Here’s the thing, in the reality that existed in November 2024, there were only 4 choices. 1) Vote for Trump, 2) vote for Harris, 3) vote 3rd party, or 4) don’t vote at all.
Simple math and logic dictate that at that point in time ANY ACTION other than voting for Harris was supporting Trump.
Argue all you want about the two party system being terrible, the distribution of Electoral College votes per capita over states being wrong, the impact of freezing the House seat numbers, or anything else related HAS NO IMPACT on the general election.
For the record, I hate all of the items I mentioned above, but NONE of that mattered come November.
Anyone disputing this is either a disinformation psyop/bot, a champion of a US downfall, or a complete moron.
I made the literal exact same argument in 2024! And then I grew up, and realized that the future exists. Harm reduction in the short term is not worth harm multiplication in the long term. The next republican will be worse than this one. We need to elect politicians who will reduce harm, not delay it.
So going with harm exponential growth in the short term was the better choice? Sounds like a grown up choice making to me.
Want to reduce harm? Make the republicans unwinnable across the board so that actual progressives can differentiate themselves from the rest of the Democrat party. Party in-fighting is great when you have the margins to not lose to the fascists.
As I stated over and over come November 2025 there was only one choice (unless you are an accelerationist/anti-Western/psyops operative).
All the would’ves, could’ves and should’ves don’t matter anymore when you’re at the ballot box.
The harm we’re experiencing right now is a direct result of Biden’s failure to hold Republicans accountable for their many crimes, and his appointment of Harris as his successor sans primary. Even if Harris had won 2024, that would simply guarantee an even worse republican win in 2028 instead. Real harm reduction involves electing politicians who will reduce harm, not delay it. You know how you make the Republicans unwinnable across the board? Force the Democratic party to run candidates that can beat “no preference.”
I voted Harris, and I tried my god fucking damnedest to convince everyone I know to vote Harris too. It failed, because she couldn’t beat an empty fuckin chair. How about we change our strategy? Instead of putting up with whatever slop the DNC feeds us, let’s make sure they have primaries this time, and let’s make sure they run people worth voting for.
You’re an act utilitarian. Rule utilitarians disagree with you. Yours is not the only ethical system, and it’s the height of hubris and arrogance to pretend that only your moral system is valid.
Try not to ask such loaded questions. You’re better than that. I know you can do better.
Again, act utilitarianism vs rule utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism is what our laws use. You’re using act utilitarianism, which has a much poorer track record. A rule utilitarian would say, “we need a hard and fast rule that genocide is wrong. Anyone who supports genocide is a criminal that deserves zero support and respect. This rule creates the greatest good for the greatest number over time.” An act utilitarian says, “this genocide may be OK, if it’s the lesser evil. If I can convince myself it’s on net positive, then it’s the moral thing to do.”
Our laws use rule utilitarianism. You’re not allowed to argue in court that murdering a guy was a net positive to the world. We instead say, “banning all murders will result in the greatest good for the greatest number, so we’ll outlaw all murders.”
You can have two systems that each try to optimize for the greatest good to the greatest number. Rule utilitarians create bright rules that on net, over time, result in the greatest good for the greatest number and avoid the temptation to justify horrible acts by arguing for the greater good. Act utilitarians try to judge each act individually, ignoring a lot of the context and pretending that this act exists in complete isolation from all acts before and after.
Act utilitarianism is literally the moral philosophy of the Holocaust.
Simple math and logic dictate that at that point in time ANY ACTION other than voting for Harris was supporting Trump.
Logically, it must then follow that ANY ACTION other than voting for Trump was supporting Harris.
Did I also vote Marianne Williamson, Cenk Uygur, and Cornell West by voting for Jill Stein? Or just Trump and Harris? I’m trying to figure out the limits to this new infinite-voting glitch we discovered together.
No because 1) he won so any votes not going directly to him didn’t matter in the end, and 2) Republicans tend to fall in line and vote R no matter what versus idealistic leftists and accelerationists who won’t vote for anyone unless they 100% align with their views, and interesting that the hard line for them is Gaza, not any of the other catastrophic outcomes from the Trump presidency. Almost like these were disingenuous arguments to begin with.
Next time push for a better candidate with some morals instead of a sad compromise that lacks any moral integrity like Harris or Biden. I think, people like you are a giant problem who are very flexible with their moral systems as long as it doesn’t directly hurt you. Reminds me of the poem:
First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me
People like you don’t care until they come for you. May be speak up when they front people like immoral Biden or Harris.
sometimes speaking up and voting thirdparty and not voting the small evil IS the moral choice, sure.
however, in the reality of " a fixed amount of people will vote republican no matter what, and a variable amount will vote dems if they feel like it " you have to allow yourself to go against the most moral choice and opt for the 2nd most moral.
If both candidates support getting rid of Gaza, but one of them also wants to nuke half the planet, the choice is obvious no?
Not to mention compounding factors like… if you actually want change for the better you vote for the thing with the highest likelihood of winning. the thing that changes things to your side.
Maybe the missing votes and the 3rd party wouldn’t have been enough, maybe. But if all those missing votes showed up and the US still ended up ruled by the current clown, maybe the discussion would have just been “wow MAGAOTTS fucking suck” instead of all the useless finger pointing and infighting.
But go ahead, tell me how flexible morals are shady, compared to the rigid and tunneled “this thing is bad and i will die on my little bump” rigid morality that is oh so common with the MAGAOTTS mentioned earlier.
People like you are either intentionally bad faith actors (of which Lemmy is ABSOLUTELY INFESTED with), or willfull naive about the realities of the world.
One more time, a little slower this time, the reality of the situation was that come November of 24 the choices were absolutely clear. No amount of whining about how it SHOULD have been changes that.
Unfortunately enough people were misled, chose to light it all on fire, or were too naive to make the right choose in the general election that we all (globally) need to deal with the consequences.
Trump because America’s president, but definitely the world’s problem.
Logically, it must then follow that ANY ACTION other than voting for Trump was supporting Harris
Yes, from the perspective of those who saw Harris as the worst outcome (cue clip of the “apparently I’m an idiot” lady).
For the others, not really no. Sure a coin flip could technically land on the edge, but in real-world conditions it’s even less likely to be called that way.
Anyone who thinks they can debate voters into voting for someone they don’t like after saying all that is also a complete moron. I would never question your intelligence so I assume this is simply to feel better about the situation.
My point is that anyone who says they didn’t like Harris when she was literally the only viable choice come the general elections must therefore be totally fine with Trump, because that’s what the actual effect of their decision was.
All of this idealistic backwards reasoning they are using to somehow absolve themselves from having fucking Trump as the president is just foolishness.
Or may be the democratic leadership was totally fine knowing well and good that Harris or Biden has good chance of losing and they still fronted her. All of this money motivated selfishness of Democratic establishment just piles on top of having Trumps president. They should have fronted AoC or Bernie very early on.
Here’s the thing, in the reality that existed in November 2024, there were only 4 choices. 1) Vote for Trump, 2) vote for Harris, 3) vote 3rd party, or 4) don’t vote at all.
Simple math and logic dictate that at that point in time ANY ACTION other than voting for Harris was supporting Trump.
Argue all you want about the two party system being terrible, the distribution of Electoral College votes per capita over states being wrong, the impact of freezing the House seat numbers, or anything else related HAS NO IMPACT on the general election.
For the record, I hate all of the items I mentioned above, but NONE of that mattered come November.
Anyone disputing this is either a disinformation psyop/bot, a champion of a US downfall, or a complete moron.
I made the literal exact same argument in 2024! And then I grew up, and realized that the future exists. Harm reduction in the short term is not worth harm multiplication in the long term. The next republican will be worse than this one. We need to elect politicians who will reduce harm, not delay it.
So going with harm exponential growth in the short term was the better choice? Sounds like a grown up choice making to me.
Want to reduce harm? Make the republicans unwinnable across the board so that actual progressives can differentiate themselves from the rest of the Democrat party. Party in-fighting is great when you have the margins to not lose to the fascists.
As I stated over and over come November 2025 there was only one choice (unless you are an accelerationist/anti-Western/psyops operative).
All the would’ves, could’ves and should’ves don’t matter anymore when you’re at the ballot box.
The harm we’re experiencing right now is a direct result of Biden’s failure to hold Republicans accountable for their many crimes, and his appointment of Harris as his successor sans primary. Even if Harris had won 2024, that would simply guarantee an even worse republican win in 2028 instead. Real harm reduction involves electing politicians who will reduce harm, not delay it. You know how you make the Republicans unwinnable across the board? Force the Democratic party to run candidates that can beat “no preference.”
I voted Harris, and I tried my god fucking damnedest to convince everyone I know to vote Harris too. It failed, because she couldn’t beat an empty fuckin chair. How about we change our strategy? Instead of putting up with whatever slop the DNC feeds us, let’s make sure they have primaries this time, and let’s make sure they run people worth voting for.
Good on you for breaking this down to a fifth grader level. Problem is most people here don’t seem to have that level of comprehension.
You’re an act utilitarian. Rule utilitarians disagree with you. Yours is not the only ethical system, and it’s the height of hubris and arrogance to pretend that only your moral system is valid.
What moral system throws millions of vulnerable people under the bus so you can brag about how tall your horse is?
You should have talked about Morals when they fronted Biden who got not morals.
We did, loudly. it didn’t matter for shit.
Try not to ask such loaded questions. You’re better than that. I know you can do better.
Again, act utilitarianism vs rule utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism is what our laws use. You’re using act utilitarianism, which has a much poorer track record. A rule utilitarian would say, “we need a hard and fast rule that genocide is wrong. Anyone who supports genocide is a criminal that deserves zero support and respect. This rule creates the greatest good for the greatest number over time.” An act utilitarian says, “this genocide may be OK, if it’s the lesser evil. If I can convince myself it’s on net positive, then it’s the moral thing to do.”
Our laws use rule utilitarianism. You’re not allowed to argue in court that murdering a guy was a net positive to the world. We instead say, “banning all murders will result in the greatest good for the greatest number, so we’ll outlaw all murders.”
You can have two systems that each try to optimize for the greatest good to the greatest number. Rule utilitarians create bright rules that on net, over time, result in the greatest good for the greatest number and avoid the temptation to justify horrible acts by arguing for the greater good. Act utilitarians try to judge each act individually, ignoring a lot of the context and pretending that this act exists in complete isolation from all acts before and after.
Act utilitarianism is literally the moral philosophy of the Holocaust.
The apt poem for them
Ours laws as written maybe, but certainly not in practice. How can you argue that the outcome of our laws show any adherence to rule utilitarianism?
Logically, it must then follow that ANY ACTION other than voting for Trump was supporting Harris.
Did I also vote Marianne Williamson, Cenk Uygur, and Cornell West by voting for Jill Stein? Or just Trump and Harris? I’m trying to figure out the limits to this new infinite-voting glitch we discovered together.
No because 1) he won so any votes not going directly to him didn’t matter in the end, and 2) Republicans tend to fall in line and vote R no matter what versus idealistic leftists and accelerationists who won’t vote for anyone unless they 100% align with their views, and interesting that the hard line for them is Gaza, not any of the other catastrophic outcomes from the Trump presidency. Almost like these were disingenuous arguments to begin with.
Next time push for a better candidate with some morals instead of a sad compromise that lacks any moral integrity like Harris or Biden. I think, people like you are a giant problem who are very flexible with their moral systems as long as it doesn’t directly hurt you. Reminds me of the poem:
People like you don’t care until they come for you. May be speak up when they front people like immoral Biden or Harris.
you’re dense as a rock.
sometimes speaking up and voting thirdparty and not voting the small evil IS the moral choice, sure.
however, in the reality of " a fixed amount of people will vote republican no matter what, and a variable amount will vote dems if they feel like it " you have to allow yourself to go against the most moral choice and opt for the 2nd most moral.
If both candidates support getting rid of Gaza, but one of them also wants to nuke half the planet, the choice is obvious no?
Not to mention compounding factors like… if you actually want change for the better you vote for the thing with the highest likelihood of winning. the thing that changes things to your side.
Maybe the missing votes and the 3rd party wouldn’t have been enough, maybe. But if all those missing votes showed up and the US still ended up ruled by the current clown, maybe the discussion would have just been “wow MAGAOTTS fucking suck” instead of all the useless finger pointing and infighting.
But go ahead, tell me how flexible morals are shady, compared to the rigid and tunneled “this thing is bad and i will die on my little bump” rigid morality that is oh so common with the MAGAOTTS mentioned earlier.
People like you are either intentionally bad faith actors (of which Lemmy is ABSOLUTELY INFESTED with), or willfull naive about the realities of the world.
One more time, a little slower this time, the reality of the situation was that come November of 24 the choices were absolutely clear. No amount of whining about how it SHOULD have been changes that.
Unfortunately enough people were misled, chose to light it all on fire, or were too naive to make the right choose in the general election that we all (globally) need to deal with the consequences.
Trump because America’s president, but definitely the world’s problem.
Yes, from the perspective of those who saw Harris as the worst outcome (cue clip of the “apparently I’m an idiot” lady).
For the others, not really no. Sure a coin flip could technically land on the edge, but in real-world conditions it’s even less likely to be called that way.
don’t expect them to accept logic.
Oh I dont lol
Anyone who thinks they can debate voters into voting for someone they don’t like after saying all that is also a complete moron. I would never question your intelligence so I assume this is simply to feel better about the situation.
It’s a democracy, until it isn’t.
My point is that anyone who says they didn’t like Harris when she was literally the only viable choice come the general elections must therefore be totally fine with Trump, because that’s what the actual effect of their decision was.
All of this idealistic backwards reasoning they are using to somehow absolve themselves from having fucking Trump as the president is just foolishness.
It’s all of your USAmericans fault. At least the people voting this party are trying to change the status quo.
Well she clearly wasn’t a viable choice, was she?
Or may be the democratic leadership was totally fine knowing well and good that Harris or Biden has good chance of losing and they still fronted her. All of this money motivated selfishness of Democratic establishment just piles on top of having Trumps president. They should have fronted AoC or Bernie very early on.
Do better next time when choosing a candidate.