The context is what you stripped from selectively quoted posts. Are you pretending that those one or two separate sentence fragments is my entire argument? That might be your problem right there.
Here's the thing.
If I even say something that remotely sounds like what you think I'm saying, you'll ignore anything that disuqalifies it from meaning that. I know this because it's happened multiple times by now. It might look like a duck to you but it quacks like a moose. There is a serious disconnect here and I don't know if trying to explain myself AGAIN is going to make a lick of difference.
I don't think criticisn of the democratic party is wrong. HOWEVER. It isn't always politicslly advantageous. I do not want the left to shout about the same person the right is while the right is trying to compromise that position and the left has absolutely no plan or ability to improve it. I am looking at the political scenario and assessing what would result in the best outcome for the democratic party as a whole. I have not, nor have i ever, said that all criticism from the left is wrong. If you think that what I have explained right now is equivent to saying that and is some kind of "silencing tactic" you need to reassess the angle you are looking at life. I said the same things about Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election. You might br right, but what you aren't is helpful. I want to focus on positive activism, not destructive hot takes. If that's some kind of silencing tactic to you, so be it, but to me it's a healthier and more productive outlook on the situation. It would be different if there was actually a way you could do this that wouldn't bolster active attempts to compromise the seat, then I'd be all, "Fuck yeah, ______ ______ for speaker! Nancy Pelosi did her best but now there's someone better! Fuck yeah, democratic progrees!". But that isn't the situation.
And please ignore the typos. As I have explained earlier, I'm typing this all out on my phone.
Last edited:
