We’re past the line. We should already be pushing for alternatives. That changes nothing about the strategy of working with the actual possibilities that exist in front of us, today.
And if you really think it’s about the terrain, why don’t you take an accelerationist view and push for the terrain that heightens the contradictions soonest?
Because like both-siders, that’s a ridiculous and juvenile political take.
Okay, well you only have one vote. When is it more important to use it for an alternative rather than perpetuate a possibly (I gotta emphasize this) less bad status quo?
And I don’t ascribe to accelerationism but it’s not juvenile by any means. How is your outlook of using the only minuscule political agency you’re allowed within the American electoral system to make the terrain a little nicer for everyone any different than using it to move closer to where it’s bad enough that a mass uprising happens?
People don’t overthrow their rulers when everything’s hunky dory.
So there’s never a time when voting for a third party that isn’t projected to be in the running is acceptable?
Knowing that the institutional acceptance and funding mechanisms for third parties are tied to their turnout and that third party turnout signals to the two main parties where they could shift to get votes?
What’s so funny? The Perot campaign defined messaging on nafta and put us on track to run candidates who would replace it over two decades before it happened.
It’s easy to laugh at and dismiss third parties or accelerationism, and maybe that kind of rhetoric works on twitter or whatever, but refusal to engage with or critique ideas is the mark of a deeply unserious outlook.
To your point about the structure of the system, if you never color outside the lines, you’ll never end up with anything different than what was intended when the page was printed.
Its funny because you’re still trying to package it like Biden and Trump are just a hairs-width apart in policy and track record, and then bake in all these and-thens on top.
The fact is the risk of a Trump presidency is too big of a threat not to snuff out. If you don’t believe that, then your head has been up your ass for the last 8 years.
From where I’m standing, Biden has more border detentions, let Covid rip, is funding a genocide, didn’t protect roe and is currently supporting a crackdown on protesters.
That’s just what popped into my head sitting here on the edge of a mop sink. Biden of course has a terrible record going back fifty years so maybe don’t invoke records if you wanna make a side by side comparison where genocide Joe comes out smelling less shitty.
It’s hard to place the two men on a continuum between best and worst when they both just look like bespoke types of bad.
I’m not the only person who sees them this way. Biden lost the youth and “progressive” (whatever that means) vote. Can he tack far enough right to win without them? I don’t know and I don’t care.
We’re past the line. We should already be pushing for alternatives. That changes nothing about the strategy of working with the actual possibilities that exist in front of us, today.
Because like both-siders, that’s a ridiculous and juvenile political take.
Okay, well you only have one vote. When is it more important to use it for an alternative rather than perpetuate a possibly (I gotta emphasize this) less bad status quo?
And I don’t ascribe to accelerationism but it’s not juvenile by any means. How is your outlook of using the only minuscule political agency you’re allowed within the American electoral system to make the terrain a little nicer for everyone any different than using it to move closer to where it’s bad enough that a mass uprising happens?
People don’t overthrow their rulers when everything’s hunky dory.
When there is a possibility for that candidate to win. Otherwise, vote strategically against the worse candidate of the 2 possible options.
Good for you. Doesn’t change the fact that its tantamount to throwing a tantrum.
So there’s never a time when voting for a third party that isn’t projected to be in the running is acceptable?
Knowing that the institutional acceptance and funding mechanisms for third parties are tied to their turnout and that third party turnout signals to the two main parties where they could shift to get votes?
Not while FPTP is the system
HA!
What’s so funny? The Perot campaign defined messaging on nafta and put us on track to run candidates who would replace it over two decades before it happened.
It’s easy to laugh at and dismiss third parties or accelerationism, and maybe that kind of rhetoric works on twitter or whatever, but refusal to engage with or critique ideas is the mark of a deeply unserious outlook.
To your point about the structure of the system, if you never color outside the lines, you’ll never end up with anything different than what was intended when the page was printed.
Its funny because you’re still trying to package it like Biden and Trump are just a hairs-width apart in policy and track record, and then bake in all these and-thens on top.
The fact is the risk of a Trump presidency is too big of a threat not to snuff out. If you don’t believe that, then your head has been up your ass for the last 8 years.
From where I’m standing, Biden has more border detentions, let Covid rip, is funding a genocide, didn’t protect roe and is currently supporting a crackdown on protesters.
That’s just what popped into my head sitting here on the edge of a mop sink. Biden of course has a terrible record going back fifty years so maybe don’t invoke records if you wanna make a side by side comparison where genocide Joe comes out smelling less shitty.
It’s hard to place the two men on a continuum between best and worst when they both just look like bespoke types of bad.
I’m not the only person who sees them this way. Biden lost the youth and “progressive” (whatever that means) vote. Can he tack far enough right to win without them? I don’t know and I don’t care.
Yes yes, I’m well acquainted with your both-sideserism.