You're viewing a single thread.
I am a socialist and a vote for De La Cruz is a vote for Trump. Mathematics will never allow a third party to win in this country. Don't let our ideals open the door for a fascist. Vote Kamala, and then try and get a socialist into office during the next democratic primary.
I can tell you're not a socialist
EDIT: because a socialist would understand class enough to know the democrats will never allow a socialist to gain power through their ranks
I can tell you're not a realist.
EDIT: because a realist would understand the current political landscape enough to know the republicans will never allow a fair election if given the means to prevent it
Realistically, genocide should be opposed.
Realistically, an elephant cannot be eaten in one bite.
This proverb only works under the assumption that Democrats are moving things in a positive direction. They are not. They are shifting rightwards, courting republicans, and fully endorsing a genocide. We are not eating the same elephant.
The proverb works when you realize that the Republicans will never allow the first bite to be taken. Not only are they fully endorsing a genocide, they are taking notes and pondering the best way to implement their own here at home. The elephant is the same, but instead of eating you're flirting with being trampled by it.
So what's the elephant in your metaphor here? Is it ending genocide? Because the democrats are currently preventing us from eating that elephant. Is it communism? The democrats also won't help us eat that elephant. Is it ending American Empire? Well, the democrats seem pretty against eating that elephant. Is is global liberation? Can't possibly see the democrats joining us in eating that elephant, given the previous points.
I'm sure you'll come back and tell me the elephant is "democracy" as if saying "you must vote for this candidate or democracy is over" isn't already the end of democracy.
You set the goalposts at "opposing genocide," so that's still the elephant in the metaphor. I can understand why you think someone might shift the meaning mid-discussion in order to "win," but that's not happening here.
There are two candidates in this presidential election who have a realistic chance of success. One has voiced support for a ceasefire as a step to a two-state solution and concern for Palestinian suffering. The other has expressed the belief that a ceasefire is an unreasonable constraint on Israel, and that a swift, decisive victory is the only solution. One has acknowledged the need for Palestinian self-determination, the other has bragged about figuratively burying Palestine. One has openly stated that they "respect the voice" of pro-Palestinian protestors, the other has signaled that political dissent by "enemies within" will be persecuted.
However, if we've reached the point where you've determined that you are sure you know what I'll say, then this discussion has run its course. Language like that implies that you're preparing for an argument that would very likely either start off circular or quickly regress to that state.
But that's not up for a vote. What is up for a vote is whether we can continue to protest the genocide or be executed for voicing any opposition. Yes, it's the equivalent of being robbed at gunpoint, but I'm not going to choose to be shot for a sense of moral superiority.
Now's the time to pressure ending the actual genocide and not indulge in weird persecution fantasies.
What's your endgame then? What practical benefit does increasing the chances of a Trump presidency, or more accurately a Vance dictatorship, provide?
I'm not increasing the chances of a Trump presidency, the Harris campaign is. I'm not a democrat, why do you think my vote belongs to them?
In fact, if I have to "vote for democrats" every election to prevent "not being able to vote" again, I don't really have the ability to vote in the first place. It's not as though the democrats give a shit about election reform in any serious capacity. Their game is for you to be stuck in this game.