@JoeQuinlan @florida_ted I see embracing the never Trumpers as embracing the situation which started with Democrats accepting an authoritarian warmonger as candidate in 2016. By then Democrats were basically Bush/Cheney Republicans, making this even stronger as they united with people like Liz Cheney.
@JoeQuinlan @florida_ted Compromising principle like this led us to where we are today, where Democrats are ok with 1) genocide, 2) allowing Covid to spread out of control, and 3) tampering with primary rules to further restrict the possibility of reforming the party. Any of these are reasons not to vote for Biden. No need to list the reasons not to vote for Trump.
Doc Freemo 
Yes, clearly compromise is the problem... lololol... cant even make this stuff up anymore.
@JoeQuinlan@mastodon.social @florida_ted
@freemo @JoeQuinlan @florida_ted No, I didn't say compromise is the problem. The problem is compromising principle--supporting genocide, suppressing civil liberties, cheating in elections, Biden dropping the Covid plan he ran on and switching to Trump's.
I mean yea, thats pretty much what I thought you meant. And while I do agree supproting genocide, suppressing civil liberties etc are bad things... but the fact that you think that was done to execute the compromising principle, and not to inherent flaws in judgement directly is a bit laughable.
Im sorry my intent isnt to mock you, i should have been nicer in how I phrased it. But "compromising principle" is not something I would use to describe the left/democrats over the last decade (nor would i use it to describe the right/republicans by the way).
@JoeQuinlan@mastodon.social @florida_ted
@freemo @JoeQuinlan @florida_ted It is both flaws in judgement and flaws in ethical standards.
I absolutely agree its flaws in both judgement and ethics... im just not seeing compromise as a component in there that is a problem. If anything both sides could do more compromise. By that I dont mean accept the aburdity of the other side. I mean find new solutions that dont resemble either side that considers the concerns of both sides as valid (which is often denied simply because not doing so would reveal the flaw in their own stance).
@JoeQuinlan@mastodon.social @florida_ted
I mean, a concern of a fascist with regards to fascism isnt valid, sure. No one is saying you have to consider their invalid concerns. But when they voice a valid concern that is true and democrats/left do what they usually do and cut off their nose to spite their face and disagree with it simply to be contrarian (and the right does the same by the way), then yea, you should probably be considering those concerns.
@rchusid @JoeQuinlan@mastodon.social @florida_ted
@freemo @rchusid @JoeQuinlan @florida_ted
The concerns of fascists are not valid. Their most foundational, key concerns are a deeply dangerous affront to basic human decency.
Compromising with them goes very, VERY bad places.