Good thing Bernie won eh? Once again a lot of us are not wonks, we don't buy into electoral politics. Your compromises and justifying war crimes in order to get nothing in return are not our politics. How don't you get that?
Bernie didn't win, but last summer we saw major, nationwide direct action fail to achieve anything, and a few months ago we saw a major unionization push at Amazon fail, too. Are you as critical of those strategies as you are of electoral politics?
So how does not winning elections make one better than anti-imperialist work and spurring on the end of the Vietnam war? Cause you seem fixated upon everything being a litigation on electoralism, as if everyone here just works from the assumption that that is viable or even preferable. The "best" candidate is the best person who was candidate, which was Gravel. How is that fucking objectionable in your mind when your alternative LOST? The compromise lost and didn't have the moral framework that comes with a Gravel race.
Gotta love the radlib response of "oh really, then name your opinion on every union strike" when people dont play ball with your mighty elections. You act incensed and have a screed about "the left" and how we must abandon such and such because your prescriptions etc, all because the mention of someone uncompromising being celebrated and preferred. You somehow pull a "I am the one true leftist" _and said the left is to obsessed with purity and ideals.
Does a ballot box have your family kidnapped or something? Or can the rest of us have subjective opinions about who is the best candidate without you going all
:very-intelligent:
And to answer the question that no one was offering for you to ask; direct action is not so much the point as preferring staunch anti-imperialism in any form over cynical compromises and bending the knee to war criminals. Be it in elections (cause again Gravel was senator, your screed makes even less sense to use here when the guy DID win elections and was an elected official) or outside of them. In office he risked losing his office in order to do what was right, on the debate stage he called those ghouls war criminals to their faces. Yeah that IS what I would consider the best. I find that preferable to the alternative, both in elections and direct action etc. You decided, on a post about the passing of a dedicated anti-imperialist who helped end the Vietnam war, to complain that about leftists who value anti-imperialism too much and consider ending genocidal wars to be a greater accomplishment than losing elections with concessions. If the dichotomy that underpins everything in your mind is "strikes vs bourgeoise elections" then we are not operating in the same universe. And frankly I dont give a shit what your grievance is with me and others appreciating anti-imperialism or what your problem with "the left" is
You can't stop yourself from being a dick on a post about a good man's death? The world does not revolve around you. You are no owed a debate, you want a simple answer? Your question assumes that there needs to be a dichotomy there or even between strikes and doing what Gravel did. Your question is like asking "why is the sky sandpaper?" and then acting indignant when people dont give you a direct answer.
dude seriously shut up. You cannot even let people mourn a human being without making it about yourself and your need for people to debate you. Yeah I'd say that is being a dick. grow up, this isn't reddit
Good thing Bernie won eh? Once again a lot of us are not wonks, we don't buy into electoral politics. Your compromises and justifying war crimes in order to get nothing in return are not our politics. How don't you get that?
Bernie didn't win, but last summer we saw major, nationwide direct action fail to achieve anything, and a few months ago we saw a major unionization push at Amazon fail, too. Are you as critical of those strategies as you are of electoral politics?
So how does not winning elections make one better than anti-imperialist work and spurring on the end of the Vietnam war? Cause you seem fixated upon everything being a litigation on electoralism, as if everyone here just works from the assumption that that is viable or even preferable. The "best" candidate is the best person who was candidate, which was Gravel. How is that fucking objectionable in your mind when your alternative LOST? The compromise lost and didn't have the moral framework that comes with a Gravel race.
Gotta love the radlib response of "oh really, then name your opinion on every union strike" when people dont play ball with your mighty elections. You act incensed and have a screed about "the left" and how we must abandon such and such because your prescriptions etc, all because the mention of someone uncompromising being celebrated and preferred. You somehow pull a "I am the one true leftist" _and said the left is to obsessed with purity and ideals.
Does a ballot box have your family kidnapped or something? Or can the rest of us have subjective opinions about who is the best candidate without you going all :very-intelligent:
And to answer the question that no one was offering for you to ask; direct action is not so much the point as preferring staunch anti-imperialism in any form over cynical compromises and bending the knee to war criminals. Be it in elections (cause again Gravel was senator, your screed makes even less sense to use here when the guy DID win elections and was an elected official) or outside of them. In office he risked losing his office in order to do what was right, on the debate stage he called those ghouls war criminals to their faces. Yeah that IS what I would consider the best. I find that preferable to the alternative, both in elections and direct action etc. You decided, on a post about the passing of a dedicated anti-imperialist who helped end the Vietnam war, to complain that about leftists who value anti-imperialism too much and consider ending genocidal wars to be a greater accomplishment than losing elections with concessions. If the dichotomy that underpins everything in your mind is "strikes vs bourgeoise elections" then we are not operating in the same universe. And frankly I dont give a shit what your grievance is with me and others appreciating anti-imperialism or what your problem with "the left" is
Nice rant; too bad it doesn't answer the extremely simple question I asked.
You can't stop yourself from being a dick on a post about a good man's death? The world does not revolve around you. You are no owed a debate, you want a simple answer? Your question assumes that there needs to be a dichotomy there or even between strikes and doing what Gravel did. Your question is like asking "why is the sky sandpaper?" and then acting indignant when people dont give you a direct answer.
My answer is: FUCK OFF you tactless fuck
lol
dude seriously shut up. You cannot even let people mourn a human being without making it about yourself and your need for people to debate you. Yeah I'd say that is being a dick. grow up, this isn't reddit
:jesse-wtf:
I don't know where you're getting this debate shit but you need to log off, slugger
You literally just demanded I answer your question without prompting. You're the one who is shitstirring in a memorial thread. Again, grow up
lmao how dare I disrespect the sanctity of an internet thread about a politician
the edgelord crap is not funny or neat to anyone but yourself.
:PIGPOOPBALLS: