this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2024
50 points (61.5% liked)
Memes
45655 readers
2467 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
I agree, but I don’t have that choice right now. The issue of genocide isn’t on the two-party ballot. The issue of public education is. Fewer educated people means fewer people who can even identify genocide when it happens.
“But what good is identifying genocide if you’re not gonna stop it”
HOW THE FUCK CAN I STOP IT?!?!?!?
The thing that I think really makes it obvious that your thinking here is completely defective is that you don't even bring up the question "are you in a swing state?" I'm in a deep-blue state, why the fuck, even by your broken logic, should I vote for Kamala? She'll win my whole state anyway, so all I'm doing is helping to legitimize her if I vote for her, not do a single thing to keep Orange Man out.
Not voting for Harris sends a message to the democrats that they are not championing human rights strong enough, and that supposedly ought to send their platform in the direction we want, correct? The more people who don’t vote for democrats, the stronger the message is so we should tell more people not to vote for democrats if I understand you correctly.
It should go without saying that if you tell enough people not to vote democrat, even in a deep-blue state, republican votes will win out. I’m not saying that’s a likely scenario, but why when I know people like you will opt not to vote, should I encourage other people anywhere to not vote and even get close to risking that? And before you say “like you said it’s not a likely scenario so there’s no risk” there is absolutely risk. We risk losing public funding for education and we risk further loss of human rights in our own backyard. I’m not sure why that thinking is “defective” but if there is a specific flaw in the logic please point it out.
First of all, no one except for straw-anarchists are saying not to vote. Everyone who objects to Harris says to vote third party. Of course, some people will respond to what's going on by not voting, but we (leftists) encourage them to vote instead.
There is no viable risk, a plurality of people already either don't vote or vote third party, the people like me are already accounted for since I wasn't about to support neoliberals anyway and have already voted third party.
So the only ones left are people who are just starting to vote third party. Let me say simply there is no way for us to just speak into existence a new voting bloc of around 15% of the population of the entire state to spoil your favored cop's chances of winning. If things were that easy, we could have a communist President within, like, 3 election cycles. No, things move much more slowly than that because you can't just manifest "Well what if everyone laid down their arms voted for Elizabeth Warren?" on a population like you made a magic wish.
The voteblue philosophy is one of fear, of an overriding fear even at things that are impossible in material reality, and using that fear as an excuse to never fight for someone who is better than center-right while always promising that on some future day we will finally have something better. It's a psychological hamster wheel, you'll keep running on it forever and never make progress, so the only solution is to get off.