From a former pastor who knows what the insiders talk about: a warning we would be foolish to ignore.
As a reminder:
And they must lose in every election in the future. Look to California as an example - they haven’t elected a Republican to state office since Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2006.
California led the fight to criminalize homelessness just this last year.
It’s hardly a perfect system, but a lot of the craziness has been removed.
It is a liberal bastion during the slow breakdown of the federal ability to reign in self-defeating tendencies of capital. It is still a capitalist nightmare, itself.
Now I’m no Republican, I wasn’t old enough to vote in 2006, and I’m not even American…but if I were: I’d vote Arnie in 👍
To third-party voters: I fully believe in votes of conscience and there will be plenty of time for you to create an alternative to the system we currently have in place—but now isn’t that time. A protest vote now isn’t a protest, it’s reckless and wasteful and it will cost you any future opportunity you’re hoping for. You will lose the voice you have.
[emphasis mine]
If my choices are “the end,” “the end slightly delayed because we’ve no interest in preventing it,” or “worse than the first guys because I didn’t worship the duopoly” I’ve already lost my voice, havent I?
Democrats have shut off all paths to move them left, including having it ruled in court that the DNC can do whatever they want. Democrats spend more energy attacking leftists than they ever do Republicans.
If leftists are such a critical threat to Democrats they probably should have courted those voters instead of the cycle of telling them to eat shit for 3 years then spending a year blaming them for dem losses. 🤷♂️
If you are voting for genocide with “lesser evil” logic then you have already lost any voice worth having.
There is a reason these cowards can’t even describe the basic facts with explicit terms. They know what it means to say, “vote for a gemocider” so they hem and has and play with euphemisms.
But you don’t need to be convinced by these shills. You can do better than support genocide.
Even if I accept your framing that a vote for Kamala is a vote for genocide in Gaza, literally any other action is a vote for that genocide, plus one in Ukraine, plus one in the US. We know this because that’s what Trump has said. We know this because that’s what he tried to do the last time. And we will have this problem until Trumpism is soundly defeated. You want a real left choice sometime in your lifetime? We need to vote Dem hard enough to make it clear that Republicans can’t win. We’re not there yet.
Removed by mod
The author is a Dem shill that tries to whitewash the genocide in Gaza and the Biden-Harris administration’s role, even trying to pretend they are trying to stop it (JFC).
You can skip it and just read Harris’ campaign page instead. Might as well get the PR from the source, no need to filter it through this grifter.
…I’m not seeing anything explaining how the author is wrong. Ad hominem is not an argument.
I stated what my point was: if you want to read naked bad faith DNC talking points you should go to the source. The argument is that he is just rehashing those things.
If you want to know some ways in which he is wrong, I pointed out negative things from other articles, like his bad faith apologetics for the Biden-Harris genocide. That does not make this article incorrect, but then again I didn’t say anything about this article aside from implying it’s unoriginality.
Okay, so for ad hominem, in media, the author is always relevant.
First, most are politically and media illiterate and cannot parse or criticize the article. Most just read a headline and draw a conclusion. Most of those who do start reading the article only read the first third or so. Knowing that someone is a dishonest hack is an important fact if you’re not critically engaging with media.
Second, when it comes to media you are often asked to trust the veracity of an author’s claims based on their record or the record of the outlet, as some to all of their claims will be based on personal experience or otherwise unsourced. There is an implicit “reverse” ad hominem at work here, an unstated argument from authority, that we all accept to some degree or another, particularly if we are not taking the time to critically go through it with a fine-toothed comb or if we do not have any subject matter expertise. So of course knowing that the author is a dishonest or incompetent shill is important and is not itself a fallacious use of ad hominem.
Finally, if you want my takeaways from this article, yes it is also wrong. It poses white evangelicals as an existential threat and then tells you the only thing you do is vote harder for Dems in November. He either does not truly believe this, as you need to do far more than that against an existential threat, or he does believe this and is demanding you do very little about it, so he apparently doesn’t really want to. At best, he is politically illuterare and you should ignore his advice, but as we both know, he is just a hack. The claim is self-defeating and incoherent. This is the thesis of the article and it is inherently flawed. The unstated elephant in the room, something he does not even mention because he is a partisan hack, is the ongoing genocide in Palestine and now Lebanon carried out by the people ge is telling you to vote for. This presents a different moral compulsion: that every person supporting genocide should be opposed and must lose. Of course he knows this, you all know this, it is why he avoided the topic and why you skipped over my mention if it.
I recommend that you engage critically with media and that if you want garbage partisan slop to get it from the horse’s mouth. Then you will more correctly understand its meaning.
You still haven’t explained how the author is wrong here. All you’ve told me is why you think the author is icky.
My point stands.
My second to last paragraph is explicitly about how the author is wrong here.
Please engage in good faith by reading what I say before announcing judgments.
No, your second point doesn’t make your case. Biden isn’t running now, or did you forget? Not to mention, it doesn’t change anything about what the author has to say about the political goals of evangelicals and how Trump would deliver for them, which is the topic of the article.
I hear Putin calling. You better check and see what he wants.
No, your second point doesn’t make your case. Biden isn’t running now, or did you forget?
My second to last paragraph doesn’t mention Biden at all. I think you are confused. Please take some extra time to read what I said. I am happy to answer questions if you have any.
I hear Putin calling. You better check and see what he wants.
Please engage in good faith.
Biden is the one deciding US policy, and the responsibility for our foreign policy failures rest with him. There are two viable candidates running to replace him. One candidate promises a less conciliatory approach with Netanyahu, the other promises to help escalate the atrocities.
Which do you think will get you closer to your stated goals?
When you start engaging in good faith, you will get good faith in return.
Biden isn’t running now, or did you forget?
Pure fucking sophistry
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/08/harris-biden-the-view-00182883
