If you were actually a leftist like you say, you would understand the material conditions that gave rise to Trump and the fact that the democratic party is never going to address those conditions (at least without significant, genuine pressure).
Uh, yeah. Obviously. Never said that wasn’t the case.
It’s just guarantees fascism at a slightly slower pace.
Yeah. Exactly. I said this back at the beginning. A vote for Democrats is a vote for more time to prepare a functional progressive movement. The sole reason to vote for them is to keep fascism developing at the slower of the two inevitable rates, while building the material capability to apply significant political pressure.
The only ones advocating a strategy that has any possibility of averting fascism are us “tankies.”
According to you. It’s a baseless claim unsupported by history or theory.
rather than taking an approach that could potentially save them.
Did you take that approach? Did it save them? Did you get close? That “potentially” is straining the limits of logic. It could have “potentially” saved them the same way I could “potentially” win the lottery tomorrow, and I didn’t buy a ticket. It was a bad plan, it was never going to work, and now the bodies are stacking even faster.
As a “leftist,” you ought to understand how fucked we are regardless of who’s in charge at the moment, and that the capitalists aren’t going to come down from on high to save us.
Yup. And as a materialist, I know that ignoring the mechanics of elections doesn’t get you closer to a solution.
Not getting a dollar you could’ve gotten is no different from losing a dollar you could’ve avoided losing
Categorically false. Arithmetically, psychologically, just plain incorrect. Maybe if you’re a gambling addict, but in the general population we generally find losses are felt much more strongly than equivalent gains. You’re just making up poorly constructed psychological experiments, claiming what those hypothetical results would be, and extrapolating that to national politics.
You haven’t supported any of your divisive nonsense with anything more than your say-so.
A vote for Democrats is a vote for more time to prepare a functional progressive movement.
Right, “buying time.” While sacrificing the opportunity to push for progressivism in the present. That’s just called procrastination, and we don’t have time for it. Actually, procrastination generally involves actually doing the task later on, whereas you’ve admitted (even if you baselessly contest the specific phrasing) that you’ll continue supporting the democratic party unconditionally and indefinitely - until this progressive alternative magically materializes out of thin air, without anybody doing anything to actually bring it about! Absolutely ridiculous, absurd on it’s face.
The only way to effectively build such a movement is to publicly challenge the democratic party and lay out demands and to be genuinely willing to break from it if it refuses those demands. And if any demand is reasonable to make, “don’t do genocide” indisputably is.
while building the material capability to apply significant political pressure.
Uh huh. Sure. And you got a timetable on that? Can we start applying political pressure in 4 years? 8 years? 20 years? Or is it “whenever it’s ready,” which will of course be never, since previous election results inform our readiness and refusing to deviate from the democratic party means they will never reach the point of being ready? You don’t have to answer that, I already know. There will never be a “more convenient time.”
Categorically false. Arithmetically, psychologically, just plain incorrect. Maybe if you’re a gambling addict, but in the general population we generally find losses are felt much more strongly than equivalent gains.You’re just making up poorly constructed psychological experiments, claiming what those hypothetical results would be, and extrapolating that to national politics.
You haven’t supported any of your divisive nonsense with anything more than your say-so.
You’re trying as hard as you possibly can to not understand the effect that the experiment demonstrates. I don’t need to “prove” any of this because it’s extremely obvious and self-evident. If you demonstrate that you are potentially willing to walk away from a mutually beneficial agreement, you are in a better negotiating position. If you lay out from the start that you’ll agree to anything as long as it’s better than nothing, you are putting yourself in a weak negotiating position.
The reason I laid out the experiment is not to prove that approach is to correct, but to demonstrate and explain a very simple and basic concept that you either don’t grasp or are pretending not to grasp. You can invent some hypothetical and pretend negotiating principles wouldn’t apply there, but that’s entirely your say-so.
Again, either you are an absolutely terrible negotiator, or you just don’t really care about negotiating because you’re content with what the party offers.
Uh, yeah. Obviously. Never said that wasn’t the case.
Yeah. Exactly. I said this back at the beginning. A vote for Democrats is a vote for more time to prepare a functional progressive movement. The sole reason to vote for them is to keep fascism developing at the slower of the two inevitable rates, while building the material capability to apply significant political pressure.
According to you. It’s a baseless claim unsupported by history or theory.
Did you take that approach? Did it save them? Did you get close? That “potentially” is straining the limits of logic. It could have “potentially” saved them the same way I could “potentially” win the lottery tomorrow, and I didn’t buy a ticket. It was a bad plan, it was never going to work, and now the bodies are stacking even faster.
Yup. And as a materialist, I know that ignoring the mechanics of elections doesn’t get you closer to a solution.
Categorically false. Arithmetically, psychologically, just plain incorrect. Maybe if you’re a gambling addict, but in the general population we generally find losses are felt much more strongly than equivalent gains. You’re just making up poorly constructed psychological experiments, claiming what those hypothetical results would be, and extrapolating that to national politics.
You haven’t supported any of your divisive nonsense with anything more than your say-so.
Right, “buying time.” While sacrificing the opportunity to push for progressivism in the present. That’s just called procrastination, and we don’t have time for it. Actually, procrastination generally involves actually doing the task later on, whereas you’ve admitted (even if you baselessly contest the specific phrasing) that you’ll continue supporting the democratic party unconditionally and indefinitely - until this progressive alternative magically materializes out of thin air, without anybody doing anything to actually bring it about! Absolutely ridiculous, absurd on it’s face.
The only way to effectively build such a movement is to publicly challenge the democratic party and lay out demands and to be genuinely willing to break from it if it refuses those demands. And if any demand is reasonable to make, “don’t do genocide” indisputably is.
Uh huh. Sure. And you got a timetable on that? Can we start applying political pressure in 4 years? 8 years? 20 years? Or is it “whenever it’s ready,” which will of course be never, since previous election results inform our readiness and refusing to deviate from the democratic party means they will never reach the point of being ready? You don’t have to answer that, I already know. There will never be a “more convenient time.”
You’re trying as hard as you possibly can to not understand the effect that the experiment demonstrates. I don’t need to “prove” any of this because it’s extremely obvious and self-evident. If you demonstrate that you are potentially willing to walk away from a mutually beneficial agreement, you are in a better negotiating position. If you lay out from the start that you’ll agree to anything as long as it’s better than nothing, you are putting yourself in a weak negotiating position.
The reason I laid out the experiment is not to prove that approach is to correct, but to demonstrate and explain a very simple and basic concept that you either don’t grasp or are pretending not to grasp. You can invent some hypothetical and pretend negotiating principles wouldn’t apply there, but that’s entirely your say-so.
Again, either you are an absolutely terrible negotiator, or you just don’t really care about negotiating because you’re content with what the party offers.