What’s the line where you say “actually it’s better to push for an alternative than to try and pick 99.99% Hitler over the genuine article”?
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?
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?
I think he’ll be at least as bad if not worse on those, and worse on countless other things.
I think its all about mitigating fallout from the only 2 available outcomes for who becomes president.
How bad would Biden have to be, how close to trump in word and deed before you would recognize that he’s not worth voting for?
Im asking because he was tailing and in some cases flanking trump from the right before the genocide started.
Where’s the line? When do you stand up and fight?
You’re conflating things.
The fight should be happening regardless. The strategy should be to have that fight under the lesser evil of the 2 possible administrations.
What’s the line where you say “actually it’s better to push for an alternative than to try and pick 99.99% Hitler over the genuine article”?
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?
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!