Making a great case for the democrats. Their guy can literally be complicit in genocide and speaking out against free speech and the right to protest and they still won’t change course no matter how many raise their voices against them. Party of the people.
Let’s dive into how trying to get people to vote PSL is pushing worse over bad though. We agree that PSL ballots don’t get counted for trump and you’d have to be a paleo conservative to think the democrats have a better platform. How exactly is encouraging people to vote for the objectively better party and candidate pushing for worse?
Do you think it’s all about winning? Even on the off chance that PSL doesn’t sweep every state harder than Regan, significant support for a third party opens the doors for massive funding and institutional advantages.
And it shows the other parties that there’s a support base for that platform, leading them to change theirs.
Do you really think trump will be worse than Biden on free speech, protest and the gaza genocide?
What’s the line where you say “actually it’s better to push for an alternative than to try and pick 99.99% Hitler over the genuine article”?
And if you really think it’s about the terrain, why don’t you take an accelerationist view and push for the terrain that heightens the contradictions soonest?
We’re past the line. We should already be pushing for alternatives. That changes nothing about the strategy of working with the actual possibilities that exist in front of us, today.
And if you really think it’s about the terrain, why don’t you take an accelerationist view and push for the terrain that heightens the contradictions soonest?
Because like both-siders, that’s a ridiculous and juvenile political take.
Okay, well you only have one vote. When is it more important to use it for an alternative rather than perpetuate a possibly (I gotta emphasize this) less bad status quo?
And I don’t ascribe to accelerationism but it’s not juvenile by any means. How is your outlook of using the only minuscule political agency you’re allowed within the American electoral system to make the terrain a little nicer for everyone any different than using it to move closer to where it’s bad enough that a mass uprising happens?
People don’t overthrow their rulers when everything’s hunky dory.
Making a great case for the democrats. Their guy can literally be complicit in genocide and speaking out against free speech and the right to protest and they still won’t change course no matter how many raise their voices against them. Party of the people.
Let’s dive into how trying to get people to vote PSL is pushing worse over bad though. We agree that PSL ballots don’t get counted for trump and you’d have to be a paleo conservative to think the democrats have a better platform. How exactly is encouraging people to vote for the objectively better party and candidate pushing for worse?
Because you’re well aware that it isn’t possible for that to be the outcome of this election. Stop playing dumb and pretending otherwise.
Do you think it’s all about winning? Even on the off chance that PSL doesn’t sweep every state harder than Regan, significant support for a third party opens the doors for massive funding and institutional advantages.
And it shows the other parties that there’s a support base for that platform, leading them to change theirs.
Do you really think trump will be worse than Biden on free speech, protest and the gaza genocide?
I think he’ll be at least as bad if not worse on those, and worse on countless other things.
I think its all about mitigating fallout from the only 2 available outcomes for who becomes president.
How bad would Biden have to be, how close to trump in word and deed before you would recognize that he’s not worth voting for?
Im asking because he was tailing and in some cases flanking trump from the right before the genocide started.
Where’s the line? When do you stand up and fight?
You’re conflating things.
The fight should be happening regardless. The strategy should be to have that fight under the lesser evil of the 2 possible administrations.
What’s the line where you say “actually it’s better to push for an alternative than to try and pick 99.99% Hitler over the genuine article”?
And if you really think it’s about the terrain, why don’t you take an accelerationist view and push for the terrain that heightens the contradictions soonest?
We’re past the line. We should already be pushing for alternatives. That changes nothing about the strategy of working with the actual possibilities that exist in front of us, today.
Because like both-siders, that’s a ridiculous and juvenile political take.
Okay, well you only have one vote. When is it more important to use it for an alternative rather than perpetuate a possibly (I gotta emphasize this) less bad status quo?
And I don’t ascribe to accelerationism but it’s not juvenile by any means. How is your outlook of using the only minuscule political agency you’re allowed within the American electoral system to make the terrain a little nicer for everyone any different than using it to move closer to where it’s bad enough that a mass uprising happens?
People don’t overthrow their rulers when everything’s hunky dory.