Skip Navigation

User banner
Posts
67
Comments
6,247
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • It's not me you have to convince.

    It's the voters. And they find your reasons wanting.

    You want things to be different than they are, but they aren't.

    You either meet the voters where they are at or you fail the next election cycle.

  • You are just gaslighting at this point.

    The voters aren't different than they are. They didn't want to vote for genocide so they didn't. Harris didn't offer them another choice so they didn't show up.

    That's her fault, and yes, her rightward shift is accelerationism. The defense of that as an approach to electoralism is also accelerationism.

    And it fucking loses elections. Democratic voters aren't having it. They don't want right wing politics. They don't want a right wing Democratic party. They won't vote for it.

    You have to decide between being an apologist for genocide or winning elections.

  • Accelerationsism is saying that the Democrats need to step to the right and be more like Republicans to win elections.

    Accelerationism is not saying that Democrats need to focus on their base and speaking to the issues the base finds important, to win elections.

    Your claim that what I'm describing is accelerationist shows you both don't understand the point I'm making, or what accelerationism is.

    Apologizing and defending the Democrats continued step to the right is accelerationism. You are arguing that voters just need to catch up to this rightward shift.

  • Like.. This defense of Joe Biden/ Kamala Harris approach to the election keeps getting defended. You are arguing that "less bad" should be good enough.

    Listen the fuck up: IT ISN'T

    We have the fucking data. We ran the fucking experiment.

    Less bad LOSES FUCKING ELECTIONS!!

    Democrats need to do better and if you are running static interference for their failed approach to electoralism: you are trying to lose the next election.

    Your phony, insincere approach to electorism ignores the facts on the ground that for the American Electorate, less bad, it DOESN'T WIN ELECTIONS.

    Democrats want to win a certain way where they don't have to be better for voters.

    If you keep apologizing for it or defending it, you are committing to losing future elections.

  • they litterally both campaigned on who could be worse about genocide.

    It's Joe's fault for not giving us a better option

  • the same ol’ disgusting centrist cynicism that continuously loses Democrats elections.

    👆

  • I’d suggest some gaming museum or tech fair.

    I think a trip to an arcade with a wide range of different vintage games.

  • What you say matters more than what you say you say. Your "realism" is just the same ol' disgusting centrist cynicism that continuously loses Democrats elections.

    I get it. Its the big tent party. We're forced to share an umbrella with centrists. But centrists SUCK at winning elections. They're FUCKING bad at it, and they're the ones who share your views. You have to decide between winning elections, or repeating this ideology.

  • Expresses explicitly centrist talking points:

    lol I’m no centrist

  • 2008: Run a progressive platform and focusing on motivating Democrats with policies they want. Win.

    2012: Run a progressive platform and focusing on motivating Democrats with policies they want. Win.

    2016: Run a centrist/ RW platform and focusing on trying to capture Republican voters. Lose.

    2020: Run a progressive platform and focusing on motivating Democrats with policies they want. Win.

    2024: Run a centrist/ RW platform and focusing on trying to capture Republican voters. Lose.

    If you/ yours wins the ideological fight for what Democrats need to do differently to be competitive, they'll never win another election.

    Its toxic, its wrong, its strategically idiotic. It loses elections. You should keep this opinion to yourself or just go be a Republican. Democrats can't win with you in the party.

  • I think its largely psychological/ strategic.

    Show you can strike the bridge, you show the enemy they can be struck, they need to dedicate more resources to defending it.

    Also, actively destroying the bridge would be a huge knock to Putin's ability to maintain appearances.

    Finally, actually disrupting the bridge would be good tactically. But thats proving harder to do. This is the third attempt?

  • Udders

    Jump
  • shush I'm almost there.

  • Udders

    Jump
  • it might seem odd to you.

  • I had that thing fall off my leaf. Just left it off and have had no issues.

  • probably wanted to see the results of it before launching any long range strikes on the bridge

    Maybe get them to show their hand with regards to the repair resources/ facilities.

  • It knows when you've been bad or good, so be good, for goodness sakes!

  • 2 gp per day

    I'm this economy?