You're viewing a single thread.
If you had won the competition of ideas, voters would turn up lol.
The problem is that both of you are two sides of the same coin. One with the carrot and one with the stick. Your differences are simply not big enough and the positive things you promise are simply too little compared to the damage you do to everyone to be frightened by this stupid lesser evil rhetoric.
I'll vote for someone who has an even remotely adequate program for the people's demands. Have a good oneđź‘Ť
Democrats represent the same center-right politics that has ruled America in decades past, though in recent years they've been a little bit amenable to progressive policies (see Inflation Reduction Act, which included $783 billion on energy and climate change among other things); this is of course extremely faint praise, but it is what it is.
Meanwhile, the Republican party has detailed plans to orchestrate a fascist takeover.
Support for Israel is controversial within the Democratic party and they're at least susceptible to militant influence; the Republican party, meanwhile, has no reason to ever moderate their support for a genocide.
Nobody's happy to vote Democrat, but they absolutely represent the lesser of two evils. This is observable evidence, but it does have the downside that it doesn't make you look smarter than everyone else, so i understand if you don't want it.
Controversial support for Israel? The fact that you think there's any moderation in support for Israel is the problem. The fact that you think the democrats care even remotely for climate change and that they do something about it, besides for show, is the problem.
I don't care to look smart, I don't care if I'm smart, I care about my interests. And my interests are not with people who don't touch billionaires, fund wars and privatise the air I breathe. It's ok if you don't care enough, not everyone has the same interests - because our difference is not about who wants to look smart, but who takes the issues I'm talking about seriously enough - who cares enough and who has been impacted the most to understand the consequences of neoliberal politics.
The problem isn't that there isn't a lesser evil, of course there is one, one has to be less evil if the two are not the same. But rather that the lesser evil is too evil.
Ok well if there's a lesser evil then that's a settled question, you vote for the lesser evil. This is the sad reality of electoral politics.
Electoral politics can't advance the causes we care about, but they can prevent the worst case scenario, which is absolutely worth it and we have a moral duty to do it.
If electoral politics can't advance the causes we care about we abstain. I'm surprised I have to say this.
I'm not giving my vote and my permission to anyone that goes against my interests - they are literally the elites that profit off of the people, the environment and entire foreign nations. Can you get that to your head? I really don't think it's this hard, but you probably don't want to understand. You know what they say, you can't make someone understand something when it's in their interest not to understand it.
This scaremongering is how the elites can maintain power, no matter who wins, the oligarchy will keep ruling us, I'm done with this game. You can do whatever you like, I vote for someone who represents me and my interests to an adequate degree(if there is one), I'm not giving the ok with my vote to any neoliberal freak, regardless if they make things a lot worse or if they make things even worse than that, because that's where we are at. I don't know how else to explain it. If your choices are that you'll get beat up or that you'll get beat up even more, I'm choosing not to answer and to resist lol.
Ironically, i feel like you're putting too much emotional stock in what it means to vote. You're not cheering at the person, you're not signaling as a fan of theirs, you're not even actually giving them approval in a way that matters; all you're doing is influencing the course of which party gains power, and in this case it makes a significant difference.
Some people can't affort another Trump presidency. People of color and LGBT and homeless people in many states (i guess every state?) would suffer the consequences a lot more than you and me, whereas the consequences of a second democratic term (Biden or otherwise) are a lot more nuanced. The differences between a republican or democrat administration sure matter to them, and our ideological purity does not.
We have a mechanism to put bad people in power instead of the worst, this is a meaningful difference, all it costs is some personal discomfort, and it does not replace whatever else you're doing in terms of activism. You can do both.
Your vote signifies approval, I don't understand why you would say otherwise. It means that you approve of what they do, it means that the democrats will boast about their results afterwards and tell us that people agree with us, EXACLTY like what this post does right here, crazy right?! Your vote means support. Regardless if it fits your narrative to say otherwise, that's what it is.
Obviously Trump is worse, I do have first hand experience of what it means to have your rights threatened by conservatives. But the point is that both of them threaten my freedom and my rights. Both are neoliberals, both are going directly against my interests. I'm not supporting someone who is beating me up, even if it's a slightly lighter beat up. And for god's sake, the consequences of the democrats are categorically not nuanced, it's just sad to say this. You keep going back to ideological purity and to how I want to look smart, and it's such a pathetic argument with all the criminal things the democrats and conservatives alike do. It only proves what I've been saying. That you don't care enough for mass murders and that you are ok with where the world is going and with the oligarchs ruling you (If you are not ok with this route we are taking, you don't show your approval by voting, isn't it insane?!). Purity refers to people fighting over small differences, the differences in worldview I've been describing literally can't get ang bigger. It's like saying we will go to the opposite direction of what you want and if you say no, we will take one extra right off of you, the answer is no to both, as much as it hurts you.
You obviously don't care to understand me, so my last attempt is with the simplest reasoning: In a bipartisanship, there is always a point when the differences between the two parties are so little that even you would quit from voting - suppose the only difference was that one party taxes the rich 1% less and both do everything else terrible and the same. You wouldn't vote for them then would you? If yes, think that the 1% becomes .5%, .25% etc. There will be a point when even you would quit, because the differences are too slim. Now if you zoom out a bit, see the whole picture, how they oppress the people, how they destroy the environment, gentrify cities, impoverish and overwork people, bomb other nations, boost the profits of the oligarchs off of people etc etc, you should be able to understand that the point I was talking about is long passed (from the beginning both parties were awful, I don't imply that there was a point in time when either was good).
So yes I take my vote or my non-voting or my third party voting very seriously, even if you don't like it and try to diminish it by saying I'm emotional about it(as if I didn't talk about facts and my material situation and how they work against me). I hope you never succeed in persuading anyone to vote for your genocidal freaks that, with the help of the mainstream media you pay and get paid by, make the dystopia we are living the ""sensible"" choice and the good scenario. Have a good dayđź‘Ť