Leftists who don’t like Biden don’t want to see him in office again, so they don’t want to vote for him, or they want to withhold their vote until he changes course. Seems simple enough.

But that’s not how politics works.

So announcing that you’ll vote for him no matter what he does will make him change course? Is that how politics works?

Never, in the history of this country, has there been a president who hasn’t engaged in what the left would regard as unforgivable crimes. This is the nature of presidents, and politicians in general. If you, like me, are on the far left, you should never fully trust or have faith in any elected official.

But when I look at the Biden administration, I see a group of people who can be bullied in a leftist direction on some policy priorities.

lenin-laugh

Can anyone today truly argue that the world wasn’t drastically changed by Gore’s loss in 2000? Even if you don’t accept the argument that Nader’s candidacy is what lost Gore the election, how can you argue that the world wouldn’t have been at least a little better if all of those Nader votes had gone to Gore and put the Dems over the top?

Democrats have held the presidency 50% of the time since 2000.

  • Wertheimer [any]@hexbear.netOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    4 months ago

    . . . Biden, who has been tepid (at best) on core left priorities like restraining state violence, defending abortion, enshrining trans rights, and—perhaps most importantly—stopping the carnage in Palestine.

    No, no, you see, he hasn’t been doing the genocide, he’s tepidly not stopping the carnage.

    • TheLepidopterists [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      Doesn’t matter how emotionally charged the language they do use to describe the genocide is, if someone never calls it a genocide I feel like they quietly support it.

      It feels intentional.

      If you’re downplaying it, you’re protecting the perpetrators.