No, I said I wanted to ask why (Aka, I have the curiousity to want to ask), then expressed that I didn’t really want to know the answer, which you still took as me asking, however, I didn’t ask. I only expressed that I wanted to.
Did you also have trouble in grade school asking if you can go to the bathroom, only to have the teacher all you “I don’t know, can you?” Then you got annoyed by it because you didn’t understand their point?
When you don’t want to get a reply from someone, don’t respond to their comments. Click the little checkmark when they show up in your notifications instead of writing something back.
If they haven’t replied to you, just don’t comment in response.
The easiest way to not hear someone’s ideas is not to engage with them.
Biden is the architect over 52 years in politics of an astounding number of this nations problems and many that affect me personally. He was a bridge too far in 2012 after I learned he wasnt just Obamas weird acting old guy vp.
I can’t comprehend how anyone was able to vote for him in 2020 and it’s deeply disturbing that anyone would support him now.
If you believe that trump is an existential threat, saw what happened last time he was declared the loser of an election, recognize that the right is making plans to enact their policy through administrative action (project 2025) and you think it matters how you vote I frankly don’t know what to say.
I mean, sure, vote for Biden if you can keep your lunch down long enough, but that shouldn’t matter one whit compared to how well you prepare for an enhanced replay of January sixth.
I do not believe trump is an existential threat. The right can’t gas up the slow slouch into fascism because it would necessitate fucking up the stock market shell game bag and they won’t do that.
We’re going to get the same shit as last time except this time his administration will have done their homework and won’t have to seethe as wall materials get sold off for scrap value.
Hey, you remember that country we spent fifty years undermining and sabotaging that finally succumbed in the 90s and was sold off for scrap? Well it’s back and it’s in control of one of our political candidates!
Russigate is a busybox for sequel brained liberals. It’s qanon for the actblue set.
I can’t understand this one. Sorry. Some dogwhistles are audible to me and some just aren’t. Can you be a little more clear?
While the Soviet Union existed for more than fifty years before 92, the type of active sabotage of its project and very existence that would eventually lead to its downfall at the hands of the us didn’t kick into high gear till about halfway through ww2.
I, of course, am not suggesting that the Russian federation is ussr 2.0, but that it’s absurd to ascribe the power to control American politicians to a nation that just recently crawled back up to its pre-collapse level.
Don’t forget the ones that did it for lols. Some just want to see the world burn. It’s like vaccines, they weren’t around when we didn’t have them, so they never saw the awful things that happened without them. Just like they’ve never lived under the horrors of authoritarian tyrants. They don’t know the horrors that can happen. Or they just assume they’ll be spared all the consequences.
Yeah, and I could be invisible if only all the photons bouncing off my body got together and agreed not to go into anyone’s eyes, but that ain’t happening anytime soon
You’d think so, but the history of the past 30 years shows that they’d rather lose, if it means maintaining the neoliberal economic order. As such, the DNC works entirely within a reductive paradigm under which they can only move in one dimension, right or left within that order. If they move one way, they’ll lose voters on the opposite flank, so they do the calculation and find that it’s better to move rightward.
Of course, there’s good evidence that Bernie Sanders would’ve attracted a lot of voters who consider themselves Republican. To fit that into their paradigm, though, it would require that voters make a huge, discontinuous leap from right to left, which doesn’t parse. It makes sense though when you consider that those voters don’t see themselves as right or left, but rather felt like Sanders spoke to, and cared about, their (working-class) issues. (It’s also the rigidity of this paradigm which made Democrats rage about “Bernie Bros” in their party refusing to vote for Clinton, which in actuality wasn’t a thing.)
The neoliberal economic order is very lucrative personally for our representatives, so good luck trying to get them to break from it.
Not necessarily. If the Democratic party loses more voters than they gain by appealing to communists, then appealing to communists would make them less likely to win, thus making Republican victory more likely.
Then you’re voting in favor of someone who will support it more. There’s exactly two possibilities this election cycle, barring any issues with mortality, and both of them support this genocide. When you get to your polling place, you should think about which option will be the most likely to lead to the best outcome. Obviously a third party would be the absolute best outcome, but it’s also the absolute least likely possibility. The only options that are likely are biden, who will maintain the current genocide, or trump, who will expand the current genocide, and also make your and your countrymen’s lives materially worse as well.
A lottery ticket is arguably the best possible way to spend your money, because you can turn $2 into a million. But you get that spending all of your income on lottery tickets is stupid, right? I hope I don’t have to explain this analogy any further
I figure it’s just how democracy has to work. Governance is too complicated to just set it and forget it every 2-4 years.
Even if you somehow elect an ideal candidate, you’re still going to disagree at some point during their term.
There are plenty of no-win scenarios, opportunities to trade a short-term loss for a long-term win, etc. where you might agree on goals but not tactics and you end up having to petition/protest them.
And that’s in the ideal case.
You might as well assume that whoever ends up in The Room Where It Happens, they’re going to sit down on the opposite side of the table from you — not next to you.
I guess that’s kinda cynical, but I really don’t mean it to be. I think it’s just a more healthy way to frame participatory democracy. Your job is not done at the ballot box. That’s just to set the parameters for the real work.
It all comes down to the biggest pain of current elections: strategic voting. If there was an ideal candidate you wouldnt vote for him because you d vote less bad so that more bad does not claim the throne. There are numerous systems which solve this problem but somehow both less bad and more bad dont have any reason to establish them. Of course there are many other faults with current voting systems and especially US system. If you want a proof that the system is fucked and needs to be abolished look at 1992 usa elections - not only did 19% of votes equate to 0(!) spots in the house or senate, there is a reasonable arguement to be made that the fact that Ross Perot entered the election has changed its outcome (spoiler effect). It is sad that US elections have reached an equlibrium where there are only two possible candidates who dont even have to try. After all “47% of the people will vote for the candidate no matter what” (intentional misquote)
Add comment