|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On February 14 2025 23:34 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2025 22:55 PoulsenB wrote:On February 14 2025 22:32 KwarK wrote:On February 14 2025 22:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 14 2025 21:56 KwarK wrote:On February 14 2025 21:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 14 2025 21:35 KwarK wrote:On February 14 2025 21:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 14 2025 21:17 KwarK wrote:On February 14 2025 20:48 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] Organize with my comrades. A specific (but non-comprehensive) example of something we're organizing toward would be a general strike. If Democrat supporters (at least the ones that ostensibly want better) can keep demanding that and more be part of Democrats plan, they can at least recognize Democrats as a party/institution that are actually oppositional to even their modestly progressive goals. Democrats are already pissed off...at their voters for wanting them to fight against Trump/fascism. And you believe your plan of getting Americans to engage in a general strike is more likely to work than the plan of voting Trump out? I believe getting ~10,000,000 people to engage in a general strike is necessary. Voting Trump out isn't even maybe an option until years from now anyway. It's like planning to order buckets to throw water out the window to deal with the several feet of standing water in the house from regional flooding. As a plan it fundamentally doesn't understand the nature of the problem. So you believe that Trump is both a fascist and also that you should allow him to stay in power + Show Spoiler +, day after day, week after week, enacting his fascist policies and genociding the people of Palestine while you work on your strike. And then you think that once you've got 10m people to engage in a general strike, which incidentally will never happen, it'll somehow defeat fascism? Because Trump is presumably both a genocidal fascist and also at the mercy of strikes. It's just like that time when Hitler was defeated by organized German labour. I wish I had your gift for self deception, it must be so nice to believe in such things. No. I believe organizing with my comrades towards a general strike (along with plenty of other activities) is a better use of time and energy than dissuading people from doing that like a fascist would. This sounds like an excuse to hang out with your buddies. You're not serious about stopping fascism + Show Spoiler +, even your "solutions" don't actually involve stopping anything. What you're doing basically makes you a willing accomplice to everything bad that happens from here on. You knew what they were doing, you knew what they were going to do, but you choose to hang out with your friends instead. If you ever wondered what you'd do if you were in 1940 Germany then you now have your answer and it's not a great look. You're free to believe that, and I'm open to considering/trying your alternatives (is it fleeing the country?), unlike you and the libs/Dems/ilk you're representing with this tantrum. Consider that some of the people you’re working with may have been open to some kind of actual solution to the issue at hand. You’re pulling them away from real resistance and instead advocating that you all just take a day off work together. You’re essentially just another layer of structural opposition to real change, a net to catch people who recognize that there’s an issue and ensnare them with pipe dreams of general strikes. What real, current day, effective action to stop Trump/Nazis are you doing, Kwark? Not jugding neither side, just curious. Kwark's point isn't that he is doing more or that he is better, its that GH has been complaining for what feel like a decade that everyone in this thread is completely and utterly complicit in the combined suffering of humanity while GH himself has done the exact same to halt it as everyone else here. nothing.
But that's objectively untrue. I'm advocating for/working toward a way out of the Hamster Wheel + Show Spoiler +the perpetual Dem apologist refrain of:
1. There's a problem
2. Politicians won't fix it
3. Need to replace the politicians with ones that will
4. Can't replace the politicians because of how the system works
5. Need to fix the system
6. Politicians wont fix it (because it benefits them)
7. Repeat ad nauseam.
While basically everyone else is arguing, ahistorically..., "there is no way but the wheel".
|
On February 14 2025 23:49 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2025 23:46 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 14 2025 23:22 Sadist wrote:
GH if Trump is successful in kicking palestinians out of Gaza do you think your protest vote was successful?
This point is interesting to me. Its basically a trolley problem. The only people who didn't vote for death, destruction and chaos in Gaza are the people who didn't vote for either party. It wasn’t on the ballot. You can’t declare that people who voted voted for shit that wasn’t on the ballot. Chocolate is harvested by child slaves in west Africa. Presumably you’ve voted for a MP before and presumably none of the candidates running in your constituency pledged to end it. Defend your vote for child slavery if you dare.
Sure, it wasn't a major world issue that could decide a vote.
Sorry, it just wasn't.
Also, pledging to end child slavery would be great and might actually get me to vote one way or the other when it comes to UK MPs.
People weren't asking the Democrats to pledge to end someone else's evil across the world. They were asking them to stop actively participating in a genocide. Your analogy doesn't stretch that far I'm afraid.
|
On February 14 2025 23:50 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2025 23:47 Sadist wrote:On February 14 2025 23:46 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 14 2025 23:22 Sadist wrote:
GH if Trump is successful in kicking palestinians out of Gaza do you think your protest vote was successful?
This point is interesting to me. Its basically a trolley problem. The only people who didn't vote for death, destruction and chaos in Gaza are the people who didn't vote for either party. The people who didnt vote against Trump (IE people voting Dem) are responsible for palestinians being kicked out of Gaza. Okay so let's imagine you are a Palestinian living in the US. You had a family of 30 people living in Gaza, 29 of whom are now dead - and partially responsible for those deaths are the Democrats. Would you vote for the people who killed your family? Would you trust them to save your one remaining family member? Would you point the finger at that person and say that they are responsible for Palestinians getting kicked out of Gaza after they've watched their family get butchered at the hands of the people you insist they must vote for? Its so easy to make it sound simple with one sentence. It isn't simple though. Yes
We're dealing in hypotheticals here because no one can say what Harris would have actually done upon being elected but the odds that she would sell out to Israel and tell Netanyahu to go ahead with ethnically cleansing Gaza are significant smaller then Trump.
|
On February 14 2025 23:51 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2025 23:46 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 14 2025 23:22 Sadist wrote:
GH if Trump is successful in kicking palestinians out of Gaza do you think your protest vote was successful?
This point is interesting to me. Its basically a trolley problem. The only people who didn't vote for death, destruction and chaos in Gaza are the people who didn't vote for either party. No, because in the trolley problem doing nothing kills more people then doing something. Doing nothing and increasing the odds Trump wins kills more people in Gaza then choosing to vote for Democrats who won't do enough, but will not tell Netanyahu to go right ahead with the ethnic cleansing of Gaza. Not voting is accepting the worse of 2 bad options as being just as acceptable as the lesser of said options.
Not voting is refusing to actively join in with the genocide being perpetrated.
You would decide to be a part of that genocide, to prevent a worse genocide. Fine, that's a perfectly reasonable choice if you can justify it. It is a personal choice though. Some people don't want to be an active part of genocide.
|
On February 14 2025 23:55 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2025 23:51 Gorsameth wrote:On February 14 2025 23:46 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 14 2025 23:22 Sadist wrote:
GH if Trump is successful in kicking palestinians out of Gaza do you think your protest vote was successful?
This point is interesting to me. Its basically a trolley problem. The only people who didn't vote for death, destruction and chaos in Gaza are the people who didn't vote for either party. No, because in the trolley problem doing nothing kills more people then doing something. Doing nothing and increasing the odds Trump wins kills more people in Gaza then choosing to vote for Democrats who won't do enough, but will not tell Netanyahu to go right ahead with the ethnic cleansing of Gaza. Not voting is accepting the worse of 2 bad options as being just as acceptable as the lesser of said options. Not voting is refusing to actively join in with the genocide being perpetrated. You would decide to be a part of that genocide, to prevent a worse genocide. Fine, that's a perfectly reasonable choice if you can justify it. It is a personal choice though. Some people don't want to be an active part of genocide. Your failing to recognise the basic principle of the trolley problem.
No acting is accepting that the worst possible end result is acceptable.
I'm fine with someone choosing not to act and accepting that the worst outcome is acceptable but don't try to claim some sort of moral highground off the fact that you saw a situation with 2 possible outcomes and said "fuck it, I don't care".
|
On February 15 2025 00:01 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2025 23:55 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 14 2025 23:51 Gorsameth wrote:On February 14 2025 23:46 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 14 2025 23:22 Sadist wrote:
GH if Trump is successful in kicking palestinians out of Gaza do you think your protest vote was successful?
This point is interesting to me. Its basically a trolley problem. The only people who didn't vote for death, destruction and chaos in Gaza are the people who didn't vote for either party. No, because in the trolley problem doing nothing kills more people then doing something. Doing nothing and increasing the odds Trump wins kills more people in Gaza then choosing to vote for Democrats who won't do enough, but will not tell Netanyahu to go right ahead with the ethnic cleansing of Gaza. Not voting is accepting the worse of 2 bad options as being just as acceptable as the lesser of said options. Not voting is refusing to actively join in with the genocide being perpetrated. You would decide to be a part of that genocide, to prevent a worse genocide. Fine, that's a perfectly reasonable choice if you can justify it. It is a personal choice though. Some people don't want to be an active part of genocide. Your failing to recognise the basic principle of the trolley problem. No acting is accepting that the worst possible end result is acceptable. I'm fine with someone choosing not to act and accepting that the worst outcome is acceptable but don't try to claim some sort of moral highground off the fact that you saw a situation with 2 possible outcomes and said "fuck it, I don't care".
Hang on, I'm not the one trying to claim moral high ground here.
I'm defending a position that was being attacked as immoral.
The Dem voters are insisting that anyone who didn't vote Democrat is responsible for Trump and therefore the cause of any problem created by Trump. I think that's absolute BS to be honest and that is the position here that is attempting to claim the moral high ground.
Maybe if the Democrats weren't fucking evil beyond belief more people would vote for them. I get the feeling this whole thing is yet more distraction from the absolute fucking disaster that was the Democrat campaign, and the decade of ridiculous arrogance that preceded it, which handed Trump the presidency.
|
United States43588 Posts
The trolley problem comparison is apt because, like the trolley problem, there is an objectively right answer and, like the trolley problem, people pretend there’s a third choice which only the super ethical can see.
The blame for the deaths in the trolley problem lies with whoever is tying people to the tracks. Never on the person who pulls the lever to change track. Changing track doesn’t somehow mean you’re responsible for tying people to tracks or that you’re okay with it. The trolley problem has the harm already baked in, harm is unavoidable, the only choice is whether to do harm reduction.
|
On February 14 2025 23:46 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2025 23:22 Sadist wrote:
GH if Trump is successful in kicking palestinians out of Gaza do you think your protest vote was successful?
This point is interesting to me. Its basically a trolley problem. The only people who didn't vote for death, destruction and chaos in Gaza are the people who didn't vote for either party.
While that's semantically correct, keep in mind those people are still complicit in the death, destruction, and chaos in Gaza, just like everyone else. They don't have any moral high ground in regards to what's been going on in Gaza, or any future devastation there. Additionally, those non-Democratic voters certainly didn't vote for any domestic improvements either.
|
On February 15 2025 00:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2025 23:46 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 14 2025 23:22 Sadist wrote:
GH if Trump is successful in kicking palestinians out of Gaza do you think your protest vote was successful?
This point is interesting to me. Its basically a trolley problem. The only people who didn't vote for death, destruction and chaos in Gaza are the people who didn't vote for either party. While that's semantically correct, keep in mind those people are still complicit in the death, destruction, and chaos in Gaza, just like everyone else. They don't have any moral high ground in regards to what's been going on in Gaza, or any future devastation there. Additionally, those non-Democratic voters certainly didn't vote for any domestic improvements either.
I disagree.
Simply existing does make you complicit in anything. Making a positive choice to be complicit in something makes you complicit.
Let me put this another way. How is a person supposed to convince the Democrats to change their policy without threatening to withhold their vote, and actually meaning it? It is the only lever anybody has.
|
On February 15 2025 00:07 KwarK wrote:The trolley problem comparison is apt because + Show Spoiler +, like the trolley problem, there is an objectively right answer and, like the trolley problem, people pretend there’s a third choice which only the super ethical can see.
The blame for the deaths in the trolley problem lies with whoever is tying people to the tracks. Never on the person who pulls the lever to change track. Changing track doesn’t somehow mean you’re responsible for tying people to tracks or that you’re okay with it. The trolley problem has the harm already baked in , harm is unavoidable, the only choice is whether to do harm reduction.
That's actually a big reason why it's bullshit. You got both parties tying people to the tracks and sending trolleys then trying to convince society that their only choice is to keep building trolleys for them and thoughtlessly sending them down the tracks without any real control over who is at the switch or who is on the tracks.
Our power is to stop building them trolleys (to run us over with anyway lol), and to stop acting like Kwark and others helping chain people/themselves (if Kwark isn't fleeing the country?) to the tracks.
If we had a trolley for every time someone obliviously used the "trolly problem" to rationalize their participation in genocide we'd have solved our public transit problems nationally.
|
What we essentially have is a bunch of people giving the Dems a lifetime guarantee of their vote, as long as the democrats continue to be 0.000000000001% less evil than the republicans, and these people can't see any problem with that going into the future.
Dirty money in politics? No need to fix that, as long as you stay slightly the right side of the Republicans.
Genocide abroad? Just make it slightly slower than the republican version and we're all set.
Multiply that across every single issue.
It could be that this is why politicians seem so unmotivated to make the world a better place.
|
United States43588 Posts
I’m not chaining people to tracks, I think you’ll find that it is actually you who is doing that.
|
United States43588 Posts
On February 15 2025 00:19 Jockmcplop wrote:
What we essentially have is a bunch of people giving the Dems a lifetime guarantee of their vote, as long as the democrats continue to be 0.000000000001% less evil than the republicans, and these people can't see any problem with that going into the future.
Dirty money in politics? No need to fix that, as long as you stay slightly the right side of the Republicans.
Genocide abroad? Just make it slightly slower than the republican version and we're all set.
Multiply that across every single issue.
It could be that this is why politicians seem so unmotivated to make the world a better place.
This is why we have primaries etc. To decide what the Democratic Party position is.
If the system was literally that we put two literal demons in a room, invite them to play the “name the highest number game” for puppies to kill, and then have those as our only two candidates then you’d have a valid point about why that system doesn’t really minimize harm. Your best case scenario in that system would be saving the life of one puppy by voting for infinity puppies over infinity and one.
People thought of that particular problem and that’s why it’s literally not the system we use. Your critique is of a system you’re imagining. The reason we have two platforms that are broadly pro Israel but to differing degrees is not because the bar is to be slightly less evil, it’s because the American people do not believe that being pro Israel is at all evil. They’re not voting for the lesser evil, they’re not voting for evil at all (as they see it). Your entire argument is irrelevant.
|
On February 15 2025 00:19 Jockmcplop wrote:
What we essentially have is a bunch of people giving the Dems a lifetime guarantee of their vote, as long as the democrats continue to be 0.000000000001% less evil than the republicans, and these people can't see any problem with that going into the future.
Dirty money in politics? No need to fix that, as long as you stay slightly the right side of the Republicans.
Genocide abroad? Just make it slightly slower than the republican version and we're all set.
Multiply that across every single issue.
It could be that this is why politicians seem so unmotivated to make the world a better place. Is the fault with the US voter choosing the less evil or with the party that is consistently digging down trying to be the bigger evil?
In a sane world Republicans would be stealing Democratic votes by trying to be better, their positions might be different and they might approach things different but both would want the best for America and the world.
Instead we live in a world where people vote for a convicted felon, self enriching fraudster and failed businessmen who is liable for sexual assault and feel proud about that.
So long as one side is America's Hitler the other side pretty much gets a blank check yeah...
I'd blame the side that keeps America's Hitler electable but you do you.
|
On February 15 2025 00:26 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2025 00:19 Jockmcplop wrote:
What we essentially have is a bunch of people giving the Dems a lifetime guarantee of their vote, as long as the democrats continue to be 0.000000000001% less evil than the republicans, and these people can't see any problem with that going into the future.
Dirty money in politics? No need to fix that, as long as you stay slightly the right side of the Republicans.
Genocide abroad? Just make it slightly slower than the republican version and we're all set.
Multiply that across every single issue.
It could be that this is why politicians seem so unmotivated to make the world a better place. This is why we have primaries etc. To decide what the Democratic Party position is. If the system was literally that we put two literal demons in a room, invite them to play the “name the highest number game” for puppies to kill, and then have those as our only two candidates then you’d have a valid point about why that system doesn’t really minimize harm. Your best case scenario in that system would be saving the life of one puppy by voting for infinity puppies over infinity and one. People thought of that particular problem and that’s why it’s literally not the system we use. Your critique is of a system you’re imagining. The reason we have two platforms that are broadly pro Israel but to differing degrees is not because the bar is to be slightly less evil, it’s because the American people do not believe that being pro Israel is at all evil. They’re not voting for the lesser evil, they’re not voting for evil at all (as they see it). Your entire argument is irrelevant.
Primaries, huh? The American people, huh?
That's really how you think it works in reality.
Pretty sure the American people you are talking about would have chosen people other than Hilary and Trump to run in 2016 if they actually had a choice.
Everyone I spoke to from the US thought they were both ridiculous candidates.
Nice argument in theory though.
I'm pretty sure the lesser evil argument is the argument pretty much every single person on this forum is using to try and convince me that everyone should have voted democrat. That's where this began.
|
On February 15 2025 00:19 Jockmcplop wrote:
What we essentially have is a bunch of people giving the Dems a lifetime guarantee of their vote, as long as the democrats continue to be 0.000000000001% less evil than the republicans, and these people can't see any problem with that going into the future.
Dirty money in politics? No need to fix that, as long as you stay slightly the right side of the Republicans.
Genocide abroad? Just make it slightly slower than the republican version and we're all set.
Multiply that across every single issue.
It could be that this is why politicians seem so unmotivated to make the world a better place.
Like I said, objectively delusional, ahistorical, and insane.
They say if I'm obsequious to them and find a way to stroke their ego they'll breakout of that delusion as a favor to me, but I don't believe them any more than I do Republicans that say the same things about racism and the rest.
|
United States43588 Posts
On February 15 2025 00:28 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2025 00:26 KwarK wrote:On February 15 2025 00:19 Jockmcplop wrote:
What we essentially have is a bunch of people giving the Dems a lifetime guarantee of their vote, as long as the democrats continue to be 0.000000000001% less evil than the republicans, and these people can't see any problem with that going into the future.
Dirty money in politics? No need to fix that, as long as you stay slightly the right side of the Republicans.
Genocide abroad? Just make it slightly slower than the republican version and we're all set.
Multiply that across every single issue.
It could be that this is why politicians seem so unmotivated to make the world a better place. This is why we have primaries etc. To decide what the Democratic Party position is. If the system was literally that we put two literal demons in a room, invite them to play the “name the highest number game” for puppies to kill, and then have those as our only two candidates then you’d have a valid point about why that system doesn’t really minimize harm. Your best case scenario in that system would be saving the life of one puppy by voting for infinity puppies over infinity and one. People thought of that particular problem and that’s why it’s literally not the system we use. Your critique is of a system you’re imagining. The reason we have two platforms that are broadly pro Israel but to differing degrees is not because the bar is to be slightly less evil, it’s because the American people do not believe that being pro Israel is at all evil. They’re not voting for the lesser evil, they’re not voting for evil at all (as they see it). Your entire argument is irrelevant. Primaries, huh? The American people, huh? That's really how you think it works in reality. Pretty sure the American people you are talking about would have chosen people other than Hilary and Trump to run in 2016 if they actually had a choice. Everyone I spoke to from the US thought they were both ridiculous candidates. Nice argument in theory though. I'm pretty sure the lesser evil argument is the argument pretty much every single person on this forum is using to try and convince me that everyone should have voted democrat. That's where this began.
Hillary was a perfectly respectable perfectly qualified former Secretary of State with a good legislative record. Most of the issues people had with her were manufactured by right wing media. She would have been fine.
|
On February 15 2025 00:28 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2025 00:26 KwarK wrote:On February 15 2025 00:19 Jockmcplop wrote:
What we essentially have is a bunch of people giving the Dems a lifetime guarantee of their vote, as long as the democrats continue to be 0.000000000001% less evil than the republicans, and these people can't see any problem with that going into the future.
Dirty money in politics? No need to fix that, as long as you stay slightly the right side of the Republicans.
Genocide abroad? Just make it slightly slower than the republican version and we're all set.
Multiply that across every single issue.
It could be that this is why politicians seem so unmotivated to make the world a better place. This is why we have primaries etc. To decide what the Democratic Party position is. If the system was literally that we put two literal demons in a room, invite them to play the “name the highest number game” for puppies to kill, and then have those as our only two candidates then you’d have a valid point about why that system doesn’t really minimize harm. Your best case scenario in that system would be saving the life of one puppy by voting for infinity puppies over infinity and one. People thought of that particular problem and that’s why it’s literally not the system we use. Your critique is of a system you’re imagining. The reason we have two platforms that are broadly pro Israel but to differing degrees is not because the bar is to be slightly less evil, it’s because the American people do not believe that being pro Israel is at all evil. They’re not voting for the lesser evil, they’re not voting for evil at all (as they see it). Your entire argument is irrelevant. Primaries, huh? The American people, huh? That's really how you think it works in reality. Pretty sure the American people you are talking about would have chosen people other than Hilary and Trump to run in 2016 if they actually had a choice. Everyone I spoke to from the US thought they were both ridiculous candidates. Nice argument in theory though. I'm pretty sure the lesser evil argument is the argument pretty much every single person on this forum is using to try and convince me that everyone should have voted democrat. That's where this began.
The American people did have a choice. Through the primaries, they cast ballots. Those ballots favored those two. Was it manipulated? Sure, we can say that. But at the end of the day, they had a choice. They could have continued voting for Sanders throughout the primary and the election. They voted Clinton instead.
The choice was there. Did they make the correct choice? Who's to say? But as was stated a few pages back, it was more misogyny and racism that kept Harris and Clinton out of office.
|
On February 15 2025 00:36 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2025 00:28 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2025 00:26 KwarK wrote:On February 15 2025 00:19 Jockmcplop wrote:
What we essentially have is a bunch of people giving the Dems a lifetime guarantee of their vote, as long as the democrats continue to be 0.000000000001% less evil than the republicans, and these people can't see any problem with that going into the future.
Dirty money in politics? No need to fix that, as long as you stay slightly the right side of the Republicans.
Genocide abroad? Just make it slightly slower than the republican version and we're all set.
Multiply that across every single issue.
It could be that this is why politicians seem so unmotivated to make the world a better place. This is why we have primaries etc. To decide what the Democratic Party position is. If the system was literally that we put two literal demons in a room, invite them to play the “name the highest number game” for puppies to kill, and then have those as our only two candidates then you’d have a valid point about why that system doesn’t really minimize harm. Your best case scenario in that system would be saving the life of one puppy by voting for infinity puppies over infinity and one. People thought of that particular problem and that’s why it’s literally not the system we use. Your critique is of a system you’re imagining. The reason we have two platforms that are broadly pro Israel but to differing degrees is not because the bar is to be slightly less evil, it’s because the American people do not believe that being pro Israel is at all evil. They’re not voting for the lesser evil, they’re not voting for evil at all (as they see it). Your entire argument is irrelevant. Primaries, huh? The American people, huh? That's really how you think it works in reality. Pretty sure the American people you are talking about would have chosen people other than Hilary and Trump to run in 2016 if they actually had a choice. Everyone I spoke to from the US thought they were both ridiculous candidates. Nice argument in theory though. I'm pretty sure the lesser evil argument is the argument pretty much every single person on this forum is using to try and convince me that everyone should have voted democrat. That's where this began. The American people did have a choice. Through the primaries, they cast ballots. Those ballots favored those two. Was it manipulated? Sure, we can say that. But at the end of the day, they had a choice. They could have continued voting for Sanders throughout the primary and the election. They voted Clinton instead. The choice was there. Did they make the correct choice? Who's to say? But as was stated a few pages back, it was more misogyny and racism that kept Harris and Clinton out of office.
Hey, I was being told a minute ago it was people refusing to vote Dem out of conscience that kept Harris out of office.
On February 15 2025 00:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2025 00:19 Jockmcplop wrote:
What we essentially have is a bunch of people giving the Dems a lifetime guarantee of their vote, as long as the democrats continue to be 0.000000000001% less evil than the republicans, and these people can't see any problem with that going into the future.
Dirty money in politics? No need to fix that, as long as you stay slightly the right side of the Republicans.
Genocide abroad? Just make it slightly slower than the republican version and we're all set.
Multiply that across every single issue.
It could be that this is why politicians seem so unmotivated to make the world a better place. Like I said, objectively delusional, ahistorical, and insane.
I agree wholeheartedly. Sorry for the low content post I don't have much else to say about it.
|
On February 15 2025 00:28 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2025 00:26 KwarK wrote:On February 15 2025 00:19 Jockmcplop wrote:
What we essentially have is a bunch of people giving the Dems a lifetime guarantee of their vote, as long as the democrats continue to be 0.000000000001% less evil than the republicans, and these people can't see any problem with that going into the future.
Dirty money in politics? No need to fix that, as long as you stay slightly the right side of the Republicans.
Genocide abroad? Just make it slightly slower than the republican version and we're all set.
Multiply that across every single issue.
It could be that this is why politicians seem so unmotivated to make the world a better place. This is why we have primaries etc. To decide what the Democratic Party position is. If the system was literally that we put two literal demons in a room, invite them to play the “name the highest number game” for puppies to kill, and then have those as our only two candidates then you’d have a valid point about why that system doesn’t really minimize harm. Your best case scenario in that system would be saving the life of one puppy by voting for infinity puppies over infinity and one. People thought of that particular problem and that’s why it’s literally not the system we use. Your critique is of a system you’re imagining. The reason we have two platforms that are broadly pro Israel but to differing degrees is not because the bar is to be slightly less evil, it’s because the American people do not believe that being pro Israel is at all evil. They’re not voting for the lesser evil, they’re not voting for evil at all (as they see it). Your entire argument is irrelevant. Primaries, huh? The American people, huh? That's really how you think it works in reality. + Show Spoiler +Pretty sure the American people you are talking about would have chosen people other than Hilary and Trump to run in 2016 if they actually had a choice.
Everyone I spoke to from the US thought they were both ridiculous candidates.
Nice argument in theory though.
I'm pretty sure the lesser evil argument is the argument pretty much every single person on this forum is using to try and convince me that everyone should have voted democrat. That's where this began.
Here's the thing, it is super obvious this is just them talking out of their ass. They were busy telling people to shut up and fall in line behind Biden before the primary even started.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
