@InternetKevin to be honest, if I was a US voter in 2016, I would have voted third party, or just stayed home. I'm not convinced the US would be in any better shape overall with Clinton in power. The US would probably still be in the #TPP, for one thing.
A good example of why Democrats keep losing. When independent journalism doesn't tow their party line, they ignore it. When reality disagrees with their party line, they ignore it. This is why they think #JoeBiden can beat Agent Orange, even though it's self evident to anyone outside the Democrat filter bubble that the very idea is laughable.
Anyone who trusts a Buzzfeed/ Wall St Journal hack like the author of that over the journalists at the #Intercept has their head so far up their own ass they can see their dental work. @InternetKevin
@InternetKevin what gets me is that nobody is denying Kelly lied through his teeth about his campaign being independent of corporate influence. That's a fact and the Intercept was quite correct to report it as one. What the WSJ hack is saying is that by reporting the truth - a journalists' one and only job - they hurt the guy's campaign. So it should! He's at est a liar, and at worst, exactly the kind of corporate shill the Democrats need to get rid of if they expect the left to support them.
@InternetKevin I've said it before on the fedi and I'll say it again. If Biden beats the Orange Menace, I will eat my hat and post a video of it on PeerTube. If you're in the US, and you want a web video of a man eating a hat to go viral, you know what to do. But I'm pretty confident that my hat is safe.
I don't agree with all of that article, but this is bang on:
"The hobbyist is also learning the wrong political skills. Online politics is all about provocation and signaling outrage. But changing people’s minds, turning your vote into many votes, requires empathy and face-to-face engagement. Not only are you not doing this online or when watching cable news, you’re learning exactly the wrong skill set." - #EitanHersh
@InternetKevin yes. For the same reasons #MichaelMoore explored back in 2016. The only people who would vote for Clinton or Biden, outside their own cheerleading squads, are social liberals who are willing to put their real political aspirations aside in favour of the "lesser evil". All these people will vote for whoever the Dems nominate. The rest of the left and the swinging voters, want a non-corporate candidate. Sanders would get their vote, Biden won't any more than Hilary did.
"I also think that deliberate decisions by the political parties and by the federal and state governments have taken power away from local groups, have taken money away from grassroots organizing, and have favored consultant-driven activism that has probably created a scene that favors hobbyism." - #EitanHersh
@InternetKevin right, so you're in the "lesser evil" camp. I saw an interview with #NoamChomsky in 2016 where he advocated for this, so it's probably the principled move. The problem is, as Moore explained, it's not enough. The left only wins when folks like you feel fired up about the candidate, enough to bring 5 or 10 people with you on polling day. As you say, a "lesser evil" candidate cannot inspire that. I wonder how many times the Dems will have to lose before they figure that out.
@InternetKevin again, where reality and the party line are in conflict, reality loses. So the party loses and will keep losing until such time as its partisans learn to test against reality and accept the results.
@InternetKevin also, those people are trolls. Pay no attention to them. Ideally mute or block them. People like that do nothing but piss in the stream of consciousness.
@musicman convince me. What would Clinton have done (or not done) to make things better, to balance out the various things she would probably have done worse (eg TPP).
I would suggest that this does not simply make the country less safe for minorities, but also for people in mixed-race relationships such as myself.
3. She would have a kept a more stable cabinet. Even if you think her cabinet would have been shit, the Trump revolving door isn't good for people understanding the role and all it does is breed yes-men and women.
One could argue this makes Trump less dangerous, and maybe that is true in many cases, but it really shows in a time of crisis.
4. We wouldn't have to listen to his dumb ass all the time. Even if their policies were exactly the same, this would dramatically increase quality of life. I assume this is not as big of a deal for people outside of the US, but you have to remember that our media gives zero fucks about anything going on in the rest of the world. It's all US, all the time. We need less stupid for the sake of sanity.
For 3 and 4, all you need to do is compare Trump to W. A lot of people do not like the rehabilitation of W, and I understand that, but covid-19 deaths in the US are already 2,405. Total fatalities for Katrina were 1,833. It's a bit of apples and oranges sure, but whenever some says "I wish we had W" people counter with "What about Katrina?"
Well, what about it?
Whether the world would be a better place is a different discussion than if the world would be a better place, and I think that's a discussion that plays into the long-term discussion of Clinton vs. Trump.
@musicman @strypey For what it’s worth, I work for the US government and I wasn’t even aware that there ever was a Pandemic Response Team until 3-4 weeks ago, despite $EMPLOYER having a minor role in the response to the 2009 Influenza A H1N1 pandemic response. From what I’ve read, PRT was always too underfunded to be an effective response.
Though I disagree with abolishing them, if they were never going to have the resources to mount an effective response if and when needed, keeping them makes no sense.
they don't need much funding to say "now is the time to do something". Of course, it takes someone willing to listen, which Trump time and again has proven he is incapable.
Turn off #JavaScript / #JabbaShit and their “turn off your adblocker” garbage won’t interfere.
There are still a number of places where I saw “underfunded and ineffective”, but this is someone that worked there (possibly during the time when Trump is said to have shut down PRT).