Mnemnosyne

Way to miss the point.

The point is his career took twelve years and it was considered a meteoric rise, incredibly fast. You want better candidates, start working for it and help them make their way through the system.

Who's your representative in your state house? Who was their primary opponent? Did you vote in that primary to try and get a more progressive candidate? Have you worked to get your local community to support more progressive candidates in small offices, so they can eventually become high level candidates?

There's a chance you can answer those questions and have done what you can, but the vast, vast majority of progressives seem to just complain that no perfect candidate has been delivered to them despite no effort on their part.

I did years ago when Google started censoring my search results even with safe search off.

Unfortunately Bing is doing it too now and I can't find a search engine that isn't, though I would love to learn about one that isn't.

Sure there is, but too many progressive voters just seem to be unwilling to act to get them. It takes long term planning.

Let's look at Barack Obama, a man whose political career to President was considered to be extremely fast, and who was considered to be very inexperienced and a shockingly fast rise.

He was elected President of the Harvard Law Review in 1990, 18 years before he would become President of the USA. In 1992 he directed a voter registration project/drive in Chicago that was successful enough to be big news. In 1996 he was elected to the Illinois State Senate, and in 2000 he lost the primary for a US Representative position.

But here's a very important part: in 2003 he became chairman of a state committee when Democrats regained a majority. This allowed him to have some legislative successes, specifically in the field of racial profiling. Hmm, that ain't gonna be important in Illinois ever again, is it?

With that legislative success, he was able to win the primary for Senate, but even then, this essentially required the incumbent in that slot to be gone. Then he was a Senator for merely four years before becoming President. And also notably for those who act like the DNC simply anoints candidates, he beat Hillary in the primary, despite her being favored by most of the entrenched elite of the party.

And the important thing to remember is this was a startlingly fast political career, considered by everyone to be a meteoric rise, an outlier. He was in politics for only 12 years before becoming President, though he did politics adjacent things even earlier. A more expected career would probably go for 20 to 30 years before becoming President.

So you want voter action for more progressive candidates? It starts a quarter century ago, in state-level offices like the Illinois Senate. It starts by getting those candidates elected over goddamn decades.

Politics is like farming, you can't show up in harvest season, look around, and go 'where are all the crops?' and then be pissy that there's gonna be a famine this winter. You gotta show up in the planting season, plant those crops, take care of them, keep them healthy and watered and fertilized as they grow, so you can finally get your food when harvest time comes.

So you want to complain about the lack of candidates, well here's my question: where the fuck were you all in planting season a quarter of a century ago? Cause these crops take a goddamn while to grow.

That's exactly what the agitators and such want - not to get people to vote for Trump which they know isn't gonna happen, they just want to convince enough people not to vote against him so he wins.

Yeah, seems right. These people seem like shills trying to discourage people from voting against the Republicans, that really seems to be all there is to it. They make any argument they can to discourage people from participating at all.

The big question is how many times to press it. Once at least is a given. It does specify the death as gruesome, so I don't really want the death, but I'd also like enough money to not have to worry again until a non gruesome death.

Like, if it was painless death, I'd probably say something like 20 or 30 times, but with a gruesome one...maybe 5 max, or perhaps even less. Still, one or two pushes is a given.

Perhaps, yes. But like my violent gore example, that involves more than merely seeing a penis with no additional aggravating factors.

Well don't just drop that and leave it hanging, what did you find out about getting a 900 number to use as your personal phone line?

Neither is bad. Unless the penis is no longer attached and we're talking violent gore, in which case that one.

I think abolishing intellectual property would hurt capitalism more than it would benefit it. Already it is strongly in favor of the rich and the big corporations. Getting rid of those limitations even without abolishing capitalism first, would, I think, be more to everyone's benefit than detriment.

There's definitely a concerted effort to discourage people from voting against Trump by focusing on anything not-perfect about Biden, yeah. I mean, they know they can't get these people to vote for Trump, that'd be too much for them, but if they can get enough people not to vote against him, then they can tilt things in his favor. And they know that progressives have always been a little bit inclined toward giving up in frustration whenever something isn't as good as it should be.

One of the things that really angers me about supposed second amendment supporters is their quiet acceptance of laws infringing on my right to bear any arm that is not a gun. In most states where it is legal to carry guns around, there are way more restrictions on carrying things like knives, swords, polearms, etc.