Unironically the correct thing to do, historically speaking. It was the “lesser evil” candidate who won and appointed Hitler as chancellor, which allowed him to seize power.
what exactly are you talking about? Hitler became chancellor because the NSDAP had the largest support (~30%), he won because no one wanted to support the “lesser evil”, imagine if all the left-wing micro parties actually put together and voted just the SPD or KPD, it would literally have stopped Hitler.
yes, Hitler happened because people refused to vote for the “lesser evil” because the ASPD, the KAPD, USPD, KPO, etc… couldn’t vote for the SPD
In the 1932 German Presidential Election, the candidates were Hitler, Hindenburg, and Thälmaan. The SPD endorsed “center-right” Hindenburg as a lesser evil to stop Hitler, and he won. Then he wound up appointing Hitler as chancellor anyway.
and it got to that point after the conservatives already pulled a bunch of voter suppression and the 1933 election where the Nazis got most of the votes, and because the left vote was split, their combine greater total meant nothing
Sure. Obviously, the split on the left was unfortunate and a major reason why Hitler came to power. Another reason being the declining economic conditions under the governing coalition of the SPD with the center-right.
I don’t really see how that makes the case for lesser-evilism.
Unironically the correct thing to do, historically speaking. It was the “lesser evil” candidate who won and appointed Hitler as chancellor, which allowed him to seize power.
“If only they hadn’t rallied around the lesser evil candidate, then the Nazis could’ve gotten into power even earlier!” - MLs, unironically, it would seem. Unless you’ve forgotten who Hindenburg was running against.
Fucking insane. Wanting Nazism to come into power as soon as possible so it can start murdering people even earlier. Just mask-off fascism from you lot, huh?
They’re the sort of .ml user who is so deep into the propaganda they deny China has done any human rights abuses at all (and none to Uyghurs in specific). It’s hard to consider anything they write as good faith.
And, indeed, if I look it up, it leads me to wonder: if the NSDAP were not the largest party in the Reichstag at the time (perhaps one means of this happening would have been people voting for lesser evils!) it may not have happened.
This is why nobody can take you seriously. Harris is not engaged in the genocide, and Trump is on record as wanting Netanyahu, the actual architect of the Palestinian genocide, to finish the job. Harris is the VP of a different country, and the person who is Hitler in this analogy prefers her opponent.
And there’s no way to reach your position through intellectual honesty. Your motives are transparent, and that is why you will fail.
So if we take moral responsibility for Harris’s stance on Gaza, surely you will take moral responsibility for Trumps. Is that too far of a leap? I mean Harris isn’t president. She doesn’t dictate policy, yet. Her being responsible for the current situation is just as far removed as you being responsible for a Trump win.
More: The arms sales to Israel are dictated by Congress, not the president. The president has very limited ability to pause certain arms shipments to Israel.
House Republicans actually passed a bill which would prevent Biden from doing that pausing. That bill never made it to the floor of the Democrat-controlled Senate, and so Biden did pause certain arms shipments.
This is just misinformation. The president has the ability and arguably the obligation to halt arms transfers to Israel.
FADEL: Now, you’ve written that a case could be made that Biden is legally required to stop funding Israel’s war. How?
BLANK: Well, there are at least three different laws that come into play here. One is the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act. One is the Leahy Amendment on Foreign Assistance Act. And one is the conventional arms transfer policy, which is a different type of legislation. The clear text of all three of these pieces of legislation really would seem to prohibit or restrict the ability of the U.S. government to transfer aid. This, I should emphasize, is under existing U.S. law.
I’m going to vote 3rd party to send whoever is running against Hitler a message!
It’s like you’re trying to tell us “nach Hitler kommen Wir” was a bad idea?
I’m sorry, I don’t speak French.
Unironically the correct thing to do, historically speaking. It was the “lesser evil” candidate who won and appointed Hitler as chancellor, which allowed him to seize power.
what exactly are you talking about? Hitler became chancellor because the NSDAP had the largest support (~30%), he won because no one wanted to support the “lesser evil”, imagine if all the left-wing micro parties actually put together and voted just the SPD or KPD, it would literally have stopped Hitler.
yes, Hitler happened because people refused to vote for the “lesser evil” because the ASPD, the KAPD, USPD, KPO, etc… couldn’t vote for the SPD
In the 1932 German Presidential Election, the candidates were Hitler, Hindenburg, and Thälmaan. The SPD endorsed “center-right” Hindenburg as a lesser evil to stop Hitler, and he won. Then he wound up appointing Hitler as chancellor anyway.
and it got to that point after the conservatives already pulled a bunch of voter suppression and the 1933 election where the Nazis got most of the votes, and because the left vote was split, their combine greater total meant nothing
Sure. Obviously, the split on the left was unfortunate and a major reason why Hitler came to power. Another reason being the declining economic conditions under the governing coalition of the SPD with the center-right.
I don’t really see how that makes the case for lesser-evilism.
“If only they hadn’t rallied around the lesser evil candidate, then the Nazis could’ve gotten into power even earlier!” - MLs, unironically, it would seem. Unless you’ve forgotten who Hindenburg was running against.
Fucking insane. Wanting Nazism to come into power as soon as possible so it can start murdering people even earlier. Just mask-off fascism from you lot, huh?
They’re the sort of .ml user who is so deep into the propaganda they deny China has done any human rights abuses at all (and none to Uyghurs in specific). It’s hard to consider anything they write as good faith.
And, indeed, if I look it up, it leads me to wonder: if the NSDAP were not the largest party in the Reichstag at the time (perhaps one means of this happening would have been people voting for lesser evils!) it may not have happened.
They should vote for Hitler who is genociding them.
This is why nobody can take you seriously. Harris is not engaged in the genocide, and Trump is on record as wanting Netanyahu, the actual architect of the Palestinian genocide, to finish the job. Harris is the VP of a different country, and the person who is Hitler in this analogy prefers her opponent.
And there’s no way to reach your position through intellectual honesty. Your motives are transparent, and that is why you will fail.
You’ve inverted honesty/dishonesty again, like a real comrade!
Get fucked.
So if we take moral responsibility for Harris’s stance on Gaza, surely you will take moral responsibility for Trumps. Is that too far of a leap? I mean Harris isn’t president. She doesn’t dictate policy, yet. Her being responsible for the current situation is just as far removed as you being responsible for a Trump win.
More: The arms sales to Israel are dictated by Congress, not the president. The president has very limited ability to pause certain arms shipments to Israel.
House Republicans actually passed a bill which would prevent Biden from doing that pausing. That bill never made it to the floor of the Democrat-controlled Senate, and so Biden did pause certain arms shipments.
This is just misinformation. The president has the ability and arguably the obligation to halt arms transfers to Israel.
https://www.npr.org/2024/05/10/1250402819/biden-says-he-would-stop-weapons-shipments-to-israel-if-it-invades-rafah
What responsibility? Harris is not responsible for anything genocide related right?
Similarly I have this advice: not voting for Harris does not mean you did not vote for Harris.
No, she’s not. The vice president can only affect congressional spending if they’re casting the tie breaking vote in the senate.
Pick a lane.
In two sentences you went from incredulous to batshit.
I want to hear the plan.
Say you get what you want; no one here votes for Harris. What happens the next day?
Lay it out so I can understand.
I think you got through his whole plan already.
The only genocide you care about is the one you can use to get fascism elected.