1142
"Libtard" said the scorpion (i.redd.it)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.ca
106 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 1 year ago (8 children)

I only discard the idea of “vote Biden to prevent Trump”

Then you are... well, I won't say you're my "enemy" exactly. But I think you're making incredibly stupid decisions, and then being dishonest ("just do it cuz they’re the candidates of the party" when the logic was literally pretty much the opposite of that).

If the house is on fire, then leaving the house is urgent. Preventing Trump was urgent. Saying it's not worth leaving the house because you don't like the weather outside is ridiculous, and framing this past election like preventing Trump was not urgent, even now with the benefit of hindsight, shows some really remarkably bad strategic ability, and I don't think I really want to listen to your political wisdom as to how to look at things or how we can get out of this mess now.

only the idea of “vote for the lesser of two evils”, as it has only proved to sink the boat so far

My point bringing up 1968 and 1992 was that refusing to vote for the lesser of two evils, thus opening the door for a much much greater evil to reset the bar downwards and also motivating the Democrats to move to the right since the left isn't voting for them anyway, is precisely and exactly what has been sinking the boat.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (7 children)

    So the house wasn't burning down during Biden's administration ?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    Absolutely it was. I can have some issues with people's general way of characterizing what Biden did, but I feel like you are still missing the point that I am making:

    It is the normal course of political leaders to become corrupted and start to do things like the DNC is currently doing. It happens in Communist systems, it happens to the Republicans, it happens to the Democrats, it happened to Labour in the UK, it happens to any political body just because of the nature of power and corruption, and the incentives at work. This whole idea "Well we have to get rid of the Democrats because they're bad, that'll solve it" is 1,000% missing that point (and, yes, if there were anyone who were saying "We have to keep voting for Democrats, that'll solve it," then I would equally tell them that they are living in a dream world.)

    My point is that getting ourselves out of the current crisis involves being engaged with the political system (both in and out of the "official" allowed channels), and that giving up one of the key tools of influence and letting the forces of evil gobble up a giant advantage for themselves in November 2024, which we will now have to work incredibly hard just to get back to even the pretty-bad state things were in before, was a massive mistake. Whether or not Biden was "good enough," or for that matter whether even his significant sins like genocide in Gaza needed to apply to Kamala Harris, has absolutely no bearing on that point.

    Again: People have been trying this strategy you're promoting since 1968. It definitely hasn't pulled the Democrats to the left. My feeling is, work to strengthen unions and civil institutions outside of Washington, support progressive candidates (the few of them that exist within the Democratic party), and try to avoid obvious disasters. That makes sense to me. The strategy that it sounds like you're talking about, withholding support until the Democrats get better on their own all of a sudden, has in my view proved itself to be an unmitigated disaster in the years from 1968 until now.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    In my view your idea is consent to the two party system, which is not explicitly forced by the constitution, but is being enforced more and more over time by your own behavior. One needs to have limits at least on what they consent to, even when their choice is neglect afterwards. The fact that not even both parties offered a pro zionist candidate, but even inside the democrat party, both candidates (Biden then Harris) were explicitly pro Zionist, this shows where loyalty to an institution no matter what leads to.
    Christianity is often ridiculed for for being fanatic, but even though it is a religion, it had reforms (Martin Luther and the protestant denomination eventually) when the main Catholic church was corrupt (I'm sorry for the Christians reading this if I'm getting history wrong). My point is: this was a religion and accepted reforms, here we're merely talking about a political party, a progressive one if I'm not wrong.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    Why do you guys spend SO much time lecturing me on what I believe, making me go back and try to correct you on it.

    This is tiring

    In my view your idea is consent to the two party system

    Absolutely not. I think the US government would be vastly improved if political parties were done away with (let alone these two specific political parties). Unions as the basic unit of political power, instead of a class of specialist politicians, would be a big improvement.

    The issue is that "consent" or not is not really required. You can not consent to these two specific political parties, you can even choose not to vote as a way of expressing your lack of consent, and they can still tear-gas you or arrest you for refusing to go along with the laws they passed. My point is that refusing to vote, because you don't like these two specific political parties being in charge, will not produce any positive change, and will in fact distract from a lot of positive change because now we have to fight against urgent threats to our safety and play defense.

    If you were talking about ways to break the monopoly of these two political parties, and strategizing how to get that done, I would be completely in agreement with you. That's not what you came out advocating for (or not in any effective way), so I'm disagreeing. Not complicated really.

    One needs to have limits at least on what they consent to, even when their choice is neglect afterwards.

    Glad you got to make your performative stand. Voting is not consent. Whatever happens, due to anyone who gets into office, is going to happen regardless unless people stand up and resist it. Voting is a way of giving input to the process.

    Again: Going outside because the building is on fire is not consenting to the weather. It's just self preservation. In this case, there are a whole bunch of Palestinians, and a whole bunch of Venezuelan fishermen, and a whole bunch of Hispanic people of all kinds, who could have been saved from some very severe consequences if you and others like you didn't feel like making your stand.

    If you want change, work for change. Stop yelling about how important it is not to vote. You're taking out the smoke detectors saying that you don't consent to the fire. You're yelling "I do not consent! I do not consent!" while the cop is breaking your window anyway to pull you out. Most importantly, stop accusing me of claiming things that are not what I am claiming. Please and thank you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Voting is not consent.

    That's where we disagree. And just to make it clear, I'm not from USA, I'm just offering a critic. You might as well recall that I said I'm not your opponent :).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Sure

    Why are there so many people with super-strong opinions about internal US politics, who are not from the US

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    hmm, it seems to me that I didn't write long paragraphs. I just said that I see "voting for lesser of two evils is consenting for evil". And USA ran a 2 years long genocide in Gaza recently, they're actually running a war close to my country periodically. It makes sense that I don't distinguish much between the politicians who make decisions, and the population that is voting them in repeatedly.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •