“Never blame the politicians for fielding a candidate that many would be unable to bring themselves to vote for due to her support of mass child murder, blame instead the people who can’t bring themselves to vote for a supporter of mass child murder”
– This posts and other DNC propaganda posts like it.
If one didn’t support the opposition, then they’re implicitly in support of who ends up in power.
Sadly our votes are one of the few things we have as normies that give us power, what you do and don’t do with it is important. Even if in your jurisdiction you see both (or more) candidates as being bad, there is always a lesser evil.
That would only be correct if the voting system was not cyclical.
In reality that’s not the case: today’s vote results help shape which candidates are made available to voters the next time around, the one after that and so on.
So it’s perfectly correctly to look at the options put forward today and decide to not vote in order try and have better options available tomorrow - it’s the logic of trying to preempt a tomorrow were all choices are both worse than today’s worst option.
Mind you, this is not me saying that with Trump as one of the candidates doing so was the best possible choice - just explaining how it’s actually a logical choice if one thought Trump was not the danger he turned out to be.
I suspect that if in the last 3 decades most people had been thinking and chosing in the way I suggest rather than falling for the deceitful simplification that each time they vote they must chose the “lesser evil”, the situation were both the Democrats and the Republicans fielded Genocide supporting candidates would never have happenned since at least the Democrats would have long ago and repeateadly been punished for fielding ever more rightwing candidates and thus never arrived at a situation were their candidate was so far to the right that they support the modern day version of Nazis doing their own Genocide as long as the consequences are kept abroad.
It’s because of such mechanics and decades of too many people falling for the DNC propaganda about the obligation to vote lesser evil, that America moved more and more towards the poverty riddled Fascism shithole that it is today - somebody like Trump as POTUS was always bound to happen when the leftmost party of the Money uber-alles + Political duopoly system in the US found a way to not be punished for keeping on moving ever more to the right and even now there’s really no way this trend will stop (much less revert) until the top power of the land - Money - actually suffers for the country being too rightwing (which, curiously, might happen due to Trump, though the risk is the Republicans just replace him with a more intelligent Fascist).
I understand what you’re getting at, but I would partially counter with that losing parties may instead weigh their policy decisions more towards the people they know will vote. Rather than potentially wasting time catering for those that have shown that in the end they may not vote at all. I would wager (on top of many other factors) this could be why many countries’ historically left leaning parties have been moving more and more towards the centre as time goes on. Labour in the UK are a prime example.
The Labour Party in the UK (with whom I am very familiar, having lived there for over a decade) is a perfect example of a party whose leadership strongly believed the segment of voters to their left had no other option than vote for them, hence kept moving rightwards. This is especially so in Keir Starmer’s Labour, with it’s flirting with far-right subjects like anti-immigration and transphobia.
The Democrat Party in the US is also another excellent example of a party which stopped caring about voters to their left because they felt such voters had no other option than vote for them, hence Biden’s own anti-immigration rhetoric and policies, as well as support for the ethno-Fascist Genocidal political movement of Zionism and why the main Political Propaganda messaging from them in the last election was “Vote Kamala to stop Trump” rather than anything about the qualities that Kamala Harris would bring as President.
I mean, I can see where you’re coming from, but historically (at least in the last 3 or 4 decades) in systems with highly rigged voting systems like FPTP, the left-side main party has taken (sometimes very overtly so) left-wing voters for granted and openly pitched ever more rightwards policies in their speeches and then actually enacted them when in office.
Ultimately, even if your theory was correct (and I don’t think there was ever a big enough block of left-wingers refusing to vote for the left-side main party to actually satisfy that condition you say will lead that party to shift rightwards, hence there is no experimental evidence either for or against what you suggest, hence it’s all a fantasy “what if”), we do know with absolute certainty that “vote for them no matter what” leads the left-side main party to shift rightwards because that’s exactly what has happened for at least 3 or 4 decades both in the UK and the US.
“Never blame the politicians for fielding a candidate that many would be unable to bring themselves to vote for due to her support of mass child murder, blame instead the people who can’t bring themselves to vote for a supporter of mass child murder”
– This posts and other DNC propaganda posts like it.
If one didn’t support the opposition, then they’re implicitly in support of who ends up in power.
Sadly our votes are one of the few things we have as normies that give us power, what you do and don’t do with it is important. Even if in your jurisdiction you see both (or more) candidates as being bad, there is always a lesser evil.
That would only be correct if the voting system was not cyclical.
In reality that’s not the case: today’s vote results help shape which candidates are made available to voters the next time around, the one after that and so on.
So it’s perfectly correctly to look at the options put forward today and decide to not vote in order try and have better options available tomorrow - it’s the logic of trying to preempt a tomorrow were all choices are both worse than today’s worst option.
Mind you, this is not me saying that with Trump as one of the candidates doing so was the best possible choice - just explaining how it’s actually a logical choice if one thought Trump was not the danger he turned out to be.
I suspect that if in the last 3 decades most people had been thinking and chosing in the way I suggest rather than falling for the deceitful simplification that each time they vote they must chose the “lesser evil”, the situation were both the Democrats and the Republicans fielded Genocide supporting candidates would never have happenned since at least the Democrats would have long ago and repeateadly been punished for fielding ever more rightwing candidates and thus never arrived at a situation were their candidate was so far to the right that they support the modern day version of Nazis doing their own Genocide as long as the consequences are kept abroad.
It’s because of such mechanics and decades of too many people falling for the DNC propaganda about the obligation to vote lesser evil, that America moved more and more towards the poverty riddled Fascism shithole that it is today - somebody like Trump as POTUS was always bound to happen when the leftmost party of the Money uber-alles + Political duopoly system in the US found a way to not be punished for keeping on moving ever more to the right and even now there’s really no way this trend will stop (much less revert) until the top power of the land - Money - actually suffers for the country being too rightwing (which, curiously, might happen due to Trump, though the risk is the Republicans just replace him with a more intelligent Fascist).
I understand what you’re getting at, but I would partially counter with that losing parties may instead weigh their policy decisions more towards the people they know will vote. Rather than potentially wasting time catering for those that have shown that in the end they may not vote at all. I would wager (on top of many other factors) this could be why many countries’ historically left leaning parties have been moving more and more towards the centre as time goes on. Labour in the UK are a prime example.
The Labour Party in the UK (with whom I am very familiar, having lived there for over a decade) is a perfect example of a party whose leadership strongly believed the segment of voters to their left had no other option than vote for them, hence kept moving rightwards. This is especially so in Keir Starmer’s Labour, with it’s flirting with far-right subjects like anti-immigration and transphobia.
The Democrat Party in the US is also another excellent example of a party which stopped caring about voters to their left because they felt such voters had no other option than vote for them, hence Biden’s own anti-immigration rhetoric and policies, as well as support for the ethno-Fascist Genocidal political movement of Zionism and why the main Political Propaganda messaging from them in the last election was “Vote Kamala to stop Trump” rather than anything about the qualities that Kamala Harris would bring as President.
I mean, I can see where you’re coming from, but historically (at least in the last 3 or 4 decades) in systems with highly rigged voting systems like FPTP, the left-side main party has taken (sometimes very overtly so) left-wing voters for granted and openly pitched ever more rightwards policies in their speeches and then actually enacted them when in office.
Ultimately, even if your theory was correct (and I don’t think there was ever a big enough block of left-wingers refusing to vote for the left-side main party to actually satisfy that condition you say will lead that party to shift rightwards, hence there is no experimental evidence either for or against what you suggest, hence it’s all a fantasy “what if”), we do know with absolute certainty that “vote for them no matter what” leads the left-side main party to shift rightwards because that’s exactly what has happened for at least 3 or 4 decades both in the UK and the US.
What opposition
I’m talking more generally, the world is bigger than just America. You know what I meant.
Word, I support Hamas