In her new book, Kamala Harris insists she only lost the election because she didn’t have enough time. But she accidentally demonstrates the real reason: she’s a terrible politician.
Maybe how you approach politics is harmful and supports rightwing movements.
I feel like “vote for the prevention of the accession of fascists” should resonate with more people than “let the fascists win to teach the DNC a lesson” did.
And in the most superficial terms, the exact kind of framing you are using right now is what was used to hand Trump the election. If not for people doing exactly what you are doing now, we probably could have gotten Harris over the finish line to a W, but for the reasoning you are using right now. And since its been so well studied and is incredible obvious now, we must simply assume that those asking/ following that line were never interested in a Harris W, and that it was always in bad faith.
Not bad faith, I just want to make sure we’re saying what we each think we’re saying. Because I don’t think you’re quite responding to what I’m actually saying, at face value.
I’m not saying she ran a good enough campaign and everyone should have been enthusiastic about her. She absolutely made bad choices by letting the DNC machine make bad choices for her, and I absolutely recognize that those cost her votes and that. I’m not saying the primary process was totally the awesomerest best one we could have possibly hoped for, because it wasn’t. But I think the media coverage of the 4% primary voter turnout for Uncommitted, which surely had an impact on Democratic donors putting pressure on Biden and the party to change course, just serves to validate my belief that if we actually all came out and voted, we’d have a more representative government. Enthusiasm for the Harris/Waltz ticket was sky-fucking high at first and then it was squandered with milquetoast status quo. No argument from me about that.
What I am saying, is that in isolation, come the general election in 2024, voting for Harris was the only action that would have prevented Trump from winning the 2024 general election. I feel like that’s just incontrovertible math. If you’re saying to me, in response, that looking solely at the singular event of the general election in 2024 (not the primary season, or anything that happened on the campaign trail, just the general election itself), that my vote for Harris in the 2024 election helped Trump win the 2024 election, then I think you need to show your math because it sounds truly insane.
But I don’t think that’s what you’re saying. So I’d like a little more clarity on what you’re saying rather than making assumptions and inferences.
a political moderate who supports democrats not right wingers.
Oh! Like how Chuck Schumer makes is able to make the claim of being a political moderate! While dogwalking Democrats to break with the party to protect the filibuster.
Of course. This is soooooo supportive of Democratic policy positions.
Democrats are right-wing, liberalism is right wing. If we overlaid the political scale from 1980 and today, Democrats would be to the far right of Reagan.
Democrats focus on social issues like abortion and gay rights because it doesn’t impact profits, when they should be focused on economic issues like wages, housing, education, and healthcare. Focusing on people’s needs first will fix the social needs later
“The white man will try to satisfy us with symbolic victories rather than economic equity and real justice.” Malcolm X
Except both those issues were wedge issues chosen by Republicans to gain votes from the religious. Those weren’t major platforms for Democrats until Republicans forced the issues.
The white man will try to satisfy us with symbolic victories rather than economic equity and real justice.
Those victories are very much NOT symbolic to gay people and women. They are very real and very crucial to their welfare.
As a gay man I would rather see people in my community be able to prosper, be able to afford to live comfortably to have guaranteed housing food on their table, access to medical Care. Anything outside of that is superficial. Who cares if I’m able to get married If I can’t afford a roof over my head. That’s the major issue with Democrats, regarding the trans community, they don’t care that the trans community is the largest percentage of the unhoused among lgbtq+. They don’t care that they’re unhoused, they focus on being able to use the restroom of choice. Focusing on social issues is blatantly, denying equity and equal justice
Without civil rights there is no equity or social justice. It isn’t just about getting married. It’s about getting fired for being out. It’s about being denied housing for being out. It’s about being jailed for sodomy or dragged behind a truck until you are dead.
Because they didn’t give a shit if Trump won and did everything he said he would do.
As he is doing now.
Or, and this might be completely revolutionary towards your thinking…
Maybe how you approach politics is harmful and supports rightwing movements.
I feel like “vote for the prevention of the accession of fascists” should resonate with more people than “let the fascists win to teach the DNC a lesson” did.
But what you feel doesn’t matter, because we took the data on this, and the exact approach you outline led directly to fascists getting elected.
Sure, man. Voting for Kamala somehow equaled a vote for Trump. Not sure how that tracks but if you say so. 👍
Keep missing the point and keep throwing elections for us then.
Which point?
Honestly, if you really need it explained to you at this point, I have to assume you are asking this in bad faith.
Go ask @SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world to explain to you how you’ve become the villains of your own narrative.
And in the most superficial terms, the exact kind of framing you are using right now is what was used to hand Trump the election. If not for people doing exactly what you are doing now, we probably could have gotten Harris over the finish line to a W, but for the reasoning you are using right now. And since its been so well studied and is incredible obvious now, we must simply assume that those asking/ following that line were never interested in a Harris W, and that it was always in bad faith.
Not bad faith, I just want to make sure we’re saying what we each think we’re saying. Because I don’t think you’re quite responding to what I’m actually saying, at face value.
I’m not saying she ran a good enough campaign and everyone should have been enthusiastic about her. She absolutely made bad choices by letting the DNC machine make bad choices for her, and I absolutely recognize that those cost her votes and that. I’m not saying the primary process was totally the awesomerest best one we could have possibly hoped for, because it wasn’t. But I think the media coverage of the 4% primary voter turnout for Uncommitted, which surely had an impact on Democratic donors putting pressure on Biden and the party to change course, just serves to validate my belief that if we actually all came out and voted, we’d have a more representative government. Enthusiasm for the Harris/Waltz ticket was sky-fucking high at first and then it was squandered with milquetoast status quo. No argument from me about that.
What I am saying, is that in isolation, come the general election in 2024, voting for Harris was the only action that would have prevented Trump from winning the 2024 general election. I feel like that’s just incontrovertible math. If you’re saying to me, in response, that looking solely at the singular event of the general election in 2024 (not the primary season, or anything that happened on the campaign trail, just the general election itself), that my vote for Harris in the 2024 election helped Trump win the 2024 election, then I think you need to show your math because it sounds truly insane.
But I don’t think that’s what you’re saying. So I’d like a little more clarity on what you’re saying rather than making assumptions and inferences.
I’ve made it pretty clear I’m a political moderate who supports democrats not right wingers.
Oh! Like how Chuck Schumer makes is able to make the claim of being a political moderate! While dogwalking Democrats to break with the party to protect the filibuster.
Of course. This is soooooo supportive of Democratic policy positions.
Democrats are right-wing, liberalism is right wing. If we overlaid the political scale from 1980 and today, Democrats would be to the far right of Reagan.
Ah yes, Ronald Reagan, staunch proponent of a right to abortion and gay marriage.
Democrats focus on social issues like abortion and gay rights because it doesn’t impact profits, when they should be focused on economic issues like wages, housing, education, and healthcare. Focusing on people’s needs first will fix the social needs later
“The white man will try to satisfy us with symbolic victories rather than economic equity and real justice.” Malcolm X
Except both those issues were wedge issues chosen by Republicans to gain votes from the religious. Those weren’t major platforms for Democrats until Republicans forced the issues.
Those victories are very much NOT symbolic to gay people and women. They are very real and very crucial to their welfare.
As a gay man I would rather see people in my community be able to prosper, be able to afford to live comfortably to have guaranteed housing food on their table, access to medical Care. Anything outside of that is superficial. Who cares if I’m able to get married If I can’t afford a roof over my head. That’s the major issue with Democrats, regarding the trans community, they don’t care that the trans community is the largest percentage of the unhoused among lgbtq+. They don’t care that they’re unhoused, they focus on being able to use the restroom of choice. Focusing on social issues is blatantly, denying equity and equal justice
Without civil rights there is no equity or social justice. It isn’t just about getting married. It’s about getting fired for being out. It’s about being denied housing for being out. It’s about being jailed for sodomy or dragged behind a truck until you are dead.