Wow! Its almost like the argument that voting for democrats results in anything meaningfully different from voting for republicans rests on a faulty premise! And its almost as if the logic underlying the argument that a vote for democrats is in any way meaningful demands the conclusion that a vote for a third party would then be more meaningful, but the whole argument itself rests on the faulty assumption that the USA is a democracy, when it actually is a capitalist oligarchy, wherein the two prominent political parties do the same horrible shit! And they maintain a grasp on power and a propensity for doing horrible shit no matter how you vote! Wow! Wish someone would have said that! Wow!
Anyway tell me you have a toddlers grasp on politics and the memory of a goldfish without telling me: [write whatever you wrote and then whatever your response to this will be]
Classic, act like a dickhead, get treated in kind and then retreat to cry about civility. You’re like an ill-behaved child.
You definitely have poor understanding of how to get others to follow your opinions, I mean your username please!
Lmao. Sad that you approach every interaction with the mindset of convincing the other. Even sadder that you suck so much at it you dont understand how convincing others function in a public forum.
Pol is about getting others to follow you if you can’t even fathom that you might as well be an angry vegan with no friends.
Weird non-sequitor. Incidentally I’ve met way less insufferable vegans than I’ve met insufferable people who complain about vegans.
It has proven to be less effective at stopping the orphan crushing machine than voting for democrats. It is possible that in the long run it could be more effective, though that has not yet been proven.
Doing something that hasnt been done has not been proven to do anything because it hasnt been done. Voting democrat has only accelerated the orphan-killer, so I struggle to see how legitimising the people who want to kill orphans could in any way be a more effective way to stop them than doing the bare minimum of not legitimising them.
I don’t believe terms like “legitimising” have any practical purpose when used in this context. People vote democrat because they think it’s the most effective way to minimise harm, not because they want to signal allegiance or agreement with any one particular policy.
Democrats tend to produce meaningfully different results within the US. I would say this is true even outside of it. At least they weren’t blowing up random ships outside Argentina and were able to make and keep deals and treaties with other countries.
Are you talking about the one who said that trans people should “follow the law” when asked about their persecution? The one from the party that concluded it had to be less woke to win elections, after eating shit again? The one who has a long track record of doing nothing, at best, for trans people? The one who did nothing to defend roe v. Wade? That one? Yeah, what a great idea, surely signalling that you are completely fine with being thrown under the bus and persecuted (as long as there’s a guy with a combover opposing them) will not at all come back to bite you in the ass. How’s the poem go?
First they put children in tiny cages, but I didnt care because it was Obama who did it and besides I’m still sitting nifty, so who gives a shit.
Then they bombed trans people, but they were brown, so I’m still sitting pretty.
And thats it, im hunky dory.
I’ve not seen either of them do that. The best we’ve gotten is them pretending to support trans rights, then immediately backing down when they have the power to do something about it.
Voting, at least at a national level, doesn’t change anything, because we are not ruled by politicians but by corporations who own those politicians. At a communal level it’s different, but that’s not the topic here.
What it does though, is giving legitimacy to an illegitimate system.
If 80% of people would not vote, the system would quicky start to have a legitimacy crisis.
That would require a campaign that effectively is more effective than the social media/news network/advertising apparatus of capitalists, while somehow not losing enough support to NationalSocialists and their scapegoats.
Do you have any pointers to start getting people more involved in Marx than in Adam Smith? Arguing on this obscure platform on how a usa socialist revolution should take place seems a bit premature without enough followers.
It would be nice to find out, seeing as how the current strategy of voting blue no matter what very observably leads to genocide and less and less differences between the two parties.
Is this some kind of ploy to try and find some “Voting is always good” counter point, that voting in and of itself is democracy and having that is better then nothing? Which is why you seem to be implying that the system doesn’t need to justify itself, that if the system didn’t do that it would still function and people would still participate, because it is, after all, “Democracy”?
Quit beating around the bush and just say what you mean instead of being a coy annoyance.
I don’t mean anything yet. I’m trying to find out what the system being “justified” functionally does, from your perspective. From my perspective you’re being vague, I’m trying to find my way through the bush here, not beat around it.
I see we’re back to the same posts that came up in the 2024 election. Tying to get people to not bother voting.
Can you point out where the comic suggests that you shouldn’t bother voting? Because I must have missed that part.
Are you stupid
Are you? Can you at least try to be a little articulate? Or is that beyond your obviously limited capabilities?
Is there more than two parties in the US?
Tell me you don’t understand how FPTP voting systems guide voting choices to only have two ineffective candidates.
Wow! Its almost like the argument that voting for democrats results in anything meaningfully different from voting for republicans rests on a faulty premise! And its almost as if the logic underlying the argument that a vote for democrats is in any way meaningful demands the conclusion that a vote for a third party would then be more meaningful, but the whole argument itself rests on the faulty assumption that the USA is a democracy, when it actually is a capitalist oligarchy, wherein the two prominent political parties do the same horrible shit! And they maintain a grasp on power and a propensity for doing horrible shit no matter how you vote! Wow! Wish someone would have said that! Wow!
Anyway tell me you have a toddlers grasp on politics and the memory of a goldfish without telling me: [write whatever you wrote and then whatever your response to this will be]
You definitely have poor understanding of how to get others to follow your opinions, I mean your username please!
Pol is about getting others to follow you if you can’t even fathom that you might as well be an angry vegan with no friends.
Classic, act like a dickhead, get treated in kind and then retreat to cry about civility. You’re like an ill-behaved child.
Lmao. Sad that you approach every interaction with the mindset of convincing the other. Even sadder that you suck so much at it you dont understand how convincing others function in a public forum.
Weird non-sequitor. Incidentally I’ve met way less insufferable vegans than I’ve met insufferable people who complain about vegans.
Good thing this is a really small obscure Reddit clone and not a public voting station.
Functionally not, but voting third party is at least better than not voting
Alright, so you can vote for someone other than the orphan crushers. Weird how you pretended like that wasn’t a possibility.
It has proven to be less effective at stopping the orphan crushing machine than voting for democrats. It is possible that in the long run it could be more effective, though that has not yet been proven.
Doing something that hasnt been done has not been proven to do anything because it hasnt been done. Voting democrat has only accelerated the orphan-killer, so I struggle to see how legitimising the people who want to kill orphans could in any way be a more effective way to stop them than doing the bare minimum of not legitimising them.
I don’t believe terms like “legitimising” have any practical purpose when used in this context. People vote democrat because they think it’s the most effective way to minimise harm, not because they want to signal allegiance or agreement with any one particular policy.
Has it? Did the orphan crushing machine even slow down a little bit when democrats were in power? Because I’m pretty sure that it didn’t.
Democrats tend to produce meaningfully different results within the US. I would say this is true even outside of it. At least they weren’t blowing up random ships outside Argentina and were able to make and keep deals and treaties with other countries.
Which child crushing policitian will you vote for?
The one who supports trans rights :3
Like the right not to be subject to genocide and apartheid? Oh wait, I forgot that you don’t consider non-white people human.
I’m joking silly. I’m not white. All politicians are garbage. Fuck them all
If you say so. I’m not convinced
Are you talking about the one who said that trans people should “follow the law” when asked about their persecution? The one from the party that concluded it had to be less woke to win elections, after eating shit again? The one who has a long track record of doing nothing, at best, for trans people? The one who did nothing to defend roe v. Wade? That one? Yeah, what a great idea, surely signalling that you are completely fine with being thrown under the bus and persecuted (as long as there’s a guy with a combover opposing them) will not at all come back to bite you in the ass. How’s the poem go?
First they put children in tiny cages, but I didnt care because it was Obama who did it and besides I’m still sitting nifty, so who gives a shit.
Then they bombed trans people, but they were brown, so I’m still sitting pretty.
And thats it, im hunky dory.
I’ve not seen either of them do that. The best we’ve gotten is them pretending to support trans rights, then immediately backing down when they have the power to do something about it.
Who’s that?
Seriously @[email protected], which candidate that supports the rights of trans Palestinians did you vote for?
I think they were being sarcastic?
Doesn’t look like it
Removed by mod
Damn, good one bro, you must have got so many updoots
Some old corrupt fucker with a smart PR team
deleted by creator
Voting, at least at a national level, doesn’t change anything, because we are not ruled by politicians but by corporations who own those politicians. At a communal level it’s different, but that’s not the topic here. What it does though, is giving legitimacy to an illegitimate system. If 80% of people would not vote, the system would quicky start to have a legitimacy crisis.
That would require a campaign that effectively is more effective than the social media/news network/advertising apparatus of capitalists, while somehow not losing enough support to NationalSocialists and their scapegoats.
Do you have any pointers to start getting people more involved in Marx than in Adam Smith? Arguing on this obscure platform on how a usa socialist revolution should take place seems a bit premature without enough followers.
Why does the system need your sense of its legitimacy
It doesn’t need my sense of legitimacy but if 80% of people say no it will have a problem justifying itself.
Why does it need to justify itself? What do you think happens when it does not?
It would be nice to find out, seeing as how the current strategy of voting blue no matter what very observably leads to genocide and less and less differences between the two parties.
Is this some kind of ploy to try and find some “Voting is always good” counter point, that voting in and of itself is democracy and having that is better then nothing? Which is why you seem to be implying that the system doesn’t need to justify itself, that if the system didn’t do that it would still function and people would still participate, because it is, after all, “Democracy”?
Quit beating around the bush and just say what you mean instead of being a coy annoyance.
I don’t mean anything yet. I’m trying to find out what the system being “justified” functionally does, from your perspective. From my perspective you’re being vague, I’m trying to find my way through the bush here, not beat around it.
A system only really functions as long as it’s subjects perceive it as legitimate. Once you lose legitimacy, people start taking action.
Communists critique of Democrats: Somehow both not at all relevant or to be taken into account and also the reason KKKopmala lost