I can’t speak for the anarcho-primitivists but I can say I’ve been alive long enough to understand that a lot of miracle tech is just a cash grab or a way or distracting from the real solutions. Like carbon capture instead of just investing in renewables and zero emission solutions that exist.

Tech bros are intellectually and morally careless and if what they say seems to good to be true, it’s likely not.

It’s not some coincidence that China releases their own piece of shit tech after Tesla releases their own piece of shit tech. Theft has been the CCP’s biggest source of tech for a while now.

Warren backstabbed Sanders in 2016 and 2020 even after she lost, she fell in line with the establushment instead of fighting for what she claims to believe. She’s arguably worse than out and out conservative dems, she’s there to sabotage the left and siphon away votes.

Millions were swayed by lies spun by corporate media.

It’s possible to defeat a popular progressive like sabders when you have the backing of the party establishment and their corporate media apparatus.

Clinton won her primary through voter suppression by the DNC and corporate, that doesn’t make her a better candidate. The General proved that.

If she “demolished” Sanders, and then lost to Donald Trump, that means Trump is therefore the “best” candidate. That’s your logic here.

Clinton is super pro-corporate, what are you on about? She was unelectable and never should’ve run, she’s directly responsible for Trump.

And I think the thing he doesn’t understand is that, if he ever actually achieves his goal of implementing a fascist totalitarian state, guys like him are the first to get liquidated by the regime. He thinks he’s going to be a duke or something, but he’ll be tossed aside like trash.

Kind of mildly misogynist though.

A politician claiming they support a policy means nothing in modern politics, it only matters what they actually deliver and fight for. Biden is too corporate to do anything but waste everyone’s time. He adopted progressive policy points in 2020 because he was up against Sanders but then more or less abandoned those policies after they either got shot down by his party or were employed as temporary emergency measures (ex. Child tax credit).

Much of Biden’s left appearing policy is just a thin cover for pork barrel spending, and worse he will deliver these little bits here and there that provide nothing to build on and then pat himself on the back and sit back on his laurels like he did more than the barest of minimums.

I’m just not impressed with his actual policy achievments or goals, when you strip away all the big rhetoric there really isn’t that much there. Biden’s not a fighter and he gives the impression he doesn’t believe in any of the stuff he tepidly pushes for, he just figures he can’t only give gandouts to corporations or it becomes to obvious what he’s there to do.

I don’t think so honestly. Biden is deeply unpopular, I think that if he were to step down soon the DNC could pretty much offer up anyone who’s not Hillary Clinton and have just as good a chance of winning if not better (depending on their choice of candidate). The people who “vote blue no matter who” are going to literally vote for any democrat who gets the nomination, so you can only gain potential voters by getting rid of Biden. There’s nothing to lose with him stepping down, the sliver of undecided voters just abandoned him after that debate and him giving the finger to the left and saying “We don’t need you.” has made him, specifically, really toxic this cycle.

People are really underestimating how much contempt there is for Biden is at this moment, he’s polling even with Trump if you’re charitable. The genocide and his hawkish immigration policy has made it impossible for a lot of people to hold their nose this time.

A vote for neoliberals is a vote to not have fascism for four more years.

That’s an extremely hard case to make at this point though when the “not” fascist guy is funding a genocide and refusing to entertain the measures we’d need to take to actually take the fight to the fascists (ex. Championing an effort to pack the supreme court). Neoliberals are not truly acting like democracy is on the line, they say it a lot but it’s not what their actions communicate, which makes it difficult to believe they’d ever stop obstructing progress.

Neoliberals don’t stop or stall fascists by getting into power – they just soft sell it and give the general public time to acclimate to the slipping of the Overton window. They do this in service of corporate interests rather than theocracy the way the far-right does but it ends us up in the same place.

If the plan is to try and encourage the Democrats to have primaries that actually have the power to move the party left, now is not the time to withhold a vote in protest as there’s a good chance that even if it did convince them, there’d never be another election that wasn’t rigged so they’d lose it no matter how popular they were.

Now is the time that the Democratic establishment chooses to try to strong arm the left into voting for them, they do this every election; claim the sky is falling and that we must vote for them or else. So I guess my view is, if they have assessed that they can risk playing a game of chicken, so can voters.

I understand Project 2025 and its seriousness, but that problem is going to be there every election from here until such a time that the GOP dissolves. I’m skeptical that 4 years will allow them to achieve everything they want to without sweeping the house and senate too. The president cannot legally be crowned king, and if they try to do that perhaps that is what it will take to actually radicalize the self-sedated upper middle-class liberals and political fence-sitters.

I’m sick of defensive leadership, and any offensive needs to start with attacking the Democratic structure that’s making the party so ineffectual and complicit. More time is not enough in my opinion, people were talking about GOP plans to capture the supreme court as far back as Bush Jr. and giving Democrats wins achieved nothing. They need to be forced to take it seriously and I just don’t see that happening without some pain (for them and, unfortunately, us).

Yerp, it just reinforces him looking inflexible and old, committed more to some personal fantasy than what’s actually best for the country in reality.

So this happened under Obama. People voted blue no matter who, gave Dems a super majority and they used it to pass a GOP-crafted bill that forced people to pay for useless private insurance.

The party itself needs to change and the types of candidates that the establishment supports needs to change. That doesn’t happen when they can do their pied piper thing and keep winning. And no “just one last hit” won’t let them overcome the addiction to corporate conservativism.

Yes, Hillary and the DNC allowed Trump to win by ignoring their base and chasing imaginary “swing” voters. And now they’re doing it again.

People do understand that concept, but it’s literally what Democrats have been doing for the past 40 years and it has put us right here where we are right now. The “lesser of two evils” thing just has no propellant left, no one is buying that line anymore. Neoliberalism needs to go before Democrats can start winning again.

You need to understand that people have been saying “just put the neolibs in power again and we’ll work to improve things” every election cycle, and now we are closer to fascism than we’ve literally ever been. You at least understand why people see that strategy as a failure, right? Like, you understand why no one believes it anymore?

Heels-dug-in defiance to the idea is not reassuring.

No ones moving goal posts. Give a ballpark of how many immigrants were involved in those 122 attacks.

You’re making the argument that brown immigrants are more dangerous than Europeans and you’re then trying to exclude all types of violent crime except that labeled terror attacks to obfuscate the reality that immigrants are statistically no more dangerous than Europeans themselves. It’s dishonest.

Even in terms of terrorism, the majority has historically been committed by domestic groups (ex. nationalists, political extremists, separatists etc.), not immigrants. Again, this is very similar to my own country where domestic terrorism is actually the greater threat than that from immigrants.

So, even if we assume those 122 attacks were committed by immigrants, how does that compare to violent crimes committed by Europeans themselves? 122 incidents over 9 years is remarkably low for a single demographic. How many bad actors is that per event? How many immigrants are there total and how many committed these crimes?

It’s racist fear mongering.

The rich making money off immigration isn’t an issue with the immigrants, it’s that we don’t force companies to pay all their workers the same wage, regardless of status. That’s a regulatory problem, not an immigration problem.

Because people that tell us low wages (not GDP increase but working class wages for locals), high house prices, and other things people mention like losing culture and crime increasing isn’t an issue. So what would it take for it to be an issue.

None of this is related to immigration. Immigrants aren’t raising housing prices. With crime you have to actually prove that that’s immigrants committing more crimes than Europeans and what kind of crime. They call brown immigrants criminals and rapists here too, and it’s simply not true, they commit crimes at the same rate as citizens.

You have to understand that this is a pattern we see over, and over throughout history; when fascists want to seize control they blame immigrants for all of socieyies woes. And they do so only with rhetoric or twisted facts, not the truth.

This is what happens when you try to substitute undecided voters for your progressive base. It’s always been a dumb, high-risk strategy, but it’s the only way neoliberals can put off being phased out.