you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 12 points 2 weeks ago (31 children)

because climate concerns are not a concern with either party? both sides may not be the same, but they hold the same views on 90% of all things. and more and more that last 10% seems to be things they want but are still ashamed about it.

  • source
  • hideshow 31 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    Dude, even with the new DSA Democrats I barely hear anything related to climate. Sometimes the green new deal is mentioned, but the only thing that is supposedly radically transforming the economy is AI, not the Democrats, the leftists or anyone with a voice in US politics. It's really frustrating.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 2 weeks ago

    right? like i said elsewhere what do establishment democrats actually stand for, because it is not the following:

    climate change, immigration, lgbtq+ protection, reigning in corporations, resisting genocide, universal healthcare, loosening racially motivated drug enforcement, breaking up the prison industrial complex, breaking up the military industrial complex, defunding the police, establishing ranked choice voting, repealing citizens united, making bribery illegal again, nor establishing term limits.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 2 weeks ago (22 children)

    Yeah but you still gotta vote.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 weeks ago* (21 children)

    sure that’s why i vote third party, or candidates i know push my interests. I will not vote for establishment democrat.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (20 children)

    That's fine, so long as they won enough support to be the primary challenger against the GOP candidate. Otherwise you're wasting your vote and helping the Republican win. Sometimes you have to swallow your pride and vote for a bad candidate so that the even worse one doesn't win.

    Edit: A lot of people don't like this comment but none of you are telling me what the alternative is besides not voting (which isn't happening because I vote in every election and you should too).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

    This argument is exactly what enables the establishment democrats to maintain their power. It’s a threat they hold over the American people, and the only winning move is to not give in and vote for them. The fascists didn’t come to power because of the last election, they came to power because of the 5 decades of concessions the American people gave to the oligarchs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

    Well then what's the alternative? You can't just not vote.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    Vote third party and, more importantly, organize your community. Get involved, don't just wait for elections to roll around.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    I already explained why voting third party in anything other than a primary is a waste of a vote if they're not the primary challenger against the GOP candidate. I need a better answer or I'm going to continue voting for the lesser evil.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago

    The better answer is to organize your community so that ultimately we can overcome bourgeois politics and break free of the prisoner's dilemma they have created. Vote for whoever you want in the meantime, it's not going to fundamentally change the game or liberate us.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago

    I already explained why voting third party in anything other than a primary is a waste of a vote if they’re not the primary challenger against the GOP candidate.

    No, you explained why you keep throwing your vote away by giving it to a party that openly disregards what you want.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 2 weeks ago (8 children)

    The problem with this argument is that while it might be objectively correct in the short term it's also objectively self-destructive in the long term. Both for the voter and the candidate.

    Because elections are won by turnout. If you don't turn out your base you don't win elections. But your strategy eventually murders your own base. They get dejected, they get disillusioned, they get impatient, whatever you want to call it. And you can't fucking change that. No amount of argument will ever change that. If you keep serving your voters a turd sandwich it doesn't matter how many giant douches are on the other side. Eventually they stop coming to eat.

    And that's how you lose really big. Which screws over everybody.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    You would be correct in an utopian world. There people would vote for who they want instead of who they don't mind.

    But this is reality, and because of the semi-2-party system of the US, voting for any third party is just the same as not voting at all.

    If you want to change the system, hold rallies between the elections. But don't use the elections for that. Or you can be sure you will get an other trump.

    And how can your long-term plan work if everything gets fucked up so much short-term, that you will never get to the long term plan in the first place?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago

    You're the one who's living in the utopian world. I just told you, you can't fucking change it. Someone who relies on being the lesser of two evils will always eventually lose massively. That is inescapable. You will subdue your own base every single time. You cannot win without your own base. Trump won because of this. Maybe you'll beat them this time but six or eight years later he's going to win again, or whoever the new Trump is. And that's going to be how it works forever. And every single time it'll get worse and worse and worse. Your strategy is willfully choosing to lose.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    But what's the alternative? Not voting? I won't even consider not voting!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    The alternative is not running conservative candidates who never do anything for their base. That's the alternative. You all act like it's a monolith. That the liberal Democrats have to by some law of nature run these conservative Democrats who never do anything for the people. There's no law about that. There's no reason that has to be true. But if they choose to keep doing it they are choosing to lose. Because they're the only side that are trying to do something that is destined to fail no matter what.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 child)

    I am not in control of that. The best I can do I sign petitions and vote for the third party when they show up on the ballot in the primaries, and if my candidate doesn't win then I vote for whoever stands the best chance* against the republican candidate.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago

    Well you can also not advocate for the critically failed and doomed system. You could give that a try. Because while you may not control who they run you sure do support them publicly and audibly telling them no matter who you pick I'll vote for you no matter how much you screw me I'll vote for you I'll vote for you no matter what. And maybe that's a bad message to send them.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 2 weeks ago* (1 child)

    Are voters clustered in the center of the political spectrum like a bell curve or are voters clustered in two camps at the extremes? If it's the latter, I could see the "don't vote" strategy working. Otherwise, it's bound to backfire because the leftmost candidate would need to move so far left to gain your vote that they would cede more voters to the candidate to their immediate right than they gained by moving left and lose the election as a result. They therefore don't consider you in their choice of policies and move farther right as a result, which seems counterintuitive, but it's true. This of course assumes a single political axis which isn't necessarily accurate.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 2 weeks ago

    This is literally the opposite of what has been happening. The Dems keep moving right, and giving up voters on the Left. Every election they scream about the Leftists voter base that is both:

    • A) To small to cater to
    • B) So large, as to be able to swing elections

    And their strategy isn't because they can't get Leftist voters, it's because they'd rather let the Republicans win, then enact Leftist policy.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

    you can argue some perverse version of the prisoners dilemma all you want, but when i said that i will not vote establishment democrat, i mean i. will. not. vote. establishment. democrat.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 weeks ago* (1 child)

    Great, so you are okay with an other GOP then?

    Cause that is what you will definitely get with that mentality.

    And you can bet they will call your climate goals woke, and do even less than a democrat would.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago

    no, but like i said. there is nothing on this earth that will change my position. it’s up to the democrats to decide how painful they want the rest of the world to suffer before they are forced into the light kicking and screaming.

    you do not get forward momentum by voting the lesser of two evils.

    what position do the establishment democrat actually hold that would make the lesser of two evils at all a viable choice? because it sure as shit ain’t climate change, immigration, lgbtq+ protection, reigning in corporations, resisting genocide, universal healthcare, loosening racially motivated drug enforcement, breaking up the prison industrial complex, breaking up the military industrial complex, defunding the police, establishing ranked choice voting, repealing citizens united, making bribery illegal again, nor establishing term limits. so i ask you, what the fuck is left?

    “the democrats will hold trump accountable!” big fucking whoop. he will probably die before the end of his fucking term, and if not the only reason the democrats will drag him through a congressional panel (but never prison!) until the day he dies, is so they can do the exact same thing trump does to avoid answering for the epstien files, distract from doing their fucking jobs, and taking corporate bribe money.

    i am so fucking tired of this vote blue no matter who bullshit.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 child)

    Okay then what do you do? Not voting is a waste, and so is voting for the third party that lost the primary. So please, tell me: How should one vote, then? I got a lot of replies but nobody can seem to tell me what the alternative is beyond wasting your vote.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago

    the point being that you can not “waste” your vote. the mindset of your vote being “wasted” is the propaganda from the vote blue no matter who crowd. if everyone voted for the candidate they actually wanted and didn’t worry about being “right”, or on the “winning” side, the world would be a better place. that’s the whole reason i mentioned the prisoners dilemma.

    hell, not voting can be a choice and not a surrender to apathy. it’s not your job to sacrifice your morals in order to side with one ass hole over another to take advantage of the office. it’s the dnc’s job to be electable and not field shit stain fucks.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 2 weeks ago* (5 children)

    The median voter theorem suggests that the two candidates will both have policies which reflect the median voter, with one of the candidates slightly left of center, the other slightly right of center. This is a result of the candidates wanting the most votes. If the leftmost candidate were too far left, they would lose. It's a derivable law of behavior as natural as objects falling in parabolic arcs under the effect of gravity. I mention this because there seems to be a prevailing attitude that politics is all corrupt and if there's no candidate with radical policies to tackle climate change, then it must be because industry has their hands in politics, and nothing you do can change it, and voting merely endorses the system, etc. That's true in some ways, but I think it's also true that politicians reflect what the voters want, and it turns out most people are selfish and don't give a hoot about the health of the planet or future generations. It's not you versus the politicians. It's you versus the people electing the wrong politicians. Participation counts. It moves the median closer to where you want it to be. Voting counts. Participating in other ways counts. Vote and talk to people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 weeks ago* (3 children)

    bullshit. there is no slightly left of center, that “center” line fucking slides forever and exclusively to the right. the only way to stop that is to not give establishment democrats ANY power. it’s more important to change the tempo of the democratic party then to pretend fight the republicans.

    The only way to actually win is to vote for a canidate that actually represents the closest to my actual wants. and the establishment democrats have exactly zero actual alignment on my wants. don’t give me their bullshit campaign promises, my memory is longer then three months.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    Bold strategy. Let's see if it works out. I rather think that if you don't participate, then you're effectively not included in the set of people whose interests are considered by politicians when they form their campaign promises. When you do this, the median is likely to shift right, not left as you think, if you take a moment to recall the definition of median. Sometimes we are placed in tough positions with few good options but still having to select one.

    I would propose that a lot of the cases of Dems appearing to renege on campaign promises are the result of closed door deals with the other factions where they're forced to make compromises in order to get some of the things they (and you) desire. We're not privy to those deals because it would reveal to the voters that the politicians abandoned one wish for another and a competitor would use it against them in a primary, and then there would be no deals and Congress would grind to a halting stalemate.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    Bold strategy. Let’s see if it works out.

    People have been voting Blue No Matter Who for a long time. How has that worked out? All that has done is let the Dems move to the right.

    ...then you’re effectively not included in the set of people whose interests are considered by politicians when they form their campaign promises.

    Thats kinda true. Because the Dems never consider what Leftists think. They're pretty open that they'd rather let the Republicans win, then let a Leftist have a shot.

    I would propose that a lot of the cases of Dems appearing to renege on campaign promises are the result of closed door deals with the other factions...

    LoL, they aren't forced to, they choose to. They've had plenty of opportunities to freely move to the left, but keep chosing not to. Hell, they've given up elections rather than move to the left.

    We’re not privy to those deals because it would reveal to the voters that the politicians abandoned one wish for another and a competitor would use it against them in a primary, and then there would be no deals and Congress would grind to a halting stalemate.

    No, we're not privy to them, because they opnely don't care about what their voting base wants. They just pretend to during campaign season.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago

    Thats kinda true. Because the Dems never consider what Leftists think. They're pretty open that they'd rather let the Republicans win, then let a Leftist have a shot.

    notably, they dont consider the interests of leftists whether they vote or not

  • source
  • parent