this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
885 points (87.2% liked)

Political Memes

5433 readers
2737 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -4 points 2 weeks ago (27 children)

Because you haven’t demonstrated it to be a viable strategy…

Can you give examples of this tactic playing out favorably in the past?

Parties are always looking at how to attract or retain voters. It's very intuitive that if a significant number of people defect from a party, the party will be reconsidering the issue that caused the break. I don't think this needs to be proven.

Why am I not surprised you didn’t say “We’ll endorse the Democrats / Republicans if and only if they do X.”?

Why would I? Are you suggesting that trying to influence the Republicans to become an acceptable party is a viable strategy?

If the only thing that matters is escape, then the only thing that makes sense is choosing the scenario that’s most likely to allow for it.

...what? I thought your whole reason for caring about the "more comfortable fire to die in" is because escape was ruled out entirely.

If you think both of the only 2 possible outcomes are unacceptable, then acceptability is a moot point.

No, it isn't. Unacceptable means unacceptable.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (25 children)

Parties are always looking at how to attract or retain voters.

And under FPTP there can only and will only be 2 parties with any real opportunity to enact policy. Do you think the Democrats are worried that you're going to vote Republican? That the GOP is going to start appealing to Leftists?

Why would I? Are you suggesting that trying to influence the Republicans to become an acceptable party is a viable strategy?

Of course not. But the implication is that the Democrats could be influenced. Which is exactly why I can't agree with advocating for swing state voters to do anything but vote against Trump.

...what? I thought your whole reason for caring about the "more comfortable fire to die in" is because escape was ruled out entirely.

Nah, I think escape is possible, but we need to move away from the bigger flames. You're the one who thinks standing still and letting the fire choose is the way to go -- for some reason...

Unacceptable means unacceptable.

It sure does. It's still moot in this context though.

load more comments (23 replies)
load more comments (24 replies)