you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -6 points 11 months ago (11 children)
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

    Bro you've been reduced to yelling "This is what you wanted!!!" at the people telling you none of this was necessary, it's pathetic. Every day liberals prove there is no bottom to how low they will go to drown out their conscience and prject their guilt

    Well, you got your "pragmatic" genocide and then some. You got your guy in to stop Trump, and he immediately shit the bed. Hindenburg preceeds Hitler. Here we are again. You've learned nothing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -5 points 11 months ago* (1 child)
  • [–] 8 points 11 months ago

    Please let the previous election go. It’s over. Nobody here is advocating for or against what’s already in the rear view mirror. And anyway, what we said on Lemmy last year had fuck-all effect on the election. Let’s “optimistically” say we affected 1,000 votes. Trump didn’t win by a hair’s breadth. What we said didn’t materially matter w/r/t/ the election. And that’s not even what we’re trying to do. We’re trying to agitate & educate people to think beyond/outside of the election cycle, and to break people out of myopic electoralism.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago* (7 children)

    He’s not our man. Previously:

    It’s not wrong to say regulatory capture is a problem, it just doesn’t go far enough. The US government was never not captured by the bourgeoisie, because the US was born of a bourgeois revolution[1]. The wealthy, white, male, land-owning, largely slave-owning Founding Fathers constructed a bourgeois state with “checks and balances” against the “tyranny of the majority”. It was never meant to represent the majority—the working class—and it never has, despite eventually allowing women and non-whites (at least those not disenfranchised by the carceral system) to vote. BBC: [Princeton & Northwestern] Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy

    The game is rigged. The election cycle’s pomp and circumstance is to divert your energy and attention from the fact that it’s a big club, and you ain’t in it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] -4 points 11 months ago (6 children)
  • [–] 8 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    No, he’s not. Despite that, there sure are a lot of folks here who were eager to hand him the keys of the country, and continue to to defend their choice.

    Trump already has the keys. That ship has sailed. If he has a third term it will be through extralegal measures, not the ballot box.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -3 points 11 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 8 points 11 months ago* (3 children)

    Take genocide for example, which seems to be the theme of the thread: we didn’t get the choice of no genocide, our only options were more vs less. Those are shitty options, but if we have that wiggle room, it’s worth voting for less in order to prevent more. Damage mitigation. Still genocide, still shitty options, but tangibly distinct options.

    Whether it would have been a “lesser” genocide is unfalsifiable. We’ll never really know. But I don’t have the faith in it that you have. I’m not sure what a more competent genocidal administration would have done.

    Consider what many US Palestinians did: threaten to withhold their votes if Harris didn’t say there was at least some daylight between herself and Biden regarding Gazans. And she wouldn’t even do that much.

    But that’s how you use the vote, if you use it at all. You use it as leverage. If the Democrats know you’ll “vote Blue no matter who” or “vote Blue no matter what,” then they’ll ignore you altogether, because you’re already in their pocket. You’ve made yourself irrelevant.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -5 points 11 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 9 points 11 months ago

    Half correct. Withholding votes won’t get their attention - we’ve seen that play out again and again. Democrats would rather lose than change. If you want their attention and real change, you’ll need to do things other than vote.

    If neither withholding nor not withholding will get their attention, then you’re making an even stronger case against voting’s worth than I am.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago

    Guy got totally lost in their argument.

    Democrats would rather lose than change. If you want their attention and real change, you’ll need to do things other than vote.

    I don't know but I think at least 90% of the thread is exactly that, vote alone can't solve shit

  • source
  • parent