ugh. I don’t get where this comes from. You think people should sign up under a stystem and run for office under a system and then not support and try and make that system as best it can be from within the system. You want revolution then revolt but if your in a democracy vote for the best option and that includes the options for the option (primaries) and if you can try and be an option if you will do a better job and making the best of the system. You want to toss our the system and start anew, well then revolt.
That set of political beliefs is what has lead us to where we are though.
We’ve voted for the best worst option for 40+ years. None of them have been willing or able to stop us from getting here where we are right now. So what does that say about that strategy?
not really. reagan over carter. bush over gore, bush over heart, trump over hilary. We went with the worst option plenty. Problem is we are a democracy and not everyone views the best option is the same. Many of those races were extremely close when the worse option won (hanging chads). Sure we would not be perfect but if those races had went the other way because of the best worst option having more support it we would be way better off today and its possible the worst worst option would find it had to be a bit better which might have pushed the best worst to be a bit better to. What has happened is the worst worst finds they can just be worse and worse because that just turns off folks from seeking better and buy into the, they are all the same, fud.
The dems though are the people who vote in the primary and work with their local chapters. Anyone can improve the canidate pool. The dems win some times though while the non dem liberals have never defeated a republican canidate. They just bitch about the innefective job the dems do while not getting the job done themselves.
You can’t work within a party that does everything to suppress progressive candidates. Even when progressives win, dems allow groups like AIPAC to unseat them even if it means putting a republican in their place. Or you have people like Nancy Pelosi who made it her personal quest to fuck over any progressive running in a pary, even if it meant propping up anti-choice shit bags like Henry Cuellar.
No, this is an issue of a culture of suppression within the democratic party, not the fault of progressives. The major, sustainable wins that do occur for dems in purple or red districts often come from progressives when they’re not kneecapped in their primaries and are actually supported by their party.
You can’t on one hand claim you want progress and then talk about how progress doesn’t get people to vote.
Even on the local level, Democrats will attack you and shun you if you don’t share their specific neolib agenda. I tried a couple times to get involved but if they find out you’re too progressive they’ll freak tf out about how they need people “serious about making change” or whatever and start pushing you out.
Like bro I just wanted to help make copies or wtfever you do here but OK I’ll go home lol
Only because the Democrats have contributed to support a failed and broken system because it sometimes kept them in power.
Conservatives have been openly stating their goals for the last hundred years all the Democrats had to do was stop supporting the status quo.
This comment betrays historical ignorance.
How so?
ugh. I don’t get where this comes from. You think people should sign up under a stystem and run for office under a system and then not support and try and make that system as best it can be from within the system. You want revolution then revolt but if your in a democracy vote for the best option and that includes the options for the option (primaries) and if you can try and be an option if you will do a better job and making the best of the system. You want to toss our the system and start anew, well then revolt.
That set of political beliefs is what has lead us to where we are though.
We’ve voted for the best worst option for 40+ years. None of them have been willing or able to stop us from getting here where we are right now. So what does that say about that strategy?
That George Carlin was right.
(3 minutes, NSFW - language)
not really. reagan over carter. bush over gore, bush over heart, trump over hilary. We went with the worst option plenty. Problem is we are a democracy and not everyone views the best option is the same. Many of those races were extremely close when the worse option won (hanging chads). Sure we would not be perfect but if those races had went the other way because of the best worst option having more support it we would be way better off today and its possible the worst worst option would find it had to be a bit better which might have pushed the best worst to be a bit better to. What has happened is the worst worst finds they can just be worse and worse because that just turns off folks from seeking better and buy into the, they are all the same, fud.
Huh…almost like the lesser of two evils is a losing strategy that produces loser candidates that their own base won’t come out and vote for, huh?
Almost like the insistance of dems on fielding these candidates has shown a repeating pattern of failure.
The dems though are the people who vote in the primary and work with their local chapters. Anyone can improve the canidate pool. The dems win some times though while the non dem liberals have never defeated a republican canidate. They just bitch about the innefective job the dems do while not getting the job done themselves.
You can’t work within a party that does everything to suppress progressive candidates. Even when progressives win, dems allow groups like AIPAC to unseat them even if it means putting a republican in their place. Or you have people like Nancy Pelosi who made it her personal quest to fuck over any progressive running in a pary, even if it meant propping up anti-choice shit bags like Henry Cuellar.
No, this is an issue of a culture of suppression within the democratic party, not the fault of progressives. The major, sustainable wins that do occur for dems in purple or red districts often come from progressives when they’re not kneecapped in their primaries and are actually supported by their party.
You can’t on one hand claim you want progress and then talk about how progress doesn’t get people to vote.
Even on the local level, Democrats will attack you and shun you if you don’t share their specific neolib agenda. I tried a couple times to get involved but if they find out you’re too progressive they’ll freak tf out about how they need people “serious about making change” or whatever and start pushing you out.
Like bro I just wanted to help make copies or wtfever you do here but OK I’ll go home lol
Why would they stop when the point of the party is status quo?
That’s my point, and that’s why democracy is at risk.