Downvotes are disabled on my instance; multiple people think you wrote something inane. I have no problem replying to you telling you that you live in a dictatorship of capital where both sides are the same but you are so propagandized and ignorant you can’t even see the truth right in front of your nose. One side enables the other, the US functions as a whole. The democracy there is kay fabe and predetermined. You don’t get a vote for the board members of Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Blackstone, Raytheon etc.
I didn’t see Biden and Trump in that quote. Facts are that both sides are just doing what they can get away with according to the crowd they’re trying to appeal to. If left to their own devices, both sides will engage in heinous behavior. The only thing stopping the Democrats from doing more Republican things is in a way, their branding as “good guys”, whatever that may mean to Democrat sided citizens. The point is there is a lack of scrutiny on our end and the whole good vs evil black and white bullshit distracts us from the fact that the people in charge of the Democrats are just as capable of evil and are just two sides of the same coin taking different approaches. There was a time when the Republicans were the good guys and the Democrats were the evil ones and that can switch just as easily as it did before. The whole Red vs Blue shit is a distraction. He never said it’s okay to vote for Trump or okay not to vote against him and it’s extremely disingenuous for you to say that that’s his fucking take.
I can tell the difference, in the same way I can tell the difference between a father that molests his children and the wife that covers for and enables him.
Curious how democrats decided to do genocide over obstructing any of the dastardly acts on your list. Is it lost on you how the democrats are controlled opposition?
If, in 20 years, your choice is between a democrat who wants 9 genocides and a republican who wants 10, which would you choose?
Let’s not pretend that Trump’s plan to forcibly remove all Palestinians from Gaza isn’t a revival of the same plan put forth by Biden behind closed doors.
But in a statement Thursday, the Egyptian government rejected efforts to move Palestinians from Gaza as a “blatant violation” of international law that could undercut ceasefire talks and threaten Middle East relations.
A Western diplomat in Cairo, also speaking anonymously because the discussions have not been made public, confirmed receiving Egypt’s message of its strong opposition through multiple channels. The diplomat said Egypt was very serious and viewed the plan as a threat to its national security.
The diplomat said Egypt rejected similar proposals from the Biden administration and European countries early in the war, which was sparked by Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023 attack into southern Israel. The earlier proposals were broached privately, while Trump announced his plan at a White House press conference alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The only obligation the US has, under the Leahy Law and International Law, is to cease weapons transfers to Israel for violating human rights and perpetrating crimes against humanity.
Biden is a self proclaimed Zionist, he absolutely supported this genocide, both materially, diplomatically, and ideologically.
The one who wants fewer genocides, how is that even a question?
But much better would be using those 20 years to empower progressives at the local level, so they have the experience to get elected to the state level, which gives them the experience to be competitive at the federal level. No one is saying to just support the Dems forever. You can spend 1 day every 4 years helping the Republicans lose, and spend the other 1460 fighting for better options. I recommend it, in fact.
Voting lesser evil slows the descent into fascism while we build the progressive base necessary for a progressive to win the general election. No one is saying the lesser evil is good, we know it’s evil, that’s why we call it the lesser evil. But it is the lesser evil, and when you have a choice between two evils winning, the lesser evil is preferable.
Voting for a third party with no chance of winning, or not voting at all, does not give us better options. Building a successful third party takes time and many, many wins in smaller elections. Personally, I’d rather spend that time under a neo-liberal regime than a Christofascist one. They’re both bad, but one is unambiguously worse.
Vote progressive for every local office you can. If there are no progressive options, consider running yourself or convincing a politically inclined friend to do so. If we all show up for every single election, and flood every level of government with progressives, maybe in 20 years we’ll have a better choice than 9 genocides vs 10 genocides. But every Republican win helps gerrymander and disenfranchise us further from that goal.
Surely nobody thought of this 20 years ago when George fucking Bush was in office. Or 40 years ago when Reagan was in office. This idea of pushing the liberal party left and running locally is a totally fresh and original idea and definitely isn’t a distraction from organizing the working class into a force of its own which demands concessions from the ruling class at the threat of upheaval.
It’s not a new idea, we just haven’t been implementing it. And who said anything about pushing the liberal party left? It’s not about parties, it’s about politicians and their policies. Run third party wherever it’s viable, run Democrat where it isn’t, it’s really not that important what letter is next to your name. What’s important is your platform.
definitely isn’t a distraction from organizing the working class into a force of its own
That’s exactly what I’m suggesting. What is “showing up to every election to vote for progressives” if not organizing the working class? What kind of organization do you think has a lower barrier than voting? If we can’t organize the working class to vote one day every couple years, how on Earth do you expect them to jeopardize their safety and livelihoods with more direct action?
And even then, those approaches aren’t mutually exclusive. Voting in no way prevents you from organizing. In fact, strategically voting against the fascists explicitly helps the push to organize. It’s much easier to protest when the reaction is a smug “I’m talking now”, than when the reaction is having your degree retroactively nullified or, y’know, getting deported to an El Salvadorian gulag.
I understand the dissenting opinions, but it’s mind-boggling people can’t grasp this in the modern world. There’s almost 350 million people in the US. It’s impossible to immediately get everyone on the same page and make meaningful change in a short period of time.
If you abstain from voting, you absolutely allow the greater evil to thrive and become worse. Look at the extent that Bush went to after 9/11. No one should want that.
No I completely get the problem there. It’s going to be really hard to get electoral reform if there are no longer elections. So my focus is on preserving Democratic institutions long enough that maybe we can improve them. Obviously party leaders have no interest in seeing changes that threaten the duopoly, but there are Democrats (particularly at the state level) who have been open to reforms like rank choice voting.
If suddenly Republicans stop attacking the rule of law, checks and balances, gerrymandering districts, overriding voters, and coddling white nationalists then maybe their party would be capable of enacting positive change as well.
If you have some secret third choice that can change the system without bloodshed or voting for one of the two parties I’m all ears. If you’re going to tell me to vote third party then I’d like you to show me how you think a third party candidate can win the presidency because that’s never happened and it’s never even been close.
You talked right past the inherent contradictions and did not see them.
Assuming the US election process remains unchanged for the foreseeable future how do you get electoral reforms using the electoral process that you agree needs reforms?
I understand what you’re getting at but I don’t know what kind of answer you want here. Are you suggesting that violence is the only way to achieve change? Are you suggesting that third party candidates could win a national election and then eliminate the two-party system? Are you suggesting that electing more Republicans will result in a political future that offers more power to voters to choose their own government? Do you think that electing fascists will accelerate the collapse of the state and then a more progressive ideology will rise from the ashes? Are you just cool with what the Republican party looks like right now and the way that they govern?
Do I need to specify that I’m not saying you should vote for every Democrat no matter what and that you really should consider candidates as individuals?
I guess I see the Democratic party as a deeply flawed party (with abysmally out of touch leadership) that needs serious reform and I see the Republican party as a cult of christofascist fucks that need to be defeated before they completely erode individual rights and entrench their own power for generations.
So yes. I get the contradiction in saying “You should vote for one of the two parties in order to create a political landscape where it is possible to one day move beyond the two-party system”. Partisanship makes everything harder. But if you really think both parties are the same and that it doesn’t matter which one you pick then I don’t know what to tell you.
Your thesis is fundamentally flawed, if we are ever going to get an answer you need to stop getting mad at the people working to help you find a solution.
What I (and others) are trying to tell you is that the christofascist fuck cult goes much deeper than the surface level that you are fixated on. The “deep flaws” you see in the Democratic party aren’t bugs, they’re ‘features’.
The current status quo is deeply broken, I think we can both agree on that, yes?
The threat of violence (along with capability) has historically been a very effective tool for change (for better and worse), but I do no not see it being effective in a world where drone strikes, autonomous murder copters and nuclear weapons are a thing.
I also argue that the concept of electoralism is fundamentally broken and so electing more Republicans, Democrats, 3rd parties, goldfish, etc. is not going to solve/change anything either.
Accelerationism replaces current problems with worse ones, but my understanding is that if you’re focus is on your grandchildren and thinking in the timescale of centuries then maybe. IMO it’s one hell of a big gamble with an incredibly high cost and low odds of substantial/any progress.
I suppose I don’t see that as a productive perspective? You’re not offering any solutions or actions to take to enact the change you want to see besides doing nothing until we collectively figure out how to have a revolution.
The system is flawed. Maybe you’re right that it is fundamentally broken and cannot be reformed but disengaging from voting only supports the status quo and those that are already in power. I think it’s worth it to vote for candidates that share some of the same values as me even if they aren’t perfect while continuing to put political pressure on leaders that are not serving the public effectively. I would vote for someone one day and join a protest against them the next day, I do not see that as a contradiction. That is just being civically engaged.
Also I know I’m probably coming in hot here but I’m truly not mad or upset. I think these are the sorts of conversations on Lemmy that are really great and hard to have in other settings. I appreciate your thoughtful responses. It seems like we’re pretty aligned on what the problems are. I’m very open to solutions that don’t involve harming others but if you aren’t a voter I’d strongly encourage you to consider voting, though I agree that voting alone will not solve every problem.
Lol, I definitely didn’t interpret you coming in hot at all. I made the mistake of engaging in on a few other ‘hot button’ threads the last couple of days and you have been, by far, the most pleasant, insightful and willing to engage in good faith. It’s very much appreciated <3.
Action for action’s sake just makes everyone tired and unable to act when it’s necessary. I’m not advocating “doing nothing” I’m advocating for intentionality, thoughtfulness, a hefty dose of cynicism and acting out of evidence instead of idealism.
I’m not saying don’t vote, I’m saying be realistic about what it can and cannot accomplish. The reason I often end up in these sorts of conversations is due to the common trend of people refusing to engage or help those directly in front of them because of some variation of ‘they voted for things to be different’ and so feel entitled to not get their hands dirty as well as a smug “not my problem, I did my part” or “that problem has already been solved, it’s just not fully implemented”. In either case it often leads to them being an active barrier to helping others and intentionally choosing to harm others. Which makes even doing small things like providing food, first aid, escape etc. sooooo much harder than it needs to be.
The problem though is it doesn’t matter how many individual fires you put out, it doesn’t scale up and doesn’t affect the root cause of any of them and that’s what I was replying “I don’t have a good answer to” to. Especially since each individual problem is probably going to end up needing a different approach.
So until we can figure out how to turn off the ‘light everything on fire machine’ it seems like we’re pretty aligned on putting out fires where we can, when we can. Keep fighting the good fight, and good luck!
According to the modlog, this is the removed comment:
Democrats are far from perfect, but last time they were in power they… invested in infrastructure, forgave student debt, helped Ukraine defend itself, and tried to give everyone healthcare. Republicans have now crashed the (global) economy, increased disease spread, decimated public departments and services, fired thousands of critical workers and veterans, retaliated against people for their Free Speech, limited rights of women, immigrants, and LGBTQ+ people, made us less safe against wildfires and contagions, started to gut Medicare, turned all our allies against us, raised prices on everything, engaged in corrupt theft of our tax dollars, and now want to deport legal Americans.
What a sad way to view the world and all its viewpoints…
I don’t know why you all tolerate this pathetic c3nsorshep here. All I said in my “unalived” comment was basically that there is 1 party in the USA that illegally disappears people, crashes the global economy (for you and me!), is corrupt, etc, and the other one tried to give everybody health care. “b07H s1des” right!?
Removed by mod
Good thing chuck schumer and the dems are out there leading the resistance by… uhh… making sure the left is pro-genocide and sending record levels of bombs to conduct said genocide. Hell yeah dawg that shit’s awesome and exactly what we need from the people who totally oppose Hitler 2 in office and will do everything in their power to stop him
Downvotes are disabled on my instance; multiple people think you wrote something inane. I have no problem replying to you telling you that you live in a dictatorship of capital where both sides are the same but you are so propagandized and ignorant you can’t even see the truth right in front of your nose. One side enables the other, the US functions as a whole. The democracy there is kay fabe and predetermined. You don’t get a vote for the board members of Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Blackstone, Raytheon etc.
It blows my mind that even now, there are people like you who claim they can’t tell the difference between Biden and Trump.
You have to remember that, unlike you, some people consider the lives of foreigners to be worth as much as the lives of Americans
It blows my mind that you interpreted what he said that way.
I quote, absolutely directly:
It’s a breathtakingly stupid take.
I didn’t see Biden and Trump in that quote. Facts are that both sides are just doing what they can get away with according to the crowd they’re trying to appeal to. If left to their own devices, both sides will engage in heinous behavior. The only thing stopping the Democrats from doing more Republican things is in a way, their branding as “good guys”, whatever that may mean to Democrat sided citizens. The point is there is a lack of scrutiny on our end and the whole good vs evil black and white bullshit distracts us from the fact that the people in charge of the Democrats are just as capable of evil and are just two sides of the same coin taking different approaches. There was a time when the Republicans were the good guys and the Democrats were the evil ones and that can switch just as easily as it did before. The whole Red vs Blue shit is a distraction. He never said it’s okay to vote for Trump or okay not to vote against him and it’s extremely disingenuous for you to say that that’s his fucking take.
I can tell the difference, in the same way I can tell the difference between a father that molests his children and the wife that covers for and enables him.
Curious how democrats decided to do genocide over obstructing any of the dastardly acts on your list. Is it lost on you how the democrats are controlled opposition?
If, in 20 years, your choice is between a democrat who wants 9 genocides and a republican who wants 10, which would you choose?
Removed by mod
won’t someone think of the contractual obligations??? 🙀🙀🙀
Let’s not pretend that Trump’s plan to forcibly remove all Palestinians from Gaza isn’t a revival of the same plan put forth by Biden behind closed doors.
The only obligation the US has, under the Leahy Law and International Law, is to cease weapons transfers to Israel for violating human rights and perpetrating crimes against humanity.
Biden is a self proclaimed Zionist, he absolutely supported this genocide, both materially, diplomatically, and ideologically.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/i-am-zionist-how-joe-bidens-lifelong-bond-with-israel-shapes-war-policy-2023-10-21/
https://theintercept.com/2024/10/09/white-house-oct-7-israel-war-gaza/
The one who wants fewer genocides, how is that even a question?
But much better would be using those 20 years to empower progressives at the local level, so they have the experience to get elected to the state level, which gives them the experience to be competitive at the federal level. No one is saying to just support the Dems forever. You can spend 1 day every 4 years helping the Republicans lose, and spend the other 1460 fighting for better options. I recommend it, in fact.
Voting lesser evil slows the descent into fascism while we build the progressive base necessary for a progressive to win the general election. No one is saying the lesser evil is good, we know it’s evil, that’s why we call it the lesser evil. But it is the lesser evil, and when you have a choice between two evils winning, the lesser evil is preferable.
Voting for a third party with no chance of winning, or not voting at all, does not give us better options. Building a successful third party takes time and many, many wins in smaller elections. Personally, I’d rather spend that time under a neo-liberal regime than a Christofascist one. They’re both bad, but one is unambiguously worse.
Vote progressive for every local office you can. If there are no progressive options, consider running yourself or convincing a politically inclined friend to do so. If we all show up for every single election, and flood every level of government with progressives, maybe in 20 years we’ll have a better choice than 9 genocides vs 10 genocides. But every Republican win helps gerrymander and disenfranchise us further from that goal.
Surely nobody thought of this 20 years ago when George fucking Bush was in office. Or 40 years ago when Reagan was in office. This idea of pushing the liberal party left and running locally is a totally fresh and original idea and definitely isn’t a distraction from organizing the working class into a force of its own which demands concessions from the ruling class at the threat of upheaval.
It’s not a new idea, we just haven’t been implementing it. And who said anything about pushing the liberal party left? It’s not about parties, it’s about politicians and their policies. Run third party wherever it’s viable, run Democrat where it isn’t, it’s really not that important what letter is next to your name. What’s important is your platform.
That’s exactly what I’m suggesting. What is “showing up to every election to vote for progressives” if not organizing the working class? What kind of organization do you think has a lower barrier than voting? If we can’t organize the working class to vote one day every couple years, how on Earth do you expect them to jeopardize their safety and livelihoods with more direct action?
And even then, those approaches aren’t mutually exclusive. Voting in no way prevents you from organizing. In fact, strategically voting against the fascists explicitly helps the push to organize. It’s much easier to protest when the reaction is a smug “I’m talking now”, than when the reaction is having your degree retroactively nullified or, y’know, getting deported to an El Salvadorian gulag.
I understand the dissenting opinions, but it’s mind-boggling people can’t grasp this in the modern world. There’s almost 350 million people in the US. It’s impossible to immediately get everyone on the same page and make meaningful change in a short period of time.
If you abstain from voting, you absolutely allow the greater evil to thrive and become worse. Look at the extent that Bush went to after 9/11. No one should want that.
Removed by mod
Do you have a plan for that “electoral reform” that doesn’t involve said ballot box?
Do you not see the inherent contradictions there?
No I completely get the problem there. It’s going to be really hard to get electoral reform if there are no longer elections. So my focus is on preserving Democratic institutions long enough that maybe we can improve them. Obviously party leaders have no interest in seeing changes that threaten the duopoly, but there are Democrats (particularly at the state level) who have been open to reforms like rank choice voting.
If suddenly Republicans stop attacking the rule of law, checks and balances, gerrymandering districts, overriding voters, and coddling white nationalists then maybe their party would be capable of enacting positive change as well.
If you have some secret third choice that can change the system without bloodshed or voting for one of the two parties I’m all ears. If you’re going to tell me to vote third party then I’d like you to show me how you think a third party candidate can win the presidency because that’s never happened and it’s never even been close.
You talked right past the inherent contradictions and did not see them.
Assuming the US election process remains unchanged for the foreseeable future how do you get electoral reforms using the electoral process that you agree needs reforms?
I suppose I’m open to suggestions?
I understand what you’re getting at but I don’t know what kind of answer you want here. Are you suggesting that violence is the only way to achieve change? Are you suggesting that third party candidates could win a national election and then eliminate the two-party system? Are you suggesting that electing more Republicans will result in a political future that offers more power to voters to choose their own government? Do you think that electing fascists will accelerate the collapse of the state and then a more progressive ideology will rise from the ashes? Are you just cool with what the Republican party looks like right now and the way that they govern?
Do I need to specify that I’m not saying you should vote for every Democrat no matter what and that you really should consider candidates as individuals?
I guess I see the Democratic party as a deeply flawed party (with abysmally out of touch leadership) that needs serious reform and I see the Republican party as a cult of christofascist fucks that need to be defeated before they completely erode individual rights and entrench their own power for generations.
So yes. I get the contradiction in saying “You should vote for one of the two parties in order to create a political landscape where it is possible to one day move beyond the two-party system”. Partisanship makes everything harder. But if you really think both parties are the same and that it doesn’t matter which one you pick then I don’t know what to tell you.
I don’t have a good answer for you, I have a:
What I (and others) are trying to tell you is that the christofascist fuck cult goes much deeper than the surface level that you are fixated on. The “deep flaws” you see in the Democratic party aren’t bugs, they’re ‘features’.
The current status quo is deeply broken, I think we can both agree on that, yes?
The threat of violence (along with capability) has historically been a very effective tool for change (for better and worse), but I do no not see it being effective in a world where drone strikes, autonomous murder copters and nuclear weapons are a thing.
I also argue that the concept of electoralism is fundamentally broken and so electing more Republicans, Democrats, 3rd parties, goldfish, etc. is not going to solve/change anything either.
Accelerationism replaces current problems with worse ones, but my understanding is that if you’re focus is on your grandchildren and thinking in the timescale of centuries then maybe. IMO it’s one hell of a big gamble with an incredibly high cost and low odds of substantial/any progress.
What are your thoughts?
I suppose I don’t see that as a productive perspective? You’re not offering any solutions or actions to take to enact the change you want to see besides doing nothing until we collectively figure out how to have a revolution.
The system is flawed. Maybe you’re right that it is fundamentally broken and cannot be reformed but disengaging from voting only supports the status quo and those that are already in power. I think it’s worth it to vote for candidates that share some of the same values as me even if they aren’t perfect while continuing to put political pressure on leaders that are not serving the public effectively. I would vote for someone one day and join a protest against them the next day, I do not see that as a contradiction. That is just being civically engaged.
Also I know I’m probably coming in hot here but I’m truly not mad or upset. I think these are the sorts of conversations on Lemmy that are really great and hard to have in other settings. I appreciate your thoughtful responses. It seems like we’re pretty aligned on what the problems are. I’m very open to solutions that don’t involve harming others but if you aren’t a voter I’d strongly encourage you to consider voting, though I agree that voting alone will not solve every problem.
Lol, I definitely didn’t interpret you coming in hot at all. I made the mistake of engaging in on a few other ‘hot button’ threads the last couple of days and you have been, by far, the most pleasant, insightful and willing to engage in good faith. It’s very much appreciated <3.
Action for action’s sake just makes everyone tired and unable to act when it’s necessary. I’m not advocating “doing nothing” I’m advocating for intentionality, thoughtfulness, a hefty dose of cynicism and acting out of evidence instead of idealism.
I’m not saying don’t vote, I’m saying be realistic about what it can and cannot accomplish. The reason I often end up in these sorts of conversations is due to the common trend of people refusing to engage or help those directly in front of them because of some variation of ‘they voted for things to be different’ and so feel entitled to not get their hands dirty as well as a smug “not my problem, I did my part” or “that problem has already been solved, it’s just not fully implemented”. In either case it often leads to them being an active barrier to helping others and intentionally choosing to harm others. Which makes even doing small things like providing food, first aid, escape etc. sooooo much harder than it needs to be.
The problem though is it doesn’t matter how many individual fires you put out, it doesn’t scale up and doesn’t affect the root cause of any of them and that’s what I was replying “I don’t have a good answer to” to. Especially since each individual problem is probably going to end up needing a different approach.
So until we can figure out how to turn off the ‘light everything on fire machine’ it seems like we’re pretty aligned on putting out fires where we can, when we can. Keep fighting the good fight, and good luck!
Modlog for this comment says rule 2, but that rule is about reposts??!!
According to the modlog, this is the removed comment:
Well, I think this is worth highlighting.
The rule 2 refers to the rule 2 of the instance, not the community, which is:
The part you decided to show in the modlog is also a little deceptive. Here is the missing part:
Ah that makes more sense.
I left that out not to be deceptive, but because it wasn’t germane to everything else, and it was an edit.
Not sure what you said but 100% agreed
Haha, a removed comment, I shall assume everything it said was 100% in line with my beliefs.
You do realize you don’t have to assume and can just look at the modlog, right?
https://slrpnk.net/modlog?commentId=14991101
What a sad way to view the world and all its viewpoints…
I don’t know why you all tolerate this pathetic c3nsorshep here. All I said in my “unalived” comment was basically that there is 1 party in the USA that illegally disappears people, crashes the global economy (for you and me!), is corrupt, etc, and the other one tried to give everybody health care. “b07H s1des” right!?
Your daily reminder that blueMAGA doesn’t consider Palestinians to be people.