top 85 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 29 points 2 months ago

The trick is you still need to protest against the government you voted for.

  • source
  • [–] 102 points 2 months ago (35 children)

    Vote anyway.

    Yes, they suck. They suck a lot less than Trump and the Republican party though, and in a choice between two you absolutely should be voting for the less shit choice.

    I'll remind that a vote for anyone doesn't prevent you from taking other actions. Considering the way that this administration has gone so far, not voting might drastically limit other actions that can be taken.

    From best option in voting to worst:

    • Voting for a good candidate
    • Voting for a better candidate than you have
    • Voting for the least shit choice
    • Not voting
    • Voting for the worst possible choice

    My options will not be great in all races, but you can damn well bet I'll be voting.

    I'll also note that they wouldn't be working so hard to try and take away peoples right to vote if they didn't think it risked their plans.

    Please, put their plans at risk. Take every path to a better option.

  • source
  • hideshow 35 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Before “voting for a good candidate” there’s also “mass protests” and “general strike”

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

    Voting takes five minutes. Do those too, but they are not mutually exclusive to voting. If you have the time and energy to participate (let alone organize) those then do them! It certainly means you have five minutes spare to vote too.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -59 points 2 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (32 children)
  • [–] 51 points 2 months ago (12 children)

    So what's your solution? Pouting in the corner and saying "I'm not playing"?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [+] -13 points 2 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (12 children)
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    I mean, the DSA is doing a half way decent job of that in at least a few electorates...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Yeah... Reading your other comments, I think you actually have a decent take on this, but I think the way you're communicating it isn't working for the audience..

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    What's the point of communicating if you know that you're being misunderstood?

    It's not about reading comprehension, it's about frame coherence. Other people don't have your particular history of experiences, so some things that make obvious sense to you need more context for other people (the same is true in reverse, obviously).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 14 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    I'm just curious if you're getting involved in grassroots activism, promoting candidates you agree with, canvassing the neighborhood to try to drum up support, etc. Because these are the sorts of things that need to happen in order to produce a candidate you agree with. It's completely disienguous to put the entire onus of finding a candidate you agree with on other people.

    I want you to vote. I care less about who you vote for than I do you voting at all. Exercising your civic right to choose your representation is a big deal, and I encourage you to stop getting mad at other people for not doing your own legwork, and instead get out there and promote a candidate you agree with. Hell, maybe you should run yourself. I don't know, but I do know that sitting around getting mad because you don't like the major candidates without doing anything about it gets us all nowhere.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Oh so now someone has to promote candidates they agree with in order to be involved in grassroots organizing

    this is an anarchist space

    Why is it so hard for people to get that the problem is the system, that by promoting any candidate for any role is promoting the system itself? There will never be a candidate I agree with because the people who are empowered by the American constitution to dissolve the union aren't elected officials.

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

    "I tried nothing and it didn't work" isn't a strategy that works for me.

    I'm not going to sit on my butt and complain into the void. I will do everything I can to get to where I want the world to where I hope it can go.

    Organizing is not in conflict with anarchism.

    Pretending the system doesn't exist or that not participating in any way will change it is a fool's errand.

    Feel free to find another way to participate, but trying to push others to not do what they can, to me, is (at best) an effort to continue the downward trend.

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

    This is absurd. Electoral organizing isn't the only kind of organizing. Organizing outside of electoral campaigns is not doing nothing. Telling people the only way to organize or do anything to influence politics is through election campaigns is absolutely in conflict with anarchism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (2 children)

    I'm mad that you chuckle fucks keep riding the vote harder while continuing to give your support to candidates neither of us, allegedly, want instead of letting those candidates just lose because they literally suck.

    What would that accomplish? Sincerely, no one has been able to explain to me how the slightly-less-bad candidate losing provides any benefit whatsoever.

    It's not like the other mainstream candidate doesn't also suck, and moreso in fact.

    It's not like if enough people sit out the election it triggers some secret clause written into the Constitution in invisible magic ink. One of the candidates that suck still wins.

    I'm genuinely curious, what is supposed to happen if we let them lose? Who does that help besides the slightly shittier candidate?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    I've read through like this entire comment section, and most of your comments specifically, and I haven't seen it. Care to link or quote the comment where you answer this question? I can't find it

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    What? You can't be done doing something you never started doing. You keep saying that your strategy will work, but haven't said how, or given an example of it working, or really provide any kind of evidence or reasoning except repeatedly insisting.

    It really seems like you're the confused one here, mouthing talking points and your personal fears. I already told you my question and you're just deflecting and trying to shift the burden onto me, which makes zero sense since you're making a frankly wild and counter-intuitive claim. Based on the ratios, it seems like most people are in the same boat as me in having no idea how what you're proposing is actually supposed to work.

    I'm not really interested in a schoolteacher role-play with someone so insistent that they're right and everyone else is wrong with zero evidence or justification, especially when you go on to denigrate and belittle people for asking you to show your work.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 18 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    You are confusing individual action to limit further harm with a candidate's strategy to win votes. They are not the same thing. No one is saying "we want apathetic do-nothings to win" they're saying "I'd rather not have the villians win, if possible"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -14 points 2 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    I wasn't the person you replied to here, but I think we are talking about Palpatine vs Team Rocket here.

    I'd vote for Team Rocket over Palpatine any day of the week.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -11 points 2 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    I don't believe I said that at any point, and I'd encourage you to not try and put words in my mouth.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 18 points 2 months ago (14 children)

    I think you grossly underestimate my understanding.

    No, my answer does not change. If you take the time to read it rather than blindly respond to me recommending to vote anyway, you may discover why.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [+] -22 points 2 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (14 children)
  • [–] 18 points 2 months ago (13 children)

    Yes.

    It is. And I consider it foolish to pretend otherwise.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [+] -17 points 2 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (13 children)
  • [–] 20 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    No, you clearly did not understand.

    "Not voting" is a message of apathy, not discontent.

    "Not voting" is being OK with things as they are.

    "Not voting" is not taking every avenue possible.

    "Not voting" is nothing more than giving up.

    You should try reading my comment again.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -12 points 2 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

    false. I vote every election, I dont vote for everything on the ballot, sometime i leave the ballot empty. two very different things

    So... You didn't "not vote". Cool. What I said. Awesome.

    I think there is some fundamental confusion here that I can't go into your brain and point to.

    spend some time there and understand that there are many people willing to show up for the right candidate but wont show up for the shitshow that is the dem party currently.

    There are many things on a ballot, and many different dems. There are members of the DSA running under the dem ticket. There are members of the WFP running under the dem ticket.

    I will apologize only slightly for the caps here - NOT VOTING SENDS A MESSAGE THAT YOU ARE OK WITH ANY OUTCOME. Whether you want that to be the message or not is inconsequential. If you want to do something about the candidates, DO IT MORE THAN A MONTH AND CHANGE BEFORE AN ELECTION.

    If thats a message you are OK with, go for it.

    I'm not.

    Edit: mobile typo.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)
  • [–] 16 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Thats your intention. That isn't the message.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    No, please stop and think.

    Already did, but sure.

    I'm telling you that you cannot infer what you think your inferring from people who didnt vote.

    I'm not the one who will be doing the inferring. This should be the first thing you try to understand before trying to get me to pretend what you're suggesting is going to make sense (PS: It doesn't).

    The ones who will be doing the inferring are the political strategists. The ones who tell politicians, who tell the DNC and RNC the best strategy for what they want.

    You know that good ol' meme about the overton window? Want to know how it keeps cranking to the right?

    "Leftists aren't voting. To get voters, you'll need to shift right."

    This comes from polling information, from voting records, etc. Not voting is a great way to keep cranking that window to the right.

    They aren't going to bother trying to capture the people not voting.

    This is shown further with systems that allow someone like Mamdani to succeed. They are already working on one approach to capture votes, so they try to prevent situations that will require a strategy change.

    You can obviously do whatever you'd like, I'm encouraging people to vote. I sure as anything won't tell people to not vote and continue decades of the same message, get the same results, and then be mad about those results.

    I also know that if you want to make a difference in who is on the ballot, that doesn't happen after the ballots are set. That was months ago. I put my efforts in to push the people I wanted to then. Some of them are on the ballot, maybe I helped with it, maybe I should have done more, idk. But I did what I could and there are some progressive candidates locally that I wanted that hopefully will get in.

    And if you want to change who is on the ballot too, you should also put in efforts a lot earlier than a month and change before. The deadline has already passed just about everywhere, including last-minute petitions for a vacancy.

    Vote by mail ballots are being prepped (I do not recommend voting by mail, use a drop box).

    Early voting is single digit weeks away.

    The time to complain about who is on the ballot has long since passed.

    Now take a moment and realize that if people didnt complain then, and then don't vote now, what message comes across?

    Not the one you're claiming IMO.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-2 replies)
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    Lol, then walk away bro. All I see if you here struggling to prove yourself right.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (6 children)
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    You're glad we're at war with Iran? You're glad ICE is murdering citizens and disappearing non citizens with impunity? You are 14

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    "I'm grateful people are dying, children are being murdered, and families are being torn apart because I feel like some people realized Trump does bad things" is a pretty shit take IMO.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago* (2 children)

    The scale is quite a bit different, as are many of the actions taken. Let's not ignore reality.

    If there were no actual difference you wouldn't care if Harris lost.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [+] 46 points 2 months ago (7 children)
  • [+] -35 points 2 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (7 children)
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Well, if you're not gonna express your political opinions in any relevant way, kinda sounds like we shouldn't listen to ya at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    this thread has never been about me

    If your shitty candidate is more electable than mine then you dont need my vote. if they’re not, then your candidate better have something i support and not things you imagine i should support. heads up libs gavin/peter/etc are not on my 2028 card.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    If enough people don't believe in either party, real revolution becomes a possibility.

    And most of us won't live through that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 24 points 2 months ago

    They aren't even threatening to imprison Trump or the nazi party for their crimes anymore. They aren't using their power to inspect ICE facilities or making a coordinated, public effort to document all the crimes. There are over 250 Dem reps in Washington and most of them are silent, taking the extended leave the nazi party granted; occasionally virtue signaling on the nazi xitter platform; settling into the kleptocracy and taking part in the corruption, the same as the Dem majority always has.

  • source
  • [–] 29 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Eh, they did convict him of dozens of felonies, though. Didn't matter. The supposedly tough on crime party elected a felon.

    The people actively making the world a worse place to live in for everyone are the ones who benefit by people not voting out of protest. They aren't going to stop if Americans sit by and leave them in power, so wouldn't the better option be to vote out the jokers who are in and make the powers that be bribe new politicians? At least make them work.

    If left in power, the ones not getting voted out will mistake complacency for capitulation and consent and both for support of what they are doing. And, they won't be entirely wrong if the people don't do what's in their power and within the law to do.

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

    Voting has a relatively low individual cost even if the power from the wealthy remains intact. Americans can slow down the decline of liberal democracy by making political races more expensive. In the end, voting is like throwing a chair in front of Michael Myers. He is still going to stab you, but you can slow him down. Voting against incumbents is a civic duty.

    In the meantime, take care of those around you. Create some horizontal power by building community. Maybe get some cardio, growing and preparing food, securing water, outdoor skills and marksmanship.

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

    You know what the definition of insanity is right?

    Yes:

    "unsoundness of mind or lack of the ability to understand that prevents someone from having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular relationship, status, or transaction or that releases someone from criminal or civil responsibility"

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

    No, it is doing something over and over expecting a different result (according to the late great psychologist Alfred Einstein MD who didn't even say that).

    That's interesting too though because it's the definition of a factoid, which is an erroneous statement presented as fact because of broad repetition.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 28 points 2 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago

    Like dems had power under Biden, no changes made

    Eh, not really. Kinda for the first 2 years, but that included people like Manchin, Sinema, Golden from Maine (the only one to vote against the Floyd Justice in Policing Act and the Covid19 stimulus), along with Gottheimer, Schrader, Costa, Case, Murphy, Rice, Vela, Bordeaux, and Cueller who were the most right leaning of the bunch in the house, pretty much all members of the shitheels known as the Blue Dog Coalition.

    That last group is why the tax hikes for the wealthy and capital gains increases didn't go through. Along with a lot of the infrastructure bill getting yoinked and drug pricing reform bill getting reduced down.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago

    "Change takes time” ok why can trump do change overnight?

    Because Republican voters actually vote, and that means Republicans have actual numbers in both houses of Congress. Also crimes, but mostly controlling Congress since Republicans actually vote.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›