JoBo
I thought Uncommitted was a smart use of the primaries.
More generally, obviously much more critical than in the election itself. But getting the right candidates in the primary, and pushing all candidates to be better in all the usual ways. They’re never going to chase us to the left like they chase to the right, so we have to do the work and set the boundaries.
The Democrats do not have a realistic chance of winning against Trump because the Democrats are entirely incapable of challenging power. It’s the fundamental contradiction of liberalism. They won’t do anything for the people they need to vote for them because if they do the people who fund them will stop funding them.
Obama and Sanders both excelled at small-dollar donations, of course. Sadly, Obama was a silver-tongued coward and the Clinton Democrats made sure she didn’t repeat the mistakes of 2008 in 2016 by not bothering to sign up voters in case they killed her in the primaries again.
They dig their own grave and they do so willingly because it makes them exceedingly rich.
Demanding that people vote for the least worst option without any content other than sneering at them for apparently not realising that one of the options is worse, is doing exactly that.
It’s straw-manning the arguments of people who want (and desperately need) the Democrats to be better and are putting serious thought, time and energy into how that is possible in a world controlled by billionaires who unleash fascism the moment their power is threatened.
And they’re doing it with a lazy, cynical, Bill Maher-wannabe take because apparently they think this is a good look?
They’ll be the death of us all.
Yeah, if you’re going to comment you would, ideally:
-
read the article
-
comprehend what it is saying
-
respond to it
Knee-jerk hand-waving is not useful. It’s worse than just a waste of your time and ours, you are actively alienating everyone you desperately need to hold their nose and vote for Biden.
What are you trying to achieve here?
Obediently voting for the least worst option means you eventually run out of good options. <- we are here
The conundrum is working out how you force those options to get better without accelerationists getting to test out their theories for real (again).
I would respectifully suggest that “shut the fuck up and vote” does not cut it.
Cigarettes were marketed as actively healthy and good for the lungs. They used doctors to sell them. And wanted everyone to know that the only reason that smokers kept dying of lung diseases is because cigarettes are good for lungs so of course people with bad lungs were smokers. Duh.