this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2024
-9 points (45.9% liked)
Memes
45655 readers
2290 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's mind boggling that pro-Palestinian voters would support Trump. I understand opposing Biden and Harris supporting Israel, but Trump will be unquestionably worse for Palestinians.
Yep, the vast majority of pro-Palestinian voters and Palestinians themselves have been suggesting Claudia De La Cruz, Jill Stein, and Cornel West, not Trump.
None of those candidates will get more than low single digit percentages of the vote. You can vote your conscience or vote pragmatically. Voting pragmatically means voting for Harris to prevent Trump from winning.
So practical that you’ve all totally lost your moral compass. Who would write their name under a column that has active genocide support marked off? Blows mu mind that you people act like you have some sort of practical moral high ground while actively supporting genocide (voting is an act).
I think Harris could likely change her mind on Israel. Not so for Trump, and the other candidates don't stand a chance so why vote for them.
Harris will never change her mind on Israel
This may be, but the probability is unarguably higher than with Trump. Voting exclusively for candidates you morally agree on only works if enough people have the same morale (in this case i.e. are educated on Israel and so on) and are also not willing to make compromises.
Even if unfortunate, this is currently not the case; and you voting independent has smaller chances of changing that than voting democratic. So you will probably have to accept this situation for the moment and choose the "best actually feasible" strategy— and feasible means having the highest probability to win in real life, not merely trying.
Personally, I’d even argue that it’s unethical to not vote for a candidate like Harris, just because the chances of getting stuff like ranked choice voting or educating voters done (which will then lead to you being able to realistically vote for others) is significantly higher when voting Democrats than… letting Trump win?
Notice that I don’t say you have to agree with anything else she stands for, you’re trying to achieve certain goals/get out of the very unfortunate current situation, and even a low chance of reaching that is infinitely better than none.
This is entirely arguable, Harris doesn't support Israel out of any moral reasoning, but economic.
This is also wrong. The Dems don't want RCV, nor would implementing it fix the system.
There is no chance under Kamala.
The only way forward is revolution. Delegitimizing Dem and Rep rule is an important step towards revolution.
I'm voting both pragmatically and with my conscience by voting for Claudia De La Crúz. The Democrats can gain my vote by sanctioning Israel or taking similar measures.
What's pragmatic about voting for a long shot candidate in a system that so heavily favors the two major parties?
Removing legitimacy from the system itself, and forcing the DNC to appeal to the left if they wish to gain more votes, rather than allow them to get away with genocide.
Yeah, that'll show them. I'm sure that their monitoring your vote with great interest.
FFS 🤦🏽
Depends.
The same DNC that blamed the left for Hillary losing and then credited centrism with Biden winning?
Those are fine goals, but pragmatism involves addressing reality as it is, not how you would like it to be. I doubt you can achieve both removing legitimacy from the system as you see it and forcing the DNC to speak to the left simultaneously since the DNC is a part of the system that's in place. Unfortunately the DNC appealing to the left needs to be a two way street, make the left more appealing to the DNC than the right. All those Republicans endorsing Harris is the right appealing to the DNC, the left needs to out do that effort to pull the DNC to the left. Rejecting them won't do that, only the opposite.
Yes. They can continue to blame, but they will continue to lose.
This is peak liberalism, lmao. The DNC is pulling right because of their donors, if they think they can win without the left then that is their miscalculation.
Lol, yes. There are metaphorical carrots pulling the DNC to the right, I think we agree there. Now if you want to be "pragmatic" about it will a metaphorical stick from the left move them more left, or more right given the way we can see they calculate?
It's a carrot, not a stick, but either way electoralism won't save anyone.
Says the guy advocating poorly applied electoralism
Not once have I said voting will do any real good.
Not in those words
With the goal of
Is that not good? Or is it not real?
Or maybe it won't have that effect? Because that's an idealistic plan, not a pragmatic one
It's a minor effect, equivalent to signal boosting a good message. My single vote isn't going to do jack shit in the grand scheme of things, organizing will.
All candidates propped up by Republicans to siphon votes from Harris. We have a shitty system, but the way it works is Harris or Trump or abstain because you don't care.
I don't have a problem with people voting for a third party as long as they admit they are good with Trump winning. It's great to see socialists and greens showing up at the polls and voting for progressive candidates at every level. I just can't stand the naivety of a third-party voter thinking they are going to teach Harris a thing or two.
This isn't Bush v Gore where it was two centrist oligarchs battling it out to be more pro-business. The is President Donald J Trump Part II, this time with more fascism and executive immunity. If you lived through the first term and think, "yeah, I don't care if that guy comes back," then I don't know how to even relate as a human. Harris ain't perfect, but she must win.
Do you legitimately believe Claudia De La Crúz is propped up by Republicans? The Reps and Dems collaborated on kicking them off the ballot in some states.
The Dems will only ever move to regain votes they've lost, otherwise they go to the right like their donors want.
Harris and Trump are nearly identical on foreign policy, which includes genocide, and neither are good for America. If you can't relate to me, that's fine, genocide is a firm red line for me so I will listen to Muslim Americans and Palestinians, who are recommending candidates like Stein and Claudia De La Crúz.
“nearly identical on foreign policy”
Um, not even close. Unfortunately they range from “fine with it” to “actively support genocide” with Israel, but they’re not even in the same realm. See Ukraine and NATO for 2 counterexamples, and authoritarians have entered the chat.
Both actively support genocide, that's identical.
Trump won't keep his promise to pull out of NATO, but if he did, he would be the best US president in history for the Global South.
Either way though, Trump can't keep his promises, US foreign policy is bipartisan because Imperialism is where the US makes the vast majority of its profits.
The Republicans want RFK off the ballots, and the Dems want De La Cruz, Stein, and West off the ballots. I'm not maintaining a delusion that this isn't a game. Both sides are propping up the third party candidates that hurt their opponents.
But yes, I legitimately believe Claudia De La Cruz is propped up by Republicans, because they are doing it out in the open. Look at Georgia, where the Republican Secretary of State overruled the courts and kept independent candidates on the ballot after RFK voluntarily withdrew.
https://atlantaciviccircle.org/2024/08/29/georgia-secretary-state-overrules-judge-third-party-presidential-candidates-stein-kennedy-cruz-west/
I agree we need to push the Dems forward, because capitalism will always resist progress.
Harris and Trump are not anywhere close on foreign policy. Harris does support Israel, and Israel is engaged in a genocide. I'm not disputing that. But That's the only overlap between Harris and Trump, and Trump is proactively supporting the genocide, whereas Harris at least pays lipservice to the goal of ending the violence.
I can understand why that makes it impossible for you to support Harris. I cannot understand why you are unable to see the difference between Harris and Trump. You may not like Harris' position, but if you hate that, Trump's position is objectively worse. Opposing both of them, refusing to take a side, refusing to cast a vote, these are all the choices that take you out of the equation. Your vote literally won't count.
Harris is not going to change her stance on Israel before the election. After the election, she may evolve on the issue if she continues to face pressure. Maybe, maybe not. But there will be the possibility to make the argument. Right now, the Dems have decided that supporting Israel gains them more votes than it loses, and they can live with that.
And this is where the third party arguments fall off the rails. Where has Jill Stein been the last four years? De La Cruz, to her credit, has been organizing protests and fundraising, but with little actual effect. Change happens slowly, with dilligence and dedication. It requires thoughtful, strategic effort, and doesn't happen in a single election cycle. It doesn't happen at the highest level, in a fptp race between two people vying for the chief executive office. You have to win hearts and minds, install progressives at every level of government, convince donors that it is in their best corporate interest to oppose genocide.
The world is a horrible place, and you can be part of the solution or part of the precipitate. You make your choice and you live with the consequences. We plant the trees that will shade our grandchildren, or you can stamp your foot and pout because the trees aren't providing shade now. But you make a choice either way. Are you helping, or not?
I don't see how you can say this and still not get it. We're trying to make sure that this calculation is wrong. Because it's only if that calculation is wrong that they would have any reason to change their stance. Voting for them regardless would mean that their calculation was easily correct and they should keep making the same calculation in the future. If you aknowledge that such a calculation is being made, then surely you can understand the rationale for making the decision more costly.
But it isn't wrong. I'd like it to be wrong, and I can appreciate wanting to shift the Overton window, but that's not where we are and it won't change before November.
There are more single issue voters in America that support Israel and won't support Harris if she wavers than there are single issue voters in America who will start supporting her if she threatens to withdraw US support of Israel. That's the reality of the world we live in. If she changes her position on Israel, she will definitely lose the election, just as De La Cruz and Stein and West will lose the election.
The margin of error is already razor thin, and it's never been more important for America to run up the score. Winning isn't going to be enough. Harris needs to make the legal challenges and ballot shenanigans look frivolous and absurd.
You want to convince me to support a third-party candidate, first we need to put Trump in prison, then we need to roll out Star Voting, and then we need some third-party alternatives that aren't obvious Russian assets.
Cool, so which other groups are acceptable sacrifices for the sake of political convenience?
The rights of any minority are always precarious because the majority has the ability to fuck them over. The only way to protect ourselves is by banding together in solidarity with other vulnerable groups and drawing red lines and treating an attack on one as an attack on all. A group I belong to could very easily be the next in the crosshairs. "We will hang together, or we will hang separately."
Oh, is Star Voting part of Kamala's platform? Is that listed on her campaign website? Has she talked about it in speeches, rallies, or debates? Has she ever even mentioned it once?
Your plan is, "unconditional support of the Democratic party whether or not they provide any sort of voting reform, until they voluntarily choose to give us voting reform, in direct contradiction of their interests, and if they never do then just unconditional support to the democrats forever." In other words, talking about voting reform is just a red herring to obfuscate that your actual stance is just unconditional support to the democrats forever.
You know who does support voting reform to make third party candidates more viable? Third party candidates. So if you wanna talk about voting reform, in order for that to happen, we would need to get a third party candidate to win first. Or, alternatively, we could say that our support for Democrats should be conditional on them supporting voting reform, so that when they do their calculations they realize that they need to incorporate that into their platform to have a better chance of winning. Because why on earth would they ever support it otherwise?
For the record, the Constitution requires that each state decide how its electoral college votes will be distributed. The federal govt has no authority to intervene.
What dems in federal govt could potentially do is some campaign finance reform, to add some transparency to all the money that flows into PACs since the Citizen's United ruling.
If you actually look at Georgia, both the Republican court and Democrats suing are keeping Claudia De La Crúz off the ballot. You might want to do better research. Even then, it isn't "propping up."
The Dems can't be pushed forward, only reigned ever so slightly in.
Oh thank God, I'll go inform the grieving Palestinians that Harris is paying lipservice to them while Biden literally is sending in US troops. That'll make all the difference!
You'll excuse me for thinking lip service is worthless, I care about the genocide itself and not the posturing those in charge do. My vote will certainly count, it's a vote against genocide and a vote for Socialism. If the Dems want my vote they can pivot in that direction instead of speedrunning to the right every election.
What pressure? If she gets elected, she has no more pressure. Her donors want the genocide to continue, so she will.
Correct, they have decided that they think they can win without my vote, that's their decision, and therefore on them.
This is where your argument goes off the rails. No, you cannot reform the genocidal US Empire from within. The second a progressive party starts winning, the DNC and GOP will collaborate against them. Reform is impossible, leaving us only with revolution, which is what PSL is for. The aren't trying to win the election, but make a lot of noise.
The fact that you think continuing the genocidal US Empire is "planting trees that will shade our children" is sickening. Please, read theory, and organize. Electoralism will not save our children, Capitalism will make sure of that.
So you just want to overthrow the government? I'm not saying I'm opposed to it, but I'd want to know what your plan is for if you actually mobilize a resistance.
Genuinely, yes. That is the only way to stop the US Empire and achieve Socialism.
The shortest possible answer is orrganizing with leftist parties and building up Dual Power, ie comparable democratic institutions that can readily-replace the existing state structure. Imperialism brings about the death of Capitalism, eventually this decline will result in a shift to revolution, so having an organized group at the time of revolution ready to help guide that revolution and establish Socialism rather than barbarism is what's important for Leftists.
There's a lot of theory on the subject you can read, but you can also look at the Party Programs of FRSO and PSL.
Ok but in the meantime, can we all agree to vote for the person who isn't a convicted felon? And a rapist? And a racist? And a fascist? And a xenophobe? And an insurrectionist? And like twelve other things that should disqualify him from office? Surely we can agree that, in the absence of overthrowing of the most powerful government in history, that at the very least we should do what we can to keep Donald Trump out of the driver's seat?
Yep, that's why I'm voting for Claudia De La Crúz. She's none of those, Kamala is most of those.
Gotcha. Sorry to have wasted my time talking with you.
Sorry to whom, you or me? What was your goal, exactly, where you think your time was wasted? It's just a Lemmy convo.
When you factor in first past the post voting, those options all become bad, and not because of the candidates or their position on the genocide. Great little video explaining the core of the issue:
Https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo
I'm 100% aware of how FPTP works. I understand that if I vote for Claudia De La Crúz instead of Harris, that means Trump is more likely to win. I also know that if I vote for Claudia De La Crúz instead of Trump, that means Harris is more likely to win.
Given that I would never vote for either genocidal entity, I am not "taking away" votes for Harris. She can promise to sanction Israel or otherwise put an end to the genocide, and I would likely pivot to vote for her, as she would have fundamentally changed my single largest issue with her, despite thinking she has awful policy in general. However, this vote would be one she had earned, not regained.
the problem is strategic voting in a fptp system. if voters would vote their values (assuming their values are anti-genocide), then it wouldn't matter.
Very few Muslims support Trump according to polling. This was a funny outlier showcasing what happens when people take the democrat parrot point seriously.