The man who said to “say anything, make up anything” is being dishonest about policy positions? Say it ain’t so

If you can find a product you actually believe in, sales can be pretty nice

You say that as if it makes less sense

So they can have a little bacon, as a treat?

Latin has more rules, but they’re more utilitarian than fancy. Latin rules are there to make sure you understand exactly what is being said. French rules are there to make everything elegant and confusing, like high fashion.

I just have some high school Latin from long ago, but if you parse “fancy” as “ornamental at the expense of utility”, then I think it’s a fair description.

“Objection!”

“Why?”

“Because it’s devastating to my campaign”

That seems like a very roundabout way to say that in the present in the US, critical thinking leads you to not vote third party.

How does this differ from the plan 10-15 years ago?

It doesn’t, we just haven’t been doing it. Progressives show up at mid terms in lower proportions than conservatives, we have to show up for every election, even the boring local ones. Governors and Senators become Presidents. If we want a progressive President, we need progressive Governors and Senators to nominate.

Should we not be seeing returns if lesser evil voting did anything other than ratchet us over to the right?

Perhaps I wasn’t clear: voting lesser evil is necessary for change but it is not sufficient. Again, the return on lesser evil voting is delaying the greater evil so that good can get into position. If we’re not using that delay to vote progressive into lower offices, then yes voting lesser evil accomplishes little else.

Should a politician have to do anything to earn the votes that put them into office?

This isn’t a productive perspective. Lots of things should happen. You shouldn’t have to look both ways before crossing at a crosswalk when you have the light; but if you follow “should”, you’ll have the satisfaction of being in the right when you get hit by a car.

The point of your vote isn’t to reward candidates for having the right policies, the point of your vote is to protect your interests. You vote lesser evil for the same reason you lock your doors, to mitigate a worse outcome.

Focus on getting progressives into local and state offices so they can build experience necessary to successfully run for federal office. Vote lesser evil for president in the meantime to buy time for progressive to get that experience. In 10-15 years of diligent efforts we can get progressives into probably about a 1/3 of our congressional seats. At that point, a progressive presidential candidate with congressional experience stands an actual chance of winning the presidency, and will have the legislative support to actually accomplish their policy goals when they get there.

If we’re being technical, it resulted more directly from mercantilism than feudalism.

The transition is hellish if you go for the more extreme versions, and you need total control of your schedule because one missed or delayed nap will totally wreck you.

This is merely a projection of a square on the surface of a cone projected onto a plane.

Capitalism is explicitly designed for people to benefit themselves at the expense of others. Capital begets more capital in a positive feedback loop that results in massively powerful billionaires.

If you elect representatives, those representatives are checked somewhat by the threat of being voted out. Capitalism has no such check. Sure, ostensibly people can choose not to buy a product, but unregulated capitalism selects for monopolies.

On the contrary, many that call themselves leftists have been thoroughly duped. Or they’re all bad faith actors, but I try to never attribute to malice that which can be sufficiently explained by incompetence.

We must bring about glorious revolution, even if our methods aren’t particularly effective and millions suffer.

Having this pop up in the middle of a dozen goofy 5 minute skits with guys in Garfield and Odie costumes was an unexpected surprise, but a welcome one.

Vote progressives into local offices so they can get experience to work in state offices so they can get experience to work in Congress so they can get experience to be a good presidential candidate. Also to fill offices at every level with progressives.

Clearly she wasn’t referring to the office of Vice President, but was acknowledging that he was a president beset with numerous vices

Why should it? Why should anyone vote for a candidate with no political administration experience? Regardless of their stated positions, what evidence do voters have that any of the third party candidates have the skills necessary to execute the duties of the office effectively? Without progressives in Congress, how exactly is a progressive administration supposed to navigate gridlock better than the neo liberals?