I agree with this post, but think it’s important to point out that Trump also promised to destroy the establishment status quo (drain the swamp, etc.), and while this did wind up being window dressing that most of us saw right though), it’s crucial in understanding what people want and are looking for in terms of electability and why nominating another moderate isn’t going to cut it when it comes to beating Trump imo
2 Likes
You have this exactly backwards
Even Joe is putting a 100 day moratorium on deportations. Joe!
Why are the student loans of an engineer making six figures more worthy of forgiveness than someone mowing moaning lawns with a mortgage debt or credit card debt? Both individuals “owe” money - why is the individual with much better future prospects more deserving of charity?
I can understand making college free going forward (with price controls on tuition costs) as it is an investment in society, encourages poor people to go to school, etc but already existing debts have nothing to do with any of that.
Why not just give money to poor people instead of picking random (predominantly white) subsets to help instead?
There is no chance Bernie would campaign for Bloomberg.
1 Like
If he sucked it up for Chilldog I think he’d suck it up for Bloomberg too. It’s all academic anyway, the piggies will fall in line.
As I stated a couple days ago (and btw thanks to everyone who showed concern and offered advice), I’m fighting off an overwhelming sense despair of despair since Trump got elected and am very conflicted
I absolutely think Trump is the single greatest threat to humanity by far. What I can’t decide is, if it’s morally right to vote for the lesser of two evils. I know someone who voted for Trump because he thought HRC was a lying war hawk. The day after the election he was in the streets protesting Trump. I’m like, what sense does that make?! Just stay home dude or choose a write in.
Is big2k4 right that I should vote for Bloomberg, a man who’s character I abhor and who’s core ideologies are in stark conflict with my own because the alternative is Trump? I honestly don’t know. Maybe our species is overall better off if the world gets set on fire and the morally correct thing to do is for us all to remain consistent with our values and vote our conscience
1 Like
Because it sounds good, it’s easy to understand and it will win votes.You don’t have to do the most efficient micro targeted means tested wonkery all the time you can just say here’s free money if you vote for me. It works pretty well imo.
Tulsi is surging HARD in VP market on PI…
1 Like
Plz no
1 Like
Tammy Baldwin up to 14c
Pierce is as eDem as they come so this was good to see
https://twitter.com/charlesppierce/status/1231404386850656256?s=21
10 Likes
If they do ratfuck Bernie and give it to Warren I’d definitely be disappointed but still happily vote for Warren.
My main issue is I think she has the worst chance of defeating Trump.
I don’t think anyone but Bernie can win, but I think I’m in the minority on that point… Warren is a fair 2nd choice and If its not Bernie then the best bet is Warren, alough I still think she loses.
I mean she legit polls worse than any other democrat against Trump and every poll I’ve seen has her losing in all the states that matter.
I don’t think American is ready for a woman as president… Unfortunately 
1 Like
I’m going to borrow a bit here from Catholic ethical theories.
Formal vs. material cooperation with evil is the idea that our intent matters. Formal cooperation with evil means that we are acting with the intent to support an evil act. Material cooperation with evil means that we are acting in a way that may support an evil act, but that is not our intent.
For example, let’s say that we think animal cruelty in agriculture is evil. Going to the grocery store to buy meats produced through cruel methods would be formal cooperation of evil. Going to the same store to buy non-cruel products would be material cooperation with evil, where we contribute to the bottom line of a store that sells products we oppose, enabling them to do so, but we don’t intend to support such things.
Where we draw the line is a matter of conscience and I am tolerant of people drawing the line differently than I would. I wouldn’t ask you to vote against your conscience, but I would ask you to vote with an informed conscience.
One could say that it is wrong to vote for Bloomberg with the intention of wanting Bloomberg to be president, while at the same time saying that it is right to vote against Trump by casting a vote for Bloomberg, so long as you are doing it to deny the White House to Trump. This may seem like sophistry to some, but I would argue that it is a valid way of thinking.
If we had compulsory voting and we only had Trump and Bloomberg as the only two choices, would you break the law by not voting? If we had ranked choice voting, would you leave them off your ballot entirely and forfeit having a voice if it is down to those two?
1 Like
Not voting is on the table if Bernie makes Tulsi his VP.
1 Like