Ignores all the policy announcements Kamala made, complains that there aren’t any policies.
But yes, actually, being not Trump is an excellent reason to vote for Kamala, because there are only two possible outcomes of this election, and one of them is a wannabe dictator, KKK-supporting, idiot putin stooge, racist, hate-filled, selfish, duplicitous, personally disloyal, insurrectionist, unamerican, country betraying, diaper-wearing emotional crybaby thrower of money at the already super-rich, and frankly I’m tired of people pretending that he doesn’t desperately need keeping out of the White House.
there are only two possible outcomes of this election
And there’s the problem with all these responses in a nutshell. Shortsightedness.
Yes, there’s only two possible outcomes to this election, and yes Kamala is the better candidate by miles. But your voting actions don’t only affect this election, they affect all future elections. They’re the background against which all political strategy is determined.
If you just bend over every time you’re threatened with four years of some fuckwit in office, then you’ve committed to a political system where your opinion on policy ceases to be relevant. All that’s required for a complete autocracy is for one party to be a unbearable fascist and then the other party doesn’t even have to consider what the electorate actually think because they’re the not-fascists, and that’s all that’s needed.
And this isn’t even slippery-slope. It’s happening right now. The not-fascists are actually complicit in war crimes and are still getting your vote . How much worse will it be in four year’s time after they’ve had it proven to work? Why would they ever listen to the electorate on anything ever again?
Yes, there are just two outcomes. If Trump wins, the Democrats will again move to the right to occupy what passes for the centre ground in American politics. Kamala is one of the most pro worker candidates they’ve had in my lifetime. If they lose against the most incompetently bad president the country had in my lifetime with the most left candidate they’ve had in decades, they will pivot back to the “centre”.
So if they loose because leftists don’t like their policies enough to vote for them, they’ll pivot right? What would be the logic behind such a decision?
There’s thousands of leftist votes available, all they have to do to access them is produce a more left-wing agenda (like, say, not being complicit in war crimes).
But you’re suggesting in response to this loss (as a result of not denouncing war crimes) they’ll not, you know, denounce war crimes next time, but rather shift even more into the ground that’s in direct competition with their only opponent and try to win die hard Republicans who’d vote a Big Mac into government if it wore a MAGA cap?
Can you explain what you think their rationale would be for such a move?
They’ll lose because some fatally online “leftists” can’t bring themselves to vote democrat no matter how bad the alternative is and they’ll pivot right because they have some hope of winning over centrists, and the right wing politicians are the ones who are winning and the supposedly left wing ones get 1% of the popular vote and zero members into the electoral college. It’s America after all.
they’ll pivot right because they have some hope of winning over centrists
What makes you think that?
I’ve already, in a different thread, posted the latest polls showing the majority of Americans want to stop arms sales to Israel. The data suggests stopping arms sales would win a huge number of votes, but it isn’t Democrat policy.
If the Democrats are likely to shift policy to seek votes, then why haven’t they shifted to banning arms sales to Israel?
Absent of further data, it doesn’t look at all like Democrat policy follows available votes. It looks more like Democrat policy follows the wishes of their wealthy donors, so unless they tack to the right, I can’t see why Democrat policy will.
If you want to make a case that Democrat policy chases votes, you’ll have to explain why they’re not chasing the obvious anti-genocide vote?
Ignores all the policy announcements Kamala made, complains that there aren’t any policies.
But yes, actually, being not Trump is an excellent reason to vote for Kamala, because there are only two possible outcomes of this election, and one of them is a wannabe dictator, KKK-supporting, idiot putin stooge, racist, hate-filled, selfish, duplicitous, personally disloyal, insurrectionist, unamerican, country betraying, diaper-wearing emotional crybaby thrower of money at the already super-rich, and frankly I’m tired of people pretending that he doesn’t desperately need keeping out of the White House.
And there’s the problem with all these responses in a nutshell. Shortsightedness.
Yes, there’s only two possible outcomes to this election, and yes Kamala is the better candidate by miles. But your voting actions don’t only affect this election, they affect all future elections. They’re the background against which all political strategy is determined.
If you just bend over every time you’re threatened with four years of some fuckwit in office, then you’ve committed to a political system where your opinion on policy ceases to be relevant. All that’s required for a complete autocracy is for one party to be a unbearable fascist and then the other party doesn’t even have to consider what the electorate actually think because they’re the not-fascists, and that’s all that’s needed.
And this isn’t even slippery-slope. It’s happening right now. The not-fascists are actually complicit in war crimes and are still getting your vote . How much worse will it be in four year’s time after they’ve had it proven to work? Why would they ever listen to the electorate on anything ever again?
Yes, there are just two outcomes. If Trump wins, the Democrats will again move to the right to occupy what passes for the centre ground in American politics. Kamala is one of the most pro worker candidates they’ve had in my lifetime. If they lose against the most incompetently bad president the country had in my lifetime with the most left candidate they’ve had in decades, they will pivot back to the “centre”.
So if they loose because leftists don’t like their policies enough to vote for them, they’ll pivot right? What would be the logic behind such a decision?
There’s thousands of leftist votes available, all they have to do to access them is produce a more left-wing agenda (like, say, not being complicit in war crimes).
But you’re suggesting in response to this loss (as a result of not denouncing war crimes) they’ll not, you know, denounce war crimes next time, but rather shift even more into the ground that’s in direct competition with their only opponent and try to win die hard Republicans who’d vote a Big Mac into government if it wore a MAGA cap?
Can you explain what you think their rationale would be for such a move?
They’ll lose because some fatally online “leftists” can’t bring themselves to vote democrat no matter how bad the alternative is and they’ll pivot right because they have some hope of winning over centrists, and the right wing politicians are the ones who are winning and the supposedly left wing ones get 1% of the popular vote and zero members into the electoral college. It’s America after all.
Oh and this…
… is a disgrace.
They work for us. They chase our vote. That’s how democracy works. We don’t owe them a vote.
I suggest maybe you stop blaming your fellow man, and defending those in power, and start blaming those in power and defending your fellow man.
What makes you think that?
I’ve already, in a different thread, posted the latest polls showing the majority of Americans want to stop arms sales to Israel. The data suggests stopping arms sales would win a huge number of votes, but it isn’t Democrat policy.
If the Democrats are likely to shift policy to seek votes, then why haven’t they shifted to banning arms sales to Israel?
Absent of further data, it doesn’t look at all like Democrat policy follows available votes. It looks more like Democrat policy follows the wishes of their wealthy donors, so unless they tack to the right, I can’t see why Democrat policy will.
If you want to make a case that Democrat policy chases votes, you’ll have to explain why they’re not chasing the obvious anti-genocide vote?