I’m just wondering, but do you think that a political party that is literally apparently unable to convince enough people to vote against a literal fascist sounds like they understand politics very well either?
Apathy grows in America every day and it is by far and above a corporate move to make everybody not give a shit about anything so yeah, I blame Corporate America versus the actual Democratic Party. If everybody who didn’t vote voted for Kamala, we wouldn’t be in this mess. I also take issue with everything political being turned into political meme, thereby robbing it of its actual importance
Like do you see how this is kind of like refusing to be angry at a fire department that just stood in front of your house while it burned down because technically they weren’t the ones that started the fire and then getting angry at people who are getting angry at the fire department on your behalf because you’re wondering why they’re not angry at arsonists instead? Have you considered that like you can be angry at a lot of different people all at the same time for a lot of good reasons and that being angry at a corporation though isn’t going to change anything but being angry at the Democrats might change the Democrats, so long people don’t literally resist trying to improve the Democratic Party and make it more effective at convincing people to vote against fascism
If Americans have to be convinced to vote against fascism, then the majority of the fault lies on Americans, not the Democrat party.
The Democrat party absolutely could have run a better campaign, but you’re literally arguing that political parties have to convince Americans to vote against fascism. And you don’t think the majority of the fault lies with American voters?
And you don’t think the majority of the fault lies with American voters?
I don’t know, did I actually say that anywhere or are you just assuming this?
What I think is that it’s extremely emotional and self-centered to be more interested in assigning blame than on figuring out where we can most effectively put pressure to actually make change happen.
I’m not telling you to not do that, and I think you should. It’s important. I just am trying to get you to realize that the person you’ve been responding to is not actually standing in your way at all, and in fact you seem to have at this point acknowledge what they’re saying, which is that the Democrats have constantly failed to successfully play the political game and all this person is saying is maybe we should demand more of them. But for some reason, even just saying that gets everyone to accuse you of a lot of horrible things even though literally all you want is for the people who are supposed to protect you to do a better job.
Yeah, maybe those 3rd party’s first election wins should be in local/state elections instead of a presidential election, which they literally cannot win.
How so? With all non-voters committed to a third party candidate, that would put the the popular vote and effectively all of the delegates in that candidates pocket.
I’m just wondering, but do you think that a political party that is literally apparently unable to convince enough people to vote against a literal fascist sounds like they understand politics very well either?
Apathy grows in America every day and it is by far and above a corporate move to make everybody not give a shit about anything so yeah, I blame Corporate America versus the actual Democratic Party. If everybody who didn’t vote voted for Kamala, we wouldn’t be in this mess. I also take issue with everything political being turned into political meme, thereby robbing it of its actual importance
Like do you see how this is kind of like refusing to be angry at a fire department that just stood in front of your house while it burned down because technically they weren’t the ones that started the fire and then getting angry at people who are getting angry at the fire department on your behalf because you’re wondering why they’re not angry at arsonists instead? Have you considered that like you can be angry at a lot of different people all at the same time for a lot of good reasons and that being angry at a corporation though isn’t going to change anything but being angry at the Democrats might change the Democrats, so long people don’t literally resist trying to improve the Democratic Party and make it more effective at convincing people to vote against fascism
If Americans have to be convinced to vote against fascism, then the majority of the fault lies on Americans, not the Democrat party.
The Democrat party absolutely could have run a better campaign, but you’re literally arguing that political parties have to convince Americans to vote against fascism. And you don’t think the majority of the fault lies with American voters?
I don’t know, did I actually say that anywhere or are you just assuming this?
What I think is that it’s extremely emotional and self-centered to be more interested in assigning blame than on figuring out where we can most effectively put pressure to actually make change happen.
Yeah, but the corporations fund the Democrats so I will start at the top no thank you and rally against them. All I want.
I’m not telling you to not do that, and I think you should. It’s important. I just am trying to get you to realize that the person you’ve been responding to is not actually standing in your way at all, and in fact you seem to have at this point acknowledge what they’re saying, which is that the Democrats have constantly failed to successfully play the political game and all this person is saying is maybe we should demand more of them. But for some reason, even just saying that gets everyone to accuse you of a lot of horrible things even though literally all you want is for the people who are supposed to protect you to do a better job.
You’ve changed my mind, thank you for taking the time, I appreciate you
The same could be said about third-parties with better policy plans winning their first election.
Yeah, maybe those 3rd party’s first election wins should be in local/state elections instead of a presidential election, which they literally cannot win.
How so? With all non-voters committed to a third party candidate, that would put the the popular vote and effectively all of the delegates in that candidates pocket.