially reactionary. If you can only tolerate using one Russian telegram channel, I would recommend this one.
https://t.me/s/levigodman ~ Does daily update posts.
https://t.me/patricklancasternewstoday ~ Patrick Lancaster's telegram channel.
https://t.me/gonzowarr ~ A big Russian commentator.
https://t.me/rybar ~ One of, if not the, biggest Russian telegram channels focussing on the war out there. Actually quite balanced, maybe even pessimistic about Russia. Produces interesting and useful maps.
https://t.me/epoddubny ~ Russian language.
https://t.me/boris_rozhin ~ Russian language.
https://t.me/mod_russia_en ~ Russian Ministry of Defense. Does daily, if rather bland updates on the number of Ukrainians killed, etc. The figures appear to be approximately accurate; if you want, reduce all numbers by 25% as a 'propaganda tax', if you don't believe them. Does not cover everything, for obvious reasons, and virtually never details Russian losses.
https://t.me/UkraineHumanRightsAbuses ~ Pro-Russian, documents abuses that Ukraine commits.
Pro-Ukraine Telegram Channels:
Almost every Western media outlet.
https://discord.gg/projectowl ~ Pro-Ukrainian OSINT Discord.
https://t.me/ice_inii ~ Alleged Ukrainian account with a rather cynical take on the entire thing.
And trigger a mutiny by the NYPD in his first month? No, keeping her for the first 100 days was practical; keeping her after six months is just some bullshit and it signals a lack of confidence in confronting the NYPD
He said from the start he's playing the long game with the NYPD through funding attrition, but looks like the NYPD and its sponsors has other ideas
He couldn't do it then. He can't do it now. When can he?.
Your argument boils down to him having to pick a fight to not be complicit. Yeah, duh. That is what we do.
My argument is that he should do it, he can do it, but he lacks the political confidence to do it, that's on him and the broader left for not instilling that confidence
We're literally not even disagreeing
Perhaps he lacks having any plan at all to do it in the first place and it was just a nice-sounding line to adopt for a campaign and not really commit to in any meaningful way. Because he is a social democrat that will inevitably align with fascist and settler interests at the end of the day, not a figurehead for a cadre of a disciplined organization. He's just some guy, not really worth defending to other socialists.
What do you mean by 'not instilling that confidence'? What exactly are people supposed to be doing here, did they not vote for him, do we need to raise an armed militia to defend him? What does this actually, functionally, look like?
NYCDSA needs to stop dickriding every bad decision, pass a "build the red guard" resolution, and enter protracted peoples war with the NYPD. Obviously.
Anyone serious about police abolition would need, at minimum, a substantial and trusted private security detail. Cops will harass the shit out of political enemies, at minimum. I think this is a pretty realistic way to approach the topic, as cops will make themselves a barrier even if you didn't promise things vaguely in the direction of police abolition. Cops will want more budget for themselves and less for your programs. Cops will selectively enforce laws against you and your allies. Cops will work closely with the bourgeois interests diametrically opposed to your policies. Those who "discover" this once in office have this funny tendency of caving to cops.
Oh I was only like, 50% shitposting. 100% agree with what you're saying and I think we're not seeing serious police abolitionism truly take flight until some type of proletarian militia(s) get up and running.
That has its own host of issues that makes a person wanna scream into the void but gotta start somewhere
Do you even read the thread you are in?
Mamdani defended it and supports hiring more cops. He doesn't plan to reduce headcount. He lied to you, and you believed it like every soft succ lie.
You see a moralistic narrative about betrayal; I see backroom negotiations that keep the NYPD off his back for the time being while his policies that build social and political capital among New Yorkers mature to the point where he would have the power to do cool things
Unless you want to offer a competing materialist analysis where Mamdani is godking of New York City and its political economy and he can just order around the NYPD "unions," Wall Street, and the real estate barons without friction or cost?
No i see a materialist narrative of him being a representative of the capitalist class, and thus will always be our class enemy. I see how the forces of capitalism are arrayed, while you see nothing and keep doing the same bernard entryist dead-endism over and over. It is you who has the idealist, simplified and useless worldview that has consistently been proved wrong.
I cannot be 'betrayed' by succs because I don't believe in them or support them. I can't be betrayed by my enemies. I'm using the 'betrayed' framing to hopefully move your idealist dumbass from repeatedly making the same mistakes and maybe opening your eyes and reading your namesake, maybe learning who is actually on your side and who isn't instead of just going off vibes and what is sold to you by your podcast sphere.
Yeah that's the obvious read on this imo. I'm concerned that this will continue. Not that "immediately fight the NYPD head on" is a good plan either, but he should have seen this coming and had something better prepared.
My larger concern is that by winning office, he's now administering a hostile system, but without the social power to actually transform it. Despite some "sewer socialism" at the margins, the main function of local gov is policing and repression, that's why it always dominates the local budgets.
Withholding all judgment, whatever you think of him or his intentions or his larger plan, we now have a socialist who is (nominally) in charge of the very system of repression that's the biggest and most immediate threat to his constituents. That's the contradiction he put himself in.
An actual confrontation would require an unprecedented social mobilization (well beyond the scale of BLM) so I'm concerned he'll continue to take the realistic option of non-confrontation until his entire project withers.
No, I think you hit the nail on the head, without an organized labor army, he on his lonesome can only do so much, and tackling an actual capitalist army like the NYPD requires a massive grassroots game plan, plus downtown power to legitimize it
He barely has downtown power and he certainly doesn't have a big enough ground force that can be called a labor army
As a result he's buying time with minuscule compromises with New York capital, which is just gonna hurt his credibility in the longrun
Yep.
Hopefully I'm wrong and the NYPD is defeated somehow and then this sparks off some new municipal pink tide. I'm nowhere near there & can't really do anything about it (other than write/post) so I guess I'll wait and see
Lmao yes cope more about how she’s ruining his perfect plan to neither fund nor defund the police. Who could have imagined she would get in the way of his agenda
Look he would have defunded the police, but he's playing 4d chess and has to wait for a buffer period. Oh the buffer period is over, but he has to increase police headcount or he will pick a war against the NYC capitalists. It's better to just go along to get along and not cause any problems. Look, he has to crack down on the anti-Israel protesters, they were being anti-semites.
Why is this guy the one getting banned when he is right? The mayor's wife was in isis. It was clear from the start he was a pice of shit.
I would like some clarification or elaboration on this please
Mayor's mother ex husband was in Israel intelligence. Mayor's wife did propaganda for isis. When he was elected mayor, mes did a series of posts on both issues. Unfortunately I did not save them.
It was only later when this site was defending this guy that I uploaded the following post. https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/88b78d4a-ae71-404f-b462-ae261e78ba69.jpeg?format=webp
because he is unable to respond to people he disagrees without constantly insulting them breaking rule 5 and 8 of the code of conduct, did you not read the rest of his comments?
Both posters have a point but I do think lunchfiend is maybe more correct, but they were probably banned for the personal insults and general incivility, they just seem a bit more heated, hopefully it's a short temp ban.
It's "coping" to point out she's a semi-independent agent with sponsors on Wall Street and New York real estate?
Oh I'm sorry, what's actually happening is Mamdani was inducted into the Knights Templar and now eats children with the elites. Is that more your lane?
Mamdani is a socdem, part of the liberal electoral faction of the DSA. The same one that, for example, fought tooth and nail (even using underhanded tricks) to prevent discussing and then adopting an antizionist platform several years ago. The one that sends liberals to Cuba to whine.
One should expect him to be like Bernie with a few tweaks. Fundamentally imperialist, constantly caving to and justifying adhering to nakedly bourgeois policy, and calling everything he does socialist.
Not a particularly defensible political figure overall for a socialist. Oly useful in that many liberals will like him and maybe will be confused when you suggest they attend your own actually socialist events. Exactly like Bernie. And really it's rupture that brings such folks to you. The failures. So one has to hold a consistent line and have an accurate idea of what is strategic to try and own or associate with (usually err on the side of not doing that).
I agree, this is partly the reason I don't take third-partyism seriously. But none of that has anything to do with the realized and still potential utility of figures like Mamdani. The DSA ate shit over anti-Zionism for several years ago; this year the New York mayor publicly snubbed the annual fascist zionist parade. That kind of normalization is worth all the annoying liberal nonsense that comes with electoralism, and I'm sorry none of you on Hexbear have ever made a convincing argument for why we should throw away that normalization of our politics
The about-face on Zionism is largely opportunist, it's following a sea change. The big Mamdani NY stans (these are the same people who defended Zionism in DSA) didn't have a change of heart, generally speaking, they just no longer thought of antizionism as a threat to their electoralism commitments and general liberalism. Forwarding and organizing around an accurate consciousness!? Perish the thought! Always triangulate, they think. One needs mass appeal to grow the "electeds".
The motion to antizionism, the credit, lies with the Palestinian resistance. Their work, their documentation, and unfortunately, the widespread violence visited upon them by Zionists, unpalatable to younger generations. Hence why TikTok was put in fascist control.
What on earth are you even talking about.
I don't really care if they're opportunistic about it; what matters is the extent to which they normalize it and advance our cause, all that matters is that they DO bend the knee on anti-zionism
If the anti-electoralists on this site had gotten their way, there wouldn't be even a hint of anti-Zionism in the mainstream, because only arch-Zionists would be elected; instead, anti-Zionism and socialism are normalized and popular with legitimized government backing, in one the largest cities in America and politicians, genuine or otherwise, have realized anti-zionism is winning campaign strategy
Not opportunistic. Opportunist. This means their role is not actually about expanding or educating or pushing this forward, but in adopting what they think is already popular enough to suit their needs. You have their role exactly reversed. Same way as liberals do by giving, say, Obama credit for gay rights.
Do you believe that is what they are doing?
Anti-zionism was already mainstream before Mamdani was elected. You give far too much credit to bourgeois politicians and their roles. And I already reminded you who deserves credit.
Dead wrong. You're confusing the same words being used for different things for being the same things expanding. Bernie calls socdem welfare programs socialism and now socialism isn't a taboo word. Did socialism itself simply become mainstream because the word was used? Or did it grow when believers in socdems ate shit and this promoted them to join orgs and become more educated? I already described the utility of socdems like this and how they misuse the words and that this is the most you could hope for from them.
And they deserve no credit for the popularity of antizionism. I already described that as well.
This is a sweeping and unearned generalization but would also mean basically nothing because, again, we are looking at opportunism.
Finally, somebody talking actual fucking sense. Christ.
Why are you focused on "credit"? Nobody in this rat country deserves "credit" for baseline anti-zionism, it's a responsibility and obligation. What matters is if that obligation is being fulfilled and the normalization of anti-zionism is taking place, that's the only utility we should be concerned about.
The Palestinian people have already been failed, so there's no conception of "credit" to go around and trivializing the extent and severity of zionist support in this country is not meeting that responsibility
A politician on TV being anti-zionist, opposing Zionist politicians, and voicing pro-Palestinian sentiments IS A BIG DEAL IN AMERICA. Pretending otherwise because a part of you're brain is telling you "don't hand it to the socdems" when you never had to hand it to them to begin with, is displaying some real unserious priorities
Americans are fucking apathetic cattle; they require a permission structure to accept a belief as legitimate, and legitimizing anti-Zionism and pro-Palestinian sentiment are the prerequisites for ensuring zionists with mass murder on their minds don't get elected in the first place
Palestinians and Palestinian resistance don't have any direct power over that process; Americans do and so advancing socdems who bend the knee to anti-zionism becomes our responsibility, only to the extent they normalize anti-zionism
You've assigned credit several times. I am pointing out that you've got it wrong giving DSA socdem politicians credit for it - like the idea that they made antizionism mainstream. That idea is absurd and borderline disrespectful of those who actually did that work and engaged in struggle.
This has become passive voice...
Who did I say deserves credit? Tell me.
And it is a following, not leading trend. People said the same things about gay marriage when Democrats slowly adopted stances theoretically in favor of it. They later sought credit. But we know that the struggle was before themz that they opposed it until they no longer found it strategic, and that many continued to oppose it in reality (and still do!). We should appreciate it as the a sign of a separate struggle that bourgeois politicians try to co-opt it.
This is not replying to anything I have said.
Okay and Mamdani is at the tail end of that, more an exploiter of that trend than someone who has pushed it forward, as I have pointed out 3 times to 0 response.
They had and have more than Mamdani or any NYC DSA liberal. Materially and obviously, engaging in the struggle for decades, documenting it, sharing information... I've said these things already 3 times, again to no response.
I'll ask again: do you actually think "bending the knee" (a Game of Thrones reference in this allegedly serious discussion?) is what is happening?
You mistake political morality for political mechanics. I did not assign credit, I assigned structural utility, leadership embodying a movement, or in this case, merely a widespread social understanding of genocide. You're the one who brought up credit and I didn't claim the DSA made anti-zionism mainstream; I said politicians who may or may not be attached to their name are further normalizing it and legitimizing it among the apathetic bulk of Americans. The bulk of Americans who didn't care when university students were brutalized by zionist hate mobs and police, but will now vote for politicians who utilize anti-zionism as a persuasive campaign strategy. Now you can consider that unfair all you like, but that's just moralism, Americans don't care about protesters getting beaten; they barely care what comes out of the average politician's mouth. The tail has a utility, and it's an important catalyst for further developments that transform and scale anti-zionism from merely mainstream vibes, to a politically dominant expression of state power
The fundamental problem here is that you're conspiracy-brained, and you don't understand the concept of embodiment or the importance of leadership in solidifying a movement's understanding of the world
Obviously politicians are the tail, but you're confusing me pointing out that tail has utility with me supposedly giving them all the "credit." Leadership, despite being a tail, is still an indispensable part of a maturing movement and the prime key, mechanism, and catalyst for acquiring state power and utilizing it, people like you who traffic in pseudo-anarchist conceptions of power, want us to remain in the "getting our ass beaten by the state" phase of political development, because you think politicians who aren't in the woods with guns are inherently worthless and suspect
Lenin all by his lonesome didn't build the workers' movement; that particular tail spent alot of its time exiled in Switzerland, and yet would you argue his leadership was just some incidental byproduct?
You tell me, you're the one who brought it up, I say there's no credit to go around because the genocide already happened. I'm concerned with utility that can be used to stop it; you're concerned with who gets their due on social media
Dismissing your premise is a reply, building a house of cards around dismissing the concept of leadership and structural utility is not a game I have to play
We are talking about the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Americans, by and large do not give a fuck about Palestinians, even those who acknowledge the Palestinian people have been subjected to genocide, by your logic should we start handing out credit to the Israelis for also "documenting and sharing", by showing their genocidal asses, and making anti-Zionism IN AMERICA mainstream? You see why a credit based conception of power falls on it's face? Again what matters is political utility and who holds the reins of power in the state. The Palestinian people cannot run for office in the United States and only those worthless tails of yours can actually turn the lever that says "aid to Israel."
You of course repeatedly assigned credit and still do so, and I responded to it in context in ways that are quite clear. I will point it out again here. "The DSA ate shit over anti-Zionism for several years ago; this year the New York mayor publicly snubbed the annual fascist zionist parade. That kind of normalization is worth all the annoying liberal nonsense that comes with electoralism, and I'm sorry none of you on Hexbear have ever made a convincing argument for why we should throw away that normalization of our politics"
Now, it was a petty comment that ignored basically everything I had said (a pattern that has repeated), but it's ascribing far more importance and meaning than is actually there to a bourgeois politician claiming to adopt a view that was already popular among a constituency whose vote he wanted. This point was belabored a few times.
"leadership embodying a movement" is also exaggerative and assigning absurd amounts of credit. Like... you did the thing you are denying doing in the same exact sentence.
I used the word first but no I was responding to your comment that exaggerated impact and responsibility.
Mamdani is a NYC DSA candidate.
So you're giving credit. And I responded to this specific claim as well.
This is fictitious storytelling at best. But it's really just putting two separate things together and implying they are related, but... how closely are they? What's this "persuasive campaign strategy"? Do those words mean anything? Is it just that he won the election so it was therefore a "persuasive campaign" in which saying some antizionist things was a strategy? It's not particularly clear, but what is clear is that we're back to vaguely giving credit rah rah bourgeois politician adopted some left framings.
What did I consider unfair? To what are you specifically referring?
So do they not care or is it actually valuable and important that a bourgeois politician from the opportunist wing of DSA said some antizionist things and so Hexbears are "throwing away" essential antizionist progress when they point out that he's an opportunust bourgeois politician?
Now socdems are being given vague credit for things that haven't even happened.
I haven't mentioned conspiracy.
Do you mean Marx's references to embodiment? Because if so I understand it fine thanks. The irony of suggesting this while exaggerating the role of a bourgeois politician.
Leadership is indeed important. Mamdani isn't our leader, though? Which movement are you referring to, specifically?
Bourgeois politicians are the sole group you have given any credit to on this topic and you've repeatedly done so. I responded to that...
There is a stark inconsistency here. A pattern. The combination of vagueness and jargon with assigning grand importance. It ends up making these kinds of statements close to meaningless, they just communicate "actually this stuff is very important", sidestepping the actual criticisms that have been issued.
Do you think anyone here says, "leadership is unimportant"? Is that what we're talking about? Is Mamdani the "leadership" you have in mind? Of what? This kind of vague posting about state power in the context of a bourgeois politician not reigning in his cops is particularly funny. Has Kautsky been resurrected as a Green New Deal stan?
Which of my conceptions are pseudo-anarchist?
Getting creative, are we?
Please do your best to respond to what I'm saying and not cartoons you invent.
Now we're comparing Mamdani to Lenin. I'd try answering your question but it's so far from anything I've said that it would probably be counterproductive. You're arguing with phantoms.
So are you just giving up all pretense of good faith? You have plenty to say about what I have said about credit but can't simply state what my very first sentence about it was?
My question was partly rhetorical, so I'll just spell it out for you. You said, "The Palestinian people have already been failed, so there's no conception of "credit" to go around". Here is what I originally said about credit: "Palestinian resistance."
If you put these statements together, my meaning is clear, right? I'm implying you are yet again being dismissive towards the Palestinian resistance. This is because you seek to exaggerate the importance and value of Mamdani.
The genocide is also happening. It didn't stop with the election cycle and half ceasefires.
I don't think any reading of this thread would suggest that your concern is utility to stop the genocide of Palestine. You spent your time exaggerating the importance of Mamdani, sidestepping critique, making nonsense statements about how antizionism is mainstreamed, and are now being exceptionally inventive in your descriptions of me and others. It's not hard to see what is your priority.
In terms of who gets their due, yes it's important to not give socdem politicians credit for work they opposed until it became electorally convenient. It's an important lesson for understanding both the role of those socdems, of why you should not be surprised when they are opportunist and nut defend that opportunism, and for what the actual leading work was in the first place. Surely you, focused on utility, would be more interested in the thing that worked through mass organization and enjoined labor and communist parties instead of exclusively promoting and protecting from criticism the eventual liberal electoral cooption.
Do you remember why I brought up Palestine? It wasn't moralism.
You're simply not responding to what I have said and are belaboring points about things I haven't. That last comment was an acute example. Feel free to more clearly communicate what you mean in a way that is firmly grounded in what I said, with quotes if needed.
And yet those to whom I have credit are infinitely more responsible for the mainstreaming of Zionism than opportunist socdems like Mamdani. Israel is also more responsible for that mainstreaming than Mamdani, yes. That's... obvious? But I would probably avoid a word like "credit" because that might imply praise for their role.
I don't even know what you're trying to say here. What is a credit based conception of power? Who has it?
What matters depends on what one is trying to accomplish in their purview and success requires building an accurate understanding of the forces at work. "Political utility" is so vague that it could mean almost anything. Holding "the reins of power in the state" is clearly not quite what we are talking about as you are all over this thread making excuses for why Mamdani can't use them. The consistent thru-line is to protect poor baby Mamdani from valid critique.
Stolen land sales.
there was a while there before and in the early parts of the campaign where he said he wouldn't condemn "globalize the intifada" then after the obama call he caved eventually and did.
then he sent cops to protect land sales, then he didn't go to the nazi parade.
he's not a consistent principled antizionist but he constantly pisses them off
This is basically par for the course with "progressive" liberal politicians. It's just walking a line between constituencies, groups pushing and pulling in opposite directions. Perhaps saliently, in your example, the one good thing he "did" was passive while the other two required either an active statement or sending cops.
But the "[X] politician is pissing people off" is basically a constant.
Nope. He was always this way, you’ve just been imagining someone different