100% on point. The pivot from “Genocide Joe” to “Anyone/Anything Else Now That Names Are Already On Ballots” is very telling. Also on this list are all the “leftists” pointing fingers at other “leftists” instead of the fascists and centrists.

Nancy fucking pelosi is questioning his candidacy, is she a paid Russian troll? This is high stakes situation that we need to discuss and calling anyone who disagrees with you a Russian troll or crypto trump supporter is counter-productive and serves only to divide two groups who both want to stop fascism. To do that both sides need to recognize the validity of each other’s arguments and move from there not dismiss them as foolish.

A list crypto-Trumpists:

• The New York Times: “If the race comes down to a choice between Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden, the sitting president would be this board’s unequivocal pick. That is how much of a danger Mr. Trump poses. But given that very danger, the stakes for the country and the uneven abilities of Mr. Biden, the United States needs a stronger opponent to the presumptive Republican nominee. To make a call for a new Democratic nominee this late in a campaign is a decision not taken lightly, but it reflects the scale and seriousness of Mr. Trump’s challenge to the values and institutions of this country and the inadequacy of Mr. Biden to confront him.”
• David Remnick of The New Yorker: “For him to remain the Democratic candidate, the central actor in that referendum, would be an act not only of self-delusion but of national endangerment. It is entirely possible that the debate will not much change the polls; it is entirely possible that Biden could have a much stronger debate in September; it is not impossible to imagine that Trump will find a way to lose. But, at this point, should Biden engage the country in that level of jeopardy? To step aside and unleash the admittedly complicated process of locating and nominating a more robust and promising ticket seems the more rational course and would be an act of patriotism. To refuse to do so, to go on contending that his good days are more plentiful than the bad, to ignore the inevitability of time and aging, doesn’t merely risk his legacy—it risks the election and, most important, puts in peril the very issues and principles that Biden has framed as central to his Presidency and essential to the future.”
• The Economist: “There are a lot of arguments for resisting such a drastic step, but the main one is that the election is barely four months away. That may be enough time for Mr Biden to recover in the polls. But with the Democratic convention in August, it would be too brief for the party to find another candidate who could campaign and win. Replacing him could divide Democrats at a time when they need to stay united. Those assertions may have been convincing once. Not any more.”
• Chicago Tribune
• The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

You’re underplaying the severity of his failure. All of these publications understand what you’re saying. Every single one of them know that creating uncertainty now is risky, but in their calculations, it’s worth it. I, ultimately, think they are wrong, but calling them part of the Trump campaign just has to be something only someone trying to win internet points would say.

I’ll end by quoting Steve Bannon Pod Save America co-host Jon Favreau, “Anyone who says this is easy or that we shouldn’t have this debate is not being honest.”