I thought Uncommitted was a smart use of the primaries.

More generally, obviously much more critical than in the election itself. But getting the right candidates in the primary, and pushing all candidates to be better in all the usual ways. They’re never going to chase us to the left like they chase to the right, so we have to do the work and set the boundaries.

Choosing to treat anyone who thinks otherwise as too stupid to realise this is exactly why Trump might win. Please stop.

The Democrats do not have a realistic chance of winning against Trump because the Democrats are entirely incapable of challenging power. It’s the fundamental contradiction of liberalism. They won’t do anything for the people they need to vote for them because if they do the people who fund them will stop funding them.

Obama and Sanders both excelled at small-dollar donations, of course. Sadly, Obama was a silver-tongued coward and the Clinton Democrats made sure she didn’t repeat the mistakes of 2008 in 2016 by not bothering to sign up voters in case they killed her in the primaries again.

They dig their own grave and they do so willingly because it makes them exceedingly rich.

You know the article has words in it that aren’t in the headline?

And that if you actually care about Biden winning, you need to engage with these arguments or at least have the good sense to STFU for fear of alienating people even further?

Removed by mod

Learn to read, comprehend what you read, think about what you read, and then avoid saying stuff that gets you the exact opposite of what you want. FFS

Demanding that people vote for the least worst option without any content other than sneering at them for apparently not realising that one of the options is worse, is doing exactly that.

It’s straw-manning the arguments of people who want (and desperately need) the Democrats to be better and are putting serious thought, time and energy into how that is possible in a world controlled by billionaires who unleash fascism the moment their power is threatened.

And they’re doing it with a lazy, cynical, Bill Maher-wannabe take because apparently they think this is a good look?

They’ll be the death of us all.

Yeah, if you’re going to comment you would, ideally:

1. read the article

2. comprehend what it is saying

3. respond to it

Knee-jerk hand-waving is not useful. It’s worse than just a waste of your time and ours, you are actively alienating everyone you desperately need to hold their nose and vote for Biden.

What are you trying to achieve here?

Obediently voting for the least worst option means you eventually run out of good options. <- we are here

The conundrum is working out how you force those options to get better without accelerationists getting to test out their theories for real (again).

I would respectifully suggest that “shut the fuck up and vote” does not cut it.

They’ve been working on this for years, an opportunity to schism gracefully was offered in advance. In the UK, they’ve allowed individual congregations to decide what can happen in their church building(s), and individual clergy to opt out of officiating.

I don’t know which jurisdiction you’re in but, while it isn’t illegal in the UK, you’re absolutely right about it being a bad idea and you are correct about the reason. In the event of a crash, it could count against you (in the UK, at least).

I’m all for blaming Dems for being ineffectual cowards but this is one topic they have been very happy to shout about. As the artice points out, the media does not have to report it:

There’s also the fact that we have a very divided media and the media a lot of people get — and, more importantly, trust — does not tell them about things like this.

Yeah, it’s not a comment on your chromosomes. It’s about power: who wields it, on whose behalf.

This is fash logic. Not interested.

Christians are not a homogeneous blob of identity. As you may or may not have guessed, these are not the far-right Christians who believe Trump is the Second Coming of Christ. They are not responsible for what other people who identify as Christians have done or said, and they are entitled to change their minds about things they themselves have done or said.

They are fully entitled to speak out against the weaponisation of their religion and good luck to those who are courageous enough to do so.

I’m going to be a pedant and note that recorded history is only ~6k years old, for those parts of the world that had by then started writing shit down in non-perishable form (at the time, or at least before the spoken memories were lost forever). And much shorter for others, obv.

This question is difficult to frame accurately, but “events from BCE” might work, if you want examples that occurred multiple thousands of years ago.

“Someone else will do evil if I don’t agree to do evil so I might as well do evil myself” is a bullshit argument. And your point is directly addressed in the article:

By resigning publicly, I am saddened by the knowledge that I likely foreclose a future at the State Department. I had not initially planned a public resignation. Because my time at State had been so short — I was hired on a two-year contract — I did not think I mattered enough to announce my resignation publicly. However, when I started to tell colleagues of my decision to resign, the response I heard repeatedly was, “Please speak for us.”

‘We’ didn’t. Hence his being sued for it.

She was born Ronna Romney. Whether or not she chose to marry a McD for the lols, I couldn’t say.

If you are forced to use them:

1. Do not use the app
2. Find what you want on the website
3. Copy the description with a reasonable amount of detail
4. Paste description into your less evil search engine of choice
5. Click through and buy

That way, Amazon has to pay the search engine.