this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2024
792 points (92.1% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7315 readers
198 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Neither are acceptable, both are genocidal regimes that are working towards WW3, Climate Collapse, and genocide. The only peaceful solution is voting third party, otherwise revolution is necessary. Taking the miniscule chance of a peaceful solution is morally correct, especially if we believe revolution to be necessary.
Meanwhile you “peacefully” increase the probability that the guy who destroyed women's reproductive rights gets voted in again.
I say you should help punish the Republicans for MAGA and once they try a moderate candidate again you can vote third party. But don't ignore the consequences of your actions.
Meanwhile you "peacefully" increase the probability that genocide continues, climate change continues to be ignored, and World War 3 kills us all.
What do you think fascism is? Why do you think MAGA is just a random event and not a systemic problem? Fascism is Capitalism in decline, there will be no "moderate" candidates because Capitalism is still in decline. The conditions for fascism persist, so fascism persists, and the Dems get closer to fascism.
I'm not doing anything like that, the will never be public support for a socialist candidate in the US without first changing the voting system.
I wish it wasn't like that but I'm convinced it is.
Why do you believe there will never be public support for a Socialist candidate in the US? Where do you believe people draw their ideas from? Is the US a static, unchanging system? We know this to be false, wealth disparity is rising, the climate is changing, it's anything but static!
The mainstream parties will never risk losing power intentionally, ergo there will be no change to the voting system.
Because that's how the spoiler effect works.The more support a leftist third party gets, the easier it is for the Republicans to win.
I can't tell you how to fix it, but I can tell you that an election with 10% Socialists, 40% Dems, and 50% Reps will scare people away from voting Socialists.
At least as long as MAGA is a thing and the Dems aren't seen as totally corrupt and basically the same as the Reps by the general public. And believe me: they aren't.
You didn't answer my questions. Why do you believe the US is a closed, unchanging, static system? In order for any of your analysis to make any sense, it must be immovable with no trends in metrics, in perpetuity.
Not necessarily. Ideas change alongside the ever-changing material conditions.
Evidently.
Why? Trends change over time.
It will be for as long as Capitalism exists, getting worse. Capitalism is declining, and fascism rises when Capitalism is in decay. Only Socialism will fix it, liberalism leads to more fascism. You can't prevent MAGA by voting Dem, you strengthen it.
This is increasingly proven to be true, public opinion of both parties is declining.
So I don't have a hat in this race because I can not vote. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding about how a government is formed in the United States. The odds of stopping a Democrat or Republican from not winning the 2024 presidential election are futile. If I could vote, but I can't, if I voted third party I would be putting my effort into what I know is a futile effort. That seems morally the same as ignoring it because I know the results would be identical. The only moral option I would then have is to choose the least bad option. The most moral option would be off the table for me.
Actually the president used to be less important than they seemed. The United States Supreme Court decision that president's are practically kings changes a lot. ~~The other side of this is that the president doesn't really matter. The president really only executes the will of Congress.~~ It seems to me that if you really wanted to do the moral thing, it would be changing the roots of the problem. Not a single branch. It's the hearts and minds of grass roots organizationa you want to change long before anyone walks up to a polling booth.
Just saying, as someone who can't vote.
First off, I understand how the electoral system works. The odds are incredibly slim that a third party will win. I disagree that a Democrat victory is acceptable, because the Democrats will only push for more genocide, failed climate action, and world war 3. It isn't a matter of being "better or worse," both result in the doom of humanity. Either we push to end that electorally, or via revolution.
Organizing is also good, Claudia De La Crúz represents PSL, a party that does that more than try to win the presidency. They serve to highlight the sham of the election and gain recognition.
I wish I could tell you more because my area did that, we've done what we both agree is what needs to happen. We elected a third party candidate as our representative. Not as our president, that's insane lol. Also I don't know how what we did would apply to the United States other than just saying grass roots organizing. Saying even that much reveals more about me than I'm comfortable with online.
Drag is happy that you get to feel like you're being peaceful, but sad that you've convinced yourself the way to do so is through apathy and inaction. Drag wonders if you'd feel the same way if you understood that choosing not to do a good thing is still choosing to do a bad thing.
Drag should not assume I am saying electoralism is the end all, be all of political action. I am advocating for organizing outside the electoral system as the primary role of leftists, and refusing to give the electoral system legitimacy. Voting Dem is not a "good thing," because the Dems are unacceptable and will lead to genocide, world war 3, and failed climate action.
Drag is confused. How does voting legimitise the electoral system? Drag mostly does direct action, but drag also votes.
If voting for Democrats is seen as activism, then activism is oriented around voting for Democrats. Voting third party signals disapproval for the system in general and tells the public what views those in disapproval have.
If Drag wants to do direct action, and believes it to be the path to systemic change, then voting for Democrats is counter-intuitive.
Drag doesn't get it. None of that sounds like practical, material effects. It just sounds like symbolic gestures. Drag wants to know if there's any physical reasons not to vote, or just symbolic ones. Also drag is not a capitalised pronouns user, but drag is glad you're willing to respect people with capitalised pronouns.
How is delegitimizing the electoral system by voting for leftist third parties not practical? If leftists continue to prop up right wing parties committing genocide, failing to address climate change adequately, and working towards World War 3, then that will be the status quo that is maintained. To get off of this train, leftists need to organize outside the bounds of electoralism, build up dual power, and signal strength with third party voting.
The physical reason not to prop up the democrats is that the democrats are leading the US to the end of the world, just like the republicans, and legitimizing their rule makes leftist organizing more difficult.
That's a circular argument. Drag asked you how voting props up the electoral system. You said "well how does propping up the electoral system help?" Drag agrees that propping up the electoral system is bad, but drag has not been told a reason that voting is that, except that it's supposed to be a symbolic loss. Drag doesn't care about symbolic losses, drag cares about stopping Trump from bombing the West Bank. Drag cares about Palestinian lives much more than symbolic complicity. Drag still wants to hear a practical reason why voting helps electoralism.
I never said voting props up the electoral system, I said voting for Democrats or Republicans props it up. Drag is arguing against ghosts.
Drag still wants an answer to the question you think drag should have asked. Drag doesn't think that detail is worth delaying the actual conversation for.
I already answered it.
Your answer was that it's a bad symbol. If drag thinks the only reason not to vote Democrat is because it's a symbolic admission of defeat, is drag understanding your argument as you wish it to be understood?
Nope! 👍
Then maybe you should explain what you want drag to understand
Drag already asked how voting for the democrats legitimises them, and you didn't answer except for a symbolic reason. Drag wants a practical reason. Do you understand drag's critique? You gave a "practical" reason made out of symbolic reasons. Drag wants a practical reason made out of practical reasons.
I already answered. Voting Dem perpetuates Dem rule, if Leftists are pushed to vote Dem and see it as activism then the Dems take advantage of that and portray voting Dem as activism. Feeding the electoral system by voting for either dictatorial establishment party maintains their rule and legitimizes the system.
Drag doesn't care who sees what as activism. Drag cares if leftists are doing things. Drag cares about vandalising cars, and reducing animal consumption, and making bike lanes, and bothering oil companies, and making the police feel scared, and giving hormones to trans people, and ensuring abortion access, and open source software, and getting social media out of corporate websites, and giving homes to homeless people. Drag votes too. Drag doesn't believe voting stops drag from doing all those things. Drag doesn't believe voting stops anyone else from doing those things either.
Drag thinks you are afraid to admit defeat. But there is a class war and there has been for ten thousand years. And wars have battles, and some are lost. Right now, leftists lost the battle for the US electoral system. We will admit we have lost, and then we will band together and win. Drag doesn't think we can win if we pretend we have already won. Drag doesn't think we can win if we pretend the electoral system is on our side. Drag thinks you are pretending the electoral system is on your side. Drag thinks you are too proud to admit that the system can force you to pick between only bad options. Drag thinks you are scared of the system having so much power. Drag knows the system has a lot of power, and drag knows we can still beat it. We will do what we can with defeat until victory is ours. And we will fight on all the other battlefields too at the same time.
Drag can continue supporting the system drag claims to oppose while committing adventurism with Mutual Aid on the side all drag wants, the only way to gain leftist victory is to organize and delegitimize the regime.
How will you fight a war without soldiers? Drag teaches a class on transgender voice training, so that the trans comrades don't feel like they have to kill themselves. Drag is a medic, keeping the soldiers healthy for the class war. That is what mutual aid means. How will you fight a war without medics? How will you fight a war without healthy soldiers? The logistical structures of mutual aid will become the logistical structures of the revolution. But you will not succeed if you ask people to give their lives for the cause without helping them. We will care for people, and in so doing teach them how an anarchist society can care for them. And we will care for them while they fight. What is the alternative? Dead comrades who died of exposure because they were homeless? Of suicide because they were dysphoric? Of drought because we did not care for the environment while they were alive? Wars are not just fighting. Infantry wins battles. Logistics wins wars.
Drag also sees that you are not engaging with drag's points about the electoral system not being on our side. Drag asks you to be brave, please.
I literally told drag to organize. A Vanguard Party with actual structure and logistics, which is what PSL is trying to be. I ask drag to stop being bad-faith.
Drag thought you were saying mutual aid is bad. Drag apologises for being confused.
Mutual Aid is good, adventurism is useless, and supporting and legitimizing the regime is bad.
Drag looked up adventurism in Oxford Dictionary and read that it's "the willingness to take risks in business or politics; actions or attitudes regarded as reckless or potentially hazardous." Drag disagrees with you and likes adventurism. But drag agrees with you on mutual aid and supporting the regime, which is why drag does mutual aid and does not support or legitimise the Democrats. Drag is not sure why we seem to be disagreeing right now.
Legitimacy comes from the consent of the governed.
If the governed stop voting, the legitimacy goes away.
Drag wonders if you have heard of monarchies. You don't want legitimacy, does that mean monarchy is better than capitalist democracy?
Have you not noticed how there aren't a lot of monarchies these days? That's what happens when a government is illegitimate. The governed decide to take matters into their own hands when they no longer respect their government's legitimacy.
I also wonder if you've ever noticed how dictatorships still have sham elections where they give themselves 90%+ of the vote?
Drag is not very smart, so drag can't extrapolate your comment into a specific answer to drag's question. Drag would like a yes or no, to whether you would rather America be a monarchy than its current electoral system.
No
That's literally impossible, you don't understand how monarchs function or why they declined. Learn some fucking history.
Drag agrees with you. A capitalist false democracy is bad, but any bit of power in the hands of the workers is better than the alternative. That's why our vote is important.
Sure, but that's why our vote should be used to agitate the masses by giving more support to socialist parties. Voting for imperialism and genocide and mass incarceration and border fascism/fascist collaboration is not a productive use of our votes.
Don't vote for someone you wouldn't be willing to donate to or volunteer for!
Drag doesn't believe more votes give more power to political parties. Drag thinks that's a myth made up by the government to disenfranchise leftists. Drag thinks you're falling for CIA propaganda.
If votes didn't give more power to political parties they wouldn't be removing third parties from the ballot, they wouldn't put in so much energy into convincing everyone to never vote third party, they wouldn't actively disenfranchise US citizens and take away their ability to vote, the US government's three letter agencies wouldn't have bothered killing off the Black Panther Party. CIA propaganda is convincing you to vote for the Party that supports the CIA, which gives them legitimacy.
The first two are adequately explained by parties wanting to win elections. The question of who wins the election isn't relevant to drag's point, drag's point is the power held by the winning party. Not increased by high voter turnout.
The third point is backwards. You said parties want less people to vote, because more votes make them more powerful. That's silly.
The fourth point is adequately explained by the Black Panthers doing direct action. Drag doesn't think the CIA cared how the Panthers voted.
The fifth point is irrelevant, because voting doesn't give the CIA power, just as drag says. You can't argue that voting gives government power because it gives government power. That's silly.
Drag wants you to take this discussion seriously, please. Drag is really putting an effort in and drag would like it if you did as well.
Speaking in the third person is annoying.
Trying to make some dumbass point about pronouns while speaking in the third person is not clever, or thought-provoking. It's just extra annoying. It's just the same tired joke that's been recycled again and again. Surprised you didn't use "attack helicopter."
Do better.
Explodicle wonders if talking like this is going to catch on.
You're not talking the same as drag. Drag is using drag's first person pronoun, you're just saying your name.
Is explo talking the same now?
Drag doesn't know. Is explo explodicle's person independent neopronoun? If so, drag will refer to explo by these neopronouns from now on. Drag is happy that explo has decided to experiment with a new gender presentation.