Platner and The Purity Trap
-
@mastodonmigration @badtux 1) Yes, because backing abusers costs us in the long run, we've been swinging back and forth because we keep backing 'winners' rather than backing people who live by our values
2) There are other races with better candidates
3) Dems are the party of ICE and Obama still holds the record for the most deportations. That's just a fact.
4) Elect Dems who will expand the SCOTUS.
Just so we are clear. Yes, above means go ahead and lose the Senate rather than elect Platner. That is your advice.
-
@mastodonmigration @badtux Again, the party has choices it can make. What we don't do to support an abuser like Platner could go to win another seat. Maine is not the only option.
Why not divert to Talarico in Texas? Unlike Platner he won't stain the party, harm women and polls give him a damn good chance.
-
@mastodonmigration @badtux Again, the party has choices it can make. What we don't do to support an abuser like Platner could go to win another seat. Maine is not the only option.
Why not divert to Talarico in Texas? Unlike Platner he won't stain the party, harm women and polls give him a damn good chance.
-
@mastodonmigration @badtux I refuse your framing. I will frame it this way: Do not choose to materially support sex pests and war criminals. Unless of course the democratic party position is that women are not important to us, and war crimes are okay.
We have other opportunities that are not direct attacks on our supposed base.
-
@mastodonmigration @badtux I refuse your framing. I will frame it this way: Do not choose to materially support sex pests and war criminals. Unless of course the democratic party position is that women are not important to us, and war crimes are okay.
We have other opportunities that are not direct attacks on our supposed base.
So, that's a yes then.
The point is you don't get to just refuse framing. Every decision has consequences. You can not just argue one side of a matter. You need to tell people why the sacrifice you are demanding will be worth it. You need own the consequences of whatever position you take, both short term and long term.
-
So, that's a yes then.
The point is you don't get to just refuse framing. Every decision has consequences. You can not just argue one side of a matter. You need to tell people why the sacrifice you are demanding will be worth it. You need own the consequences of whatever position you take, both short term and long term.
@mastodonmigration @badtux Using your logic, if control of the Senate came down to voting for Donald Trump were he running as a Dem, you'd vote for Trump.
That is the question you are asking here. In other words, you are saying you vote for a sports team, not values.
-
@mastodonmigration @badtux Using your logic, if control of the Senate came down to voting for Donald Trump were he running as a Dem, you'd vote for Trump.
That is the question you are asking here. In other words, you are saying you vote for a sports team, not values.
Yes, in the general election you are voting for a team. Like it or not, power in this country is wielded by the teams.
Efforts to improve the team are great, but on game day your team takes the field.
-
@mastodonmigration @badtux Okay, so to be clear, you are voting for Trump if he wears blue in an election you deem critical.
Got it. I understand you now.
-
@mastodonmigration @badtux Okay, so to be clear, you are voting for Trump if he wears blue in an election you deem critical.
Got it. I understand you now.
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.
-
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 @badtux You can go away now, I do not associate with people who dehumanize women.
-
@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.
