Comments by "wvu05" (@wvu05) on "Republican Extremism." video.

@Ozan edwards *since 1962
11
@miscaccount9438 One is a fascist. The other has a wing that is fine with the status quo and a wing that wants to make things better. Give me the latter any day of the week.
7
@miscaccount9438 And meanwhile, things get worse and worse and worse while you wait for the revolution. Wishing greater evil in order to get your way is the behavior of a psychopath.
4
@lisamurphy7102 In all honesty, I think that Bernie has found the role where he can do the most good. There are just some people in this world whose role it is to show the way, even if they aren't the ones to get us there. The question is who is the Joshua to Bernie's Moses.
3
@lisamurphy7102 True about that. I guess I'm just remembering how New Labour completely sabotaged Jeremy Corbyn and he got replaced by Kier Starmer. I think that the real reason why Bernie ran was to get the ideas out there. (Some of the postmortems of 2016 said that he basically campaigned part time until he thought he had a chance in November 2015, because he was focused on his day job.) He has been consistent that it would take a political revolution to get most of his agenda passed. In other words, the squad needs to become the company or the battalion (it's getting close to a platoon). Debs and Bryan led the way to Wilson and FDR, so maybe someday Bernie will beget the movement of AOC.
2
@miscaccount9438 I must say that I find it highly amusing that you consider simply asking what you are doing to organize "a personal attack." I guess maybe "I try to get people to think differently" is your admission that you think commenting online is the same as organizing. So, let's think of the consequences of "refusing to be a part of evil," as though that's not a personal attack on anyone who votes for the major-party nominee, especially when those people live in swing states. In 2000 and 2016, we got Presidents who were put there despite pluralities supporting other candidates in no small part because of third party candidates. It was very obvious in 2000, because Nader got over 150 times the margin of "victory" in Florida. In 2016, the exit polling shows that third party voters preferences would have definitely made the difference to swing Wisconsin and Michigan to Trump, and possibly Pennsylvania as well. That got us the Iraq War and over a million dead because of a pandemic. But, wait! There's more. Between the two of them, they put five Justices on the Supreme Court, who provided the deciding margin in the Citizens United case (gutting campaign finance laws), Shelby (gutting the Voting Rights Act), and Dobbs (overturning Roe). So, you can pretend that you're above it all, but I will look at the real-world consequences and remember every time my adenoids are so swollen that I can barely breathe or I get really bad headaches.
2
@jazznjive Indeed. Bernie wouldn't have gotten a fraction of what Biden did through with this Congress. Not because Bernie is a bad negotiator, but the centrists would have sabotaged him from day one.
1
@miscaccount9438 Actually, when refusing to vote for the lesser evil when there is literally a non-zero chance of anyone but the two major parties winning means that you allow the greater evil in order to pat yourself on the back.
1
@miscaccount9438 If you think that the Democratic Party meets the test for actual fascism, you are either lying to yourself or you are lying to us in order to play the useful idiot.
1
@miscaccount9438 "this is why you organize" And organizing takes years, even decades. What have you actually done to organize?
1
@miscaccount9438 What have you actually done? Give some examples. Commenting on videos online doesn't count.
1
@miscaccount9438 You're trying to change the argument because you know that if you point out the big, fat nothing you've done, you'll be embarrassed. If organizing is the end goal, you should be able to give examples of what you've done. I can.
1
@miscaccount9438 Not supporting a fool's errand of supporting a third party isn't "advocating against organizing."
1
@jessestreet2549 Bernie lost the nomination because he got fewer votes. The drop in performance between 2016 and 2020 shows two things: 1) a lot of 2016 votes were cast people opposing Hillary rather than supporting Bernie; 2) when there is a fascist in office, people are afraid to dream and just want the bad man to go away. No matter what the DNC thinks, the final decision rests with voters. If you keep sounding like another group of rear guard people who shall remain nameless and not actually learn how to improve, you'll never get better. Conspiracy theories are a security blanket.
1
@jessestreet2549 "HRC won the popular election but lost the ec because of Repubs grabbing important state government seats" For someone who talks about "the civics lesson" at the end of this post, it's amazing how basic understanding of how things work eludes you. The Electoral College is decided in 48 states and DC by the result of the popular vote within the state, and in the other two states, the statewide winner gets two electoral votes and each Congressional district gets one vote. State lines are not gerrymandered. Hillary Clinton lost the deciding three states because she took them for granted and focused on running up the margin in places like Chicago and New Orleans instead of making more of an effort in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and State College in Pennsylvania; in Madison and Milwaukee in Wisconsin; and in Detroit, Lansing, and Ann Arbor in Michigan. If you have every state go statewide with their vote, it affects things by one electoral vote in 2016, and they cancel each other out in 2020. It is not gerrymandering, but the concentration of Democratic voters in urban areas, that makes it possible for Republicans to win the Electoral College despite even trying to win over a majority of voters.
1
@jessestreet2549 Yes, conspiracies sometimes are true, but here's a good rule of thumb: if a conspiracy theory is a way to avoid doing better or feeling better about losing, it's probably not.
1