• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    56 months ago

    lol we already have fascism. They’re crushing antiwar protests, the media is in lockstep, labor demonstrations have been broken and they’re pissing away the cost of healthcare, free college and any number of other benefits on supplying a genocide.

    I’m never gonna vote for Biden again and if you don’t want to either, consider voting for the party for socialism and liberation.

    You don’t have to support the genocide.

    • Queen HawlSera
      link
      fedilink
      English
      106 months ago

      No I’m not going to throw away my chance to reduce suffering on pitching a fit.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -36 months ago

        It’s not pitching a fit to recognize that both of the two major parties candidates are unacceptable.

        There’s a big difference between pitching a fit and saying “genocide is my red line.”

        What’s your red line? What would cause you to vote third party instead of Biden?

        • Queen HawlSera
          link
          fedilink
          English
          86 months ago
          1. A third party would need to have a feasible chance of winning even a single fucking state, and the literal only chance of that would be if every single Democrat and Republican spontaenously and simulteanously dropped dead right before voting day.
          2. The amount of harm caused by Biden would have to be equal to or greater than than the harm caused by Trump, which is demonstrably not the case.
          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            -56 months ago

            So no amount of parallel awfulness would prompt you to reject both parties? As an example, if the atrocities being visited on Gaza took place in America would that be enough?

            • Queen HawlSera
              link
              fedilink
              English
              16 months ago

              If I’ve got two options and one of them reduces harm, and the other amplifies it, the only humane thing to do is the former.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                16 months ago

                The one you say reduces harm is detaining more people at the border than trump did and both aiding and denying a genocide.

                When is it too far? What would be beyond the pale enough for you to turn your back on Biden?

                I have to ask again: would you still vote for Biden instead of a third party if he were supplying weapons to and denying the bombing of American hospitals?

                I know I sound like a broken record, but where’s the line?

                • Queen HawlSera
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  16 months ago

                  If Joe Biden were blowing up American Hospitals than we’re well past the point where voting would accomplish anything. But he’s not doing that, he’s just selling arms to a longtime ally of America and not paying close enough attention to the reasons people are telling him to stop. Still bad, but…

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    16 months ago

                    Oh he’s only supplying weapons to a country committing a genocide and then denying that it’s a genocide in public.

                    I’m gonna ask some questions that will probably sound like accusations but I’m asking them to feel out who you are and what matters to you, not to accuse or harm:

                    Still bad but what?

                    So you wouldn’t support Biden if the genocide were happening to Palestinians on American soil, what about if it was French people being invaded and bombed by Israelis wielding American weapons? What if it was Libyans?

                    What if instead of pissing away the cost of any number of domestic programs in weapons shipments to israel, Biden was sending arms to russia to use on ukranians?

            • @neobunch
              link
              -36 months ago

              You won’t get an answer, these people’s script is they have enormous latitude in calling people names, moving goalposts, and generally as much punching left as they can muster, but under absolutely no circumstance can they say -in any way, shape or form- that they won’t vote for the blue team.

        • EzTerry
          link
          fedilink
          English
          26 months ago

          We are in a winner takes all system, It has limitations, Its very stable with 1, primary party, its possible to have 2 primary parties, its while not impossible, very very hard to have more primary parties.

          Sure its possible particularly in a state for a new party to replace an existing one… However most cases of this the new party becomes part of or replaces an existing parties leadership. However if you really want more parties we need something like instant runoff elections, Im very disappointed in how much push back on that has happened where its been attempted. (or a parliamentary system… but i dont see that fitting into the US system)

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            -16 months ago

            You don’t need fundamental change to the system to not vote for the president committing a genocide. You can just pick someone else. That’s the point of a vote.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      46 months ago

      The reason we’re seeing libs get into such a tizzy about it all of a sudden is because it’s finally being pointed inwards.

    • @Fades
      link
      46 months ago

      Removed by mod

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -16 months ago

        The daily volume of human suffering already bypassed that unleashed by the us after 9/11.

        How much worse does it need to get before you wash your hands of this bloody administration?

        Is there even a point where you’d turn your back on Biden?

    • EzTerry
      link
      fedilink
      English
      46 months ago

      and remember the alternative to Biden is worse… so I think you are a plant.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        4
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Of course it is. The whole reason Trump won the first time around was because enough people wouldn’t hold their nose for Hillary in the right states.

        Imagine the world if they did, with her choices for three justices (not to mention the 231 appointments in lower courts), and the handling of COVID.

        Buttery males. 2024 is just a reboot of 2016.

      • EzTerry
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        but if youbdont like Biden’s position, feel free to vote in more libral people to Congress, particularly if you are in a left leaning state

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -26 months ago

        Will you always pick the “better” of the two parties? If not, how bad does it need to get before you vote third party? I like to ask it this way: where’s your red line?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          56 months ago

          The entire point of third parties in US presidential elections, right now, is to syphon votes away from the main parties. They are otherwise entirely useless.

          They need more office down ballot…way down ballot…to start making any sort of progress towards the possibility of ever winning a presidential election.

          It’s not about “sending a message”. Nobody is listening there. You want to send a message, put it in a letter or a picket sign. Not a ballot box.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            -16 months ago

            That’s not true.

            I use Perot 92 as a counter example, because if the significant influence that campaign had on the ultimate fate of nafta and how it turned out not to have acted as a spoiler.

            Why would you say your feelings in a protest or a letter to your congressman but not in your ballot where it literally gets counted?

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              26 months ago

              92 Perot had enough votes to allow Clinton to win Ohio, California, Pennsylvania, and likely several others, had the majority of his voters gone to the more closely aligned GHWB.

              If you consider yourself conservative, Perot is likely the reason Clinton won the electoral college in a landslide, while he himself received exactly 0 EC votes.

              Progressive people, especially those concerned about the environment, can say the same for Nader in 2000, and only have to look at Florida.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                -16 months ago

                Back in ‘99 there was a paper that showed Perot had the most impact the opposite direction, reducing Clinton’s margin of victory. I remember it because back then it made the news that what everyone thought to be obviously true (the businessman from Texas’ campaign spoiled the republican vote) was wrong. It’s even cited in the Wikipedia article about Perot 92!

                Florida literally went against bush jr in the recount and his brother who was the governor of Florida at the time had a significant impact on calling it before the recount came in.

                Now once again: why would you make your feelings known in a protest, but not when they can actually be counted?

        • @Bobmighty
          link
          4
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          How cheap are you to get to toss out your vote so fascism can sweep up come November? Pretty fucking cheap by the looks of it.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            -16 months ago

            Personally it wasn’t the genocide that put me off ever voting Biden, but I wouldn’t describe a person for whom that’s a bridge too far as cheap.

            It’s also not throwing your vote away to vote third party. If it were there wouldnt be an effect to it, and of course there clearly is. A third party vote means that party gets more funding, airtime and media exposure.

            There are powerful examples of third parties in the us exerting significant pressure on policy while also not being spoilers.

            So how much would be too much for you? our children dying in our streets by us weapons?

            • @Bobmighty
              link
              2
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              I’m a disabled single father. I have a daughter. We are an atheist household. I know game theory. I also know about the massive disinfo campaign to try and stop as many democrat votes as possible. To republicans, I’m a satanic enemy of humanity.

              I’m voting a straight blue ticket, I have convinced a dozen others to do the same. I am doing the thing I need to do to stop your little hypothetical. What would it take? Democrats would have to act as openly fascist, cruel, and hateful as the Republican party. They do not. They aren’t fucking perfect because such a thing will never exist, but they are far from republican filth. A straight blue ticket is the best chance at an admin that will be open to change. Anything else helps republicans win and you know that pretty goddamn well. It’s why you’re here with that bullshit line of yours.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                06 months ago

                The democrats candidate is using his executive power to send arms to israel so they can perform war crimes. How much more openly fascist, cruel and hateful does he need to be? How much worse can a candidate get than the alternative when they’re literally doing something terrible that the alternative didn’t?

                Voting for the administration that’s encouraging a crackdown on antiwar protests and supplying a genocide because you want to make sure it’ll be open to change.

                I don’t have to want trump to win to see the absolute absurdity of that position.

                I’m not saying all that to demean or belittle you, but instead to hopefully illustrate that we can’t build a just world by voting for Biden.

                • @Bobmighty
                  link
                  16 months ago

                  Third party candidates are not viable this election. Every poll that can be trusted to any degree is proof of this. Trumps base is going to vote for trump and the Republican party at large will very likely follow. Nearly the entire Republican party is openly fascist at this point and admitting that they plan to disassemble the government to suit their wants. They are open about allowing Israel to finish their genocide.

                  It is also well known at this point that disinformation campaigns really lean on trying to get any non Republican vote to either not vote at all, or vote third party. You have no logical arguments, no game theory, and no deeper understanding of everything on the table in this election. You mostly just use the appeal to emotion fallacy as if it’s some magic gotcha. It is not, it is instead a signpost that you are not arguing in good faith.

                  Liars screamed “vote third party” last election too. Trump still lost, and we’re working to ensure that stupid fuck loses again. Not only am I totally unswayed by your bs, I’ve ensured others will be voting straight blue as well. Youll maybe whine about it, but it won’t change a thing.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    06 months ago

                    If you would prefer a logical, utilitarian argument for voting third party I’ll happily oblige.

                    What are the prior assumptions your argument for voting for Biden rests upon? It’s easiest for me to work from what you already hold true.