if Gavin Newsome becomes the democratic front runner, Bernie Sanders coming to my house to convince me, in person, to vote for him would fail. sorry but i am one too many neo liberal canidate spent. it will never happen again.

right, the question is why. and if the argument, such as what pug -constantly- expouses, is that the progressives cost the democrats the election by not voting hard enough.

if you are saying that the non voters may not care either way, or are balanced on both sides or across the spectrum, then you essentially are claiming that progressives do not deserve a progressive canidate because they do not have enough people. which would mean arguments like pug’s, condemning progressives for the failure and NOT the DNC, is wrong.

seems we got the suffering the GOP is causing today from following the vote blue no matter who… right now.

also, we have and had progressive canidates, who were crushed by the establishment DNC, and the recent rise of progressives into power recently is showing just how hard the dnc establishment is fighting against them. if we get to the elections and there is no viable candidate, it was not for lack of people willing and capable of doing it, but a systemic power grab. all the more reason for the DNC to fail.

i can’t wait to see how you magicaly convince me and all the others who actully balked at Harris’s defence of genocide and recomitment to the rich buyers of the DNC in spite of their voter base to vote blue no matter who, using tyrany in one hand and unwarented blame in the other

except that argument is at the same time, ‘progressives not having confidence in their chosen candidate cost democrats the election’, so no it’s not a single person choosing not to vote, it’s a critical mass choosing not to vote.

this was not a surprise, this was a calculated move on their part that they could bilk one more peice of shit canidate, under the vote blue no matter who mantra,

also you sacrifice the future for stability now. i see that as the same greed that dammed us to this position by the previous generation. you argue for the continuation of the forever ratchet rightward, and yet we are in a position where the government is talking about selectively honoring people’s rights.

i would also like to point out that you are currently arguing against people conditionally withholding their vote… 2.5 years from a main election, in which the democratic party is preparing Gavin Newsome as their presidential front runner….

if there was ever a time you SHOULD be arguing with me instead of against me it’s right now. unless you want to wait until after the primary? in which i am guessing you would proudly spout “vote blue no matter who”

i don’t know, i feel much better, and those in power now hire more security and canceled plans, which is a good indication they are scared. also talk of assassination is getting normalized. the tone has defenatly changed

he actually didn’t dodge anything, nor did he make a good point.

he stated that morals and right and wrong are immutable/unchanging.

so Charlie is now trapped to make a choice,

A. he’s wrong and morality is dependent on the situation, and so his whole platform regarding how he treats minorities has no justification.

B. he’s wrong and his god purposely demanded atrocities, and was wrong in the past, and is fallible, in which case his whole platform can’t be considered moral based on the teachings of his god.

so his answer is he still didn’t like it, which is him admitting defeat but refusing to decide in which way he believes his god is wrong

no one questioned his RIGHT to say anything.

you can’t question someone’s feelings over what he said. so your quote is less then meaningless here

are the farmers in dire straits, or are independent farmers in dire straights?

i make the distinction because if the purpose is to make the rich, richer, then this is a feature, not a bug for republicans

you want to get progressive action done? your primary goal is changing the democrats. you want to change the democrats away from neo liberalsm? you need leverage. you want leverage? the only leverage anyone has is their vote. but its not leverage if you don’t actually make your vote conditional.

“comon, just one more right wing candidate, just one more republican created bill” forever and forever until the end of time.

that may be a speech you made, but we look behind you and find neoliberals working for the wealthy with absolutely no intention in following any of that up. of course we were not going to stand behind you.

you get to choose one, and only one:

the progressive voting block don’t deserve a candidate because they are too few to matter.

or

the progressive voting block not voting against their interest is why the democrats lost the election.

you can’t have both.

if you actually believe that, you would be demanding the dnc to reach across their own damn aisle tword the progressives, funny that you always demand the opposite.

are the democrats opposed to republicans if they are willing to give away their base to teach the progressives a lesson? “vote blue no matter who, even against your interest.”

if that were true, Harris would have more of the vote.

you mean… there are limits, because your employment is not decided by the government (“directly”).

i honestly don’t care, i am celebrating either way.

did you ask?

i mean, you don’t really remove their infestation, you just manage the damage.

so another thursday then?

unless you use it as a overgeneral brush, and fill it with only minorities, and use it as a short hand for black people like it’s used in this context. are you a native english speaker?

dog whistles specifically use words with a cover meaning and the group agrees to internally change its meaning.