Members of the Democratic Socialists of America are thinking seriously about a national presidential campaign for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in 2028 that would reach millions of working people and have the potential to transform American politics.
Do you make the same claim when the DNC runs center right candidates year after year despite a large portion of Democrats constantly begging for more progressive candidates?
i make the same claim any time there is an existential threat to civilization and someone runs for office and appeals to many people who’d otherwise vote for the existing candidate who is against the existential threat.
Yeah… Might not the onus of responsibility be upon those who continue to vote for people advocating for the existential threat over the person who is wanting to solve it?
Especially since the demand of the people willing to vote for the existential threat is to pick a candidate from the ilk of politicians who have been ignoring or collaborating with the existential threat support group this whole time?
Sure, theoretically, but when you have a population where 35-40% want to watch the world burn or are too stupid to know the difference between that and “freedom”, versus 60% of the population who want to see things improve, Are you really okay with that 60% splitting 30/30, leaving the other 35 to 40% winning the day?
let’s be real. we aren’t going to magically convince that 30 to 35 percent the error of their ways.
Thus, if we take what it looks like you’re saying is the moral high ground, we by default let mendacity, racism, and cruelty win.
Do you make the same claim when the DNC runs center right candidates year after year despite a large portion of Democrats constantly begging for more progressive candidates?
i make the same claim any time there is an existential threat to civilization and someone runs for office and appeals to many people who’d otherwise vote for the existing candidate who is against the existential threat.
divide and conquer is a thing you know.
Yeah… Might not the onus of responsibility be upon those who continue to vote for people advocating for the existential threat over the person who is wanting to solve it?
Especially since the demand of the people willing to vote for the existential threat is to pick a candidate from the ilk of politicians who have been ignoring or collaborating with the existential threat support group this whole time?
Sure, theoretically, but when you have a population where 35-40% want to watch the world burn or are too stupid to know the difference between that and “freedom”, versus 60% of the population who want to see things improve, Are you really okay with that 60% splitting 30/30, leaving the other 35 to 40% winning the day?
let’s be real. we aren’t going to magically convince that 30 to 35 percent the error of their ways.
Thus, if we take what it looks like you’re saying is the moral high ground, we by default let mendacity, racism, and cruelty win.