Error loading post - AOS for Lemmy.World - A generic Lemmy server for everyone to use.

Error

I voted for Harris, but I'm really sick of this argument. Trump is president because too many Americans are racist shit-stains, not because of the tiny minority that think it's sad when Arabs are murdered.

And the democrats’ own analysis has shown that if Harris took a stand on Gaza she would have won easily, exactly as they were told before the election.

And if the democratic establishment had told Biden “you’re done” in (say) 2022/23, and had an actual primary (which Harris would have likely won in a walk) there would not have been the nasty taste of a coronation for people to contend with.

And the democrats’ own analysis has shown that if Harris took a stand on Gaza she would have won easily, exactly as they were told before the election.

Afaik that was not released publicly, there were just a couple of people who had claimed to see it. Is it available now?

I don't think Harris would have won at all. In 2020 she dropped before Iowa... That's before any vote was even cast. Against Trump Biden polled the worst of all candidates, Harris polled the second worst. There is just no reason to think she would have ever earned that position on the ticket.

Exactly. She was chosen to be VP for two reasons. One, she was a woman of color. Two, she was a weak candidate.

Biden deliberately wanted an extremely weak vice president. He made a point to keep her out of the limelight. Contrast that to MAGA, who have been consciously building up JD Vance as a possible future figure for the movement. Trump and his handlers know that this is likely Trump's last term. We like to doom about him running for a third term. But even if he could cheat the election, he just doesn't have that much time left period. He's unlikely to run again.

Biden however was intending to run for another term. And he knew that he would seem extremely old, weak, and out of touch. He didn't want a younger dynamic VP that would so make him look so much worse in comparison. Biden kept Harris hidden away and never let her build up her clout and power base. They kept her out of public view and tried not to give her many chances to improve her image.

They selected a weak VP and kept her weak. Then when Biden was forced to drop out due to his disastrous debate performance, they were caught with their pants down.

Honestly, when Biden picked her I thought it was to build her up as a candidate. Why would you pick a VP from California? It's not like you need to bolster your California vote as a Democrat. He initially said he would be there bridge to the next generation and I thought maybe he meant through her. But then he gave her all the impossible tasks and kept her out of view. None of it made sense to me.

It made sense precisely because she wasn't ever going to win a primary on her own. Biden acted like Trump here. Trump surrounds himself with people who have zero future without him. His cabinet is filled with profoundly unqualified people whose only real qualification is unwavering loyalty to Trump. This is a classic move of authoritarian leaders, as their advisors then become completely dependent on them. Once Trump is out of office, Hegseth is never going to have a role in government again. (Unless some other authoritarian president is seeking a loyal lackey.)

Biden did a less extreme version of this with Kamala. Kamala certainly wasn't objectively unqualified for her job like Hegseth is, but she also could never had obtained a leadership position in the White House via her own merits.

What makes you think Harris would have handily won a primary?

She was the VP and had the backing of the DNC, and even being somewhat unpopular that’s a pretty massive advantage.

I think you massively underestimate how dissatisfied people were with not just the genocide in gaza, but the feeling that the party wasn't in the slightest democratic because of it.

And the democrats’ own analysis has shown that if Harris took a stand on Gaza

Harris said she was against genocide and would do everything to stop Israel except stop selling weapons.

Trump promised genocide.

Americans chose Trump.

The lesson is that to win the election, Harris should have promised to kill more Palestinians than Trump. It's what Americans want.

Harris said she was against genocide and would do everything to stop Israel except stop selling weapons.

So she would have done nothing.

No she was against genocide didn’t you hear? Just because you want to put the gas in the concentration camp shower, doesn’t mean you’re committing genocide if it’s someone else pressing the button to release it.

Gaza she would have won easily, exactly as they were told before the election.

I can't respect anyone who'd blindly accept the Democrat line. Even worse is a person who would claim to hate the DNC, but get's credulous when they say something that confirmed your priors.

Both are true.

Obviously a larger group has a larger impact, and voting for the worse option is worse than not voting. But the tiny minorities that didn't vote for whatever reason could have made a difference much larger than the size of their individual groups.

It's both

This is a great point. There are some people who just will never vote for a candidate if they feel that the person supports genocide, even if it means their livelihood will be impacted! I guess we should factor those voters in when we select candidates. Would hate to lose again!

lololol no, you're right, voters should absolutely represent our politicians and not the other way around. Please reply with the same meme again if you agree.

Thank you for coming over from Threads and teaching us a valuable lesson.

Truly incredible how you can get dunked on like this on your home turf. You must seriously suck at posting.

Time to post this again.

Bayard Rustin was a gay Black man who was instrumental in making the March on Washington happen. Even though he was a close ally of MLK, he never pushed King to speak on gay rights, because he knew it wasn't something america could handle in 1965.

Frederick Douglas supported Abe Lincoln in 1860, even though Lincoln has said that abolition wasn't as important as keeping the Union together. There was an abolition candidate, but Douglas didn't think he could win, so Douglas decided to back the person with the best chance in hope of having a seat at the table later.

i really want to understand what they thought they would accomplish

I’ve been asking for almost two years and no one will say. I get a lot of “screw you, fascist!” And “Oh, so everyone has to have a plan now?!?” amongst other head-scratching non-answers.

The most important thing appears to be to not be involved in any decisions, movements, or other political realities that might conceivably ever have a chance at existing in our lifetimes. I guess.

Honestly at this point most are indistinguishable from straight up FSB bots. Divide the left, no other goals.

I think these are the people who choose "Do nothing" on the 5-v-1 trolley problem. i.e.: they would rather let 5 people die than take an active role in killing one. I can understand the moral argument, but it really does make for objectively poor outcomes.

The Trolley Problem isn't a correct Games Theory representation of this situation, not even close:

For starters, those doing the chosing don't know for sure what's down each track (we do know now, with hindsight and only for the chosen branch, but that's long after making the choice and you still don't know what would be down the other track)
Second, it's not an individual choice, it's a mathematical calculation (not even an average) of multiple choices which were not coordinated (i.e. each individual does not know enough at the time of their own choice to predict the final result), so unlike in the Trolley Problem, there is no individual responsibility.
Last but not least, this is a cyclical choice were how many victims are on the tracks for the next choice is influenced by what was chosrn in an earlier cycel and even how many people made that choice - sending the tram down a line with more victims now might actually mean fewer victims on the line of one or even both branches for the next choice, or the opposite (clearly past choices created this situation were both candidates were Genocide supporters hence there we're far more victims on both tracks)

You have either been deceived by this propagandistic misuse of Games Theory and are now parroting it without fully understanding it or you are knowingly being deceitful for the purpose of supporting the leaders of your party.

if you intervene you own the consequences. Who tied these people to the tracks? are they watching me decide? refusing to participate in a rigged game is perfectly rational and moral.

Whatever you gotta tell yourself, but the election happened and votes were counted and now it’s another four years of killing everything. If you didn’t do the one thing that you could do, that’s neither rational nor moral.

You don’t get to choose whether you are in the trolley problem. Once you’re standing in front of the lever, choosing to not intervene is still a choice.

it's unwise to negotiate with terrorists, and for similar reasons I would say that it is unwise to participate in a system that legitimises your own destruction

I said I understand the argument. You can rage at how the people got on the tracks and look for the real culprits all day, but while you're 'solving' the big problem, people die who didn't have to.

How about the Blade Runner question: You come across a tortoise on its back, belly baking in the hot sun: do you flip the tortoise on its feet or worry who flipped it on its back while you watch it die?

i would intervene with the tortoise, and i'd happily wear the consequences. I'm not obliged to be a pure witness nor am i bound by any kind of prime directive. I can explain to my conscience why an extra tortoise exists due to my actions but i couldn't say the same about the trolley problem without extra information.

For example, if i am being observed then my decision becomes data, which carries its own weight and precedent. If the situation was arranged to view my response, then I am obliged to not participate, to send a signal to the experimenters to not tie anyone up on the tracks for future observers. I condemn everyone in front of me to death but how do i know they won't be killed regardless? whoever arranged the situation obviously didn't value their lives very highly...

Who tied these people to the tracks?

A mentally ill guy who's mentally ill because his alcoholic father treated him horribly as a kid, and his father was an alcoholic because he lost his job because of the economic recession.

What now?

are they watching me decide?

Why do you care? Does that affect your decision?

There is no "non-rigged" game, this is a very messy world burdened with centuries of unfairness. At some point you'll have to move on from merely pointing out who's at fault towards actually trying to fix things.

the trolley problem is the rigged game. It captures none of the important 'messiness' of the real world and ultimately is used to help you rationalise voting against your own best interests within a 2-party political paradigm

You barely responded to anything I wrote. The key words seem to correspond, but nothing here actually builds upon the previous comments, it's either restating things or saying something (as far as I see) unrelated and illogical.

What exactly are my own best interests that I'm supposedly voting against by supposedly voting for Democrats? Why are my best interests crucial here anyway? Could we also take into account the 200 dead Iranian children's best interests? I think they're more important than mine, honestly.

I was thinking that it was a mistake to respond to you and i can see now that i was correct

If you do nothing, you own the consequences too, even if you try to pretend that you don't.

And they are much worse consequences. Much worse than the 5:1 ratio of the original trolley problem

You are not responsible for actions which you do not take, and further, you are not responsible for consequences proceeding from actions you did not take.

The trolley problem is designed specifically to illustrate the simple logic of utilitarianism. It allocates no blame to whoever tied the guy to the tracks, and doesn't usually include any consideration of context. Unlike reality, the trolley problem reduces a qualitative moral decisionmaking to a pure binary, in a complete vacuum. It exists to demonstrate that one number is bigger than another number, with a couple of extra steps. No relationship to reality.

If you have a choice whether you wanted to have it or not, and you choose not to act. That in and of itself is you making a call as to what outcome you prefer. You are therefore responsible.

Choosing not to act is still a choice own it. You would choose to let 5 people die instead of 1 so that you don’t have to feel responsible but you are. You are putting your emotions over the lives of others.

There is such a thing legally speaking as gross negligence. You chose not to act and a worse outcome happens when you had the ability to stop it. Your argument would never hold up in court.

You can try to claim moral superiority all you like but in the end it’s just an excuse to allow you to put your feelings over the lives of others.

As a Canadian I’m am disappointed and disgusted by the selfishness of the US populace both left and right in different ways. Get off your high horse and own your decisions. The time for change is at the grassroots level. Stop with your mememe “morality” and do something beyond the absolute minimum of voting if you even did that.

Fix your shit American sorry not sorry

Where did i claim a moral superiority? where did i rely on emotional appeals instead of argument?

Gross negligence is when you have an assumed responsibility to act and do not. Like if you have a child under your care or maybe a professional duty of care to a patient.

If you were abducted by jigsaw, and forced into making a binary choice between to completely artificially created options, would you get charged with a crime for choosing neither?

If you're going to mix reality into the hypothetical then perhaps it would make more sense to hold whoever tied the people to the tracks responsible? unless there is some irrational reason to construct the stupid hypothetical to begin with...

Apathy is also participation.

They will tell you that AOC, Omar, and Mamdani aren't really 'Left' because they sided with the Dems.

Purity first last and always!

Ex-New York Mayor Ed Koch put it so simply.

"If you agree with me 51% of the time, vote for me. If you agree with me 100% of the time, see a psychiatrist."

actually it would be fucking nice if we could reach 50% agreement of the issues. too bad the establishment dems have more in common with republicans then their own base

Someone think of the consultants!

Not arming a genocide is not some extreme purity test.

Oh interesting, I hadn't thought of that.

That is why you keep bringing up a single issue.

Did your abstaining help Palestine in any way, shape or form? Because Trump has made it worse than whatever Kamela would have done.

And your abstaining definitely made things worse for the rest outside of Palestine.

I mean…if the democrats change their position and stop arming the genocide, then yes, it will have helped.

You say trump made it worse…I don’t see how; genocide is genocide…it was happening under Biden and it would have continued under Harris.

I didn’t make anything worse. The fascists did. Can you explain this ethical Rube Goldberg machine?

God I wish there was a US politician I agreed with 51% of the time. Just for my own sanity if nothing else.

So, Omar isn't pure enough for you?

Bernie?

They are alright and I wouldn't mind seeing more people like them in our government. However, we have fundamentally different goals and major disagreements on policy that aren't exactly reconciliable. I only said it would be nice to feel somewhat represented but I am aware that's entirely unreasonable given my political agenda stands in direct contradiction to that of the people who run this country.

I actually do not know what you are talking about. The only statement I made here is that I feel unrepresented and wish it wasn't that way. Where did you get the idea that I am politically uninvolved?

Being opposition doesn't make you left. These aren't people that oppose capitalism they are people who want a capitalism that is easier on the domestic working class. At the expense of the imperial periphery of course, though this goes unsaid. I sort of like them but their end goal is not the destruction of capitalism.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but capitalism isn’t going anywhere in the US. You’re in a tiny echo chamber if you think that the wholesale destruction of capitalism is even a viable choice.

I don't believe we are going to destroy capitalism. I believe capitalism is going to destroy itself (or most of the world which is kinda the same thing) and we have to prepare and alternative for when that happens. This belief does not come from online message boards it comes from reading innumerable books on political economy and history. The echo chamber is where I go to find like minded people.

You are not bursting my bubble. I have existed in yours most of my life and understand it well. I have made a choice between two world views that I have plenty of experience with and I am satisfied with that choice.

I had a long chat with you about this recently. And I don't think I said "screw you fascist" or "who needs a plan?" And I think I stated it pretty clearly. If the democrats want our votes, they have to not arm genocide. Not voting for them until they stop arming a genocide is a perfectly clear way of staking that position. If literally no votes are held back for that modicum of decency then they have absolutely no reason to change. There's absolutely nothing confusing or illogical about it, and I don't know why y'all pretend you're so bamboozled by it. I mean...you can disagree, go for it. Vote blue no matter who if that suits you. That's what I think.

But you want to know what I feel? All of you are in here with a photo of two characters whose lives have been destroyed, imagining "this could be me thanks to those assholes who wouldn't vote for this to happen to other people." It's so unbelievably selfish. We all gotta just accept that Palestinians will suffer like this...that's the price we pay for it not to be us.

And all the democrats had to do to avoid it was not arm a genocide? Which they shouldn't have done anyway? Failing to see how this is my fault.

Sorry if we got in the way of your plan to throw palestinians in the woodchipper and go back to brunch. Congrats on your moral inferiority?

I mean...i'm sure you agree with this: if the democrats want to win, they should not be making choices that cost them votes. Their post-mortem on 2024 tells them that continuing their pro-genocide position cost them votes (according to axios anyway, who I guess got a peek at it somehow. the democrats have decided they are not going to publish it.).

That's real pressure for them to change. Not voting for the democrats created that pressure. They now know that abandoning israel will lead to a net-increase in their votes.

And yeah, I would hope that when looking down the barrel of more domestic fascism, knowing that it will matter from a purely Machiavellian perspective, the democrats will stop arming a genocide.

Like...I get how scared everyone is. I have family members who are undocumented immigrants in the US. It is terrifying. My neice might get shipped off to some el-salvadorian torture prison. Life would have been better for them if Harris had won. But I don't regret refusing to vote for Harris because (a) I reject the claim that I have some ethical culpability for what the the fascists do (that's just some ontological fuckery that I can't straighten out in my mind, even with the benefit of a philosophy undergrad and years more of school and work figuring out all kinds of tax-law fuckery), and (b) people taking this position has created measurable pressure on the democrats to change. I guess there's also the sneaky (c) my vote would not have counted anyway because I'm not from a swing state.

You have done a lot of work to justify your voting to continue arming the genocide of Palestinians. And hey, if you find that convincing, have at it.

And you’re jumping through some real conceptual hoops to blame me for what Donald trump does lol I didn’t vote for him. You did vote for Harris.

Like I said, I’m a lawyer. I’m used to weird mental gymnastics. I only mention my bachelors in case your mental gymnastics require a doctorate in philosophy to understand or what? Like…walk me through how you get to my moral culpability for the actions of Donald trump, as someone who didn’t vote for him. Explain that to an idiot like me.

It’s horrifying. I didn’t support it, and our lack of support is making one party rethink their support for it. Your acquiescence to it did fuck all for Palestinians.

There wasn’t one, and ain’t that a bitch? Isn’t that suspicious? Isn’t that a problem?

The answer is that (I know this might seem totally insane to you) the people with power are not the voters. The people with power decide if we get fascism at home or genocide abroad. And they’re the ones to blame when we do. They have agency and culpability.

I’m sick of this ridiculous ethical Rube Goldberg machine, which none of you can explain, that blames me for that.

I don’t blame you for picking the lesser of two evils…what do I care? Just shut the hell up and stop punching left.

Because the democrats might just want to win enough to stop arming a genocide. If we…I don’t know…anti genocide holdouts or whatever…don’t vote, then we can give the democrats something they want. If we vote blue no matter who, why would the democrats change?

The people with power are also in a struggle with each other, democrats and republicans are one of the main embodiments of that struggle. The democrats might decide that they’re willing to deign to stop arming a genocide if it helps them beat the republicans.

according to you, democrats are satan who want nothing more than to kill palestinians

this is a strawman

Yeah the better version of this meme has the text, "Well at least she didn't say anything antisemitic."

There's that brunch thing again. I guess eating at 11am is horrifyingly bourgeoise, but that seems kind of dumb.

Brunch is lovely.

But I'm using brunch as a metaphor for "living a comfortable life and not worrying about the suffering inflicted with your tax dollars."

I am responding to brynden here, but this is for anyone, especially those who believe the most moral choice in Nov 2024 was to vote third party or not at all...

Do you pay taxes to the US government? If you do, could you explain to me how not voting for Harris absolves you of moral culpability for genocide, but giving thousands of dollars every year to the Feds (who have always been controlled by a major party), who will use that money to directly fund genocide, doesn't make you even more culpable than that single vote for Harris?

Do you all live off the grid on a barter system?

Because you don’t pay taxes voluntarily? You pay taxes under duress. If you don’t they put you in prison.

So, your ethical/moral framework is optional. Only comes into play if there are no consequences or fallout from you doing the right thing. Got it.

Voting for someone who says "I will arm a genocide" means you've voluntarily helped that person to do that.

I don't think paying taxes under duress to a government that arms a genocide is comparable.

Do I understand you as saying "you could go to jail rather than pay taxes, therefore you're a hypocrite for not voting for someone who says 'I will arm a genocide'?"

All the democrats had to do was blah blah

Wow you really showed them.

I mean…actually though; their postmortem says they lost net votes due to arming the genocide.

But I've been told that it wasn't enough to change the outcome? Which is it?

Hamid Bendaas, a spokesperson for the IMEU Policy Project, said that during the meeting "the DNC shared with us that their own data also found that policy was, in their words, a 'net-negative' in the 2024 election." Two other senior aides at the pro-Palestinian organization also said the DNC had drawn that conclusion.

https://www.axios.com/2026/02/22/dnc-2024-autopsy-harris-gaza

I don't know whether it was enough to change the outcome or not, but it's a net negative for them, which means that we (folks who abstain until they stop arming a genocide) did show them. You said that sarcastically...but like...we did. We don't know yet whether they'll change course or not, but at the very least you can say we showed them it matters from a purely Machiavellian perspective.

I had a long chat with you about this recently. And I don't think I said "screw you fascist" or "who needs a plan?" And I think I stated it pretty clearly

That’s true, that was not you. We did have a good chat and iirc you had voted for Dems up until Harris? I forget but you weren’t against voting, you just had the single issue that defined all others.

Not voting for them until they stop arming a genocide is a perfectly clear way of staking that position. If literally no votes are held back for that modicum of decency then they have absolutely no reason to change.

Yeah, but that’s where we are now and it’s very very bad. I disagree that change of the kind you’re looking for will come about through throwing the election to avowed fascists, but it is at least a defined position with room to move forward, which is a lot more than some of the other intransigent non-voters.

I think "throwing the election" is overstating it. Harris lost votes because she decided to continue arming a genocide. The democrats know that...if they didn't know it before (doubt), they do now. Their position cost them votes. That's what their post-mortem says, according to Axios anyway. So if they don't change course, they're choosing to have fewer votes. They really really should not risk choosing to have fewer votes.

If the democrats want our votes, they have to not arm genocide. Not voting for them until they stop arming a genocide is a perfectly clear way of staking that position.

The problem is that this way of thinking is backwards and ineffective. I don't give a shit about rewarding Democrats with my vote; I care about securing the most favorable conditions I can. When both popular options are bad, that means picking the less bad one, even if it's only slightly less bad; even if it's exactly as bad by one metric, and only better on other metrics. Our votes aren't to give them some achievement trophy, they're to determine who will be making policy decisions.

Further, it isn't really an effective way to force them to change. People who didn't vote for them didn't fill out a questionnaire to communicate why they didn't vote for them. The only way they get that information is if it's given to them somehow.

They have information about what will happen if they break with Israel: AIPAC will dump tons of money into opposing them. Not only will they lose the Zionist portion of their voter base, but wealthy Zionists will inundate them with attack ads to jeopardize other portions of their base.

They're going to do calculations, based on the actual communicated data they have, to weigh the number of voters they'd lose vs. the number of voters they'd gain by withdrawing support for Israel. The data against withdrawing support for Israel is highly organized, heavily funded, and very clearly communicated. However widespread you think the movement to withdraw support is, it's less organized, less funded, and less clearly communicated. From the perspective of DNC leadership, the calculations are clear.

If you want them to change, you need clear, organized data to show them what the change needs to be and how many people support it. You need tens of millions of signatures on a clearly worded petition. Otherwise, you're essentially just a loose collection of anonymous strangers giving them the silent treatment.

I disagree with your ethical framing (to my personal moral compass, I’m less culpable in the ongoing genocide if I didn’t legitimize the people arming it by voting for them, even if the other party would have also armed the genocide), but setting that aside, I guess this loose collection of anonymous strangers giving them the silent treatment have had an effect. The democrats’ postmortem apparently says that arming genocide resulted in a net loss of votes for them.

They know. The calculations are clearly against supporting a genocide…which should be a no brainer no matter how organized or funded the genocidiers are.

less culpable in the ongoing genocide if I didn’t legitimize the people arming it by voting for them, even if the other party would have also armed the genocide

You seem to be a strict deontologist. I do not subscribe to that worldview. I find it childish and self-centered, both ineffective and rarely consistent. But putting that aside, "legitimacy" is irrelevant. It will continue with or without your personal blessing. It's moralistic posturing with no material effect.

The democrats’ postmortem apparently says that arming genocide resulted in a net loss of votes for them.

I don't think that's what it says at all. I think it may have said that it resulted in a raw loss of votes, I do not think that it reflected a net loss of votes. I think their data implies they would have lost more votes in changing positions than they would have gained. Like it or not, the propaganda is strong, and there are more low-information voters than high-information ones. Go against Israel, and you go against AIPAC. Go against AIPAC, and you're in for a world of hurt on the political field. You're not just losing active Zionists, you're losing fence-sitters who are not immune to waves of attack ads.

Obviously not supporting a genocide is a no-brainer, but the majority of voters have no brain to speak of. You can't beat organized and well-funded propaganda with the silent treatment.

Hamid Bendaas, a spokesperson for the IMEU Policy Project, said that during the meeting "the DNC shared with us that their own data also found that policy was, in their words, a 'net-negative' in the 2024 election." Two other senior aides at the pro-Palestinian organization also said the DNC had drawn that conclusion.

https://www.axios.com/2026/02/22/dnc-2024-autopsy-harris-gaza

What do you mean, you don’t think that’s what it says? Have you seen it? I’d love to get a copy if you’re leaking it! Do you just mean you imagine it wouldn’t say that?

I’m not a strict deontologist; I’d say I’m closer to a strict utilitarian lol My vote doesn’t mean anything except legitimizing the people I vote for and the system as a whole. The democrats and the republicans actually have power. They are the moral agent here.

In a trolley problem (since you seem like someone who might be familiar), voters are just watching from afar and wishing for the people at the switch to make one choice or the other. And that’s fine. But don’t give me shit for not wasting my time wishing.

I’d say I’m closer to a strict utilitarian lol My vote doesn’t mean anything except legitimizing the people I vote for and the system as a whole.

You are very much not. Again with the "legitimizing". There is no "legitimacy" metric in elections. Power doesn't scale with vote count. All that matters is which side beats the other. If only one person "legitimizes" the system, and everyone else refuses to vote, the winner still has all the powers of the president. The outcome is exactly the same as if every single voter chose them.

They don't get fewer powers for winning with only one vote, they don't get any extra powers by winning by 100 million votes. The concept of "legitimizing" the system is a fiction that exists only in the mind of deontologists.

In the trolley problem, voters are voting on whether to pull the lever. If enough people vote to pull the lever, the lever is pulled. It's even more clear cut than the trolley problem, because Gaza is on both tracks. You don't even save them by not pulling the switch, you just let everyone else on that track die too. There's no reason not to pull the switch, there is no dilemma. Inaction is objectively the wrong choice.

My goodness you're sweet! I think you have an extremely charitable faith in your government.

Obviously if you think voters get to determine outcomes then not voting seems completely absurd! I have power I'm not using! But the reality is that the people absolutely do not have power. "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens" by Gilens and Page is a good starting point. Its conclusion is that there is no correlation at all between public opinion and policy. On the other hand the correlation between the economic elite's policy preferences and the policies adopted shows up on the graph as a nice, neat upward-slanting line at 45 degrees, with a 70 percent correlation between strong elite support and policy adoption. Later studies have continued to back up this finding. It doesn't make the press much, of course, because no one with power benefits from this getting talked about.

You are imagining the voters are a person with a lever that's red on one side and blue on the other, with all the corresponding policy on the two tracks. I think the trolley problem analogy I described is closer to useful. There are two with power arguing over how to handle the lever (or maybe even...at the risk of complicating the trolley problem even further, levers!), and voters are far away, wishing or shouting their support for one or other of those people with power. When the democrat or republican wins, they'll pull the levers to enact the policies they see fit to.

And yes, voting absolutely legitimizes the system, why do you think they always cite turnout statistics? What do you mean there is no legitimacy metric in elections? It's absolutely untrue that all that matters is which side beats the other. If a population boycotts an election, that's an expression of power and absolutely delegitimizes the results. That's an extreme example, but it applies all the way up. The United States wants to pretend to be a democracy; it has to pretend that its people get a say in how things are done. Participating in that system absolutely legitimizes that narrative. I'm not saying you should never do it, just because it's a lie. If the democrats changed course on palestine I'd be banging on doors for them, trying to get as many people to vote as possible, even though I know it's a lie that they are doing it for any reason other than to help in their struggle with the other bourgeois party. That little grain of legitimacy from your little vote is not a lot, but it's something. And frankly, if your vote isn't going to matter anyway because you don't live in a swing state, that grain of legitimacy is the only thing you can contribute.

If a population boycotts an election, that's an expression of power and absolutely delegitimizes the results.

This is your central flaw. It doesn't. The winner still gets sworn in, they still choose their cabinet, they still enact their policies. Life goes on without your input.

That also happens when a banana republic has an election with over 100% turnout lol The fact that a dictatorship holds elections and then does stuff doesn't make it a democracy.

What does that have to do with my point?

In response to my point that voter turnout legitimizes democracy, you point out that elections lead to winners who go ahead and govern, regardless of turnout...and that means the results are legitimate. Which is wrong.

If you think democracy (rule by the people) means anything, then whether the system gets input from people or not clearly matters. Only fascists think that power is the only legitimacy. So, despite their "elections," and despite the fact that the winners go on to govern, if the population does not turn up to vote, elections are not democratic. Whether that's because the people have no faith in the system, or because of state repression doesn't really matter...the people cannot be said to be ruling that state. Showing up to vote legitimizes the system, and not showing up delegitimizes it.

The CIA-backed opposition parties in countries the US doesn't like call for boycotts. Opposition parties to CIA-backed leaders of banana republics call for boycotts. If it's not a thing...why do you think they're all doing that?

So, despite their "elections," and despite the fact that the winners go on to govern, if the population does not turn up to vote, elections are not democratic

So? That's not a mechanism that overturns the result. There's nothing in the Constitution that says " If enough voters boycott the election, the result is illegitimate and new candidates must be chosen".

"Legitimacy" is a functionally meaningless term here. It has exactly zero effect on the material outcome. It's not a real thing that means anything outside your head.

So it's meaningless to say Russia's a legitimate democracy and putin is the legitimate democratically elected leader? Batista was in Cuba too, I guess...he held elections. The July 26 movement (and others) boycotted them because they were just dumb...they shoulda just voted harder! They just didn't understand that democratic legitimacy doesn't matter. Maybe they should have circulated a petition to stop the slavery and torture and stuff.

I don't know what the material effect of the lack of faith in the electoral system caused by these parties getting less and less interested in pretending the US is a democracy will be...but it's not inside my head, man. The rest of the world (and history) are paying attention. Other countries are (and should be) distancing themselves from the United States.

That's not a mechanism that overturns the result. There's nothing in the Constitution that says ...

It's as though you think Almighty God handed down the Constitution of the United States as immutable laws of the universe. As though the only thing that matters is which flavor of asshole is sitting on the throne.

The constitution only lays out the rules of the game, but if the game is bullshit, the game is bullshit. Should we change the rules of the game? Should we keep playing the game? What do I do when the rules of the game are not fair? What do I do when if the rules are fair but another player is pointing a gun at me? Questions like this cannot be answered by the rules of the game.

What do I do when the rules of the game are not fair?

Something that actually accomplishes a change in some way. Boycotting an election isn't that.

As you may have picked up from reading my comment, the question you quoted was not a question I was asking you, it was part of a list of questions that cannot be answered by the constitution. There is not a short and sweet answer to questions like that.

A blanket statement that boycotting an election doesn't accomplish change in some way is such a wild take. Have you ever read anything that wasn't part of the state's mandatory victorious history of the empire for children? I'm sure you have, you seem like a bright person...so what the hell are you talking about?

Just answer this: why did anti-apartheid groups in south africa boycott elections, rejecting the government's "reform" strategy? You're saying it's because they're fools, and I think that's because you're not applying any critical thinking whatsoever. Maybe you don't mean what you said, and mean something more specific.

you get to choose one and only one:

either the group that would not vote for harris is small enough that they don’t deserve representation, in which case the democrat establishment is to blame.

or the group that would not vote for harris is large enough to have impacted the election and deserved representation, in which case the democrat establishment is to blame.

you can’t have both

The group that would not vote for Harris is small enough that they will be overrun with demented fascism as a definite result of their ill-informed “voting strategy”.

The group that would not vote for Harris is large enough to be roundly mocked and derided for such an obvious and preventable fuckup.

You can have both.

you are incorrect, the only one with a voting strategy is the democratic establishment. and they are obviously bad at math. or have chosen this result vs reaching out to their orphaned base

Well they get to feel pure and superior, of course.

Feels great honestly

Sucking your own dick can be like that.

I'm sucking my own dick, yes

Yeah, we’re all very aware of that.

I don't think you are

It feels wonderful and refreshing sucking my own dick

That's not very polite or nice.

Don't you think you'll be better off with honey instead of vinegar? Civility?

Nah, your mom loves it when I’m mean.

Yeah, I get it. I, too, am like 11 and have deep misogyny about women having sex and how that's shameful to me.

Still, if my mom likes it you should be mean to her, not me, I'm a potential voter for your next blue candidate. Remember Liz Cheney? Maybe you can convince the next candidate to campaign with a Palestinian instead of a republican.

You don’t vote, you’re entirely inconsequential, you don’t matter, what the fuck does it matter what some dolt blowing himself up on his pedestal pretends to think about anything? Accuse me of being right wing, call me Hitler, tell me I’m mean, it doesn’t matter, because you don’t matter. You’re nothing.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go fuck your mother.

"You are entirely inconsequential, people I blame for everything, you don't matter."

I said they are inconsequential, when did I blame anything on them? I’m calling them stupid and worthless, because they’re stupid and worthless, I’m not attributing anything to them because they’ve done nothing. They’re nothing, and they love sucking their own dick about how useless and inconsequential they are as an entity.

I voted for Stein

So, you didn’t vote. Congrats.

Dang it I thought this was democracy manifest

That’s because you’re an idealist and an idiot. It’s not that, it’s a buffet of shit sandwiches and tainted ditch water in a broken and inescapable burning building, thinking otherwise is foolish, and complaining about the lack of club sandwiches and ginger ale shows a severe lack of awareness on all fronts.

Edit: Also, the green party is bankrolled by right wingers because the more votes they get the less GOP competitors get. Look into green party funding and consider that the green party has never convinced a republican to not vote republican, but it’s gotten a lot of idiots to not vote for the actual competition against the GOP. Look into where her money comes from and what consulting firms she pays before sucking yourself off about your political purity any more.

Either it's shit vs ditchwater or actual competition. Can't really be both but I'm the idiot idealist so what do I know.

Do you want the shit sandwich or the bigger shit sandwich? Those are your options. You will be forced to eat one of them, any other choice leads to being force fed the largest shit sandwich. That’s the current system, there is no negotiating otherwise. The first and only available steps towards getting something other than shit sandwiches is by getting smaller shit sandwiches on the buffet and maybe one day we might get plain bread. Yes, you are the idiot idealist, you are refusing the reality of the situation.

only idealists refuse shit sandwiches

Only idealists pretend futility is morality.

the right thing to do is always the right thing to do

I disagree with your analysis!

I think you can look at the 150k votes for Jill Stein and see that one of them was mine! And now you know that I am active politically and care enough to fill out my ballot and go down to the drop box and vote! But not for the genocide candidate ☹️.

So you lose the election, it's ok. You can try again next time! But the next time you support a candidate I will not support, you can look at the records again and know I'm not going to vote for a fascist in a blue tie. You can keep running these candidates and losing but that's sort of the definition of insanity.

Furthermore, I think the approach of voting for your shitty south park shit sandwich is how we got here. So I think you're an accelerationist along with the neoliberal democrats.

PS I'm extremely active in my community so me not voting for those blue ties is a lot more votes than one! Next time you should pander to me, not the republicans!

You say that in safety while others suffer the consequences of your actions.

Word

The consequences of not stopping trump, yes. It was an option at one point.

Don't forget the advancement of Israeli forces into Lebanon to create a "buffer" from Hezbollah that's displaced a ton of people.

ShE wOuLd HaVe BeEn WoRsE!!!!

We were hoping the democrats would realize their mistake and alter their platform

After losing. So after Trump wins and permanently fucks up our country?

Smart.

Personally I hoped that the threat would be enough. I hoped if we were all really loud about it the Democratic party would go, "hey I think we might lose this one if we don't stop murdering thousands of people". I hoped they would choose winning the election and at least delaying fascism over genocide. They didn't and it lost them the election. Now we have the beginnings of fascism AND a genocide. Fantastic. Maybe losing the election will motivate them to do better in the next one, if we have one.

Honestly, I'm mostly just shocked they didn't even try. It's insane to me that they didn't even bother lying. They were just that dedicated to genocide. It sucks that Trump made it in to office so soon, it really does but the Democratic party had the opportunity to prevent it and chose not to. I consider them and their donors far more responsible than anyone in this comment section or in any of our actual lives. They have us in such a twist that we are scrapping with eachother over their decisions.

Some people here on Lemmy are also accelerationists who actually want things up get much worse before they get better. Even dumber.

Absolutely. Yet they hide behind bullshit excuses about how they couldn’t support Harris when they KNEW having Trump win would be terrible for America, and therefore great for their own personal goals.

Fuck those disingenuous trolls.

You know, I can quote a whole bunch of civil rights icons' opinions about moderation and compromise, but that'd just be us arguing over who has the best black friends.

So I'll just point out that despite all the wise compromise and statesman concessions to white supremacy, it remains a problem somehow.

So, your black friends are telling you that there's been no progress since 1860?

And let's turn it around.

Both Mao and Stalin were uncompromising in their efforts to get rid of capitalism.

Both Russia and China are rife with billionaires.

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

-Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Thank you for proving my point.

King was as bad as any of those 'Liberals' when it came to gay rights.

Completely ignored the gays, because he knew that America in 1963 wasn't ready to talk about that.

Dr. King was a preacher in a mid-20th century southern black context. He likely didn't believe in gay marriage. Hell, Obama only supported "civil unions" in 2004. Most prominent figures on the left were silent on gay rights until relatively recently.

What point for I prove? Just because someone is wrong about one thing makes them wrong about another?

You proved that the best strategy isn't always the one that looks 'best.'

King knew that he couldn't fight every fight at once, so he stepped away from some issues.

Rustin [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayard_Rustin] didn't push King to deal with gay rights because he knew the time wasn't right.

King wasn't 'wrong' to ignore gay rights in 1964, he was smart enough to read the country and know when to be silent.

I don't know if that's the argument you think it is? The first modern Chinese and Russian billionaires are products of the 80s/90s, decades after the deaths of Stalin and Mao. Arguably, there's a fair amount of compromising that led to the collapse of the USSR and the rise of capitalist communism in China created these billionaires. Maybe if they'd kept a harder, purer, uncompromising communist line there'd be fewer billionaires.

You can also take a look at Reconstruction. Any black person will tell you that while there has been progress, it's obviously not been enough. And Reconstruction played a large part in that. We were uncompromising at first, which led to real results. Then we compromised and Reconstruction ended. And the South went right back to the way things had been.

The sad truth is that if more people were uncompromising on their moral core, we probably wouldn't be in this mess.

"If more people were uncompromising..."

My favorite magic word. "If..."

We can wish for a better world, or accept and deal with the facts of the here and now.

But Harris actually had a lower chance of winning than a hypothetical Harris-without-genocide candidate.

"Stop supporting Israel's genocide" is something America could handle in 2024.

It's incredible that peoples' minds are so colonized that their first instinct is to blame voters instead of party leadership that shut down all discussion of Biden's declining health, undemocratically anointed a wildly unpopular successor and then failed to listen to voters who were saying that supporting an ongoing genocide was a bridge too far.

Blaming anyone that voted third party is one of the most tiresome, braindead, selfish opinions.

It's also mathematically ignorant. If Harris received every single third party vote excluding RFK Jr's, even if you include Libertarians who are more right-leaning, she still would've lost.

They will blame third parties, meanwhile 6 million of THEM couldn't even be bothered to vote.

it's never their fault, all the way down

It doesn't matter who you voted for, neither group is putting the effort needed to protest and shut what the government is doing down. All parties are culpable to what is going on.

Im no different, I'm also guilty of this, but I recognize I need to do more and I'm trying.

Feeling righteous and indignant on the internet moves progress backwards and allows the bots to win.

It's hilarious that my comment was removed for swearing, which isn't against the rules, but this post remains up, which blatantly breaks the very first rule: don't shame anyone for voting. This website is starting to look as incompetent as Reddit.

No fuck you, how would compromising and voting for the lesser harm have been worse than what we have now?

And compare the comments with the amount of up votes this post has.. Something's not quite right.. Seems like lemmy is vulnerable to psyops.

Here’s the thing, in the reality that existed in November 2024, there were only 4 choices. 1) Vote for Trump, 2) vote for Harris, 3) vote 3rd party, or 4) don’t vote at all.

Simple math and logic dictate that at that point in time ANY ACTION other than voting for Harris was supporting Trump.

Argue all you want about the two party system being terrible, the distribution of Electoral College votes per capita over states being wrong, the impact of freezing the House seat numbers, or anything else related HAS NO IMPACT on the general election.

For the record, I hate all of the items I mentioned above, but NONE of that mattered come November.

Anyone disputing this is either a disinformation psyop/bot, a champion of a US downfall, or a complete moron.

Simple math and logic dictate that at that point in time ANY ACTION other than voting for Harris was supporting Trump.

Logically, it must then follow that ANY ACTION other than voting for Trump was supporting Harris.

Did I also vote Marianne Williamson, Cenk Uygur, and Cornell West by voting for Jill Stein? Or just Trump and Harris? I'm trying to figure out the limits to this new infinite-voting glitch we discovered together.

Anyone who thinks they can debate voters into voting for someone they don't like after saying all that is also a complete moron. I would never question your intelligence so I assume this is simply to feel better about the situation.

Do better next time when choosing a candidate.

First past the post creating a two party system is a result of math. You might as well complain about Pi would be easier to remember if Pi=3.0 . Math doesn't care about your feelings.

The US electoral system is not a universal constant. It is not pi or the speed of light. It is a system by which rich people maintain control over a declining imperial power, based on a document written by slave owners 250 years ago as part of a tax dodging scheme.

but but but Russia!!! China!!!

thats a good point. pi being 3.14159 is bullshit and I've had enough of it.

They are correct, and your response here just proves how absolutely braindead you are. Maybe it’s time for some introspection?

you're hopeless, OP.

Modern day liberals would have shrugged their shoulders at Hitler. Not even hyperbole. We have become so individualistic as a country that we don't give a damn about our tax dollars killing civilians overseas.

It's funny to say this in defense of the people who literally shrugged their shoulders when it came down to a vote to prevent Hitler from taking office.

If we were on reddit, I'd cross post this to selfawarewolves.

Honest question: what responsibility, if any, do you place on the Democratic establishment in all this? First we held our noses and voted for Joe Biden, who was clearly old as fuck, then we didn't get a primary because Biden dropped out of the race at the last possible minute.

Seems like every time the GOP puts up some God-awful Republican, leftists and progressives are expected to get in line and vote for establishment milquetoast candidates. Meanwhile, Democratic politicians are shifting to the right, with their pro-billionaire pro-Israeli "bipartisan" politics.

We draw a line at literal genocide. (Hence my earlier comment about Hitler.) Instead of blaming the politicians for failing to represent their voter-base, you blame the voters for failing to support their politicians. Fuck outta here.

Honest question: what responsibility, if any, do you place on the Democratic establishment in all this?

Probably similar, if not the same responsibility that you do.

The expansion of Israeli settlements in the west bank, and the treatment of Palestinians as second class citizens in on their own land enjoys bipartisan support in the US government.

Democrats are too willing to make concessions to try to flip middle of the road voters, and too fearful of enacting beneficial changes to engage the more leftist groups.

The Democratic leadership (both within the party and Congress) is selected by compliance and seniority, rather than capability, and momentum.

Democrats are too happy to preserve the status quo instead trusting their voters to turn out and take risks on disrupting broken systems.

I find the main differences between myself and the anti-kamala non-voters is that I understand that democracy is inherently a compromise. No candidate is going to reflect all your values. Every who makes it to the national stage is going to have positions that are unpalatable to some of their voters. I can live with continuing the status quo, especially when the alternative is a full on genocide, another endless war, more territorial expansion, the erosion of personal liberties, the undermining of elections, rigging of courts...etc.

At the end of the day, the people who held their vote or voted 3rd party in 2024 made a gamble. They gambled that trump wouldn't win, and Democrats would get the message that they need to move further left to get more votes. That was the best outcome. What they risked for it, was literally everything. Food, water, shelter, rights, subsequent elections, the rule of law, and any possibility of limiting Israel's genocide. That's a fucking dumb gamble. Low chance of success, low chances of change, risked against an extremely high chance of losing everything. That's a dumb fuckin' bet. I have no idea how anyone with 2 braincells can look at the situation after abstaining their vote and going "yeah, I totally made the right decision, and none of this is my fault. I'm gonna go on the internet and brag about it."

I think the main problem is that voters think that the only thing they need to do is vote. If you really care about what is happening, you need to be involved in much more of the political process which means volunteer work. And most people believe that they do not have any time to devote to that so they are 'stuck' voting for what others put in place. Of course those 'others' are going to put in place what works best for themselves. Even if you didn't think Harris was a good choice, you could have voted differently on the rest of the ballot. In a democracy you get both what you vote for and what you don't vote against.
Personally, I think Democrats would have reined in Netanyahu and not given him the full freedom that Trump does because unlike Trump they don't worship the guy, the Christian Nationalists wouldn't be trying to get them to start Armageddon through Israel's actions, and Putin wouldn't be pulling their strings rooting for this to happen to hasten the downfall of the US. It may not have been good for Palestinians but I don't think it would have been as atrocious. I could be wrong but we will never know. Another note: Americans have never been against genocide, so long as it is their side that is committing it. As they see most laws/morals/ethics, it is only wrong when the other guy is doing it. Which is one of the reasons that Americans exempted themselves from the world court - so they could do with impunity what other countries would be tried for.

Seems like everyone forgets their civics class but voting for a president is not the place to make your voices heard for issues.

You'll typically have the top three choices: A democrat A republican A throwaway third choice

For most it will be voting for the lesser evil. Because the alternatives can mean rapid stagflation, war in the middle east, supporting paedophiles, and a myriad of other problems, while the other is essentially maintaining the status quo.

For proper change you have to organize locally, vote for local elections and keep pushing your representatives to represent you throughout the year. By the time primaries come around, typically candidates are already known figures and the party points are gathered from data throughout the year.

Honestly, after a certain point I feel like all the posts about people saying they would rather not vote at all despite the two distinct choices are some sort of psyops campaign to bring chaos to the world.

I can't wrap my head around people seriously being more okay with this criminal in office than an imperfect candidate.

Except when the Democrat party orchestrates the primaries anyway.

Honestly, after a certain point I feel like all the posts about people saying they would rather not vote at all despite the two distinct choices are some sort of psyops campaign

You know many people who don't vote, it's a third of the population. Why on God's Green Earth would you choose "I feel like it's a psy-op!" as a possibility?

A third of people don't want to be involved in politics at all, and more join them every year. That's not due to psy-ops, that's due to generations of bOtH pArTiEs ignoring what voters want.

Something like 70% of people want universal healthcare. Still can't get it. SEVENTY PERCENT.

About 90% of Democrats want universal healthcare. It doesn't matter.

I vote, but just for cheap laughs.

A lot of people view it differently.

We draw a line at literal genocide

To many people, you don't. You require a candidate to be sufficiently anti-genocide in their addresses before you'll vote for them, but you don't view stopping an openly pro genocide politician as reason to vote for someone.

Seems like every time the GOP puts up some God-awful Republican, leftists and progressives are expected to get in line and vote for establishment milquetoast candidates.

Yes. Those shit candidates are at least less antithetical to our wishes. You don't get "none of the above". You get milquetoast or you get Hitler.

Instead of blaming the politicians for failing to represent their voter-base, you blame the voters for failing to support their politicians.

That's the argument used against people who say people need to go to the movies to support the studios. The difference is that you will get one of the politicians, and in the US it's one of two.

So pick: the mildest of diplomatic pressure against genocide while changing little of the structural support, or vocal encouragement with increased facilitation and also we bomb kids more, setup internment camps and try to kill trans kids.

What a lot of people see is people being given that choice and saying "they're both the same to me", and later indignantly saying how they're against something they did literally nothing to stop and being angry at the people who didn't sell it hard enough.

No one is owed your vote, and the Democratic party is really missing opportunities to appeal to a disgruntled leftward segment of the population, but it's confounding to hear more vitriol at the party that didn't do enough to sell not letting Hitler take office, than at the one that actually put him there, and usually coming from those that wouldn't say no to Hitler without being sufficiently courted first.

... we bomb kids more, setup internment camps and try to kill trans kids.

See, democrats will try to stand behind marginalized communities as though we can math our way into ignoring US imperialism and murder. The math doesn't work that way: either we give a shit about people's right to live or we don't. You don't get to claim you care about trans kids while voting for a government that supports Israeli Hitler. This is what's called having a semblance of moral principles. It's not virtue signaling to demand our government stop BOMBING WOMEN AND CHILDREN, what the fuck is wrong with you people. Maybe if you went further left instead of being so ready to "compromise" we could, I don't know, pressure our politicians into doing something.

The difference is that you will get one of the politicians, and in the US it’s one of two....What a lot of people see is people being given that choice and saying “they’re both the same to me”

This is the coveted Lesser of Two Evils^tm argument. You people parrot this line as though it were a truism. Here's an analogy: If I offer you a glass of lemonade with 50% urine and another glass with 10% urine, are you happy to drink the latter because of the difference? (On second thought, don't answer that.) Arguing for the "lesser evil" only pacifies our anger in an attempt to redirect the people to continue supporting corporate Democrats no matter how bad our material conditions deteriorate. People who believe this argument preserve the status quo.

America has been in decline since Ronald fucking Reagan. Presidential powers have been growing for decades. Congress has been corrupt for decades. We have broken (and supported breaking) international laws for decades. We leverage our control of the global economy, and the global reserve currency, in favor of US billionaires. The rich have gotten obscenely wealthy while the average American is one missed paycheck away from financial ruin. The suggestion that we should continue voting for the lesser evil given this trajectory fits the definition of insanity.

The Democratic party is either powerless to stop these trends or they are complicit. At what point are we going to demand more?

Here’s an analogy: If I offer you a glass of lemonade with 50% urine and another glass with 10% urine, are you happy to drink the latter because of the difference?

If doing nothing means I’m going to be force fed the lemonade with 50% urine, then I would prefer the latter option. I wouldn’t be happy about it, but it’s the better outcome.

I wouldn't be happy, but if drinking the 10% one ensured I were less likely to have to drink the 50% one and was forced to drink one either way, I'm sure as hell drinking the 10%

You don't get to claim you care about trans kids while voting for a government that supports Israeli Hitler.

Says who? Did your way result in less genocide, or more?

democrats will try to stand behind marginalized communities as though we can math our way into ignoring US imperialism and murder

Who said anything about ignoring? It's harm reduction. The lesser of two evils is still evil. But you know what? It's less evil. If I have to pick between two dead Palestinians and a dead trans kid, or two dead Palestinians, I'll pick the option with less dead kids 100% of the time.
Saying that we can't do something to help people because it's accepting something bad is the same argument conservatives use to argue against needle exchange programs or sex ed. No one should be using heroin, so we shouldn't try to keep them from getting HIV.

This is what's called having a semblance of moral principles.

I'm sure the children who were bombed are deeply appreciative of your intact principles.

Here's an analogy: If I offer you a glass of lemonade with 50% urine and another glass with 10% urine, are you happy to drink the latter because of the difference?

Are you going to choose to drink the first because the situation is bullshit?

The suggestion that we should continue voting for the lesser evil given this trajectory fits the definition of insanity.

And leaning into it or doing nothing is just suicidal.

Its a bit different -- Hitler was appointed chancellor by Von hindenburg. He never won an election. He was appointed by a man who was way too old -- bedridden and dementia afflicted. He didnt even recognize Hitler when presented to him for the appointment, and thought he was talking to the old Kaiser. More proof -- as if we needed more-- that we badly need age limits for leaders. Debilitation with age is real and humans consistently fail to acknowledge and act that.

Scratch a neo-liberal a fascist bleeds. They'd be the ones who'd vote for Hitler for "economic reasons."

all y'all are shrugging your shoulders at trump and expecting someone else to do something, so hey. that's EXACTLY what you would have done about hitler

As opposed to you who is doing...?

They're not a modern day liberal, are you?

They can't be held accountable for the "modern day liberal", since they aren't one. Your switcheroo is poopy-doo

Do you want the full list or just the big shit like building homeless shelters

Well, F the dems, Harris, and all the non-voters. Seriously. This dumpster fire we’re all enjoying has no moral high ground to claim for non-voters. Kidnapping foreign leaders, throwing bombs and missiles around like Halloween candy, strangling the world economy over oil, letting a convicted felon and rapist stay free…

If they want to say they want things to burn because the shitty political system we have needs to be upended…I guess they’re exactly the same as the trump voters who said they voted for trump for the exact same reason.

Kidnapping foreign leaders, throwing bombs and missiles around like Halloween candy

Is it better to bomb the convoy of a leader and let rivals on the ground take care of the leader?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Muammar_Gaddafi

This dumpster fire we’re all enjoying has no moral high ground ~~to claim for non-voters~~.

FTFY

No?

It's crazy that harris prefered this over giving some paly group a little speaking spot at the convention.

alternate-history photograph of two Palestinians, after their homes and families were blown to smithereens by president kamala's bombs, circa 2026

Supporting genocide is supposed to be a deal breaker fuck off with this minimization.

Fortunately we see how much Trump cares!

oh yea thats what i claimed its possible to hate both genocidal police state supporters.

I'm sure their feelings are very hurt because you hate them :(

"I admit I'm a murderer, but I shouldn't lose my job, because if I do, an evil worse murderer will end up with it instead."

One day after Trump threatens to nuke Iran, people out here jump in to defend him! Good job, bro!

Disliking Harris doesn't mean supporting Trump you narrow minded buffoon.

In practice, trying to get people not to vote for Harris increases the chances for Trump to win my sweetheart

So voting for a lesser evil is morally acceptable, got it, neo-liberal scum.

Also, my vote doesn't matter, I live in MAGAt country. So it's casting a droplet of water in an ocean. Thanks for playing and showing your true self.

Okay, I see you know words, but not what they mean.

And you're for evil. The Dems have to work for my vote anymore and many others, can't be doing this "lesser" evil shit anymore.

Your binary thinking is what's got us into this mess.

So it's my binary thinking? Not the fact that, apart from the Palestine issue, Harris was clearly the desirable candidate? But because of this one thing she's terrible and fortunately we got Trump instead?

Thanks for the clarification!

We also didn’t really get to choose her did we. She also got cozy with republicans while taking our votes for granted didn’t she. At that point, for a lot of people, what the fuck does their vote matter? It’s the same. We’re doing genocide either way; hell we’re probably doing Iran either way.

She could have stood up for what is right, what people wanted, and used Americas soft power to calm shit down, but she made no indication that was her intent. So for low-info voters, they just decide to sit it out, because what’s the fucking point?

So stop with the neolib finger pointing, what are you Bill Maher? Organize and come up with solutions for now because that ship fucking sailed and literally no one cares anymore there are bigger problems now

She could have stood up for what is right, what people wanted, and used Americas soft power to calm shit down, but she made no indication that was her intent.

What, despite saying that and meaning that and that being the obvious context for her candidacy?

No indication? Yeah that’s a lie. A weak lie at that. Given all possible benefit-of-the-doubt it’s still a gross mischaracterization.

Who would have guessed that the pro-democract shitlib troll/agent also supports genocide? I'm shocked.

Get this liberal shit away from me

I really think the left were the canary in the coal mine with this entire Israel issue. I personally know people who didn't give a fuck about Gaza during the election, who are now really wondering why shit is the way it is, who are slowly realizing (in their own ways) how it's all connected.

It's not about your stupid little election anymore, Americans. There is nothing more unimportant than your two parties. You're being kicked out of the middle east and the basis for your global empire is crumbling. Soon you'll be kicked out of the rest of the world too, and the contest between the "do nothing" party and the "make life worse" party will matter to Americans and Americans alone.

"Never blame the politicians for fielding a candidate that many would be unable to bring themselves to vote for due to her support of mass child murder, blame instead the people who can't bring themselves to vote for a supporter of mass child murder"

-- This posts and other DNC propaganda posts like it.

"hey shut up about genocide, will you?"

"hmmm... no, I can't think of ONE thing I would do differently from this senile corpse"

"hey look! the Cheneys love me!"

...

"wait why didn't enough people turn out?"

Never ceases to amaze me that she cared more about killing innocent people than she did about winning that election.

So, I'm not usian, but isn't it better for the long term to show Dems that you will vote a candidate for what their policies are instead of just because they aren't the other guy, thus making them choose candidates that at least pretend to listen to what the people want?

Voting for "not-Trump" just enables them and allows them to keep moving to the right, as long as the other guy is worse, like it's being happening the last 20+ years. "You need to vote for the eating-babies candidate! The other one is advocating for eating babies AND puppies!".

Some people would rather let the train run over 5 people instead of 1, just so their own hands stay "technically clean"...

That's an odd way to spell "I have no morals to stand on".

edit: The person above also clearly doesn't understand the purpose of the Trolly Problem. It's a thought-experiment to show whether you agree with consequentialist or deontologist ethics. Even thought the former is in vouge, the Trolly problem isn't itself an argument against deontology.

Those pearls you're clutching must feel so good right now

Found the illiterate.

Deontologist ethics are a bunch of nonsense that I have little respect for, somehow even less so than for Utilitarians.

Not flipping the switch, aka not voting for the lesser evil, shows you consider the cleanliness of your own conscience more important than any actual real consequences in the world. It is a disgustingly self-centered stance to take : you had a chance to make the world less of a bad place, you didn't. You made the wrong choice.

Also, if you're going to stoop to ad hominem, you should at least check your spelling. It's "Vogue" not "Vouge", and "Trolley" not "Trolly".

Strange to brag about being cool with being an active murderer.

Active saviour.

Why do act utilitarians pretend that there's is the only valid ethical system? Why are they ignorant that the very laws of your country aren't written according to the ethical system you claim is the only valid one?

I am not a utilitarian at all.

I happen to agree with Utilitarians in this case, but overall I see their attempt to reduce ethics to a maths problem as childish and immature.

Why not just vote on the lesser evil and try to change the system for the better even outside of election season?

Why choose very hard mode over hard mode?

I've been holding my nose and voting for lesser evil my whole life and we still got here. I'm not doing it again. If that means we have to solve this in the streets, it won't be the first time. Progressive or bust.

Hmmm yes, it is the victims of genocide who are smug. Big brain thinks from the humble liberal.

Resentment politics, blue version.

Vote blue no matter who mfs when deep south candidate Hdolf Aitler promises free healthcare.

That aside, Democrats dgaf about their voting base - and it shows. Harris didn't even go through general elections (which was skipped) and the DNC jumped from ol' Biden to Harris after the fact - and from what I'm hearing from progressive Americans is that was an insult to the idea of democracy, especially when they did not want Harris whatsoever.

So let me make it clear: if the Democrats can't secure enough votes in the midterms and the next presidential elections, it's because they fucked up.

Then again, you could maybe start getting rid of that third party stigma and have some actual options? No? Just two parties bought up by AIPAC and JStreet?

Cue the biker jamming a stick in the wheels meme.