How is voting for a marginal unknown 3rd candidate going to upend the US electoral system, I'm so curious...
Instead of dreaming look at the general population. How many people who vote do you think actually care about this. Sure they might not like the politicians but do they actually want to change the system? I don't think so.
You're a moron. What you are proposing is not voting SPD in 1932/1933 Germany because they are too moderate for your liking. Lots of people did that and guess what - Hitler won and began dismantling the democratic system, killing political opponents and setting up the biggest industrial genocide machinery the world had ever seen.
Not voting Biden in the presidential election helps Trump.
So you admit that the problem is a moderate party half-assing elections because they think they can coast on not being "other guy". Democrats help trump because they'd rather have fascism than threaten the bottom line of their rich donors. How do you think it got this bad in the first place? Did you think democrats were the bastion of progress?
Yeah, the problem is a moderate party half-assing elections because they think they can coast on not being "other guy". The SDP help Hitler because they'd rather have fascism than threaten the bottom line of their rich donors. How do you think it got this bad in the first place? Did you think the SDP were the bastion of progress?
The old saying about not learning and being doomed to repeat history really is depressing when you see it happen in real time.
What lesson? That the rich and powerful will eventually make every society circle the drain and fighting it off just delays the inevitable?
Or is your intellectual take giving a free pass to the most powerful in society and saddling those with the least amount of power with the bulk of the responsibility?
The Democratic Party is largely conservative and reactionary. There are some progressive elements because progressives have nowhere else to go. The US election system is fucked and undemocratic. It needs to change.
Still, not voting for Democrats achieves absolutely nothing but costing them a vote they need against the literal fascists of the Republican Party.
Hitler was appointed by Hindenburg, who was pressured by conservatives and capitalists, also the NSDAP was the strongest political party in both elections of 1932.
Without the substantial support for the NSDAP initially, there would have been no reason to appoint Hitler. The idea was that Hitler and his NSDAP could create a strong and lasting conservative government, a plan that would not have been suggested without their electoral success. Therefore, the support for the NSDAP in 1932 was the key reason Hitler became Chancellor. Paul von Hindenburg distrusted and despised Adolf Hitler as an unqualified upstart but felt compelled to appoint him as Chancellor due to political pressure and the unstable situation.
Hitler did not have a 50% majority but the NSDAP was the strongest party, giving them a lot of leverage. If his opposition had been more unified, he wouldn't have had a chance at becoming chancellor.
Specifically, he was appointed chancellor by the guy the SDP backed. How anyone can look at that and blame the KPD for running the only anti-Hitler candidate is baffling.
Well, in context of philosophy being taught in class you would then change the prompt to a harder question. You would also debate whether the person who makes the decision is in fact responsible and how that dynamic changes when the prompt changes.
So maybe you have to choose between 2 men only half as happy or handsome or one fully formed magical man with magic hands.
What if the train magically transforms regular men into new men? What if they were opposed to the transformation before it happened?
Conversely, what about if it magically creates men causing potential overpopulation? What if the men it created morally oppose the tram, but more than half the local population feel like it is necessary to run no matter what?
You can pretty much run this thought experiment forever, so far we've been going for 57 years.
It's debatable if morality is even "inherent" to existence. I'd argue morality is a relative construct, but that's besides the point.
I was speaking in regards to the options presented. And as such, I know of no amount of genocide that could be called "moral". Thus my correction to your assertion, as the options presented only allow for "more or less genocide".
It's not a trolley problem, and even if it were the consequences of greenlighting democratic support for genocide are not fully represented appropriately in this image.
We all know what happens if the Republicans get in - they do what they want, and what they want is fervent, unquestioning support of Israel, and to continue trampling on the rights of millions of minorities.
That's where the Trolley goes if the leftwing can't agree on what it wants to do.
While I agree that you're right in stating that the long-term consequences of allowing democrats to get away with this aren't properly laid out, what's the alternative exactly?
You could argue to vote an independent, but if everybody disagrees on which independent to vote for, then you fragment the leftwing and the Republicans get a free lunch.
You could argue to refuse to vote to teach the democrat party a lesson, which sounds nice, but every lost vote against the Republicans only helps bring them closer to victory.
If you've got another idea, then by all means go ahead, but those are the two I hear over and over again.
Except communicating to Democratic leadership that this is acceptable moves us to the right, not to the left. I think it's time we all admit at least that we're past pretending Democrats are going to reform themselves without any meaningful pressure, no?
How far to the right do we let the DNC use fear to push us before being "left" only in relation to the extreme right doesn't cut it? If genocide is not where you draw the line what the fuck will be?
Voting or not voting by itself will not move democrats to the left. That can only be achieved by organizing. In the meantime, keeping republicans out of power is worthwhile.
Again, I agree with what you're saying in principle, but how do you propose to draw that line now?
Both realistic outcomes of the election involve the US government continuing to support this genocide in one way or another - that's why OP's meme is drawn out like it is, because people arguing your exact viewpoint seem to think there's some magical third track everybody else has missed that sidetracks this issue entirely.
Everybody loses this election no matter what happens, but I guarantee you the loss will be worse with the Republicans in the driving seat.
Again, I agree with what you’re saying in principle, but how do you propose to draw that line now?
There will never be a perfect time to draw the line, because the DNC will always play chicken with its own base as long as that continues to get them elected, they will always be putting us in that position of choosing between their fascist lite pick and the gop's fascist. The only weapon we have that they care about is our ability to deny them power. They don't care about protests, they don't care about articles and letters, debate or polls or anything, as we see none of that changes their behaviour. They care about money and access to power.
So, the solution is to starve them until they realize the party simply can't sustain itself on non-existent maga swing voters. It can't leech enough "moderate" conservatives to survive. They need to be brought to the understanding that their route to power is not to be Alt Republican, it's to be progressive and anti-fascist.
People can say the DNC won't care and it will never work that way, but we've seen a real example from history that starving parties works. When Republican support was waning in the 1950s and 60s, the Republicans went out hunting for a new demographic to sustain them. That's what the Southern Strategy was. Granted they were going in the opposite direction, but the Democrats can be put in the same position and since the GOP already occupies all the white racist territory, Dems have very few other places to hide from Millenials and GenZ.
And in the meantime those groups need to keep voting and keep fighting to get progressives in every position they can. They just need to be disciplined about not backing corporate candidates, they need to be unelectable.
And yes, I understand this would likely mean some really shitty years, but that's the cost to make Democrats understand they need their base.
One, that is a very long way of saying the idea you're bringing to the table is don't vote - and I've already said what I think about that.
And yes, I understand this would likely mean some really shitty years, but that's the cost to make Democrats understand they need their base.
Two, that's a bit of an understatement considering just one highlight of Trump's last presidency was rigging the SCOTUS towards being openly corrupt and against the people for literally decades to come.
And in the meantime those groups need to keep voting and keep fighting to get progressives in every position they can. They just need to be disciplined about not backing corporate candidates, they need to be unelectable.
Yeah, I did see that section, but given that a "corporate" candidate is already the democrat nominee, that also amounts to not voting in this election - or voting for independents, which I have also made my opinion known on - so there was no point in talking about that.
There's more than the presidency on the ballot. People should vote, they should just refuse to vote for any right-wing candidate forced on them by the DNC. That's why you vote even when Dems nominate a Republican, to send that message.
There's only one way to teach the DNC that corporate conservative dems are unelectable, and that's to consistently deny them wins in primaries and in the general if necessary.
It's funny you say the philosophy is simple when strategic voting requires multiple layers of analysis and voting for bubblegum ice cream just amounts to what feels good. You can't bring yourself to accept the reality of the situation, so you pretend like the problem is easy to solve if you just ignore it. That's truly simple minded. Pathetic projection on your part.
It's not strategic if the outcome of either option in the binary you present is fascism. You're not "saving" anyone on either of the tracks in the narrow political world you paint.
How am I wrong? Was it Trump that passed the COPS expansion, using federal funds to make sure police got funding expansions without local input, didn't Biden say that his Catholic faith meant that he was anti-abortion, and wasn't Biden's position on the Senate Council of Foreign Relations make him the Democrat with most input and culpability on how the war on terrorism was carried out? Were Muslims served by Biden's sanctions on Afghanistan, starving the people, as petty revenge for him following through on Trump's planned withdrawal not working out. Just excluding the point that Palestinians are Muslims and most Muslims care about Palestine. Did Biden stand up for trans rights or is his only saving grace not vocally cheering on the Republicans, and instead just try to avoid taking a position on that because Democrats don't actually want to fight for things or defend positions.
Go outside friend, and talk to people near you about these issues. Diversify where you consume amljd discuss information, online is prone to echo chambers.
Understand that nobody is immune to propaganda, including yourself.
Why should he "care about Muslims" any more than any other group? Would your opinion be the same that he should care about Christians? Jews? Buddhists?
The president of the USA is supposed to care about Americans.
Also Biden is not even slightly anti-abortion, wtf. Biden is a Catholic and would not personally choose to abort a child of his own, but as the President he supports the right to choose in service to the office and not to his personal beliefs.
This is what it means to be President, to do what is right for the people even if it goes against your own opinions. Did Trump really lower our expectations that badly?
As far as Muslims, I am responding to the people on the tracks in the meme. Biden has been vocally anti-abortion for most of his career, he is only trying to walk that back in the last few years. Even then, best case scenario, he is refusing to try to make progress on that issue to use it as a mobilization issue. If it is not an issue of legislation, but only the Supreme Court reversing the precedent, then you have to keep voting Democrat for a generation before progress can be attempted. That is what it means to be Democrat.
No, Biden did a number on me. It showed that Democrats and Liberals have absolutely no principles or beliefs. They are fine with a senile, racist, rapist, right-wing, war criminal, genocidaire president as long as he has a D next to his name and doesn't have an orange spray tan. Now Liberals think it is not fascist for ICE to put more people in concentration camps, the president to continue building the border wall, ignore human rights agreements to turn away asylum seekers, arm and fund genocide, continue interventions in the middle east, etc. It laid bare that all of the Liberal's objections to Trump were based not on principles nor positions, just that it was Trump doing it.
Since he unwaveringly supports the Zionist regime because they're Jews, it seems reasonable to conclude that his support of some ethnicities but not other makes him a racist.
I do agree that the POTUS is supposed to care about Americans (independently of ethnicity).
That is however not what Biden is doing - he's favoring some over others based on ethnicity (and money, like the vast majority of US Presidents).
Since he unwaveringly supports the Zionist regime because they're Jews, it seems reasonable to conclude that his support of some ethnicities but not other makes him a racist.
He supports Israel because they're our only real ally in that region of the world. It almost doesn't matter what they do, we'll continue to support them on that alone unless and until we get another significant ally in the Middle East.
Sending 2000lb bombs - well known for their massive collateral effects and hence innocent civilian deaths when used in an urban area - to a nation that's bombing a city and had by then already killed tens of thousands of civilians there, is well beyond merelly "supporting" them and well into supporting the Genocide itself.
Merelly "Supporting an Ally" that's doing what Israel is doing would at most go up to the US vetos at the UN Security Council and even that would only go so far and by the 10000th dead children would have changed from veto to abstention.
The smartest "Ally supporting" move for the US would've been to turn absolutelly neutral at around the 2nd or 3rd month of the Genocide.
(PS: This last one is actually what we saw with all other nations out there which saw Israel as allies, so most Western nations except the US, UK, and Germany - after the 7th of October, when pretty much all of them came out supporting Israel, as over time it became more and more clear that the Israeli actions were not defense but outright Genocide, they turned from supporters to in most cases absolutelly neutral and in some cases against them. Merelly "Supporting an Ally" is what the likes of France did, not what the American Biden Administration did).
The damage that this shit is doing for American soft power around the World must be immense - not even Trump managed to project in the minds of the well-educated the World over the impression that the US willingly and knowingly gives Genocidal nations bombs to murder children with.
And the third track has buffers at both ends, is covered in weeds and somebody has stolen some of the sleepers to make a nice planter for their garden.
Is it the "only Democrats have agency" thing? Democrats are responsible for their choices but Republicans, they're just like a fire that burns man it doesn't know what it's doing.
I could say the same thing of the self proclaimed progressives saying the dems should have done something in the total 4 years since then they've had trifecta control, not even including the filibuster.
You knew the redcaps would kill it first chance they got, why did you let them get the chance by not voting against them?
What was so much more important to you than women's health that not even the open and active threat to it was enough to motivate you to the herculean task of standing in a line and pushing some buttons?
You asswipes are always on about how you're the only ones who take fascism seriously in this country, and then whenever you're given the chance to show it by doing the basic minimum to keep them out of power you balk and make demands like it's suddenly a distant nightmare instead of the life threatening reality of the people you karen at to get the party's manager for you.
Modern Leftism: Standing off to the side and doing nothing while watching a trolley plow through a crowd of people and then laying down judgment on the people that are actually doing something to save as many people as possible.
Can you tell me which pro-Palestinian advocacy groups informed your opinion? Clearly you follow many people who are doing the work, and are not some online ghoul saying civilians had it coming, so I'd love to learn more.
The Palestinian movement is fundamentally compromised. After October 7, it was imperative that as many Palestinians as possible denounce Hamas to make it clear that Hamas doesn't represent them.
Unfortunately this didn't happen. Sure a few people here and there said a few words against what Hamas did. But it's not the consensus among pro-Palestinian groups that what Hamas did was wrong.
This means that Hamas is currently inseparable from the Palestinian movement. Which means the Palestinian movement is not a non-violent resistance movement. At almost every protest you can see people cosplaying as Hamas. There are some even saying October 7 was justified. It is a violent movement which tolerates genocide, as long as it's their side doing the genocide.
The Palestinian movement simply doesn't have the moral high ground. It's now mostly about rationalizing why the genocide that occurred on October 7 was justified by claiming Israel is committing genocide and using "both sides" style logic. If both sides were actually committing genocide then a rational person wouldn't support either side. But we see pro Palestinian groups rationalizing the genocide Hamas committed which makes their false claims of Israel committing genocide a moot point. Even if Israel were committing genocide it doesn't make the nature of the present day Palestinian movement any better because Hamas committed genocide and Palestinians are unwilling to abandon Hamas.
It's largely a hate movement now. Hatred makes people feel strong, but in reality it just makes people stupid. It's why these movements ultimately fail. Too blinded by hatred to to make rational decisions about what's in the movement's best interests. Do you think the movement becoming more antisemitic every day is going to make it successful? Do you think denying the antisemitism will convince anyone outside this group? Nope. Stupid things are being done in hatred by the Palestinian movement right now.
And that's why the Palestinian movement will fail. Too much hatred making people act stupid. Even if there were a Palestinian state tomorrow it would be a failed state. Too much hatred and therefore too much stupidity to make things work.
I hope someday Palestinians can see what their hatred is doing to them. Then a Palestinian state could work. But I don't have much hope that it will happen in this generation. It doesn't matter if the hatred is justified or not. Hatred will always make people stupid and stupidity will always result in failure.
The electoral college indeed sucks. But it's a moot point because leftists will never get off their high horses to actually vote not matter what the system is.
Modern Leftism: I don't want to have a senile, racist, rapist, right-wing, war criminal, genocidair as president that will continue building a border wall and arming and funding genocide.
Liberals: BUT HAVE YOU CONSIDERED HOW MUCH WORSE IT WOULD BE IF HE HAD AN ORANGE SPRAY TAN!!!! TANKIE SCUM!!!!!
Or we're just demanding the Democrats at the very least, the minimum really, don't support a genocide. The bar is so low it's in hell. If Biden can't clear that it's because he doesn't want to.
I hope this post gets a lot of tankie comments. They’ll be flockin’ to a blockin’
Heh. See, cause. It rhymes. So.
The one yesterday had that commenter who was all “what’s this? Oh it took me a second cause I blocked all the tankies” and that’s when I realized I forgot to block lemmy.ml. Now that that’s done, it’s just onsie-twosies. It’s a bright, bright sunshiney day.
Funny thing is, that's what's called a controlled derailment. It's the engineering answer to the situatuon, if the situation were real and not a contrived philosophical dilemma.
