our best bet was in the primaries in 2020. from there it’s all been about our best opportunities to keep trump away from power regardless. i know america sucks. i live here, too. but to act like voting for the lesser of two evils in a binary choice election was worse than letting trump have power is to dissengage from the fact that this is america. this is how the system is stacked against us. you don’t get to just magically not be part of it because you don’t like it. there was nothing stopping you from organizing resistance under kamala. but there’s plenty of violence under trump that’s making it hard to organize.

And the award for most stupid take goes to…

Anyone who didn’t vote (or didn’t vote for the only candidate likely to defeat Trump) is responsible for his win.

Two things can be true at once. Voters not voting is bad, and it’s their fault. The DNC being incapable of finding pundits people want to vote for is also bad, and is also their fault. Pointing one out, has nothing to do with the other and both of these factors led to the election of Donald Trump not once, but TWICE.

Pointing out the DNC’s responsibility to find electable candidates doesn’t elevate the voters responsibility. But if the DNC were capable of finding pundits voters wanted to vote for no issue would exist. You wouldn’t have people refusing to vote, or voting for Trump out of some fucked up sense of “haha, I’m gonna stick it to you!”

Pretending like this issue is solely at the fault of the voters is so fucking disingenuous, disgusting and partyist its insane.

I hope you look forward to voting for Ted Cruz, the Democratic candidate for president in 2028. After all, he’ll in theory be a little better than Trump running for his third term, so logically it’s our duty to support Mr. Cruz for president. The only criteria any Democrat is allowed to use is whether the Democratic candidate is a tiny bit better than the Republican.

If you refuse to vote for President Cruz, you will be fully morally responsible for any of Trump’s actions in his third term. After all, there’s no magical third candidate with a prospect of winning.

This is the moral hazard of the “vote blue no matter who” crowd. If the Democratic base is already locked in no matter what, then there’s no need for the party to work to actually reflect Democratic values. The people running the party only care about winning for the sake of winning. They don’t actually believe in anything; they’re just shameless power chasers. And if the Dem base will vote for literally anyone the Dems nominate, then Dems might as well just nominate Ted Cruz, Liz Cheney, or some other Republican. What better way to appeal to suburban Republican voters than by nominating an actual Republican?

The truth is that in order for the Democratic Party to actually mean anything, there have to be some people on the left side of the spectrum willing to walk away if the party moves too far to the right. If there’s no consequence to drifting to the right, the party will just become a duplicate of the Republican Party. Eventually we’ll just end up with an election between the KKK candidate and the skinhead candidate. That would literally be the outcome if every Democratic voter blindly “voted blue no matter who.”

Obviously, there’s the argument of voting to defend democracy. But the sad truth is that centrist dems have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are actually incapable of defending democracy. You can’t run on something that you’ve proven yourself utterly incapable of doing. The party that appointed Merrick Garland could not credibly argue that they were going to vigorously defend democracy. Even now, their pathetic response to Trump’s lawlessness shows that they are incapable of fighting for democracy.

Thank you! I wish more people did such things!