So you don’t like Trump or Harris – here’s why it’s still best to vote for one of them
So you don’t like Trump or Harris – here’s why it’s still best to vote for one of them
If you’re an unhappy voter and want other unhappy voters to hold their noses and vote for the major candidate they least dislike, think about the Golden Rule.
It has been said a gazillion times over the last few months, but is it getting through to those who need to hear it?
You're viewing part of a thread.
Sorry, maybe I misunderstood. Are you accusing me of being a foreign secret agent or are you not?
I think you misunderstood. I have no idea what your nationality is and I don't think you're a secret agent.
Ok, then I don't understand what you're accusing me of.
Parrotting right wing talking points to an extent that I doubt your motives.
I can't tell the difference between sincere leftist people who have been duped into advocating right wing talking points loudly and long on lemmy and right wingers pretending to be left wing doing exactly the same thing.
It's very plausible to me that you're genuinely intelligent, but I find the blindness to a difference in outcome between the Democrats and the Republican doesn't square with your assertion that you're left wing. It just doesn't add up.
Did you read any summaries of Kamala's policy proposals and of project 25? It doesn't square with the well-read about politics bit and the intelligence bit at all.
What "right-wing talking points" exactly have I parroted? Opposition to genocide? That's a left-wing talking point that the right sometimes parrots.
I'm not blind to the difference between Democrats and Republicans. However, I don't believe in unconditional support for the Democrats, regardless of how bad the Republicans are. To offer unconditional support is to sacrifice every ounce of bargaining power I might have otherwise wielded. The worst possible thing you can do in a negotiation is to walk up to the table and say, "I'll agree no matter what." I do not subscribe to the ideology of lesser-evilism, which is a bad strategy from a game theory perspective. Moreover, genocide is a hard red line for me.
I can’t tell the difference between sincere leftist people who have been duped into advocating right wing talking points loudly and long on lemmy and right wingers pretending to be left wing doing exactly the same thing.
It’s very plausible to me that you’re genuinely intelligent, but I find the blindness to a difference in outcome between the Democrats and the Republican doesn’t square with your assertion that you’re left wing. It just doesn’t add up.
Did you read any summaries of Kamala’s policy proposals and of project 25? It doesn’t square with the well-read about politics bit and the intelligence bit at all.
Again you repeat the claim that I'm repeating "right wing talking points." I'll ask again, which "right wing talking points" am I repeating? Opposition to genocide?
That leftists should abstain from choosing the president, directly or indirectly.
So if I don't rally behind your candidate, it automatically means I'm acting in bad faith? Ridiculous.
I suppose the third of Americans who don't vote are also all right wingers?
That leftists should abstain from choosing the president, directly or indirectly, to preserve their voter purity is the right wing talking point. Like I keep saying, I can't tell the difference between leftists who have been duped by this argument and Republican supporters who peddle it. I genuinely don't know which you are, sorry.
But I really really strongly believe that if you really are a leftist, the fact that someone proposing today that you should be shot by the armed forces for your left wing views agrees that you should abstain from choosing the president because you're a leftist, should at least give you pause. I don't know how you can honestly both sides this shit.
It's not "to preserve their voter purity." At no point have I ever suggested that. It is a tactical choice to build power and exert influence.
As I've told you, the worst possible thing to do in a negotiation is to tell the other side that you'll agree to whatever terms they offer. If the left does this with the democrats, then the democrats will have no reason whatsoever to consider our concerns, they'll just write us off and say, "So what if we tell you to go fuck yourself, what are you going to do, vote Republican?" The result is that they will keep following Republicans to the right, and things will get worse and worse, and that's exactly what's happened, and how we've gotten into this situation in the first place. Lesser-evilism is a failed ideology, that neither makes sense logically nor is supported by historical evidence.
It's long past time to grow a spine and make demands, and that's the only possible way that we're ever going to get the changes we need to address the root of the material problems that allowed Trump to come to prominence. Failure to address those problems is just kicking the can down the road, and if we don't ever address them, then we will keep getting people like Trump forever. Voting for shitty corporate Dems forever is just kicking the can down the road and allowing problems to fester and get worse, there is absolutely zero chance of actually turning things around that way.
Voting for a left-wing third party accomplishes two things, first, telling the democrats that there are votes available if they move left, and second, it begins the process of replacing and unseating them if they refuse. Both of those are longshots, but they at least have the potential to actually change things.
You are strawmanning me when you describe my position as being "both sides are the same." No, one side is substantially worse than the other. But both sides fail to meet the red line of "not supporting genocide," and in a negotiation, if you have a red line, you should follow through with it if you don't want to sacrifice all future credibility and bargaining power. It's just game theory.