I gotta ask that if you prefer to use inline quotes as a format for your replies that you at the very least quote full sentences. I try to write in a clear and unambiguous way, but when my words are chopped up it’s easy to misconstrue the things I’m saying.
No one person can be blamed for the sorry state of the nation, but if you’re interested in an example of legislation which has done significant harm to Americans and funneled billions into the carceral state that Biden himself takes credit for and that third parties have reenforced, the ‘94 crime bill is one.
As I said before, I reject progressivism because of its ambiguity. What is considered progress now (progress for whom, measured how) may very well be abhorrent in the future. The history of progressivism as a political tendency bears this out. It’s used more often as a label than a cohesive platform and rare indeed are the progressive edifices which clearly explain what they’re progressing towards and how they’re judging their steps along that road.
For this reason what I said was not meant as a soul rending insult to people who call themselves progressive, but to offer an explanation why in my next sentence I didn’t specifically reference progressive candidates and used instead policy platforms to describe the candidates.
Now didn’t you just say that federal elections can only maintain the status quo and that change has to happen at a local election level? It seems like I just described the logical steps a person with your views would take when it comes to elections. Why are those ideas perfectly normal when you write them down but suddenly fantastical when I say them?
No one person can be blamed for the sorry state of the nation, but if you’re interested in an example of legislation which has done significant harm to Americans and funneled billions into the carceral state that Biden himself takes credit for and that third parties have reenforced, the ‘94 crime bill is one.
I am aware of Biden’s history.
What is considered progress now (progress for whom, measured how) may very well be abhorrent in the future.
Yeah, that’s how progress works. I don’t care for these semantics. You well know what I meant about local politics.
I’ll respect your request to quote in full if we forget the semantics.
Now didn’t you just say that federal elections can only maintain the status quo and that change has to happen at a local election level?
I said federal elections generally only can maintain the status quo. Not always. In some respects Biden (for as milquetoast centrist/boomer as he is) has made progress towards dealing with climate change for example.
It seems like I just described the logical steps a person with your views would take when it comes to elections. Why are those ideas perfectly normal when you write them down but suddenly fantastical when I say them?
The difference is, in local elections there is often less competition, and less fuckery in the primaries. Key word being less, not none.
The last president to run unopposed was 1820. Wheras for local elections, every year there is some seat that is being run unopposed.
The democrats always go for some centrist/conservative for the big federal seats. The local seats and minor congressional seats are the only places progressives have a chance. Hence why it is fantasy land to try this stuff for federal positions and not so for local.
So use that, leverage the democratic party into being a party that actually serves the people to make progress, and we’ll be doing significantly better. Splitting the vote to get Trump in power will only serve to hurt women, minorities, and the LGBTQ.
Would you characterize your position as “vote however you like unless it’s a state level or higher position for which the democrats are running someone.”?
How would you say the gbu-39 2000lb jdams Biden is sending to Israel impact women, minorities and the lgbtq in Gaza?
Would you characterize your position as “vote however you like unless it’s a state level or higher position for which the democrats are running someone.”?
That’s an over simplified take. There are races where the only two candidates are establishment democrats and republicans, even at the local level. I am saying be realistic with your vote, and don’t split the vote if a republican has a chance.
How would you say the gbu-39 2000lb jdams Biden is sending to Israel impact women, minorities and the lgbtq in Gaza?
This may surprise you, but there are women, minorities, and the LGBTQ in places outside of Palestine. And they’re gonna get hurt if the vote gets split thanks to people like you, who put their need for “clean” hands over the safety of others.
So your outlook would be more accurately characterized as: first, when there is a republican who has chance to win a seat, vote the candidate who is most likely to defeat them, otherwise vote whoever you like at the lower levels?
Putting the defeat of some party’s candidates ahead of the support of one’s own views seems deeply flawed. If it’s more important that those people never hold power then wouldn’t it make more sense to actually take real physical action against them instead of employing a calculus of strategic voting?
It really does seem like you started with the conclusion that we should vote for Biden and are working backwards from there to reenforce it.
Where else are American supplied bombs being dropped on women, minorities and lgbtq people?
I’m not worried about clean hands, I’m not the person sitting at the head of the most powerful military apparatus the world has ever seen sending munitions to be aimed at tents full of refugees: I’m worried about the people dying by American weapons while my government protects the people wielding them.
I gotta ask that if you prefer to use inline quotes as a format for your replies that you at the very least quote full sentences. I try to write in a clear and unambiguous way, but when my words are chopped up it’s easy to misconstrue the things I’m saying.
No one person can be blamed for the sorry state of the nation, but if you’re interested in an example of legislation which has done significant harm to Americans and funneled billions into the carceral state that Biden himself takes credit for and that third parties have reenforced, the ‘94 crime bill is one.
As I said before, I reject progressivism because of its ambiguity. What is considered progress now (progress for whom, measured how) may very well be abhorrent in the future. The history of progressivism as a political tendency bears this out. It’s used more often as a label than a cohesive platform and rare indeed are the progressive edifices which clearly explain what they’re progressing towards and how they’re judging their steps along that road.
For this reason what I said was not meant as a soul rending insult to people who call themselves progressive, but to offer an explanation why in my next sentence I didn’t specifically reference progressive candidates and used instead policy platforms to describe the candidates.
Now didn’t you just say that federal elections can only maintain the status quo and that change has to happen at a local election level? It seems like I just described the logical steps a person with your views would take when it comes to elections. Why are those ideas perfectly normal when you write them down but suddenly fantastical when I say them?
I am aware of Biden’s history.
Yeah, that’s how progress works. I don’t care for these semantics. You well know what I meant about local politics.
I’ll respect your request to quote in full if we forget the semantics.
I said federal elections generally only can maintain the status quo. Not always. In some respects Biden (for as milquetoast centrist/boomer as he is) has made progress towards dealing with climate change for example.
The difference is, in local elections there is often less competition, and less fuckery in the primaries. Key word being less, not none.
The last president to run unopposed was 1820. Wheras for local elections, every year there is some seat that is being run unopposed.
The democrats always go for some centrist/conservative for the big federal seats. The local seats and minor congressional seats are the only places progressives have a chance. Hence why it is fantasy land to try this stuff for federal positions and not so for local.
So use that, leverage the democratic party into being a party that actually serves the people to make progress, and we’ll be doing significantly better. Splitting the vote to get Trump in power will only serve to hurt women, minorities, and the LGBTQ.
Would you characterize your position as “vote however you like unless it’s a state level or higher position for which the democrats are running someone.”?
How would you say the gbu-39 2000lb jdams Biden is sending to Israel impact women, minorities and the lgbtq in Gaza?
That’s an over simplified take. There are races where the only two candidates are establishment democrats and republicans, even at the local level. I am saying be realistic with your vote, and don’t split the vote if a republican has a chance.
This may surprise you, but there are women, minorities, and the LGBTQ in places outside of Palestine. And they’re gonna get hurt if the vote gets split thanks to people like you, who put their need for “clean” hands over the safety of others.
So your outlook would be more accurately characterized as: first, when there is a republican who has chance to win a seat, vote the candidate who is most likely to defeat them, otherwise vote whoever you like at the lower levels?
Putting the defeat of some party’s candidates ahead of the support of one’s own views seems deeply flawed. If it’s more important that those people never hold power then wouldn’t it make more sense to actually take real physical action against them instead of employing a calculus of strategic voting?
It really does seem like you started with the conclusion that we should vote for Biden and are working backwards from there to reenforce it.
Where else are American supplied bombs being dropped on women, minorities and lgbtq people?
I’m not worried about clean hands, I’m not the person sitting at the head of the most powerful military apparatus the world has ever seen sending munitions to be aimed at tents full of refugees: I’m worried about the people dying by American weapons while my government protects the people wielding them.