Platner and The Purity Trap
-
@mastodonmigration I think that women are fully human and their humanity is a baseline value that any party I support must uphold. This is especially true in an era where women's rights and autonomy are massively eroding.
You are complaining about the tactic and looking past the information because it is inconvenient to your political goals, and you are willing to sacrifice women to win elections.
@reflex @mastodonmigration
️ Woman here. Based on your statements, I encourage you not to vote for male candidates ever. The reality for women (see: would you rather meet a man or a bear in the woods scenario) is that men have misogeny and white supremacy engrained in them (in the US) from the moment they are born. Unfortunately also, in the US, the majority of candidates in either party with the ability to get the financial backing to run for office are ...men. So either women will perpetually be fucked by purity voting getting "us" the worst possible electeds or we work with what we have and start shaping that shit (literally 
) once theyre in office until we can get more candidates of any gender/sexual orientation (yes! Women also have ingrained misogeny & white supremacy in the US) who have worked thru their upbringing and will work towards the common goals I think everyone in this thread is interesred in.
We absolutely need better candidates but why would a decent human even want to run for office here? -
@TagYourToe @mastodonmigration Nope, fuck you, you fucking plant. How many of these accounts are you running and how much are they paying you?
-
@mastodonmigration That's an assertion without evidence. Joe had no intention of slowing down. We don't' know about Kamala. Regardless, voting for genocide is wrong. Voting for sexual abusers is wrong. Being unclear about who we are and what we represent destroys our movement. This can be seen in elections ever since Clinton in the 90s.
@reflex @mastodonmigration Purity is what destroys electoral chances. When you demand purity of your own candidate but not of the opposition you essentially cede the election to the opposition. I have seen the purity ponies destroy many Democrats while never pointing their ire at Republicans. Makes me wonder if the purity ponies are actually Republicans in disguise, except I know a few and they aren't Republicans in disguise, they are just tunnel visioned zealots.
-
@badtux @mastodonmigration If we vote in people who are a bit racist, sexist, transphobic, etc all we have accomplished is making our government more racist, sexist, transphobic, etc. To win elections.
In other words, we aren't actually the better alternative. We are conceding that sexism, racism, transphobia, etc are valid tactics to gain power. Just like the fascists.
@reflex @mastodonmigration Demanding purity of our candidates but not of opposition candidates merely cedes the election to the opposition which typically has even worse consequences as the destruction of abortion rights, violations of civil rights by ICE goons, and continuing genocide in Gaza amply illustrate. Demanding purity is not an effective birth control method nor an effective electoral method.
-
@mastodonmigration @badtux Do you understand how utterly offensive it is to keep labeling refusing to support abusers a 'purity trap'?
This shit is why we lose elections we should win. Nobody believes our rhetoric because we claim moral superiority and then abandon it the moment it *may* cost us an election.
If you don't live in Maine he isn't on your ticket. You have hundreds of important races across the country. You could focus on the ones not running abusers.
@reflex @mastodonmigration So you would literally vote for a pedophile mentioned hundreds of times in the Epstein files than vote for an impure candidate. That... is shortsighted.
-
@mastodonmigration @badtux Again, it is my position that taking short term hits builds a long term movement. And we need a long term movement, not one senate seat this one time.
Most of the time these men turn out to be pretenders anyway. Do you *really* think a privileged white boy who talked online about joining the military rather than going to college to kill people, has an active kik account and is a sex pest is going to be better than Fetterman? He won't.
@reflex @mastodonmigration Long term movements? In American politics? BWAHAHAHA! You sound like some 60s radical ranting about how things will be different once the revolution happens.
There are no long term movements in American politics. Never has been, never will be. Because. Americans.
There is only the short term in American politics. Until you stack enough of the system to destroy democracy, anyway. Which the GOP is doing.
-
@badtux @mastodonmigration If we vote in people who are a bit racist, sexist, transphobic, etc all we have accomplished is making our government more racist, sexist, transphobic, etc. To win elections.
In other words, we aren't actually the better alternative. We are conceding that sexism, racism, transphobia, etc are valid tactics to gain power. Just like the fascists.
@reflex @mastodonmigration So you deny the existence of LBJ who was notoriously racist etc. yet did more for civil rights than every purity pony ever. You would not have voted for LBJ.
-
Understood. You think that the tactic is justified given the nature of the vulnerability.
it's the maine *primary* election.
you can simply choose to not rank the nazi guy.you can even have your cake and eat it too by voting for the blue person who is not a nazi abuser guy.
@reflex -
Sure, because the absurd gotcha hypothetical you posed was gaining the majority in the Senate vs. putting a truly awful person in one seat. It is a horrible choice, but if it means saving democracy and getting ICE out of our streets it is the least bad option.
The point is you don't just get to argue one side of your position. You have to accept the consequences. All of them.
@mastodonmigration @reflex @badtux quick question, does the senate majority matter if Platner votes with republicans every time?
-
@mastodonmigration @reflex @badtux quick question, does the senate majority matter if Platner votes with republicans every time?
Yes, very much so long as he caucuses with the Democrats. The critical number is 51 to qain the majority. That yields the ability to set the adenda, decide which bills to put forward and critically gain subpoena power. Taking the Senate is crucial.
But, seriously there is no reason to think that Platner is not going to vote with the Dems. He is a rabid liberal working class populist on the stump. The 'he's just like Fetterman' is nonsense. They hate each other.
-
@mastodonmigration @reflex @badtux quick question, does the senate majority matter if Platner votes with republicans every time?
@cobweb @mastodonmigration @reflex Yes the majority matters because the majority gets to appoint committee heads and determines what laws are brought up for votes and which remain bottled up in committee. Keep him away from committees and he at least can do no more harm than Susan Collins. Plus we don't know how he will vote. We do know how Susan Collins votes.
-
@cobweb @mastodonmigration @reflex Yes the majority matters because the majority gets to appoint committee heads and determines what laws are brought up for votes and which remain bottled up in committee. Keep him away from committees and he at least can do no more harm than Susan Collins. Plus we don't know how he will vote. We do know how Susan Collins votes.
What is interesting is that he is being painted as both a Fetterman turncoat and a rabid working class socialist. Feel like the later is more likely on point, and that is why the long knives in both parties are out for him.
-
@mastodonmigration I've known plenty of working class socialist sex pests, but not any that have gotten Nazi tattoos and employment with Blackwater. But anyway, I'm not in Maine and honestly don't care. I'm just curious how the game will play out.
-
@mastodonmigration I've known plenty of working class socialist sex pests, but not any that have gotten Nazi tattoos and employment with Blackwater. But anyway, I'm not in Maine and honestly don't care. I'm just curious how the game will play out.
It is certainly not a good situation. The point of the purity trap thread is not that he is a good choice. It is that there are two bad choices, as there often are in politics, and it is necessary to consider the consequences of both alternatives.
In this case the choice comes down someone with this baggage or giving control of the Senate, and all that that includes, to the GOP. That's the real stakes.
-
@reflex @mastodonmigration Demanding purity of our candidates but not of opposition candidates merely cedes the election to the opposition which typically has even worse consequences as the destruction of abortion rights, violations of civil rights by ICE goons, and continuing genocide in Gaza amply illustrate. Demanding purity is not an effective birth control method nor an effective electoral method.
@badtux @mastodonmigration@mastodon.online Democrat electeds worked with the GWB administration to create Homeland Security and ICE. Since it's creation they have not done a single thing to limit or undo it, they have only ever increased it's funding, size and scope. Obama holds the record for the most deportations of any US president.
Every single thing ICE is doing right now the Dems are complicit in. And none are running on abolishing ICE and Homeland Security.
Everything you see today was always happening
-
@reflex @mastodonmigration So you deny the existence of LBJ who was notoriously racist etc. yet did more for civil rights than every purity pony ever. You would not have voted for LBJ.
@badtux @mastodonmigration@mastodon.online Did I put LBJ forward as a candidate? Unclear how I'm complicit with someone who I wasn't even alive for. Weird take bro.
-
@badtux @mastodonmigration@mastodon.online Did I put LBJ forward as a candidate? Unclear how I'm complicit with someone who I wasn't even alive for. Weird take bro.
@reflex You would never have voted for LBJ because he was a racist.
Yet he did more for civil rights than any President since U.S. Grant.
Purity is not an electoral strategy, it is a self indulgence strategy. Only privileged white people have the ability to be so self indulgent as to demand purity. People not so privileged realize that politics is the art of the possible, not of the puritanical ideal, and votes for the person most likely to have positive results.
-
@reflex You would never have voted for LBJ because he was a racist.
Yet he did more for civil rights than any President since U.S. Grant.
Purity is not an electoral strategy, it is a self indulgence strategy. Only privileged white people have the ability to be so self indulgent as to demand purity. People not so privileged realize that politics is the art of the possible, not of the puritanical ideal, and votes for the person most likely to have positive results.
@badtux I am not going to engage on a hypothetical you pulled out of your ass.
Right now we have a candidate who has actively harmed women and was a war criminal. I am not going to support a candidate like this. If the Democrats want my financial support, campaign assistance or vote, they will have to not nominate sexists, racists, bigots, homophobes, war criminals, etc.
It's a pretty low f'ing bar.
And again, I did the actual work, including candidate recruitment for years.
-
@badtux I am not going to engage on a hypothetical you pulled out of your ass.
Right now we have a candidate who has actively harmed women and was a war criminal. I am not going to support a candidate like this. If the Democrats want my financial support, campaign assistance or vote, they will have to not nominate sexists, racists, bigots, homophobes, war criminals, etc.
It's a pretty low f'ing bar.
And again, I did the actual work, including candidate recruitment for years.
@reflex LBJ is not a hypothetical. He was a pretty nasty guy. He was a liar and racist and blackailer. Yet the choice was between LBJ and Barry Goldwater and... you're seriously suggesting we should have elected Goldwater instead because LBJ would have never passed your purity filters?
Politics is the art of the possible. All that demanding purity accomplishes is failure. LBJ despite not passing your purity test did more for civil rights than any modern President.
-
@reflex LBJ is not a hypothetical. He was a pretty nasty guy. He was a liar and racist and blackailer. Yet the choice was between LBJ and Barry Goldwater and... you're seriously suggesting we should have elected Goldwater instead because LBJ would have never passed your purity filters?
Politics is the art of the possible. All that demanding purity accomplishes is failure. LBJ despite not passing your purity test did more for civil rights than any modern President.
@badtux As I pointed out, vetting candidates and running ones who treated people well actually was successful in WA state where I was a chair for years. It led to the greatest expansion of Dem control in the united states between 2017 and 2021.
So no, doing the right thing is not unrealistic and it leads to great success.
