Absolutely nothing… hence the It needs to change bit.
Realistically it’s the same question I could pose you saying just play the game… What exactly does picking the “lesser of two evils” net us? A race to the bottom. It’s not ideal nor does it work. The most recent election is a perfect example of this.
MAGA played the game better than liberals. They got Trump. He’s effectively a third party candidate. Republicans hated him. But liberals whine about “lesser of two evils” while maga voted.
Republicans hated Trump during (and only during) his initial run for the presidency. He was a grifter saying whatever he could to get a vote and his platform seemed threatening to them initially. Once they realized how easy he was to control they had no issue with him. He’s a useful idiot who thinks he’s winning a game of checkers when everyone else is playing chess.
Speaking of games - as far as I can tell MAGA isn’t playing any game at all: they are simply a hate group with a figurehead.
…but I’ll bite - what game do you think they are playing?
I’m keenly aware. But, as you are likely aware, your utilization of said figure of speech implied a stratagem being was being employed and/or that it was a functional one. It did of course have the possibility of meaning “continue down the broken path” amongst others. My initial comment clearly implies this was my interpretation of it. Based on your reply - I had little reason to assume that your figure of speech, which carries a broad variety of meaning in this context, differed from said interpretation. In fact: you supported my interpretation with your follow-up comment which is exactly what led to my response.
Yes, that is my point.
Forgive me, I’m confused as to what your point was then. Your figures of speech seem to have muddled the water enough to make this conversation cyclical… so perhaps some clarification would help. Care to provide some insight on the two times you used it?
The only pathways are direct voter ballot initiativesmin the states that have them (only 26 states do) and progressive candidates and voters flooding the Democratic primaries to take over the party.
A two party system that uses first past the post?
Needs to change.
Yes. But until it does you play the game as it currently works.
You vote for the best candidate?
There is no such thing as a “best candidate”.
The best candidate on the ballot, genius.
I wouldn’t exactly define this current situation as working, would you?
What does “pretending we have a different system” get you?
Absolutely nothing… hence the It needs to change bit.
Realistically it’s the same question I could pose you saying just play the game… What exactly does picking the “lesser of two evils” net us? A race to the bottom. It’s not ideal nor does it work. The most recent election is a perfect example of this.
MAGA played the game better than liberals. They got Trump. He’s effectively a third party candidate. Republicans hated him. But liberals whine about “lesser of two evils” while maga voted.
Republicans hated Trump during (and only during) his initial run for the presidency. He was a grifter saying whatever he could to get a vote and his platform seemed threatening to them initially. Once they realized how easy he was to control they had no issue with him. He’s a useful idiot who thinks he’s winning a game of checkers when everyone else is playing chess.
Speaking of games - as far as I can tell MAGA isn’t playing any game at all: they are simply a hate group with a figurehead.
…but I’ll bite - what game do you think they are playing?
Yes, that is my point.
“Playing the game” is a figure of speech.
I’m keenly aware. But, as you are likely aware, your utilization of said figure of speech implied a stratagem being was being employed and/or that it was a functional one. It did of course have the possibility of meaning “continue down the broken path” amongst others. My initial comment clearly implies this was my interpretation of it. Based on your reply - I had little reason to assume that your figure of speech, which carries a broad variety of meaning in this context, differed from said interpretation. In fact: you supported my interpretation with your follow-up comment which is exactly what led to my response.
Forgive me, I’m confused as to what your point was then. Your figures of speech seem to have muddled the water enough to make this conversation cyclical… so perhaps some clarification would help. Care to provide some insight on the two times you used it?
The only pathways are direct voter ballot initiativesmin the states that have them (only 26 states do) and progressive candidates and voters flooding the Democratic primaries to take over the party.
And this is how you have to do it in a two-party FPtP system.
That’s exactly how the Tea Party turned the GOP into the mess it is now.