SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

[Knife]

If you want me to listen to what you have to say, this isn't a great note to start on.

Nobody, of course. Just because I deny loomer's authority to label me does not mean I am claiming that authority for myself.

But this is a non-answer. Its effectively "I know you are but what am I" level argument. Of course, because you already poisoned the well by predicting that I would respond negatively to anything you said, you can now use this as "proof" that you were right, and that I'm just "blowing off" anything you say, rather than rejecting a shitty argument.

It was actually a disclaimer because you and I don't really get along but I did not want you going off like I'm attacking you and prattle on with buzz words. Oh well.

However, you actually did say something interesting further down, which I would like to address:

LOL, you mean the majority of my post?

Actually, based on his comments above, I'm pretty sure loomer would regard Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren (certainly the latter) as Not Real Leftists too.

Indeed, and he would be right to do so. That, as American's, we are so hyperfocused on a narrow band of left to right centrist does not make someone just left or right of that band extremists. Loomer is an extremist, and not in a bad way (that I'm aware of) just as a definition. If your entire scale is left/center/right, then someone like Loomer is an order of magnitude off the end of that scale and he is extremely off your scale. Social Democrats or Democratic Socialists like Sanders and even Warren are just left of center left. This is not an attack of you, them, or anything else. It's zeroing the scale.

Perhaps an analogy. If center is 0, and Biden is 5, you're a 10, Sanders is 100 and Loomer is 10,000. Since you're a 10, everyone left of you looks the same but to be fair, the difference of Sander's 100 and Loomer's 10k is huge and to equate them in asinine.

But that aside, the question here is, do we define who is a "true leftist" by beliefs and goals, or by tactics? My beliefs haven't changed much since February. My goals haven't changed much since February. I simply recognized that I will get more of the left-wing policies I believe in from Biden than from Trump, and that we are at a point where those are the only viable options. Refusing to vote for Biden, and increasing the likelihood of a Trump win (and yes, that is the practical result, whatever academic argument you want to make about the responsibility of non-voters) won't actually accomplish any of the left-wing goals I support- in fact it will render just about every one of them impossible to accomplish.

A couple things here. It hasn't even dawned on you that neither candidate will put forth, support, let alone enact policy goals Loomer wants, has it? As far as wanting policies and picking a candidate who will champion and enact, neither candidate will do that, so it's a wash for him. You assume you're vague policies and Loomer's policies have similar foundations. They may not. The thought hasn't even occurred to you. You've just assumed that the things Biden will do will be more palatable to Loomer than what Trump would do. I don't know, I'm not Loomer, but the idea has not occurred to you, and you keep going on as if they are.

Second, yes, an absolute categorization of personal beliefs is hard, since no two people will have the exact opinion on each and everyone of thousands of intricate positions. When putting people on a chart of political positions, a lot of gray area is involved. That said, gross characterizations and generalities are made to categorize. A person might be in the hazy gray between two definitions and that's fine. Are you a centrist or a left centrist. Cool. Though, and I think the problem is, it's really hard to act/vote/propose policy that is... say centrist and then demand to be known as a progressive or Democratic Socialist, let alone a hard leftist or Socialist or Communist, etc... Just because you're a 10 doesn't mean you get to claim to be a thousand, but if you stretch to a 15, cool.

Third, yes I agree with you. Long acting politicians change, in multiple ways. Politics is the art of compromise, after all. That being said, as above, if you change from a 100 to a 4, you don't get to call yourself a 100 anymore. If you change, you change. Also, times change, issues that used to be X may or may not be Y anymore. If the problem is solved due to your progressiveness on it 30 years ago, you're not necessarily a progressive on it anymore because it's a non issue anymore. For example, being for Woman's rights, voting or even their bodies, isn't progressive anymore, it's baseline. It's outside the norm and way radical right to go against it. But it sure the hell was radical 100 years ago.

And lastly, no... staying home and not voting is not automatically a vote for Trump. Again, it doesn't even occur to you otherwise. A Republican and/or anyone center right and more to the right, staying home is actually a vote against Trump.

So, who is the true believer: the person who wilfully sabotages left-wing policy goals because they didn't get enough of what they wanted? Or the person who accepts some progress as a preferable outcome to none? Because having consistent principles is good, but refusing to ever work with anyone who isn't just right, even if it means losing everything, is another matter. And

Who gets to draw the line in the sand of where one starts and the other ends?

Look, as I said previously, I'm of the sort that will hold my nose and vote Biden because he's better than Trump. By a lot. He is, though, no where close to what I want. So to flip your script, how much am I supposed to sacrifice, how many of my policy wants and needs get flushed down the toilet for Biden? So far I'm willing to make that choice, but don't expect me to like it.

Then you have the people with whom you simple assume have common policies with but don't. You want them to vote Biden when they get, in their view, nothing. Obama Care is not Medicare for All and Medicare for All is not a system like the UK NHS. Lambasting the group who want NHS because with candidate X they get a slight increase in Obama Care and his candidacy is more likely is asinine. Especially to prop yourself up on a soap box as you're the more practical guy about it.

Perhaps another analogy. The right wants to give us Steak, the Center Left wants to give us chicken, and I'm a vegetarian (I'm not, just making an analogy). Telling me I should and need to vote Center Left to get chicken since voting that way will give us all what we want, is not really a viable solution to what we want. Unless you assume chicken is closer to vegan than beef.

From where I'm standing, this constant infighting on the Left, turning on each other for being too far Left or not far Left enough, is how we keep losing. And I know that I'm a part of that as well, but its hard to disengage from the fight when others around you are determined to continue it, and to make you a target of it. We need to be able to work with people who's beliefs aren't exactly your own. Even if we said "Fuck Democracy, let's have a civil war", we'd need to be able to do that, because there aren't enough True Leftists in America or most countries to win such a conflict.

You're assuming one large political group with all shared goals. They are not. It's the idiocy of America two party system that does this, I get it, but it's just not true.

It is also, of course, looking like Biden will be a significantly more Left-leaning President than many of us expected. Not a full-blown socialist, sadly, but circumstances are forcing him well left of what he originally ran on. Which brings me to your second point:

I think that you are somewhat confusing two different things here: people who say one thing while meaning something else, and people who have genuinely changed their positions over time.

There is a difference between a politician who routinely contradicts themselves based on what's convenient at the moment, and one who has honestly had a change of heart, or been forced to change their position because the world has changed and what worked once no longer does. And yet we have a culture which treats a refusal to change as a virtue, and attacks anyone who does change as dishonest, as though narrow-minded inflexibility is a virtue in a leader. Of course, that's not how it ultimately played out. What happened instead was that it became the conventional "wisdom" that all politicians were dishonest and corrupt, so why not vote for the most dishonest of them all? Because Trump may be a liar, but they're all liars, and at least he's OPEN about being a liar. And he may be an asshole, but he's an unapologetic asshole. So now we live in this twisted world where learning from your mistakes and having a sincere change of heart is a sign of dishonesty and lack of character, but being an unapologetic narcissist and liar is a twisted form of credibility, 'cause at least you're being honest about being dishonest.

Sticking with a position when it no longer makes sense is NOT a virtue. Its George W Bush saying we need to "stay the course" in Iraq.

I was, of course talking about political alignment and positions, not necessarily corruption of either. Yeah, sure. Corruption will bend people into shitty positions, either for their own good or to make things align with their positions. Also, character growth is a thing too. But again, not really part of political alignment and categorization... to an extent. I already discussed above about 'how times change' and how what was once radical may not be anymore and becomes baseline as to the point that to be against it must be radical again. So I feel like I covered this already.

I'm not sure sure does see herself as Leftist, and her reputation seems to generally be as a Centrist figure within the party.

Actually I said progressive. Mostly because I've seen her in interviews describe herself that way and go on to list the things she did 20-30 years ago to demonstrate her assertion she is today a progressive.

That aside, though, its certainly true that someone could start their career as a Leftist but be left behind by the course of events. This kind of echoes what I said above- that refusing to adapt and change your position isn't always a virtue. Even Bernie Sanders fell prey to this to some extent- while his views were radically Left-wing a few years ago, he lagged behind some other candidates on certain issues relating to race, gender, and social justice, and his silence on UBI until very recently was notable.

I don't necessarily disagree with you on this. I think everything I spelled out actually says and supports this. Again, it's not an evil thing, a wrong thing, a hit on a persons character to traverse up and down the political scale.

Biden is a really interesting example here, actually. Biden started out as someone who was probably fairly Centrist for his day, but who's early views on race, for example, are now frighteningly regressive. He has generally shifted over the course of his career to stay near the center of the party, but even a year ago was running on, essentially, restoring the Obama-ear status quo, at a time when the party as a whole had moved significantly left of that. However, he has in the last couple months made a marked and fairly consistent shift left on a number of issues. Some of that can be put down to political pragmatism, ie needing to win over Sanders supporters, but some of it is also clearly due to the coronavirus crisis and resulting recession, and the realization it has forced that a) the status quo isn't good enough, and b) things are possible now politically that weren't when Obama was President.

Need to shore up various groups in the left and the Democrats aside, Biden was always center right. He talks about his mentors and associates when he first entered Congress/Senate and they were old Blue Dog Southern Democrats. The ones who either turned GOPers over the Civil Rights Act or the ones who stayed Democrat but didn't necessarily like the Civil Rights Act. He is responsible for things that were right wing back then, and would be considered right wing today.

So, should we condemn Biden for being late to the party, instead of being a True Believer from the beginning? Or should we welcome the fact that more people are now starting to see things our way, and welcome whatever support we can get (presuming, of course, that Biden's shift lasts, and he doesn't pivot back to the Center shortly)?

That's a meaningless question. Giving bread crumbs to a starving person is technically feeding them but hardly worthy of celebration or an award. I'm glad, that after 40 years of being able to affect policy, that he's in a position where he needs people and groups to the left of him and is willing to entertain the idea of those policies for his own needs. Whoopie.

[Knife]

Yeah, I'm going to vote for Biden. And in doing so, I will be doing far more to get actual left-wing policy goals turned into actual law than all the pretentious, self-righteous accelerationists who are decrying me as the enemy while they proudly pat themselves on the back for helping a fascist arch-capitalist mob boss win a second term.

Or as they call it, "being a real Leftist".

Ugh.

Yeah, I'm going to vote for Biden. And, in doing so, I will be doing more to stop the actual right wing from implementing policy goals into law that will harm American's and America, let alone people around the world with America's Imperialistic ideals. Doing this will not enact the things I actually want to be done and will still give me the scorn of all the pretentious, self-righteous, mushy middle, people who compromise all their principles for crumbs, who are decrying me as the enemy while they proudly pat themselves on the back for being reasonable and helping the greedy capitalist oligarchs to remain in charge of the country like they have been for 40 years.

[loomer]

Indeed, and he would be right to do so. That, as American's, we are so hyperfocused on a narrow band of left to right centrist does not make someone just left or right of that band extremists. Loomer is an extremist, and not in a bad way (that I'm aware of) just as a definition. If your entire scale is left/center/right, then someone like Loomer is an order of magnitude off the end of that scale and he is extremely off your scale. Social Democrats or Democratic Socialists like Sanders and even Warren are just left of center left. This is not an attack of you, them, or anything else. It's zeroing the scale.

Perhaps an analogy. If center is 0, and Biden is 5, you're a 10, Sanders is 100 and Loomer is 10,000. Since you're a 10, everyone left of you looks the same but to be fair, the difference of Sander's 100 and Loomer's 10k is huge and to equate them in asinine.

As a small note, I wouldn't consider myself an extremist, though yes - if the metric being used posits Sanders as a 'radical leftist' rather than a reformist then I suppose all anarchists and communists are extremists. I'm a relatively moderate anarchist (in the 'within anarchism' context, since there's very nearly as many forms of anarchism as there are anarchists) in many respects, though, and the label of extremist has some baggage in connection with anarchism that can make it very politically loaded.

A couple things here. It hasn't even dawned on you that neither candidate will put forth, support, let alone enact policy goals Loomer wants, has it? As far as wanting policies and picking a candidate who will champion and enact, neither candidate will do that, so it's a wash for him. You assume you're vague policies and Loomer's policies have similar foundations. They may not. The thought hasn't even occurred to you. You've just assumed that the things Biden will do will be more palatable to Loomer than what Trump would do. I don't know, I'm not Loomer, but the idea has not occurred to you, and you keep going on as if they are.

He's right that Biden is more palatable to me than Trump, but mistaken in thinking that this means Biden can be described in any meaningful sense as being in, of, or acceptable to the left (and by this I mean, of course, actual leftists and not centre-leftists - socialists, communists, communalists, and anarchists) rather than, at best - as you note yourself - a liberal centrist in the truest sense. He's preferable largely because of just how abhorrent the Trump administration is. You're right though that Biden is unlikely to implement any policy goals that are actually what I'd like to see (neither would Sanders) as an ideal.

Part of what distinguishes 'moderate' Anarchists (again, in the context of moderate/extreme within the movement. Pragmatic anarchist might be a better label.) from full revolutionary/radical Anarchists is the extent of involvement and willingness to accept imperfect or even deeply flawed solutions to minimize the suffering of the people, even if it delays full change. The moderate wing of anarchist thinking is all for voting, exercising democratic rights, and trying to minimize the harm of the state while it exists - we're not, as TRR has declared in his usual braindead manner, accelerationists cheering for a second Trump victory. We still vote and participate in the system, but we just don't delude ourselves that voting for Biden or preferencing Labor as our last resort is an act of radical leftist praxis rather than a forced concession to a political reality (and a reality that, as far as I can see, is one more excellent piece of evidence against the idea that we can trust political parties to regulate the state.)

I wonder what he'd do if he had to face down actual radical anarchists.

[loomer]

Source

[Ace Pace]

Republicans can proven they will cave for Trump at every turn. Why do we expect anything different?

[FireNexus]

Source

I think he’s less concerned about increased turnout than he is about a paper trail for recounts, tbh.

[Ralin]

Vacations don't cure Dementia

Until a competent medical professional who has had the opportunity to evaluate him says otherwise I am going to be very skeptical of anyone saying that Trump is suffering from anything more debilitating than a year of the stress that comes with being (an incompetent and ineffectual) president.

and again once he's out of power he loses the ability to obstruct so things like his taxes and his financial dealings come instantly to light. Neither of which your going to get a nice restful time on a tropical private island.

Well yes, maybe the system will work and the new administration won't decide to let it drop and for once in his life Trump will face actual personal consequences like prison time. But I'm not holding my breath on that either.

[The Romulan Republic]

Vacations don't cure Dementia

Until a competent medical professional who has had the opportunity to evaluate him says otherwise I am going to be very skeptical of anyone saying that Trump is suffering from anything more debilitating than a year of the stress that comes with being (an incompetent and ineffectual) president.

and again once he's out of power he loses the ability to obstruct so things like his taxes and his financial dealings come instantly to light. Neither of which your going to get a nice restful time on a tropical private island.

Well yes, maybe the system will work and the new administration won't decide to let it drop and for once in his life Trump will face actual personal consequences like prison time. But I'm not holding my breath on that either.

For whatever its worth, Biden has publicly pledged not to pardon Trump, or interfere in any DOJ investigation into him. And I'm inclined to mostly believe him, if only because he knows what pardoning Nixon likely cost Ford.

But Biden doesn't have to go after Trump. Neither does the DOJ. The State of New York (and probably other state governments) can take care of that, and Biden couldn't pardon Trump for a state-level conviction even if he wanted to.

Heh, the thought of Trump having to go crawling to Andrew Cuomo to beg for a pardon is pretty fucking funny.

[Ralin]

But Biden doesn't have to go after Trump. Neither does the DOJ. The State of New York (and probably other state governments) can take care of that, and Biden couldn't pardon Trump for a state-level conviction even if he wanted to.

Heh, the thought of Trump having to go crawling to Andrew Cuomo to beg for a pardon is pretty fucking funny.

Trump's wealthy and any jury that has one of his supporters on it is a guaranteed hung jury. You know that joke about juries being made up of people too stupid to avoid jury duty? That's his base.

Plus he's an ex-president and anyone who tries to put him on trial after office is inviting a circus into their professional life.

Basically until I see him in an orange jumpsuit I'm assuming any attempts to prosecute him will fail.

[The Romulan Republic]

I suspect that the remainder of his life if he's removed from office will be a series of court battles that probably won't be resolved before he croaks, but I doubt he'll just get off free. More likely, he'll drag out the process long enough that the Grim Reaper gets him first.

At which point the piece of shit is, as a former President, entitled to a state funeral at tax payer expense, so unless a law is passed to revoke that privilege (sadly unlikely, especially if he's not convicted of anything), he'll get to embarass America and self-aggrandize at the tax payers' expense one last time on his way out.

I hope at least most of the big names will boycott the service and that it will be obstructed by massive protests.

In other news, a Q Anon conspiracy theorist is now the Republican Senate nominee for Oregon:

https://thedailybeast.com/two-weeks-ago ... -candidate

A QAnon conspiracy theorist won the GOP Senate primary in Oregon on Tuesday, giving a massive electoral stage to the bizarre pro-Trump movement that the FBI considers a potential domestic terror threat.

Jo Rae Perkins, an insurance agent and avowed QAnon believer, handily won the contest to take on Sen. Jeff Merkley (D) in the general election. Perkins, who has launched unsuccessful Senate and House bids in the past, beat her nearest Republican primary opponent by nearly 20 percentage points on Tuesday.

To celebrate, Perkins tweeted a video acknowledging the support she had received from QAnon believers. The victory speech included references to QAnon slogan “Where we go one, we go all,” QAnon followers who call themselves “Anons,” and “Q,” the anonymous person or group whose “clues” make up the basis of QAnon.

“I stand with President Trump, I stand with Q and the team,” Perkins said, holding up a sign with a QAnon slogan on it. “Thank you Anons, thank you patriots.”

Perkins deleted the video on Wednesday afternoon, amid press coverage of her primary win. She didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The Oregon Republican Party didn’t respond to a request for comment about the state party’s stance on Perkins or QAnon. But Perkins’ victory is the latest in the remarkable evolution of a state GOP apparatus that was not always so dominated by the far-right fringe. Indeed, Republicans held a Senate seat in Oregon as recently as 2009. And Merkley only narrowly won his first general election for the seat then held by Sen. Gordon Smith (R) in 2008, winning by only three percentage points. He’ll likely fare much better against Perkins.

Beyond the boundaries of Oregon, Perkins’ primary win also represents how far conspiracy theorists have ascended in national politics. QAnon supporters believe in an elaborate conspiracy theory that posits that Donald Trump is engaged in a secret war against a “cabal” made up pedophile-cannibals in the global elite and Democratic Party. They are also convinced that Trump will soon imprison or execute top Democrats, including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Despite its bizarre claims, QAnon has won prominent converts, including comedian Roseanne Barr, former baseball player Curt Schilling, and several Instagram influencers. Donald Trump has invited QAnon promoters to the White House, and frequently retweets them. His nominee for director of national intelligence, Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX), followed a number of QAnon accounts onTwitter.

QAnon believers have been charged with a host of violent crimes that appear to have been connected to their beliefs, including two murders, a terrorist incident involving an armored truck and guns near the Hoover Dam, and two child-abduction plots. In April, a QAnon believer allegedly claiming that she planned to kill former Vice President Joe Biden was arrested with illegal knives.

Perkins seemed at least self-aware that the views she held put her on the far fringe of the politically acceptable. She told Right Wing Watch in January that she was taking a risk running as an open QAnon believer.

“It’s either pure genius or pure insanity,” Perkins said. “It’s one of the two. The voters are going to have to be the ones that make that decision.”

But Perkins isn’t just a casual QAnon believer. She appears to be well-versed in the conspiracy theory, even appearing on a YouTube show to decode QAnon “clues.”

In a May 5 video with QAnon promoters “ShadyGrooove” and “InTheMatrixxx”—two prominent QAnon figures who have teamed up with an alleged cult leader to push their theories—Perkins said she was initially convinced that the coronavirus lockdown was actually cover for Trump to arrest top Democrats.

“President Trump was going to flip the switch and say ‘go and do those arrests that we’ve all been waiting for,’” Perkins said.

Perkins added that the coronavirus is a “fake virus” and described herself as “red-pilled”—QAnon code meaning she’s been “awakened” by the conspiracy theory.

When Obama failed to be arrested and tried at the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, however, Perkins didn’t take it as a sign that QAnon is fake. Instead, she claimed on the YouTube show that the arrests had failed to happen because of some unspecified failing of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), adding that “the judges aren’t in place.”

Perkins also used the YouTube appearance for a chance to raise some campaign funds. She badly needs them—Perkins has raised roughly $24,000 as of April 29, compared to Merkley’s $4.3 million.

Still, QAnon believers have tried to shell out for her campaign. On the podcast, the host “InTheMatrixxx” urged his fans to back Perkins.

“She doesn’t have the deep-state pockets, folks,” he said.

[Knife]

The smaller rural counties are pretty libertarian here in Oregon. But a majority of the votes are the 'central valley' with the cities that are blue as hell. I'm not that worried about her and a Senate seat. She could probably win one of the smaller Congress Critter districts but not a State wide ballot.

[Knife]

As a small note, I wouldn't consider myself an extremist, though yes -

Sorry, my point was never to divine your positions. It was just obvious to me he was not even on the same page and talking past you. I figured I'd try to zero his scale in hopes he would understand.

Anyway, and correct me if I'm wrong, just assuming you're more a leftist/libertarian. An anarchists does have baggage in the term. But maybe your are, I don't know.

[loomer]

The propaganda machine of the right is still making hay of Biden's 'you ain't black' line. Unfortunately, I don't think they're wrong to describe at as Biden's 'deplorables' moment - African-American voters are overrepresented in non-voting stats in no small part because there's a reluctance to be captured by a shitty system that makes them choose between two awful options, and in an election that at best looks like it'll be a close contest (at worst, a doomed attempt), alienating those voters by reminding them that yeah, you're a racist, isn't a great idea.

The defence is shaping up primarily as 'yes he said it, no it wasn't okay, Trump is worse', which, while accurate, isn't a terribly compelling line. It's more or less the same as with the Reade stuff and everything else. 'Yes, our guy sucks, but the other guy sucks more' is a terrible basis for winning votes when people have the option to just no-say.

As a small note, I wouldn't consider myself an extremist, though yes -

Sorry, my point was never to divine your positions. It was just obvious to me he was not even on the same page and talking past you. I figured I'd try to zero his scale in hopes he would understand.

Anyway, and correct me if I'm wrong, just assuming you're more a leftist/libertarian. An anarchists does have baggage in the term. But maybe your are, I don't know.

Oh, don't worry, I get you. It's just a minor clarification since 'extremist' when discussing an anarchist has the connotation of the bomb-throwing black-clad extremist plotting to assassinate the president. Anarchist as a term is fine (and an accurate description of most of my positions), but the extremist label tends to get bandied about to de-legitimize anarchist positions by both other leftists (especially communists) and by non-leftists. I know you weren't using it in this pejorative sense but it's a piece of language that can be really tricky, since even when it is accurate, it can be misleading - most of the genuinely extremist anarchists I know are also rabid pacifists and non-participationists who run off to start communal squats and sever as much as possible from the existing systems of state governance (then it fails for some reason or other, often because they get moved on by the police, go too bankrupt to stay viable, or get taken advantage of by people who just want a space to grow dope, they come back for a little while, rinse and repeat every five-to-six years), which is the precise opposite of the bomb-chucking anarchist archetype conjured by the term extremist.

[mr friendly guy]

https://www.mediaite.com/politics/journ ... important/

Journalist Says She Would Vote Biden Even ‘If He Boiled Babies and Ate Them’
By Charlie NashMay 21st, 2020, 3:45 pm

The Nation columnist Katha Pollitt claimed on Wednesday she would vote for presumptive 2020 Democratic presidential nominee and former Vice President Joe Biden even “if he boiled babies and ate them.”

In a heavily-criticized article, Pollitt shrugged off former Senate staffer Tara Reade’s sexual assault allegation against Biden, declaring, “I would vote for Joe Biden if he boiled babies and ate them. He wasn’t my candidate, but taking back the White House is that important.”

“I cannot believe that a rational person can grasp the disaster that is Donald Trump and withhold their support from Biden because of Tara Reade,” Pollitt wrote. “I would say this even if I had no problems with Reade’s account. I take women’s accusations very seriously, but there have always been reasons to be skeptical about this one. To believe Reade, you have to believe that Biden put her up against a wall and penetrated her with his fingers on the spur of the moment in a hallway in the Capitol complex, where she says she was looking for him to give him his gym bag. This corridor, which she can’t precisely identify, is a public space,” she wrote. “To believe Reade, you have to believe Biden would take that risk.”

She added, “Whether or not you believe Tara Reade … you should vote for Joe Biden if he is the nominee. … We do not have the luxury of sitting out the election to feel morally pure or send a message about sexual assault and #BelieveWomen. That will not help women at all. Or anyone else.”

The article was criticized by others in the media, including by The Hill Rising co-host Krystal Ball, who commented, “Democrats used to have contempt for what they viewed as stupid MAGA cultists who would vote for Trump even if he shot someone on 5th ave. Now they have become what they hated.”

Martin Tolchin, a veteran journalist who worked for The New York Times before helping found several prominent news websites, made similar remarks defending Biden from the sexual assault allegation earlier this month — rejecting calls for an investigation in case “damaging information” is revealed and hurts his election chances.

“I don’t want an investigation. I want a coronation of Joe Biden,” Tolchin wrote in a letter to the Times. “Would he make a great president? Unlikely. Would he make a good president? Good enough. Would he make a better president than the present occupant? Absolutely.”

“I don’t want justice, whatever that may be. I want a win, the removal of Donald Trump from office, and Mr. Biden is our best chance,” he added. “Suppose an investigation reveals damaging information concerning his relationship with Tara Reade or something else, and Mr. Biden loses the nomination to Sen. Bernie Sanders or someone else with a minimal chance of defeating Mr. Trump. Should we really risk the possibility?”

Democratic New Hampshire state Rep. Richard Komi also resigned this month after claiming women couldn’t be sexually assaulted without “some cooperation from the female herself,” in an effort to defend Biden.

Nice to see they aren't hiding how disgusting they are.

[Ralin]

Well, I appreciate that she's saying it out-loud.

[Soontir C'boath]

If Trump ate two babies and Biden only one. Biden is still better!

If Trump ate ten babies and Biden only five. Biden is still better!

If Trump ate a hundred babies and Bi

[Gandalf]

Back to the Obama era apologism already. Good to see them getting in early.

[loomer]

Literally 'I don't want justice' from that prick, and we're the ones normalizing Trump and destroying democracy.

[Gandalf]

Literally 'I don't want justice' from that prick, and we're the ones normalizing Trump and destroying democracy.

Are we the foreign interference about which so many were warned? Are we the baddies?

[Knife]

My god (shit, I'm an atheist) you all reveling in the dung pile. Biden can be a piece of shit and Trump a dumpster fire. One does not make the other equal.

Biden is horrible. He has a history of center right politics, has a history of creepy ass touching. He has a history of maybe rape. He's a shit pile...

Without being to assholish to women out there, I somehow doubt he'd let 100K people die in America.

It doesn't make him good, it doesn't make him a saint. It makes him better than Nazi ass Trump who is so scared to look bad, he let 100K people die.

[Knife]

We are fucking dying here and you're quibbling over stupid political shit.

Yes, give me Sanders, give me Warren (I voted for her in my primary), give me Klobashar... with few exceptions give me anything that will put up a national response to something killing 100K people in my country in the last 2 months.

[loomer]

My god (shit, I'm an atheist) you all reveling in the dung pile. Biden can be a piece of shit and Trump a dumpster fire. One does not make the other equal.

Biden is horrible. He has a history of center right politics, has a history of creepy ass touching. He has a history of maybe rape. He's a shit pile...

Without being to assholish to women out there, I somehow doubt he'd let 100K people die in America.

It doesn't make him good, it doesn't make him a saint. It makes him better than Nazi ass Trump who is so scared to look bad, he let 100K people die.

So, here's the bizarre thing.

We aren't saying Biden and Trump are equal. In fact, I'm pretty sure four of us - me, Gandalf, Soontir, and MFG - will agree with you that Trump is worse than Biden. But this does not mean that we have to pretend it's kosher for people to write opinions demanding people fall in line behind Biden with the literal call of 'I don't care about justice'.

You can care about justice and still say 'vote Biden, at least he's not Trump'. Saying 'I don't give a fuck about justice, vote Biden you cunts!', saying 'it doesn't matter how abhorrent he is, he's a democrat, he gets my vote', saying 'I don't want justice, I want a win' is quite literally surrendering one of the fundamental values of a western democracy. That is what normalizes Trump, because his evil is that he's a corrosive force against those values, so demanding people surrender those values to beat him deserves one hell of a side-eye. The demand to lay justice aside is fundamentally undemocratic.

And again - this doesn't mean Trump and Biden are the same. But it sure as hell brings out the irony of accusing people who are concerned with the preservation of fundamental democratic values of 'normalizing Trump' when there are cheerleaders for Biden actively calling for the denial of even the possibility of fucking justice because it's politically inconvenient, which is the exact bullshit Trump's partisans pull. This isn't 'stupid political shit' - this is literally the reason Trump and the forces that pushed him to the fore are so toxic to democracy being mirrored by the other side.

Vote Biden, but don't be complicit in the erosion of fundamental democratic values in doing so. These articles were written to advocate for 'defending democracy' by voting for Biden - so when they then spit on those fundamental democratic values, yes, we'll mock them and those who think like them. We should, because their positions are inconsistent and can't stand up to even a rudimentary immanent critique. By all means, Vote Biden for Democracy's Sake - but you cannot defend democracy by demanding that justice be sacrificed on the altar. You cannot defend democracy by declaring loyalty for a candidate no matter what he does, which is what these articles are calling for.

What does it look like to Vote Biden for Democracy's Sake? Vote Biden, but don't demand justice be slaughtered as a burnt offering to the party. Don't argue that no matter what, he isn't Trump, and therefore, must automatically have your loyalty. Don't argue that if you can't decide to vote for Trump or Biden, you aren't Black. Vote Biden, then work to systematically push the centre-right out of the democratic party and for reform to enable third parties via preferential voting. Vote Biden, but don't accept the threat to democracy his supporters like Tolchin represent just because you're on the 'same' side (hint: if you value justice, you and Tolchin aren't on the same side.)

But then, I suppose I'm biased because any time I see someone start arguing that politically inconvenient justice should be denied, I start to get the Radbruch Alarm going off in the back of my head. Clearly, by saying this, I can only be saying that Trump and Biden are the same so it doesn't matter who you vote for. Clearly this is all an attempt to normalize Trump by refusing to accept the murder of justice, the value at the very core of Western democracy.

[Gandalf]

We are fucking dying here and you're quibbling over stupid political shit.

Yes, give me Sanders, give me Warren (I voted for her in my primary), give me Klobashar... with few exceptions give me anything that will put up a national response to something killing 100K people in my country in the last 2 months.

What "stupid political shit?"

Also, is the "in my country" qualifier for the 100k dead a way to distance Biden from his role in the invasion of Iraq?

[mr friendly guy]

We aren't saying Biden and Trump are equal. In fact, I'm pretty sure four of us - me, Gandalf, Soontir, and MFG - will agree with you that Trump is worse than Biden. But this does not mean that we have to pretend it's kosher for people to write opinions demanding people fall in line behind Biden with the literal call of 'I don't care about justice'.

I will say it here. Trump is worse than Biden in terms of climate change, managing the coronavirus and overall worse than Biden. However Biden is worse in terms of "letting people," die, just not from coronavirus. He voted for the Iraq war with the what, few hundred thousand dead Iraqis.

Now if you go on the premise that Trump will inevitably lead the US to become a fascist state like TRR seems to think (please correct me TRR if I misunderstood your position), then the rational choice is to vote Biden.

However most people might not have such a pessimistic view of American democracy, and argue (like the "anti establishment left) that its better to vote third party (and presumably play the long game and get someone else who is more in keeping with their values) even if they get another term of Trump.

[loomer]

We aren't saying Biden and Trump are equal. In fact, I'm pretty sure four of us - me, Gandalf, Soontir, and MFG - will agree with you that Trump is worse than Biden. But this does not mean that we have to pretend it's kosher for people to write opinions demanding people fall in line behind Biden with the literal call of 'I don't care about justice'.

I will say it here. Trump is worse than Biden in terms of climate change, managing the coronavirus and overall worse than Biden. However Biden is worse in terms of "letting people," die, just not from coronavirus. He voted for the Iraq war with the what, few hundred thousand dead Iraqis.

Now if you go on the premise that Trump will inevitably lead the US to become a fascist state like TRR seems to think (please correct me TRR if I misunderstood your position), then the rational choice is to vote Biden.

However most people might not have such a pessimistic view of American democracy, and argue (like the "anti establishment left) that its better to vote third party (and presumably play the long game and get someone else who is more in keeping with their values) even if they get another term of Trump.

I'm not sure they can expect meaningful mid-to-long term reform from voting third party since they don't do preferential voting and their system has been very effectively massaged to crush third parties into dust, but otherwise I take your point and agree.