Vaush literally doesn't understand politics

 So, I really didn't want to dedicate another post to this topic, but Vaush just went and made a whole 1 hour 20 minute video called "Just Vote for Joe Biden You Moron", and I obviously have a few things to say about this.

First of all nice, pitch, btw, that'll sure win people over. People are already sick and tired of being yelled at and condescended to by vote blue no matter whoers, that after all that, yep, this one is TOTALLY going to be the one to set those voters over the edge and see the light. Not. 

Really, Vaush's take on politics is literally backwards. I could go on all day about stuff I already covered, so I'll just summarize those. Yes, he still goes on about how principled voters are idiots and pragmatism is the way to go, yes, he still goes on about how we are in an eternal struggle against fascists and you must vote blue no matter who even if you're in a safe state, he literally wants dems to win by margins of like 99-1, because that's the only way fascism will ever be defeated and blah blah blah. And he shames people even in safe states for voting third party because if you vote third party in a safe state you're shifting the demographics in such a way where its harder for the democrats to win. 

He uses florida as an example here. How they used to be a super swing state, and how now they are pretty much safe red, and how because of that now dems never try to win over florida and basically see it as a lost cause. And how the republicans always try and always vote red no matter what, and try to win in areas where they can't lose. And how fascists always vote within the republican party and blah blah blah.

And uh....Vaush...really doesnt understand republican voters. I USED to be a republican, and the reason I think the way I do is in part because of that. I never had loyalty to the republican party. There isnt much of a culture of "party loyalty" over there. heck that sounds very 1984ish and would turn off most republican voters. No. What most republicans had been doing for most of my life is sniffing ronald reagan's farts, and more recently donald trump's. They go on NON STOP about their values and policy. They LITERALLY DONT SHUT UP ABOUT THEM. They purity test people to insane degrees where they are about as bad as leftists. If there's a moderate republican who tries the crap the dems try with their voters, the voter base will just NOT turn out and let them lose. Heck, Thomas Frank discussed this in "what's the matter with kansas". The republicans are a bunch of radical ideologues who believe in what they believe in, and they vote republican, BECAUSE THE REPUBLICANS DELIVER THEM MATERIAL GAINS. They deliver tax cuts, SCOTUS judges, crazy laws. They actually DELIVER, and people vote for them because they LIKE them. Heck, if you try to force a moderate on them, they LOSE. When John McCain and Mitt Romney ran, the base wasnt passionate about either of them, and they LOST. Because the voters didnt turn out. Vaush has this idea that fascists are smart (although he also calls them dumb a lot) and how they play the long game, when no, the right just knows how to appeal to its voters. And the reason why trump is so scary to me is in part because while it looked like through the 2010s the republican party's coalition was finally dying off and that the dems were the future, no, suddenly donald trump awoke a mindset in conservative america that republican voters LIKE. And they are PASSIONATE about the guy. They built up a cult of personality around him the likes we havent seen since Reagan. Donald Trump might LITERALLY be this generation's Ronald Reagan figure to republicans. And that's a huge reason I am taking him more seriously as an existential threat than I used to, to the point I can almost kinda sorta get behind pragmatic voting this election cycle. Yes, I agree, Donald Trump's coalition must be repudiated, but unless we can actually repudiate it in the long term, we're just going to be stuck in a cycle of just holding our nose to vote for democrats we hate instead, because the standards for democratic voters are so low there's literally a culture of just voting for the party, no matter how crappy the candidates are. And that's no way to run a party.

Again, the long term success of political parties, in my view, comes down to their coalitions. The reason the republicans have been in such a strong position since 1968 is because the new deal coalition imploded, and all the racist types joined the republican coalition, which led to reagan's successes onward. Then the democrats just cobbled together a coalition based on social progressivism, but economic centrism, being a party of contradictions where it still has to maintain some semblance of its new deal politics, while also appealing to stuffy suburbanites who would otherwise vote for republicans and tax cuts but the dems move to the center enough to appease them where cultural issues matter more to them. And that's where the dems have been since 1992. And that coalition is aging as well. 

If the democrats suffer major defeats in a ton of states, it's largely because they've failed to cobble together a coalition in order to project their power. The democrats are stuck in a pattern of defeatism, because the generation of democrats alive has never known success. The baby boomers like the clintons were in college when the new deal coalition was imploding. All of those ancient gen x, boomer, and silent generation democratic politicians like joe biden, and the clintons, and chuck schumer, and nancy pelosi, and dianne feinstein, who is basically a vegetable at this point, I mean, they're all of this generation of loser, defeatist dems. And they completely botched the chance that we had to actually turn things around. They failed to understand that the younger generations like a bernie, that the left too wants to project power and not just be the lesser evil consolation prize. And we're coming to a point in american politics where there's gonna be a reckoning for the dems. And the dems and their more loyal older voters are eventually gonna die out and be replaced with millennials, and zoomers, and the generations after.  

And things are going to change. You see, the right is on borrowed time, potentially. It's mostly older generations who support them, and right now we're approaching a point where the last gasp of the republican party is a shift to authoritarianism to stop the natural progression of politics, and the realignment that was going to happen naturally, from happening. Seriously. If we went by demographics alone, it seems obvious to me that the GOP likely had no future, and the democrats were going to inherit a massive majority of voters.

BUT.....there's a problem. THe older generation seems intent on keeping things the same and shaping the next generation in their image. SO the GOP is going full authoritarian, and the dems are kind of suppressing their more left wing voters and beating them down and telling them they have to jsut accept things as they are or we lose to the fascists. And so far, they're basically just hanging on. 

And you know what? Maybe these forces are derailing the inevitable left wing "coalition of the ascendant" that was gonna happen in the 2010s. Maybe the dems didnt have an interest in a leftward turn because it upset their donors, and the GOP were scared because it threatened their values, so the GOP is going authoritarian, and the dems are playing chicken with their voters in order to bully them in order to accepting less.

This isn't healthy, and something has to give here. But I will say this. If voters wise up and refuse to vote for democrats, whose fault is that? For vaush, it's the voters' fault. He's one of those blue no matter who voter shaming morons who thinks that the proper way to talk to people is to tell them the beatings will continue until morale improves. That rather than appealing to voters through their values and material policy, he tries to whip them up into a frenzy against fascism and bully them into voting for democrats.

But if the democrats can't maintain their coalitions, that's their fault. If the dems lose florida, and ohio, and michigan, and wisconsin, and pennsylvania, and iowa, that is, in part, THEIR FAULT. The other part of the blame lies with the GOP, but from their perspective that was a success. That they managed to take this region out from under the dems' noses through smart politiking. 

By the way, for as much as vaush tries to act like dems dont try in red areas, they do when it suits them and their ideology. They're trying to bolster their centrist ideology by explicitly targetting red states that are moderating due to a large socially liberal and racially diverse suburban population. They're making gains in Arizona, and Georgia. They're trying similar tactics in North Carolina, and Texas, to much less success, but they're losing the rust belt in the process. And you know what? They dont care. Because a rust belt strategy would undermine the older generation's centrist ideology. They are interested in maintaining their coalition, and more importantly, the ideology behind it. Because that's how they look at the world. So, oh, we need to be progressive to win over rust belt voters and offer good solutions? That's too hard, let's just run to the center and to identity politics virtue signalling and win the south instead. Even though they can't do that either. But you know what? They'll try their darndest to make gains in georgia and arizona, and dont care what happens to iowa, or ohio, or florida, or even michigan, wisconsin, and pennsylvania. Seriously, the thing that's pissing me off is the dems are just leaving these areas to the republicans. Why? Because they're white, they're working class, and they dont care. In a party obsessed with postmodernism and economic centrism, the kind of strategy they have to pursue to win those areas is not in their interests, so they dont pursue it, but then they, and idiots like vaush, blame the voters for not voting blue harder. 

PEOPLE DONT VOTE BLUE BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS DONT MAKE A CONVINCING CASE FOR PEOPLE! GOSH! Really, vaush, the blue no matter whoers, they're dense. And then they turn around and tell us to run people in the primaries. WE DO THAT, THEY RIG THE PRIMARIES. Seriously, no one who votes third party does it as a third option, they do it because they recognize the democrats are completely hostile to their interests and ideology, and that they cant win inside the party, so they vote outside of it. Seriously, I voted green in 2016 and 2020, particularly BECAUSE the dems kept screwing over, ignoring, and alienating, the bernie coalition. They'd rather lose to trump, than appease the left any more than they have to. 

This is mostly the democrats' fault, in my opinion. The reason the party realignment and coalitional restructuing has been happening the way it was is because the dems are EXPLICITLY DRIVING SOME VOTERS AWAY FROM THEM, in order to gain other voters who fit the brand that they're trying to portray. Meanwhile the GOP is radicalizing into fascism, because you got the old coalition aging and losing power, but them getting a bunch of pissed off economically disadvantaged white working class voters, who end up being more angry about wokeism and immigration, than about labor rights, and policies that would materially help our lives.

Politics is a massive mess of theater in which the powerful are controlling the parties and the directions that the voters flow, while a lot of pissed off and disaffected voters are screaming into the void over a system that doesnt help them at all, and their energy is being channeled into white hot rage on the republican side, which is why fascism is becoming a thing on the republican side, and the democrats are just trying to force their centrist crap on the next generation, and it's working. So lefties, who could have breathed new life into the democratic party, become a minority of a party and stuck between either voting for the dems, and enabling a party hostile to their interests, or voting third party, and risking the GOP becoming even stronger. It's a really crap situation to be in, and it feels awfully manufactured to me, but that's where we are. 

It's a shame really. If you asked me in 2014 how I would expect the next realignment to go, I would talk about americans gaining consciousness to how much the GOP has been screwing them since reagan, waking up, and voting for dems in overwhelming numbers, causing the GOP's reagan coalition to crumble the way the new deal coalition did before it. I considered those white working class voters who inevitably got sucked into trumpism potential voters. ANd a lot of them liked bernie in 2016. And I think some of them would've voted for yang too. But they just werent going to vote for hillary, the uber feminist SJW who basically told us we cant have universal healthcare. And Biden, while he won primarily to get trump out and repudiate trumpism, he's not really popular. Why? BECAUSE THIS ISN'T WHAT VOTERS ACTUALLY WANT. Seriously, the two parties are forcing us to choose between two crap options, and people are choosing between two crap options. If better candidates were available, people would vote for them, but they dont because 1) the dems sabotage them, and 2), they think voting third party is a waste of time, specificially because of BS people like vaush peddle.

If we had a large number of voters voting for the green party, or for the forward party, that would signal to the parties that gee, maybe they need to do more than bullying and voter shaming to win people over. Maybe they actually need to offer material gains that people want.

IN my mind, both the GOP and the democrats deserve repudiation. Both parties need to shape up. Initially, I wanted to see the dems win in overwhelming numbers to watch the GOP's coalition implode, but given the dems are literally so bad at their job, and the GOP somehow managed to breathe new life into their party, they just ended up finding success by going more extreme and fascist. THeir voters are pressuring them into it and if GOP primary numbers tell me anything, it's that that's what the voters on the republican side WANT. it's trump's party now, and they're probably gonna circlejerk about the guy all the way until 2050 or so like they did with reagan. Yes, we need to snuff out that emerging coalition in its crib. But in doing so, we're enabling the democrats to just ignore and take advantages of us, and bully us, and show them that they dont have to work to earn our votes. And that's why in 2016 and 2020, I voted green, because that just goes against my own values in a major way. 

In 2024, I really dont know what I will do. It seems clear, based on my rating exercise, that candidates like west and williamson, while not perfect, ARE a huge deal better than biden on my all important economic priorities. It's not a straight win though, with leftists being deficient on foreign policy, and often weaker on more pragmatic metrics, so I still might go biden. Maybe I do decide that biden has done enough and repudiating trumpism is more important this election cycle.

But be warned. Long term, if we want things to improve, the left is eventually going to have to get down and dirty with the democrats in order to force them to embrace more progressive policy. it takes immense political pressure to force the dems to do anything, and the left needs to keep the pressure on if we hope to achieve material gains. And part of this pressure is the threat to NOT vote for dems.

That said, for me, the lesson of 2016 isn't, as vaush said, that voters have to learn to vote blue no matter who, no, the lesson is that dems need to keep left wing voters happy enough to remain in their coalition. And left wing voters need to send the right signals and reward candidates when they actually deliver on some policy goals, which is another reason im leaning toward potentially voting biden in the general.

Keep in mind, I dont hate biden that much. I think it's weak, I dont think he's gone far enough on my priorities, but darn it, he did try on some of them, and part of me wants to reward him for that. Still, West and Williamson are measurably better. But whether it's worth a protest vote to signal that "do better" is another debate for another day.

Quite frankly, I dont want to commit to voting for any one candidate now. I lean williamson in the primary, sure, that's a no brainer. Williamson is the best candidate in the race in general this time around. But Biden vs West? You could argue convincingly either way given my current values and the current predicament. I'll make that judgment some time in 2024. 

But yeah. That's the thing. Even now, even though I kind of agree this might be a "pragmatic voting" year, I cant stand vaush. Yeah, dude? If you ever read this, know you're not doing jack crap to advance your cause. If anything, you're hurting it. Because your entire strategy comes down to bullying lefties WHO DONT LIKE DEMOCRATS into supporting democrats. And that's just not a stable long term coalition to have. Regardless of my own values on the matter, I feel like vaush (and blue no matter who dems) need to come to terms with the fact that a political coalition full of unhappy people you literally have to bully to come out and vote for you every 2-4 years is NOT going to be stable, and it's NOT going to learn to long term electoral gains. We will continually remain one election away from fascism, as long as the democrats dont improve. Because the long term solution to defeating fascism is building a coalition full of people who dont WANT to vote for fascists. Who WANT an alternative. Who are ENTHUSIASTIC about who they vote for. You shouldnt have to keep poking and prodding and bullying people into voting for democrats. They should want to do it naturally. Being constantly on defense like this is just a sign that your coalition is weak and losing. And it needs to shape up.

There's a theory in american politics that's considered a competitor to party realignment theory, but in a way...not. It's the idea of a sun and moon party. Basically one party is the sun, it's the dominant power, it sets the overton window, it sets the tone, and the other party is the moon and struggles to remain relevant and merely serves as an opposition party within the sun party's overton window. I think there is value behind that and it works perfectly with realignment theory.

Second realignment, Jacksonian dems were the sun party, whigs were the moon. Third, lincoln republicans were sun, southern democrats moon, 4th party didnt seem to have a clear cut sun and moon, although I'd be inclined to say republicans sun, democrats moon based on the successes of people like Theodore Roosevelt. Fifth alignment, FDR dems were the sun, republicans were the moon. Sixth alignment, Reagan republicans were sun, clinton dems were the moon.

And now we're in a messy transition to the 7th alignment. Ideally, the solution would be progressive dems sun and moderate republicans moon, but the dems seem hell bent on remaining the moon party due to their sheer incompetence, while the republicans are seizing the opportunity to remain the sun party again through trumpism. And that's NOT a good place to be. Our country might literally fall to fascism if that becomes the case. Honestly, if dems want to avoid that fate, they need to shape up and become the sun party, and IMO that means moving left on economics, but center on cultural issues. Drop the wokeness crap, and appear to working class voters through economic ideas that improve their lives. If they can't do that, we might see America become a fascist country in our life time. Do or die, people. 

All I know is vaush isnt helping the situation, because all he does is scream at people who dont like the dems to vote blue. He literally doesnt understand that he's contributing to the problem that way, not the solution. A party full of people who hate their party, its politicians, and its platforms will never be able to maintain power. Because elections are won in waves, and those waves are based on voter enthusiasm. If you want to truly defeat fascism, you need to develop an alternative people are enthusiastic about to counter it. You know, like FDR did in the 1930s. He saw that america was at risk to fall to fascism or communism so acted to preserve capitalism and liberal democracy. We need another FDR like figure with another FDR like new deal, if we want to do that again. Period. End of story. 

Biden vs Williamson vs West

 So, I decided it would be a good idea to go over the three major candidates on the left in the general that I'm considering voting for to see who is the best, and if Biden isnt the best, if a protest vote is actually worth it. I've done some napkin math before, but I do want to get more thorough.

Also, I'm excluding RFK from these analyses since he doesn't seem to have solid enough positions to even criticize, and given that I have little to no interest in supporting him anyway. 

Metric 1

Biden- 61/100

Williamson- 72/100

West- 58/100

So, this metric is one I've used before, I've modified it for 2024 slightly to account for the spoiler effect, as I do value keeping trump out of office this election cycle.

Support for basic income- 10 points 

Support for medicare for all- 10 points

Economic policy- 10 points

Social policy- 10 points

Foreign policy- 10 points

Overall ideology- 20 points

Consistency/commitment to progressive ideological goals- 10 points

Experience/competence- 10 points. 

Doesn't act as a spoiler- 10 points

Without further ado, let's look at the candidates.

Biden

Support for basic income- He supported an expansion to the child tax credit which is a lot like a basic income, but is much smaller and only applied to children. Still, he deserves some credit here: 1/10

Support for medicare for all- He's an outspoken opponent of medicare for all, but he did support a public option in 2020. However, he did not seem to do a whole lot to advance this, and only did a couple tweaks around the edges. 1/10

Economic policy- Biden has been decent on general economic policy. He supports a $15 minimum wage, build back better, free community college, some student debt relief, free childcare, preschool, etc. However, he could go much further at times, and he also did a couple things like force striking railway workers back to work. Still, based on his intentions, he's largely been decently progressive, although not as far as I'd like him to be. I think I'll give him a 6/10 here.

Social policy- Biden has largely been decent on social policy. He opposes the death penalty, is pro LGBTQ rights, pro choice, and has a fairly balanced immigration policy. However, there are also some black marks worth mentioning. He is too anti gun for my tastes (most lefties are), he hasnt pursued legalization of cannabis, and he has kind of done some inhumane things with immigration early on, although those might not be directly his fault. He has given some symbolic concessions to the woke on some things, but these don't really factor in much either way as they're kind of just annoying virtue signalling but are largely harmless (thinking juneteenth and stuff). All in all, I think a 7/10 is also worth mentioning here.

Foreign policy- Here I'm really impressed with Biden. Long story short, he got us out of afghanistan, however messy of a withdrawal that was, and he's doing a great job in Ukraine. Basically, whatever policies I'd be pursuing on foreign policy, he's doing. I have nothing bad to say about him here, and only positive. 10/10.

Overall ideology- While Biden has moved left to appease progressives somewhat, he's still the candidate of "nothing will fundamentally change", and I have a mixed opinion on him.  He's nowhere near as progressive as I want, especially on economic issues, and has fallen way short of my ideal political agenda there. However, he is fairly good socially, mostly hitting the right notes, and on foreign policy he's unimpeachable in my eyes. All in all, I'll give him a lukewarm 12/20, since I mostly focus on economics here. 

Consistency/commitment to progressive goals- I mean, it's joe biden. He's not much of a progressive in all honesty. But he has done a relatively recent job in fulfilling at least some campaign promises, and most of his shortcomings come from congress. There are areas where he has fallen short even of goals he himself stated, I can't say he's really a progressive champion here. 4/10.

Experience/competence- At the same time, Biden is unimpeachable in terms of political experience and competence. I know people think he's old and braindead, but in all objectivity, I don't think he's senile or braindead. I think he's one of the most competent and experienced politicians in Washington, and I have nothing bad to say here. 10/10.

Doesn't act as spoiler- Biden is the presumed democratic nominee. 10/10. 

That said, adding it all up, Biden gets a score of 61/100. This put him on the high end of the neolib scale by 2020 standards, and right around candidates like Elizabeth Warren and Tulsi Gabbard, who also scored in the low 60s. For reference, I gave Biden a score in the high 30s or low 40s in 2020. So he's gone up a lot and being fair to him, I think he's doing a pretty decent job. 

Marianne Williamson

Support for basic income- Williamson has declined to endorse a UBI this election cycle, but still supports at the very least the same child tax credit Biden does. So she gets the same number of points. 1/10

Support for medicare for all- She supports medicare for all full stop. 10/10.

Economic policy- She wants to bring back FDR's second bill of rights and has her own version of it. She does lean too hard into traditional liberal solutions like a green new deal, welfare, etc. However, she has a pretty solid platform and given UBI isn't a central focus here as this is a catch all for everything else, I have to give her a strong score. 9/10.

Social policy- She's right on most positions as lefties are. But she does have cringe moments. Her immigration policy is more reasonable than I thought it would be. Humane, but still not for open borders and crap. Guns. She pushes reparations and the like hard. Guns, like all lefties. Still, I have to say she's an overall improvement over Biden. 8/10. 

Foreign policy- I did look up her Ukraine position and she did seem to understand that we need to fight back vs Russia's aggression, but otherwise she leans a bit too hard into defunding the military and pushing a "department of peace". I think leftists often get very high minded about the military, but given I'm a bit of a stone cold pragmatist on foreign matters, I do think Biden has a much better approach here. 6/10.

Ideology- She is based in a lot of ways, she is pushing her own new deal and economic bill of rights, but we clearly diverge on some topics. Socially she seems solid but has some cringe moments there too. Foreign policy I kinda cringe with her. I also think she leans a bit too hard into her brand of spirituality and has a kind of "feels over reals" mindset sometimes. All in all, I'm gonna give her a 15/20 though. She's decent. But not perfect. 

Consistency/commitment to progressive goals- Eh, I think she means well, given her spirituality and the like. And I think she will remain relatively consistent, but I could see her shifting on some things. She did in just 4 years last time she was for UBI and no longer is. So I can't give her full credit here. 8/10. 

Experience/competence-I mean on the one hand, I don't think she's qualified. She seems weak on some issues, she doesn't have the professional experience to be a president, but I have to give her some points for actually coming up with such a well polished platform, so I don't think she would be useless. 5/10.

Doesn't act as spoiler- Well, she's running on the democratic ticket. As long as she wins that way she gets 10 points. If she runs third party later we can reduce her a bit, but yeah. 10/10.

Overall, this gives her a 72/100. She's ahead of Biden, but not by a ton. I do prefer her. Let's be clear. And on policy metrics I expect her to stand out more, but on a well rounded metric, eh, she has some weaknesses. Especially on foreign policy and her experience for the job. I dont think she's the best candidate, and this is where the difference between her and say, bernie sanders, is most stark. Bernie had almost the same platform, but being more experienced and more grounded ideologically, he would've gotten probably somewhere in the 80s on this metric. So we can clearly see Williamson is weaker. Still slightly stronger than Biden overall for me, but yeah, I'd prefer someone more experienced and grounded ideally. 

Cornel West

We discussed Cornel west more recently, so this is still fresh in the mind. 

Support for UBI-While west has expressed support for UBI in the past, he does not seem to be prioritizing it this time. He does seem to support the child tax credit though. But still, his "poverty abolition" mindset seems to be based on more traditional leftist metrics rather than a UBI. 1/10.

Medicare for all- He supports medicare for all. 10/10

Economic policy- He's a "poverty abolitionist" and supports very aggressive economic policy in pushing to end poverty. BUT, it's still more in the traditional leftist mold. 9/10.

 Social policy- Seems to support a lot of the right things, and actually seems more moderate on gun control, but there are questions. What is his immigration policy? And of course he seems for reparations and the like. So some cringe there. But still, I have to say he's not bad here. 9/10.

Foreign policy- here he faceplants hard. He basically calls for drastic cuts to our military and immediately ending the war in Ukraine, which basically means capitulations to the Russians. Lefts are cringe on foreign policy tbqh. 0/10

Ideology- I like a lot of aspects of his ideology. I like his strong anti poverty stances. I just wish his policies were more reflective of mine. He's probably a little too far left for me on other areas of policy, especially foreign policy where he totally loses the plot. But I have to say I'm fairly positive toward him here. 16/20.

Ideological commitment to progressive ideals- I think west is unimpeachable in this sense. 10/10.

Competence/experience- He's very well read and very good as an activist and a scholar, but idk if I'd want him as president. Especially given his extreme foreign policy views.He also has not outlined specifics on policy, which I don't like. 3/10.

Doesn't act as spoiler- he's running on the green party. 0/10.

Overall. Adding it all up, I'm actually impressed with West. I know I kinda dismissed him the other day, but looking at his views more in detail, west tends to be strong here in terms of policy. I just wish the dude endorsed UBI. I mean he used to it seems but it's missing from his platform and given his support for both medicare for all and a green new deal, I'm guessing right away he's not gonna endorse the policy and gonna go the more leftist route. Still. All in all, this guy gets a 58/100. He scores just slightly below williamson in the grand scheme of things, but being third party hurts him here.

Overall thoughts

All in all,this seems to reinforce my general strategy of backing Williamson in the primary but Biden in the general. I mildly prefer more left wing candidates, but let's face it, the difference isn't HUGE here. Even williamson scored only 8 points higher than Biden, due to her lack of experience, wonky worldview, and weaker foreign policy. And west, well, forget it, given he's running third party and i do value keeping trump out of office, he's in last place.

Don't get me wrong, I support the left in my heart, but this time I do place value on keeping trump and desantis away from office, so given that, Biden has more of an edge than he'd otherwise have in the general.

Still, I would like to see how Williamson and West do when I focus exclusively on policy. Let's look at that next.

Metric 1.1

This is just metric 1, but with focused mostly on policy. I'm removing the ideological commitment,  experience, and spoiler effect metrics from this and focusing mostly on ideas. So this one will be out of 70. 

Biden- 37/70

Williamson- 49/70

West- 45/70

Here,Williamson expands her lead over Biden, and now West beats Biden. Still, given the obvious flaws leftist candidates seem to have, the difference still isn't HUGE in practice. Biden does have advantages that williamson and west dont, and even though I focus primarily on economics in my votes normally, this broader metric does reduce the difference quite a bit.

Anyway, this is still a broad snapshot. The next two more detailed metrics will focus more on domestic policy concerns and I expect Williamson and West to do an even better job here.

Metric 2

Biden- 30/100

Williamson- 60/100

West- 55/100

This is the abridged big four metric in which I look solely at my top five priorities: UBI, M4A, free college, climate change, and housing program. This was originally the big three, but given climate change is of existential importance, I added that too. And I have expanded my reach into housing in recent years

That said, here's the weighting (max score: 100).

Basic income- 40 points

Medicare for all- 25 points

Free college/student debt forgiveness- 15 points

Climate change- 10 points

Housing program- 10 points

No one's gonna score super good on this since no one is for UBI, but we'll see who does the highest.

Biden

UBI- Biden does not support a UBI, but does support the child tax credit. I'll give him 5 points here.

M4A- Biden does not support medicare for all. He supported a public option in theory which could've probably net him up to 10-20 points depending on implementation, but given he has not made any serious moves toward that and has only done minor stuff around the edges, I give him 5 points.

Free college/student debt forgiveness- He's pushed for free community college and up to $10-20k in student debt. Kind of incremental but it's something. I'll give him 7 points.

Climate change- To be honest, I really like build back better, so I give him 10 points.

Housing program- He pushes a lot of incremental ideas for housing policy. I'll give him 3 points.

As such, counting it all up, Biden gets a 30/100. This is where Biden falls apart really. On my most precious concerns on the economic front, he's not very strong. He was around 70/200 on the old version of this, which amounts to 35/100 on this, but given the different weighting and adding of a housing program, yeah, he does worse now. So, very lackluster, but what do we expect from Biden?

Williamson

UBI- Williamson doesn't support UBI either but supports CTC. +5.

M4A- Williamson supports M4A. +25.

Free college/student debt forgiveness- She supports it. +15.

Climate change- she supports a green new deal framework, which I see as a massive waste of resources and is more about pushing a new deal via jobs programs as opposed to UBI. +5.

Housing- supports building millions of units as part of a green new deal. +10. 

Overall- Williamson gets a total score of 60 points, which is about the max a non UBI supporting leftie will get under this metric. Here we see a starker contrast from Biden than the more generalized metric. While Williamson only scored 6 points higher than Biden on Metric 1, and 12 points on 1.1, here she doubles Biden's score, going from a 30 to a 60. Yeah, that's what I'm mostly looking at most when I voted in 2016 and 2020. I was mostly narrowly focused on these kinds of issues. And lefties do a lot better, even if they're not perfect. So yeah, Williamson definitely gets a primary vote on this metric. 

West

UBI- West has historically supported UBI but as I noted in metric 1 his platform both avoids mentioning it, and shows signs of going with UBI's competitor policies instead. Still, he supports the CTC expansion so +5.

M4A- West supports M4A. +25.

Free college/student debt forgiveness- west supports both. +15.

Climate change- West supports a green new deal framework like Williamson. +5.

Housing- He supports a "housing for all" plan, but the details are not well known. +5

Overall- West does worse, if only because of ambiguity of his ideas. Unlike williamson who laid out specifically what she wanted and I could judge her better. West wrote significantly less and is more vague. It's very possible his housing program is as good as williamson's but because I cant know the details, West will do a bit worse here. He scores 55 while williamson scores 60. Still way better than Biden, and it's really splitting hairs here, in all honesty. 

Overall thoughts

Im not sure if this metric will reflect my wishes if a UBI candidate entered the fray. The thing is, UBI is normally such an important concern it overrides the others, where the next 4 ideas are equally as important to me combined as a well designed UBI plan is alone. This is because of the philosophical differences between me, a UBI oriented indepentarian, and traditional liberals and leftists. BUT, given Yang is not in the race, and we dont have a staunch pro UBI candidate, this concern is moot. 

Biden is fairly milquetoast on policy. As I said, he has supported some of my concerns. But, Williamson with her economic bill of rights, and cornell west, with his campaign against poverty, are MUCH stronger candidates on my most central concerns. Williamson makes an overwhelmingly strong case vs Biden measuring this stuff in this way. And West is almost as strong, and only loses points because, well, that's what happens when you put your entire economic policy in a single paragraph rather than allowing me to judge details. And this is also why RFK is not being measured. if I have trouble nailing down west on policies, imagine how hard it is to nail down the guy who doesn't seem to care about policy at all.

So yeah. Under a normal voter cycle, I would probably support williamson in the primary and west in the general. I can't even say that the results are within the margin of error this time. On my most important concerns, williamson and west are almost twice as good as Biden, and while not perfect they are stronger candidates. It's really not wanting trump to win and understanding that biden is at least giving us SOMETHING that keeps me voting for him. Like really, once I shift away from just looking at economics alone, Biden becomes a lot more compelling to me. But in this metric, the leftists are very compelling.

Now let's look at a bigger picture economic platform.

Metric 2.1

Biden- 40/100 (35-45)

Williamson- 58/100 (possibly up to 68)

West- 53/100 (possibly up to 68)

This metric is something that I was working on that has an expanded list of my priorities. Given I already had an abridged big 5 and this is just an expanded version of that that covers seven priorities, it really doesn't deserve its own number designation. Basically it tracks somewhat with my recent economic bill of rights, and is broken down into achievable legislative goals.

The weighting is as follows (total: 100 points):

UBI- 30 points

M4A- 20 points

Climate change- 10 points

Free college/student debt forgiveness- 10 points

Minimum wage increase- 10 points

Housing program- 10 points

32 hour work week- 10 points

Biden

UBI- Supports CTC, +3.

M4A- Minor stuff around edges, +4

Climate change- Supports build back better, +10

Free college/student debt forgiveness- Supports community college and some student debt forgiveness, +5

Minimum wage increase- supports $15 minimum wage, +10

Housing- supports incremental ideas, +3

32 hour work week- Biden has not supported it officially, but there is a bill in congress supported by some democrats, and I presume he would not sign it. +5

Total- 40/100

With the extended metric, Biden does better than with the more limited metric. Interesting. Also, did not go into this thinking he supported a 32 hour work week. To be fair Im not sure if he does, but given his party has introduced a bill on his watch, I have to give him some credit here regardless. Still, only giving half credit since I dont know which way he will go on it. As long as congress can't pass anything, it's a nonissue.

Williamson

UBI- Supports CTC but not UBI, +3

M4A- Supports M4A, +20

Climate change- Supports GND, +5

Free college/student debt forgiveness- Supports it, +10

Minimum wage increase- Supports $15 an hour, +10

Housing- Supports it via GND, +10

32 hour work week- Never mentioned supporting it, might, but unclear. Tentative 0 (only gave Biden credit because a bill was introduced in congress on his watch). 

Total- 58/100

Williamson still does better than Biden. And if williamson embraces a 32 hour work week, she would get up to 68.

West

UBI- Supports CTC, UBI unclear but unlikely, +3.

M4A- Supports M4A, +20

Climate Change- Supports GND, +5

Free college/student debt forgiveness- Supports it, +10

Minimum wage increase- He mentions supporting a living wage and I could see him supporting at minimum $15 an hour, so he get full credit. +10

Housing- Supports something, but unknown details. +5

32 hour work week- Doesnt have an explicit position on it, +0

Overall- 53/100

Once again scores slightly lower than williamson with no explicit details to housing plan. Also unclear where he stands on the 32 hour work week. 

Overall

 Much like with the abridged metric, Williamson and West are generally speaking a significant improvement to biden. Still, Biden is no slouch. He aligns with my views by around 40%, while the competition only aligns by around 50-60% (although possibly up to almost 70%, depending on places where I'm unsure of positions).

And that's the trick with these metrics. No one is really aligning a MASSIVE amount in these metrics. Out of scores of 100, and trust me that 100 is literally just...my own platform, possibly downgraded to 90-95 if certain aspects aren't feasible (and I thought ahead on that), and the best candidates are only aligning around 60%. Not great. A lot of this is because I dont really align perfectly with leftist candidates any more and my priorities as explicitly stated have diverged as I started thinking about what I REALLY wanted this past election cycle. 

If anything, these leftists are often closer to Biden than they are to my ideal. And Biden is kinda underwhelming as expected, but there still are some points of agreement here. 

Generally speaking, yes, the leftists are better, and I would support them in the primary, but I'm not sure that West is really worth a protest vote. Especially when you go into metric 1 and 1.1 where I discuss my goals more broadly and include things like social and foreign policy, experience, and the spoiler effect. 

Discussion overall

I think that it's clear, based on these arrays of metrics, that the no brainer option as of now is supporting williamson in the primary. She's better across the board, and while she has flaws, she still scores the highest in raw scores. She has a solid economic platform, better than Biden's, and her downsides aren't so bad that they really close the gap with Biden.

Still, by the broader metrics 1 and 1.1, the gap between Williamson and biden isn't massive. Williamson has some serious deficits in experience, is weaker on foreign policy, and all things considered, only beats biden by a relatively small margin. Especially in the broadest metric 1. 

In metric 2 though, which focuses on my highest priorities this election cycle, Williamson is a more significant upgrade to Biden, scoring 1.5-2x higher than Biden does. 

West scores slightly below Williamson, mainly because of his lack of policy details making it hard to know where he actually stands on specific issues, but he still also scores ahead of Biden. However, on metric 1, he does a worse job because of his complete and utter lack of a sensible foreign policy, and the fact that he is running as a spoiler. I like West's convictions at times, but all things considered, West and Biden are just about neck and neck here. As such, I will be waiting out the democratic primary and I'll make a more firm decision closer to election time. My mind says go Biden, my heart says go west. Let me put it that way. 

But yeah. That's where I stand. All in all, Williamson is a clear cut choice for the primary, but the general between biden and west it could go either way and I will not endorse anyone at this time.

Also if other challengers jump in, I may try to measure them if possible. But yeah. 

As for RFK...well again, can't really measure his positions, don't really care. Suffice to say he's gonna do worse than Biden and isn't really worth expending effort on.

Woke vs anti woke: who is worse (more authoritarian)?

 So, Kyle Kulinski basically had this debate on Krystal Kyle and Friends, and I thought it raised good points. And given my obvious centrist stance, I thought it would be good to give my own ideas.

My initial opinion unshaped by discussion

Going into it, my own opinion reflects horseshoe theory, both suck, both are just as bad, and practical mirror images of each other. Both are just as illiberal and both as authoritarian in reaching their goals. 

But, the discussion did raise some good points, so I do want to address some of them. 

Legal vs cultural authoritarianism

A big theme of the discussion seemed to center around this divide.. Kyle argued the right wing anti woke people are more dangerous because they're more likely to pass laws to impose their ideas on others. Basically, look ay Ron DeSantis in Florida with his authoritarian measures like "dont say gay", trying to influence the school curriculum by banning certain ideas, etc. The woke left doesn't have much institutional power and often doesnt use legal means to achieve their goals. 

I have to concede this to some extent. While I think in terms of attitudes and the internal philosophical approaches to their ideology, both are rather authoritarian and illiberal, the right is more likely to manifest this through LEGAL action.

I mean, for another post, I've been researching the social positions of left wing politicians like Williamson and West and seeing how "woke" they are, and lets be honest, their most offensive positions in that sense are stuff like defunding the police or reparations. Ideas that I might range from being mildly supportive of myself, to opposing them, but not really overly vigorously. 

Most left wing authoritarianism in this sense seems to come from the cultural policing they do. You got stuff like cancel culture, which they discussed somewhat and I discussed with the whole Rammstein scandal. You got Shelby Lynn talking about how this can't go on any more but failing to offer reasonably legal solutions. And honestly? A big aspect of the left seems to be that they dont trust the legal structures of things, so they do their direct action nonsense outside of the system, rather than trying to change it.

In a way we are fortunate the woke left DOESNT use legal means to achieve their goals. Because I already discussed the implications of their ideology on the legal system and wider society and I can't help but be terrified of what a woke left that uses legal structures to enforce their will would look like. Sure, we got some wanting to pass hate speech legislation and Im already concerned enough about that, but generally, the more extreme illiberal tendencies seem missing their actual behavior. 

As such, I have to concede that the right wing anti woke people are more immediately dangerous. Still, in terms of ideology, i think both are pretty bad and I will insist on the whole horseshoe theory thing.

I would like to discuss the cultural policing the left does. On a lot of sites like reddit, tumblr, etc., the woke have a lot of institutional power. Theyve changed the TOS to fit their ideology, theyve made certain right wing views flat out against that TOS based on "hate speech', and they end up marginalizing the right and even the center like me, kicking us out of privately owned public spaces over simple disagreement. I dont experience much on the hate speech front but i have noticed that attitudes and ideas I had in the 2000s as a conservative now pass as "christofascism" to these people, and that's disturbing. Back in my day, we actually debated these issues openly and i changed my mind to become more libertarian and left wing due to REASON. In this modern environment where you either agree with the left or get banned, all that does is inflame people and drive them underground. It created schisms in our society that lead to more polarization and less understanding of others, and I really dont like that.

Also, let me just say on the more leftist spaces, their intolerance for any dissent at all makes me understand how places like the USSR became so authoritarian. I mean, they'll just ban anyone who even slightly disagrees with them, admits to being mildly capitalist, blah blah blah. It's ridiculous. I hate the modern internet and how much power the woke have. 

I mean, with the rammstein thing, let me notice a tactic I've seen the left do. I see them come into pro rammstein spaces on reddit and basically go on about how we're so sexist and misogynist and intolerant and call on mods to crack down and ban people they dont like. They claim that the culture makes them uncomfortable where they cant express their realopinion because people will push back against them, so apparently we gotta all be censored so they can have a safe space to talk about their opinions. And then when called out they delete their accounts and start over. 

They also tend to claim rammstein fans are being so violent toward protesters, while ignoring the obvious signs that say "kill Till" and stuff like rammstein fans being pepper sprayed at concerts (actually happened to a friend of a friend). 

Like, they love to do the same thing fascists do of being weak and strong at the same time. They love to act like they're so strong together, but the second they get any pushback they claim they're weak and losing and anyone who doesnt think like them needs to be baned. So they do use their institutional power to silence others. They just dont do it legally. They do it more informally on social media and the like.

Then they turn around and claim cancel culture doesnt exist (despite having petitions to literally cancel rammstein concerts) and how free speech doesnt mean freedom from consequences (if youre trying to impose consequences on people that silence them for using their speech in a way you dont like, that's not free speech) and all kinds of weasel words to make it sound like they're not doing what they're doing.

I miss the old obama left of net neutrality culturally. Where the concern was private power can be as dangerous as legal power in its own right, and we need to create free and open environments for everyone. Basically wanting to expand legal rights into the private sphere. THis new woke left is against that and loves to play the whole "well its a private matter people can censor however they want" card. Which makes them sound like right libertarians to me. Like, they end up going all right libertarian when it comes to people getting fired from their job, or banned off of social media. And I find that disgusting and hypocritical.

So in the short term, yes, I'll agree with Kyle that the alt right, the anti woke people are more dangerous. The immediate concern is on them, but long term, I think both ideologies offer threats to liberty and rights within a liberal democracy and should both be fought vigorously.

Effective politics vs Nominal politics

So, Kyle brought this up and given I fall into the category of the person he wants to talk about, I want to address this point. But he seems concerned about the idea of someone who is nominally culturally centrist and rejecting extremes, like me, but then attacking the woke side more often. He fears this will create a right wing audience and think that someone like me should be fair and balanced.

So I wanted to address that, but no, I dont think it's a concern. Yes, I punch left a lot more often. That's because I see left wing ideas as more engaging and interesting to talk about. I write about topics that interest me. As I said, you cant force people to care, but when I do care, I write about stuff. So I end up criticizing the left, from another kind of left or the center.

The right bores me. When I do discuss the right, I feel like im saying "i like good things and hate bad things". I mean, really, most right wing ideas arent worth discussing. They're intellectually bankrupt, I've torched their entire ideology on this blog before, and that isnt the only article I've written like that. I really have so little respect for conservatism that they quite frankly dont deserve my attention.

And quite frankly, I cant see the right liking me for long since I am that outwardly hostile toward them and pull no punches. The thing about this blog is i actually discuss ideas in detail, I not only rip into others' ideas, I compare and contrast them with my own. So even if i attack the woke left, you should obviously know what my ideal would look like instead. I feel like this would turn off a right wing audience since right winger probably think im crazy. And just because i denounce the woke doesnt mean my perspective is in any way friendly to theirs. 

Conclusion

So yeah. Ultimately I do think both sides are just about as bad in the abstract, both are illiberal, authoritarian, and opposed to my goals for society. Still, the right is a much more pressing and immediate threat overall, and effectively im going to vote left anyway in opposition to them, so yeah. The left, in terms of organized politics, is much more harmless, and woke ideas in political platforms are not only much less harmful than concentrated cultural wokeness, they're also often decent or at least not terrible ideas worth discussing.

The problem with the woke left is that they're insular, mostly online, and act through less than legal means when their stuff does meet the real world. And while they should not be ignored as a threat, they just arent as immediate as a threat as the anti woke right is.

So yes, I'm a cultural centrist, I oppose both, but yeah, I'm gonna be voting and advocating in terms of actual political action against the right a lot harder, while most of my criticism of the left is as toothless as their action, it's just us badmouthing each other into the void. And it shall remain that way until their stuff meets the real world.

And yeah, that's my thoughts on this subject. 

Responding to Shelby Lynn's speech at Frauen 100

 So, I've been trying to avoid using her name for her own privacy, but because she wants to make a public spectacle of herself, I'll bite. Shelby Lynn, the original accuser of sexual assault against Rammstein, gave a speech recently at the Frauen 100 feminist gathering in Berlin. 

Before I get into the speech itself, let me just give my brutally honest thoughts on Lynn. SHE'S NOT A VICTIM! She admitted herself that till did not touch her, and most of her allegations came down to the idea that was she drugged so she would not say no to till when till asked for sex. But she did say no, and till might not have been happy, but respected it. 

As far as the drugging allegation, she has no positive drug test, the vilnius police closed their investigation, and multiple women were interviewed and had contradictory testimony discussing what happened. And as video evidence popped up all over the internet of how Shelby was really acting that night, I've come to the more mundane conclusion: she was drunk. 

Seriously, she got drunk, was acting very hyper and annoying, she was apparently invited undernieth the stage for sex, she said no, and then was brought back out to enjoy the rest of the concert.

That's it, that's the story. But she keeps insisting she was drugged. There's no evidence of this, and if anything evidence I've seen from the above interviews, video clips, and lack of evidence in the form of a positive drug test, it really seems to go the other way. She was very obviously drunk. And she probably had a really bad hangover for a variety of reasons. 

And yeah. That seems to be what happened.

And now she wants to destroy rammstein. Even thought she has no evidence. And all of this controversy started with her. And instead of taking the legal angle more seriously, she instead went off and and decided to start a me too social media campaign against till. And now the arguments are getting so abstract they're criticizing row zero itself, "imbalances of power", blah blah blah. 

It's crazy. 

And of course, the SJWs are so cultish with their "believe all women" sentiments they're rolling with it and doing this massive flak campaign against rammstein. 

Hence why I've been in a tizzy about it.

Honestly, I believe till is likely innocent. I know the dude's a horn dog, and it's fine if you have your own personal morality about till's sexual ethics, but in the grand scheme of things, I dont believe hes' done anything wrong, and other than needing to be more careful in the future with his casual sexcapades, I really don't think he needs to change his behavior much. 

But hey, these radfems need to start shoving their moral puritanism down everyone's throat, and IMO, they need to kindly screw off.

ANYWAY, that's enough of the discussion about shelby herself, let's go into her speech.

Shelby Lynn began her speech with a question: "If there is anyone here who knows of a young woman close to them who has been attacked, please raise your hand."

In fact, around 90 percent of the audience responded.

 There's going to be a sampling bias here. The people who attend these kinds of conferences are going to be significantly more likely than normal to be associated with this sort of stuff.

Still, I will grant her something. I did take a class in college on domestic abuse and generally speaking 1/4 women and 1/6 men do experience sexual assault at some point in their lives. Which is still a disturbingly high number. 

Still, as for what can be done about this, I really don't know. 

Lynn replied: "I think that speaks for itself. Something has to change. It can not go on like this. It's accepted, it's no longer news when someone is sexually assaulted or raped. Girls get murdered.”

 Okay, what changes, Shelby? Do you actually have any policy prescriptions to offer? Or are you just gonna sit here like "something needs to change"? Like, look at me, I found issues I care about, I literally offer specific policy suggestions on this blog and I literally advocate for politicians who support them.

If I were to consider the issue, I'd look at it like this. Okay, so rape is already on the books, so is sexual assault. And if anything the laws, at least here in the US, are strict enough where women actually could accuse someone of assaulting them simply for having sex with them while drunk. And I think these laws suck and actually put men in uncomfortable situations where women can just turn around and accuse men of assault even though the interaction seemed consensual at the time. 

Beyond that, I'd look at the criminal justice system. We have a system where people are innocent until proven guilty, many of these women who talk like this seem to want to do away with this presumption of innocence and needing evidence to convict people. They seem to want to lock people up based on their word alone. Which is messed up. That would lead to witch hunts and mob justice. And that's what's been rubbing me the wrong way, because I can see the logical outcome of these sentiments. No one really wants to live in a society where rape is legal and a common thing, BUT the problem with criminal justice is we need to strike a balance between punishing people guilty of actual crimes, and maintaining properly legal rights and procedures. Admittedly on sexual cases it can be hard to prove them in court. You know, needing evidence and stuff. But that doesnt mean we should lower or change the standards.

The problem is women need to act properly when this crap happens. And yes, Shelby, that means you. Ya know, I actually interacted with shelby the night she first made her first accusations on reddit. I literally told her if she was serious to GO TO THE POLICE, IMMEDIATELY. Not later, not tomorrow, NOW. Because if you want to maximize your chances of getting evidence, the sooner you get this documented the better. Get that drug test, get a rape kit. Get that bruise she was flaunting around checked out. Instead she decided to wait until the next day so she could call her mom. NO, DO NOT NOW.

The longer you wait, the more the evidence has a chance of going away. And then you cant prosecute whomever is responsible.

And I know a lot of the SJWs on the internet love to make excuses for women saying "well they can't really think rationally and blah blah blah", well, if you wanna be taken seriously, this is what you do. Quite frankly, Im sick of excuses. I understand how police procedures work on this matter, and if you want to be taken seriously and get the guilty prosecuted, that's what you have to do. Period.

Shelby Lynn continued: "In 2023 we shouldn't still be fighting for basic human rights. Girls, everyone here, we have so much power! You have no idea how powerful we are together. In the past three months since this happened to me – look at the difference that has already happened.”

 Ok, so feel good sentiments, and what difference has she made other than making a jerk of herself and giving the rammstein members a whole lot of stress and mental issues that are clearly wearing on some of them.

Lynn fumes: "It sickens me how we women are seen as objects. It's as if the men speak for us, we have no room for our own thoughts, feelings, moral concepts and we live in a man's world in which there is no such thing as equality. A man can walk alone at night, no problem. We, as women, are trained from an early age to look over our shoulder and be armed with keys between our knuckles.”

 Well, as I said, men do objectify women sometimes, but women also objectify men. I know tons of female members of the rammstein fanbase who love to objectify the band members. All of this anti objectification talk just leads to moral purism. Wanna reinvent religious social conservatism? Well, that's how. 

Beyond that, you're on a podium speaking to a bunch of women. You do have your own right to your opinion, as do I have mine. You have your social media accounts spamming your nonsense for the past  2 months. Stop acting persecuted. You're not persecuted. And of course people are gonna push back against you, that's life. ANd in this case they should. because quite frankly, I think you're a few fries short of a happy meal if you catch my drift.

Also, as for "a man can walk around at night"....sis, I have male family members who wont even leave their house without a GUN. Im also scared to leave my house at night. Because I live in a literal gunshot neighborhood. Im so sick of "ermahgerd, women are soooo scared and men can do anything they have privilege", yeah, we have more physical strength in theory. But we also are just as susceptible to being ganged up on by multiple people, or attacked with weapons like guns, knives, baseball bats, what have you.

This is why in America at least, guns are the great equalizer. If you were in america, I'd recommend you carry if youre oh so scared. Many states offered concealed carry permits. 

Maybe in Europe it's different, but still, arm yourself with what's legal. That's my advice to you. 

Then Lynn talks specifically about Rammstein concerts, she believes: "Many, if not most of these girls have suffered really great damage to their mental health afterwards. Some of them never get rid of it. Your life will change completely. You will lose everything. Her home probably, her family. Women who now have serious eating disorders. Just because they had to do with Rammstein."

 This stuff seems sooo hyperbolic, it sickens me. Maybe some have, but for the vast majority of it, rammstein makes us feel BETTER. their music improves our mental health. For every person you claim they hurt, they've probably helped hundreds or thousands. Can we seriously stop this crap about oh noes, our mental health is bad because we ended up in row zero.

Shelby, I know you appeared to be living under a rock with the row zero stuff, but like, seriously, most people who go to row zero WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH TILL LINDEMANN. Heck, you encountered some of them on reddit that night you made your accusations. And many were angry at you for your accusations. Like, again, if we were to really look at the help/harm ratio of till lindemann, I'm pretty sure the "help" greatly outweighs the harm. Sucks you had a bad experience, but nothing actually even happened to you, so move on already and stop trying to ruin a good thing for those of us who WERE helped by till and rammstein.

Then Lynn talks about the "Row Zero" at Rammstein concerts, from which girls are said to have been selected for the private parties:

“This is systematic abuse and it has been going on for so long. Too long. Going back to the beginnings of Rammstein, how many affected girls are there? It's not just about me. It's not ten, it's not 50. I don't know, but it could be thousands.”

 It depends what you define as abuse. Im literally under the assumption the sex was mostly consensual. I do think, given the sheer number of encounters some may have had negative experiences, but that is life, learn and more on. I really dont view the band members as rapists. AT WORST it was one of those "drunk on drunk" situations that I really dont think should be considered rape anyway. And even then, you'd need to prove that.

And yes, I have heard the testimonies from others. Many of the situations were sensationalized by media and taken out of context to sound worse than they were. How do I know this? Because one media outlet posts a more thorough description of the incident and the person in question doesnt even consider it rape, and it doesnt sound like rape, but then the next takes the statements out of context.

Quite frankly, if these women have any serious evidence, they should take it to court. Otherwise, I dont know what this is supposed to accomplish other than being a circlejerk.

it's like SJW women just wanna talk about their experiences, and at best do nothing, and at worst, change our entire justice system to allow mob justice based on their testimonies alone. 

Again, we have standards of evidence for good reason.

Lynn's appeal: "If we continue to allow this behavior, the girls will not be able to recover. The women are not healed, they pass on their experiences to their children.”

 You have to allow it, because the alternative is authoritarianism and mob justice.

Finally, Shelby Lynn announces, "I'll never shut up. Never. Just one thing: women, know your limits. If you don't like something, say 'No, that's not okay!' Don't accept everything just because everyone else says so. If you don't feel good, say no! Set your limits! Get these people out of your life!”

 Sure, on a personal level, yes, I wish women WOULD assert themselves more. Because if anything grinds my gears, its women NOT setting their limits then claiming rape later. Stand up for yourself. Say no. Express your limits. PLEASE. So we can't misunderstand you.

I mean, I have nothing wrong with this, but if I as a guy would say this, I get called a victim blamer. Funny how that works. 

Beyond that, I wish you should shut up, Shelby. Because youre not helping your cause. Like really, you're just making the rammstein members miserable when nothing happened to you, and youre hurting your cause with women too.

Like, seriously, who are you to speak as a victim for others when you're NOT A VICTIM?!

Seriously, you werent drugged, you werent raped. So I dont understand why this is so traumatic. MOVE ON. 

And yeah, that's her speech.

Honestly. I didn't hear any real solutions here. I already discussed the policy side of things. I already explained the functionalist reasons why our social structures are as they are and why they shouldn't change. And all I have to offer is helpful advice, some of which she agrees with. Yes, women, set your limits. And if you ARE raped, scream bloody murder the whole time and go to the police IMMEDIATELY.

Seriously, if till is really commiting these systematic rapes on a regular basis, the evidence should turn up sooner or later. That's the other side of the coin. Yes, a lot of crimes go unpunished in our society because of our legal system and the rights it affords people. BUT....the serial offenders do end up having the odds catch up to them. So yeah. If till is a serial rapist who harmed thousands of women or whatever, something should stick sooner or later, but women have to be proactive and actually seek prosecution here. 

Social media campaigns are just a circlejerk. And while raising awareness is good, it's not really helping anything here. Because quite frankly, she's not a victim, she wasn't raped, she wasn't drugged, and her campaign against Rammstein is well beyond the point of full on defamation in my opinion. 

I really wish this woman WOULD shut up and go away. Not just for Rammstein's sake but the sake of actual sexual abuse survivors everywhere. Seriously, this woman, IMO, makes a mockery of the situation. She destroys credibility. She turns people against her. She's alienated me and put the final nail in the coffin driving me to the social center where i more explicitly reject all of this "woke" stuff. Because at the end of the day, these guys offer no meaningful solutions that would contribute positively to society. it's just a feel good circlejerk at best, and a movement that threatens our legal rights and liberties at worst. So yeah. I can't support shelby, or the metoo movement in general any more.

Discussing my shift toward the center

 So I've done this a few times, but I just want to update on this, since I did notice last night when I compared Biden to West I seemed to shift HARD from the left to the center in the past 3 years or so. And I really felt like I should investigate this and explain my thought logic. 

In a lot of ways I really don't think I changed a ton, but in areas where I did, I feel like I should explain my logic a bit. 

Foreign policy

I think that this is primarily a shift of the issues, rather than a shift of my own politics. 

For most of my life, it was easy to align with leftists since for most of my political life, the primary issues of the day have been US interventions around the globe like Iraq and Afghanistan. I quickly abandoned my neocon roots after it seemed obvious that our foreign interventions seemed to do nothing but kill people and break things, and our actions seemed to create more hatred toward us around the globe. 

And given a lot of our interventions seemed more focused on forcing capitalism on people as opposed to bringing them actual freedom and democracy, it was pretty easy to stand where I did.

Ultimately, rather than do such things, it seemed obvious that I would rather cut back on military, intervene less, and spend more resources at home.

BUT, let's be clear. I didnt want to dismantle our entire military. I did recognize that some military presence is good, like NATO in Europe, and our presence in places like Japan, South Korea, etc., in the eastern asia area. My idea of military cuts were in the ballpark of 10-25%. In my UBI plans, I'd cut something like $100-200 billion and try to bring our military spending back in line with what it was during the Obama administration. So these were mild cuts. I recognized we couldn't cut more than that.

I just wanted to get out of Afghanistan and crap. And....we did. Thanks Joe Biden. He actually did it. He ended the war on terror, finally. Some will complain we're still intervening indirectly in places like Syria or Yemen, or that we still support Israel, but to be blunt, I DONT CARE. We got out of the places we needed to where there are BOOTS on the ground. And the war on terror era is over in my estimation.

But much like after the cold war era, that peace didnt last for long. And now Russia is once again public enemy #1 as they decided to open up Europe to war for the first time in decades. This is not good. This is a situation that reminds me of like the early 20th century. Like Germany invaded the Sudetenland in 1938. It even uses the same logic about ethnic russians and blah blah blah. And honestly, if we dont learn from history, we're doomed to repeat it. I know the pro peace guys mean well. But they're naive, and stupidly so. We tried this with Hitler, it didnt work. he just kept invading crap until we HAD to fight back. And Putin will do the same. You cant just appease Putin here. It's a BAD strategy. And heck to go further, I actually watched all quiet on the western front today and followed the politics of it. The germans wanted to surrender, the french didn't, forced bad terms on them, and the germans went for it just to get peace. But that peace was a false peace. In reality, it was a 20 year armistice. And war just started up again. And this is what the pro peaceniks dont understand with this situation. You cant just back down and give Putin concessions. He's kiniving, and will just keep pushing as far as you let him. 

So yeah, we have had a bit of a realignment in foreign policy, where it seemed easy to be with the left when the big issues of the day are "ugh do we really need to be in this war on terror? what are we getting out of it?", but when it shifts to a more direct confrontation with another great power, and one with the mindset of Putin's Russia....uh...yeah. I gotta side with the more sane centrists here. And I wanna point out I do think that Biden is a centrist hre. He's neither a neocon, or a right winger, who just shoots their mouth off and talks about turning countries into glass parking lots, but he's also not a peacenik. he shows strength when he needs to show strength, and he back off when he needs to. He's smart. And if I were president, I would LITERALLY be following the same general playbook Biden is running. Because that's the smart, optimal strategy. And if you do anything differently, you're flat out wrong. 

And honestly, the left has gotten insane. Everything with them is "America bad". Like we're alway evil colonizers and imperialists and blah blah blah. Uh, like our enemies arent? Russia and China dont have imperial ambitions? Our actions are to PROTECT people from THEIR imperial ambitions. You can talk crap about the US all day, sure, we're not a perfect country, but let's not act like all evil in the world comes from America and that other nations are innocent little wallflowers here, THEY'RE NOT. Russia wants Ukraine, and China wants Taiwan. And we need to curb THEIR imperial ambitions.

So yeah, we're now in a COMPLETELY different situation geopolitically than we've been for most of my life. For most of my life it was US invading countries and us having to ask if it's worth the costs (it wasn't). Now it's up to us to help deter other countries by teaching them the same lessons. And that starts with making the invasion as painful as possible for Russia, so we make THEM wanna go home. And that's how I see it. That's the true path to peace. And yes, I'm aligned with the Biden administration 100% here.

Social policy

I mean since the start of my blog, I have had a couple legitimate shifts in my politics. I became more pro gun, after my stance on that was quite muddled and mixed and philosophically inconsistent, but other than that, I havent really changed.

I've been transparent about my history with SJWs, and how I largely ignored them and found them harmless at first, but after they started picking fights with me over issues of interest, I started becoming more hostile.

The fact is, even though I intellectually see where they're coming from and agree with their concerns, their politics were never a massive part of my values. I just tried to align and sympathize with them in order to get them to be sympathetic to my causes, but after it seemed clear they had no interest in backing my politics, I have no interest in backing theirs.

The fact is, when I came over from the right, I was never THAT far left. I grew up with this idea of the "feminazi", which were these radical social justice types, but then when I came over in 2012, I thought these guys were just a conservative myth and i embraced a more moderate wing of liberalism that shied away from that. Then these guys came back, actually ended up being real and as crazy as the right warned me of, and I was just like "yeah no." So this was never gonna happen. This alliance with them, it was always tentative, always conditional, and all the SJWs had to do was push their junk too far to piss off and alienate me, and they did.

And I tried to be friendly with them at first and push back more gently, but after they just kept doing their crap, I just lost interest more and more. Weaponizing their politics in ways to be at odds with my own really did a lot to alienate me. Using identity politics as a edge issue to undermine actual progressivism alienated me hard. And at the end of the day, on social justice issues, i AM a moderate. I'm still quite liberal on most traditional liberal issues, I'm pro choice, pro LGBTQ+, anti death penalty, pro ACLU, etc., but yeah, the social justice stuff never clicked, and these radicals ended up turning me off where I feel a need to push back against them. 

The Bill Maher thing really made it click for me, since atheism actually was my gateway to the left, and Bill Maher was a pretty solid standard bearer of the atheist movement when I joined. He talked about how he thought liberalism was all live and let live, and he doesnt like this social justice crap either. There really does seem to be big ideological differences between liberalism and leftism, and I'm just associated with bog standard moderate liberalism on social issues. 

If anything, my ideological bases seem to align with with a form of moderate libertarianism. And this seems completely separate from the ideological bases of leftism, which IS based on a lot of this social justice nonsense. 

Economics

Economics is where I was, and am, the most left wing. However, after leaving conservatism, I ended up forging my own path, not really embracing traditional liberalism or leftism, but making my own custom ideology. The fact is, being conservative taught me lessons about the left that I felt like I needed to bring to my approach to it. For example, if youre gonna change something, you should think about what youre doing and actually research the consequences. A lot of liberal policy is well meaning but tends to have significant flaws due to inefficiencies they create and the like. A lot of policies end up complex and convoluted and end up not helping many people and generally lose support as a result. And leftism, well, leftism was terrifying. We didn't want to repeat the failures of communism and something liberalism seemed intent on doing was proving it WASNT communism and it WOULDNT end the same. 

Ultimately, I ended up forging my own path, discovering UBI, and building up an ideology that sounds suspiciously close to andrew yang's 2020 platform, but more progressive. THe fact was, I did have a bit of a leftist streak in me due to my hatred of work and the jobs system, and I felt like we needed some level of "class consciousness" to approach it. But my use of leftist rhetoric had limits. I kind of was in a place where i was leftist in rhetoric but still liberal in policy. And my ideas ended up becoming more akin to social democracy with UBI than anything socialist. Still, given how far right the US spectrum is, i THOUGHT I was left.

When Bernie came along in 2016, he was the closest to what I was. My original new new deal focused on three policies: UBI, M4A, and free college, and Bernie was for 2/3. NO ONE discussed UBI. it was still very much a fringe idea and I decided, you know what, we'll need to wait a few election cycles to discuss that. But if we could lay down the framework on it now, we could make a UBI oriented campaign easier in the future, since I knew the flaws in traditional liberal policies enough where the discourse would eventually evolve that way. It did in the 1970s, and I did figure before we could discuss this, we had to get back to where we were, which involved electing these social democrat types that mean well but some of their policies have flaws. 

Then in 2020, I started noticing some philosophical rifts between myself and these lefties. While in 2016 we seemed on the same page, in 2020 I noticed we diverged. Yang was what I always wanted in some ways. Maybe a little TOO moderate, but the leftist attacks against him calling him a trojan horse were alienating. And then when i started nailing down what they actually wanted, it sounded like command economy socialism, talking about decommodification of basic needs and government run services. And ugh...just...no. Just give people cash, and have government run things where market failures exist. I dont wanna socialize the whole economy. It took us decades to get away from being confused with socialists, let's not do the stupid thing and support literal socialism.

But....these guys wanted literal socialism. And then I started thinking about where I stood post 2020 and how I didnt really align with the left, and I spent much of 2021 and 2022 retooling my policy orientations. I got down into the thick of it, did the math, prioritized what I wanted, and recognizing that Bernie and Yang's visions were somewhat mutually exclusive, I went the more Yang path. UBI, M4A if we can afford it, but maybe public option healthcare, a cheaper climate plan that focused on getting the results with less resources rather than a sprawling green new deal (which is the epitome of traditional liberal/leftist brainrot on policies, hey, let's have this huge bloated JOBS PROGRAM when we could just offer cash, brilliant, guys, brilliant), and while I still aligned with lefties on issues like free college, student debt forgiveness, and housing, often times my solutions would diverged from leftist policy prescriptions.

Like, sometimes I agree with leftists, and sometimes I agree with liberals. ANd ultimately, my overall ideology is neither. I go in this left/social libertarian direction based on indepentarianism and real libertarianism, and think differently from both liberals/socdems, AND leftists/socialists. 

Even on topics like anti work, I stopped aligning with the movement by virtue of it being taken over by leftists who are overly dogmatic in their policy prescriptions, and I just ended up wanting different things. but because leftists cant tolerate diversity, I got banned from their subreddit. Turns out they'd rather just scream about how much rich people and landlords suck than propose a policy that actually fixes the issues. 

It's ridiculous. 

So yeah, I just ended up going in a direction where I'm too left and radical for liberals, but too moderate for socialists. I still have a combination of leftist rhetoric combined with liberal policies, but ultimately, I dont align with either, I'm a third force or a faction of my own. And while this faction is small in american and worldwide politics due to the diversity of its philosophical assumptions and policy prescriptions, I believe it's the best way forward. 

I would not say I really changed a ton here, other than moderating on some issues out of pragmatism. Again, having to actually put ideas to paper and develop policies based on a certain budget requires me to make some compromises. I'd LOVE to support medicare for all, and I still do in theory, but Im just NOT SURE if we can afford it. I ran numbers myself, i might have just eeked out a solution there, but it leaves me with little breathing room. So, I also have an alternative that makes me moderate on healthcare in order to ensure funding for UBI.

I could have a green new deal and a medicare for all, but here's the thing, leftists afford that...by not having a UBI. They can do it, but they wont support UBI as a result of that. Or if they do, they do it poorly (see: howie hawkins NIT plan). 

So let's be honest, in order to prioritize my policies as I prefer them, I need to move to the middle on a few standard bearers of leftist policy these days. But iM still not a moderate as Biden has not really done enough in my opinion. But given neither faction really supports a UBI, when Im forced to analyze other policies, I really end up just being mixed between leftists and liberals here. 

And when I compare their platforms to my ideal, I end up just sometimes siding with Biden, and sometimes the left. I like the rhetoric of the left, the fire of the left, but at the same time, I dont think Biden is bad. And leftists just dont align with me on policy much.

Conclusion and my voting strategy for 2024

As such, my current voting strategy is the following: I will support williamson and her second bill of rights in the primary. I like the idea of it, I like the idea of getting people talking about this, but we did discuss it on this blog, and where I diverge. I even designed my own alternative vision to williamson's. If leftists do anything useful, its bring ideas to the discourse. But in the general, if I have to vote between Biden and Cornel West, West barely eeks out Biden in an honest debate over policy for me. On economics, as I said, West is technically preferable, but honestly, Biden and West trade blows. I'd agree with west on M4A and free college, but on the green new deal I side with Biden. And on a lot of issues, the two are functionally identical. Neither seem to embrace UBI. Both seem to support a minimum wage increase. And on social and foreign policies, I just full stop align with liberals and Biden. Given the circumstances, I'm not seeing a compelling reason to actually vote for a leftist as a protest vote. In 2020, Hawkins actually represented a positive shift over Biden. And in 2016 it mostly came down to the DNC screwing bernie for me. But this time, yeah, I'm just not feeling it. 

The fact is, Im liberal on social and foreign policy, NOT leftist. Full stop. And on economics Im more a mix of liberalism and leftism without really identifying with either, and having unique policy goals distinct from both parties. As such, I dont feel strongly toward anyone, to the point that Biden and West are functionally equal in quality for me. They both have pros and cons. And neither really beats out the other by a massive margin. As such, I just cant be bothered to protest vote. 

So yeah. Williamson for the primary, Biden in the general is my current plans. I think it's a solid strategy. 

Discussing Cornel West's platform

 So, Cornel West is running for president, and I wanted to look at his platform a while ago, but he didn't have much. So, I decided to go back for a second go. Sadly now, he seems to have even less, with his platform whittled down to 3 points rather than 6 or so. So, let's go over this:

Dismantling the Empire

Vastly cutting back on military spending, dissolving non-defensive security alliances, including NATO and AUKUS, dismantling the global network of over 800 military bases and severing the link between U.S. foreign policy and corporate profits to respect national sovereignty and the principle of self-determination for people. The USA should be a decent and dignified nation among nations rather than an imperial power dominating every corner of the globe. Withdrawing foreign aid to Egypt, Israel, and any other countries violating the human rights of subjugated peoples. Increasing humanitarian aid to poor and vulnerable peoples around the world. Enabling international peace by highlighting ecological sustainability, abolishing nuclear weapons, and promoting diplomatic processes. 

 To be blunt, NO, HELL NO. I really find "anti war" leftists to be delusional. We are in an international power struggle against other countries like Russia and China that fundamentally have different values. And we need to maintain an extensive network of bases well beyond our borders to protect not just ourselves, but our allies and vital interests abroad. We can't just go back to isolationism. We do what we do for a reason, and while it's costly, it's only 4% of GDP. For all the talk of "this is why we don't have universal healthcare", uh, no, not really, healthcare is 18% of GDP, and if we cut our military to be in line with the rest of NATO we'd be down to 2%, which would save $400 billion or so, but still, that's not actually a massive amount given what progressive plans for things like UBI, healthcare, or a green new deal cost. 

And honestly, while I do admit we could cut back, we still need enough to be able to fight a two front war against russia and china simultaneously, if that were to ever be a thing. I really think a military budget of $600-700 billion would be good, rather than $800-900 billion, especially since Russia spends $84 billion and China's is $224 billion. Being able to double that would give us a significant tactical advantage, but at some point it's just overkill. 

Really, it's like leftists are just living in fantasy land on this one. In terms of ideals, I see where they're coming from. I didnt like Iraq or Afghanistan for instance, and I would like to spend less on military so we can spend more on other stuff. But look at Russia going to war with rusty AKs, and here we are with state of the art equipment, you get what you pay for, and if you want results, you need a beefy budget. 

So yeah, cut a little, but, but don't go insane, that's my take on this situation.

Unleashing Democracy

Massive investments in satisfying the social needs of everyday people. Medicare for all including humane mental healthcare, decriminalization of drugs, and creation of humane rehabilitation sites. decent housing for all, quality education for all, free college tuition for all, and jobs with living wages for all. Abolishing poverty and houselessness. Targeting the vicious legacy of white supremacy by ending mass incarceration, demilitarizing policing (abolishing Cop-Cities), and promoting reparations for past unjust treatment of Black people. Prioritizing the empowerment of indigenous peoples. Protecting the reproductive rights of women and ending all forms of patriarchy. Securing the rights of LGBTQ+ and Trans-Peoples. Treating every migrant and asylum seeker with dignity and implementing fundamental changes in immigration policies. Public financing of elections with rank-choice voting, eliminating the Electoral College and a national holiday for voting. Democratizing unaccountable monopolies and oligopolies with workers' control.

 He's literally packing like 20 positions into one here, so let's discuss each.

Medicare for all- based

Decriminalization of drugs- based

Humane rehabilitation sites- based

Housing for all- based

Quality education- based, really hitting most of my concerns minus UBI so far

Free college- based

Jobs with living wages- eh, sticking to traditional leftism, are we? And that's where much like with bernie, williamson, hawkins, what have you, i diverge ideologically. 

Abolishing poverty and homelessness- based, but how? Jobism? Ugh. Just give UBI dude.

Ending mass incarceration- based

Demilitarizing police- Eh...im mixed here. I do think police are too militarized, but sometimes you do need that stuff (see; January 6th). You dont want criminals outgunning cops. But yeah, a normal cop probably isnt gonna ever need more than a 9mm 99.9% of the time. So give them a glock or a sig sauer, we dont need military APCs with AR15s and blah blah blah. That's for special units. Not normal situations. Speaking of which, for as much as the left hates mass shooters, why dont they want the cops to be able to get in a gun fight with a heavily armed mass shooter? Just saying. Some of these mass shooters are insane, and go around with assault rifles and body armor, and that's when you dont just want regular police with glocks fighting back, ya know? 

Still, seeing how the police acted during 2020 and the BLM protests at times was disgraceful and sometimes yeah the definitely need to be toned back. Still, isnt the answer to improve police practices while still keeping the gear on hand for certain situations like mass shooters and january 6th type riots? I think so. it's not a funding problem, it's a police practice and discipline problem.

Reparations- *rolls my eyes*, no, just no. See the post I made today about me opposing weird identity based policies. 

Empowerment of indigenous peoples- Uh...explain.

Protecting reproductive rights- based

Ending all forms of patriarchy- Given what this has come to mean, (see: Rammstein), can we NOT?

Securing rights for LGBTQ and trans people- based

Immigration stuff- while we should be more humane, i kinda would like to see details here. 

Public elections with ranked choice voting- based

Other democracy reform- based

Democratizing monopolies with oligopolies with worker control- Eh....i dont think socialism is this end all be all, but I'm not opposed to market socialism to be honest. 

So what do we think here? Well, he has some alignment with my major policies, as well as some divergences. He supports a lot of things i like, while in typical leftist fashion going too extreme on other issues for my tastes. All in all, he's your typical green style leftist.

He doesnt really discuss policy details here. I like policy details. But all in all, he's decent. 

Like, remember what I say in comparing him to Biden. Leftists tend to be better on healthcare and education, worse on climate, about the same on minimum wages, and both seem clueless on UBI. 

As such, I do have a slight preference for leftists this time around, but it's not as huge as you'd think. All things considered I would take, in a vacuum, cornel west over Biden, but Im not really particularly motivated to vote third party as a way to stick it to the dems this time around. The differences aren't enough to do so and most of my desire to go third party this time around comes from the dems being undemocratic themselves. It's a knee jerk "stick it to the man" type situation and yeah. I just dont think this is the election cycle for that. 

With that said, let's discuss his third plank.

Saving The Planet

Fighting back against the escalating ecological catastrophe by targeting the corporate greed of fossil fuel companies and resurrecting the Green New Deal. Shifting from extraction and emission to regenerative and renewable energy. Eliminating the environmental racism that disproportionately damages the life chances of poor people, especially poor people of color here and abroad. The future of life on this planet depends on this fundamental shift! 

 Eh, sadly im more aligned with biden here. I dont like the green new deal, I think biden's plan gets the sausage made on renewable energy for a fraction of the cost, and the focus of the GND is to do FDR style jobs programs and that sort of thing, which doesnt resonate with my ideology. 

And the focus on "environmental racism", yeah, i mean, we should address that when we can, but i really hate how we have to inject postmodernism into everything. 

So...all in all, where do I stand?

On plank 1...I'm for Biden. On plank 3, I'm for Biden. But plank 2 is where the majority of the policies are, and there I'm more mixed. Leaning toward west over Biden, but it's not as strong as you'd think. 

Idk, I'm just growing out of leftist politics to some extent. Yes, we need to be more progressive than Biden, but, as I said, my own ideology had diverged from the traditional left, to the point that I no longer really see a compelling reason to vote for leftists over liberals. Maybe for medicare for all, a policy Ive been signalling willingness to compromise on recently due to the sheer cost of it (seriously if biden actually followed through on his public option with universal automatic opt in, I would be satisfied at this point), and maybe on free college/student debt forgiveness, but biden has compromised there too. 

Idk, like, I literally think biden has done a good enough job, and has shifted left enough to largely satisfy me here. Sure, leftists are a bit better on certain policies of high priority for me, but looking at the entire package deal, outside of that narrow purview, I'm basically more liberal. I'm pro ukraine, cutting the military budget isnt a high priority, and i literally would prefer biden's BBB approach to the green new deal.

THis is why Im not really feeling leftists this time. Even if Im not happy with Biden, going for a leftist means prioritizing some of my original priorities (education and healthcare) over ALL other issues, in a very narrow way. But all things considered, on many other priorities, I see them as functionally similar (neither are pro UBI, both are for higher min wage), and if anything for every policy i agree with west more on, there's a policy I'd say i agree with biden on more.

In net I think in a vacuum I would still mildly prefer west over biden, but it's kinda close. Like, again. This is why i keep saying im not passionate about leftist alternatives. Unless UBI enters the mix, I'm not really motivated enough to go for the full on leftist this time.

Like, let's go with my most broad metric. Measuring the candidates.

UBI (10): 0 Biden, 0 West

M4A (10): 3 Biden, 10 West

Economics (10): 6 Biden, 8 West

Social issues (10): 8 Biden, 6 West

Foreign policy (10): 10 Biden, 0 West

Ideology (20): 10 Biden, 15 West

Commitment (15): 5 Biden, 15 West

Experience (15): 15 Biden, 5 West

Overall: 57 Biden, 59 West

Like, West wins....but only by 2 points. You see the problem? I can't really be bothered to vote for a third party candidate if they barely beat the democrat in my broadest metric.

Last time around I had Bernie with around 80 points and Biden with 40. Now, there's a lot of reasons for this. First of all, my ideology has shifted slightly to the right, or more specifically more toward Yang styled human centered capitalism. Im no longer as enthused by "leftism". Second, I am flat out more liberal on both social policy and foreign policy than leftist. Third, Biden actually did a better job than I thought he would so my score for him went up. And fourth, most leftists following in Bernie's footsteps are much weaker than Bernie. They often take more extreme stances (like on foreign policy), and they often lack the polish and experience. Like if I was to go over Bernie again, this is how it would go:

UBI: 0

M4A: 10

Economics: 8

Social issues: 8

Foreign policy: 6

Ideology: 16

Commitment: 15

Experience: 15

Overall:68

This is lower than his 2020 from me, but simply being slightly more moderate here and there on like foreign policy got him a lot of support. And having more experience also got him a lot more support. 

So yeah. West is weaker than Bernie. So is williamson. 

Anyway, i could go on with more detailed metrics on policy, but I kind of did sum up what would happen. West better on M4A and free college, but worse on climate, and the same on a lot of other issues. Slight win for west, but not enough for a protest vote.

And yeah thats where i stand. I just cant be bothered to endorse him for a protest vote. Even if he is slightly favorable to Biden for me. Because I am more moderate on a lot of issues and think biden is a much stronger candidate than west all things considered. I just dont align with leftists and think theyve gotten too extreme. And again, no one is really paying attention to UBI as a policy and that's literally my #1 priority. So yeah.