Correct. At present, the outcomes at the ballot box are “bad” and “worse”. Of the two, “bad” is preferable. “Good” will require non-electoral direct action.
Who is “y’all”? What exactly do you think is “something productive” and what are you doing, besides making things worse through electoral misinformation?
To tell me why you aren’t doing the productive things you’re whining about no one else doing?
Do you think I’m a DNC strategist? Do you think I’m anyone other than an exasperated leftist trying to get foolish leftists to stop shooting themselves in the foot so much (literally impossible I don’t know why I bother)?
Maybe I’m deliberately ignoring the context clues because the associated conclusion is completely asinine, and I’m giving you a chance to correct course.
Slowing the decline is one aspect of treatment, and the best outcome presently available via electoral action. More significant progress requires alternative methods. Mitigating damage via the electoral vector is more valuable to the efficacy of those alternative methods than whatever it is you’re trying to do by not mitigating damage.
What are you, 12? Why would I be “owned” by a fundamental misunderstanding of electoral mechanisms?
Name another “aspect of treatment”
Promoting progressive candidates in primaries
Writing your representatives directly
Becoming active in local politics
Protesting
Arming yourself
Building community and mutual aid with your neighbors
Unionizing your workplace
Collaborating with leftist groups to coordinate action
And that’s off the top of my head. None of those actions are lessened in any way by voting for whatever the Dems put out in the general election, to keep MAGA out. Any other electoral action perpetuates the acceleration of fascism. We’ve got concentration camps and military in the streets, continuing to pretend that “both sides” are identical is just patently unserious if not deliberately in bad faith.
Your turn. Answer the question: What alternative action is available at the ballot box that yields a better outcome? I think you keep dodging the question because you know you don’t have an answer. You’re either a shill, or a kid hypnotized by counterproductive idealism.
I asked you for an example of something that will enact change besides voting and you cough up a listed headed by “get people to vote” and “become politically active (by voting)”. Alarmingly-low levels of awareness.
Buy a gun? For what? Connect the dots for us: how can gun ownership be an aspect of treatment? What’s the gun treating?
Talking to liberals about electorate politics is so disturbing. A boot could be on your neck and you’d still pledge allegiance to capitalism and its myriad apparatuses as the One True Way.
Why am I not surprised that someone who believes it’s impossible to do two different things is incapable of reading past the first element of a list. Honestly, you’re being deliberately stupid at this point. Maybe seek mentorship from someone who had the brainpower to walk and chew gum at the same time.
Again, not liberal, just not stupid. Work on your reading comprehension and critical thinking skills, then your opinion might hold non-zero value.
And you still haven’t answered the question. Are you too dumb to come up with an answer, or are you a shill?
What? Trump’s second term is largely the result of not strategically voting for lesser evil.
What alternative, actionable strategy would have led to a different outcome? Actionable means “Everyone votes for the same third party” doesn’t count. So go on, what was the alternative strategy that had any chance whatsoever of succeeding?
I think you’re missing the point. The strategy out of the DNC going on two decades has been “our horrible candidate is less horrible than their candidate,” and it took a worldwide pandemic and thousands of deaths for it to work once.
They need to stop and find someone who isn’t horrible if they ever want to win again. That or just let the world burn and hope it’s only the neolibs that survive. I wouldn’t bet on that myself.
On the contrary, you missed the point. I do not set DNC policy, it does no good to tell me what they should be doing. If “making them lose” was going to affect their strategy, it would have worked in 2016.
I am but a lowly voter, who has to live in this country. As a human being, there are many options available to me to try to effect change. As a voter, I am functionally limited to choosing between the two most popular candidates.
Voting for the less fascist of the two is not what I want to be doing, but it is the most likely to support all the other non-electoral options available to my fellow humans, without sacrificing the vulnerable to the greater evil.
You’d have to have pretty abysmal reading comprehension to come to that conclusion. That couldn’t be farther from what I said. Try again, pay attention this time.
Correct. At present, the outcomes at the ballot box are “bad” and “worse”. Of the two, “bad” is preferable. “Good” will require non-electoral direct action.
deleted by creator
How many decades of turning up your nose at the lesser evil do you people need before you realize that just makes things worse faster?
deleted by creator
Who is “y’all”? What exactly do you think is “something productive” and what are you doing, besides making things worse through electoral misinformation?
deleted by creator
Then why aren’t you doing that? And again, who is “y’all”?
deleted by creator
To tell me why you aren’t doing the productive things you’re whining about no one else doing?
Do you think I’m a DNC strategist? Do you think I’m anyone other than an exasperated leftist trying to get foolish leftists to stop shooting themselves in the foot so much (literally impossible I don’t know why I bother)?
Maybe I’m deliberately ignoring the context clues because the associated conclusion is completely asinine, and I’m giving you a chance to correct course.
Lmao.
“We’re the good guys because we’re making things worse more slowly” is one hell of a self report.
Slowing the decline is one aspect of treatment, and the best outcome presently available via electoral action. More significant progress requires alternative methods. Mitigating damage via the electoral vector is more valuable to the efficacy of those alternative methods than whatever it is you’re trying to do by not mitigating damage.
Holy shit, so many words just to cope that you got owned. Yikes.
Name another “aspect of treatment” from within your delirious worldview, if voting for the lesser evil is just one aspect. I dare you to elaborate.
Like what?! You’re so close to reality, yet so far away.
What are you, 12? Why would I be “owned” by a fundamental misunderstanding of electoral mechanisms?
Promoting progressive candidates in primaries
Writing your representatives directly
Becoming active in local politics
Protesting
Arming yourself
Building community and mutual aid with your neighbors
Unionizing your workplace
Collaborating with leftist groups to coordinate action
And that’s off the top of my head. None of those actions are lessened in any way by voting for whatever the Dems put out in the general election, to keep MAGA out. Any other electoral action perpetuates the acceleration of fascism. We’ve got concentration camps and military in the streets, continuing to pretend that “both sides” are identical is just patently unserious if not deliberately in bad faith.
Your turn. Answer the question: What alternative action is available at the ballot box that yields a better outcome? I think you keep dodging the question because you know you don’t have an answer. You’re either a shill, or a kid hypnotized by counterproductive idealism.
I asked you for an example of something that will enact change besides voting and you cough up a listed headed by “get people to vote” and “become politically active (by voting)”. Alarmingly-low levels of awareness.
Buy a gun? For what? Connect the dots for us: how can gun ownership be an aspect of treatment? What’s the gun treating?
Talking to liberals about electorate politics is so disturbing. A boot could be on your neck and you’d still pledge allegiance to capitalism and its myriad apparatuses as the One True Way.
Why am I not surprised that someone who believes it’s impossible to do two different things is incapable of reading past the first element of a list. Honestly, you’re being deliberately stupid at this point. Maybe seek mentorship from someone who had the brainpower to walk and chew gum at the same time.
Again, not liberal, just not stupid. Work on your reading comprehension and critical thinking skills, then your opinion might hold non-zero value.
And you still haven’t answered the question. Are you too dumb to come up with an answer, or are you a shill?
Look where that got us. It’s a bad strategy and needs to be retired.
It being a bad strategy and also the best available strategy are not mutually exclusive. No presently actionable strategy has a better outcome.
So there’s no strategy that has a better outcome than Trump’s second term? You sure about that?
What? Trump’s second term is largely the result of not strategically voting for lesser evil.
What alternative, actionable strategy would have led to a different outcome? Actionable means “Everyone votes for the same third party” doesn’t count. So go on, what was the alternative strategy that had any chance whatsoever of succeeding?
I think you’re missing the point. The strategy out of the DNC going on two decades has been “our horrible candidate is less horrible than their candidate,” and it took a worldwide pandemic and thousands of deaths for it to work once.
They need to stop and find someone who isn’t horrible if they ever want to win again. That or just let the world burn and hope it’s only the neolibs that survive. I wouldn’t bet on that myself.
On the contrary, you missed the point. I do not set DNC policy, it does no good to tell me what they should be doing. If “making them lose” was going to affect their strategy, it would have worked in 2016.
I am but a lowly voter, who has to live in this country. As a human being, there are many options available to me to try to effect change. As a voter, I am functionally limited to choosing between the two most popular candidates.
Voting for the less fascist of the two is not what I want to be doing, but it is the most likely to support all the other non-electoral options available to my fellow humans, without sacrificing the vulnerable to the greater evil.
“I don’t set DNC policy, I just blindly promote it no matter what.”
“I’m not a fascist, I just loudly promote actions that benefit them”.
So in other words, you’re just trying to assuage your own guilt for being powerless in the face having to actually do something to change things.
You’d have to have pretty abysmal reading comprehension to come to that conclusion. That couldn’t be farther from what I said. Try again, pay attention this time.
Is it truly a bad strategy? Or is there much less direct action than what’s needed?