Discussing Gen Z republicans and dunking on the social "left"

 So, 538 discussed Gen Z republican voters, and how they are socially liberal, but still prefer the GOP and Trump over the democrats. Why? Because first of all it depends on the social issues. Much like me, they adopt a libertarian framework on social issues, meaning the left wins on stuff like gay marriage and abortion, but on the other hand, they think the dems are "too far left" on issues like race, guns, and immigration. Gee, really sounds like me. But then, on the other side of things, they are conservative on economics and foreign policy. On economics, they adopted a view from the recession that they made it and all you need is a little bit of fiscal responsibility. Uh, what? THat's dumb. But gen Z is a very young demographic and lets be honest, when I was their age, I followed a similar trajectory ideologically. Around 2008ish I gave up somewhat on the social issues and became more libertarian, but then stayed a tea party conservative. However, actual conservatism terrified me so I shifted left hard, and the recession taught me we actually did need government intervention, so I shifted left. I'm not sure these guys will make the same journey I did, as I cannot see how one can live through 2008's recession and still be a fiscal conservatism. 2020, I can KIND of see, because there's an argument to be made by the right that "we wouldn't need these policies if we didn't force people to stay home", which...has other issues, like people dying and spreading a deadly disease, but I can at least see the argument if you're young and dumb and don't think things through. But, I digress.

A huge reason I wanted to discuss this is because most reactions I see from this come from...the social left. And it's the exact kind of social left people like to dunk on. You know, how dare these people not place left wing social issues as their top concerns. They're not REALLY social leftists, they're just conservatives with 1 or 2 social issues. WHat do you mean they're too far left on race? They just support white male supremecy, blah blah blah. 

Ya know what? Screw you guys. I am one of these guys, socially. The thing that draws me to the left more to the right is economics, and I'm one of those "bro" type economic progressives the social libs hate so much. I am a white male who cares more about UBI and healthcare than abstract social justice issues. And I'm an ex conservative operating out of a post conservative ideological framework.

On social issues, you guys should be happy. If I'm what the new social right looks like, congratulations, you won the culture war. I wanna repeat that. YOU WON. The religious right has been defeated. No longer will we obsess over gays getting married and abortion and crap. The vast majority of the next generation on the right supports your rights. It just doesn't mean we're "woke." I consider myself on the left because I grew up during last generation's culture wars. Today's "socially right" views among the under 45 or so crowd ARE what used to be reasonably left. And this is where I have so many issues with the left these days socially. I joined the left in 2012, at that precarious time where the religious right was just starting to finally decline, but before all this woke crap became mainstream. I remembered "atheism+" at the time, and how it as a failed movement because all that intersectionality stuff just didn't...advance causes. Inclusivity is well meaning, but sometimes it just comes across as obnoxiously self righteous.

And then gamergate happened, and I just avoided that whole mess as I saw the points both sides made and how it was just a dumb dumpster fire. And then in 2016 HRC fanned the flames by attacking white male progressives like me as "bernie bros". Which, quite frankly, damaged my relationship with the left. You act hostile toward me, my ideology, my identity, and the policies I support, and gee, you lose me as a voter, who knew? And the democrats and the left have just gotten worse since then. As I see it, the let unnecessarily racializes everything, making identity politics support a litmus test, and flexing on white progressives by going on and on about "the black vote" and gee, its like they dont want white progressives in their party. Seriously. If I was not an economic leftie, I WOULD be supporting Trump and the right. But because my economic views are at this point, left of the democrats, I find myself politically homeless as democraft shift toward idpol driven neoliberalism and the right toward cultural and economic conservatism. 

Really, I'm not saying that these gen Z conservatives can all be won over. I do think that economic policy trumps social policy for many people (something these social lefties need to understand and stop being soo self righteous for it). But if the democrats dropped the idpol a bit,they could open themselves up to a lot of potential independents, like me, who are more socially moderate on issues of race, with little policy cost to the democratic party (lets face it im very likely to their left on race on actual policy due to their entrenchment to being "moderate" to please people who cannot be pleased). And over time I believe some of these gen Z conservatives could make their way to the left.

Seems to be a lot better than sticking to self righteousness, and, you know, shaming people for not obsessing with certain segments of policy they dont care about. Just saying. The social left should celebrate with the progress made, while still acknowledging some progress has yet to be made, and try to push its agenda in ways that bring people over, not pushes them away. For all the talk of big tent politics and ideological purity, the left doesnt practice what they preach on social policy. Only on economics.

Democrats flexing on progressives makes me want to support them even less

 I swear, democrats are their own worst enemies when it comes to getting people to suppport them. It's like they're unknowingly practicing reverse psychology on people to make people NOT want to support them. A lot of progressives are in an abusive relationship with the democratic party, and the dems seem to know it. They have nowhere to go, so they basically tell them that and tell them they have to vote for them or else they get the other guy. Then when they win, they're like "YOU SEE, YOU STUPID PROGRESSIVES, THE VOTERS WANT PRAGMATIC MODERATES AND INCREMENTALISM AND DON'T WANT PIE IN THE SKY PROGRESSIVE IDEAS." When people vote for them, they ascribe a motive to those voters, conflating a large proportion of lesser evil votes as active support for their ideology, and insisting that voters want their brand. This is a huge reason I find voting for moderates so untenable. When I vote for candidate, I see it as a tacit support of their ideology and agenda. And I don't support those guys. I dont like that agenda. And because dems seem to treat votes as rewards for their percieved popularity, I refuse to reward them with a vote. This is why I demand democrats earn their vote. I will vote for a candidate who at least tries to appeal to me. Even if they aren't perfect, even if they fail on some of my priorities. I mean, Bernie lacked support for UBI. Yang failed to support medicare for all. I would have voted for either. But what I wont vote for is someone who is obviously hostile to my interests and then demands I support them. Ean my vote.

I support Biden's withdrawal from Afghanistan

 So, I notice Biden is under fire a lot for his withdrawal frm Afghanistan. Love how the media is so biased in favor of the military industrial complex. Whenever we pull out of anything it's always "but but what about the poor people who live there who depend on us?" Uh, give them asylum and move on? I don't know why we need to spend billions of dollars a year protecting a minority of a country from a majority that clearly doesn't want us there.

And that's what it came down to. When Bush went in, Bush painted this picture of nation building of us being treated like liberators. You know, like us freeing Europe from the Nazis. Uh, no. The fact is, most people don't want us there. And while I can be FAR MORE lenient on Afghanistan than Iraq in the sense that at least we had a legitimate purpose to go into Afghanistan, given we were attacked, we fulfilled that core purpose TEN YEARS AGO. Seriously, we killed Bin Laden in 2011. It's now 2021. Time to move on.

It didn't matter if we pulled out 10 years ago. It wouldn't matter if we pulled out 10 years from now. or even 100 like the hardcore neocons seemed to want. The outcome would be the same. We tried to give them democracy, it's up to them whether it sinks or swims.

And let me explain something real fast. The Taliban are NOT Al Qaeda. THe reason we targetted the Taliban was because they controlled Afghanistan and hosted Bin Laden there and didn't take too kindly to imperial powers like the US telling them to hand him over. So we invaded and did it the hard way. You can say they had it coming at the time, but at this point, eh, fighting them is a sunk cost and there's no real benefit too continuing to do so. 

Which brings us to why we should pull out. We're just wasting time, money, resources, and people by being there. War is expensive, and I'd rather use that money improving life for our own people. As Eisenhower once said, each bomb we build means less hospitals, and highways, and schools for children (paraphrasing). If the core threat is eliminated, why are we still there? Mission accomplished, go home. Sticking around "nation building" is how empires die. They overextend, waste tons of money in military conflicts that amount to nothing, and then they leave. Better we leave earlier than later. 

Really, I hate to act like I don't care about what happens to the country and the people in it, but to some extent I really don't. We have a nation state system of governance. The American government exists to protect the US, its borders, and its people. It is not a charity for helping out the rest of the world. At the same time, I dont believe we should interfere more than we need to, for the sake of national security and collective international security. Afghanis can figure out Afghanistan. If they wanna return to a theocratic hellhole that's no concern of ours unless it affects us negatively. We should've gotten out 10 years ago, and Biden did a good here, no matter how messy it is. It is like vietnam, a costly occupation that ended in "losing", its almost as if history repeats itself and we shouldn't have invaded then either. Let's try not to commit any more "Vietnams", shall we?

Forcing people to get vaccines without forcing them

 So, I've noticed a lot of liberals are trying to leverage people to get their vaccines not through a state mandate, but through economics. They often want to force people to get the vaccine by having their employer mandate it. The way they see it, you don't HAVE to get it if you would rather be fired, but let's face it, because people need jobs, they'll get it, because they don't have a choice.

I'm going to be honest, I'm using this topic to push my indepentarian ideology. I fully acknowledge this is roundabout forcing people to do something. And the libs pushing it know it. But they're able to go "who, me? No, you dont HAVE to get it, but if you don't, you wont be able to work". So it is force. And I acknowledge it's force. And I wish libs would be more transparent that this is basically about force. And I'm pretty sure the right anti vaxxers understand its force.

Okay, if you agree we're forcing people...how is it any different for other aspects of economic coercion in the first place? Can't we just acknowledge we're basically forcing people to work and they don't have a choice, they merely have to choose between tons of employers? Because that's what we're doing. Can we acknowledge that? Sure, it's better than literal slavery, but it's still wage slavery. 

So, despite this, do I support making people get the vaccine? Yes. And I do think that market forces are slightly less oppressive than a state mandate, so I would support that. However, in my ideal world everyone would have universal basic income and universal healthcare. And it wouldn't be the end of the world. Heck, I'm perfectly willing to shut out unvaxxed individuals healthy enough to get the vaccine out of society in general for the duration of the pandemic. We aren't going back to shut downs. COVID is not an easily preventable disease, but that involves getting the shot and following proper procedures. Which people apparently suck at. But hey, if those guys in my ideal society wanted to live in isolation on UBI and get all their stuff via delivery and curbside pickup? By all means. You get to stay in lockdown, the rest of us get to actually participate as we want. After all the problem is the unvaxxed spreading the disease to others. They wanna take their life into their own hands that's on them but I cant in good conscience allow them to put others at risk in the process. Without a UBI do I still support such a system? Sure. I'm sorry but public health is more important than your freedoms. Your right to swing your fist ends at another's nose, and your right to not be vaxxed ends when it spreads a deadly disease to other people in society. 

But hey at least Im transparent about my views. I wont do the weasel words like most libs seem to be doing these days. I just went on this spiel to once again remind people that our society is coercive and for as much as people try to deny that, they sure as heck dont have a problem with using that coercion to get their way. I normally oppose such coercion and wish to minimize it. Even in the case of getting vaccinated. But the reality is that push comes to shove being vaccinated is important and you should have to get the shot to participate in society with other people. Period. If you dont like my stance, join me in advocating for basic income, I fully support your right to live your unvaxxed life in isolation working the land in the middle of nowhere or relying on delivery and curbside pickup and never leaving the house. You just don't get to spread germs to other people. 

Curtis Sliwa and UBI

 So Curtis Sliwa, the republican nominee for mayor in NYC, came out in support of a basic income pilot in NYC. And if I lived in NYC I would support him over Adams as a matter of principle. Sliwa seems to have a pretty good history, and he's a vocal opponent of Trump, so he's a through and through moderate republican from an era that no longer exists in republican politics. 

It just goes to show that I will vote for anyone who supports my issues. Given the hand wringing, runarounds, and pretentious lecturing by moderate dems flexing their victories over me, yeah I'm not really a vote blue no matter who kind of guy. You cant just sit back and say "you see, you don't understand voters, voters dont want a fiery progressive, and they don't want a UBI, they want moderates and identity politics and the status quo, blah blah blah." Cool. You realize the second a better candidate comes along I'm dumping you guys, right? Well, this is one of those times. You support UBI, you get my vote. Period.

Too bad I don't live in NYC. I can't vote for the guy. But I would if I lived in NYC. I hate moderates who don't stand for anything with a passion. 

Should we censor anti vax people?

 Between MTG being banned from twitter several times recently, and an anti vax sub being quarantined on reddit, I kind of feel a need to briefly touch upon this issue. Again, don't want to get too in depth right now as I'm going to be busy over the next month, but something I wanna discuss. Should people who push dangerous misinformation like anti vax crap be censored?

I'm gonna be honest, while the more vindictive inner demon within me feels schadenfreude over these guys being banned for their blatantly harmful views, I'm gonna disagree, logically speaking. As you guys can tell I have zero sympathy for the anti vaxxers. None. I think they're idiots, i think they're harmful, and I think they're even getting people killed. But here's the thing about free speech. It doesn't just apply to people you like, and to ideas you like. And I quite frankly dont trust neither government nor private companies to regulate speech and act as a ministry of truth. Sorry, we need to beat the vaxxers in a way that doesnt take away their right to a platform to express their views. I know that the authoritarian left is big on censorship in the past 5 years or so, but I've always been critical of these guys. I get it, Trumpers spread fake news and misinformation. But if you take away their right to say what they think, they will come for everyone else next. I've seen it play out on many forms and subreddits, where people end up getting banned just for opposing the mainstream circlejerk. Well intentioned censorship never ends up well, because those good intentions sour fast, and then we're left with a ministry of truth who bans anyone they simply don't like. Since we wanna avoid that, we should simply allow idiots to speak. Even if they are idiots. And they are idiots. *sigh*. I never said being philosophically consistent is easy. Sometimes you gotta take your lumps. This is one of those times. I have to freaking side with the anti vaxxers out of principle here. Let's face it, they're wrong, but freedom of speech guarantees the right to be wrong. If you're not allowed to be wrong, you dont really have freedom of speech. Anyway, that's my take on this. 

Quick reaction to the compromise bill that passed congress

 Okay, I'm going to be short here as I got other stuff going on in my life right now which will make it more difficult to post stuff in detail (expect a lot lighter content over the next month or so), but I wanted to briefly cover the bill Biden got passed. It passed apparently 69-30 which is huge for how divided congress is, with even Mitch McConnell passing it. That's surprising given that fricker has spent the past decade slashing and burning everything. 

Essentially this part which got passed is all infrastructure, which is pretty huge. We desperately need to update our infrastructure, and we need to combat climate change, and this helps do both, so that's a priority.

I think I read the follow up bill which is not expected to have as easy of a time passing is gonna push for Biden's other priorities. Paid family leave, universal preK/childcare, 2 year community college, an obamacare expansion, etc. This is where I start yawning. Sure, infrastructure we need, but Im gonna stick to my vision as the hill I die on politically. UBI, medicare for all, free college, student debt forgiveness. We only got one of those things and its only a half measure. The child tax credit is only like a small fraction of a UBI, and not even really a UBI by my strict definition of the term, and the obamacare expansion isnt even a public option. If Biden pushed for medicare extra, ya know, my compromise plan, I could praise that, but this is basically nothing. 

Honestly, all things considered, while this bill is an accomplishment for biden, and does some good things, on issues other than climate change and our infrastructure needs, this aint it, dawg. 

I know, I know, Im always critical of Biden. Well, I dont like Biden. I never liked Biden. I never agreed with his agenda or priorities, and I'm not going to start now. So good job in the infrastructure win, but I still don't like you. I can praise Biden for something I agree on, while not fluffing him up or fawning over him when we have a fundamental difference in opinion. 

Discussing COVID breakthrough cases and putting them in context

 So I've discussed it before. Despite being vaccinated, COVID is scary. The vaccine helps, but it does not make people COVID proof. You actually need herd immunity to wipe out the disease entirely and stop it from spreading. I notice a lot of pro vaccine people like to avoid talking about breakthrough cases, and the stance of the Biden administration seems to be hush hush on the subject. I don't like that. I believe we should be honest, but people are afraid due to scientific illiteracy that people will take anything other than downplaying these cases as feeding Trumper narratives about how vaccines don't work. This isn't true, so I wanna nip this in the bud right now by discussing efficacy rates.

It's true, vaccines don't make you COVID proof. However, they make you COVID resistant. Imagine you have 100 people with the shot, and 100 people without the shot. Imagine among this "control" group without the shot, all 100 get COVID and die. I know, I know, not realistic, I'm trying to prove a point here though. What happens to the vaccinated group? Well, 88 of them don't get sick at all, since pfizer, the most researched vaccine, has an 88% efficacy against the delta variant. Some might carry COVID since they're, you know, exposed to it, but they don't get sick at the same rates as those who get it. Of the 12 that get it, only 4 go to the hospital, representing the 96% efficacy against severe disease. And then one person dies, representing 99% efficacy at preventing death. So, you can still die from it, but you're literally way more at risk of dying if you don't have it. On a factor of like 100. You're only 1/25 as likely to have to go to the hospital. And you're still 1/8 as likely to get sick AT ALL. Vaccines work, get your vaccines. But that doesn't mean you can't get sick. Now let's look at real world data. 

Go down to figure 2 there if you click the above link. Yikes. Depending on what state you are, vaccinated cases are 0.2-5.9% of all COVID cases. The median seems to be around 1.3%. That means that almost 99% of cases that are reported (which are probably weighed toward serious cases that sent people to get tested) are among the unvaccinated. Hospitalizations tell a similar story. 1-2% on average among the unvaccinated, 98-99% among the unvaccinated. Deaths tell the same story. 

So, at least here, we have a clear vaccine efficacy of 98-99%. Now, to be fair, there are issues with this data. First of all, reporting. Say I'm vaccinated and get the sniffles. Am I gonna run out and get tested? Probably not. So I guess this might underestimate the reported cases in practice. But that could apply the other way in the form of mild covid among the unvaccinated too. And it might be the case they just dont get mild covid if they catch covid that much if they're unvaccinated. Still, given the same conditions apply among both groups, a 98-99% reduction in reported cases is a huge improvement. Another issue with the data is deaths. Say I get in a car accident, go to the emergency room, and die from wounds from the accident. Say they do a COVID test on my body and find out I'm positive for COVID. Well, that technically counts as a COVID death for some weird reason. And it's possible a lot of those people who died from COVID while vaccinated could have been admitted for unrelated reasons and died as a result. You can still carry COVID while vaccinated, even if you don't get sick. That's a huge reason the CDC is bringing back mask recommendations. That said, it's possible that this is overrepresenting COVID deaths among the vaccinated. Regardless, a 50-100x reduction is a good thing.

Here's the thing. If masks didn't work, you would see roughly 50% vaccinated and 50% unvaccinated among these results. Maybe a bit off like 47-53 due to variability with margins of error (see my political forecasts), but still close to 50-50. You wouldn't see a statistically significant correlation. A 98-99% reduction in sickness and harm is a HUGE reduction and shows an extremely statistically significant correlation between getting the vaccines and not dying from COVID. That said, that's the figure that you need to look at. Yes, some people will still get sick. Some might even die, but the vaccines help.

Regardless, I would recommend people continue to take all necessary precautions to avoid getting sick. You CAN still get COVID even if you are vaccinated. This demonstrates it. But the statistics show it will be far less severe even if you do, and you'll be less likely to die. Elderly people in particular might need to worry most since most breakthrough cases are among older adults. But even among that group they're still going to be far safer with the vaccine than without.

That said, get the vaccine, it reduces your risk by a factor of 50-100x, but still continue to play it safe due to the risk of a breakthrough case. You're not invincible just because you have the vaccine. But it does help a lot. And if everyone get it, well, COVID wouldn't even be a problem any more. But many aren't getting it, which is why I'm sitting here laying out statistics. Get the shot.

Is Christianity fundamentally against basic income?

 So, interesting topic I feel like worth discussing found on the message boards again. Is Christianity fundamentally incompatible with basic income? Had you asked me this back in my angstheist days back when I first got into atheism and basic income, I would have said yes, absolutely, due to the ties between evangelical Christianity, the protestant work ethic, and American capitalism, but at this point, i think it's a lot more nuanced. 

In some ways, fundamentalist protestant christianity as practiced in the US is fundamentally against basic income. I cannot tell you how many times I've had the Bible verse quoted at me, as if it were the ultimate authority on the subject: "he who does not work shall not eat." There is a sordid history linking evangelical protestant Christianity to the protestant work ethic going back to the 16th century. And there is an argument to be had that the reason I became receptive to UBI and anti work ideology is because of my transition to atheism causing me to embrace a nihilistic worldview in which I realized most jobs are BS and pointless and that jobs exist in order to make things, not as grand callings for us to derive meaning of. I doubled down on this in 2016 when HRC ran for president and virtue signalled about how everyone has to live up to their "god given potential" (seriously, moderate democrats are just conservative lites, it makes me cringe). 

But, I've had a lot of discussions with Christians over the years, and I've come to realize that a lot of atheists will just knee jerkedly attack "Christianity" in broad strokes when their arguments only actually apply to American fundamentalists and protestants. Honestly, even catholicism can be a bit different on economics, and much more social justice oriented. I might despise catholicism on social issues and their general orthodoxy, but one thing I have some to respect of them is that unlike protestants they do care about the poor. Oh, and Pope Francis has actually embraced UBI. To quote on the Francis on the subject:

“Recognizing the value to society of the work of nonearners is a vital part of our rethinking in the post-Covid world. That’s why I believe it is time to explore concepts like the universal basic income (UBI), also known as ‘the negative income tax’: an unconditional flat payment to all citizens, which could be dispersed through the tax system.
The UBI could reshape relations in the labor market, guaranteeing people the dignity of refusing employment terms that trap them in poverty. It would give people the basic security they need, remove the stigma of welfarism, and make it easier to move between jobs as technology-driven labor patterns increasingly demand. Policies like the UBI can also help free people to combine earning wages with giving time to the community.”

 I mean, did Pope Francis actually advocate for the right to say no here? Holy crap. This sounds like something I would say. 

That's the thing about Christianity. Once you get away from the fundamentalist forms that former atheists like myself despise, it does open up to being more progressive on these issues. Honestly, you could argue anything can be compatible with Christianity. I've known moderate Christians who were pro choice and pro gay marriage. While Christianity does generally make people more conservative in a political sense, especially socially, eh, it's not necessarily fundamentally incompatible with UBI, no. 

Heck, there are actually radical forms of Christianity out there that are very leftist. I remember when I was a conservative there was a lot of fear mongering going around about Obama being radicalized by these forms of Christianity from preachers like reverend wright and "black liberation theology". 

That said, Christianity is all over the place ideologically. While in America I would argue there is a general link between conservatism and the dominant forms of protestant Christianity, there are many other forms out there, and they can be a lot more accomodating of progressive views.

Moreover, just to argue the opposite, I'd argue the right is secularizing and that they are losing a lot of their former religiosity with people like Trump being representative of the party. It's not making them any better. It's just making them more fascist, where they adopt similar views, but they justify them a bit differently. 

Just because in my own political history conservatism and Christianity went together and liberalism and atheism did, does not mean it has to work that way. I am just a product of being born in America to a protestant conservative family, and breaking free of that causing both a political and existential shift in my worldview simultaneously. There are rather secular conservatives, and quite religious progressives. The correlation just happened to exist from the 1970s to the 2010s, and now is receding due to the fact that we're undergoing a party realignment. 

If anything thinking about this makes me fear for the future because of how scary the republican party is getting as it slowly abandons religion. They're not embracing reason. They're embracing fascism. But I digress. This is a side point. 

The fact is, as demonstrated left wing strains of Christianity can be very anti work, anti capitalism, and pro UBI. Only American protestant conservatives are obsessed with work and earning a living, due to the protestant work ethic and the spirit of capitalism.

How to shift people left on social issues

 I saw a discussion thread on whether anyone has shifted people on the right left on social issues, specifically trans issues, and given this forum is notorious for not appreciating my help at reaching out to right wingers, I figured I should respond here instead. 

I actually had a discussion with one of my best friends recently on trans issues. He was posting about how some trans olympic athlete didn't get to even do one rep with weightlifting, and was making fun of the person, so I kind of discussed it with him.

Essentially, my pitch is to take the libertarian approach of letting people live their lives and be tolerant of others. I'm not sure the dude changed his mind a lot, but I think I made a convincing argument nevertheless. I honestly don't understand why the right CARES so much. So a person is trans. So what? Let them be. Let them go to whatever bathroom they want. Let them change their gender. Let them get sex reassignment surgery. From what I understand, transgender people deal with...issues. Gender dysphoria is a documented mental condition, and it seems to be hell for those who experience it, and many people even commit suicide. If letting them change their gender improves their mental health, why should we not allow it? I don't get why the right cares so much.

Some of it is religion. Religious people often have a mentality of "God says so" based on their authoritarian abrahamic ideology, and uh, that stuff has no role in politics. 

Heck, I'm going to be honest, I used to be religious. I was against gay marriage back in the day. My whole argument was based on what was "natural" (logical fallacy) and what "God" wanted. Uh, yeah, I was wrong for that. And I realized those ideas were harmful later and left religion in part over this growing difference in values. I realized I couldn't accept an authoritarian religion that didn't allow people to come to conclusions based on logic, but instead just forced its edicts on people, and they are not to be questioned. 

The fact is, take religion out of it, and other weird slippery slope arguments about the "downfall of society" and what are you left with? Nothing. I'd argue the strongest arguments convincing people on the right like me to accept homosexuality and gay marriage is that it doesn't affect me. And it doesn't. It's not like Lewis Black's gay banditos are going to break into my house and start cosplaying Rammstein's "Buck Dich" on the kitchen table. No. What consenting parties do in the bedroom doesn't affect me, its none of my business, and I have no compelling reason to restrict their activity. Note how this does allow for people having personal conservative values. Just like with abortion, where some democrats are publicly pro choice but privately pro life, some people might be conservative in their own personal lives. And that's okay. As long as their views aren't harming others, I don't see why their attitudes should matter either.

See how that works? Just apply the same arguments to transgenderism. Let people live their lives as they want. They have a documented mental condition (gender dysphoria), they wanna change their gender, let them. It doesn't impact you, does it? Trans people aren't whipping out their penises in bathrooms and pushing them on people like what some right wingers think. Let them use their bathroom of choice. Let them do what they want, as long as there is not a legitimate reason to stop them. 

Notice how most arguments on social issues can easily be resolved with this framework. However, the left takes the wrong approach. Instead of just convincing people to not care, that's the thing, they want people to care a lot. They want affirmation. They want people to virtue signal their right to be gay or transgender. They want people to use their preferred pronouns. I've even seen some accuse others, including myself, of bigotry because I've openly said I wouldn't sleep with a trans person before. 

Now, to go into that, let me briefly lay out my arguments. This is where my approach differs from the left. The left wants to force their ideas on others. Much like the religious right does. I just want to reduce the harm out of peoples' existing views by pushing a libertarian framework of staying out of each others' way. People can still have conservative views, and to be honest, on transgenderism, my views aren't fully "left". The fact is, while I understand the purpose of affirming a person's preferred gender to ease whatever mental anguish they have, I'm not convinced that one can ever fully change what sex they are, physically. You can change the hormones and get surgeries, and I admit, gender is relatively fluid. But they're always going to have birth gender chromosomes, and I'm going to be honest, the idea of sleeping with someone not born female has a certain ick factor I can't control.

I mean, sue me, but I can't control who I'm attracted to. I'm straight. Im a male. I want to have sex with women. Born women. Not women who used to be men. Or men who used to be women either. I have no ill will against trans people, I wish them the best with their lives, but my own personal line on the matter is that if it doesn't affect me I have no right to tell others what to do. But the idea of having sex with someone clearly does affect me, and this is where my views go against liberal orthodoxy. 

You have a right to have sex with whomever you want, as long as they're a consenting adult and you're not going all "Mein Teil" or something like that. But so do I. And I also have a right NOT to have sex with anyone. Virtue signallers love to point out I'm not entitled to sex all the time. But suddenly I'm a bigot if I turn someone down for certain reasons? Again, can't control whom I'm attracted to, and I'm not sorry. Transgender people can do whatever they want with consenting parties, I don't want to stop them, but don't force it on me.

This really separates my position from that of an SJW significantly. My ideology is based on mutual respect and liberty. People are free to do what they want until they interfere with someone else negatively. SJWs want everyone to positively affirm their ideology in a cult like way and any dissent is seen as a form of blasphemy. But you know what? That obnoxiousness and self righteousness is what keeps the culture war going. Because then the right hates the SJWs, and they start virtue signalling their own stuff, where they have to get in trans peoples' faces and insist that theyre their birth gender, and that's disgusting too. Just because you don't fully believe they're the opposite gender doesn't mean you should tactlessly go up to people and SAY it to them in a mean spirited way. But that's kind of the natural consequence of the left being too forceful in shoving their ideology down peoples' throats. It makes people who otherwise wouldn't care, care, where they become mean spirited and push it back the other way.

Honestly, I really think my approach would win over a lot of right wingers and de-escalate the culture wars. I want transgenderism and other social issues like this to turn into what happened with gay marriage. The left wins, and then we move on. Focusing too much on it distracts from more substantive economic issues IMO. 

Im sick of moderates telling us "what we have to learn"

 I'm gonna be honest, democratic centrists really are some of the most smarmy obnoxious people when they win an election or a primary. With Nina losing her primary, we're back to CENTRISM WINS! CENTRISM WINS! HERES WHAT YOU PROGRESSIVES NEED TO LEARN "THE VOTERS" LIKE MODERATES, THEY LIKE BIDEN, THEY LIKE **DEMOCRATS**, WHAT THEY DONT LIKE ARE PROGRESSIVES WHO HAVE PIE IN THE SKY IDEAS AND WONT WORK WITH THE PARTY, YOU PROGRESSIVES NEED TO LEARN THIS AND BLAH BLAH BLAH.

Uh, here's my counter response, go screw yourself.

Look, I'm not here to be nice. I'm not here to be civil to worthless centrist pieces of crap gloating over me because they won a dirty primary with 12% turnout. Maybe some people do like Biden, and as I established in my last article, primaries are predisposed toward people who actually like the democrats' BS. I dont believe they're the majority of the country but they are the majority of those who turn up. 

I'm not a politician. Maybe politicians gotta thread needles sometimes and cater to people. Too bad that even when they do (see Andrew Yang and Bernie 2020) that they still get crapped on, despite being fake and robotic and saying what people want to hear. Because you know what? It's not authentic. And centrists vote for centrists anyway and progressives want someone "pure." Might as well just be authentic.

If the dittohead is gonna win anyway, then I dont really want to win. I dont want to be the dittohead. I dont want "my person" to be the ditto head. I dont like seeing Bernie reduced to a ditto head. I dont want to see Yang be a ditto head. I like these people because they ARE different. They arent just the same ditto heads. But once they lose that appeal by kow towing to the establishment, I'm done with them. See my recent article on Bernie. 

Look, I'm here to actually push for policies that change the world. I'm not here to be a fake robotic ditto head who sings the establishment's praises. It doesn't compute, and I'd rather not play politics at all and focus on other pursuits like video games than cater to worthless centrists. Seriously, screw those guys. 

And as far as Nina's bowl of #### comments, well, they were taken out of context. And you know what? I LIKED those comments. I AGREE with those comments. And to any democratic "voter" who understands the proper context (as the proper context was not given in the attack ads) and is offended by that, well, sorry you like eating bowls of ####, because I'm not sorry for calling that out. 

There's a reason I don't run for office. A huge reason is I know I can't win. I'm politically incorrect, I'm not a team player, and I'm only enthused or motivated when I'm doing my thing or speaking from the heart. One of the reasons I kind of clocked out for a while after 2016 was because I just had it. I didn't want to cover Trump all the time, the democrats were doing their russiagate thing. Politics was boring. Soul, crushingly, boring. As you can tell I'm at my most passionate when discussing the nuances of how to implement a basic income. I don't wanna hear "WeLl We CaNt Do ThAt!" and I get some crappy tax credit in return that scores an F on my metric. 

I'd rather lose with passion than win by being a ditto head. I'll continue to support humanity first and progressive candidates who I believe in over centrist ditto heads, and I quite frankly don't care how "electable" they are. 

Really, sometimes I wish the dems were more like the republicans. They loved the obnoxious loudmouth who called everyone else out. Not that he was a good president, I've already established before I think he's literally the worst we had, but I get the appeal, and I'm sorry, I like a bit of populism in my politics. If I have to work with stuffy centrists wh insist I must censor how I really feel, then I'm done. Screw you guys. Not doing it. 

Discussing Nina Turner and how progressive accusations of election rigging are different (and more valid) than Trumpian accusations

 So, Nina Turner lost her primary. She was ahead, but as always, the establishment cannot let us have nice things, so ran a massive smear campaign against her, leading to her losing the race. 

I mean, they really did her dirty. They attacked her basically for not going along with the establishment agenda, but did it in a way that made her look like a right winger. For example she wouldn't vote for the democratic party platform out of principle so they framed her as being against a higher minimum wage and medicare for all. They framed her comments about voting for Biden being like eating half a bowl of crap, ignoring the fact that it was an analogy showing her views on lesser evil voting, with Trump being the full bowl. So, by pushing half truths, they were able to make Nina look like not a left winger at all, and they managed to outflank her from the left.

All while Nina Turner is further left. It's amazing. Then these same people get up there and are like ERMAHGERD CENTRISTS WIN CENTRISTS WIN! YOU SEE, YOU STUPID PROGRESSIVES, "THE VOTERS" WANT PRAGMATIC MODERATES WHO GO ALONG WITH OUR LEGITIMATELY ELECTED JOE BIDEN. THEY DON'T WANT PROGRESSIVES WHO ATTACK DEMOCRATS. Uh, well maybe if those comments were framed properly, it would be a different race.

Which is bringing me to a big reason I wanted to discuss this. I've seen a lot of neolibs framing progressives calling the election "rigged" as being the same as when Trump did it. And I want to strongly rebuff this. No it's not the same at all, and I'll explain why.

First of all, we're using different definitions of the words rigged. When a Trumper claims the election was rigged, they literally think there were dead people voting and fake ballots voting for democratic candidates, and that if only legitimate people voted, Trump would've won in a landslide. This is nonsense. And this is NOT what progressives claim when we attack dems for "rigged primaries".

On paper, the democratic primaries, not just this one, but 2016 and 2020, were fair. They were legit. They had the proper procedures, and people voted, and the results were what they were. There was no vote rigging, no dead people voting, we can rest easy about the integrity of elections. Stop comparing us to Trumpers, okay? We're not trumpers.

What we say when democratic primaries are rigged, is essentially that the system is designed a certain way to funnel voters toward a certain predetermined outcome. Voters voted, and their votes were counted, and they voted how they voted. But it's the process of getting people to vote in certain ways in the first place. 

You see, a lot of the actors surrounding primaries are not impartial. The democratic establishment has their preferred candidate. Nina wasnt their preferred candidate. neither was yang in 2020 or in the mayoral race, neither was Bernie Sanders. Heck, I always argue the dems colluded to stop Bernie, specifically by making phone calls to candidates to encourage them to drop out to consolidate divided voting blocks to push voters a certain way. Here, what happened was the democrats came out swinging for their person. They brought out all the big names, and got tons of endorsements from establishment politicians. And any voter who does not have a dog in the fight and is trying to make up their mind is like "gee, shontel brown sure has a lot of endorsements, oh, hillary clinton and jim clyburn endorsed her? I like them, so I'll vote for her." Then you got media coverage. The media is the big factor, and the media is in bed with the party establishment and corporate interests. And again, what did they do? They attacked Nina. And the typical voters is gonna be like, wait, Nina isnt for the minimum wage going up? She's not for universal healthcare? She thinks Biden is crap? What is she, a republican? I'm voting for Brown. Framing is everything. The media narratives are everything. Everyone acts like it's that voters are mdoerate and just want pragmatism, but I really dont think that's necessarily the case. Yes, there are some who are like that, but for the most part, I think the media and the party officials just scare people out of supporting progressives via dirty campaign tactics, and toward the establishment. Essentially, it's what Noam Chomsky said about manufacturing consent. The process manufactures the peoples' consent. It frames the candidates and issues in certain ways, and funnels a lot of relatively ignorant people toward their own ends. And that's why, it doesnt matter how good of a platform you have, or how good of a campaign you run, as long as the establishment puts their finger on the scales, they will win the vast majority of the time. Because they control the machinery, that controls how people think, and informs how they will vote. It's not that the actual voting is rigged. it's all legitimate on paper. So many voters came out, they voted a certain way, they were counted, they won. It's a matter of playing the numbers to get the outcome they wanted. 

This isn't even getting into how primary turnout is often abysmal. Like, seriously, we have voter turnout problems in general, with it normally averaging 40-50% in general elections. And democrats love to argue if only more people voted, we would win in a landslide, but republicans try to *cough* rig the system by engaging in voter suppression via voter id, and cutting down on long lines, etc. Heck, a lot of that was the point of that HR1 bill the democrats tried to pass. The republicans constantly "rig" elections in their favor. It's been argued if democrats could run in a fair system without any of these institutional advantages the GOP would never win on the national level again. But okay, it gets worse for primaries. Primaries are low visibility elections where you only get around 25% of people voting. And in most states, this doesn't apply to ohio, but in most states, you need to be registered as part of the party to vote in that primary. This is done for non shady reasons mostly. You dont want tons of republicans coming in and messing with your primary, but at the same time, it does ensure that the people voting...are democrats. And that kind of leads to a system where those who identify most with the democratic party are generally favored to win. Because registered dems are predisposed to like what democrats are selling, while independents and the like..don't. But this leads to an insular percentage of people voting for establishment craplibs, because those craplibs are overrepresented at the polls. So they end up with this situation where they vote for these guys, independents and less affiliated voters stay home, and then everyone has to hold their nose come general election time, with the rest of us being like "how did it get so bad THESE are our candidates?" Remember how Trump AND Hillary both had like a 30% approval rating despite being voted by a comfortable majority of their party's constituents, that's why. Like a quarter of that party's overall voters basically decided the candidates that we would vote on later that year, before the rest of us get a chance. How can we change this? Well, register to vote? I hate the dems, but this is why im registered as one. I couldnt care less about the party, but i wanna vote in the primaries so i am a registered dem. I encourage everyone to do the same.

To be fair, Ohio didnt have this specific problem, as they do have open primaries. Still, they did deal with a lot of irregularities that made this a very low visibility race for the non politically initiated. it was a special primary, on an off year, at an off time, that only the politically savvy know about. Normally primaries take place in the spring in an even number year, not an odd number year in August. Again, special case. And apparently the turnout is very low. I havent found anything official, but message boards are claiming 12%. That's abymsal. 12% of the population voted here. That means that 88% of the people didn't. And while I imagine this district is 2-1 for democrats, that still means this is merely 1/5 of the potential democratic electorate. That's TERRIBLE. 

Honestly, a big problem with primaries like this is that not enough people turnout. The independents who hate establishment dems generally are finnicky voters who often dont show up for primaries at all, then complain about how bad the candidates are later. And a lot of the voters who do turnout, either they're establishment supporting loyal dems who are older and vote in every election, or they're passionate outsiders trying to change the system from within like myself, and we're just outnumbered. ANd I'm fully convinced a lot of people just vote for the sake of voting. I dont think the average american is very politically informed. They might watch the 6 PM news at the dinner table, but that's the extent of their political participation. And as such, they end up buying whatever narratives the establishment sells. Hence why things turn out as they are. The fact is, we have a serious apathy problem, combined with a serious ignorance problem. Not enough people care to turn out, and a lot of people are, quite frankly, politically ignorant. And the establishment just uses these facts to ensure races turn out the way they want them to. If they theoretically wanted to, they could've fluffed Nina Turner up every night and made her win. They could've sold universal healthcare to us in 2016 and 2020 and had Bernie win. They could've given Yang a fair shake in the debates rather than cutting his mic, giving him terribly low amounts of speaking time, and then having the Shark Tank guy go on about the dignity of work and how basic income is a crappy idea right after. 

Really, we live in a dystopia. We act like we're free, but we're not really free. The narratives of the country are controlled by powerful forces with a vested interest in the status quo and remaining a relatively right wing, pro capitalist country. They've incited the right into insanity, and the left into moderation. And that's why our country is such a dumpster fire. We cant have nice things, and anyone who fights for nice things is mercilessly crushed by the political establishment. 

And then they have the gall to lecture us about what the voters want. Yeah, you manufactured their consent, are you proud? It just sickens me.

Either way, I'm not gonna stop arguing for what I believe in, and voting for what I believe in. Everyone else can screw off as far as I'm concerned. I'll be ready when you leave the cave.

An addendum on Bernie

 So, I kind of cut my message short last night as I started falling asleep while writing it, so being awake, I want to cover more about how I feel about Bernie, as I feel like I was a bit harsh and didn't adequately explain the problem.

Here's the thing. Bernie, when he's his authentic self, can inspire generations of people to political change. Bernie might not be our reagan, but he could be a goldwater type figure for the future. Someone who was not successful in his time but informed an upcoming ideology that becomes successful down the road. I may not agree with him on everything, but I respect him and my disagreements are largely respectful. And while I will no longer compromise with the Bernie camp as UBI is a more mainstream discussed policy now, and it's what I really believe in, I do have to admire his character and vision when the dude stands on his own power.

However, the problem is that he isnt standing in his own power. Dude always ends up doing the politically correct thing and starts selling mediocrity in the name of "party unity" when he loses. He did it with Clinton, which I was disappointed in, but understood, and now hes doing it with Biden. Hes clearly selling a fake line he doesnt believe in, trying to sell Biden's mediocre vision to people, and its so painfully obvious listening to Krystal's interview with him he doesn't even believe it himself. And excluding Kyle is another warning bell. Because Kyle would be hard on him and he obviously wanted softballs...to sell Biden.

Which is why I really got mad. I was planning on cutting ties with progressives more formally anyway due to ideological differences anyway, but seeing Bernie LITERALLY be a cuck for Biden, as Kyle would call it, yeah...no. That behavior is disgraceful. At least with AOC "selling out" her argument is she cant really challenge pelosi without being blackballed, which is true. You need to pick your battles. But Biden is quite frankly using Bernie like a whore and tarnishing his brand. And he's just rolling over and accepting it. 

I hate inauthenticity. I can tolerate holding one's tongue for strategic reasons, but I dont tolerate people who clearly sell something inauthentic that they dont believe in. Bernie sold his soul for the Biden administration, and the democratic party is ruining his movement. And those who refuse to be coopted are largely going insane. Becoming socialists, antivaxxers, etc. It's imploding.

And yes, despite my Yang fluffing, Yang isnt perfect either. Dude sold out in his NYC run at times and he paid the piper for it. Yang too is at his best when authentic and not trying to compromise with the establishment. I hope his upcoming book raises his reputation.

I am legitimately scared for the UBI movement. A lot of them do wanna go the more centrist direction, which will ruin the movement. A lot of them are acting like Biden is great because child tax credit, and how if we do 10 more incremental shifts we might get something that vaguely resembles a UBI but full of warts. Ugh. No. Just advocate for what youre for, unapologetically. Sure you cant get everything you want, but that doesnt mean you should cuck out and join the establishment. 

Im done with Bernie and his movement

 So, I was actually leaning toward writing something like this, but watching Crystal Ball's interview with Bernie and how he snubbed Kyle Kulinski really punctuates the need for it. I'm done with Bernie. The dude is the past, he isn't the path forward any more, and I'm distancing myself from him both for political reasons and ideological reasons. 

Bernie was always a compromise for me

I mean, he was. And this was what I was gonna write my original article about. The reason i supported Bernie in 2016 was because he was the one who wanted to push the overton window left. He was the only one. Hillary was fundamentally opposed to the idea of large scale economic change like I believe we need, and Bernie at least wanted something like what I wanted.

But, as we know due to my past year of articles, I never was really aligned perfectly with the progressive movement. Just as I thought I was a democrat between 2012 and 2016, I thought I was a progressive between 2016-2020. Sometimes I end up identifying more with movements that are closeish to me than letting myself speak my truth, and honestly, I just used Bernie as a vehicle, just like I used the democratic party, to get to where I wanna go. But then tensions form and I end up having a falling out with these groups. 

Honestly, I supported Bernie as a pragmatic choice. He wasn't a perfect match for my politics, and I have strong disagreements with him on subjects like UBI and the green new deal. And honestly, I'm gonna be honest, before 2020, despite being a huge UBI supporter, i believed it was a pipe dream. I even kinda snubbed Yang in supporting Bernie for politically pragmatic reasons as I thought his campaign would get me where I wanted to go more than yang. For all the talk of how I don't compromise, I was bending over backwards compromising with Bernie. 

But here's the thing. Between Yang's run, and COVID, UBI is a lot more "in discussion" idea now. It's actually being discussed and debated. It's being taken seriously. If Bernie was my path to shift the overton window so we could accomplish UBI, then mission accomplished, we're already there. And I wonder how much Bernie really had to do with it. It was really Yang's movement combined with the pandemic crippling the economy that did it. Bernie supporters hate UBI. Because it's not what progressives normally want, which is jobs programs and means tested welfare. Well, yeah, sorry, ideological difference there. Being an ex conservative, I believe government as it exists is inefficient and I believe in giving money to people and cutting out the middleman. Sorry. 

The fact is, there's no reason for me to continue to support the dude. With UBI hitting the mainstream, he's become less relevant for me, as Bernie was just a vehicle to discuss issues I care about. 

Bernie is selling out

The KKF interview made me realize how far Bernie has fallen. For as much crap as Yang gets, Yang is far more of an outsider than Bernie at this point. After 2020, Bernie decided to work with his "deal old friend" biden in pushing Biden's agenda, and the interview made it clear that he's just a mouthpiece for the Biden administration at this point. Yang, on the other hand, is writing a tell all book on his experiences and treatment in the 2020 race. He's not cucking out to Biden.

Speaking of cucking out to Biden, in order to appear on KKF, Bernie explicitly made the condition not to talk to Kyle Kulinski. And the neolibs are rushing to Bernie's defense, pointing out how Kyle has called Bernie a cuck and how he needs to be more professional in decorum.

Cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck!

Yeah that's just my way of saying screw decorum policing craplibs. I mean, they have a point, but it's the wrong framing of the point. It is because Kyle would call bernie a cuck to his face that he didn't interview him. But that's the problem. Bernie wanted softballs. He went on KKF for a fluff interview to sell the Biden administration to ptogressives. And he didn't want to interview an outsider like kyle who would be critical of him. That's the thing I hate about the democratic party. it's this huge social circlejerk of pretending to support each other and build rapport while not doing anything. And due to Bernie not being willing to push Biden and call Biden out for not doing enough, he's so afraid of being screwed by Biden if he's critical of him he's totally been captured and coopted. He has to play this delicate social game of appeasing his more moderate colleagues and runs the risk of being shut out if he doesn't play along, while still appealing to the left. And he's just selling out. He isnt fighting like he was. And that's always been Bernie's weakness. THe dude does not fight.

Now, to be fair, I've defended AOC before on this, how is this different? Uh, to some extent, it isn't, but here's the thing. It's fine to avoid taking on strategic fights you cant win. AOC is only one person, has so much power, etc. So is Bernie. But, Bernie has been going this way for a while. He was a presidential candidate, and he's been terrified of going against the dems directly for fear of splitting the party. So he tries to work with them on mediocre compromises. And now he goes on podcasts he thinks will raise his status, demands they be done a certain way, excluding hosts from their own show, and then advertises for Biden. Even if you wanna avoid taking on Biden directly or being too critical, you cant sell me crap. Bernie always tried to sell me Hillary, and now he's trying to sell me Biden.No. While I have issues with purity testing lefties who cant be satisfied no matter what the dem establishment is still my enemy, and I wont buy anything from anyone trying to sell them. Doesn't matter if they're Bernie or whomever. No. I dont buy it. 

Bernie is too old

Another thing for me. Bernie is too old. He lost in 2016, he lost in 2020, he's gonna be 82 in 2024. He's old. He isn't gonna be running again. And I really wonder what the future of his movement holds. A lot of them are eating their own. Bernie is a strong moral leader when he gives stump speeches, but he's weak in governance. And his movement isnt happy, and it is divided. Some are becoming too establishment oriented where they're quite frankly selling out and defending Biden. They're being coopted. But the others are being too extreme and purity testy where they cant be satisfied. Few rational moderates exist between those extremes. And with that, what is the future gonna hold here? Who is gonna take the reins in 2024? Nina turner? Who knows. Will they be accepted? Does the progressive movement have anywhere to go? They seem to be imploding between half of them being coopted and the other half becoming so extreme theyre basically the left version of Trumpers. 

Yang, on the other hand, seems to have it more together. he lost his mayoral run, and boom, now a new book detailing whats wrong with the system as he sees it. Note the difference between bernie and yang. Bernie is selling Biden to people. Yang is writing books calling for ranked choice voting. Yet yang is the sell out. Lol. 

A warning to the Yang Gang/UBI community

Look, we gotta be straight as an arrow on this. Which is one of the reason I've written so much this year. I too believe we need an entire new ideology and a new movement. I dont really speak for yang himself. Yang is flawed too. Ive discussed my differences with him too. And I stand by that. But, he represents me more than anyone right now. I can always write a distancing article on him later. 

But, I would like to offer this advice. Look at the progressives and beware. First, focus on the types who wanna get coopted. Hate to air dirty laundry, but I actually distanced myself from a basic income forum recently because of a new moderator there. Dude is a total biden bro and super "pragmatic." Not the only reason i cant stand him, but it is a reason. Dude represents a trend Im seeing in the UBI community to rebrand tons of crappy "not UBI" policies as UBI. Like Biden's tax credit. And a lot of yang gangers think yang shouldve taken part in the Biden administration to get experience. Never mind that thats how you get coopted and being an outsider is a good thing. I dont want insiders. As kulinski said of bernie, you get washington brain and coopted that way. Youre not necessarily corrupt, but you end up adopting this super compromising ideology where you start just accepting anything and lowering your standards. Dont do it. UBI is a UBI. Tax credits and flawed NITs arent a real UBI, sorry. They dont have the same kick. 

On the flip side, dont be so purity testy you have standards that cant be met. Dont be so rigid you cant accept any compromise. Recognize good faith actors. Even people like Bernie and AOC mean well to some extent. Even if they do "sell out" I do get the whole "theyre only one person" arguments. But, hey, as outsiders, were not required to defend that crap, and we shouldnt defend that crap. But at the same time, we shouldnt become so extreme we cant be satisfied. Again, have achieveable target metrics, focus on the few issues you care about, and then be flexible otherwise. Theres a balancing. If youre too purity testy youll never find ground with anyone, but the establishment has a way of coopting people. Recognize the difference between a good faith actor and someone who just shills for the establishment. 

The reason im calling bernie out is because this latest interview is apologia, and the reason he did it the way he did, in excluduing kyle, was so that crystal would ask him softballs and no one would actually ask him the hard questions. And that needs to be done. Sorry, screw decorum. Screw defending Biden. Biden sucks, there I said it. but that doesnt mean anything that isnt my specific form is purity is a lie either. The truth is in between. 

Forward

We need to move forward, regroup, and offer an alternative to Biden's neoliberalism on the left. Progressives arent it either. We need something like the Yang gang, but honestly i dont like Yang as a leader either. He makes poor decisions at times, but hes also at the same time a great visionary, perhaps even better than bernie. And in reality i believe he isnt in with the establishment, heck while Bernie is playing paddy cake with Biden, Yang is going to outline the way forward. And I'm heavily looking forward to that. And if Yang fails, well, we gotta move forward from him too.