726
They punch left to protect and defend the right (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world
113 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/51582749

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 2 months ago* (8 children)

Thats a bit of a pivot from the topic, im talking about pressuring the dems to change, not taking to the street. Adapt or fail.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (7 children)

    It's not a pivot, it's a natural conclusion to your logic. Republicans are automatically out, which leaves The Democratic Party, Third Party, or Not Voting as your other choices. Third Party isn't currently viable, and nobody took the last two years(or more) to create a viable third party movement, so that's out.

    Which leaves now Not Voting or The Democrats. If Not Voting is your choice, you are already saying you don't believe in the system, or that the current Administration is alright by you. And if you don't find the current Administration tolerable, then that leaves you don't believe in the system.

    Which is fine, but that leaves it in your hands to get organized and do something. Discouraging others to not use their allotted piece of violence doesn't help, and very much makes you look like an asset for The Republicans.

    So again, if you don't believe The Democrats are the solution, then I must assume you're mad enough to fight The System. And if your choice isn't either one of those, then you're a Republican Asset, and should be treated like one.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    It achieves leverage. If a party knows it gets your vote regardless of what it does, it has very little electoral incentive to respond to you.

    Withholding support makes that support conditional: adapt sufficiently to win those voters back, or accept the electoral cost of losing them.

    You can argue that the cost of doing that is too high given the Republicans, but that's an argument about whether the strategy is worth the risk, not whether the strategy exists.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    You can't achieve leverage unless they fear you more, than they love Israeli money. Your non vote, doesn't scare conservative parties, if it did we would have achieved your leverage already. Instead 30%-40% of the electorate sits out every election, even more during midterms, which is the largest "political faction" already dwarfing both major parties. And has for decades.

    Your leverage in that manner doesn't exist, it's a dead end. You want them to change, make them fear you. Your non-vote doesn't achieve that. A Viable Third Party would, but that takes time. So you only have a few options left to achieve your leverage.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago* (4 children)

    You’re conflating habitual non-voters with previously reliable voters deliberately withdrawing their support. They’re not politically equivalent.

    A huge group that routinely doesn’t vote, for thousands of different reasons, sends no coherent signal. A measurable part of your coalition abandoning you over specific failures absolutely does.

    And “make them fear you” is just a more dramatic way of describing electoral leverage. If losing those voters can cost Democrats elections, they have an incentive to win them back.

    Whether they actually respond correctly is another question. But guaranteeing them your vote regardless of what they do certainly gives them less reason to, im sure you can appreciate that much?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (3 children)

    Oh I'm sorry let me be more clear when I say, make them fear you. Organize a group and surround their house, let them know you know where they live, let them know there are far worse things that could happen by accident than not being reelected.

    That's whats needed for change. Non-votes don't mean jack shit, terrorism works though. Non-votes are just another vote for the Status Quo, and a "feel good" way to achieve nothing. Might as well go do a No King's parade for the same level of effectiveness.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Losing is quite convincing. If enough people withdraw their support that you lose an election, you have a pretty strong incentive to win them back.

    If you genuinely think threats of violence and terrorism are the only way to exert political pressure, I think we've reached a fairly fundamental disagreement. Thats lazy thinking as far as im concerned.

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

    We have reached a fundamental disagreement. You want to believe in a reality that doesn't exist, while I'm forced to endure the one where violence and terrorism keeps working. The reality that every active governmental system is predicated on violence and terrorism. But most of all is ours. I can do a list of events proving my point, but truth is I'm pretty lazy today, and I've already written you off as either too naive right now, or a purpose-filled bad actor. Either way you read as a Republican Asset, I care not whether its incompetence or maliciousness.

    Losing is convincing, but you have made a fundamental judgment of error when it comes to people. The DNC might be "losing" but the individuals are winning, they're richer today than they were yesterday. Your Non-votes lets them grift longer, while also not providing any data on the grift to be able to prove it to others.

    Seriously, you convincing others to not vote is dangerous, and you deserve to be punched in the mouth like the Republicans you're helping.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    So losing is convincing, but voting for people who you believe personally benefit regardless of whether they win or lose is the solution?

    Whats the mechanism there?

    And I think “agree with my electoral strategy or you deserve to be punched in the mouth” rather neatly demonstrates the problem with your conception of politics 😂 you must end up in a lot conversations that frustrate you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent