Time to post this again.
Bayard Rustin was a gay Black man who was instrumental in making the March on Washington happen. Even though he was a close ally of MLK, he never pushed King to speak on gay rights, because he knew it wasn’t something america could handle in 1965.
Frederick Douglas supported Abe Lincoln in 1860, even though Lincoln has said that abolition wasn’t as important as keeping the Union together. There was an abolition candidate, but Douglas didn’t think he could win, so Douglas decided to back the person with the best chance in hope of having a seat at the table later.
You know, I can quote a whole bunch of civil rights icons’ opinions about moderation and compromise, but that’d just be us arguing over who has the best black friends.
So I’ll just point out that despite all the wise compromise and statesman concessions to white supremacy, it remains a problem somehow.
So, your black friends are telling you that there’s been no progress since 1860?
And let’s turn it around.
Both Mao and Stalin were uncompromising in their efforts to get rid of capitalism.
Both Russia and China are rife with billionaires.
I don’t know if that’s the argument you think it is? The first modern Chinese and Russian billionaires are products of the 80s/90s, decades after the deaths of Stalin and Mao. Arguably, there’s a fair amount of compromising that led to the collapse of the USSR and the rise of capitalist communism in China created these billionaires. Maybe if they’d kept a harder, purer, uncompromising communist line there’d be fewer billionaires.
You can also take a look at Reconstruction. Any black person will tell you that while there has been progress, it’s obviously not been enough. And Reconstruction played a large part in that. We were uncompromising at first, which led to real results. Then we compromised and Reconstruction ended. And the South went right back to the way things had been.
The sad truth is that if more people were uncompromising on their moral core, we probably wouldn’t be in this mess.
“If more people were uncompromising…”
My favorite magic word. “If…”
We can wish for a better world, or accept and deal with the facts of the here and now.
I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.
-Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Thank you for proving my point.
King was as bad as any of those ‘Liberals’ when it came to gay rights.
Completely ignored the gays, because he knew that America in 1963 wasn’t ready to talk about that.
What point for I prove? Just because someone is wrong about one thing makes them wrong about another?
Dr. King was a preacher in a mid-20th century southern black context. He likely didn’t believe in gay marriage. Hell, Obama only supported “civil unions” in 2004. Most prominent figures on the left were silent on gay rights until relatively recently.
But Harris actually had a lower chance of winning than a hypothetical Harris-without-genocide candidate.
“Stop supporting Israel’s genocide” is something America could handle in 2024.
deleted by creator
Don’t forget the advancement of Israeli forces into Lebanon to create a “buffer” from Hezbollah that’s displaced a ton of people.
We were hoping the democrats would realize.their mistake and alter their platform
After losing. So after Trump wins and permanently fucks up our country?
Smart.
Personally I hoped that the threat would be enough. I hoped if we were all really loud about it the Democratic party would go, “hey I think we might lose this one if we don’t stop murdering thousands of people”. I hoped they would choose winning the election and at least delaying fascism over genocide. They didn’t and it lost them the election. Now we have the beginnings of fascism AND a genocide. Fantastic. Maybe losing the election will motivate them to do better in the next one, if we have one.
Honestly, I’m mostly just shocked they didn’t even try. It’s insane to me that they didn’t even bother lying. They were just that dedicated to genocide. It sucks that Trump made it in to office so soon, it really does but the Democratic party had the opportunity to prevent it and chose not to. I consider them and their donors far more responsible than anyone in this comment section or in any of our actual lives. They have us in such a twist that we are scrapping with eachother over their decisions.
Some people here on Lemmy are also accelerationists who actually want things up get much worse before they get better. Even dumber.
Absolutely. Yet they hide behind bullshit excuses about how they couldn’t support Harris when they KNEW having Trump win would be terrible for America, and therefore great for their own personal goals.
Fuck those disingenuous trolls.
what they thought they would accomplish
being smug on the internet of course
Edit: oh and fantasizing about how Harris would 100% for sure have attacked Iran as well
ShE wOuLd HaVe BeEn WoRsE!!!
Well they get to feel pure and superior, of course.
Feels great honestly
You say that in safety while others suffer the consequences of your actions.
The consequences of not stopping trump, yes. It was an option at one point.
Word
Sucking your own dick can be like that.
I’m sucking my own dick, yes
Yeah, we’re all very aware of that.
I don’t think you are
It feels wonderful and refreshing sucking my own dick
i really want to understand what they thought they would accomplish
I’ve been asking for almost two years and no one will say. I get a lot of “screw you, fascist!” And “Oh, so everyone hasvto have a plan now?!?” amongst other head-scratching non-answers.
The most important thing appears to be to not be involved in any decisions, movements, or other political realities that might conceivably ever have a chance at existing in our lifetimes. I guess.
Honestly at this point most are indistinguishable from straight up FSB bots. Divide the left, no other goals.
you get to choose one and only one:
either the group that would not vote for harris is small enough that they don’t deserve representation, in which case the democrat establishment is to blame.
or the group that would not vote for harris is large enough to have impacted the election and deserved representation, in which case the democrat establishment is to blame.
you can’t have both
The group that would not vote for Harris is small enough that they will be overrun with demented fascism as a definite result of their ill-informed “voting strategy”.
The group that would not vote for Harris is large enough to be roundly mocked and derided for such an obvious and preventable fuckup.
You can have both.
you are incorrect, the only one with a voting strategy is the democratic establishment. and they are obviously bad at math. or have chosen this result vs reaching out to their orphaned base
They will tell you that AOC, Omar, and Mamdani aren’t really ‘Left’ because they sided with the Dems.
Purity first last and always!
Being opposition doesn’t make you left. These aren’t people that oppose capitalism they are people who want a capitalism that is easier on the domestic working class. At the expense of the imperial periphery of course, though this goes unsaid. I sort of like them but their end goal is not the destruction of capitalism.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but capitalism isn’t going anywhere in the US. You’re in a tiny echo chamber if you think that the wholesale destruction of capitalism is even a viable choice.
I don’t believe we are going to destroy capitalism. I believe capitalism is going to destroy itself (or most of the world which is kinda the same thing) and we have to prepare and alternative for when that happens. This belief does not come from online message boards it comes from reading innumerable books on political economy and history. The echo chamber is where I go to find like minded people.
You are not bursting my bubble. I have existed in yours most of my life and understand it well. I have made a choice between two world views that I have plenty of experience with and I am satisfied with that choice.
I’ve seen people say that Mamdani is a traitor because he didn’t denounce the NYPD after that snowball incident.
Ex-New York Mayor Ed Koch put it so simply.
“If you agree with me 51% of the time, vote for me. If you agree with me 100% of the time, see a psychiatrist.”
God I wish there was a US politician I agreed with 51% of the time. Just for my own sanity if nothing else.
So, Omar isn’t pure enough for you?
Bernie?
Meanwhile, American leftists: “if I don’t agree with them 100% of the time they’re not a real leftist”
Not arming a genocide is not some extreme purity test.
actually it would be fucking nice if we could reach 50% agreement of the issues. too bad the establishment dems have more in common with republicans then their own base
I had a long chat with you about this recently. And I don’t think I said “screw you fascist” or “who needs a plan?” And I think I stated it pretty clearly. If the democrats want our votes, they have to not arm genocide. Not voting for them until they stop arming a genocide is a perfectly clear way of staking that position. If literally no votes are held back for that modicum of decency then they have absolutely no reason to change. There’s absolutely nothing confusing or illogical about it, and I don’t know why y’all pretend you’re so bamboozled by it. I mean…you can disagree, go for it. Vote blue no matter who if that suits you. That’s what I think.
But you want to know what I feel? All of you are in here with a photo of two characters whose lives have been destroyed, imagining “this could be me thanks to those assholes who wouldn’t vote for this to happen to other people.” It’s so unbelievably selfish. We all gotta just accept that Palestinians will suffer like this…that’s the price we pay for it not to be us.
I had a long chat with you about this recently. And I don’t think I said “screw you fascist” or “who needs a plan?” And I think I stated it pretty clearly
That’s true, that was not you. We did have a good chat and iirc you had voted for Dems up until Harris? I forget but you weren’t against voting, you just had the single issue that defined all others.
Not voting for them until they stop arming a genocide is a perfectly clear way of staking that position. If literally no votes are held back for that modicum of decency then they have absolutely no reason to change.
Yeah, but that’s where we are now and it’s very very bad. I disagree that change of the kind you’re looking for will come about through throwing the election to avowed fascists, but it is at least a defined position with room to move forward, which is a lot more than some of the other intransigent non-voters.
I think “throwing the election” is overstating it. Harris lost votes because she decided to continue arming a genocide. The democrats know that…if they didn’t know it before (doubt), they do now. Their position cost them votes. That’s what their post-mortem says, according to Axios anyway. So if they don’t change course, they’re choosing to have fewer votes. They really really should not risk choosing to have fewer votes.
deleted by creator
And all the democrats had to do to avoid it was not arm a genocide? Which they shouldn’t have done anyway? Failing to see how this is my fault.
Sorry if we got in the way of your plan to throw palestinians in the woodchipper and go back to brunch. Congrats on your moral inferiority?
All the democrats had to do was blah blah
Wow you really showed them.
I mean…actually though; their postmortem says they lost net votes due to arming the genocide.
deleted by creator
I mean…i’m sure you agree with this: if the democrats want to win, they should not be making choices that cost them votes. Their post-mortem on 2024 tells them that continuing their pro-genocide position cost them votes (according to axios anyway, who I guess got a peek at it somehow. the democrats have decided they are not going to publish it.).
That’s real pressure for them to change. Not voting for the democrats created that pressure. They now know that abandoning israel will lead to a net-increase in their votes.
And yeah, I would hope that when looking down the barrel of more domestic fascism, knowing that it will matter from a purely Machiavellian perspective, the democrats will stop arming a genocide.
Like…I get how scared everyone is. I have family members who are undocumented immigrants in the US. It is terrifying. My neice might get shipped off to some el-salvadorian torture prison. Life would have been better for them if Harris had won. But I don’t regret refusing to vote for Harris because (a) I reject the claim that I have some ethical culpability for what the the fascists do (that’s just some ontological fuckery that I can’t straighten out in my mind, even with the benefit of a philosophy undergrad and years more of school and work figuring out all kinds of tax-law fuckery), and (b) people taking this position has created measurable pressure on the democrats to change. I guess there’s also the sneaky (c) my vote would not have counted anyway because I’m not from a swing state.
Yeah the better version of this meme has the text, “Well at least she didn’t say anything antisemitic.”
There’s that brunch thing again. I guess eating at 11am is horrifyingly bourgeoise, but that seems kind of dumb.
Brunch is lovely.
But I’m using brunch as a metaphor for “living a comfortable life and not worrying about the suffering inflicted with your tax dollars.”
If the democrats want our votes, they have to not arm genocide. Not voting for them until they stop arming a genocide is a perfectly clear way of staking that position.
The problem is that this way of thinking is backwards and ineffective. I don’t give a shit about rewarding Democrats with my vote; I care about securing the most favorable conditions I can. When both popular options are bad, that means picking the less bad one, even if it’s only slightly less bad; even if it’s exactly as bad by one metric, and only better on other metrics. Our votes aren’t to give them some achievement trophy, they’re to determine who will be making policy decisions.
Further, it isn’t really an effective way to force them to change. People who didn’t vote for them didn’t fill out a questionnaire to communicate why they didn’t vote for them. The only way they get that information is if it’s given to them somehow.
They have information about what will happen if they break with Israel: AIPAC will dump tons of money into opposing them. Not only will they lose the Zionist portion of their voter base, but wealthy Zionists will inundate them with attack ads to jeopardize other portions of their base.
They’re going to do calculations, based on the actual communicated data they have, to weigh the number of voters they’d lose vs. the number of voters they’d gain by withdrawing support for Israel. The data against withdrawing support for Israel is highly organized, heavily funded, and very clearly communicated. However widespread you think the movement to withdraw support is, it’s less organized, less funded, and less clearly communicated. From the perspective of DNC leadership, the calculations are clear.
If you want them to change, you need clear, organized data to show them what the change needs to be and how many people support it. You need tens of millions of signatures on a clearly worded petition. Otherwise, you’re essentially just a loose collection of anonymous strangers giving them the silent treatment.
I disagree with your ethical framing (to my personal moral compass, I’m less culpable in the ongoing genocide if I didn’t legitimize the people arming it by voting for them, even if the other party would have also armed the genocide), but setting that aside, I guess this loose collection of anonymous strangers giving them the silent treatment have had an effect. The democrats’ postmortem apparently says that arming genocide resulted in a net loss of votes for them.
They know. The calculations are clearly against supporting a genocide…which should be a no brainer no matter how organized or funded the genocidiers are.
less culpable in the ongoing genocide if I didn’t legitimize the people arming it by voting for them, even if the other party would have also armed the genocide
You seem to be a strict deontologist. I do not subscribe to that worldview. I find it childish and self-centered, both ineffective and rarely consistent. But putting that aside, “legitimacy” is irrelevant. It will continue with or without your personal blessing. It’s moralistic posturing with no material effect.
The democrats’ postmortem apparently says that arming genocide resulted in a net loss of votes for them.
I don’t think that’s what it says at all. I think it may have said that it resulted in a raw loss of votes, I do not think that it reflected a net loss of votes. I think their data implies they would have lost more votes in changing positions than they would have gained. Like it or not, the propaganda is strong, and there are more low-information voters than high-information ones. Go against Israel, and you go against AIPAC. Go against AIPAC, and you’re in for a world of hurt on the political field. You’re not just losing active Zionists, you’re losing fence-sitters who are not immune to waves of attack ads.
Obviously not supporting a genocide is a no-brainer, but the majority of voters have no brain to speak of. You can’t beat organized and well-funded propaganda with the silent treatment.
Hamid Bendaas, a spokesperson for the IMEU Policy Project, said that during the meeting “the DNC shared with us that their own data also found that policy was, in their words, a ‘net-negative’ in the 2024 election.” Two other senior aides at the pro-Palestinian organization also said the DNC had drawn that conclusion.
https://www.axios.com/2026/02/22/dnc-2024-autopsy-harris-gaza
What do you mean, you don’t think that’s what it says? Have you seen it? I’d love to get a copy if you’re leaking it! Do you just mean you imagine it wouldn’t say that?
I’m not a strict deontologist; I’d say I’m closer to a strict utilitarian lol My vote doesn’t mean anything except legitimizing the people I vote for and the system as a whole. The democrats and the republicans actually have power. They are the moral agent here.
In a trolley problem (since you seem like someone who might be familiar), voters are just watching from afar and wishing for the people at the switch to make one choice or the other. And that’s fine. But don’t give me shit for not wasting my time wishing.
I think these are the people who choose “Do nothing” on the 5-v-1 trolley problem. i.e.: they would rather let 5 people die than take an active role in killing one. I can understand the moral argument, but it really does make for objectively poor outcomes.
The Trolley Problem isn’t a correct Games Theory representation of this situation, not even close:
- For starters, those doing the chosing don’t know for sure what’s down each track (we do know now, with hindsight and only for the chosen branch, but that’s long after making the choice and you still don’t know what would be down the other track)
- Second, it’s not an individual choice, it’s a mathematical calculation (not even an average) of multiple choices which were not coordinated (i.e. each individual does not know enough at the time of their own choice to predict the final result), so unlike in the Trolley Problem, there is no individual responsibility.
- Last but not least, this is a cyclical choice were how many victims are on the tracks for the next choice is influenced by what was chosrn in an earlier cycel and even how many people made that choice - sending the tram down a line with more victims now might actually mean fewer victims on the line of one or even both branches for the next choice, or the opposite (clearly past choices created this situation were both candidates were Genocide supporters hence there we’re far more victims on both tracks)
You have either been deceived by this propagandistic misuse of Games Theory and are now parroting it without fully understanding it or you are knowingly being deceitful for the purpose of supporting the leaders of your party.
if you intervene you own the consequences. Who tied these people to the tracks? are they watching me decide? refusing to participate in a rigged game is perfectly rational and moral.
If you do nothing, you own the consequences too, even if you try to pretend that you don’t.
And they are much worse consequences. Much worse than the 5:1 ratio of the original trolley problem
You are not responsible for actions which you do not take, and further, you are not responsible for consequences proceeding from actions you did not take.
The trolley problem is designed specifically to illustrate the simple logic of utilitarianism. It allocates no blame to whoever tied the guy to the tracks, and doesn’t usually include any consideration of context. Unlike reality, the trolley problem reduces a qualitative moral decisionmaking to a pure binary, in a complete vacuum. It exists to demonstrate that one number is bigger than another number, with a couple of extra steps. No relationship to reality.
If you have a choice whether you wanted to have it or not, and you choose not to act. That in and of itself is you making a call as to what outcome you prefer. You are therefore responsible.
Choosing not to act is still a choice own it. You would choose to let 5 people die instead of 1 so that you don’t have to feel responsible but you are. You are putting your emotions over the lives of others.
There is such a thing legally speaking as gross negligence. You chose not to act and a worse outcome happens when you had the ability to stop it. Your argument would never hold up in court.
You can try to claim moral superiority all you like but in the end it’s just an excuse to allow you to put your feelings over the lives of others.
As a Canadian I’m am disappointed and disgusted by the selfishness of the US populace both left and right in different ways. Get off your high horse and own your decisions. The time for change is at the grassroots level. Stop with your mememe “morality” and do something beyond the absolute minimum of voting if you even did that.
Fix your shit American sorry not sorry
Who tied these people to the tracks?
A mentally ill guy who’s mentally ill because his alcoholic father treated him horribly as a kid, and his father was an alcoholic because he lost his job because of the economic recession.
What now?
are they watching me decide?
Why do you care? Does that affect your decision?
There is no “non-rigged” game, this is a very messy world burdened with centuries of unfairness. At some point you’ll have to move on from merely pointing out who’s at fault towards actually trying to fix things.
the trolley problem is the rigged game. It captures none of the important ‘messiness’ of the real world and ultimately is used to help you rationalise voting against your own best interests within a 2-party political paradigm
You barely responded to anything I wrote. The key words seem to correspond, but nothing here actually builds upon the previous comments, it’s either restating things or saying something (as far as I see) unrelated and illogical.
What exactly are my own best interests that I’m supposedly voting against by supposedly voting for Democrats? Why are my best interests crucial here anyway? Could we also take into account the 200 dead Iranian children’s best interests? I think they’re more important than mine, honestly.
Whatever you gotta tell yourself, but the election happened and votes were counted and now it’s another four years of killing everything. If you didn’t do the one thing that you could do, that’s neither rational nor moral.
You don’t get to choose whether you are in the trolley problem. Once you’re standing in front of the lever, choosing to not intervene is still a choice.
it’s unwise to negotiate with terrorists, and for similar reasons I would say that it is unwise to participate in a system that legitimises your own destruction
I said I understand the argument. You can rage at how the people got on the tracks and look for the real culprits all day, but while you’re ‘solving’ the big problem, people die who didn’t have to.
How about the Blade Runner question: You come across a tortoise on its back, belly baking in the hot sun: do you flip the tortoise on its feet or worry who flipped it on its back while you watch it die?
i would intervene with the tortoise, and i’d happily wear the consequences. I’m not obliged to be a pure witness nor am i bound by any kind of prime directive. I can explain to my conscience why an extra tortoise exists due to my actions but i couldn’t say the same about the trolley problem without extra information.
For example, if i am being observed then my decision becomes data, which carries its own weight and precedent. If the situation was arranged to view my response, then I am obliged to not participate, to send a signal to the experimenters to not tie anyone up on the tracks for future observers. I condemn everyone in front of me to death but how do i know they won’t be killed regardless? whoever arranged the situation obviously didn’t value their lives very highly…
Apathy is also participation.
“hey shut up about genocide, will you?”
“hmmm… no, I can’t think of ONE thing I would do differently from this senile corpse”
“hey look! the Cheneys love me!”
…
“wait why didn’t enough people turn out?”
So, I’m not usian, but isn’t it better for the long term to show Dems that you will vote a candidate for what their policies are instead of just because they aren’t the other guy, thus making them choose candidates that at least pretend to listen to what the people want?
Voting for “not-Trump” just enables them and allows them to keep moving to the right, as long as the other guy is worse, like it’s being happening the last 20+ years. “You need to vote for the eating-babies candidate! The other one is advocating for eating babies AND puppies!”.
The problem comes when you’re weighing a protest vote/no-vote against milquetoast corporate centrism, and the outcome should that protest vote sway the election is that the Slavering Fascist Apocalypse-Makers sweep into power, turn any future elections into tightly-controlled farces, and then begin a sweeping range of internal and external pogroms. Voting for the corporate centrists sucks, but from a standpoint of harm reduction it’s the only viable choice. A bunch of people stayed home in 2024 on the logic that by doing so they’d send a message to the Democrats, and as a result America might lose its democracy entirely.
Voting for the corporate centrist is viable harm reduction in the short term, but in the long term it’s a harm multiplier. Trump winning 2020 absolutely would have been worse than Biden winning, but Biden’s win and subsequent failure to do anything whatsoever to prevent future harm made Trump’s 2024 win even worse. If Harris had won 2024, she would have continued to fail to hold republicans accountable for their treason, and the next republican would be even worse. The only way this method of harm reduction functions in the long term is if a republican is never elected again. Republicans will be elected again, and we need an opposing party that’s willing and able to oppose them, not delay them.
Someone said it here. Thank you!
It’s not about your stupid little election anymore, Americans. There is nothing more unimportant than your two parties. You’re being kicked out of the middle east and the basis for your global empire is crumbling. Soon you’ll be kicked out of the rest of the world too, and the contest between the “do nothing” party and the “make life worse” party will matter to Americans and Americans alone.
Good thing for the world. US has committed alongside USSR most amount of violence in the world in last 70 years. Not to mention US has invested many terrorist groups and many problems that exist today.
I agree entirely except for the thing about the USSR
USSR bombed Afghanistan to stone age.
Yeah, but it’s not comparable to what America did in Korea or Vietnam
You’re right; it was much worse.
Huh, I looked it up and it was worse than I thought. Still only 10% of the population compared to 20% of the population in North Korea, but still very bad. Nevertheless, the Soviets did it once, while the Americans did it a whole bunch of times.
Trump being President proves the USA is going down, and the world economy will suffer for it. But, inevitable.
You may not enjoy what follows
It had to happen, I choose to enjoy it
We’re just getting started.
Good luck
That’s a nice fantasy, but, it’s not real. This will be painful for the US and it will have less of an ability to leverage its ability to project power for diplomatic gains, it will be far more painful for the overwhelming majority of the rest of the world. The only winners in this are Russia and Iran (pending sanctions relief and the ability to rebuild their infrastructure), but the US and China (and their closest economic partners) lose the least, and between nations that’s as near as makes no difference to winning.
For as long as the US remains a cohesive entity, it will remain a world power, if maybe not the global hegemon that it has been, but it’s a long road from here to there and despite the best attempts of Trump et al, we’re not there yet and there are many things that could yet happen to derail that process.
alternate-history photograph of two Palestinians, after their homes and families were blown to smithereens by president kamala’s bombs, circa 2026
More people should have read the road.
Or watch threads.
“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.
What opposition
I’m talking more generally, the world is bigger than just America. You know what I meant.
Word, I support Hamas
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.
deleted by creator
I voted for Harris, but I’m really sick of this argument. Trump is president because too many Americans are racist shit-stains, not because of the tiny minority that think it’s sad when Arabs are murdered.
Obviously a larger group has a larger impact, and voting for the worse option is worse than not voting. But the tiny minorities that didn’t vote for whatever reason could have made a difference much larger than the size of their individual groups.
And the democrats’ own analysis has shown that if Harris took a stand on Gaza she would have won easily, exactly as they were told before the election.
And if the democratic establishment had told Biden “you’re done” in (say) 2022/23, and had an actual primary (which Harris would have likely won in a walk) there would not have been the nasty taste of a coronation for people to contend with.
And the democrats’ own analysis has shown that if Harris took a stand on Gaza she would have won easily, exactly as they were told before the election.
Afaik that was not released publicly, there were just a couple of people who had claimed to see it. Is it available now?
What makes you think Harris would have handily won a primary?
She was the VP and had the backing of the DNC, and even being somewhat unpopular that’s a pretty massive advantage.
I think you massively underestimate how dissatisfied people were with not just the genocide in gaza, but the feeling that the party wasn’t in the slightest democratic because of it.
Gaza she would have won easily, exactly as they were told before the election.
I can’t respect anyone who’d blindly accept the Democrat line. Even worse is a person who would claim to hate the DNC, but get’s credulous when they say something that confirmed your priors.
I don’t think Harris would have won at all. In 2020 she dropped before Iowa… That’s before any vote was even cast. Against Trump Biden polled the worst of all candidates, Harris polled the second worst. There is just no reason to think she would have ever earned that position on the ticket.
Exactly. She was chosen to be VP for two reasons. One, she was a woman of color. Two, she was a weak candidate.
Biden deliberately wanted an extremely weak vice president. He made a point to keep her out of the limelight. Contrast that to MAGA, who have been consciously building up JD Vance as a possible future figure for the movement. Trump and his handlers know that this is likely Trump’s last term. We like to doom about him running for a third term. But even if he could cheat the election, he just doesn’t have that much time left period. He’s unlikely to run again.
Biden however was intending to run for another term. And he knew that he would seem extremely old, weak, and out of touch. He didn’t want a younger dynamic VP that would so make him look so much worse in comparison. Biden kept Harris hidden away and never let her build up her clout and power base. They kept her out of public view and tried not to give her many chances to improve her image.
They selected a weak VP and kept her weak. Then when Biden was forced to drop out due to his disastrous debate performance, they were caught with their pants down.
Honestly, when Biden picked her I thought it was to build her up as a candidate. Why would you pick a VP from California? It’s not like you need to bolster your California vote as a Democrat. He initially said he would be there bridge to the next generation and I thought maybe he meant through her. But then he gave her all the impossible tasks and kept her out of view. None of it made sense to me.
It made sense precisely because she wasn’t ever going to win a primary on her own. Biden acted like Trump here. Trump surrounds himself with people who have zero future without him. His cabinet is filled with profoundly unqualified people whose only real qualification is unwavering loyalty to Trump. This is a classic move of authoritarian leaders, as their advisors then become completely dependent on them. Once Trump is out of office, Hegseth is never going to have a role in government again. (Unless some other authoritarian president is seeking a loyal lackey.)
Biden did a less extreme version of this with Kamala. Kamala certainly wasn’t objectively unqualified for her job like Hegseth is, but she also could never had obtained a leadership position in the White House via her own merits.
deleted by creator
And the democrats’ own analysis has shown that if Harris took a stand on Gaza
Harris said she was against genocide and would do everything to stop Israel except stop selling weapons.
Trump promised genocide.
Americans chose Trump.
The lesson is that to win the election, Harris should have promised to kill more Palestinians than Trump. It’s what Americans want.
Harris said she was against genocide and would do everything to stop Israel except stop selling weapons.
So she would have done nothing.
No she was against genocide didn’t you hear? Just because you want to put the gas in the concentration camp shower, doesn’t mean you’re committing genocide if it’s someone else pressing the button to release it.
Both are true.
Never ceases to amaze me that she cared more about killing innocent people than she did about winning that election.
I’ve been holding my nose and voting for lesser evil my whole life and we still got here. I’m not doing it again. If that means we have to solve this in the streets, it won’t be the first time. Progressive or bust.
No you don’t understand, we have to do the same thing we’ve done for decades, and this time, instead of things getting worse, things will get better. Please be practical.
Blaming anyone that voted third party is one of the most tiresome, braindead, selfish opinions. Seriously, get over yourself. The entire reason we’re in this mess is because of the two party system putting people against eachother instead of the greedy villains surviving the life out of the country. Stop being weak and giving in to the lesser evil. Compromising with harm only brings about more harm.
In conclusion, fuck you.
First past the post creating a two party system is a result of math. You might as well complain about Pi would be easier to remember if Pi=3.0 . Math doesn’t care about your feelings.
thats a good point. pi being 3.14159 is bullshit and I’ve had enough of it.
The US electoral system is not a universal constant. It is not pi or the speed of light. It is a system by which rich people maintain control over a declining imperial power, based on a document written by slave owners 250 years ago as part of a tax dodging scheme.
but but but Russia!!! China!!!
Would you like a hankie?
They are correct, and your response here just proves how absolutely braindead you are. Maybe it’s time for some introspection?
Maybe it’s time for a hankie?
you’re hopeless, OP.
Took you this long to figure that out?
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.
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.
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?
The apt poem for them
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
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.
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.
It’s a democracy, until it isn’t.
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.
Do better next time when choosing a candidate.
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.
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.
don’t expect them to accept logic.
Oh I dont lol
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.
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.
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.
Blaming anyone that voted third party is one of the most tiresome, braindead, selfish opinions.
It’s also mathematically ignorant. If Harris received every single third party vote excluding RFK Jr’s, even if you include Libertarians who are more right-leaning, she still would’ve lost.
That is like saying that because nobody dies from measles, it is mathematically ignorant to support vaccines.
Yes, the Republicans haven’t won an election because of third party voters since Nader handed the win to Bush in 2000. But that is because people have been smart enough since then to not throw their vote away. Burned by fire.
[Harris] still would’ve lost.
That is probably the stupidest argument I have heard this week. And I have heard a lot of stupid arguments.
Harris didn’t dance naked through Washington wearing only a clown nose, but Harris still would’ve lost if she did that. By your argument, there is no reason for politicians not to dance naked through Washington wearing only a clown nose…
None of what you said makes any logical sense
They will blame third parties, meanwhile 6 million of THEM couldn’t even be bothered to vote.
it’s never their fault, all the way down
It doesn’t matter who you voted for, neither group is putting the effort needed to protest and shut what the government is doing down. All parties are culpable to what is going on.
Im no different, I’m also guilty of this, but I recognize I need to do more and I’m trying.
Feeling righteous and indignant on the internet moves progress backwards and allows the bots to win.
No fuck you, how would compromising and voting for the lesser harm have been worse than what we have now?
Flash back to 2020. How could voting for Biden be worse than letting Trump have a second term?
Trump’s administration was in shambles by 2020. Everyone working for him fucking hated him. He wouldn’t have done half the shit he managed in 2024-2026. He would have convinced his base to take the Trump Vaccine, and covid would have been less deadly. In 2024 we might have had a primary, instead of the democrats forcing a fuckin cop onto our ballots.
But hey, let’s vote for Biden! We’ll get some infrastructure funding, and… uh…
Can we move the fuck on? Do y’all think they are fighting this much on their side? I don’t. I see them pile driving through. Fuck Harris, fuck Biden, fuck em all. Learn from our mistakes, and let’s move forward goddamnit.
But then blue MAGA will have to find something useful to do besides yelling at leftists instead of killing their Nazi neighbors (they seem to believe they can work/compromise with them).
Blue MAGA
What is it that you think MAGA means? Have you ever actually met and discussed politics with a MAGA person?
If so, you’d instantly understand why it’s so stupid to call people this. But whatever makes you feel superior on the Internet I guess.
blue maga thinks America was fine before Trump and we just need to get back to obama
So nothing like actual MAGA. Got it.
If that’s what it means, then everyone here that I’ve ever seen use it is using it wrong.
Using the same exact acronym as literal fascists is obviously a ploy to demonize people that are like 3 steps away from agreeing with you.
I have only ever seen it used as a cudgel to end a discussion when the person doesn’t immediately agree that all Democrats are evil and are incapable of ever doing anything worthy of praise.
It’s a thought-terminating cliche, and at least some of the people who constantly use it know exactly what they are doing.
Try discussing politics with someone who is actually MAGA and come back. See the difference.
Obama was almost indistinguishable from Mussolini. if you didn’t notice it, your existence wasn’t a threat to the hegemony.
Democrats are fascists too.
Obama was almost indistinguishable from Mussolini.
Lol oh. Ok then.
MAGA believes Trump is the best president we’ve had in a long time and actively attack anyone who thinks otherwise. Biden and Harris’s bizarre fanbase do the exact same with their belief of Biden being this amazing progressive president and the most leftwing one we’ve ever had. If you date say anything bad about either, you’re attacked, accused of being some outside agent working to destroy the left, and stalked so that any post or comment you make is filled with replies calling you a conservative or Russian bot.
Biden and Harris’s bizarre fanbase do the exact same with their belief of Biden being this amazing progressive president and the most leftwing one we’ve ever had
Literally do not exist on this platform (or perhaps any platform). What people do is use it as a thought terminating cliche whenever someone has a more nuanced opinion than “all Democrats bad”
I literally deal with these morons all the time, especially on Bluesky where there’s like 5 daily threads about how “Harris and Clinton warned us!!! America won’t listen to smart women!!!”.
Well which is it? Learning from our mistakes or moving on?
Both. You can learn from your mistakes and move on to be better.
I think my point was that we all here want better. Harris fucked up the dems fucked up. Biden fucked up. Every thing we all talk about has some truth to it. I agree with alot of points a lot of folks on here make, and sometimes they’re all different points of view.
Biden fucked up
Dude didn’t fuck up. He is a fuck up. Same for the rest. Important difference.
Well there’s the problem - we didn’t learn from our mistakes. And Midterms are in twenty minutes.
Well there’s the problem - we didn’t learn from our mistakes.
We can tell.
You know who fucked up the most? Non-voters or people who threw away their votes in the general election.
That’s a DIRECT result that brought about the Trump presidency
You know who fucked up the most? The enslavers who concocted this bullshit system where the candidates are shit and the vast majority of votes don’t matter.
Definitely not wrong. If you didn’t vote you have no room to complain.
try to stop me
Vote blue no matter who mfs when deep south candidate Hdolf Aitler promises free healthcare.
That aside, Democrats dgaf about their voting base - and it shows. Harris didn’t even go through general elections (which was skipped) and the DNC jumped from ol’ Biden to Harris after the fact - and from what I’m hearing from progressive Americans is that was an insult to the idea of democracy, especially when they did not want Harris whatsoever.
So let me make it clear: if the Democrats can’t secure enough votes in the midterms and the next presidential elections, it’s because they fucked up.
Then again, you could maybe start getting rid of that third party stigma and have some actual options? No? Just two parties bought up by AIPAC and JStreet?
Cue the biker jamming a stick in the wheels meme.
