prophetic_moose, glitchcake@piefed.blahaj.zone

Main one I use right now is a media center running FreeBSD and XFCE, and KDE Connect for remote-like functionality.

I just play files with mpv manually, but might write a front-end for it one day.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply; best among ones I got. This analysis doesn’t take into account long-term effects. I think voting Acton is voting to lose because it precludes any chance at better future politics. This is the crux of my thinking. I’m familiar with what you’ve laid out, but often don’t see analysis include future elections.

And we’re at the inflection point of US politics. If people aren’t getting involved, then it’s over anyways, so again, voting Acton is just voting to lose the long-game. We need young people, working class people, everyone talking and organizing IRL.

Business as usual is a losing game. Gotta spend the effort on strong foundations; something new; something for the people.

Vote is already split with what Acton just did. Gotta have a strong foundation to build on. Voting Acton is playing to lose in the long-game.

I don’t think so. I think there are more progressive votes to be gained than conservative votes lost. I also think this move by her team effectively neutralizes the progressive vote for her as well as any energy her campaign might have had, so the split has already happened by her action. What’s left is to decide how to respond, and I think the Pride Caucus should take this anger and energy to file a write-in and organize a grassroots campaign that actually gets people excited. I think that would guarantee a progressive win honestly, the time is right.

I don’t think so, but I don’t live in Ohio and I don’t have to make this choice. But voting for her is playing to lose.

If she’s going to throw transgender people under the bus, she will also do nothing to protect immigrants, or people of color, or parents, or the elderly, or animals, or the climate, or the environment, etc. It’s a vote for status-quo when the status quo is going to kill us in a few generations.

The more I think on it, the only move that plays to win is putting in the effort to organize around a grassroots progressive as a write-in.

“Give your opponent the choice between two bad options”

“When your foe gives you two targets, strike for a third”

This is a lose-lose. In my opinion, the only remotely viable non-losing path into the future is to solidify around a progressive candidate who should file a declaration to run as a write-in candidate for governor and build as huge of a grassroots campaign as quickly as possible.

I’m also curious how Amy Acton was chosen as the Dem candidate and how long she and her team have been planning this move.