this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2024
385 points (77.3% liked)
Memes
45646 readers
1114 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
This is just a monstrous reframing of a bipartisan genocide. Voting dem or voting rep is a vote for genocide, full stop, because they support the same genocide to the same magnitude, materially. Pretending Dems are better because genocide makes some of their voterbase sad is wrong.
Then vote Greens or PSL.
Sorry, I'm not going to vote "don't care" on genocide no matter how many faux leftists pretend it's the morally superior option.
It's morally superior to vote for genocide but pretend your flavor of genocide isn't the exact same as the other flavor of genocide.
Look, if you don't care about LGBT folks, women who need abortions, asylum seekers, etc. you can pull that "don't care" lever. But "I care about making a symbolic, but ultimately toothless, gesture about Palestine more than I care about the lives of thousands, possibly millions of others" is what voting third-party is telling the system right now. If that makes you feel morally superior, we're at an impasse because I don't know how to explain to someone that an action to save lives is more powerful than an unrealistic gesture about saving even more lives, but which will realistically increase the amount of death and suffering.
Is there a red line for you in the sand, or would you vote for Hitler if 101% Hitler was running? When do you abandon hope in the Democrats, if being genocidal Imperialists doing nothing to help marginalized groups, and are running to the right of Trump in 2016 with respect to immigration, doesn't?
That's a non-sequitur, because that's not what's happening by any means. But thanks for ceding the point that you're okay feeling morally superior by doing something that'll get more people killed.
So either there's no red line, or genocide doesn't matter if it's against Muslims for you.
There's no red line that Americans can VOTE on. We don't get to vote on how America goes to war, period. You really want to frame this in the context that your actually doing something other than undermining a fair election. You've gone way past the red line in your support of Trump.
Sure there is, you can vote Green or PSL. If you disapprove of the Democrats but will never not vote for them, you're the same as the rabid supporters of Zionism that vote for the Dems, materially. Are you looking to join a Leftist party, try to destabilize the system and establish Socialism? If not, it seems like you're just supporting the status quo and not lifting a finger no matter how bad it gets.
No, I don't support Trump, that's why I support leftist candidates and advocate for people to abandon the Dems and Reps.
You sure can if you believe that making an insignificant point in a ballot box is worth more than the actual lives of people who would die because of a Trump administration but not under a Harris one. But if you want to make an actual difference. the ballot box is one of the very few times you need to hold your nose and do the uncomfortable thing of choosing liberalism over fascism.
But if you're okay with fascism, sure. Go and make your vote a spoiler that helps the fascists win. I'm sure the people who die because doctors who were scared to provide medically necessary abortions will be grateful that you did the morally superior, but entirely ineffective, thing.
You can vote for fascism if that's what you want, I reject it.
You're voting fascism in, the Dems have failed for half a century to codify abortion rights because they don't care.
You're all or nothing take on it sounds a little fascist to me...
You wouldn't know what fascism was if you lived in Mussolini's Italy or Nazi Germany. Read Blackshirts and Reds, at least the first chapter.
You're literally making the choice to put fascism in power. I'm trying to stop you from making the same mistake I made in 2016.
You're literally voting for fascism, not sure what you mean here.
you keep saying "vote" as if it means the same thing in a ranked-choice voting system and a first-past-the-post voting system.
newsflash: you're not making the difference you claim you're making. if anything, you're making it worse. congratulations! good job! you did it! you get a good star!
Not sure what you're getting at here, RCV or FPTP, doesn't make a difference, electoralism is useless.
Words have definitions. Harris, for everything I don't like about her, is a liberal. Not a fascist. Trump, on the other hand, is a fascist.
The choices here are simple: fascism (Trump), not-fascism (Harris), or "I really don't care, do u?"
Why are you encouraging people to do things that will make it more likely for fascists to win and destroy what little leftist organizing there is in America? The only rational conclusion is that you want fascism. But you keep avoiding that question. Is it because you're taking a page out of the alt-right playbook?
You wouldn't know fascism if you lived in Nazi Germany. Read the first chapter of Blackshirts and Reds, fascism is just Capitalism in decay, and neither the DNC nor GOP are capable of stopping that.
Once again avoiding the question and making personal attacks instead.
Your words imply that you think I believe having Harris as president will fix things. I don't. What I do believe is it will slow the decline, hopefully enough for us to create ways to escape capitalism without having fascists commit more genocides than they already are. This is known as "harm reduction." It's a complex theory by which one takes actions to reduce the harm done with immediate actions when there's no immediate action that one can take to improve things. The ballot box in 2024 is not the time for a revolution, for said revolution would fail miserably, leaving us worse off. The ballot box in 2024 is the time for harm reduction.
What have I avoided?
That's not Harm Reduction. Harm Reduction doesn't mean to vote for genocidal imperialists as a temporary measure, it refers to implementing permanent solutions that increase liklihood of fixing the problem overall, like giving safer heroin to addicts and trying to get them help.
Well immediately above I asked:
You have asserted that the actions you advocate won't do that, but when I explain how they do exactly that, you simply make the assertion again. When that fails, you attempt to equivocate. But when I point out that more genocide is more harmful than less genocide, you simply ignore my statements and make your assertions again.
That's not helpful. It might convince some people, but only in the same way that repeating a lie enough makes some people believe it.
The Dems and Reps work together against Leftist organization. They colluded to kick PSL off the ballot in Georgia, Tim Walz sent in the National Guard against Black Lives Matter protestors, and more. When you say that abandoning the Democrats "makes it more likely for fascists to win and destroy leftist organizing," you ignore what fascism actually is: Capitalism in decay. It isn't the Republican party alone, it's the bourgeoisie. That is why I advocate for abandoning them and pushing for Leftist organization like PSL and FRSO.
You haven't explained how abandoning Democrats makes it more likely for fascism to win. Fascism isn't solely the Republican Party, it's bipartisan. Secondly, more genocide is absolutely worse, but you haven't explained how that would happen. If you don't analyze the root cause of genocide, how can you say the Dems are holding genocide back? Biden went above the Pentagon to approve the invasion of Lebanon, because support for Israel is economic and not moral.
Please answer my points, I repeat them because you ignore them.
Wake up, liberal! Lol
TIL advocating people to join revolutionary parties and overthrow the system is "supporting the status quo," while voting for the establishment parties is "punk." Is this a Twilight Zone episode?
Nah, just voting against genocide and Imperialism. Voting doesn't really matter anyways
Cool.
I can and I will.
Can't be a spoiler if I would never vote for a genocidal monster anyways. Harris is spoiling her own votes.
then is the system fair? is it really democracy whats happening here?
societies generally throw away the rules and stop relying on these institutions when it becomes clear they arent actually doing anything for us. why arent us?
That's actually prety obvious after reading Marx: the system still works as intended for whom it was intended to work, namely for bourgeoisie and their lackeys. The contradictions aren't yet big enough to cause the overthrowing of it. Liberals, people who we are trying to convince here to open their eyes and see that they are voting for genocide, for actual mass extermination of entire people, actually (with small exceptions) already have their eyes open - they just don't see anything undesirable in the picture: brown people half of world away and their deaths are perfectly ignorable for them, their lives are pretty comfortable and they just want to stop reading uncomfortable opinions and get back to brunch.
I find that arguing a person must vote for one of two pro-genocide parties already undermines your idea of a "fair election." What primary even nominated Harris as the Democrat candidate? -Not that our primary systems is particularly representative of a "fair election" system, either. I just don't remember when these were candidates voted on.
Not a person living in USA, wouldn't a coalition govt be better then, as the Roe vs Wade issue happened while the Democrats were in power?
Or are coalitions not allowed?
Or is the central govt powerless in such issues?
The US government is essentially a theatre troup trying to convince the public there is nothing outside the 2 party system, while both parties serve their donors alone.
The overturning of Roe vs. Wade was a direct consequence of Trump's election, as it was the three justices he was able to appoint (including Mitch McConnell's fuckery about Merrick Garland) who changed the Supreme Court's makeup to include so many right-wing partisans.
Aah. Thank you.
Would the govt be able to create any laws to counter the case being overturned?
And unrelated:
Could the Green party and Democrats form a coalition and choose the President accordingly, if the results are bad?
I'm an Indian, where we have parliamentary democracy.
Parties can form coalitions and the leader set by the coalition becomes the Prime minister and the President is not as powerful, eventhough they're technically the head of the nation.
Is it different in USA? If Trumps gains most votes, can the Greens and Democrats channel votes against him by creating a coalition?
That's hard to say. With the current makeup of the supreme court, it's likely they'd simply declare any law protecting abortion rights as unconstitutional because mumble mumble and get away with it. But what's preventing them from doing even that is that Republicans (thanks in large part to politicised redrawing of district boundaries) have a majority in one of the two legislative bodies, so the Democrats couldn't pass that protection regardless.
So likely the minimum that's needed to codify abortion rights would be a Democratic majority in both legislative houses and a Democratic president.
On the topic of coalitions: The US doesn't have coalitions in the ways many other countries have, partially because of the way the president is elected. Voters have a separate item on their ballot to elect (electors who will then vote in the electoral college for) the president. The way this occurs is through first past the post, where the largest portion of the votes (even if a minority) gets all the electors in that state (except in Nebraska and New Hampshire, where the state breaks it into districts). I'm in Michigan, for example. In 2016, Donald Trump got 47.5% of the vote in Michigan to Hillary Clinton's 47.3% and thus got all 16 of Michigan's electoral votes (out of 538). Had 11,000 more people voted for Clinton (let's say, by not voting for the Green party), she would have won Michigan's electoral votes, which is a 3% swing in the electoral college, but given that most states are pretty much guaranteed to go one way or the other (e.g. Indiana is a safe Republican state while neighbouring Illinois is a safe Democratic state), those 11,000 votes would be massively influential. This is why "swing states" are so stupidly pivotal in US elections.
So because of all of that, there's not an option for the Greens to join a coalition, even if they wanted to (which I don't think they would, as the US Green party is currently under the control of a Russian asset and it's well known that Putin wants a Trump victory).
The American electoral system is ridiculously, stupidly backwards and basically designed to empower certain people over others. If there were a parliamentary democracy here the US, and probably the world (given the US's love for foreign intervention), would be much better off.
They certainly could, but why would they? Not only democratic party stand for a lot of things greens find unacceptable (and vice versa), but disproportion between both parties is so huge that greens would at best got given some paltry compensation (and a huge bill of firming democratic party atrocities with their names, this would essentially be their end) and most likely just become completely ignored and cut off after election.
You're going to have to explain this convoluted logic to your grandchildren when they ask you why you voted for genocide.
What I'm going to have to explain to them is why I voted "don't care" in 2016. That's a mistake I will forever have to live with. But if I can convince a few people not to make that same mistake, I will at least be able to reduce the harm I did.