Yeah, Iām voting for Biden because Iām not insane, but you canāt make me like it.
I still have my Bernie sticker on my laptop. Big RIP to the future that could have been.
2016 taught me that 3rd party and no voters tilt the scale in the favor of Republicans. Iām getting flashbacks with all the comments on Lemmy here saying as much.
I still legitimately have flashbacks to election night in 2016. Fuck. Itās insane that itās almost a decade ago. I can remember it like it just happened.
Funnily enough it worked in the opposite direction in 1992. But in 2000 yeah, it happened then, too. And 2016.
Bill Clinton was in many ways a blue Republican, and he fed the āboth sides are the sameā brain worm that still haunts american politics.
Okay.
Long before Bernie there was Al Gore in 2000 who lost because of a supreme court decision saying the majority vote did not matter in the US (not really, but it did decide the election and stop the Florida recounts). Not only changed the narrative on climate change for the future, but also about what matters for federal elections.
I wrote in Bernie in the Democratic primary. IDK if that even gets counted; I donāt know how it works, but fuck man, someone reads it I know, even if from there it goes straight into the āN/Aā column.
With you, my bro.
Nobody wants to make you like it. Itās a duty.
Biden hasnāt been the worst president, but heās far from what weād like and streets ahead of Trump. It sucks knowing our government is completely bought by the rich.
Splintering of the establishment left (SDP) versus the actual left (KPD) in the 1932 German elections was a big part of what allowed Hitlerās rise to power. Even while both were literally gun-battling in the streets with the paramilitary force that later became the SS, the KPD was calling the SDP āthe main enemyā and āsocial fascists.ā The SDP saw what was coming and allied with their conservative opponents to promote Hindenburg in the 1932 election, so that Hitler wouldnāt win, while the KPD ran their own candidate who siphoned off 13% of the vote.
Hindenburg still barely squeaked into power, but Hitler was the only candidate with a strong unified front behind him, and on Hindenburgās death Hitler assumed power and immediately starting killing the KPD members en masse. The SDP and KPD blamed each other, for not compromising and thus allowing Hitler to gain so much ground instead of facing a unified opposition, but at that point it didnāt really matter who was or wasnāt at fault, and the KPD were the first grouping explicitly singled out for death once he took over.
You can read all about it in here.
I had someone on Lemmy tell me not that long ago that the lesson of this was that the KPD was right, and the SDP were the real enemy for compromising with the conservatives, and if theyād just been more left and earned the support of the real left people then the whole thing wouldnāt have happened. I do wonder what attitude in hindsight of one of the KPD people in the camps would have been to this āitās not my job to vote for you, itās your job to earn my supportā electoral philosophy, but itās impossible to know, because of course they all were put to death.
I had someone on Lemmy tell me not that long ago that the lesson of this was that the KPD was right, and the SDP were the real enemy for compromising with the conservatives, and if theyād just been more left and earned the support of the real left people then the whole thing wouldnāt have happened.
Yeah, that sounds like my experience on here.
The SPD ordering the execution of Luxemburg and Liebknecht kinda was an irreparable schism I think.
Ah yes, remember the part where the Spartacists had a literal armed uprising because they didnāt like the prospect of participation in a democratic government? Something Luxemburg herself voted against?
Oh, what am I saying, what I meant is āThe Weimar Government should have put the gun barrel to their head and begged the Spartacists to pull the trigger on themā
She was still killed in spite of that, which was my point: establishing that the political bridge was burned; the division was not healed in time to form a united front against the Nazis.
There is no disagreement here the SPD fought the KPD and won.
They mainly used Freikorps to do it, and those Freikorps were nothing close to left wing or even democratic. They were imperialists and monarchists who formed the basis for other more infamous paramilitary groups. Interwar history is wild.
There is no disagreement here the SPD fought the KPD and won.
āHow dare you fight back when I try to armed-uprising you, that is very unfair and my feelings are hurt now and so I canāt support you.ā
I love the left dearly but this sounds exactly like left person logic, yes. š
the division was not healed in time to form a united front against the Nazis
And again, itās relevant that the SDP was willing to heal divisions with (at least some of) their enemies to fight the Nazis, and the KPD (from what youāre saying) were not (at least where the SDP was concerned).
I have no particular dog in this fight; Iām out of my depth now in terms of what happened and who was at fault. My point is, those bitter divisions and arguments and the justifications for them that youāre talking about ā however you want to allocate blame for them between the SDP and KPD ā didnāt do either of them a lick of good when the NSDAP started kicking down doors and shooting them both in the back of the head, and thatās relevant to the upcoming US election.
Why is it always a fake made up quote to respond to? It will sound however you want since you came up with it.
I really was just trying to point out that the division between the SPD and KPD didnāt start in the 30s and went back further and involved some pretty complex shit regarding World War 1 and its aftermath.
But I may have been too partizan bringing up the Freikorps: whom the SPD allied with in 1919 and some of which formed the Sturmabteilung, the Nazi paramilitary organization: in 1921. Maybe that context is too inappropriate.
I wasnāt trying to put words in their mouth; just saying how it sounded to me if they were upset that when they took up arms against the SDP in 1919, what came back to them was violent and unfair. Thereās also the issue (which is maybe why Iām so unsympathetic in general) that itās silly to still be upset in 1932 about something that happened in 1919, when the way to stay alive and keep alive a whole bunch of people who had nothing to do with either SDP or KPD, would have been for both of them to let it go and start fighting the bigger enemy.
But yeah, maybe I picked an unkind / unfair way to make the point, youāre right. And like I say, weāre into the detail points that I really donāt know about, so I am learning also from you about all of this for the first time.
I wonāt launch into the end of WW1 or the civil wars and revolutions replacing monarchies and empires overnight, so Iāll just give a contextual thought.
1932 and 1919 are thirteen years apart.
Donald Trump was elected eight years ago.
It isnāt too crazy of a timeline, politically speaking. And for the germans their leadership was summarily executed by paramilitary groups sent by the government.
I have no particular dog in this fight; Iām out of my depth now in terms of what happened and who was at fault. My point is, those bitter divisions and arguments and the justifications for them that youāre talking about ā however you want to allocate blame for them between the SDP and KPD ā didnāt do either of them a lick of good when the NSDAP started kicking down doors and shooting them both in the back of the head, and thatās relevant to the upcoming US election.
No, it didnāt. Which is why Iām all-in on making sure that the NSDAP doesnāt win this election.
She was still killed in spite of that, which was my point: establishing that the political bridge was burned; the division was not healed in time to form a united front against the Nazis.
And you think the division between the SPD and KPD in 1933 was due toā¦ the actions in the chaotic post-war environment of 1919, despite periods of participation in a common united front before that and the fact that the KPDās final break with SPD cooperation came at the behest of the Stalinist USSR, which made demands the KPD, like most interwar Communist Parties, cheerfully danced to without question?
There is no disagreement here the SPD fought the KPD and won.
More precisely, āThere is no disagreement that the democratic government, which included the SPD, fought the armed uprising against the democratic government, supported solely by the KPD, and wonā.
I am am clearly stating the political schism between the KPD and SPD from post war Germany wasnāt mended by the time of the Nazis. More examples of that division worsening isnāt really counter to that notion.
Ignoring the extended period of a united front breaking apart because the leader of the KPD was a Soviet puppet isnāt exactly āan issue in 1919 wasnāt mended šā
Their deaths easily left a power vacuum that was filled by soviet leaning german communists, most especially after 1922 when the civil war ended and the soviets emerged victorious. While some of the prominent german communists that werent russian sovietsā¦ were dead.
The Nazis had formed by 1920 and the S.A. formed from some Freikorps by 1921. It isnāt like there was an expansive amount of time there.
Lmao that was me again
KPD was responding to the same economic distress as the NSDAP, they were right to believe the national populist movement would continue growing if they didnāt deliver on real material relief to the German people.
That the SPD eventually fell to the NSDAP (with hindenburg placing Hitler as chancellor, allowing him to assume power after his death) certainly doesnāt exonerate their responsibility in allowing the rise of the nazis.
That was a banger conversation, if I wasnāt on mobile Iād go back and find it.
I think I got irritated and just abandoned the conversation, but we can continue.
What you just said actually made a lot of sense and as far as I know the history, I agree with it more or less completely (and would allocate blame for Trump at most of the Bill Clinton / Nancy Pelosi type Democrats in exactly the same way for exactly the same reason)
So if it sounded like I was exonerating them I was not. My point was, once Hitler comes around it doesnāt matter; if youāre still running a 13% spoiler candidate to weaken the alternative to Hitler, and then blaming the ones who won the election because they didnāt do a good enough job of compromising with youā¦ I mean, you may have a case, but youāll still be dead if Hitler wins. Surely that is relevant?
They sure didnāt get the real material relief to the German people by not supporting Hindenburg; definitely not until 1945 and even then it came with some caveats.
Plenty of area of agreement I think.
I just donāt think the NSDAP would have been defeated even if the SPD and KPD somehow fully united (I probably have as much knowledge of the history as you do, or less). Fascism doesnāt work like that, it would have just continued to boil under their thin coalition until eventually they would have to put it down forcefully. Just like I donāt think beating trump in a single election will defeat the fascist movement he represents. Whoever it is thatās leading the opposition has to take (likely un-democratic) action against them if they really want to put it down, and honestly I donāt know if itās a good thing or a bad thing that Biden wont cross that line.
Revolutionary movements generally donāt fully resolve until the conditions that seeded them change, one way or the other. Thatās why itās important that whatever coalition that forms the opposition is serious about addressing them, and in my mind simply having the coalition isnāt enough.
Just like I donāt think beating trump in a single election will defeat the fascist movement he represents
I donāt think anybody is under the illusion that stopping Trump from winning would end republican fascism.
But at the very least, delaying it is preferable. Because in that delay time we can weaken their movement, help get trans people to safety, and so on.
Then Biden should be doing what he can to make that happen, and from where Iām standing thereās at least one thing heās doing that his base is irate about
If the one thing he needs to do to kick the can is be popular then woah is he not the right candidate
he not the right candidate
Heās the less wrong candidate. Sorry reality is this hard for you but themās the breaks.
The leftists I know voted for Biden in 2020. Real well read, organized leftists, not online strawmen. They didnāt like it but they did it.
Of course. If I was American I wouldnāt spend a second campaigning for Biden or telling people āyou need to vote!!ā online, because Iād rather spend that time unionising my workplace, doing mutual aid, building up communities. Things that build real structural change no matter whoās in power. But on the day Iād still go vote for the lesser evil candidate. It takes a small amount of time. Then Iād go straight back to real work. I think most leftists do the same.
Legitimately yes, that is the actual point most leftists tired of liberals punching left are making.
Actual organization outside the bourgeois state apparatus is far more important, plain and simple. Iāll probably be voting for Biden, but I am not going to pretend itās āfighting fascism,ā that happens on the ground.
I donāt think that you and people sharing your thoughts are the target of the meme. There is an exceptional amount of accelerationist and/or anti-electoralist (they are indistinguishable in outcomes) posting going on. People are trying to discourage voting for Biden AND voting altogether.
ThIs MeAnS yOu LoVe GeNoCiDe
-actual thing that gets said regularly by morons
Youāre own post history is a pretty clear example of liberals hating leftists more than fascists
They donāt even seem to be liberal, theyāve made posts criticising the dems for exactly the same reasons other leftists are.
It just seems like a leftist arguing with leftier leftists because the right wing doesnāt appear to have any major presence on lemmy
Youāre mostly correct. PugJesus has stated that they are a leftist, but reject Dialectical Materialism, so they arenāt a Marxist. Claims to adore Marx but seems to decry every single movement to put his ideas into practice, no matter the circumstance.
PugJesus has denounced pretty much every existing Leftist movement, such as the Black Panther Party, along Ultra-pure terms, but only treats liberalism with nuanced critique, so itās difficult to believe them to be a genuine leftist and not just a progressive liberal.
You know, generally speaking: a person being consistently and demonstrably anti-leftist just means they are anti-leftist. Until thereās evidence to the contrary further analysis is a waste of time and energy.
Yep, I agree, just wanted to point out that they identify as a Leftist, even if they donāt practice it.
Yeah fair enough. In laymanās terms, I would say they were a leftist. Maybe not as educated as they should be, but the heart seems to be in the right place.
I totally get why they donāt fit a more strict definition than mine though.
Thank you for the more in-depth research and information too
All that
OR
Horseshoe theory.
Horseshoe theory is a thought terminating cliche.
There are basically no right wingers on Lemmy.
Liberals are right wingers. There are basically no republicans on Lemmy though.
You know what I mean.
My point is, complaining about conservatives or fascists on Lemmy is 100% preaching to the crowd.
Sure, I also think left-punching on a mostly Liberal instance like Lemmy.world is also mostly preaching to the crowd.
One liberal so far that didnāt like a member of an internet community not playing Americaās dumb āliberals are our left wing!!!ā game.
This is Lemmy.world, on a PugJesus thread no less. Of course there are going to be liberals thinking they are leftists.
āYou are own post historyā¦ā
Great response thank you for the insight
Big bridal shower at a gay bar energy these fake leftists be bringing to the defense of Americaās most vulnerable when it involves them doing something other than just showing up at the grammable protests and marches.
One of them told me any amount of collateral damage to vulnerable groups is acceptable as long as massive numbers of white moderates are executed, which will teach them a lesson. Except it will be the leftists who are executed? IDGI. Itās like they love any sort of authoritarianism far more than they love leftist economics.
Surely what will emerge from the ashes will be a stateless, classless egalitarian society and not a fascist wasteland!
And then everyone clapped.
Maybe he didnāt mean it. Thereās plenty of overlap with edgy teens and the useful idiot authoritarianism fans.
Itās astounding. My only comfort is that online communities rarely reflect the makeup of the real world.
From a European perspective, this debate is saddening, because it results in people alienating voters if they didnāt pick the ārightā option, where ārightā is whatever moral position you want them to have, on the basis of putting onto them a direct responsibility of an unwanted result, from their indirect action. It is your responsibility to campaign for your own party, and this is not a way to convince people to vote, nor join your side. Your two-party political system is ruining any possibility of political debate for smaller parties, and you end up silencing the voices of minorities that arenāt represented by your two monoliths, all thanks to your holier-than-thou attitude. The people voting for Trump are the ones who will get Trump elected, not the people voting for whoever supports their political affiliations, not participating in your dirty voting shenanigans. The only thing youāre achieving is guilt tripping someone you could otherwise convince to vote for another party, and pushing them away, making sure they will not vote in your favour next time.
We had the same thing happen in France, where voters were consistently asked to vote against a party for the presidential elections, rather than for the party that represents their ideals. In 2022, upon being elected Emmanuel Macron declared āI also know that many compatriots voted for me, to block the ideas of the extreme right. I want to thank them and tell them that I am aware that this vote binds me for years to come. I am the guardian of their attachment to the Republicā, and then proceeded over the next few years to apply a political program that would make Le Pen proud. [1] [2] [3] [4]
Here are some articles on the subject of āuseful voteā, translate at your convenience :
- https://theconversation.com/le-vote-utile-est-il-un-probleme-178185
- https://www.sudradio.fr/politique/presidentielle-le-vote-utile-est-une-arnaque-affirme-ian-brossat
- https://www.nouvelobs.com/election-presidentielle-2022/20220329.OBS56369/l-appel-au-vote-utile-peut-il-faire-retrouver-aux-abstentionnistes-le-chemin-des-urnes.html
- https://www.ina.fr/ina-eclaire-actu/le-vote-utile-un-terme-utilise-a-chaque-presidentielle
- https://www.la-croix.com/France/Politique/Le-vote-utile-vraiment-utile-2017-04-21-1200841288
And a quote from a random internet user, roughly translated :
No need to be from Saint-Cyr to understand that induction does not only concern cooking in the kitchen, even if it is electoral. The concept of a useful vote naturally leads to that of aā¦ useless vote! Indeed, it may seem legitimate to think that to āhave influenceā on an election, it would be better to do like the others by voting for those whom the polling institutes place at the top of voting intentions. This is how for a long time, elections have been scrutinized through surveys in which respondents tell you āthe trendā. The useful vote is a concept, the reason for the survey which creates the opinion of the respondents. Isnāt the real usefulness of voting to choose according to oneās own convictions and to grant a useful vote to the candidate whose program best defends our values, our interests determining airtime which has determined, finally, did his sound sound in the polls? Not recognizing this means admitting that āuselessnessā leads to abstaining from voting. This is unfortunately a real trend today.
This is the only time Iāll interact on the subject, because I know how abrasive it is, but I felt some are in dire need of a reality check. You may disagree because your political culture, landscape, educationā¦ are quite different from the ones I experienced so far, but please engage in respectful discussions about it, provide sensible arguments, and donāt downvote just because you read something that doesnāt validate your feelings. If thereās someone you need to blame for Bidenās potential failure to get elected, itās him for not running a better campaign to get enough votes, and yourself for vilifying other voters for not sheepily following your orders. These scare tactics are no better than dictatorial behaviours.
Edit : hereās a book that will better explain what Iām trying to say https://www.editionsdivergences.com/livre/comment-soccuper-un-dimanche-delection
These scare tactics are no better than dictatorial behaviours.
Ah, yes, the REAL fascism is when you tell people voting for fascism is bad. Great.
I accept to believe that you skipped the entire comment to only react to the last sentence, and I will not partake in discussing with you. Good day.
I accept to believe that you skipped the entire comment to only react to the last sentence
No, I read everything except the links. Itās the normal āDemocracy isnāt real because democracy involves strategic decisions on the part of votersā spiel from people who donāt take their civic duty seriously, and instead think of voting as a kind of virtue masturbation for their own gratification instead of being involved in making political choices of the polity, which necessarily involves compromise and deeply imperfect choices.
I will not partake in discussing with you. Good day.
Always comes off as pathetic ālast-wordingā when someone takes the time to reply āIām not going to talk to you.ā when you could have just stopped talking to them.
Maybe because I took the time to write a lenghty comment contributing to the discussion, which they purposefully decided to ignore with a snarky remark? I am open to debating on the subject, but not with an intellectually dishonest or dismissive attitude.
Welcome to politcal memes! These are our rules: Be civil
Jokes are okay, but donāt intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
Truly amazing you completely missed the very simple point I was making.
Iām sorry- did my comment ādisturbā you- lol. You need thicker skin but feel free to report me.
Please enlighten me on said point ? Iām trying to contribute to the discussion. Why would I interact with not only their, but now your dismissive comments on such a complex topic ?
And blocked them. I mean, these kinds of threads are a sort of gold mine. (In general, I mean, not in this specific instance)
@[email protected] is actively working to separate the left from the Democrats and has acknowledged as much. You have no obligation to engage with them in good faith. Their approach to rhetoric and dismissiveness of legitimate reasons why someone might find it impossible or deeply immoral to vote for a candidate that promotes genocide is fundamental to why we see such a fractured caucus today. @[email protected] isnāt interested in fixing it or addressing the concerns of people who find Biden problematic, but rather, in trotting out recycled tropes from another failed cause, the 2016 Clinton campaign.
Its a basic lesson of history in American politics that you canāt beat likely Democratic voters into voting for you. @[email protected] 's approach to this is identical to that of the 2016 Clinton campaign: You owe them your vote; Vote Democrat or else. But this approach to rhetoric is a demonstrated failure. You actually do have to meet them where they are at and address their concerns if you want to convince people of something, anything. Its what the Biden campaign should be doing, and if @[email protected] really cared about Bidenās chances in November, they too would be doing as much.
@[email protected] isnāt interested in that, and is not arguing or participating in good faith. They are working to further divide the coalition that got Biden elected, and are actively working to diminish the chances of a second Democratic term. I think they are doing so out of ignorant naivety and I do not attribute malice, but honestly, why you do things is ultimately secondary to what you are doing,
Perhaps you should tag me again, just to really emphasize that Iām being far too mean to people who only want to usher in fascism, and what I REALLY should be doing is patting them on the head and telling them how valid it is that theyāre sending people to death camps to feel good about themselves. :)
Thank you and no worries on the tagging, Iāll make sure to tag you again in the future.
I appreciate you being a foil so that we can put you and your rhetoric on display. Its reflective of the broader paradigm we see playing out and is useful for people to understand.
In doing so, I think we are moving the needle by demonstrating to people that this approach (your approach; the Hillary 2016 approach) of abusing people into voting is truly costing us this election.
So thank you. I really do appreciate your willingness to just remove the mask and make it clear that you are not interested in defeating Trump this election cycle.
Since its come up a few times now and is the currently underlying the theme of this discussion, Iād be interested to get your take on AOCās interpretation of electoralism. In context, how do you argue you motivate a base for a candidate like Joe Biden where the candidates policies are such an extreme departure from that of the voters?
In doing so, I think we are moving the needle by demonstrating to people that this approach (your approach; the Hillary 2016 approach) of abusing people into voting is truly costing us this election.
Oh, these third party voters would come back and vote for Biden, if only Biden supporters were nice to them? Is that it? How curious.
and make it clear that you are not interested in defeating Trump this election cycle.
Thatās curious, considering my position is that defeating Trump is what actually matters, rather than getting fuzzies because you oh-so-nobly voted third party and let fascism win and murder huge swathes of your fellow Americans.
In context, how do you argue you motivate a base for a candidate like Joe Biden where the candidates policies are such an extreme departure from that of the voters?
Jesus. Do you really think Bidenās policies are an āextreme departureā from that of the voters? Iād like to hear you lay that argument out, just for laughs.
EDIT: And, of course you couldnāt articulate the āextreme departureā or even attempt to. Because that would involve examining the American electorate, which is much further right than youād like. Predictable.
considering my position is that defeating Trump is what actually matters
I mean, you know thatās not true. We all know thatās not true, youāve even said so yourself, and your even doing so in this response.
You donāt want to grow the base of voters for against Trump. You just want to punch on leftists because they are sticking to their morals while you can-not.
In doing so, you are costing Biden any shot he has. You could be trying to build a bridge, instead, youāve focused on burning them down. Youāve said as much yourself. Your approach to rhetoric is directly supporting Trump, and are clearly aware of that.
Which further highlights my question. Go watch the clip. Its only 3 minutes. What do you think of what AOC has to say on electoral-ism, and how do you expect your intentional divisiveness/ fragmentation approach to rhetoric to play into that? Like, if Biden canāt get elected without leftists, and you are working to separate leftists from the Democrats, what exactly is your plan to get Biden elected?
Heres Charlemagne the God explaining this on The View, from earlier today.
As another European it is difficult to see the Americans constantly fight over voting. The two party system is definitely the issue here.
Either way well said.
Technically, the Two Party system isnāt actually a thing. It is instead simply the work of Market Forces. Multiple competitors in any market, shall result in that market being split between two competitors and an also ran. Then Market Power, if abused, shall prevent any actual competition to the duopoly. Something truly disruptive is required to change that. ATM the US has a pair of more or less captured political parties market. They are in no way an official part of the Government. Nothing in the Constitution empowers them. They should have no power at all. No say in who runs nor any influence beyond whatever PR for issues they advocate. However, they worked out how to make getting elected very profitable, and thus very expensive. Rather quickly money called all the shots. Then the manipulated monster these very wealthy and connected folks created to get elected, lost their minds because a āthemā got elected President, and the āuseful idiotā they brought in to pacify things with some good Fascism, turned out to be in multiple pockets and beholden to no one but himself. There is your US Political History tldr;
Technically, the Two Party system isnāt actually a thing.
Nothing in the Constitution empowers them.
This part is kind of inaccurate. Because of the constitution, we use first past the post voting, which naturally devolves into a two party system. Itās like trying to build a sky scraper out of just wood. The blueprints donāt explicitly call for it to collapse, but because of the chosen materials, it is bound to happen.
While the rest of what you said is true though.
first past the post voting, which naturally devolves into a two party system
This is a myth. Lāook at the legislatures of other countries that use FPTP, and count the parties that get more than 5 seats. The UK has 6, Canada 4, Russia 5 and India, my country, 11. You certainly can have more than two parties.
This is a myth.
No it isnāt. It happens through a well known phenomenon called the spoiler effect.
Lāook at the legislatures of other countries that use FPTP, and count the parties that get more than 5 seats
The data youāve just quoted doesnāt support your position, and this bit about 5 seats is arbitrary.
Each of those countries has 1-2 dominant parties, with the rest being involved in name only. And as another user already pointed out to you, these countries dont use pure FPTP voting. Youāve also ignored prime minister/presidential positions, because those elections especially prove that it isnāt a myth.
Local/smaller seat positions are significantly easier to win, as there is less competition, and therefore more opportunity for 3rd parties to win. But it isnāt enough, because they still get sidelined.
The spoiler effect requires voters to vote strategically, which means no third party viability.
I never knew basic math could upset so many people.
Itās truly frightening.
your fiction, helpfully pointed out by the star wars characters, is based on a non-falsifiable theory. itās not science, itās storytelling.
Itās a graphic that shows how the spoiler effect works. Relax
this bit about 5 seats is arbitrary.
Fair. I had to put a cut-off somewhere.
Each of those countries has 1-2 dominant parties, with the rest being involved in name only.
In the UK, the Lib Dems have decided which of the ābigā parties sits in government and which in opposition. The Bloc Quebecois is one of the major parties in Quebec. In India, the two biggest parties get 50-60% of the total votes polled, and most governments are composed of multi-party coalitions. Also about a third of states have governments led by a third party.
And as another user already pointed out to you, these countries dont use pure FPTP voting.
And as I pointed out, they were wrong. The UK, Canada and India use pure FPTP, and Russia has three big parties even if you only consider the FPTP seats.
The spoiler effect requires voters to vote strategically, which means no third party viability.
Third parties cannot win only when everyone thinks they canāt win. Labour went from a small third party to forming the government in about a generation. The BJP did the same in India. At the state level, there have been many cases of a third party coming from a single-digit percentage of the vote and winning the election.
In the UK, the Lib Dems have decided which of the ābigā parties sits in government and which in opposition. The Bloc Quebecois is one of the major parties in Quebec. In India, the two biggest parties get 50-60% of the total votes polled, and most governments are composed of multi-party coalitions. Also about a third of states have governments led by a third party.
I am aware. But that doesnāt really change what Iāve said. Youāre comparing smaller elections for seats with a big election like the U.S. president. Those elections still have 1-2 dominant parties, etc.
Third parties cannot win only when everyone thinks they canāt win.
You canāt just wish away the spoiler effect.
also, biden isnāt depicted in your analogy at all. heās more like the emporer: more experienced as a statesman, older, but even more evil.
Thatās kind of unavoidable when comparing politicians to what ultimately equate to super heroes and super villans.
The point of that graphic is to show how the spoiler effect works, not to say that Biden is good.
Biden is old and evil, but preferable to Trump.
we use first past the post voting, which naturally devolves into a two party system.
this is not causal
Technically, the Two Party system isnāt actually a thing. It is instead simply the work of Market Forces.
Itās also Article 2 of the Constitution. To wit:
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President
That last part being the main reason thereās an Either / Or in elections, e.g. two parties. Getting to First-Past-The-Post whether via electors or total popular vote turns out to be difficult for some reason. And to your point, yes, money is a major, as they say, bitch.
Small clarification:
Itās also Amendment 2 of the Constitution.
*Article 2.
Yeek. Fixed, thanks.
Which would indeed be why it is technically, not a thing. See the natural outcome of a thing is not necessarily the intent of the thing. The two party system is as you say. But that isnāt the design of the Constitutional language. It is the design of humans themselves.
Um, no. Opposition to a Fascist Kleptocracy beholden to Theocratic Fascists is not open to negotiation. My allegiance is to the Republic, to democracy!
āI also know that many compatriots voted for me, to block the ideas of the extreme right. I want to thank them and tell them that I am aware that this vote binds me for years to come. I am the guardian of their attachment to the Republicā
I think this is the key. If Biden could acknowledge his imperfections (and more broadly, the Democrats writ large), the situation would be entirely different. I donāt think people are looking for a perfect candidate, or a perfect anything, but want to see the spirit of ātowards a more perfect Unionā expressed in their candidates, which is something I think Macron, in that quote, does so with flourish.
All Biden would need to do is acknowledge the genocide, make the point that while still our ally, Israel has some deep issues to work on, and then point to something like the temporary pier as them ātryingā. Its all kind-of a layup politically. Israel is deeply unpopular. All Biden needs to do is dribble down court and put it in. The issue with Biden seems to be deeper, that he is personally a Zionist, and has to support this genocidal cause. Its not even clear that Trump would be less extreme in this regard. Biden is as bad as he needs to be on this issue, so it becomes a non-sequiter to make the standard āBut Trumpā comparison here.
It really is a failure of leadership on the part of Biden, and more broadly, on progressives not splitting the ticket and having Bernie run third party in 2016. If Biden canāt move his position significantly on this issue, he canāt win. And no amount of conservative democrats punching on leftists because they find it problematic that Biden wonāt back off a genocide can fix that. As one has to meet people where they are at in order to convince them of something, anything, one also needs to meet the electorate where they are at in terms of what rhetorical approaches work, and what doesnāt. The Democrats canāt abuse the left into supporting them in November.
Hereās what a french author has to say in a book on the subject, food for thought, roughly translated :
spoiler
30 minutes. 26 exactly. That is to say six times less than it takes to go from Republic to Nation during a protest. Ten times less than it takes to run a stand on animal abuse at a punk rock concert. Fifty times less than it takes to find emergency accommodation for a family of haggard Eritreans picked up on the side of a railway track near Ventimille. A hundred times less than it takes to find the articles of the Labor Code capable of solidifying the defense of an employee suspended for supposedly serious misconduct. Two hundred times less than it takes to obtain a negotiation with management in the context of a social conflict at the Gueugnon call center. Ten thousand times less than is needed to make an eco-hamlet viable. Infinite times less than it takes to ban the commercialization of digital data.Ā Voting offers an unrivaled time-reward ratio. In less than an hour, I accomplished my sacred duty. It doesnāt cost much, as Sarkozy said of his position against gay marriage intended to flirt with the Catholic branch. It doesnāt eat bread, my grandmother would have said, who voted as scrupulously all her life as she served dinner to her husband. [ā¦]
In the election itself, the expression doubles in volume. The ballot can contain 10 letters, sometimes 15, or even 20 in the frequent case where the candidateās surname has particles. But this surname says nothing, nor the support given to it. There are fifty shades of support for Dumoulin, candidate for the municipal elections in Brie-en-Gueugnon. Someone adheres to her charisma, someone to her promise to take control of the Water Authority, someone to her commitment to doubling the subsidy to the badminton club that she runs, someone to her chātis origins, someone to her husban, professor of applied mathematics, one in her project to pedestrianize the Halles district, one in her desire to rename the Poivre dāArvor college, another in her name because he likes mills. The bulletin can mean all that and therefore says nothing. This silence leaves the elected official an infinite margin of interpretation as to what is expected of him, a margin of deafness to the voices expressed in his favor.
In 2002, myriads of naive people hoped that during his mandate Chirac would take into account those who, among his voters in the second round, had only wanted to block the path to Le Pen. But nothing forced him to. The leader of the right was constitutionally free to interpret the ballots in his favor as he wished. Nothing distinguishes a Chirac bulletin approving his liberal-authoritarian program from an anti-racist Chirac bulletin. It was open to the new elected official to decide that 100% of the 80% obtained had wanted, not a better reception of foreign workers, but the increase in the retirement age that the National Assembly under orders would soon implement.
He is free to believe that 82% of voters declared their love for him. Dedicated to his party, the UMP. Validated his new glasses. No one could have assured him, based on the vote, that he was wrong. Seeing his five-year term heading to the right, the naive people were even more naive to feel cheated. How could the president betray an expectation that had not been expressed? As such, all the ballots could be declared invalid, even the immaculate ones, even those that no ill-mannered person has soiled with an Amy Taylor president, as a friend did at the 2021 European elections. A bulletin says nothing. The election reduces citizenship to expression, and this expression says nothing.
This has happened before, this is happening right now with Macron. His words meant nothing because his actions show he did not follow up on his statement. I think something very important voters have to consider and ask themselves : What is the plan when Biden will disrespect the votes of people who did not vote for him, but voted against Trump. Who will be considered responsible for keeping him in power, when he will enact policies that were defended by the Trump side?
https://www.editionsdivergences.com/livre/comment-soccuper-un-dimanche-delection
Last time I met a French person was on the selection process for jury duty. The dude was rightfully shocked at the entire process. Americans do not have real political education.
Out of curiosity, was this in a Red State?
No, wealthy liberal county in a blue state. It could have been that other prospective jurors were also displeased with the process but were less vocal about it, I know that was me. Trying to keep my head down so I get picked (serving on a jury while being aware of jurorās rights is one of the best direct actions you can take. use knowledge of juror nullification.)
Yeah im voting for the leftist running against Trump. Its not Biden.
Cool, so you donāt care if fascism wins and minorities are murdered. Unsurprising.
The system is shit, but you canāt force people to participate in itās perpetuation.
āWe will only throw some people into a wood chipper.ā is not a great platform and I understand those who dont want to be complicit.
The American political system is not changed in the ballot box.
āWe will only throw some people into a wood chipper.ā is not a great platform and I understand those who dont want to be complicit.
And by refusing to be ācomplicitā, they are instead complicit in āWe will throw as many people as we can into a wood chipperā.
Not exactly morally praiseworthy.
The American political system is not changed in the ballot box.
Not changed for the better, maybe. But it absolutely will be changed for the worse at the ballot box. Forgive me for not being excited for fascism.
You know who has the power not to toss people into the wood chipper? President of the United States Joe Biden.
And the fact that currently he prefers to have many people being thrown into the wood chipper instead of not throwing some people in himself, should make you very worried about how his policies will look like, when he has no reelection to work for.
Ah, good, youāve convinced me, I will work towards seeing the fascist who has pledged to never leave office and throw as many people in the wood chipper as possible win.
Well you are working very hard for that. Instead of holding Biden accountable but offering to vote, if he stops being a genocide supporter who runs interment camps at the border and builds the wall for Trump, you divide the people so they donāt take power and get fucked by whoever wins in the end. And with this you are demotivating people to vote in the first place, helping Trump the most.
Congratulations. The American Elites have successfully played you, to do their bidding.
Imagine literally working towards a Trump victory and thinking youāre the one who has finally thrown off the Dastardly Manipulations of the Eliteā¢.
Lol what a shit take.
Donāt try to blame other people for your choices and actions. If you want to live in a Trump America, donāt vote for Biden. Just remember, it was your choice and not something āCorporate elitesā made you do.
This comment makes me think you would literally slam your dick in a door and then be surprised when the pain of that sets in.
What country do you live in? I mean, whatās it like there?
Bad, but unfortunately we are not armed as well.
We do have more than two parties though.
Fair enough.
The American political system is not changed in the ballot box.
I think itās fascinating you wrote āinā the ballot box.
Not to mention, the system is literally changed first and foremost by the elections. But sure, biden bad, let the orange chips fall where they may and so on.
If you are in fact able to vote in the US presidential election, I hope youāll do it and support all the downballot candidates as well.
Oh Iām sorry I made a tiny error in spelling.
Youāre very welcome to continue this conversation in my native German.
Ich wĆ¼nschte, ich kƶnnte Deutsch sprechen. Aber wenn ich kƶnnte, wĆ¼rde ich mich wahrscheinlich nicht zum deutschen politischen System ƤuĆern, nur weil ich erstens nichts darĆ¼ber weiĆ und zweitens sowieso nicht dort lebe?
How much German election content do you get injected involuntarily into all your news feeds for two years every four years?
And the American election impacts the entire world like no other single national election does. The US influence through culture, trade and interventionism is felt throughout the entire world.
So yeah, I have opinions on that.
Ein fairer Punkt, denke ich. Aber wir schwimmen bereits in Leuten, die Trump helfen, es wƤre besser, wenn wir Trump keine Hilfe von Leuten geben wĆ¼rden, die nicht einmal wƤhlen kƶnnen. Wie die russischen Trollfarmen. Ich wƤre daran interessiert, eine deutsche Sicht auf die Wahl zu sehen, aber das ist ein freiwilliges Interesse, denke ich.
I truly hope people arenāt stupid enough to be convinced by this ātrickle down economicsā-type bullshit
Okay, but thatās the entire reason the āleftā in the US is so pointless. They just have to be less shit. They donāt even have to try too hard to avoid a genocide. They still win. But as Trump showed, that doesnāt weaken the right. The right can just say āHey, look, the leftists donāt do shit! Now if youād kindly be distracted from our increasing fascismā¦ā Liberals have no recipe against fascism. At best, they just postpone it by one or two election cycles. Like, Iām not saying donāt vote for Biden. Iām glad I donāt live in the US with your stupid two-party system. Iām glad I donāt have to decide whether to vote for everything thatās wrong in that country rn, or the worse alternative. If you think voting democrat is the right move, good on you. If you want to convince others from that view, great. Just, donāt be a dick about it. That āso youāre secretely a fash, hur di hur di hurā shtick isnāt gonna do anything but alienate others further.
Liberals have no recipe against fascism. At best, they just postpone it by one or two election cycles.
Perhaps you can clear this up by directing me towards the political ideology that has the recipe against fascism?
I highly doubt that youāre gonna like this, butā¦ communism. Maybe Iām wrong, maybe itās anarchism. But liberal democracy has failed that task time and time again.
Would you like to inform me when and where communism has indefinitely thwarted the rise of a totalitarian regime like fascism?
First of all, what the fuck kind of standard is that, āindefintelyā? At least it doesnt actively lead to fascism. Iād cite the āfascism is capitalism in declineā thing, but since Lenin said that iirc, thatād be like citing the bible to prove the bible.
Second of all, socialists, communists, and anarchists were always on the forefront of fighting fascism. They were the major force in the Spanisch civil war until they lost because fascism is better at the military. They were the ones arguing the loudest against Nazis, which is why they were such a threat that the first concentration camp were made for them. In Cuba, they literally overthrew the fascist dictatorship that was there at the time. Even reformism won out in places like Chile until the USA (you know, that liberal democracy thatās all the rage now) decided theyād rather see a FASCIST DICTATOR in its place. And even though I donāt like the Soviet Union for a variety of reasons, especially once Stalin took over, they were the ones who bore the brunt of the war against the Nazis while the USA were initially only helping for profit. And yes, I am aware that the USSR also played a significant role in letting the Nazis grow to power. Like I said, Stalin (and the system he represented) bad.
To get back to the original topic, since we both evidently disenjoy fascism, we (as in, our respective ideological groups) should maybe join in a united front against it. Not as a centrist āreach across the aisleā, just to work together on this particular issue. And Iād love to do that. But Joe seems stuck in the proud 'murican tradition of panicking at the sight of red flags and siding with fascists.
First of all, what the fuck kind of standard is that, āindefintelyā?
Is that not the standard youāre applying to liberal democracy?
They were the major force in the Spanisch civil war until they lost because fascism is better at the military.
Thatās not even close to true. The fascists won the Spanish Civil War due to a mixture of outside help and the Soviets literally backstabbing the socialists and anarchists.
In Cuba, they literally overthrew the fascist dictatorship that was there at the time.
Oh, cool. What did they replace it with?
And even though I donāt like the Soviet Union for a variety of reasons, especially once Stalin took over, they were the ones who bore the brunt of the war against the Nazis while the USA were initially only helping for profit.
Jesus Christ.
And yes, I am aware that the USSR also played a significant role in letting the Nazis grow to power. Like I said, Stalin (and the system he represented) bad.
Okay, then you are also aware that the USSR was a fascist regime painted red which engaged in a great deal of ethnic cleansing and mass murder, as well as autocratic governance and the destruction of workersā political, civil, and economic rights.
So youāve still not offered a single ideology that has actually managed to hold off totalitarianism in a way liberal democracy has not.
To get back to the original topic, since we both evidently disenjoy fascism, we (as in, our respective ideological groups) should maybe join in a united front against it. Not as a centrist āreach across the aisleā, just to work together on this particular issue. And Iād love to do that. But Joe seems stuck in the proud 'murican tradition of panicking at the sight of red flags and siding with fascists.
Cool. The United Front here is really easy. Vote for the coalition candidate; you know, the one running with the party that has DemSocs and SocDems in it in addition to moderates and neolibs; against the literal fucking fascist.
76% of the nazis killed in WWII were at the hands of the Soviets.
Is this the same Soviet regime that ran a totalitarian society whose primary difference from fascism was the coat of red paint? The same Soviet regime that itself collapsed into modern Russia?
Wow look at those goal posts go!
How so? The question regards indefinitely thwarting fascism, which the other commenter accused liberal democracy of being unable to do. I ask which ideology it is they think CAN indefinitely thwart fascism in a way that liberal democracy has failed to.
The only requirement for Evil to win, is for Good people to do nothing.
I guess then itās a good thing that Iām not advocating for inaction. We just have very different ideas on what to do.
Perfect being the enemy of good, youāve sided with pointless to remain pure. Such an example of futility and ignorance. But you do you.
ā¦ What?
Liberals have no recipe against fascism. . . Iām glad I donāt live in the US with your stupid two-party system.
Does anyone saying liberals bad in this thread live in America?
Strawman arguments are pretty lameā¦ Something Iād expect from conservatives really
Maybe you should be mad at Biden for not working to get the votes? Not doing whatever it takes to get those votes is basically giving the election to Trump. Dems should know better, since this ābully them into votingā strategy failed last time too.
fascism and genocide are currently happening
When these protesters were getting arrested i got so many upvotes for calling it fascism. Oh but Bidens the champion to save us from fascism.
deleted by creator
Oh, cool, another denier of the fascism of Trump and Republicans. It feels like Iāve accidentally walked right into the Young Conservatives Club at the local community college.
Or a temp firm in Macedonia
deleted by creator
Sorry, was there another interpretation of āYou think thereās going to be FASCISM when Trump gains power just because there will be MURDERS? You silly lib!ā that I missed?
deleted by creator
PugJesus wasnāt saying there would be no murders of minorities if Trump loses. They phrased things poorly, but what they meant was minorities are going to be thrown into concentration camps which is what the fascist nazis did.
Sarcasm implies you mean the opposite of what you said, generally:
āFascism is when there are murdersā
Yes. That is not the sole thing about fascism, but murdering everyone not in your personal social group is kind of a big deal in fascism. You making this statement sarcastic does not reflect well on you or your ability to wield the English language. If you wanted it to come across the way you wanted it to come across, you should have said āFascism is about when there are murders and nothing elseā.
However, this would have revealed a deep misunderstanding of what your opponent was actually implying, and, ironically, strawmanning them.
Idk Trump is checking off nearly every box here https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html
No, not remotely accurate. https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism
Good choice!
Congratulations on being privileged enough not to worry if fascism wins.
us šš» is šš» already šš» fascist
Any point that can be made becomes stupider with the clapping emojis
i šš» donāt šš» care šš»
Yes. Clearly you havenāt given a shit about anyone but yourself for a long time now.
if you donāt think the US is fascist that shows an extreme lack of empathy for prisoners, our torture victims, the numerous countries we have bombed, genocide victims, black people ā¦ do I need to go on
Liberals: āWeāre on the brink of fascism!ā
Also liberals: āBlack rifle scary, and should be limited to only law enforcement, politicians, and the wealthyā
*liberals big mad cause theyāre gonna defeat christofascism by voting republican light.
Iāll take Things That Donāt Happen for 300, Alex
Oh, cool, I was hoping my experiences on Lemmy were just a series of elaborate hallucinations.
Me too bud
deleted by creator
Yes, in fact, I will be voting for the leftist candidate that most aligns with my political and social beliefs.
That is not Trump, nor is it Biden.
I know this is a little too complex for liberals like you to understand but hopefully this helps clear it up! BLUE MAGA!!!
Blue MAGA
Useful idiot.
More like a lame troll, from a mentally mediocreā¦ ok, yeah, so you are correct.
That is not Trump, nor is it Biden.
Cool, so youāre saying you donāt give a fuck how many minorities have to die so you can feel good when you mark the box on your ballot. Great. Left praxis in the flesh.
You seem pretty content to let countless Gazans die to possibly prevent you facing oppression here.
The solution is guwtting leftists into supporting genocide, but to get the Democrats to oppose genocide.
You seem pretty content to let countless Gazans die to possibly prevent you facing oppression here.
Yep, because Trump has committed to stopping the Gazan genoci-
Wait, whatās that?
Oh, heās actually said he wants MORE dead Gazans?
Huh.
The solution is guwtting leftists into supporting genocide, but to get the Democrats to oppose genocide.
Itāll be great if they do. I plan on raising awareness as much as I can about the atrocities in Gaza. But if it comes down to it, and Biden is still in support of Israel come election day, Iām not dumb enough to vote for MORE genocide for EVERYONE.
Just because Trump enthusiastically supports the genocide doesnāt make Bidenās acceptance of it ok. Nothing will be done about it unless Democrats feel like it will help them come November. So that means holding the Democratsā feet to the fire and demanding a ceasefire. The election isnāt for 6 months. There is plenty to do, but liberals on Lemmy seem only interested in saying that leftists support Trump.
See, the issue comes when āplenty to doā ends up with ājustifying allowing fascismā, as a glance down any of these threads will show is a common position. āIf Biden doesnāt change his position, he DESERVES to loseā; of course, the deaths Trump will cause is irrelevant; minorities must die to punish the old fucks in the DNC. There is an approach on a deontological level that is fucking insane from a utilitarian standpoint, and itās not something that I feel warrants standing by silently about.
On here, on Lemmy, fucking no one is in favor of Israel, except that one weirdo who got himself banned from 2/3s of the communities on here. Thank the gods. āGenocide badā is already accepted; what is sometimes missed is āA Trump election implies a significant increase in genocideā, which is why I beat the drum on here. Iāve seen leftists on here (by no means representative of all leftists, not even all Lemmy leftists, I know) say things as repulsive, nonsensical, and varied as:
-
America deserves genocide anyway for supporting genocide, so itās okay if Trump wins
-
Trump winning will spark a left-wing revolution, so everything will be better in the end
-
Trump actually isnāt any different than Biden, and wonāt kill any significantly greater number of people
-
A personal moral stand is worth the lives of millions of minorities and leftists
-
As long as the moderates are taught a lesson, itās worth it
As long as I see those opinions regularly pop up outside of .ml and like instances, I will continue beating the āVote for Biden you dumb fucksā drum over the āGenocide is BAD you dumb fucksā drum that I would favor when interacting with the general American population.
-
You seem pretty content to let countless Gazans die to possibly prevent you facing oppression here.
Nothing any of us do in the upcoming election will stop that. Voting Trump will get Gazans killed, voting Biden will get Gazans killed, and voting 3rd party will get Gazans killed.
And itās hardly just a possibility of oppression here. Trump has vowed to do everything in his power to stop gender affirming care from being available. Itās going to end up with dead trans people, including children. Thatās not just a possibility, thatās practically a guarantee.
But Trump isnāt going to stop with that, because he and his buddies have made it clear that they want to tear down what little democracy we have, and kill/jail his political opponents. That means you. He isnāt paraphrasing Hitler for nothing.
Morons gonna moron
democrats fund fascists: https://www.vox.com/23274469/democrats-extremist-republicans-mastriano-cox-bailey
and boosted trump into the presidency: https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/
Democrats promote fascists so they can pretend that theyāre heroes for running against them. Vote for biden, but donāt fool yourself into thinking that youāre not voting for a fascist, because democrats are absolutely allies of fascists if not outright fascists themselves. They would rather lose an election to a fascist than let a leftist win, 2016 is a prime example of this. As the saying goes, scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds.
Define fascism
STFU
Making up a guy to get mad at and owning him super hard on
redditlemmy, the pugjesus classicIām not on Lemmy much and have I talked to like five of these guys.
I am once again posting that I will never vote for Joe Biden again and you donāt have to either.
This November Iām planning to mark my ballot for the party for socialism and liberation and you can too. There are lots of parties you might be able to align with if psl isnāt your thing.
There are no votes against candidates, only for them. Choosing to vote for Biden isnāt a vote against trump, itās a vote for Biden and the genocide he just recently denied the existence of.
There are no votes against candidates, only for them.
Sure there is. The boomers/evangelical show up in force every single election. Theyāre gonna do so again this november, and if Trump isnāt stopped we may see an end to what little democracy we have. To prevent that (or in other words go against it or vote against it), we need to get more electoral votes for a different candidate. Third parties are not viable for that.
So itās either going to end up being Biden or Trump. And I donāt want to see trans people killed, so Iām begrudgingly voting Biden. Have fun with the blood of minorities on your hands because you placed your own need for a clear conscience over the lives of minorities.
There is no way to vote against a candidate. You canāt mark the bubble āanybody but trumpā, or āI wish the democrats had run anyone elseā.
You can only vote for candidates.
Thatās not some metaphor, itās how the system works.
A vote for Biden is a vote in support of Biden, not a vote against trump. Thatās how itāll be counted.
Support for Biden incorporates support for the genocide he supplies and denies the existence of.
I tried to figure out a polite way to say this and hereās the best I came up with:
You probably donāt want to invoke the imagery of blood on oneās hands when youāre advocating for Biden.
There is no way to vote against a candidate. You canāt mark the bubble āanybody but trumpā, or āI wish the democrats had run anyone elseā.
Sure you can. I just explained how.
A vote for Biden is a vote in support of Biden, not a vote against trump. Thatās how itāll be counted.
This is just semantics.
Support for Biden incorporates support for the genocide he supplies and denies the existence of.
And lack of support for Biden incorporates support for genocide that Trump will continue and excelerate, in addition to the death and other harm that will come to minorities in the U.S., as well as the potential end of what little democracy we have.
Itās a catch 22, and youāre choosing the worst option.
You probably donāt want to invoke the imagery of blood on oneās hands when youāre advocating for Biden.
Blood is on the hands of every taxpayer. Iām strategically voting to reduce that amount of blood. Youāre doing nothing to reduce it, and potentially increasing it.
Thereās some really flawed reasoning going into your ideas here. Iām gonna go way out on some limbs and try to enumerate the different stuff that seems to underpin your ideas, but if I get something wrong feel free to lay it out.
If youāre considering any vote that isnāt for trump to be against trump than my psl ballot is against trump too and voting āagainstā trump is a meaningless distinction.
If only a vote for a candidate that has a chance at beating trump counts as a vote against him then unless the polls change somehow your Biden vote isnāt a vote āagainstā trump.
If youāre suggesting that only a vote for the candidate who has the best chance to beat trump counts as a vote against trump, youāre discounting the fact that Biden doesnāt have to be that candidate. He could still step down or not be selected at the convention.
It is not semantics to be clear about how the electoral system works. Votes are for candidates, not against them. Itās important to recognize that because parties will look at vote totals to see what is acceptable political action, messaging, etc.
Thatās not semantics, itās how the system works. Itās not a semantic distinction because opposition to one candidate does not mean support for another, but voting for a candidate indicates support for them and their actions and platform.
The reason thatās important is because a person has to both pick one of the understandings of voting for Biden in opposition to trump that I laid out above (or some different one that I missed!) and accept that their vote for Biden is literally a vote in support of his aid and denial of a genocide that we see disgusting images of everyday.
The problem with waiving your hands about what trump is gonna do is that almost every American made it through trumps term. They saw how he operated and what he did. You have a hard time convincing a person that the president who didnāt do a genocide is gonna be worse than the one who is at this very moment supplying one and denying its existence at the same time.
I donāt say that to defend trump, but to illustrate how that line of thinking opens you up to some pretty straightforward critiques from a person who actually is considering voting for trump.
Thatās who you wanna convince, right? The undecided voter? How do you expect to convince someone who can remember no genocide when they compare it with the presence of a genocide?
Itās not an enviable position.
I think you have a deeply flawed and warped worldview if you would say the blood of Palestinians is on the hands of every taxpayer. Americans should be angry that a genocide is being committed in our names, but we bear no responsibility for it because despite a majority in favor of ending arms shipments and immediate ceasefire, Biden continues on.
And you would have me vote for the man who will aid and deny a genocide despite it being universally unpopular? Because the other guy is worse? The other guy who was already president just four short years ago and didnāt do what Biden is doing?
No.
We are given a chance to record our political will this November and mine wonāt be in favor of Bidens genocide.
Hey bloodfart, the only reason I can still have a job and access healthcare in a lot of places is because of Biden working to reverse Trumpās anti-trans stuff. I get that you feel all high and mighty telling people that folks like me donāt matter enough but this shit is kinda important to some of us.
Theres a story I like called the ones who walk away from omelas. Itās pretty good.
If youāre considering any vote that isnāt for trump to be against trump than my psl ballot is against trump too and voting āagainstā trump is a meaningless distinction.
The only currently available candidate that stands a chance is Biden. I know you cover that in your next sentence so:
If only a vote for a candidate that has a chance at beating trump counts as a vote against him then unless the polls change somehow your Biden vote isnāt a vote āagainstā trump.
Biden has still has a chance of beating Trump. The polls are horseshit.
If youāre suggesting that only a vote for the candidate who has the best chance to beat trump counts as a vote against trump, youāre discounting the fact that Biden doesnāt have to be that candidate. He could still step down or not be selected at the convention.
If that were to happen I would be elated.
It is not semantics to be clear about how the electoral system works. Votes are for candidates, not against them. Itās important to recognize that because parties will look at vote totals to see what is acceptable political action, messaging, etc.
You can say what you like, but this is still just semantics. I understand what youāre saying is technically correct, but youāre missing the point of what is being said when somebody says they are voting against something.
Youāre ignoring the intended meaning and focusing on the technical mechanics.
and accept that their vote for Biden is literally a vote in support of his aid and denial of a genocide that we see disgusting images of everyday.
A vote for a candidate is not a blanket support for all policies and actions they make.
from a person who actually is considering voting for trump.
Then youāre an even bigger fool than you initially let on.
Thatās who you wanna convince, right? The undecided voter? How do you expect to convince someone who can remember no genocide when they compare it with the presence of a genocide?
This isnāt my job. And youāre not who Iām here to convince.
I think you have a deeply flawed and warped worldview if you would say the blood of Palestinians is on the hands of every taxpayer.
Every single tax payer is ultimately sending their money to the federal government, who then uses that money to bomb and kill Palestinians. Most states gave police training ops with the IDF.
Thatās not a warped view, those are the facts, and it means blood is on all of our hands.
despite a majority in favor of ending arms shipments and immediate ceasefire, Biden continues on.
And yet we pay our taxes, which kills Palestinians. You bear responsibility just as I. You canāt avoid that anymore than you can avoid a Trump/Biden winning.
If youād be elated that Biden stepped down or that the convention put someone else up, join me in telling everyone that they donāt have to vote for Biden. Thatās how you get the thing you want. You commit to not voting for Biden.
A vote can only ever be interpreted as blanket support for the candidateās policies and actions. You donāt get to say āi like Biden but not his border detentionsā, you get to say āBidenā. Consent to the candidates program is part of casting a vote for them and if you canāt stomach going on a permanent record as saying āI support Bidens genocideā then donāt vote for him.
I am not considering voting for trump. I decided sixteen years ago that I wouldnāt vote for Biden again and am planning on marking my ballot psl this year. As I wrote, I invoked a person considering voting for trump over Biden to illustrate how difficult it is to portray trump as a clear danger more important than an ongoing genocide.
I asked if that was who you were trying to convince because itās either undecideds, nonvoters or me and you will never convince me to vote for Biden. You said youāre not here to convince me, so who is it, undecideds, non voters or some third group?
If you really believed that the blood of innocent people was on the hands of every American due to Biden actions you wouldnāt be in here telling people to vote for him.
If you believed that you were made a genocidare by his disgusting rhetoric and material support youād be opposed to him. Youād be in the streets protesting or campaigning to end support to israel or any other number of other actions but instead youāre on the internet trying to advocate against doing the bare minimum to stop Biden policy that you say taints us all. Media can say all kinds of things about protest movements and the White House can deploy its press secretary to dodge questions about crackdown on antiwar actions but neither can deny a vote cast and counted.
Make your voice heard to them with the only device given you that canāt be manipulated or deepfaked or covered up. Vote third party this November.
join me in telling everyone that they donāt have to vote for Biden. Thatās how you get the thing you want. You commit to not voting for Biden.
The error in this is that you are relying on boomer whoās supporting genocide to do the right thing. Be a gambler all you like, Iām not going to gamble with fascism. Itās shortsighted and will get overall more people killed.
Every fucking day Bidenās campaign team sends me emails asking for donations, and they send me like 8 every day. And every time I respond with imagery of dead fucking bodies in Palestine. And do you know how theyāve responded? They fucking havenāt. They know theyāre losing votes because of this. They know theyāre losing ground because of this, because every other email from them is them complaining that they are getting out fundraised by Trump.
But they donāt even give enough of a shit to have one of their lower level lackeys from their campaign team respond. They truly do not give a shit. And youāre gonna trust them to do the right thing and step down? Youāre gonna trust genocide supporters to do the right thing?
A vote can only ever be interpreted as blanket support for the candidateās policies
Not so. A vote can be interpreted a million different ways. Itās a number, not an essay of love. It is a statement saying āof all of these choices, X is my preferenceā. Trying to decipher any more meaning of that requires more data which isnāt captured in an election.
How do you tell the difference between a voter who chose a candidate at random versus one who chose them because they were best friends? You canāt.
You donāt get to say āi like Biden but not his border detentionsā, you get to say āBidenā.
Sure you can, you just did. Youāre comparing a fully articulated thought to a vote, of course they arenāt going to match.
As I wrote, I invoked a person considering voting for trump over Biden to illustrate how difficult it is to portray trump as a clear danger more important than an ongoing genocide.
It isnāt difficult to illustrate how much larger of a danger Trump is:
You said youāre not here to convince me, so who is it, undecideds, non voters or some third group?
Anybody fence sitting.
If you really believed that the blood of innocent people was on the hands of every American due to Biden actions you wouldnāt be in here telling people to vote for him.
Why not? And it isnāt just Bidenās actions, itās pretty much every major political action the U.S. has ever taken since itās inception. And word of advice, if youāre trying to convince people, starting from a position of āyou donāt ACTUALLY believe X because you said Yā is just silly, and a waste of everyoneās time.
If you believed that you were made a genocidare by his disgusting rhetoric and material support youād be opposed to him
Iāve already explain thatās not how this works. Itās a two party system.
Youād be in the streets protesting or campaigning to end support to israel or any other number of other actions
Iām trying not to get shot by our police state and widowing my disabled wife. So yeah, fuck me I guess.
Make your voice heard to them with the only device given you that canāt be manipulated or deepfaked or covered up. Vote third party this November.
I will not be handing Trump another victory, no thank you. It was a disaster the first time we decided to botch it in 2016, itās going to be even worse this time.
Idealistic sophistry at best, malicious deceit at worst.
In a perfect world, I would agree with you. In your fever dream, I probably do. Unfortunately, we have to play the hand weāre dealt and exist in reality. In reality, the system doesnāt work the way you wish it did.
Please, do everything youāre saying youāre going to do, make your idealist stand and pat yourself on the back because because you took the moral high ground and voted for who you thought was best.
I know youāre going to come back with the logic of āvote for != vote againstā and youāre not wrong. Thereās no defense against that. In a fair, and just world, youāre absolutely right. Unfortunately, the rest of us donāt live in your idealist leftist utopia, and are stuck on mundane terra firma. Enjoy your smug satisfaction as you look around in a self-congratulatory stupor knowing that you didnāt vote for someone who didnāt implement your idealism as immediately as you wished for.
The rest of us, āliberalsā or whatever the term is now daysā¦ I canāt keep it straight anymore, too old and tiredā¦ conservatives who can no longer handle the directions their party is going, libertarians who can no longer abide stupidity, and the unaffiliated who simply want people to be able to live as who and what they areā¦love who and what they are, we will vote. Sure, itāll be a vote for the status quo, but as the status quo sits nowā¦itās better than the alternative.
I know you find the status quo morally repugnant, and frankly I donāt fault you a bit. It is, youāre right. We should be so much further down the path than we are. Is the Democrat du jour going to get us there? No, probably not. Are they going to step in the right direction? Maybe. Are they going to be a triage scenario to stop the hemorrhaging and stabilize the patient so they survive long enough to get to a place where actual work can be done? Hopefully, definitely more so than the republican du jour.
Itās meatball politics. Itās ugly, itās unpleasant, itās sad that we have to fight so hard to simply stay where weāre at.
If you read this far, I appreciate it. This is a lot of thoughts Iāve had reading yours and other comments throughout various forums. You are not the cause of all of these, but you were the catalyst that drove pen to paper.
Iām not looking to debate you, mainly for two reasons.
- Thereās no point.
- Youāre not technically wrong. Iām not going to dissuade you, and youāre not going to elevate me beyond reality.
I hope you have a good day neighbor, and may you find the utopia you so richly deserve.
Jokes on you, Iām not voting for the sense of smug superiority. No lives matter, etc. /S
Votesocialist2024.com !! š«”š«”š«”
