It's necessary to hold two truths: liberalism always leads to fascism and accelerationism does not prevent fascism. So one should both delay the inevitability of fascism by participating in liberal democracy and do everything possible to make liberal democracy unnecessary as quickly as possible before the collapse.
The thing that can be especially hard for some people to understand is that not everyone experiences fascism at the same time. It's not a switch. It's a decline. Some people have been expecting fascism for decades or generations now. So people will be at different places in terms of interacting with the system. We are all trying to survive. We need as much time as possible to build a resistence movement, but, at the same time, no matter what compromises we get via electoralism those can be destroyed instantly if we only rely on the state to protect them.
When the state doesn't work for enough people anymore, it collapses into fascism. It always does. Unless it collapses to foreign forces of course.
Accelerationism at this point is merely an argument for liberals to convince people who are not fascists to support their liberalism as a lesser danger.
It won't work. Liberalism will have to do something, not the people who don't believe the bullshit anymore. And interestingly, throughout history, liberals always choose fascism over anything else that would remove them some power.
So don't pretend it's up to the leftists to choose. You, the liberals, did this to the world. Time to open your eyes.
Liberalism is responsible for this fascist doom, not the left. That's not only true for the US. That's also true for all of Europe. Liberals vanquished the left. Now is the time to fight fascism. That's what you earned. The left will fight. Will the liberals do it?
Accelerationism at this point is merely an argument for liberals to convince people who are not fascists to support their liberalism as a lesser danger.
You make me mad. You make me mad because you've deluded yourself into believing fatalistic death cult BS, willing to drag other people down with you. Liberals might be deluded and wrong, but you're honestly worse. Liberals are more open minded than you, more hopeful than you, and believe in building a popular coalition. I don't care if you recognize capitalism is bad, you're not helping anyone do anything about it.
"Eat shit and die" is what I'm hearing from your empty justifications for inaction. I've barely started living my life, and you're saying "it just needs to end. Sorry. Nothing to be done." I like my life, unlike you apparently, so I'm going to reject your ideas emphatically.
Fuck your opinion. Just like fascist dribble, it deserves no respect.
You don't understand. I did not deluded myself to anything. I abandoned a system that's working against so many people.
The question is not for the left whether to support liberals or fascists. The question is for liberals whether to support socialism or fascism. It's the people in power who get to choose. And liberals are in power for so many decades that they have no excuse for the shit we're in now.
The system is broken, fucked, dysfunction, shitty, and unacceptable. That doesn't change the fact that it's better than openly genocidal fascism. I might die under Democrats; I will die under Republicans.
We inherently lack freedom of choice on most things. You don't choose the class of your parents. You don't choose your gender, sex, attraction, neurotypicality, ethnicity, race, culture, or access to learning as a child. You have to play the cards you're given.
In a purely descriptive sense, Republican control will result in every bad thing that would happen under Democrats, plus all the promises they're making about LGBTQ genocide, absurd deregulation, removal of every social program, invading Mexico, targeted prosecution of political threats, and mandatory fascist propaganda in schools. Those are just some of consequences id Republicans win.
The cost of the 2nd amendment is thousands of deaths from guns every year that wouldn't have happened without it. 2nd amendment advocates constantly ignore that consequence. If you try to show it to them, they mentally cannot perceive it. They ignore the costs and live in the delusion that they get a free lunch. A lot of conservative logic hinges on ignoring "externalities," that they don't personally have to deal with. They love talking about basic economics, but their supposed worldview cannot accept it.
Even the cynical conservatives are often living a delusion. They recognize the direct pain they cause to poor people, but they fail to recognize the long term cost of their behavior. Encouraging global fascism has the adorable effect of increasing the risk of global conflict. Just as most liberals ignored the fascism that capitalism leads to, fascists ignore the serious war that nationalism leads to.
Modern war between nations cannot be won by the participants. Liberals aren't much better on this front, nor are many socialists for that matter. The reality is that we need deescalation or everyone might lose. We don't just need to not accelerate, we need to slam on the breaks. The odds are stacked against success, but fueling the fire is joining the global death cult that fascists and liberals are unwittingly leading.
In short, you're thinking small like humans are designed to do. Humans are dangerous, so not trying to exploit them isn't just morally right, but prudent.
I'm not fueling any fire. It's already burning, and voting for liberals is what fuels the fire.
You're talking about US politics. Isn't the situation dire already? Republican already are indirectly supporting Russian war, fomenting civil war, and destroying people rights. Are you telling me that media are overstating all of this? That the situation is fine actually and it can go like this for many more years yet?
How did it got better with Biden in 3 and a half year?
It would have been worst is always the predicament of the liberals. Everything else is worse. There is no alternative. But it's a dead end. And we're on the wall already.
Supporting the liberals is fighting those who want to make a better world. It's supporting fascism.
And to get back to the subject : not voting is a right, and it is the only vote that doesn't support fascism.
Yes. I am desperate to live. That's a virtue, not a vice.
At the end of the day, you just have an inaccurate view of reality. You're motivated by anger to think prolonging liberalism isn't worth it because it's a shit worldview that should be destroyed. I agree that it sucks and should be replaced, but I recognize that empowering fascism has no real upside. It doesn't matter what liberalism "deserves," as blame is only useful in guiding us to real justice. Mechanically, what is the best strategy for minimizing harm and maximizing well being?
You just can't accept the possibility that I agree about liberals & liberalism empowering fascism. You talk about blame and accountability, assuming those concepts are anything but instrumental in accomplishing real justice.
Real justice is making things as good as you can in the future, & being just is the practice of trying your best to do so with the information you have. Punishment for punishment's sake is a fools errand.
I don't give a flying fuck about making liberals suffer. I want what's best for me and others. Not voting won't make things better than if I vote Dem, the same as I did in 2020. That's the bottom line.
You're not making things better. You're trying for things to not be too much worse.
When the choices are both bad, I don't want to be an accomplice to any of them. I don't want to validate any of them. Because they're both bad. There just happen to be one worse than the other. But it'll happen eventually anyway regardless of your choice in this election.
You're not making things better. You're trying for things to not be too much worse.
You say this like it isn't my point. You're not invalidating shit. It can easily be argued that not voting makes you the accomplice of whoever wins the election. You chose not to vote, so you're fine with whoever wins. If Biden wins, you're responsible. If Trump wins, you're responsible. You could have weighted in on how much worse things should get, but I guess it's up to liberals and fascists.
You cannot get off the boat. You have to deal with it as much as everyone else. Not voting will not make you or other leftists better off, especially because there is no good plan or strategy on how to prepare for this mythical 2nd round. Like I said, death cult larper shit.
That would make it a parody of democracy like China or Russia.
If I lived in China or Russia, I would still vote if I could. I'd have to avoid psyop candidates for my own safety, but I'd definitely exert what little will I had to pick the lesser evils.
Why? Even with those shit elections, the are some issues on the ballot. I couldn't choose any anti authoritarian candidates, but I could vote for someone who'd be better on more contested issues. Maybe I could choose a candidate that follows science more, or is less aggressive about invading Taiwan. That last one is a big deal, as war is way worse than most people think. It's honestly hard to have net gains out of wars for the ones fighting.
In local elections, you can build up support for a slightly better narrative; a narrative that won't directly question the state, but make it suck less. States suck, but you HAVE to exist in them until they actually collapse. You can undermine them, but only if you have a plan. That strategy must be thought out, organized, and prepared for, just like how the theocratic fascists have done it. They built to the movement that exists now, convincing Christians to abandon liberalism in any form. They did this by WINNING elections, not by boycotting them.
If anything, it could be argued that a collapse of liberalism under Biden would be better for revolutionaries than a fascist takeover that eventually collapses. That fascist state will crush all leftist organizing in ways that liberals wouldn't even think of. They will force all Marxist discussions underground and do frequent raids of the tunnels. That doesn't sound like breeding ground for leftism to me.
If a liberal state collapses, people will be unenthusiastic about liberalism. If a fascist state that used to be liberal collapses, liberals can more easily argue that we need to return to liberalism. The only way your perspective makes sense is if you assume liberalism can't collapse without turning to fascism. I doubt that's backed up by history. Liberal states might turn authoritarian in their final moments, but that isn't really like the populist fascism of Trump.
Liberals are already fighting leftists. With more subtle ways than fascists are doing, but they are fighting hard.
In France the liberals spent months to convince people that the left was more dangerous than the fascists. They are litteraly fighting the left with the police. Forbidding protests and breaking them with heavy police forces. They are cooperating with the fascists, making laws with them against immigration and workers.
Basically the liberals are turning fascist light in order to fight the left. It's the most violent, the most radical Liberal government the Vth Republic had. Some conservative are also talking about giving the president a third run eventhough that's forbidden by the constitution.
The liberals don't fight fascism. They never did and they will never do it. They ally with them when they feel threatened. They join them when they feel there's an opportunity to do it.
It's been 40 years of this game in France. Liberals pretend to be left. When in power, they betray and do hard liberalism instead. And they blame all the problems on a lack of liberalism, and on immigration. Exactly like the fascists. So naturally people go to the far right.
What's left is two nuances of fascism.
The left is fighting still though. The fight is to be done on the left first sadly, because so many people are trying to win the race, believing that the liberals in power are not so bad in the meantime.
I'd rather have a fascist leader so that the liberals may wake up while the State is still robust enough to not turn this into a disaster. Because the longer we wait, the more the liberals will dismantle everything. And when there's no barrier, no counterpower, and they already started political repression, then the fascists will only have to do the same, but better.
Maybe that's why you're so scared btw. Maybe your country already lost too many of its defenses against fascism. If it is the case, you're doomed. It's already too late. You're fighting to save a sinking ship.
I'm not gonna vote in your country, but I will do everything I can for mine to not turn into a sinking ship. And it means not supporting the people who are actively sabotaging it.
Again, all I hear is "sorry, accept your death so the leftists from non minoritized groups can bring about rapture." It's always sad to see cultists like you. You care more about protecting your identity than protecting your life, ignoring easily proven truths to prevent being wrong.
We don't agree on facts, making reasoning impossible. I think that fascism is far worse than liberalism, while you think they're comparable challenges. I see no benefits for fascism, you think it's an opportunity.
"Cut a liberal, a fascists bleeds," yet liberals and leftists died side by side in the good fight, WWII, and fights against fascist governments in the global south. Many other liberals and leftists stood by the sidelines as well.
"Imperialism is the highest form of capitalism," yet the Cold War was, in practical terms, a struggle between empires with blue and red excuses.
"The US has no left wing party and is far right by global standards," yet most parliamentary systems see leftists in power when they form coalitions with the more left leaning liberals. More often than leftists, liberals or even the far right are able to form majority coalitions by themselves. The US is also to the left of most countries, not because it isn't a corrupt plutocracy, but because most other countries are more dysfunctional liberal democracies, or fascist theocracies already.
Every county followed a similar strategy of increasing neoliberalism during the last 50 years, until every country started abandoning free trade in favor of nationalist policies following the financial crisis. Neoliberalism is on a downturn, yet many leftists haven't realized it because they equate it with capitalism. Capitalism has continued its steady erosion of material conditions, but not because of neoliberalism. The Marxist lens is not designed with nationalism in mind. It's a big fucking deal as fascism grows, and y'all don't appreciate it.
I don't call myself a socialist even though I want the closest thing to communism we can achieve. I don't call myself a liberal even though I see many constructs like rights, free expression, or democratic representation as useful. I will be honest with what I believe, but I am wary of any political identity. Identity is not ideology. It can easily overtake principles and focus movements towards existence rather than achievements.
You're distorting my words. So either you don't understand, you didn't read, or you don't care.
I'm not equating liberalism and fascism. They're not the same. What I'm saying is that liberalism leads to fascism. And thus, blaming leftists for not voting for liberals is dishonest.
The fault is not on the leftist. It is on the liberals. And voting liberals will not save you from fascism. It merely makes you an accomplice of the liberals, because they will claim your vote to support their policies.
Your whole argumentation is based on the fear of fascism. That's barely better than fascism that relies on the fear of immigrants.
Blame is an overrated concept. It only serves an instrumental purpose. It can help us make better predictions of how people will behave in the future, but it has no inherent value. Mechanically, liberal shittyness and their contributions to rising fascism means we can predict how much support they'll give us. It shows what matters to them and the calculus behind their actions.
Often they make their imprudent decisions because they have an inadequate understanding of the human ecosystem. They don't consider how the economic suffering caused by deregulation and policies that favor the rich are the system's biggest existential threat. Politicians worry about their political existence instead of the system's existence. When fascism is at the gates, preservation of the system matters more to their personal existence.
This is probably why you think leftists have a bargaining advantage, and they do. The left can allow liberalism to suffer, but they'll suffer with it. It's a game of chicken, a gamble, and not the only tool the left has. They could, and this might shock you, focus more on local politics and primary elections. They don't need to play chicken to get a leg up on liberals; they can win primaries and build leftist sentiment while doing so.
The DSA has 3 current members in congress, who represent ~2.25 million Americans. You might scoff at this small number in the grand scheme of things, but you also might not know how tiny their actual membership is. They have never had more than 100k active members. They've elected officials while being a similar size to lemmy, this tiny corner of the internet. And those are just current DSA congress members; there are 3 other former members in office because of DSA support.
Leftists often believe electoral politics are a waste of time, yet they're ignorant of how much it has affected their current movement. Obama's ACA might have sucked, but it made single payer a significant part of the conversation. With no ACA, Bernie wouldn't have basically won the 2016 primary, a presidential run that made socialism a far more popular idea in America. Current DSA Representatives have promoted leftist ideas and positions more than they've affected votes in congress. They're a handful of votes, yet they've provided a dissenting voice to liberal slop.
Most of the people who vote for DSA members are left leaning liberals; liberals who have played a greater role in promoting leftism than any proud anti-voter I've ever met in person. I'm not saying you need to join the DSA and volunteer for their candidates. Just spend a few hours of your year voting.
Even if you still don't vote, VOLUNTEER IN YOUR COMMUNITY FFS. Local politics, electoral or otherwise, are the backbone of every single successful movement. Provide services to those in need. Follow cops around with guns. Educate people about politics. Do the leg work to improve lives. That's what earns trust and support. Providing
Sorry, I forgot you weren't American. The point still stands. Vote and get involved in your country's government. Ally with the relative center in electoral politics; that's how it fundamentally works for leftists. Until the left is a majority, you will need to ally with liberals. The executive leader will always be a compromise with the center, even if they're from the left. That's why voting is only the starting point. Visible dissension alone is powerful, so make yourself hard to ignore.
I provided an in depth essay, but "vote Biden or else we're doomed" is still the bottom line. The jabs helped me determine how valuable the essay would be. If you were a full on troll, you'd have crashed the conversation when I showed disrespect. More importantly, it's fun to be sassy :)
In France there are two turns for the president election. The first turn usually has many parties, but because there are only two in the second turn, the first vote is often tactical. You vote for the one you prefer that you think has a chance at the second turn. This means there are a lot of negociations before the election between the parties, alliances and formation of large parties. The left is often divided, and thus often lose.
But there is a second election for the parliament. Unfortunately it's still a vote for one person over two turns, but it's regionalized, so depending on the demographics it can change.
So the situation is not as dire in France I'd say. The right is still liberal in France and not yet fully fascist. And even if we had a far right president, there would be another round for the parliament where the far right showed it's complete incompetency.
The problem today is that the liberals think they can play with the fire and get away with it. And that they are slowly turning fascist themselves. They must come back to talking with the left rather than with the far right.
So indeed we must talk to the liberals at some point, but in my opinion they must lose the power first to get back to reason, and they must do it before our democracy is too weak for it to be dangerous in the hands of the far right.
If what you're telling me is right, the fight to save the US was lost like 20 years ago. Now you're left scooping the flood. The real problem is that the republican party is rotten to the core, that money matters, and media are used for propaganda. Will any of this be worked on in the next term? I doubt it. So in 4 years will it be back to square 1?
Honestly, your system sounds very similar to many US states, including mine. We call them open primaries, and infuriating shit can happen. For our recent US Senate primary, this guy boosted a fascist nut who has no chance in this blue state, just so he didn't have to compete against another Democrat. Him and the other Democrat honestly aren't too different on policy, but him increasing fascist turnout in a statewide race probably impacted local races in a negative way.
One thing to remember about US states is that many are the size of countries. Our biggest state has nearly 2/3rds the population of France, beating out Poland and Canada in size. You can drive for 10 hours in one direction at highway speeds without leaving certain states. Our least populous state has a higher population than the smallest EU member. Alaska, the largest state by land area, is not only bigger than any EU member, it's 40% the size of the entire EU. States in America are comparable to counties in Europe, and the US itself is comparable to the entire EU.
California's governor, Gavin Newsom, is a closer comparison to Macron than Biden. Newsom is a slimy liberal that a ton of Democrats dislike, with Biden probably being more trustworthy than him.
When people complain about Biden, not only do they ignore that the president is the most dangerous person on earth, but they don't understand that he's been the most left wing president since Jimmy Carter from the late 70s. This isn't a good thing, as Carter himself was right wing compared to his party, especially on economic issues. We've had only neoliberal or fascist presidents for half a century, with Biden moving away from neoliberalism in many respects.
Biden was only preferable to the actual billionaires in the 2020 Democratic primary, yet he's been better than I expected. The left didn't turn out in that primary, and don't seem to understand that they missed their chance to pick a better president. Being against Biden this year is even worse than in 2020, as Trump is more dangerous now than back then, while Biden has been better in office than the left should have expected. It's a repeat of that election only the choice is more obvious, which is why it frustrates me that this is a conversation. I get why it is, but it's still ridiculous.
Another thing : my view is not doomerism. I merely stop to fight for the liberals. Chaos bring opportunities. Liberals are doing everything to keep a status that's rottening. They are actively supporting fascism to keep the status quo. I'm not sure if they're blinding themselves into believing that they can keep the fascism away, or if they are actively pushing for it willingly. But it's happening.
I'm not saying that all is lost and there's no hope. I'm saying that helping the liberals today is only helping the fascists tomorrow. Things will get worse. That's not doomerism, that's a hard fact. Something must be done now.
Sorry, but there aren't opportunities in chaos. That's some cringe edgelord larping. There are no opportunities gained in chaos, only death and suffering.
Honestly, your goofy accelerationism seems more like the cope of someone that's given up what they see as "the first game." You think you can come back in the second game and win a best of 3. Again, I'm sorry to disappoint, but there probably won't be a 2nd game for you unless you're incredibly lucky.
I'm not betting on a second chance. There's no benefit to not trying my hardest on game 1 if won't do much to improve my chances of making it to game 2. If your strategy is to hide, you're a privileged coward. Most people won't have that chance, and betting that you aren't most people is wistful thinking.
And what are you doing in this game 1 exactly to succeed? Voting for the lesser evil? Unless something is in the bag for the next term to radically change how it's going, it'll only get worse. I don't see how a liberal will radically change anything.
This battle is lost already. It was lost when Biden was made the candidate. Now it's time to prepare for the next battle. Because fighting this one will only make you weaker for the next one.
Fortunately, voting isn't that much of a burden relatively speaking. It can also be a springboard for popularizing leftist ideas and attitudes. There aren't significant downsides except leftist pride(which is less than worthless). I'll vote for that lesser evil AND prepare for a potential disaster because they aren't mutually exclusive you arrogant block of lead.
Because you don't see the downside doesn't mean there aren't. It's ironic that you talk about arrogance when you're so blind, disrespectful and comfident in your opinion.
"The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation."
Martin Luther King Jr., Letter from a Birmingham Jail
This is pretty straightforwardly an accelerationist tactic. It might not have been called that at the time, but strategically pushing crises over the tipping point, in order to take advantage of their fallout, wasn't invented by the boogaloo boys in 2017.
So, you're saying that anything aside from acquiescence is accelerationism?
I feel like if MLK Jr had been advocating Wallace for president that might make a little sense. Assembly against the government/institutions is well within the political sphere.
Martin Luther King Jr wasn't even opposed to the states monopoly on violence. He was just clever about using that violence against the State. Clever and pretty self sacrificial. There was routine bodily and financial harm performed by the state against African Americans. Manson was trying to promote a race war to overthrow society. MLK was trying to fix society.
Trying to switch the term Troglodyte with Luddite makes your comment even more ironic. The British government ultimately dispatched 12,000 troops to suppress Luddite activity, and as Lord Byron denounced "I have been in some of the most oppressed provinces of Turkey; but never, under the most despotic of infidel governments, did I behold such squalid wretchedness as I have seen since my return, in the very heart of a Christian country".
It isn't the technology, it's how it's used, and authoritarians are being much quicker on the uptake because of the iffiness of democratic infighting that has also been unable to topple, suppress, or even stop the power of authoritarian states from growing.
"The Difference Engine" is an alternate history novel where Byron became Prime Minister and Ada Lovelace got to have a working computer to work with, Written by B. Sterling and W. Gibson.
Authoritarianism is extremely vulnerable to natural disasters, ask Syria. Climate change will ultimately being about the collapse of all authoritarianism because there simply won't be enough excess to support hierarchy. The question is if we will be smart enough to being about that change before material conditions force it to happen.
I used to know a poli-sci researcher who was trying to take a big-data look at the success and failure of revolutions, taking in variables like "how many demonstrators rallied against the government?" "How many dissidents were disappeared by internal security forces?" and even things like "how many bullet holes are there on the buildings around the main protest venue in the capital?"
I asked him once if he'd discovered the secret to a successful revolution, and he just grimaced at me.
American here, asking genuinely: how was the American revolution unsuccessful? My understanding is that the goal was to make the British go away, and that they did accomplish that in the end. What am I missing?
The goal wasn't to make the British go away, the goal was to have representation and more than half of the people in the colonies weren't even for the revolution. This is why they dressed up as natives for the Boston tea party so they could blame that shit on the natives.
The support of independence wasn't much till Paul Revere demonized the Boston massacre into being much more villainous than it was.
The colonies kinda got what they want in revolution with the articles of confederation but with the rise of the federalists the US was created as a V2 of the British empire.
The "more villainous" part is odd to me, but the subjective claim that the federalists were just v2.0 of the British empire is strong "don't tread on me" libertarian vibes ngl
We can tell different stories of history and many even conflicting ones can be true, but they don't all have the same weight in their impact to the course of events.
The Boston Massacre was a real event. British soldiers fired into a crowd of hundreds, killing several. Maybe Paul Revere embellished it, but it's not made-up.
What's a little Third Reich here or Reign of Terror there between friends, eh? Besides , it's not like a little bit of anti-intellectual purging or nationwide famine isn't worth enduring to get to a better world for the people left afterwards!
re the reign of terror. Extremely bad yes but I think this quote by mark Twain highlights flaws in how we think about this stuff.
THERE were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.
Mark Twain, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court
They were trying to throw off a horrifically oppressive system that had been going on centuries. Defs killed too many innocents, defs had problems with paranoia. Also the lesser violence in the struggle between nobles and everyone else.
I love how people take the Soviet revolution as some sort of example of success, when what actually happened was that the original government collapsed because it was getting the shit kicked out of it by Germany, then a new government took over and got the shit kicked out it of by Germany before also collapsing, then the Bolsheviks strolled into literally empty government buildings and took over - against the judgement of most of the Bolsheviks who still thought the time wasn't right to take over. Hardly a replicable or generalizable sequence of events.
Socialism will never happen in the United States. It is antithetical to the entire format of the country. It'll take the US collapsing before the slightest glimmer of possibility happens. Not to mention that there is no organized group of socialists in the US.
Accelerationism is literally foreign propaganda, and has its roots in a few European leftists that had their views hijacked as a way of pushing radicalisation to status quo liberals.
The US is well past the point where radicalization is an unreasonable response. It's radicalization paired with stupidity that's a problem, and that's what we have with the accelerationists and MAGA.
It's literally nonsense, and the equivalent of Christian Zionism / eschatology in that it's a set of incredibly harmful, baseless beliefs that advocate for mass misery in the name of vague hope of an accelerated magical delivery of human kind to a new era of happiness and joy.
If you ask me, the point isn’t to not vote for Biden, but rather to show him that’s vote for him isn’t automatic just because the opponent is Trump. Maybe if Biden listened when a lot of people said he was too old and lot people said don’t give Israel weapons used to kill women and children he wouldn’t be in this predicament. It’s funny how the leftists in do the same thing they always do that only works for millionaires work and then get mad at the working class when they don’t vote for them.
Did voting for Biden stop Trump this last election? How many times are we supposed to vote Democrat against our own interests and better judgment until Trump is successfully stopped? What about when Trump stops being the face of fascism, an ideology and not a man, and the fascists prop up another candidate? Will it always be "neoliberalism or fascism" every election from here until fascism wins anyway because neoliberalism doesn't work for the majority of people either?
Did voting for Biden stop Trump this last election?
Um, yes? It didn't stop Trump from breathing, but it stopped him from being president this term. Even if it somehow eliminated Trump, there is always the next Trump. There is no point where we can stop fighting to preserve past victories, even as we fight for new ones.
How many times are we supposed to vote Democrat against our own interests
None. Voting Democrat is always in your interests. (At least until something major changes) Voting corrupt Democrats out in primaries is even moreso. It would be nice if we lived in a system that can support more than two parties, but we don't.
Will it always be "neoliberalism or fascism" every election
That's why we fight to take over the Democratic party. Every obstacle to defeating Democrats in primaries has a corresponding obstacle to winning a general with a third party candidate. Winning as a third party is both more difficult, and more risky.
I don't have much to respond to because I appreciate what you've said and even agree for the most part, however:
Voting Democrat is always in your interests.
The Democratic party is not some force of good, and their administrations and policies still harm the working class and other marginalized groups. They just manage to do less harm and placate us slightly more than their primary opponents.
Voting democrat is more in my interest than voting Republican, but not as much as having an ancom in office. It is not in my interest in general, as I will still be shooting myself in the foot because it's better than having someone else shove electrodes into my brain.
You may say that it's the effect of "corrupt dems," but that's a myopic understanding of the party and its motives. It is an ideologically driven party, it's just that that ideology is an uncomfortable truth: liberal capitalism. In service of that, it allows the input of marginalized groups, but will never allow us to gain full autonomy and control over our own lives as that would not serve capital.
I refuse to buy this narrative that any progress be made has to be made under the banner of a particular party/organization/group.
This "they'll win anyway" is some miserly nihilistic take - we've won against the Nazis before we'll win again.
"how many times are as supposed to vote to prevent the fascists from gaining power?"
Until you can no longer physically vote.
You are part of a society that still allows you to politically organise around your beliefs, so get involved in your local politics and help bring your vision of a better future to more people - change doesn't happen by itself.
Please do not project onto me when addressing my questions/comments. Just because I get frustrated with "vote blue no matter who" rhetoric online doesn't mean I cease existing offline; I do have a life irl where I have been occasionally known to engage in my community and political projects.
“how many times are as supposed to vote to prevent the fascists from gaining power?”
despite the quotation marks, that is not a question I asked. Please do not put words in my mouth
This “they’ll win anyway” is some miserly nihilistic take - we’ve won against the Nazis before we’ll win again.
I am not a nihilist, and, based on context, I don't think you meant that word anyway. Perhaps "defeatist"?
Paraphrasing me as saying "they'll win anyway" in regards to fascists (nazis or otherwise) strips what I said of important context: my point was that if the rhetoric stagnates in the choice of "neoliberalism or fascism" the fascists will eventually get a win for two reasons:
the status quo, neoliberalism, isn't working out for the majority of people, and historically whenever that happens, societies undergo major upheaval. If the public only ever knew two options prior to that revolution, they—as a mob, not a collection of rational individuals—will take the second
It frames the fight in such a way where the fascists "only have to be lucky once. You will have to be lucky always."
I didn't project beyond what conclusions your comment lead me to.
Please do not put words in my mouth
See, if I were to quote you directly I would have done it like this.
Instead I used quotes without the indent, to paraphrase you in a way that I thought both accurately condensed and focused what you wrote in a way that highlighted what it came across to me as a ridiculous question.
Given the threaded discussion structure where anyone can go back and see exactly what a person has written, the idea that I am somehow able to misrepresent you is a rather odd take.
Perhaps "defeatist"?
No.
Sounded more like existential nihilism to me.
Paraphrasing me as saying "they'll win anyway" in regards to fascists (nazis or otherwise) strips what I said of important context.
You literally wrote
until fascism wins anyway
But I did strip the context of neoliberalism because I answered it a sentence later by urging you to get involved to make the world you want.
There's nothing "lucky" about voting, anymore there's lucky in cleaning. You either clean or you'll live in filth. You either defend your rights or you have them eroded and taken away.
The Republicans were not always fascists and the Democrats were not always so neoliberal which means things can change if enough people get involved to change them.
Unions, local elections, political activism etc all matter.
You don't expect perfection, you get involved and you vote in the public transport analogy.
Yes. Exactly that. Our federal elections have been corrupt since the 1800s. The Republican effort to curtail the Democratic party and erect an autocratic state started in the 1960s (though there were earlier efforts in the 1920s and 1930s).
I get that it sucks that the US is not at all what we were promised it would be, but letting the Republican party destroy the Democratic party is only going to make things way, way worse for the majority of Americans. And civil war and its aftermath is going to take decades (if not over a century) to resolve.
The French Revolution started in 1789. The Third Republic was founded in 1870, between which the guillotines had to be rolled out several times, and Napoleon had to go to war with the rest of Europe. When the two-state system falls in the US, you can expect chaos and bloodshed for the rest of your life, including kids prostituting themselves on the streets for food (what was seen in post-Soviet eastern bloc states after the USSR fell in the early 1990s). It's going to be grisly for anyone who doesn't flee abroad, and for some who do.
As per Bertrand Russell, war doesn't decide who is right, only who is left. And this includes civil war.
I have no interest in motivating revolutionary efforts that will lead to disaster.
The truth of the matter, is we're flying blind when it comes to moving the progress of a society forward: The promise of politicial power is overwhelmingly tempting, like the One Ring. And like the Ring it also lies. Most revolutions that aren't suppressed are followed by a run of short-lived oppressive dictatorships.
Meet the new boss: Same as the old boss.
Let's not do that. The thing is, we dont know how. Our theorists like Marx, Smith and Kropotkin each had only a piece of the elephant, and we don't have enough historical data to show how to prevent those with power from consolidating it into rule by the owning class yet again. Democracies are often formed when everyone in the nation is related to the casualty of a recent war and they're just tired.
I've had fantasies about putting together an ironclad batch of constitutional clauses and guaranteed rights (a thing Napoleon did to rally the people to his imperial claim). But it's difficult to gather a cabal of legal experts, or even create a webclient by which to crowdsource it. I can't even promise that would work.
I can't say I know what the solutions are, but those seeking rallying speeches typically get themselves slaughtered in a doomed revolutionary effort. Suicides and rampage killings continue to rise.
Putting your energy into a mutual aid effort in your neighborhood will make real but local differences. But it takes multiple exponents of such an effort to bring about revolution. Civil war is quicker, easier, more seductive.
That’s the problem, though, isn’t it? Biden is expecting people to vote for him just because he’s not Trump. And the fact of the matter is, if the goal was to defeat Trump, Biden wouldn’t run. So why is it selfish not to vote for Biden, but not selfish for Biden not to run and let another candidate with a much better chance of defeating Trump run on the ballot?
How is that an argument to not vote against Trump?
This is your argument, tell me if I"m wrong: "I will not vote against Trump because Biden acted selfishly."
To point out the obvious, nobody prevented anyone else from running for president. Several people did and Biden has beaten them all. How can you expect someone to beat Trump who can't beat Biden?
First of all, I never said I wouldn’t vote for Biden. Second, I don’t want Donald Trump either and we have a better chance of not getting him without Biden. So yes, it is selfish of Biden to make the move that increases our chances of Trump. And telling everyone you have to vote Biden when they have seen his actions lead to death and destruction of their families and families’ homes in Palestine isn’t going to work. It’s not Dems vs. Republicans, it’s rich vs. working class. And Biden and Trump only care about the rich.
It’s funny how the leftists in do the same thing they always do that only works for millionaires work and then get mad at the working class when they don’t vote for them.
Will you please phrase this another way? For some reason I am unable to parse it.
What I mean is, it’s funny how Leftists support millionaires/billionaires and fuck over the working class and then are surprised that people don’t like it. If we had a progressive candidate people would be happier, even if they don’t know it yet. Bernie Sanders tried that and was defeated when the Dems made sure Hillary won despite everyone saying they wouldn’t vote for her. It’s time to stop repeating the mistakes of the past.
The Democrats chose Biden in 2019, 2020. The thing is, the Democratic party is, itself, right wing. Neoliberalism is pretty far right, it's just not crazypants far right than the Republican party.
If you're EU centrist, you don't have a voice in Washington. Heck, the Democratic party is looking for ways to oust Occasio-Cortez and Sanders, no matter how popular their positions might be.
Don't vote for Biden, rather vote against the GOP. Any vote for a Republican is a vote to end democracy and let them rule as autocrats. Any vote against the Republican party (specifically your one vote for the next popular guy -- that is, the Democrat) is a vote to hold onto the US' meager democratic features.
If you're wanting to make a statement, your vote for officials is not where to make it, no matter how fervent your feelings about it. Elections are where you get to choose between King Log and King Heron. (And Heron will eat all the frogs.) Make your grievances known through other activism.
Engage in mutual aid now, so that you don't have to engage in sabotage and resistance against an overwhelming foe later.
If you want to make a point your vote in the only place to do it. Sure you can march in the streets for party change, but if you are going to vote for the person anyways you won’t be taken seriously. The point of all this is to show Dems that a Biden vote isn’t guaranteed like they think it is.
As I said, your vote isn't for the Democrats, it's against the Republicans.
The first amendment right to petition our representatives for the redress of grievances is a right with no teeth. Our representatives cannot listen and retain their career. This is an example of regulatory capture and government failure.
But activism is not just about sending messages to officials, rather it's about resisting, whether causing inconvenience through civil disobedience to organizing to outright sabotage (such as blowing up oil pipelines ). If you cant participate in civil action yourself, support those who do. Materially, if possible, but even thank you letters and cookies can help.
The US is dying. But we can hang on until the GOP dies first, or we can let them take over and burn out in a blaze of facism and war, in which case you can be sure Palestine will be razed to the ground.
In the meantime, the Biden administration is arranging for air drops and trying to secure an armistice, no matter what a dick Biden is, the White House seems aware the clime has change regarding universal tolerance of the Palestinian holocaust.
I agree! But it is the state of the federal government in the US. Then again, at the point they included the Electoral College and the 3/5s clause in the Constitution, the democracy of the US was made in bad faith anyway, at least it was founded as a means by which aristocracy ruled without a permanent king.
But any election system that uses first-past-the-post voting is going to ultimately fail as a democracy, since they always reduce to two party systems. One-person-one-vote means you'll always be voting against the worst evil by voting for the next guy, and it is an indictment of the US that we've not been able to get any election reform through. At least not in federal elections. Some states have made a little bit of progress.
It's also telling that SCOTUS is able to veto anything or even legislate from the bench when a group controls a majority of the judges, such as the Federalist Society. Yes, the US system sucks, which is why we're stuck surviving it, rather than striving to change it for the better.
The point is to vote for him but also maybe not vote for him?
Doesn't seem like that's much of a point to me.
The US is dabbling with fascism from many different angles. GOP is all about US fascism. The Tankies support foreign fascism that's in opposition to the US. Rightwing extremists say Biden is far left. Tankies say Biden is right wing.
Are you so upset over Gaza that you want the same thing to happen to US cities? This is a possible outcome of allowing authoritarians to run your country.
Am I upset that women and children are being murdered? Yes. I guess you’re ssying I’m supposed to be fine with that. Sorry, I can’t be blind to atrocities just because they aren’t happening in my backyard. Seems like you are. You know that you can be against Trump AND murder, right?
Sure it's fine to be upset, but being upset 100% of the time means you're vulnerable to emotional manipulation and become disconnected from reality. Trump supporters also have good reason to be upset about current economic conditions, don't they? But they're upset at the wrong people because they're blasted with emotion non-stop and don't ever think about how things are.
The political leadership of Hamas are billionaires living in luxury in Qatar while their people die. The local leadership in Gaza living in underground bunkers that keep them safe while the people above them die. They use religion to justify their actions. Like all authoritarian regimes they are very good at propaganda to keep their population in line and to gain support from foreigners.
This fascist organization launched an attack on October 7, 2023 where they went into villages and murdered women and children. How upset does that make you? Apparently not that much, which is concerning. The goal of this attack was to start the war you're seeing play out now. During that attack they took hostages to force Israel into a ground campaign. Ground campaigns in a densely populated area is known by everyone to result in the highest amount of civilian casualties. Hamas knew this, it's what they wanted. Because they can use this to create effective propaganda.
The emotions you're feeling is proof of the effectiveness of Hamas's plan. They made this happen to make you sympathetic to them. And because of how effective this has been they will likely do it it again.
In a few decades time when this all happens again, you'll be saying the same things to the younger generation as I'm saying to you now. This cycle won't end until we have a generation that can see they're being manipulated. Unfortunately you're not the generation that will end the cycle of violence. Maybe Generation Z+1 will be the ones that won't fall for the propaganda. If we survive that long.
Are you seriously trying to say that if people are upset that innocent Palestinians are being murdered, they are being manipulated by Hamas? Dude, I come from a Jewish family. I’m pretty sure Jews know a thing or two about systematic extermination. You’d be the person telling Jews that being upset about concentration camps means they’re playing into political hands. What happened to the Jews at the hands of Hamas is terrible, and I wish it hadn’t happened, but just because innocent Israelis were killed doesn’t mean innocent Palestinians should be killed in retaliation. Even if the goal is get Hamas, you don’t do that by attacking areas where innocents are and where innocents will get killed. And you don’t deprive Palestinians of food and water. I just heard yesterday that Palestinians have been reduced to eating grass because the food they have been eating (that is normally given to animals) has run out.
Now, there is absolutely no doubt Trump is a terrible person, and I will be voting for Biden, but I can certainly see why people who have seen their ancestors and families die at hands of Israel, would not automatically want to support the man who is continuing to give the money and weapons being used to do that killing. I hope you never have to go through what the Jews and Palestinians have been through, but I also hope you have some perspective in the future.
I want to be clear that this is a discussion and I am not trying to call you bad person (or anything close to that or of the sort). I just want you and others to understand why people would be hesitant of a Biden vote and why they aren’t supporting Trump just because they are.
Dude are you saying Trump voters don't act against their own self interest because of propaganda? So why would you think your ethnicity makes you less susceptible to propaganda.
Your social media is probably full of "news" items telling you to not vote for Biden because he's an evil demon the same as the MAGA social media feeds. Probably sewing the same distrust of "mainstream media" as their feeds are doing.
I've had discussions with the "genocide joe" types and discussions with the MAGAs. They are the exact same kinds of discussions. Same outrage same distrust of anything that doesn't fit the narrative. Same ignorance, same disregard for self interest thinking it's noble act to make things worse.
Honestly, the Palestinian movement is a violent blood and soil antisemitic movement. They're good at propaganda because it's what fascists do. Even Jews fell for this kind of thing the last time it happened. They only hate the Cosmopolitan Zionist Jews, you'll be ok as long as you go along with them, right?
When my Grandfather's generation was done with the country that was spouting this kind of shit last time the cities of that country looked a lot like Gaza does now. They put fascists in power, we all hoped that movement would fizzle out but it didn't. The world would be better off if Hamas didn't exist but it got too much outside support to die off on it's own. Maybe this conflict will at least weaken them enough so their River to the Sea movement will die out. Or maybe it will continue because of outside support. Which case this all happens again in another generation.
So tell me do you want this to happen again? Support Hamas and it will. So if you support Hamas, and that results in this happening again, who's the one that's really promoting genocide? It ain't "genocide joe" who's doing everything he can to end it.
Ah but you're too upset to even consider how support for a Palestinian movement that has refused to separate itself from Hamas makes you complicit in genocide. That's an accusation you like to throw at others, and you're too emotional to consider your own actions. And always the point of fascist propaganda. Too emotional to think about the repercussions of your actions.
Ok, well, if you think the Palestinians and Jews are to blame for all this, we have nothing else to discuss. I no longer think you want to have legitimate discussion. Personal advice, be less bigoted the next time you want to discuss this.
What's bigoted? Thinking that Palestinians are people and are therefore responsible for their actions?
And I did mention that Palestinian fascism has a lot of support from the outside. Oil rich assholes, Iran, naive westerners. Lots of outside support which keeps Palestinian leaders corrupt and authoritarian. Which is the major obstacle for Palestinian statehood. Not that most people care about that, it's only maintaining a righteous anger that matters, right? Hamas might've faded from existence if it weren't for this.
See the emotional narratives have gotten you so wound up you don't have any rational arguments anymore. So just default to calling anyone you disagree a bigot and refuse to think about anything that conflicts with your emotions.
Make your own decision: see the facts not the talk. Biden in Europe is considered full right or at least center-right. And we have fascists all over Europe.
Biden in Europe is considered full right or at least center-right.
This is talk, not facts. Yes if you're in a bubble where everyone is talking the same way, it might feel like a fact, but that's all just talk and feelings. In the end all of politics is just talk despite what the ideologues might tell you.
No. But can give you a different POV. And is one that almost all in Europe share, that US politics range from center right to far right. Even US expats share that POV.
And I'm sure letting trump have an easier time getting elected will make things so much better.
I would recommend talking to your local representatives about the current situation and how important it is to you and expressing how you may support other people running against them if they don't support a ceasefire.
there's "administration aiding a genocide, but also doing so because they're being lied to by israel, who also has a massive propaganda campaign to manipulate americans into supporting them..."
versus
Project 2025 and their plans of a fascist dictatorship right here, complete with a genocide of trans people and hispanics... and muslims... AND a continuation of supporting israel...
oh and aiding russians commiting genocide in ukraine.
i mean to vote for someone who won't support the genocide, but i wouldn't fault anyone for looking at all the candidates and deciding none of them deserve to have the office.
I was young once too. Eventually you'll figure out that the party that got 1% of the vote last time isn't suddenly gonna sweep it with 51% this time. Every single person who has a nonzero chance of being president next year supports Israel, so you should vote based on what the best possible outcome is.
this is ad hominem. what i'm saying is true or false regardless of how old i am. also, you don't know how old i am. and on the internet, no one knows you're a dog: you could be 12 years old for all i know.
this statement is pure sophistry. it's disgusting rhetoric, and you should be ashamed.
It's not ad hominem. I'm not saying you're wrong because this is your first election, I'm saying I can tell this is your first election because voting third party is incredibly naive. If this isn't your first election, then you should know better.
No, I'm attacking what you said by calling it naive. I never once intimated that your belief was wrong because you were young. I also think that anyone above the age of 22 who doesn't vote Biden is also wrong. It has nothing to do with age.
I was simply giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you'd never been burned by voting third party before. Am I wrong to do that? Are you actually stupid, and not naive?
Like I already said, your identity isn't what makes the decision to let Trump win any more or less wrong. This being your first election would just make it a much more understandable and forgivable mistake. If this isn't your first time abstaining from voting, then it's a much less forgivable mistake.
How’d that work out for Nader in 2000 when he didn’t even get to 3%? Was it worth it, when nearly 100k people voted for him in Florida, and Gore lost to Bush by a margin of only 537 votes? Would the environmentalists who supported Nader be more appreciative of Bush’s outcome than they would have been if Gores?
Third parties are great. We absolutely need them. But they cannot and will not ever get a foothold starting at the top of the ballot. Yang really has the right idea in The Forward Party, starting down ballot before even contemplating higher office. It’s the only way another party will ever get any significant standing.
It shouldn’t have even been a question in the first place. 100k people thought Gore wasn’t good enough for them, and as a result, they all got us Bush.
Yang really has the right idea in The Forward Party, starting down ballot before even contemplating higher office. It’s the only way another party will ever get any significant standing.
if you think that, you should put energy toward that. but I don't and won't.
Every single person who has a nonzero chance of being president next year supports Israel, so you should vote based on what the best possible outcome is.
i only vote for someone i want to have the office. you don't get to tell my what i value or how i should express my values. you certainly don't get to tell me how to vote.
I can absolutely tell you how to vote, and you can absolutely ignore me. But next year, if Trump wins, it will be your fault. Just like it's my fault that so many women don't have access to basic medical care because I didn't want Clinton in office. The country and the world will be worse if we let Trump win, and there is exactly one legal way that we can work against Trump winning.
Not voting for the only person who stands a chance against him is helping him win. The distinction is meaningless. If we're playing CoD Zombies and you don't help barricade the house we're in or shoot zombies and we lose on the second round, you don't get to say "it's not my fault we died, the zombies were the ones who broke in and killed us!"
Yeah, in a video game the people that die because of your inaction get to respawn.
The way you make a new reply to each sentence, spamming threads with dozens of replies reminds me of Commie. Is this one of their alts? I kinda regret blocking them, arguing with them was fun even though I know they're a troll
The most common form of this fallacy is "A" makes a claim of "fact," to which "B" asserts that "A" has a personal trait, quality or physical attribute that is repugnant thereby going entirely off-topic, and hence "B" concludes that "A" has their "fact" wrong - without ever addressing the point of the debate.
I fulfilled one part of an ad hominem—I asserted (implied, but whatever) that you have a personal trait, quality, or physical attribute. This is not enough to accuse me of committing ad hominem, because I fulfilled no other portions of it. I never implied that the fact that you are relatively young is a negative trait, I never concluded that you were wrong because of it, and I did address the main point of the debate. Calling someone young or stupid or naive isn't ad hominem if I then go on to explain why what they're saying is incorrect.
If there are 10 people including you and the majority chooses who gets to be president and the vote ends up as 5 for Biden (including you) and 5 for Trump. Then the vote gets recast and the only thing that changes is that you decided not to vote for Biden, it would be 5/4 for Trump and the person responsible for electing Trump would be everyone who voted for him and you. If you had voted against Trump instead of abstaining, he would not have become president.
That's a very basic concept and it's clear that it extrapolates to the actual election.
Woah there, hold your argumentum ad populum! No ethics model is unflawed and just because deontological ethics work often doesn't mean they don't have problems.
Instead of looking at the actions you can take, let's look at the results that could be reached:
Biden wins presidency
Trump wins presidency
3rd party wins presidency
No 3rd party has ever achieved presidency. Votes for a 3rd party have instead commonly resulted in votes being drawn from one party benefiting the other. So realistically we could generalise to:
Voting 3rd party: Aiding Trumps victory
Voting Trump: Aiding Trumps victory
Voting Biden: Aiding Trumps loss
I hate dichotomies as much as you, these shouldn't be the options, I would seriously love to be proven wrong. Am I missing something?
jill stein says she's on track to hit 5% this fall, so that's an outcome you're not considering. also, biden has been enabling a genocide, but you dont seem to see any problem with putting himback in power.
Except you ignore their arguments to put out a thought terminating cliche and they keep addressing your points. The one who reads as bad faith here is you.
I did consider this, I even adressed how this is an issue as it fails to aids Trump in winning the election. I do think that Biden is problematic and that the genocide in Palestine is wrong, however voting a 3rd party aids trump resulting in no changes in Palestine and changes for the worse for the rest of the world.
Thank you for spelling it out! Unfortunately, most of the "Biden is literally supporting a genocide which is why you should vote 3rd party) are suspiciously obtuse.
I am fairly sure this is part of a Russian Psy-Op aiming to demobilize Democrat-leaning voters in order to push their preferred candidate and sow division. Trump being elected again would be Putin's wet dream, since Trump would (try to) leave NATO and cut all support to Ukraine. With NATO gone and the US busy with infighting under an isolationist and repressive government, Putin would have free reign to stir more shit in eastern Europe to further his imperialist agenda.
For this reason, posters trying to frame voting for Biden as actively supporting genocide don't get the benefit of the doubt from me. And they're everywhere, unfortunately.
this kind of paranoid bad-jacketing of users is fucking disgusting. accusing users of being part of a state-sponsored psyop should be bannable across every community and instance. come with receipts, or keep your badfaith bullshit to yourself.
Nobody running for president, ever, has deserved the office. I sincerely believe, as Douglas Adams so eloquently put, that “those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.”
I can’t think of any point in recent history where the choice is of who is deserving for office. The choice is, and has always been, who is the least undeserving of office (or the spoiler candidate). This year, I think it’s pretty obvious who is least undeserving of office.
The choice of who is deserving for office is reserved for everyone else further down the ballot.
Not voting is letting trump have an easier time at victory
The core of the GOP's strategy for holding on to power is the disenfranchisement of voters who are opposed to them. Not voting (or voting third party) is self-disenfranchisement and doing the GOP's work for them.
whoever is first past the post. if you know I'm not voting for Biden and your only concern is keeping trump out of office, you shouldn't vote for Biden, either: vote for Jill stein or cornel west
vote splitting is a myth that relies on the presumption that I would vote for anybody except the candidate that I'm choosing. it presumes that The votes belong to some candidate and giving them to another candidate is siphoning them away. The truth is that the votes belong to voters and it's up to politicians to earn them.
Stop acting like Biden is just being lied to by Israel and is some helpless victim. He is absolutely responsible for his continued allowance of the genocide of Palestinians. Hold your politicians to a higher standard.
He is responsible, though I don't expect a different response from the majority of people in Washington. I hope regret about his continued complicity in genocide continues to weigh heavily on his shoulders.
I believe only 2 points about Palestine in this election:
Trump will be worse for Palestine than Biden.
Biden is likelier to switch positions on Palestine than Trump.
When I look at everything else Trump endangers on top of Palestine, it's not even a decision.
Do you really believe not voting for Biden deceases the likelihood of genocide in Gaza? Because the alternative seems so much worse in every way, both for Gaza and so many other massively important issues
And instead, a genocide will still be on, and also more women will go to prison for seeking medical care, and also my LGBT friends will have their rights eroded even more, and also the new president will annoint more christofascist Godkings to the Supreme Court ensuring that any attempt to vote for an actual leftist in the future is impossible, and it'll be fine, because at least you didn't vote for the guy that wouldn't have done all that extra awful shit
A vote is not an endorsement, stop treating it like it is.
Yeah, he should, and if he doesn't, you still have to vote for him anyway, because the alternative is necessarily worse.
It absolutely sucks that Democrats are able to make zero effort and get votes based solely on the fact that they aren't Republicans, but that's the way it is. Vote in primaries, fight to make Republicans adopt better policies so that Democrats have to react, and vote blue in November, because the alternative is half the people in the community we're arguing in going to fucking jail for being trans.
Okay. Don't vote blue, and contribute to the eradication of LGBT folks in this country. Be proud of the fact that you didn't do anything to prevent it when they get rounded up and sterilized.
Then you get someone pro genocide anyways, but you get to hold your head real high when your friends die because they had an etopic pregnancy. Good job.
And all those people who don't have anyone to take care of them? Oh that's right, you don't actually care about them. You only care about making yourself feel good.
of course I do. how bad faith would it be for me to accuse you of not caring about the people in Gaza? or the people who can't discharge their student debts?
The difference is I am trying to minimize the harm done and you are not. If biden doesn't win then trump does, that's the reality. The fate of the people in Gaza are not what this election dictates. No matter who wins the people in Palestinian (my people) will continue to be bombed. But you know what is effected by the winner? The fate of the women who need abortions and the fate of many trans people. That is what gets decided by this election.
You're not doing what you can to minimize the harm done, you are allowing through inaction the worst outcome.
The election will end with either trump or biden winning. If you don't vote for biden you are helping trump by making it easier for him to win.
If 10 people vote and 5 go to Trump and 5 go to biden then you've avoided a Trump victory and allow for another round.
If in that 2nd round a person who voted for biden decides to go 3rd party now trump has 5 votes biden has 4 and the 3rd party has 1.
The person who switched to 3rd party helped Trump win along with the 5 who voted Trump. If you don't understand that then you're being purposefully obtuse. Or you could explain how that 3rd party vote didn't help Trump without responding with a thought terminating cliche
the only votes that help Trump are votes for trump. a vote for Jill Stein or cornel west is a vote against Trump. a vote against Trump doesn't help Trump.
your scenario presumes I would vote for Biden. I did that once in 2008. I haven't voted for a Democrat for president since and I won't be voting for Biden this year either.
What does this mean? You're going to give abortions for your friends because they can't legally receive the life-saving medical care they need from doctors?
You know how often this sort of thing used to kill people? You're cool having that blood on your hands?
Women dying of ectopic pregnancies, Mexicans being murdered at the border, and trans kids being beaten to death at their own schools might disagree about that.
But at least you can pretend that you did something to help, by doing nothing.
No, it's not, unless you specifically decide to define the words to mean the same thing. A vote is simply a choice between two or more options. Voting for someone is not a way of showing approval of them, it's a way of saying that given the available options, one of them is preferable to the other, in much the same way that an appendectomy is preferable to dying from appendicitis. Anyone would rather do neither, but when you have appendicitis, neither isn't an option.
Biden isn't pro genocide, at least there is no evidence to say that. The Biden administration has been against the ground invasion from the start.
Biden has made some missteps in my opinion, but America pulling support for Israel was never a real option. Israel does require aid, but Netanyaho doesn't care if that aid comes from the US, or from his buddy Putin. Israel realigning with Russia would put Palestine in an even worse position because it would threaten their support from Iran.
Then, of course, there is the risk of a regional war breaking out of Iran takes the strained relationship between the US and Israel as an opportunity. That could easily pull other countries in and become WW3.
Foreign policy is about more than just virtue signaling. It's outcomes that matter, and what a lot of people are calling for will not get them the outcomes they are looking for.
Not that I'm shaming anyone for pressuring Biden. The positive movement on aid shipments was very likely helped along by the protest votes in Michigan.
Israel does a lot of research and innovation for US technologies, including weapons. That would be of great value to Russia. I can't speak as to what weapons the US can and can't lock.
All of this is in a kind of unrealistic realm, because US support for Israel isn't going anywhere.
You are on a different and better level. You are a Chad consequentialist. Managing probabilities, shooting for the best outcomes, minimizing losses. Setting up the group of ideologically aligned leaders for future success. Fighting off fascism for four more years against all odds.
They are a weak feelings voter. Hopes Biden senpai will notice them and throwing a temper tantrum when he doesn't. Talks about genocide, but doesn't actually care if Trump will handle the genocide any differently than Biden. Wants everyone else to suffer because they are suffering. Hoping if Trump gets elected that someone else will do the hard work and fighting to fix everything. Is burned out on politics, but instead of not voting quietly, makes big posts about how not voting is actually a good and very smart idea because they can't handle the fact that they need to rest.
Imagine Trump wins, starts doing the shit he is saying he will do and the outcome is a civil war. I think Israel would stop being something the US would think about. And then the genocide stops... At least in one direction. But given the bad blood there is now there...
I think Israel would stop being something the US would think about. And then the genocide stops...
I don't think Israel would stop doing what they're doing just because support stops from the US. They still have a lot of support from Europe and their own resources besides. They're a nuclear power, they have however much leverage they want.
The US should cut ties to at least partially absolve itself of responsibility for the genocide, but Palestine is not going to be saved until some global power is willing to stand with Palestine against Israel.
This is the stance I really don't understand. You do know that if Trump wins, even the limp-wristed calls for constraint go away? That Trump will actively encourage and endorse the genocide? That things will get measurably worse for the Palestinians?
I really do want to understand how people who hold this particular position think not voting for Biden will improve the lot of the Palestinians. Please, enlighten me.
I won't vote for someone who's pro genocide. It's pretty simple.
People who aid and abet genocide don't get my vote.
Biden's not changing course, so he clearly thinks he can win just with the votes of people who are okay voting for a pro-genocide candidate. That's his call to make.
This year, it's a choice between a person who's funding a genocide while applying (admittedly limited) political pressure to restrain Israel, and a person who's publically stated that he supports the genocide and thinks it isn't going fast enough, and who would increase funding to increase the speed of the genocide.
By not voting for the former, you are implicitly endorsing the latter (saying, he's just as hood as the former), and are culpable if he is elected - the definition of moral evil includes inaction. Sitting this one out because you like neither candidate is a moral evil, since one candidate is categorically worse (genocide-wise) than the other.
Biden has agency here. He could very easily get my vote, but chooses not to. He's making conscious decisions with expectations to how people will receive them. That leaves us with two possibilities, which I alluded to earlier:
He cares more about genocide than winning the election.
He thinks he can win without the anti-genocide vote.
If it's 1, I don't want him as my president. If it's 2, he's not expecting my vote and nor shall he get it.
I'm sorry, it's probably considered some sort of a smug European truism by now, but I have to say it. There is no left in the US two-party system. It's right or center-right, that's the choices you have, a giant douche or a turd sandwich.
There is but you have to think of each party as having sub-parties within them. There aren't external coalitions between parties but internal coalitions within the parties.
So a guy like Bernie Sanders is left, though not technically a Democrat, he caucuses with the Democrats effectively creating a coalition. There are many members within the Democratic Party that are also left wing, and others that are center, and others that could be considered right wing.
The Republicans are similar, but have an internal coalition with the far right MAGA faction. Which causes them a lot of problems.
The primary system is effectively a run off system which is used to determine a final two candidates to vote for in the final election. This system is old and has some bizarre traditions and has vulnerabilities to there being a third party spoiling everything.
Obviously it's a crusty system that developed without planning, but the the Presidential election it's not that dissimilar to France's run-off system, just takes more time. And the legislatures having coalitions between people with different politics happens everywhere, it's just happening within the parties and requires people to vote in primaries to get more representatives that have similar views to their own to make up a greater percentage of the coalition (which also happens everywhere).
In fact having coalitions within a party gives people more information when voting. If I'm voting for one of a dozen parties I don't have a say over how a coalition is formed after an election. Someone declaring which coalition they intend to be a part of before the electorate votes gives the electorate both a say as to which individual they want (via primaries) and which coalition they want (in the general election).
This isn't true in a global sense, nor is it true in a practical sense. There is a left in America, but it is tiny and rarely successful. Most liberal democracies are to the right of American Democrats at the global level on most issues. Every country has drifted rightward over the past half century, so the US isn't unique.
It can be both true that there is no true Left with any political power in the US - individual congressional delegates, maybe, but no coalition or party - and still recognize that there remain differences in the parties and differing outcomes from their governance.
It's not anything like the Southpark situation; leftists forget so easily what could - and has - been lost under conservative leadership, that would not have been lost if the person who won the popular vote in the past 6 elections. Women would still have protected body autonomy in all states - that loss was a direct consequence of the Trump administration.
I live in a red state so it doesn't make any difference who I vote for. I'm not voting for Biden because I don't want to support the Democrats and my vote doesn't matter anyway. If I lived in a state where it mattered then I would probably vote for Biden because he's not Trump.
that's totally fair...
depending on how red it is, some states do flip, especially with redistricting...
ive voted third party in a super blue state before... but against trump, i even swallowed my vomit and voted for hillary
i have a trans child, and i don't want them put into a concentration camp for sneezing in a school zone or whatever they're cooking up in Project 2025...
Please still vote though! At least rest of the way down the ballot. The more local the office the more weight your vote has. Plus there is legislation to vote on. Sorry if you were already planning to, this was also more for anyone who agreed with the sentiment and will stay home.
Agreed. Local candidates and referendum votes are often more directly impactful to local communities.
Things like legalization of weed, protection of abortion rights, and ranked choice voting usually show up as referendum votes. And when it comes to how homelessness, police, financial aid, schools, etc. in your area are managed, that's all local politics.
Exactly!!! Locally they are trying to recall a school board member for basically being liberal. Mask mandates, covid policies, some sort of race related class or club... you know the real egregious stuff. That's really where conservatives are more active too.
I've literally had multiple relatives tell me to my face how they're giddy with excitement for the day they get the order to march through the streets and kill people like me, a queer lefty.
Hey, for what it's worth I have had some similar experiences with relatives bemoaning my family and friends' rights to exist as who they are and I agree with you about left-accelerationism.
My earlier comment was low hanging fruit because it's one of John Beard's best lines and the last time the non-government crowd took over a place the wildlife took over shortly afterwards.
![Accelerationist [RULE]](https://files.catbox.moe/052f42.jpeg){kind=link}
