What, you mean those guys that looked at Bernie Sanders and Gavin Newsom and Cory Booker, and said naw we want the guy with the crazy hair who is absolutely guaranteed to be unacceptable to the American electorate, to be the spokesman of the Left and specifically in this presidential election and we want people to take the world’s most bizarre strategy on his behalf which will NOT cause him to win or advance any leftist cause but MIGHT get Trump elected and destroy any large number of leftist causes
And, also, are totally uninterested in any leftist causes more strategic or logical than this weird and counterproductive single quixotic stand in this general election
You mean those guys WEREN’T trying to win the election for leftist causes, like they said they were?
That’s nuts man
And, also, are totally uninterested in any leftist causes more strategic or logical than this weird and counterproductive single quixotic stand in this general election
Can you give me an example of a strategic or logical leftist cause?
Stop climate change, stop killing Palestinians, economic justice for working people
There are various strategies you could use for any of the three, with various levels of timeframe involved and chance of success and all, but “let Trump come to power” is not a real good solution to any of them, to me. “Stop supporting the Democrats until they suddenly decide to start supporting them” also seems weird to me and unlikely to succeed. People have been not caring about politics (with every righteous reason) for quite a while now, and it doesn’t seem to have made the politics or the level of leftism progress in the equation any higher, to me.
There are a significant subset of leftists who explicitly believe that democracy is not a path forward because it’s co-opted by capital and they’re not even all Marxists.
Of course they have no interest in supporting Cornel West.
There are various strategies you could use for any of the three, with various levels of timeframe involved and chance of success and all, but “let Trump come to power” is not a real good solution to any of them, to me.
Probably not. I don’t know what the right strategies are, assuming they exist at all, but, yeah, that’s probably not it.
huh, reminds me of Hillary’s campaign aiding Trump during the republican primaries
Well, that’s because Trump was a softball candidate who stood no chance at winning and only acted as a spoiler candidate in relation to other, actual potential Republican candidates.
What’s frustrating is that Mrs Clinton was always a disliked candidate, but then a well liked politician. Her poking before her senate election was bad, then great once elected.
The Democratic Party was too stupid to recognize that they need a popular Candidate not just a popular politician.
Same thing is happening with Biden to some extent. He’s gotten a lot done (even with the split congress), but if he can’t get people fired up to vote we’re in danger of getting fucked again.
The issue is also that he’s gotten a lot done that people do not like or not done enough in some ways. They don’t think he pushed for enough support for Ukraine. Or they don’t like how he handled the late 2022 railway workers strike. Or they don’t like how he’s handling Israel’s invasion of Palestine. And then there’s the fact that he’s the face of mainstream, neoliberal Democrats, who are just generally disliked by more progressive members of the party for seeming to never get things done (like codifying Roe v. Wade into law when they had the chance) and for being so arrogant that they fumble the ball constantly (like with the DNC and Clinton thinking Trump was a fucking pushover and then letting him get elected and functionally give the RNC the Supreme Court for the next 30 years). People are frustrated with Biden because they’re frustrated with the party, and Biden is the party in a very real way.
wait you mean the “nato aggression” guy is backed by guys who have those opinions due to the money and the connections and the shared goals, I find this deeply unbelievable there must be an alternative explanation
I didn’t even know about this
I watched one of his speeches at random just to see what the guy was about and TL;DR I wasn’t impressed and I would not be at all surprised to learn that the Republicans are trying to trick leftists into getting behind him. But I hadn’t heard that he also dislikes NATO. That seems like a weirdly specific and incongruous stance for him to take, given how extraordinarily nonspecific was a lot of the stuff he was saying when I watched him.
One could make an argument that NATO is a continuation of the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned about. But Cornell West just saying “I oppose NATO” without making that argument is pretty weird.
Blyat!
Oh, FFS, how does this guy know he’s not being played for a fool?
