196 Stands with Palestine, but those of you in the US should still vote in the general election.
I’ve been seeing a lot of anti-voting sentiment going around. Can’t believe I have to say this, but you need to vote. Not only is there more to the election than just the president. (State policy, Senate, house), but not voting is not an act of protest. C’mon guys
Seriously. I get feeling like you don’t have much of a choice, but not voting is just giving up. Like, you’re actively removing the little choice you have and handing democracy over to an overt fascist.
Maybe for some local elections. But you really need heavy support, otherwise you’re dividing the vote which can lead to more harm. Some places have rank based voting now though which makes it possible to vote for 3rd parties without dividing the vote. Hopefully that becomes more common.
I get where you're coming from. I'm definitely in favour of a ranked choice voting approach cause it does a lot more to get rid of the spoiler or dividing vote fallacy.
The entire spoiler or dividing vote hoax is based on this false assumption that the voters carry the responsibility for not voting for a "lesser evil" candidate when that burden of responsibility should instead be on the nominee for not doing enough in their power to win over votes.
With the current election, Biden is being a complete dumbass and is hemorrhaging support from Arab Americans and young people because of his refusal to stop giving weapons and aid to Israel and properly withholding those until a full and permanent ceasefire is reached. He's also losing support from Hispanics, though the reasons there are more to do with how he hasn't been doing enough to better the lives of working-class people.
Arab Americans and young people aren't going to turn around and vote for Trump, or in the off chance he receives a conviction before November, whoever else the Republican nominee will be. They're more likely to vote third-party or independent or not vote at all, and unfortunately with the latter, that's when the burden of responsibility becomes shared.
The entire spoiler or dividing vote hoax is based on this false assumption that the voters carry the responsibility for not voting for a “lesser evil” candidate when that burden of responsibility should instead be on the nominee for not doing enough in their power to win over votes
No, that’s just plain incorrect. The spoiler vote phenomenon is an inevitable consequence of our first-past-the-post election system. Whatever you start from, this voting system trends to two parties over time. You can model this and watch it play out. It’s not a hoax. We even saw Ross Perot make a serious run at the presidency in the 90s, and he ended up with zero electoral votes, and 4 years later he did much worse and his Reform party fizzled out and nothing came of it. Because it is absolutely suboptimal in our voting system.
Ah a Trump supporter! Let me know how that works out for you!
Question? How did Trump treat Arabs last time? Did they enjoy the travel ban? The exponential increase in hate towards them in this country?
Once Trump, wins and helps Israel turn Gaza to glass, will helping him win make them feel good? Once Trump puts them in concentration camps in this country, will they be happy?
When, Trump cements his dictatorship so there is no vote in 2028, will they they be satisfied?
I don’t like Biden, but not supporting him now, is supporting a repeat of 1930s Germany…
None of the 3rd party candidates has national support or awareness. If you start small, you build support at a local level. People see what you can do and it instills faith while bringing in donations. As more people join the party, your influence grows. A real 3rd party candidate, who isn’t super rich or funded by rich donors looking to spoil the election, has never shown up.
There are no 3rd party conservative candidates. The cult of power (GOP) makes no room for competition. 3rd party candidates only exist to split the progressive/non-fascist and are usually funded by conservative donors for that very reason. If a 3rd party candidate was funded by grassroots support and had actually gained popularity by repressing a large constituency, the votes would mean something.
I dunno, I don’t feel like a lot of otherwise dems (or at least not more than gop) would vote for RFK. And historically I don’t think the progressive side was voting for Ross Perot (as an independent) or the libertarians who still run within the gop like Ron or Rand Paul.
Start small, at the local level. City, county, school board, or even a state representative. You build up a following starting at a smaller level because there are fewer people to have to convince to vote for you.
Got them into local positions and let them build power in the lower levels before moving up. Voting at the federal level for anyone other than the big two is a wasted vote at this time
I’m voting for a 3rd party in the general bc my state is a staunchly blue state (every presidential election since 1972) so my vote counts more that way. If I lived in a swing state like WI, PA, GA, AZ, CO, etc, I would definitely vote Dem.
both wouldn’t be happy if you wanted actual democracy (like economic democracy for instance). both will utilize the police and alphabet agencies if they will find it necessary. PRISM was exposed under Obama. Democrats Kennedy and Johnson did not stop COINTELPRO. I’m not even convinced by reducing this to which of them will be weaker and less competent, like you realize the senile octogenarian Biden would fit the description, but that actually makes it easier to control him. Trump on the other hand is harder to control for his own trustees, but at the same time would mean way less stability. Ousting either along with the whole system that brought them into power is a must and I’m quite convinced that it will not be an easy task in either case, especially if you consider that the police force is always a fertile ground for all of the most disgusting trash of the ruling class, like homophobia, racism or hatred towards the poor. Democrats can promise defending the police but will they? Or wouldn’t that be shooting themselves not in one foot, but both?
And lastly, speaking of another Trumpist coup. The situation in the US is not yet comparable with e.g. Spain in the 30s. But back to Biden’s incompetency, y’all should study how the Azaña’s government absolutely botched the coup in July 1936. Then the lack of sufficient cynicism towards the government with “anarchists” taking ministerial positions and disarming the workers was what largely contributed to the Francoist triumph. With no illusions towards the government, there would be no mechanism to blunt the militant social tensions to come but force. And if you are afraid to actually fight for your ideas, you’re already unfree.
its funny(?) how i only see posts criticising ppl for not voting/voting third options but i dont currently see anyone actually advocating for doing that
It depends on defederation and users banned from this instance (lemmy.blahaj.zone), instance blocks don’t have any affect on user visibility, just communities and posts to those communities.
Americans: do what you want in the primaries. Vote for Biden in the general, because he will be the nominee. I am not stoked about that, but that’s the choice our system gives us.
Non-Americans: please, please do a bit of research on how weird and fucked up and fractious our electoral system is before going off on someone for voting “undecided” in the primaries, which is how I voted myself. Compared to the nationally-organized stuff you guys seem to mostly rely on, ours could charitably be described as “intentionally byzantine”.
Vote for an independent candidate. People have this wild notion that voting for a third-party candidate means you're throwing your vote away.
You're not. You're voting for the candidate that best represents your values. People who say otherwise have fallen for the brainrot talking point that's been around since Ross Perot ran in '96.
Democrat-leaning states are already working towards that.. The idea is that if they have 270 electoral votes worth of states signed up, they will all agree to change their electoral delegates to follow the national popular vote, effectively ending the electoral college. It’s not really a democratic push, but it’s an idea that would only be popular with the party that aligns with the national majority. They currently have 205 EVs committed.
vote for someone who isn’t that contender and therefore not for the only worthy contender Biden
If you decide for the latter you’ll risk to never really vote again. Read the signs on the wall. It’s the “What would I have done if I was a german under Hitler” phase, the USA citizens are in right now. If your prefer the stuff that’s going on in Hungary under Orban or worse, go on, vote 3rd party.
Edit:
Germany is in a similar situation in the next federal parliament election although we got more weighty contenders in the parliament than only dems and reps. Our Biden vote equals to 2 parties (labour party and the greens) out of 6. The remaining 4 parties would be a Trump vote (AfD). The outcome of that election would define the politics for unforseeable future and was and is the reason for the mass protests in germany.
Edit 2:
We’d probably have more leeway as the AfD would not straight be elected but mainly the CDU who would choose the chancelor (Either Söder or the german Trump light Friedrich Merz). There would be many more compromises made with AfD (farfarfar right) with a CDU chancelor than under a new labor (SPD) and Greens chancelor. The dream would be if The Greens got a majority. Then Habeck would be chancelor.
How is it wise to vote for a candidate that has no discernible chance of winning the election, and is therefore incapable of actually representing my interests in government?
At what point did they say that? Of course the Republicans are miles worse than the Democrats, but why should people sit there and be like "oh, let me just vote for genocide lite when the other party is genocide standard"
People should not actively vote FOR increasing genocide, which supporting Trump does. Not only there but bringing it here against US Arabs and LGBTQ people. And also opens up the VERY real possibility of this country turning into a dictatorship in which there won’t be more votes.
Tell that to women and trans people. If Trump wasn’t elected we’d still have roe v Wade and federal judges that would strike down a lot of the anti trans laws being put out, plus those states wouldn’t have been empowered to do so in the first place.
Lol. As if trans people in red states will be any better off with Biden as president again. Or trans people in blue states any worse under Trump. The feds aren’t doing anything about all the states that are doing the most heinous shit to trans people already.
Don’t threaten me with my sister’s death to coerce me to support the genocidal regime currently in power.
The Republican Party is not the party of small government. They are a fascist death cult and they will bring their anti-trans bills from red states to the federal government. Trans people will be erased from public life. Trans people will be discriminated in the work force and undoubtedly find it difficult to pay rent as a result. Trans people are going to end up homeless on the streets if Republicans win in 2024.
The Supreme Court is hearing a case about homeless encampments. Homeless encampments may soon lose the current legal protection they have under the Eight Amendment. The current logic being that chasing away people who have no where left to go is cruel and unusual punishment.
Multiple prominent Democrats petitioned the Supreme Court to review Grants Pass, including California Gov. Gavin Newsom, San Francisco mayor London Breed, and Portland mayor Ted Wheeler.
It is not guaranteed that blue states will be safe havens for anyone. Here is an official statement from Governor Gavin Newsom.
“California has invested billions to address homelessness, but rulings from the bench have tied the hands of state and local governments to address this issue.
“The Supreme Court can now correct course and end the costly delays from lawsuits that have plagued our efforts to clear encampments and deliver services to those in need.”
If Trump wins in 2024, he wants to make homelessness illegal. Homeless people are going to end up in death camps.
Trump said his proposal calls for creating “tent cities” and relocating homeless people to “large parcels of inexpensive land” with access to doctors, psychiatrists, social workers and drug rehab specialists. He claims his plan will once again make cities “livable” and “beautiful.”
A trans homeless person is as least as likely to end up in a death camp as a cis homeless person. And trans people have a good chance of being homeless if they can’t get a job because Republicans allow corporations to discriminate against them in the work place. Trans people will be worse off no matter where they are in America.
If the Democrats are also pushing to make being homeless illegal why is that an incentive to vote for them? I guess I don’t get your point. You think Biden doesn’t feel the same way about Martin v Boise as Newsom?
If the Democrats are also pushing to make being homeless illegal why is that an incentive to vote for them?
My point is Democrats want to overturn the status quo. The blue states assume they are going to get to decide what happens to homeless people next, presumably for the better. Unfortunately for them, a second Trump term would undoubtedly render homelessness illegal at the federal level. Best-laid plans gone awry thanks to Trump.
If the Republicans win in 2024 they will have control of all three branches of the federal government. They will be able reshape America how they see fit, and states rights are not going to stop them. States rights were only ever a justification from Republicans to turn their states into authoritarian christofascist workshops. Now they going to take what they’ve learned and practiced to the federal level and won’t care about state rights whatsoever.
The blue states assume they are going to get to decide what happens to homeless people next, presumably for the better.
The blue states are pushing to be allowed to put homeless people in jail again. Martin v. Boise required you to have enough shelter beds/housing available before you could force homeless people to leave the street. The blue states are joining the SCOTUS case because they will not build shelters. If that doesn’t indicate that they have no intention of doing better, idk what does.
They will be able reshape America how they see fit
They don’t need the other two branches of government to do this. They’ve already got the only one that matters and are doing it now even with a Democrat in the Oval Office.
The blue states are joining the SCOTUS case because they will not build shelters.
Again, here is Governor Gavin Newsom’s official statement. He seems intent on providing services to homeless people. Presumably that would include shelter.
“California has invested billions to address homelessness, but rulings from the bench have tied the hands of state and local governments to address this issue.
“The Supreme Court can now correct course and end the costly delays from lawsuits that have plagued our efforts to clear encampments and deliver services to those in need.”
It’s fair to not trust what someone says. At least with Democrats when they outwardly claim to have homeless people’s interests at heart, since they are neoliberals as opposed to fascists I am inclined to believe them. However, I disagree with the need to remove homeless camps in order to provide services to people. If the services are good and this is effectively communicated to people, I think most people in need of those services will take them voluntarily.
This is opposed to the fascists in the Republican party who want to put homeless people in what will no doubt turn out to be death camps.
They don’t need the other two branches of government to do this. They’ve already got the only one that matters and are doing it now even with a Democrat in the Oval Office.
If Republicans want to make homelessness illegal at the federal level, they will need Congress to pass legislation and the presidency to sign the bill into law. All the Supreme Court can do is remove homeless encampments’ Eighth Amendment protection based on the current question they are trying to answer. They could also assign whether they think the federal or state governments have the authority to write legislation to address homeless encampments. As they did recently with Trump v. Anderson, where they decided not only that states don’t have authority to take Trump off the ballot but only Congress does. However the Supreme Court cannot write or sign into law any such legislation themselves.
Even in Newsom’s own statement he still says they’re attempting to clear encampments. The reason they cannot clear encampments is because, by Boise, they do not have enough shelter. Altering Boise (which is what he wants to do) would enable them to clear encampments even if those people had no place to go. The California government is asking for carte blanche to take homeless people’s possessions whenever they want, even if they have nothing to offer them. I don’t know in what world that has their best interests at heart. It seems to basically mirror Republican policy.
You’re acting as though the Democrats are not willing participants in making homelessness illegal, but then linking to an amicus brief where they’re begging the Supreme Court to let them do just that.
And a short aside about your Trump v. Anderson comments. The Supreme Court made their ruling only as strong as it needed to be to accomplish their goals. This is basically a hallmark of the Roberts Court. If they thought there was any threat from the legislature to actually ban Trump from running, the ruling would have been more expansive. The Supreme Court is Lucy holding the football and you’re Charlie Brown thinking this time you’ve got a chance.
No, here is the relevant line from Governor Gavin Newsom.
“The Supreme Court can now correct course and end the costly delays from lawsuits that have plagued our efforts to clear encampments and deliver services to those in need.”
They plan on giving services to homeless people. This would presumably include shelter.
You’re acting as though the Democrats are not willing participants in making homelessness illegal, but then linking to an amicus brief where they’re begging the Supreme Court to let them do just that.
This Supreme Court decision will most likely remove the Eighth Amendment protection that homeless encampments currently have. While that will remove their current legal standing, by which I mean how they are currently defended in courts, it will not impact the legality of homeless encampments one way or another. Laws will have to be passed and in some cases laws may already be on the books, that will determine the legality of homeless encampments. The Supreme Court cannot write, pass, or sign legislation to make homelessness illegal. As long as Biden is president, homelessness will at least be a state issue as apposed to a federal issue. If Trump becomes president homelessness will be a federal issue.
If they thought there was any threat from the legislature to actually ban Trump from running, the ruling would have been more expansive.
With the current Republican House of Representatives, there is little chance of Congress barring Trump from office. Under a Democrat controlled Congress they could bar Trump from holding office, but that would of course be too little too late. That is neither here or there though. The point of that example was to demonstrate that the Supreme Court can only determine who has authority in any given case, whether that be the federal government or individual state governments.
To be clear, the difference between Democrats and Republicans on this issue of homeless encampments, is that Democrats want their blue states to be able to help homeless people the way they see fit, which I agree is not the best way to do this, while Republicans want to make homelessness illegal at the federal level. If he is elected, Trump is going to decide what happens to homeless people in California, not Gavin Newsom. Trump is a fascist, so when he says “tent cities” on “large parcels of inexpensive land” he means death camps. So even though Democrats are approaching this with supposedly the best interests of homeless people in mind, it’s not going to matter because Trump, if elected, will pull the rug out from under them. edit: typos
“The Supreme Court can now correct course and end the costly delays from lawsuits that have plagued our efforts to clear encampments and deliver services to those in need.”
By “plagued our efforts” he means “we can’t clear camps”. How do you think he wants to do good things after reading that?
Democrats should have recognized the protections granted by Martin v Boise and not joined in Grants Pass v Johnson in an attempt to get rid of them. The fact that they’re still supportive of sending things to SCOTUS shows how truly far to the right they are. Constantly decrying the SC as a newly-biased institution but still submitting briefs to them. They’re either expecting this partisan institution to magically hand down liberal decisions, or they want the right wing response.
By “plagued our efforts” he means “we can’t clear camps”. How do you think he wants to do good things after reading that?
Democrats should have recognized the protections granted by Martin v Boise and not joined in Grants Pass v Johnson in an attempt to get rid of them.
Don’t get me wrong, I think what the Democrats want to do is not great, just better than what Republicans want to do. Democrats think they need to clear camps first and then provide services to homeless people. I think they should provide services, advertise the services and people will leave the camps if the services are good. But regardless, the point is currently trans people are no worse off in blue states under Biden currently, but they will be much worse off under Trump.
The fact that they’re still supportive of sending things to SCOTUS shows how truly far to the right they are.
There is no denying that the Democrats have been neoliberals since the 90’s.
Constantly decrying the SC as a newly-biased institution but still submitting briefs to them. They’re either expecting this partisan institution to magically hand down liberal decisions, or they want the right wing response.
Which do you think it is?
I wouldn’t be surprised if some neoliberals among the Democrats have genuinely bought into the states’ rights bullshit. They are going to be disappointed if Trump wins. I think most people want the power to do things their way. Gavin Newsom seems too with it to have fallen for states’ rights so he probably thinks he’s going to do be able to do things his way. He is probably betting on a second Biden term and is going to be disappointed if Trump wins. edit: typos
Isn’t the Supreme Court about to pass judgement on whether it’s legal to obtain mifepristone by overturning an FDA approval from the bench? Overturning medical determinations based on research is new territory.
If you don’t think the best conservative thinkers money can buy are currently examining legal avenues by which they can federally ban abortion through a court decision then I’m not sure you’re paying attention. Jerry Falwell’s not paying me and also I’m not a lawyer, but until a few years ago, liberals though Roe was safe, too.
I wouldn’t put it past them, and you come off as incredibly naive if you do.
Isn’t the Supreme Court about to pass judgement on whether it’s legal to obtain mifepristone by overturning an FDA approval from the bench?
No, they are not. Mifepristone will continue to be available regardless of their verdict. It may, however, become less accessible if they decide to uphold the the Fifth Circuit Court’s position and revert to pre-2016 prescription requirements. That is, unless Democrats pass a law guaranteeing access to the medication.
Overturning medical determinations based on research is new territory.
If you don’t think the best conservative thinkers money can buy are currently examining legal avenues by which they can federally ban abortion through a court decision then I’m not sure you’re paying attention.
Of course they are. They are also spending billions of dollars yearly to convince as many would-be Democrats as possible to just roll over, because it’s way easier to execute these goals with control of the legislature and presidency.
unless Democrats pass a law guaranteeing access to the medication.
Why would that hypothetical law (which won’t get passed: see their promise to protect Roe v. Wade) not just get overturned by SCOTUS? They clearly play by their own rules.
If anything, your link to the Ivermectin case thing is further proof of that.
The fact is that a Democratic presidency and legislature can do nothing in the face of a Supreme Court that they still view as wielding discretionary power of them, and Democrats are too weak to play any sort of Constitutional Crisis hardball.
Why would that hypothetical law (which won’t get passed: see their promise to protect Roe v. Wade)…
I never said it was a guarantee, or even particularly likely, that such a law will be passed in the near future. Democrats don’t need to pass a law to protect abortion in blue states, while Republicans need to pass one to ban it.
I appreciate your attempt to turn this into a discussion about what a Democratic legislature would or wouldn’t do, but I am very clearly talking about what Republican legislature can and will do.
If anything, your link to the Ivermectin case thing is further proof of that.
Well, that currently has nothing to do with SCOTUS, so that tells me just about everything I need to know regarding how much thought you put into any of this.
I have faith that these institutions can do extremely horrible things and cause irreparable harm, yes. I also know for a fact (not “faith”) that the severity and extent of the damage will differ drastically depending on which party is behind the wheel. If you think that the two parties will have an identical effect, let’s return to the topic of a national abortion ban, shall we?
I think one party has fully grasped the ability to affect change regardless of who is in power in the other 2/3rds of the federal government, and the other party both does not differ drastically in their limited designs and also lacks the will to accomplish them, largely due to their reverence for institutions.
Support for abortion rights isn’t even a hard and fast rule for Democrats. Part of the reason they failed to enshrine Roe was because the party is not unified on it. Very little has changed in that respect.
Well, if you care about people’s wellbeing you gotta see what Genocide Joe is doing in palestine. Idk what Trump did but i dont remember he killing 15000 children
You’re either a plant or you’re dangerously uninformed.
If Trump and his christofascist sect wins, all arabic people in the region will be expelled or genocided.
If the crazies behind Trump with their playbook “Project 2025” get their way it would be really the “Lord have mercy” phase in humanities history.
This article shows the grand picture which should frighten every world citizen, considering we talk about the greatest military power with an unhinged Commander in Chief who is commanded himself by even more sinister manipulators.
“Many Republicans express their unwavering support for Israel in biblical and apocalyptic terms. Rep. Mike Johnson, a Christian evangelical, made his first public appearance after being elected House speaker last October at a conference of the Republican Jewish Coalition, where he said that “God is not done with Israel.””
Your insult just doesn’t make sense. I hope you see that. I heard that nearly every US president after WW2 was unconditionally pro Israel. And at least some of the dems (including the president) currently seem to begin to grasp that Israel is going terribly wrong with their methods in the war on Gaza. Your current government has the best chances to bring it to an end if they go just one step further. Biden said in the interview on MSNBC he’d always support them with their Iron Dome but it seemed, although he didn’t say it directly, that he wouldn’t support them above that, if Netanyahu crosses a red line.
In politics what people do is way more important than what they say. Not saying Trump is reasonable in any way, he killed Soleimani for no reason at all. But Biden have a genocide in his curriculum
Where did i insult you?
Biden is not my government. Idc if he curses and tell Netanyahu to eat shit, as long as he is providing weapons and money he is a genocidal ghoul. You are so easily fooled by nice words but dont forget who’s the weapon supplier to this genocide
Jup. That execution was extremely dangerous and I’m sure Iran is still pondering how they could take revenge. Another possible fubar situation if he comes to power. Iran launching a new 9/11 as a retribution for their national hero.
Not meant that you insulted me but rather 46. You’re free to do of course but I don’t think it fits. I can’t imagine it’s Biden who’s giving commands to carpet bomb Gaza, block aid deliveries or to shoot ~100 people fighting for said deliveries.
I’m not well informed about the independent candidates in the US and their stance to help for Israel. But even if there are some very left parties with no-aid for Israel policy would they stand any chance against Orange Cheato? After him it’s just game over. He would be dictator for lifetime. And Don Jr. after. Remember it’s very hard for US presidents to traditionally not support Israel militarywise. This doctrine seems to become a bit brittle lately with the dems.
I’m deeply dissatisfied with Biden. I’m angry with him for not pressuring Israel, and I was already angry at him even before that. And I will likely end up voting against him in the primary because of it. But realistically:
(1) He will be the Democratic nominee for President
(2) He is an infinitely better choice than the fascist who already attempted a coup once
(3) Either he or Trump will be the next president
There really is only one way to go in the general. Especially if you’re here on Blahaj, which means you’re either LGBTQ+ or at least friendly to us.
Cool; I didn’t know Blahaj was a 2SLGBTQ+ instance. I just thought it was a kind and accepting space, like Beehaw.
Not to derail this thread too much, but I assume Allies are welcome to join? If Beehaw ends up leaving Lemmy, I’ll need to make a new account somewhere.
I’m not suggesting voting third party or protest voting, I personally plan on voting for whoever has the Democrat party’s backing come the general. However, I do want to ask, what do you believe is a realistic plan for gaining that change?
The people that are voting third party or not voting are doing so because they believe that’s the best option for change. Even if I disagree with that, how can we show them a better path?
You will make no measurable impact on the outcome of the election. The election where one of two specific people will take power. And one of them already tried to end American democracy.
Third party candidates might have a chance if we convince our political leaders to switch to ranked choice voting, so we’ll be able to write “I’d like her to win, but I’d still prefer Biden to Trump” on our ballots. In that case, even if the rest of the nation didn’t agree with us, we still wouldn’t have someone who calls immigrants vermin in the white house. With first past the post, nobody who doesn’t have a D or R next to their name has a ghost of a chance.
No one knows who Claudia de la Cruz even is. Unless you want to become her campaign manager, that will still be true in November. Even if you did, and even if you managed to convince two thirds of the people who would’ve voted for Biden to vote for her instead, Trump would still win because half the nation voted for him and only a third voted for her.
She doesn’t have a chance. Grow up and don’t waste your vote. Way things are right now, you only get one.
Ranked Choice is a specific use of ranked ballots and it kind of sucks. You want Ranked Pairs.
Or just Approval Voting, where people check every name they like. Same ballots as now. Most votes wins. It is literally that simple and it matches optimal results. There is no good reason it’s not the default. What we’re doing now just plain sucks.
2000 was decided by hundreds of votes. 2020 was decided by thousands of votes. Don’t play stupid games with democracy, to risk an outright fascist doing the horrible shit he’s openly said he wants to do.
Only two candidates stand any chance of winning.
One of them tried subverting the 2020 election in at least seven distinct criminal attacks. And he’s even more of an Israel fanboy. You gain absolutely fucking nothing by pretending your no-name no-chance nobody is some kind of statement. Make statements with your mouth. Use your ballot to prevent electing a dictator.
You should always make your voice heard. There’s also more important elections going on that are more directly impactful to you (i.e. local elections).
This! I’m voting in 5 different elections this year!
We had a special election to fill a vacated mayoral seat (only 10% of registered voters showed up) and then the recent primary. In May, we have a local election for city council and school board seats and also a separate run-off primary election. And then of course the general election in November.
And don’t act like voting is a blood oath. You’re not pledging undying loyalty to a candidate - you’re saying you’d prefer them over the other plausible options. Nobody gives a shit if they’re your special favorite. You think we love these people? No. They’re just the best we could do, arguing with thousands of other assholes.
If that’s “the lesser evil,” sure, why the fuck would you want more evil? It’s not like staying home means nobody gets to be president.
If you vote for Biden then you too, are complicit in the genocide of Palestinians. It’s naive to think that working within the system will change anything. You are putting your own comfort above the lives of all the millions of people who are victims of American imperialism.
As I said, it’s naive to think that working with the system will solve anything. Biden and Trump are both horrible people who should never lead any country. If you don’t organise against your government then you are complicit in its crimes.
“According to a LifeWay poll conducted in 2017, 80 per cent of evangelical Christians view the creation of Israel in 1948 as a fulfilment of Biblical prophecy.”
“The tenet of Christian Zionism is that God’s promise of the Holy Land to the Jews is eternal. It’s not just something in antiquity,” Ms Oldmixon said. “When we talk about the Holy Land, God’s promise of the Holy Land, we’re talking about real estate on both sides of the Jordan River. So the sense of a greater Israel and expansionism is really important to this community. Jerusalem is just central to that. It’s viewed as a historical and biblical capital.
Beyond the rebuilding of the temple, Israel is also important to evangelical eschatology because they believe it will be home to the final battle of good against evil in which God obliterates his enemies and ushers in the millennial reign of Christ.”
Do you think there’ll be any considerations for the plight of the palestinians left if those absolutely bonkers sect of christo fascists will get their 1000 year reign?
Biden at least adressed his concerns about Netanyahu directly within an interview recently. That would never happen under Trump. So they’re far from being equally horrible.
If you don’t vote for biden then you too, are complicit in the genocide of Palestinians under Trump. You are personally complicit in the doubling or tripling of deaths, doubled or tripled export of weapons, and the outspoken sentiment of “kill them all” that Trump (your vote) actually expressed.
But good job trying to be a right wing fascist troll and guilting people into not voting so Trump wins.
It is exactly the same as the “personal carbon footprint” BS that corporations pushed to get the attention off the fact that 100 companies that individuals have no control of create over 70% of world emissions. Guilt people into accepting even worse outcomes and conditions by blaming them for things they literally cannot control.
Those are all just excuses to live in luxury while knowing your government is responsible for atrocities in other countries. The only honest way to clear your conscience would be to organise a resistance, not vote for the lesser fascist. That goes for The Netherlands too. Are you aware of the white supremist ideals we are spreading around the world, while we exploit the labour of the people in third world countries? How far has voting gotten us to fight the racist ideas that seep through the laws made by our government?
Ah, so then I assume you are posting this from a government building or prison after being the head of an armed resistance? No?
Oh you are just a basement-dweller who shitposts online to feel morally superior while enjoying the luxury that you hate so much? Imagine that, a hypocrite.
Are you aware that you, personally, are spreading white supremacist ideals and doing absolutely nothing about it besides trashing the others in the working class to feel better about yourself?
Look up local anti imperialist organisations if you want to contribute more. There’s several in every province and the people are often very welcoming. A lot of the people who are contributing are minority working class people who have little time to spare, but still choose to use that time to build community and help their organisation grow. It’s often white middle class workers with more time and money on their hands who complain about classism when they are suggested to join an organisation.
“if you falsely testify that a criminal A didn’t commit the charges against them, you’re contributing to the acquittal of his partner B”
I mean it’s true when you think about it, but at the same time you actually don’t contribute to less evil being there in the world because you’ve breached your oath. Lesser evilism in a nutshell.
I’ll proceed to describe in this post the gigantic amount of political change and sweeping reforms we will achieve when we valiantly protest against the system by not voting up until we get the turnout to 10%:
Yep. We need A LOT more leftists to show up before protesting the vote is useful. As much as I hate Democrats, we’re not there yet. I’ll vote Biden, but I’ll lose sleep over voting for that disgusting ghoul. Still better than the alternative, until the alternative includes dismantling our whole entire system.
Yes! Under Trump’s dictatorship there WILL sweeping changes, just not the ones you think. I mean ending democracy in this country will be a change. But you’ll sleep well (until the gestapo comes for you) thinking “you showed them!”.
It’s not a good tool if one party is likely, but not guaranteed, to win without your vote, but is much worse than the other. You should only spoil your ballot if your constituency is has a large enough majority that your vote won’t matter at all, or none of the parties are less bad than the others.
If you’re voting on the single issue of Palestine in the US presidential elections (not the primaries), then no state has a large enough majority to justify as spoiled ballots, and one party wants to support a genocide while the other wants to discourage it (even if they’re doing a crap job of it), so there is a least bad option to vote for.
It’s not a good tool if one party is likely, but not guaranteed, to win without your vote, but is much worse than the other. You should only spoil your ballot if your constituency is has a large enough majority that your vote won’t matter at all, or none of the parties are less bad than the others.
The first instance is realistically the only case in which it would really matter that you spoiled your ballot, though. In the second example of when you might spoil your vote, it wouldn’t really matter at all, precisely because they have a large enough majority.
I live in maryland so my ballot doesn’t matter much regardless for the presidential election. If Biden loses maryland he loses. And I won’t be voting for him. The worst thing missing my vote will do for him is reducing his popular vote. Since that’s mostly a talking point, good.
Except we have an actual self proclaimed dictator, trying to gain power. These fucking “progressives” are helping him.
As someone with a modicum of common sense, it boggles my mind that these spoiled children think helping Trump seize power is a good idea for anyone including themselves.
I don’t understand the motivation to spoil your vote. First past the post is the shittiest voting system but the rational response is to vote tactically instead, perhaps reduce the majority of your disliked incumbent. Even if you can’t overturn a majority, MPs on smaller majorities may be less arrogant, and less likely to vote for unpopular policies. But sometimes you do overturn a majority. It will happen lots in this/next year’s election.
I don’t think any politician gives a shit about the numbers of spoiled ballots, they literally don’t look even once at those numbers.
Add comment