OptionalExtremely Normal
Stefan_S_from_HI’m wondering what aunt Sophie would say to this. 😢
explodicleThe right: these extremists decide elections so we’ll make it our whole platform again
The left: these extremists decide elections so we’ll blame them again
nullBoth sides onviously aren’t the same, one is more evil than the other. But they are both evil.
Obama has the blood of tens of thousands of innocent civilians on his hands, shame on anyone helping him wash.
Nobody thinks that.
Some of them think that it would have eventually reached this point anyway, if not under this republican administration, then the next one. And there’s a good case for that.
Others think you can’t sign on to far worse atrocities that just happen to be perpetrated elsewhere in the world, no matter what, because you are then personally complicit. Also a valid viewpoint.
The performative cruelty that this administration is practicing is genuinely a new low, it’s true. But the burden of doing something about it was and is on people with institutional power, not random ordinary people. The democrats could easily have won the election and they chose not to, and after the trump team, they are the ones to blame next.
The people that voted for Trump are first to blame. People that didn’t vote are second. It’s that simple. There are reasons why a person may have decided not to vote, but none of them change that fact that not voting was effectively a vote for Trump. I view non voters a small step above Trump voters. They at least have the same level of intelligence and critical thinking skills as one another.
not voting was effectively a vote for Trump
That’s totally fallacious. Not voting is not voting. The only way to arrive at that conclusion is that you think that one specific party is by default entitled to votes, no matter what they do, which is wrong. Politicians have to earn votes. They chose a platform which was not popular and so they lost. And they did that to protect specific interests.
I do get being upset at people who are nominally on your side but decided not to vote. It’s understandable. But in no way are they anywhere near as much to blame as the people who had a billion dollar marketing budget for their political campaign and decided “fuck what the people want”.
No it’s fact. Not voting supports the less good candidate 100% of the time in FPtP.
And yes, non voters are more responsible for this than the DNC sending a shit message. If non voters and third party voted Kamala, we wouldn’t have a dictator in the White house right now. The DNC didn’t put him there, voters for Trump and non voters did.
No it’s fact. Not voting supports the less good candidate 100% of the time in FPtP.
What are you talking about? It’s pretty rich to go on about critical thinking and then come out with this. Someone who didn’t vote could have equally been someone who didn’t vote for trump. You mean “someone who was going to vote for the democrats but then didn’t”.
The DNC purposefully threw the election. They are the ones with agency here. Each non voter might have gotten them 0.00001% closer to winning. They could have gotten themselves 100% closer.
This is a matter of statistics. Statistically, what I’m saying is a fact. You don’t have to like it, but voters and non voters decided the election, not the DNC. The DNC sucks, but they didn’t cast votes for Trump and didn’t sit out the election. They carry blame for dissuading voters, but it’s still all comes back to those voters. The DNC could have said probably anything, and it shouldn’t have mattered because it was still Kamala v Trump. Anyone that didn’t vote because of the words of a bunch of old fools when the candidates were right there to see, is an idiot.
and didn’t sit out the election
Wrong. They made a deliberate choice to pursue a platform that would lose them the election because they care more about killing children overseas than they care about not killing children at home. That’s what’s a fact.
It doesn’t matter what they said or pushed for. There were two known commodities, Kamala and Trump, one of them was going to win. Everyone knew what Trump would do. Whether Kamala would have done anything to improve the situation overseas is an unknown, but I guarantee there was a better chance of positive change had she won.
Anyone that based their voting off of the DNC instead of their own eyes, again, is an idiot.
Just so you know, you’re replying to .ml there. I mean, I agree, but reasoned discussion isn’t going to win out with the leftist leftists that ever lefted.
Do theird party voters come in between those two options or after “didn’t vote”
Seriously, it’s* all* true. It is the fault of Trump Voters, the DNC, 3rd party voters, and non-voters.
Hell, I’ll go one further and say those who do nothing but vote for the most progressive Dem in the primary and then vote for the Dem no matter who it is AND that is all they have ever done to address how terrible the Dem party is, also share in the blame.
You don’t find fault with that, or place responsibility on them?
Did so
No, this is what the democratic party would still rather have than sending one less bomb to Israel.
HanrahanYeah, we did, and the people who purposely threw the election rather than compromise one bit with what the people wanted are responsible.
agamemnonymousAnd yet we are the ones to suffer the consequences. Who cares who’s “responsible”? What matters is who is affected.
Because if you want anything to change, the pressure has got to be applied in the right direction. If people just keep blaming their neighbours, of course no politician will ever feel like they have to do anything to improve things.
If you want anything to change, you need to take effective actions. The consequence politicians face by taking ineffective actions is maybe not winning their race. The consequence our neighbors face by taking ineffective actions is the erosion of their civil rights.
If you actually want to pressure politicians, you do it by contacting them directly to inform them of their failings, they’re not just going to magically know why you didn’t vote or vote third party.
Protest voting doesn’t apply the pressure you think it does.
If you actually want to pressure politicians, you do it by contacting them directly to inform them of their failings
Sure, that’s a thing you should do
they’re not just going to magically know why you didn’t vote or vote third party
They actually expend substantial effort and sums of money to find this out, there’s nothing magical about it.
Protest voting doesn’t apply the pressure you think it does.
On the other hand, voting for them anyway if they do something absolutely abhorrent and beyond any kind of humanity tells them they can get away with anything.
They actually expend substantial effort and sums of money to find this out
And yet here we are, so clearly they’re either drawing the wrong conclusions or they just don’t care. Either way, it’s not an effective strategy.
voting for them anyway if they do something absolutely abhorrent and beyond any kind of humanity tells them they can get away with anything and is just a race to the bottom.
Elections don’t care about nominal votes, they only care about margins. Candidates don’t get any extra powers if they win by 1 vote or 1 million. The race is taking place with or without you. You can help the ones moving slower, or resign yourself and your neighbors to the ones moving faster. But protest voting doesn’t stop the race.
Write your representatives, protest, build dual power, organize your community, engage in direct action, run for local office; these are all productive strategies. Vote for ideal candidates in primaries. But in the actual election, vote strategically against the most abhorrent and least humane candidate, or you’re liable to get them.
But in the actual election, vote strategically against the most abhorrent and least humane candidate, or you’re liable to get them.
I understand the appeal of this idea. It makes sense. But bear with me for a minute. Imagine a world where the democratic party really was as bad as the republican party, except they would give one grain of rice more to one prisoner in the concentration camp. Would you vote for that party? Do you have a line at all beyond which you wouldn’t vote for someone?
Sure, every grain of rice helps. If polling indicates that they are the only two parties with a chance of winning, voting for anyone else serves no purpose.
Obviously this would highlight the need to take actions outside voting, but what’s the point of wasting a vote doing nothing, even if all you get is a single grain of rice?
Alright, fair enough I guess. I used to think this way too, but I changed my mind about it. I don’t think that voting is actually value neutral, but rather affirmative consent for what the people you vote for then go on to do. There are practical aspects to it - I think it sucks the energy out of taking other actions outside of voting, and gives the winner of the election legitimacy in the eyes of normal people who are kind of checked out - but beyond that I think it morally ties you to the program of the party you voted for. I don’t think someone has to be perfect to be able to vote for them, but there is a line beyond which it is too far. After that, the only thing left to do is to take actions outside voting and not get distracted by the circus.
I disagree. I don’t think it really sucks any energy out of anything else at all, it’s one or two hours every couple years. And I don’t think the handful of people who would otherwise not vote would shift the perception of normal people.
Not do I think strategic voting morally ties you to anything. It’s a harm reduction action. You didn’t have to get distracted by the circus, and nothing stops you from taking actions outside voting.
JännätBut hey, at least they didn’t get Kamala Harris, who would somehow been worse than literal fascism
ByteJunkWhat the actual fuck. This is straight from Anne Frank’s diary, just change their coats.
The D Quuuuuillit did. this tweet is about a month old
- ice tailing gig worker delivery drivers: amicacenter.org/…/ice-targets-app-delivery-driver…
- ice protestors tailing ice agents tailing anti-ice protestors (frequently engaged in deliveries, though these became entirely seperate roles after it was realized ice was running everyone’s plates): apnews.com/…/protests-activists-minnesota-immigra…
unfortunately i’m having a touch of trouble finding the articles that documented what the protestors were responding to, so i’ll get why you would think this saw no coverage. maaan i cannot stand this moratorium on info about ice operations. this is stuff i’ve been following closely so i’ll try to save a link if i find something better
GreatWhiteBuffalo41Too bad our government was just like, we’ll pardon your war crimes and forget you’re a Nazi if you’re good at science and can help us do science things better than other countries!