They’re not even good enough. Both of them are turncoats. Bernie “the word genocide makes me quesy” Sanders is voting in Trump’s nominees. AOC endorsed Kamala and reinforced the “working tirelessly for a ceasefire” bullshit, every two minutes she’s folded on something new.
Great, so we’re already “lesser of two evils”-ing our hypothetical new party designed to replace the Democrats. Just great.
Here’s an idea. If we’re replacing the Democratic Party, let’s ONLY include people who aren’t traitors. Can we find five or ten people like that amongst the American population of 330 million people?
Nah, I’m just saying you’re being too picky. Right now, I don’t really think there’s anything wrong with rallying around a message of “Not Trump, Not Fascism”. You know, considering those are the things that are currently dismantling our democracy.
Calling people turncoats when they should be considered allies does nothing to fight the real, current threat in office. All this infighting just sets us back and puts us further down the road to fascism. This quest for the perfect liberal party is a waste of effort because it’s so pie-in-the-sky and borderline impossible to actually achieve in any meaningful length of time.
It sucks, but that’s reality. Our democracy is fucked, and trying to find even more idealist liberals to replace the likes of Bernie and AOC isn’t gonna fix it.
I could not have been more clear - I completely reject the idea that we should be preemptively compromising our morals in a hypothetical new party designed to replace the morally compromised Democratic party. This is literally INSANE. Like, can we as a society even brush our teeth without compromising with the perpetrators of genocide and global empire? You’re already PLANNING a moral compromise for a political party that doesn’t even EXIST yet?
K good luck making any progress or solving any problems whatsoever then*. One day you might realize that the real world is shitty and messy and requires compromise.
The moral compromises we’re talking about are literally giving up on solving problems preemptively. You’re talking about making plans for the future, designing new things from scratch, you have every tool in the world at your disposal, a blank canvas, and you take a huge paintbrush and dip it into a whole house-sized can of black paint and just start smearing it everywhere.
Nah, if anything, your “absolutely no compromises” approach is the one smearing black paint all over everything. That level of inflexibility and brittleness will only get in the way of actually accomplishing things.
Okay but she endorsed Kamala, and we are still in the current situation?
I disagree with dx1, and think they are worth keeping around, but the criticism that they fell right in line with a genocidal regime, and refused to stand for their principles is fully true.
So between the two options available to her: try to get Kamala elected or increase the likelihood of Trump being elected, which do you think was the better option to pursue?
They’re not even good enough. Both of them are turncoats. Bernie “the word genocide makes me quesy” Sanders is voting in Trump’s nominees. AOC endorsed Kamala and reinforced the “working tirelessly for a ceasefire” bullshit, every two minutes she’s folded on something new.
You know what, I’d take “not good enough” over “actively dismantling our democracy”, but fuck me I guess
Great, so we’re already “lesser of two evils”-ing our hypothetical new party designed to replace the Democrats. Just great.
Here’s an idea. If we’re replacing the Democratic Party, let’s ONLY include people who aren’t traitors. Can we find five or ten people like that amongst the American population of 330 million people?
Nah, I’m just saying you’re being too picky. Right now, I don’t really think there’s anything wrong with rallying around a message of “Not Trump, Not Fascism”. You know, considering those are the things that are currently dismantling our democracy.
Calling people turncoats when they should be considered allies does nothing to fight the real, current threat in office. All this infighting just sets us back and puts us further down the road to fascism. This quest for the perfect liberal party is a waste of effort because it’s so pie-in-the-sky and borderline impossible to actually achieve in any meaningful length of time.
It sucks, but that’s reality. Our democracy is fucked, and trying to find even more idealist liberals to replace the likes of Bernie and AOC isn’t gonna fix it.
I could not have been more clear - I completely reject the idea that we should be preemptively compromising our morals in a hypothetical new party designed to replace the morally compromised Democratic party. This is literally INSANE. Like, can we as a society even brush our teeth without compromising with the perpetrators of genocide and global empire? You’re already PLANNING a moral compromise for a political party that doesn’t even EXIST yet?
K good luck making any progress or solving any problems whatsoever then*. One day you might realize that the real world is shitty and messy and requires compromise.
The moral compromises we’re talking about are literally giving up on solving problems preemptively. You’re talking about making plans for the future, designing new things from scratch, you have every tool in the world at your disposal, a blank canvas, and you take a huge paintbrush and dip it into a whole house-sized can of black paint and just start smearing it everywhere.
Nah, if anything, your “absolutely no compromises” approach is the one smearing black paint all over everything. That level of inflexibility and brittleness will only get in the way of actually accomplishing things.
Right, I’m sure the current situation is better than endorsing Kamala…
Okay but she endorsed Kamala, and we are still in the current situation?
I disagree with dx1, and think they are worth keeping around, but the criticism that they fell right in line with a genocidal regime, and refused to stand for their principles is fully true.
So between the two options available to her: try to get Kamala elected or increase the likelihood of Trump being elected, which do you think was the better option to pursue?
I mean I disagree, but I am curious. Who then?