I disagree, a vote for Biden is a vote for his whole apparatus - appointments, advisors, the people at EPA trying to regulate PFAS and carbon, etc. I’m happy to support the majority of this coalition because they are doing some good stuff. I don’t understand the need to try and paint Biden voters exclusively as anti-Trumpers, it just serves to gloss over the good that is going on.
You seem to supporting the concept though. More people didn’t keep voting left, they voted center/left which sounds like has been moving right, so things stayed the same/went right. Who you vote for matters too - we have multiple opportunities to vote between “dems”. To me OPs comment is a simple truism - we can’t move left by not electing leftist individuals (and parties by extension). Any other strategy is some pie in the sky game theory.
What does a Roth vs 401k have to do with any of this? I buy index funds in both accounts, nothing to do with company stock programs whatsoever.
I’m not trying to convince you, I’m offering a counterpoint to the other 3 people that might read this and otherwise think your strategy goes without question. I just don’t understand how you can support a bunch of progressives that largely, if not exclusively, vote for Biden/Hillary as needed, seemingly agreeing with them in everything except this critical point where they make obviously correct choices to vote for least harm. Why wouldn’t you just listen to their reasoning? What makes you think you’re right on this?
The reason things get shittier is because shitty people like Bush and Trump get elected. The way to defeat them is to actually defeat them, not let them win and hope for a progressive uprising. I don’t see how moving backwards helps you move forwards, that’s all.
Being a Bernie voter isn’t an insult and that was certainly not my intent, I voted for him too in the primaries. But being a Bernie voter/progressive and then completely ignoring his advice to vote for the actual Dem candidate (Hillary/Biden) becuase you have a super secret strategy that involves effectively not voting, is what I would describe as a gibberish strategy. Pretty sure he understands the stakes and strategies much better than you. The game I’m referring to is our highly imperfect first past the post system, and you’re not playing it.
The part I don’t understand is why you some folks feel their vote is so sacred that they can’t compromise for someone like Biden given the stakes. It’s just a vote, I give them out like candy to whoever is better. It’s super simple, it’s not a marriage vow and it doesn’t define you as a human. Real, actual harm will come to our allies with Trump and your thinking implies they’re an acceptable sacrifice. Women are literally dying because Trump appointed 3 dog shit SCOTUS justices. Bernie doesn’t agree with your strategy, AOC doesn’t, but you seem to think you know something special that progressive leadership doesn’t.
I’m guessing you would have/did vote for him though. Good luck with your strategy of not even playing the same game
Who did Bernie Sanders endorse and vote for since 2016? Did he follow your strategy, or something smarter?
Why don’t you tell us who Bernie supported and voted for for president the last few cycles, and then tell us why you think you’re smarter than him.
Why is the price you put on a full water glass dependent on whether you got an expensive steak vs a cheaper pasta dish though? This is why percentages are so dumb.
This feels like semantics. There is “bad”, and there is an option that is “better”. I don’t know why folks feel like they need to use “bad” and “worse”, other than to build pessimism. The things people are upset about can’t easily fixed by presidents anyway - we need a large base of like minded representatives to do things like housing policy and universal healthcare and education reform and climate change. It’s a lot easier to break things than to improve peoples lives, which is why it’s critical not to elect people intent on breaking things.
It’s in the job description for president, so yeah in theory. We just all know, based on years of actions and rhetoric, that Trump has no intention of representing anyone other than himself. He doesn’t even care about his own supporters. Don’t let that cloud what the job is supposed to entail though.
The real issue is one of attribution. “Traced to” isn’t the same as “responsible for”. I have a hard time blaming Saudi Aramco for massive volume of oil consumption in the US. Yes the oil companies are eco terrorists too but the binary take is absurd.
That’s just the reality of allowing presidents to serve two terms though. There’s an incumbent advantage, so to forgo that for the sake of choice every 4 years for both parties vs 4-8 years for both parties is a tradeoff. It’s just part of the reality of the framework.