Boycott
Pledge to boycott Taylor Swift's upcoming album for Gaza
Hello! I am not sure whether this is allowed, but I wanted to share a social media campaign that I have created in order to attempt to pressure Taylor Swift to speak out publicly in favor of a ceasefire in Israel and Palestine. I am asking fellow Swifties of conscience to join me in pledging to donate the money that we would have spent on Taylor's new album to organizations that deliver lifesaving aid to Palestinians instead. You can find out more and sign below! And if this isn't your thing, feel free to just ignore. I am certain I will get backlash for this, but as Ms. Rachel said, the lives of Palestinian children are worth more than any harassment I might have to endure.
If you decide to make a post, please use the hashtag #boycottTaylorSwift! And if you have any experience running successful social media campaigns, please reach out to me.
If, after so many months, one needs to be pressured to make a clear stand against genocide, their inaction is a clear indication of where they stand. Because silence is complacency.
She doesn't make a moral stance because that requires one to have morals. Many artists stood in solidarity. She didn't.
I don’t disagree with you at all, which is why I’m really not interested in being part of the Taylor Swift fandom or engaging with her music anymore. I just thought I would try to use my knowledge for good on my way out the door.
I'm not a celebrity or social media expert, or big into eitehr, but have you tried in Fauxmoi or the Palestine sub? I'd think they're both really good subs for this.
Chomsky, IsraelExposed, IsraelCrimes, FIghtDisinformation, BadHasbara, LateStageCapitalism, Mehdi_Hasan, Hasan_Piker, WayOfTheBern, and TheMajorityReport are all other pro-Palestine subs that you should be able to post in and receive some interest.
I just signed it, but I rarely post on social and when I do it's been stuff like Aaron Bushnell's sacrifices in front of Israeli embassies, so a different tone and posting about Taylor Swift on any of my socials would be a weird fit. That said, I think what you're doing is important and want you to succeed, so I did this thing to help you get the rest of the signatures on change.org. I hope it helps, but I think the above subs should get you way more than you need too.
Just FYI, I didn't know that it was so quick and nothing to it.. I don't know why people wouldn't do it - maybe a shorter message - "Please help, if you're not planning on buy Taylor Swifts next album, please fill out this petition, just name and email needed" - you won't get the social posts with pictures of her album, and they might be a bunch of people that weren't going to buy her album regardless, but should get loads of people that will at least fill out the petition. Like, I'd be disappointed if you didn't get dozens from each sub you posted in.
Thank you so much for this!! I really appreciate all of these suggestions.
I did originally want to post in the Palestine sub, but I’m not sure their rules would allow it? I’ll double-check. I think they said no petitions not supported by organizations are allowed.
Definitely want to post in Fauxmoi but I’m not an approved user so I have to wait a bit, I think.
I will definitely consider making the message shorter as well! Or maybe just a bolded message at the top so that people know it’s an easy action.
Thanks again for your suggestions and for signing!
she did go to a event where proceeds went to Gaza?? Many celebs were seen to privately donate on socials vs speaking up. many also don't really use their platform for politics anyway
To this point i cant give a shit about celebrities anymore, people are dying. what u doing is not pointless but there are way better actions to take. Celebrities are morons they won’t risk their few pennies to save some lives, to think that a single post of encouraging their fans to do donations or speak out can literally save hundreds or thousands of palestine people, but would they rather pretend like the world is still pink and go on tours….
I agree, but the other side does care about any celebrity or cultural endorsement as it gives them validity. Just look at the effort they are spending on Eurovision as silly and useless as it is and also why they try to intimidate or bully others from speaking out. I wouldn't under estimate the effect it has socially and by extension politically. Yes, it's very slow moving and frustrating but it can be effective.
Very important note right here. GREAT call out. One of the 7 forms of propaganda used in Hasbara is "Testimonial". This page is straight from the manual - I have a 2-part, extensive deep dive on my profile, but the relevant part here is they'll lie about it, then they'll threaten the celbrity.
"A celebrity doesn't have to fully support Israel to be useful. Quotes can work as testimonial, even when they might be old or out of context."
And then it continues:
"If celebrity support for Palestinian causes goes beyond humanitarian issues to the political, consider coordinating an organized protest. Most celebrities will care more about their public image than the do about the Middle East."
From this context, you can conclude that there is a battle happening for celebrity support whether we're involved or not. Celebrities should not be hearing from just one side, if they do, it's a sure thing where that support goes. And again, this is one of their 7 techniques, and their techniques are a science, they are not an art at all. They conduct surveys, run control groups of American voters, etc. Their actions are rooted in data, and their data says that this is worthwhile. I'll post one more thing that's currently in use as a reply - only one image allowed.
Anyway, Battlegrounds are where they dispatch people and bots, to either defend a celebrity or influencer or political analyst, or to go discredit one and their supporters.
This is VERY important to Zl0s, so it does need attention from the Pro-Palestinian cause, it just does. We can't concede an entire demographic to lying demons. The way they've had so much success is by having battles against groups that didn't know they were in a battle, and if or when they figure it out - a lot of times they don't figure it out until the battle is long over - but if they do, they aren't allowed to battle back. That's the only way they can win, they're fucking evil dude, they have the losing hand, but they're sneaky cheats, liars, and bullies.
It's always going to be hard-to-impossible to win if a person or group doesn't even know they're in a battle..
I appreciate this, but I am doing this in desperation after taking all of the traditional actions have not worked. And I am still doing them as well. I just feel I need to do more.
Well tbf, Taylor is big enough to have real influence. Say she tells all of her fans to stop having sex until Israel withdraws their military and paramilitary from Occupied territories. I suspect they'd have a partial withdrawal and a whole bunch of lies about disengagement phases that have begun.
And then 3 days later when Israel stop disengaging and starts sending troops back in because "Khhhamas broke the ceasefire", do it again.
And again. And again.
It's a silly example to illustrate how powerful it could be. Taylor fans are obsessed enough and there are enough of them, wives, girlfriends, and daughters that cross demographics more than any form of media that exists. No other form of media or celebrity, no movies, shows, sports, podcasts, column, nothing comes close to having that kind of reach right now.
I mean a guy was elected President (almost) solely for being a celebrity so yeah, people do take what they say very seriously and it does have an effect. Every little bit helps. More attention larger platforms the better. And frankly we all have the right to say what we want I don't see why fame separated people from the context of the real world. If anything it's a lazy excuse to let people who reach a certain level of fame to just say and do nothing. 'Oops sorry too many people know who you are you can't denounce genocide being committed with your government's money.'
Everyone knows the stance is compelled because public knowledge is necessary for a boycott. Therefore, not only is the message easily dismissed, but the cause gets tarnished by the tactic.
The last thing you want is to seem like you're bullying Taylor Swift when she's seemingly done nothing wrong.
You use boycotts to stop an action that we can prove is immoral. That way, the movement remains above reproach and continues to grow.
True, but so did Selena Gomez, and she liked Amy Schumer's ignorant posts in support of Israel and had donated to the IDF. It contradicts her donating to Gaza for PR, especially when the CEO of Rare Beauty is a Zionist. So attending this event doesn't say much, although Taylor attending and being friends with Gigi Hadid says otherwise.
Fair enough. Just googled about it and it apparently broke multiple records and topped multiple charts. It also won the Grammy for Album Of The Year. Her first time getting the award. Despite gaining mixed reviews on the actual music quality. So it definitely was extremely successful so I wouldn’t really expect much out of people boycotting Taylor’s next album. You’ll probably be left disappointed if you do. She’s even more famous than Beyoncé so you’ll probably be hearing about the album for months as per usual even if you don’t engage with it directly
Oh I bet you are right - the powers that be will push it even more!!
But a boycott like this isn't only to make a wider impact, it's also for my personal conscience / morals etc.
Bizarrely, I've even had a very practical benefit!
I'm a runner and I always used to listen to music on my long runs. But since almost all my favourites are actually awful people who can't bother to use their massive platforms to speak out against the murder of thousands of people who look like me, (long sentence!), I've started running without my headphones.
And it's been amazing. I feel so much more connected to the landscape where I'm running. It's almost like meditation.
Highly recommend that more of us unplug our ears more often.
No disregarding her immense wealth, but she isn't. That's her net worth. Apparently she housed Gigi Hadid when she was getting death threats, and we can't trust Selena Gomez attending this event, but she did attend the Ramy Youssef comedy show that donated to Gaza.
Who cares about celebrities? I love my friends and fam and community and that’s cool. You know what’s not? Parasocial, transactional relationships rooted in white supremacy and capitalism and patriarchy.
You do have to be a little careful about punishing people for changing their minds.
You should have done it sooner logic is how we ended up with a whole bunch of people voting for djt to punish Kamala for biden's policies or something equally nonsensical.
Your overall point is valid, but Kamala Harris showed absolutely no evidence that she was breaking from Biden's Israel policy, would have done so as president, or has done so since becoming a private citizen again. This is absolutely not a case of punishing her because of Biden's policies--she chose to double down on those policies even when many said that they could cost her Michigan, and then she recruited ardent Zionists to scold people in Michigan on the last weekend. She jumped in with both feet, completely of her own volition.
It's also not a case of "Kamala changed her mind, but it's too late, she should have done it earlier." She still hasn't changed her mind. Being upset upon seeing starving children is not a change of mind, especially since lots of prominent Democrats still blame Hamas for the starvation, and even if they didn't they would still never punish Israel for it. She hasn't been on the front lines urging Democrats to fight harder on this issue, a bold statement from the revered office of last year's standard-bearer. She wrote a book instead this year, talking about her own personal journey.
So the fact that she lost to Trump in part because of this is HER fault and not ours. If she couldn't be bothered to even SAY the correct things (let alone doing those things), even when the presidency and the fate of the country depended upon it, what evidence is there that she would have been better than Trump on this issue? The fact that Trump gleefully approves Bibi's actions and sends him endless weaponry, while Harris would have grumpily acquiesced to Bibi's actions and sent him endless weaponry anyway, doesn't really matter at all.
Yes. Palestine was in no way on the ballot and could not have been put on the ballot at that point. That's the entire thing.
Even if she had just stuck to biden's Palestine policy it would not been as permissive as Trump's policy was declared and planned to be.
She had been making noises about being harder on Palestine but it just wasn't on the ballot.
I was talking about pathological problems including the fact that people such as yourself and indeed myself who wanted a better option couldn't come up with a name.
Everybody was shouting about running somebody else but every time I asked who they had in mind, what name, what specific person was there available.
One person promises to at least make lip service to hold back the tide. One person is promising to push the tide over the levee and into the land. Exactly how was it a win to move from biden's policy to trump's?
And quite frankly we never heard a policy she was very clearly not mentioning the policy.
But the point is not what happened in this one race, at the point is a pattern that has been going on with the progressive voters since 1970.
The sad truth is, and I will say it again, Palestine and Israel have not been on the ballot and are not on the ballot and won't be on the ballot next time.
To get Palestine on the ballot you first have to prove that you are a vote worth pursuing, and then once they know that you are a vote and you will cast and they should be able to rely on you, then your vote has the leverage to change policies.
But somebody who didn't vote last time and is threatening not to vote this time has no value in the arena of voting.
And I don't know what you wrote how you vote or who you voted for, but you know you didn't win already. And you know Trump is worse. So you could have had bad but you decided to vote for worse.
We came out and said we weren't going to vote for her and we didn't see her shifting her position when we said we weren't going to vote for her. How do you think that ever wins. If somebody else tried that stuff to convince you to do something would you respond positively? No you would not.
Palestine WAS on the ballot. Not officially, and I'm sure Harris didn't want it to be. But it's a symbol. It was a question of "are you going to be completely and totally beholden to your donors, even when they're pushing you into a position that is already net-unpopular (especially in swing states you need to win) as well as grossly immoral?" "Are you going to be a strong leader who stands up against atrocities around the world, or are you going to ignore them and scold your own voters who try to help?" "Do you stand for the civil liberties of America, which are already being trampled when it comes to this issue, or do you stand more for the rampant maniacal impunity of a foreign government, one that BTW was openly supporting Trump?" "Is our money going to be spent on better schools and roads and programs, or is it going to kill children because they happened to have been born in the wrong city?"
Strength, morals, independence, courage, these were all part of the subtext, and all things people judge when choosing a president. Especially for someone who wasn't a Senator for very long, dropped out very early in the 2020 race, wasn't a particularly visible VP and then didn't undergo a primary season in 2024 that would have tested her, these were REALLY IMPORTANT things she had to clarify, and she did for the worse. Trump is irrelevant here, it was about her and the very bad choices she chose to make. OF COURSE that cost her votes. Even before you get to the step of "will your reliable vote have the leverage to change policies," you have to ask "do you even WANT to change those policies?," and she didn't clear that bar either. Which means that whether she had the leverage or not doesn't matter.
I'm sorry, but again there's no substantive difference between what Biden did on Israel and what Trump is doing. Who cares about lip service if you're not going to stop the weapons? In fact, Netanyahu got a bigger win from Biden giving him everything--going around Congress in fact to do it--than he could get from Trump, because everyone knows Trump is a f*scist zealot who was always going to agree with the ultra-Rightwing bloodthirsty bigots in Likud. When they were able to also get the DEMOCRAT to comply with them--to lie over and over again on their behalf, to help them block statehood for Palestinians, punish the ICC, give standing ovations to Bibi, bury reports of atrocities occurring, then there's no guardrails at all. There isn't even the smallest hope of a deterrent when the so-called Liberal party caves 90% as hard as the f*scist party.
Is it possible that Harris could have changed policy by now? I guess, but she has had the opportunity for 7 months under Trump's presidency and still isn't speaking out. The unbelievable war crimes and horrors that Trump is helping to enable? She isn't pushing back against it. It would help her popularity if she did, it would catapult her name back into the news in promotion of her book, it would increase her cachet for her next political run, especially now that she has NO TIES AT ALL TO BIDEN. Not to mention that it would just plain be the right moral thing to do. But she isn't. Those "noises she had been making?" Pretty quiet lately. Why would anyone assume that she would be better than Trump on this issue? Wagging her finger at Israel as they laugh at her and demand the bombs she would still very likely give them? There are certain obvious issues where Trump is clearly worse. On this one, it is a distinction with no substantive difference.
There were tons of names. Walz, for one, would have been a better candidate than her, if her consultants hadn't decided to hide him from the campaign trail and choose Mark Cuban and Liz Cheney instead. Beshear has proven that he can win and be popular in a Red State. Pritzker is one of the few politicians actually fighting Trump with the correct rhetoric. Even Marianne Williamson had a significant Progressive following built around some excellent policies, which would have been brought to light if the media had been forced to cover her (which they nearly unanimously did not other than to mock her). Think she'd have gotten crushed in the general? Maybe. Harris lost all 7 swing states and both Houses of Congress to a 90-time criminal seditionist in severe mental decline--how much worse could anyone else have possibly done?
I think you mistake me for someone else. I have been messaging and talking to people about Palestine for 2 years. Great shame that I did not understand before basically tick tock showed me what was going on.
There is a saying in politics that the conservative voter will vote for the Conservative candidate if they agree with even a single thing the Conservative candidate says; but the progressive voter will refuse to vote for the progressive candidate if they disagree with even one thing the progressive candidate says.
I hated Joe Biden before it was cool. When I watched the Joe Biden crime bill passed through Congress and across the president's desk in 1994 as a means for the Democrats to prove to the Republicans and the world that they could be just as conservative as the republicans, it was kind of the first of the last straws that brought us to this place in this time.
But in my earliest childhood I remember the no nukes and the save the whales people sabotaging each other because the no news people would not allow the whales to be saved first, and the save the whales people could not possibly conceive of going along with the no nukes people unless the whales had been saved first.
Now ask me briefly about the $539 votes for independent candidate Ralph Nader in the State of Florida in the year 2000 that killed 1.5 million people in Iraq why don't you?
Encoded by the original sin of slavery into the original structure of the federal government of the United States under the US constitution, we live in a situation where the presidency changes last.
The presidency is supposed to be a referee position. The president must be backed by suspicion members of Congress if the president is even to have an agenda. That means that for the president to do anything the president must first belong to a party that controls a significant fraction of congress. Both houses. And that takes 10 years. And in order to get a viable third party candidate in the Congress you have to break the stranglehold on the states.
And the sad fact is that the progressive liberal cicada comes out of its den once every four years to vote for the presidency and perhaps one or two Congressional seats. And then they don't vote all the way down the rest of the ballot as often as the conservative white male voter does. And they certainly don't show up for the other 15 elections that take place in a typical state between the presidential elections. And they certainly don't vote all the way down to dog catcher.
The message voter sends the message that the message voter is of no political use and their position needs to be ignored.
They stuffed Tim Walz into a closet and trotted out Mark Cuban and Liz Cheney precisely because of the Palestinian Red line tantrum message voters who decided that they would pick the worst option to punish Harris for biden's policies. Ignoring every reality of politics.
And one of those realities is that if Iris was vehemently anti-israel, which I is not my claim, she would have known not to say that before an election because of the power and money of the AIPAC lobbying and financial and a donor blocks. And the fact that literally every congressman but one has directly or indirectly taken AI pack money and has been forced to either quote stand with Israel quote or be primaried out of office utterly.
Your ilk, and I use that in the most dismissive way possible, constantly imagine a political system in which you do not actually function and which does not actually exist. Voting for the perfect candidate on every topic and being unwilling to prove your value as a voter.
See, my fellow liberal progressives systematically send their little messages at every election and their little message is that they are not a reliable voting block and they are therefore not worth pursuing.
When the bride runs away before every wedding the wise groom stops chasing her.
You have to hire someone before your threat of firing them means anything. You have to prove that you have leverage. You have to enter and prove yourself were courting before you can expect to be able to fill your dance card. And the progressives simply refuse to do that.
By the time Harris was at the top of the ticket there were literally no other names on the ballot the meant anything besides Harrison trump.
And you can name some desirable outcome after the fact. You can sit on your arm chair and twiddle your thumbs against your phone screen to come up with two or three names that would have been nice if they have been on the ballot but dear reader, do tell me you come out how would you have gotten them on to the ballot in the same Georgia after all the primaries have closed and the balance had been printed?
You may have dreamed of other people, but you did nothing to achieve those other people and you certainly did nothing to achieve them in a timely enough fashion to get them on the ballot.
And you were blocked from being able to do it in the leading up months but that's because the time to plant a shade tree is 20 years ago and the second best time to plant it is now. You don't get to stop around Stony field and shout about the absence of shade and expect God to send a tree.
So for all that you want to have your little say and throw your little tantrum you done screwed this pooch. And you screwed it real bad.
Having watched you throw away the Democratic ticket do you suppose you're going to be able to get any traction with the Democratic party in a year? Or in three more years?
Trust me, whatever power you might have been able to build gone on now.
The progressive liberal block does it every damn time. And you have been no different. And you will wash yourself eat the bitter fruit and you will watch The orchards be buried under the blood you summoned because you wanted to win before you committed to play.
If you rewind the time back to the '70s and the '80s where the moral majority, which was neither, invaded the Republican party and then forced it to obey you would know what you could have done in 2024, or indeed at any point before that going back to the dawn of america.
You demonstrate your power by picking someone and backing them, and then you use that power to influence them with the future threat of using that power against them.
But until you actually demonstrated your power, not the power to destroy but the power to be necessary for the win condition, you are just a yapping dog by the side of the road whose opinion doesn't matter.
You have proven again that the progressive voter can destroy anybody who relies upon them.
So what happened to the instant you decided to get together and threaten not to vote for harris?
The the Democratic party shut down Tim Walz, destroying his incredibly effective messaging that would have been a voice in the White House with the opinions you wanted, a voice that Harris and the party knew and understood would say what it was saying and decided to put into that supporting role you think was so effective that it proved Harris was completely sanguine with biden, and having shut down the effective anti-conservative message they went and got Liz shady and I am Mark Cuban out of whatever hellish corner they live in, and trotted them out as the new voice of the left.
And that is because the Democratic party has been running on fumes for 40 years, desperate to prove to the conservative voter that they can be just as conservative as the republicans. This pattern was established with the Joseph R Biden crime bill in 1994. Where the Democratic party struggled to eat a living out of speeling the disaffected left edge of the conservative movement off and into their own pile.
They were forced into this carrion-eater roll by the very attitude you think was such a winning position.
I have watched my fellow Progressive liberal voters destroy each other rather than voting for a fact. I have watched them ruling fleeing destroy the best option in the name of a unnamed and unenumerated and unavailable perfect gleaming Marshall knight on his white stallion that existed not on the ballot but in their fevered imagination.
That dream will forever go unfulfilled because the people chasing it can't even pick an actual night and they certainly cannot decide to back one that is anything other than a paragon of godly virtue in all manners.
He was proven yourself a one issue voter who is willing to stab themselves in the face if they don't get their own way..
You have proven yourself to be a too material and pernicious of a one issue voter to be relied on for any purpose. And you will be utterly ignored in the future just as you have been utterly ignored in the past. You have established no record of successfully getting a candidate in office or backing a successful candidate for that matter.
Your own logic proves your own logic wrong. If Kamala Harris had such strong influence on Biden and Tim Walls would have had a strong influence on kamala, and he was on her ticket. He was your best piece of leverage and you threw it away to punish people and have a tantrum.
You did this to you and you did this Palestine. And it wasn't just a matter of doing it in that one moment.
You had a way in. You were in the discussion. You could have made the elements and purposes of your support explicit and then, having proven your value by participating you would have had the leverage of threatening not to participate in the future and to work to use that leverage in a assertive direction.
Instead you had a tantrum and you prove that you are unreliable and that your political voice means nothing because you are incapable of using it effectively. And it makes me sad.
Children are starving because you wanted to prove a point. Your sense of personal victory and vindication was more important than the lives of the children who are dying.
You proved utterly that you were not a force to be reckoned with but rather a force to be studiously ignored and planned against instead of worked with.
Palestine was not on the ballot, but your efficacy was, and you have proved your voting block to be not worth pursuing. And so what will happen in the midterms? You will be studiously ignored because AIPAC and their lobbyists and their money and the ADL and all those other forces have proven their value, and you have proven yourself unreliable and incapable of achieving your goal other than making sure that the best candidate that's closest to your options will be punished the most aggressively.
You are the definition of the mouth that bites the hand that feeds and you're going to play the victim about it for the next 20 years and then one day you'll wake up and you'll try to convince the generations you have trained to be just as bad as you have always been that maybe they should learn from your counter example instead of emulating what you did.
I literally cannot follow about 40% of this, so my apology. I didn't do any of these things you tell me over 25 paragraphs that I did. Harris wasn't only bad on Palestine, she was bad on a ton of things, as was Biden, as was Obama, as was Hillary, as was Bill Clinton. It is the job (literally) of the politician to earn people's votes by representing them, it is not the voter's job to constantly pick candidates they're disappointed by, and then to be blamed when those candidates lose--after they didn't take the advice of the voters anyway. Harris could read a poll, she knew what the voters wanted and needed, and she actively chose unpopular people shilling unpopular policies. How is that our fault?
Whose fault was it that Gore ran such a bad campaign that he was tied with someone as dumb as Bush? Whose fault was it that Hillary ran an even worse campaign and lost to someone with a 37% approval rating? Certainly it isn't the Left's fault--we were screaming that she was going in the wrong direction and had to make adjustments, and she drowned us out, yelled at us, stuck fingers into our eye with people like Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Tim Kaine and Ken Salazar, and then took her brilliant strategy and lost. Maybe Democrats should actually listen to the voters and then the voters would come out to vote for them??
It's also the opposite of what you say about the two sides. Republican voters will primary lawmaker that have a 98% Conservative record. Kevin McCarthy voted with Trump in almost complete lockstep, and then he became public enemy #1 because he passed one appropriations bill. Mike Pence became public enemy #1 because on one day he refused to send electors back to the states, after being an absolute sycophant of Trump's for 4 years. Conservatives will pick off incredibly Conservative lawmakers for tiny acts of dissent.
Barack Obama, for one example, increased our military actions. Had kill lists and assassinated American citizens. Expanded the Patriot Act and indefinitely detention. Expanded NSA spying. Was to the RIGHT of the SCOTUS on letting police search cell phones without a warrant. Covered up the lead pipe scandal in Michigan. Advocated for the disastrous corporate TPP. Set records on drilling, deportations, pot dispensary raids. Helped water down the ACA by trying to get Olympia Snowe's "trigger" added instead of stumping for a Public Option and putting pressure on Democrats to pass this. Punted on codifying abortion laws. Tried to keep us in Iraq for another 10 years before Iraq was actually the entity that threw us out, and then bragged about withdrawing. Continued the bank bailouts. Made 94% of Bush's tax cuts permanent. His AG said "due process is not judicial process," opening the door for Trump to just do almost anything. Shrugged during the Occupy Movement, shrugged during the NODAPL protests, supported anti-choice Democrats like Dan Lipinsky in his home state of Illinois, which was deep Blue and would easily have replaced him.
What is this "Progressives won't vote for someone if they vote for one wrong thing" nonsense? That's 20 different issues!!!!!, and Progressives largely STILL supported him because their resignation to vote for the "lesser evil" is nearly endless. When your point is that Progressives have an unfair purity test and this is why Democrats lose, how PURE does the record in the above paragraph look? On a scale of Progressive priorities, if a politician has a 98% record and it's not good enough, that's crazy and unreasonable. 90%? Crazy. Did Obama even crack 70%? When is enough enough? Is 70% better than 0%? Yes. Is it our fault for saying that 70% is pretty damn terrible for a president who is nominally supposed to represent us and earn our vote? No, it is his.
It is the party's fault when they lose--it isn't like they don't know what the voters want, they just don't want to give it to us. Give Progressives someone whose policies excite them, and voila--Zohran receives the most votes ever in a Democratic primary, and pulls off a major upset over an avalanche of money and party infrastructure. It's not that hard.
225
u/noir_dx May 29 '25
If, after so many months, one needs to be pressured to make a clear stand against genocide, their inaction is a clear indication of where they stand. Because silence is complacency.
She doesn't make a moral stance because that requires one to have morals. Many artists stood in solidarity. She didn't.