Why are you blaming the voters for not choosing the lesser evil, instead of blaming the dems for forcing them to make that choice in the first place?
Stop supporting and enabling the fucking genocide, then it's a no-brainer for everyone. And with so many other people's lives at stake as well as the Palestinians, how dare the dems play chicken?
Oh look, a tankie linking a psy-op. What a surprise.
I don't care what a random group says about Palestine when they claim to represent them. I have no way of verifying their integrity, and none of the people I know who have the skills to do so have recommended any to me. So I need to assume anything you link isn't genuine.
I came to my opinion after speaking with Palestinians not an "advocacy group". People who I am able to see, hear, and who's pain is clear in their voices and the tears on their face. People who are resigned to their best option in a man who's betrayed them less than his rival would.
I am autistic. For years the most popular advocates for people like me was Autism Speaks who openly talked about "curing" us. Advocacy groups are often a sham, and I don't trust them. Honestly, neither should you; it says a lot that (if you're sincere) you haven't figured that out.
It is well known that a number of states sow division in the populace of their enemies to weaken them. Does polarizing hot button issues do that? History says it does.
Does Palestine matter to them? No. Does polarizing the populace of the enemy matter to them? Yes. Are either of the organizations linked above tools of states that would like to harm America? I don't know. Could they, or similar organizations be used that way? Sure.
I made no statements one way or the other on whether this organization, or any other Palestinian organization was a psy op. Moreover, I specifically said I don't know. What I did say was that promoting a polarizing topic could sow division in a group, making it a viable option for a psy op.
You'll have to be more specific about what blowing up the train maps to in real life before I can tell you whether or not doing so would also kill a shit ton of people.
But to keep it in metaphor, there are also innocent people riding the train and blowing it up would kill them, too.
Most of them, sure. But killing them with any kind of regularity would have a number of knock-on effects that would severely decrease many people's quality of life.
If your friend has a brain tumor, you don't point a gun to their head and shoot it out. You find brain surgeons and have them remove it under controlled conditions. Supposing you can't find a brain surgeon, it would still be better to learn brain surgery yourself and do a careful and thorough job than it would be to just shoot your friend in the head and hope for the best.
It's close enough to the tracks that it would hurt the hostages, and the wreckage would probably have enough momentum to hit them anyway.
This is a good analogy actually. Blowing up the train would feel good, but that isn't going to stop the momentum, and it's unfortunately virtually impossible to outright stop it's momentum at this point. All that blowing up the train would accomplish is sending fiery wreckage towards the middle track.
I used to wonder if there was any line that people wouldn't cross with lesser-evilism, but now that I've seen all these takes just openly being like, "Yes, we're doing genocide, and if you break ranks over that, not only are you a bad person, but your behavior is only possibly explainable by you being a foreign agent or a conservative in disguise," and honestly it's pretty validating to know that yes, I was right all along that accepting that line of reasoning would lead to complete insanity with no limit on how extreme it could get. Like I've never voted for a major party presidential candidate because of that sort of thing but even I never expected the discourse to reach this level, and now that I've seen it play out I'm very glad I decided to distance myself from it. This is what zero principles does to a mfer.
It's really hard to see. Hearing that it doesn't matter that Biden supports Israel's genocide in Palestine because Trump would too is a bad take. It mattered to the thousands of people that have died. It matters to their families. It matters to their friends. So many of Biden's bad policies are just unforced errors. He doesn't have to be an unappealing candidate. He chooses to be an unappealing candidate. If he loses to Trump, that will be why. It'll be 2016 all over again. The genocide in Palestine is Biden's equivalent of just not setting foot in Michigan. And they'll blame voters, primarily independents and leftists (they already are), just like Hillary did, but ever think about what they could have done differently or better.
As one party loses power it changes strategy to regain it, as one party gains power it is able to differentiate more amongst different ideologies within the party. If this goes far enough it can cause one party to fade to obscurity and a new party to emerge. There is no perfect candidate who represents everyone perfectly, you pick the candidate that is closer to the place you'd like to be. Also, third party votes work much better bottom-up vs top-down. Statistically no amount of crazy upset will cause a third party to actually win the top position despite no groundwork being done. Support third party candidates in small races where small grassroots efforts not funded by major political action groups are actually likely to make a difference. Then when you get a good candidate, organize and vote to see them advance to higher positions. It is batshit lunacy to expect third party candidate votes to matter in a presidential election when we don't even have a single third party state governor, zero third party national representatives and only 4 independent senators, none of whom even represent a third party, and none of whom are presidential candidates this election (let alone viable ones). Campaign for and support third party mayors, city councillors, comptrollers, sheriffs, union representatives. You have a very real shot with them and if enough people do that and enough of them move up to higher positions, then that party can start to swing some weight around at a higher and higher level.
Edi: Oh, and if you don't see an option in your local elections, run or encourage others to do so!
That's like saying you can get to zero by choosing the line climbing away from zero the slowest.
Relative Left is not the same as Absolute Left and it will never be actually move to the Left if the thing it's relative to keeps going even more to the Right.
This is why one of the most worrisome thing in the current Democrats is that their electoral strategy is almost purely one of relativism - they almost entirely stopped selling themselves on the good of the things they do and pretty much only sell themselves relatively to Trump.
A "not as bad as the other guys" strategy is not the same as wanting to be the "good guys".
That’s like saying you can get to zero by choosing the line climbing away from zero the slowest.
It's not like saying that at all. You've completely misunderstood my meaning.
The dems are "climbing away from zero slowly" because they're trying to woo voters from the republicans as the will of the voting public moves to the right. If everyone votes for the dems the republicans will need to shift their policies to the left to pursue the voters. The dems in turn will need to move further to the left to differentiate from the republicans.
I mean, beautiful, lovelly and well meaning, but totally ignoring that both Democrat and Republican politicians (who, after all, are but humans in an environment telling them "greed is good" and who for the most part seem to believe it) are motivated by primarily by money and for them votes are but a means to an end (4 more years with their hands in the kind of power that can be used to make very wealthy, very thankful friends).
I think you are projecting yourself (IMHO a person driven by principle and with a political ideology) into the kind of people who are experts at the dirty business of playing politics and getting fat checks from donors and concluding that they would do what you would do in their position, even when the last 3 decades of politics in the US indicate the very opposite.
Some politicians in American might indeed be principled (Sanders almost certainly is), but most seem to be just highly skilled manipulators driven by personal upside maximization.
Highly skilled manipulators driven by personal upside maximization aren't going to start working for the common good instead of making choices with the power they are entrust which will make them very wealthy and very thankful friends, if they think the Left are suckers and the leftwing vote is guaranteed if they use the usual lies.
You're dead right in that politicians are greedy assholes.
They want to win elections and to do that they need votes.
What would the republican party do if they'd lost miserably in every election in the last decade? Obviously they would shift their policies to the left in order to be more popular.
What would the democrats do if the republicans moved to the left? Obviously they would have to move further to the left to minimise the votes lost to the republican party.
As the population votes on the left, political policy moves to the left. This seems so plainly obvious to me.
Democrats only put forward a slightly more leftie candidate either after they lost an election or after they came very close to losing one. Republicans haven't put forward a more leftie candidade ever, even when they lost elections.
Sure, in a theoretical America were 80% of Americans were unshakeable convict lefties, it would make sense that both parties turn Left if they lost too many votes because that would be were 80% was that those people, being unshakeable in their political convictions, would not buldge from them.
However the Left in America is but a small minority and both parties have decades of actual proof that it's perfectly possible to keep the Left small with the right kind of propaganda because that's what they've done, again and again and again - the American political "center" isn't way to the Right of that in most of Europe by chance and wouldn't be moving even more to the Right not just in America but everywhere because people's political convictions are unshakeable and unchangeable.
Further, if there is one thing Trump has proven is that it's absolutelly feasible to move a huge fraction of voters even more to the Right when they were already very much into the Right (i.e. from Reaganism to pretty much Fascism).
Your entire theory is anchored on the idea that the electorate doesn't move, it's the politicians who move, when everything in History and even Present day, not just in Politics but even Marketing, not just in Democracy but in Authocracy, shows that the vast majority of people are incredibly easy for those who have control over a suficient fraction of the Press to push in the direction they want them to go.
(FOX News would not have the influence it has in American politics if people's political convictions were unshakeable).
Add that factor to your thinking and it makes a lot more sense that the crooked politicians looking for a payout from doing politics for very rich people would favour using propaganda to convince people that doing what's best for the rich is the right thing to do or that the fault of the problems in America is entirelly of immigrants so all the real solutions are around immigration ("and ignore all the tax cuts for the rich and deregulation I'm doing over here") rather than moving to were people were politically and doing what people wanted instead of what's best for the rich - the propaganda option works and guarantees that the mainstream politicians who chose to shift the electorate with propaganda instead of moving to were the electorate is, keep leaving politics far more wealthy than they came in.
Look around at Politics in American since at least Reagan and what I described in the paragraph above is exactly what has been happenning and is still happenning.
I'll leave you to your fantastical notions, which are contrary to pretty much all Historical evidence in Psychology, Marketing and Politics, about how people behave, both inside and outside Politics.
I’d generally agree, but the problem is that this particular instance is much higher stakes than most elections.
Generally speaking, the worst case scenario would be someone like John McCain taking the reins instead of Obama. I didn’t agree with McCain about a lot of things but he was a generally honorable guy who wanted to do the best for American democracy.
Now we have a group who is polling to win and outright saying “America needs a dictatorship”. If they get their way, it could be the last election we ever have.
McCain was a conservative and I don't agree with his policies but compared to today's Republican Party, he was a knight in shining armor. He spoke and acted in good faith, at least.
How do you get electoral reform when no one you vote for gets elected, and everyone who does get elected has no reason to pay any attention to your opinion?
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.
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.
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 know the real solution to the trolley problem that is used in real life? Purposeful derailment. You let the front wheels go down one side, then flip the switch, and the back wheels follow the other path, which derails the trolley.
It either kills everyone, or saves everyone. And then you can figure out a better option as you untie your rail prisoners.
The let it burn and start over crowd are in this third category. The vote for Mickey Mouse crowd is not.
One of the people you can vote for, will throw the trolley and start a revolution. The other will maintain the status quo, which is shit. A useful idiot, is still useful.
I've seen the writing on the wall for a while. I've divested and left. I am now waiting for the collapse and the quicker the better so the split of the nation and restructuring can start. Limping along on life support is not helping.
I have never heard of this and it sounds insane. You wouldn't kill everyone or no one, you'd probably kill everyone and the people on the train too. When I look up purposeful derailment the only incident I find is that crazy guy who crashed two trains into each other for fun killing some spectators.
Edit: hey more googling. You could argue it happened once and calling it a "trolley problem " is generous. The incident I'm finding was a runaway train in Australia. A runaway train is a lot different and usually they don't try to fix them like that, but by applying the brakes. It's also worth mentioning it was a "controlled" derailment and not just some guy flipping on Deja Vu as he sees if he can emulate initial D. There was no one in the area. Also in general I feel the trolley analogy has long fallen apart at this point.
The problem is that we have two choices, and we will never not have two choices unless we do something about it. I can both say that Joe Biden sucks and we should do better and also vote for him because the other option is worse. This discourse that makes it seem like any criticism of Biden is pro trump is how we will end up in a slightly less terrible place. Cool. Really looking forward to that.
Also like what the fuck...I guess we have to kill Palestinians no matter what.
There is a third fucking option and it's not doing a genocide.
Which, of course, they don't. It's a vanity vote. They want to pretend they have actually done something without actually having to do anything of consequence.
If we're interpreting their "third option" as a voting strategy and not convincing Biden to step in and stop the genocide, we can at least implement Approval Voting so that they can vote for all the "no genocide" candidates without having to worry that doing so could somehow backfire. Then, if they want or need to, they can cast a strategic vote to differentiate between different magnitudes of genocide.
No, you can't. You do not have the power to implement Approval Voting, and nobody who does have the power wants to do it. So it's not gonna happen, at least not in the short term. Right now, anybody who wins has to win in an environment of First Past the Post. Nobody capable of doing that currently supports Approval Voting, so right now it is effectively not on the ballot.
This is what I mean about "hav[ing] a viable strategy." Magically wishing Approval Voting into existence ain't it.
Well the strategy is to work your way up from the local level because:
It's easier for people to make change at the local level, Fargo and St. Louis have already done it.
Politicians tend to work their way up the ladder, and will be more open to using the system at higher levels if they already proved they can win under that system.
You have to remember that any real social change takes years, even decades of organized to realize. We didn't go from Jim Crowe to the civil rights act in a fortnight, it took big organizations applying decades of pressure in multiple different ways.
If you want to be a part of the solution, join an organization dedicated to improving things. It doesn't have to be the one I linked, but Election Science is the one working on approval voting. Local elections are such that one highly motivated person can build and run the organization to flip their local election laws, it could be you, but it won't happen overnight.
Great. That is a state issue, so pay attention to your state government, vote for state representatives that support better voting methods, and contact your state representatives to push for reform.
As someone else pointed out, those in power are unlikely to change the voting system to reduce their own power. However, you really start at the local level with referendums, and work your way up. First, it's easier to force change at the local level and second, politicians working their way up will be less hostile to changing to approval if they've already shown they can win under that system.
Apparently we can't in 2024. They didn't hear us in 2016. They won't hear us now in 2024. Maybe two Democrat juggernauts losing the presidential election to Trump of all people will convince them.
The problem is that we don't. If you're not in a "swing" state, all the votes in the world for Joe Biden are meaningless. Win California by another million votes. Win it by another 10M. Have every single eligible voter in California turn up and vote for Joe Biden. He still loses the EC when the SCOTUS tells Arizona to stop counting ballots the minute Trump is in the lead.
Also like what the fuck…I guess we have to kill Palestinians no matter what.
We have to keep sending money to Israel because its the means by which we control the Suez Canal.
Except... the Houthis have control over the back end of the canal so long as they're able to scare off shipping in the Gulf of Adan. So now we're endorsing a genocide just for shits and giggles.
It's almost like two organizations have totally monopolized US politics. It's a billion dollar industry, and they'd both rather alternate losing to each other and keep their seat at the table than let anyone else play the game.
Because of a shitty situation set up by countless past people and events completely out of your control you have to make a choice here. And in my mind, it's not even a difficult choice. Yes, either option will support Israel, that's a given, but there is no third option so it might as well not even be a factor in choosing a candidate.
If you want more parties and to remove first past the post then you need to elect the party who supports those stances. That is one of your two options. Real fucking simple.
The American system of elections is old and it is apparent the Founding Fathers had no Idea as to how the game theory of elections would play out. Worse, they even picked a system of government that was more prone to a two party system than the United Kingdom due to the direct election of the Executive and the inbuilt separation of the Executive and Legislative branches.
Israel, as genocidal as it is, has a system which encourages minor parties to get elected. There are 16 parties elected to the Knesset out of 120 total seats. However, Israel has a unicameral legislature, there are no individual districts or constituencies, and the legislature selects the head of government.
If your point is that the American system is fucked, we all know. We've known for decades. We're trying to fix it, but progress is basically nonexistent, because every politician who is currently elected benefits from our fucked system. Trying to get to a parliamentary system, like most developed real democracies, is almost entirely out of reach. Just getting ranked choice voting is like pulling teeth, and we'll have to create a brand new party to have politicians free from corporate interests.
I will have to fight all my life to enact positive change in this country, all because a bunch of rich white assholes who came to power long before I was born have stolen my future from me. Don't belittle us, mourn for us and never, ever repeat our mistakes.
It's also a legitimate request to be fair. I don't really have time to explain the entire political situation of the US and why it's not viable to change it through individual voting to this person, but they clearly don't understand enough about it if they're making silly remarks like this.
Its crazy how both parties are heavily invested in killing Palestinians.
Also crazy how Democrats take no credit for persecuting BLM, despite the fact that Obama's FBI was neck deep in that shit for two years before he left office.
Jesus, you've got some tired, made up bullshit without citations in this thread too just like the other one I saw your propaganda driving ass in, don't you?
Don't play the fucking "both sides" shit here.
The facts and truth of the matter, with quotes, documentation, video and audio evidence, is that trump and high ranking members of the GOP are 100% on board with genociding Palestine. They're encouraging Bibi to go further, not stop/slow like Biden's been doing.
There's no world we live in where electing anyone in the GOP, or worst of all, some fuckhead like trump; will make the situation for the Palestinians any better. It will absolutely make it worse for them for significantly longer than it would with a democratic majority/presidency.
Go ahead and get me a list of trump quotes, or any quotes from the GOP that have them talking Israel down from their genocide instead of doubling, tripling, or quadrupling down on backing what Israel is doing today.
FFS man, there's even a fucking top GOP Senator that's seriously suggesting that Israel nuke Palestine. And that's just the low hanging fruit that's out there. There's dozens and dozens of quotes from members of the GOP calling for genocide using those exact words, saying Israel isn't going far enough.
So get the fuck out of here with your "both sides" rhetoric and bullshit.
These posts are basically calling on leftists to support a genocide. I'll vote for Biden, but I'd also punch him square in his rich white Zionist jaw if I was given the opportunity. That's how American democracy works. The U.S. doesn't deserve a pass for supporting genocide, even if it's an election year.
half mental preparations of who to blame if Biden ends up losing.
Lol you're projecting. You all plan on blaming us despite failing to respect our seat at the negotiation table. We made it very clear: we don't vote for strike blocking genocide supporting candidates. You all thought you could fuck around and ignore our boundaries. You're watching us stand up and walk away from the table talking like you still aren't about to find out.
I swear, the best part about threads like these is that you're all so used to not even reading the opposing arguments that at this point you can't even tell eachother apart.
