Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes 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 misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
After a day and several replies from people. I've come to the conclusion that people here are ok with their party and leaders supporting genocide and they attack the questioners (instead of their party leaders) who criticize those who support genocide. Critical thinking is scarce here.
I'm shameful of humanity.
A take I've heard that maybe you'll understand is this:
Leftist organizing in the US isn't going to change the system 90 days before election day. There's simply too much momentum with the two party system we have.
So now the situation is, vote for whoever you'd rather have in charge of the country while you do your leftist organizing for the next several years. I know I'd rather do that work under a Harris presidency than a Trump one, for a million obvious reasons.
To do anything else is to simply not understand the reality of the situation.
That's a reasonable argument, but it leads to some pretty uncomfortable conclusions for democracy.
During our next "leftist organizing for the next several years.", why would the Democrats budge an inch given that they know all they need to do is hold fast until the last 90 days and we'll all fall into line and vote for them anyway?
We end up like the boy who cries wolf. All our protest and campaigns mean nothing because our votes are, in the end, absolutely guaranteed. The Democrats can have whatever policy positions they like.
I don't see how 4 years or 4 days makes any difference. If they are guaranteed your vote come election day, they have no reason to shift policy in order to obtain it.
I'd say then you don't understand the purpose of on-the-ground political organizing or what it looks like. It's not about changing the whole system in one go, it's about radicalizing as many people as possible for a grassroots movement. You use that to get local politicians in power favorable to leftist causes. Then you apply pressure upward.
We're currently more radicalized as a country than we've been since the Red Scare. Just because the progress is frustratingly slow does not mean it isn't happening.
But this discussion isn't about grassroots or local politicians. Following the logic espoused in the OP you'd turn out in droves to vote for a local politician who offers policies you agree with.
This discussion is about the presidential election and what to do about two candidates who both actively support genocide.
One could conceivably not vote for Kamala and then massively support your local grassroots movement and politicians, or... You could vote for Kamala and then massively support your local grassroots movement and politicians.
Talking about whether or not to vote for Kamala has no bearing on what you then do at a local level.
And if that local-level politician doesn't offer policies you like, same logic. Why would they ever do so if they're guaranteed your vote anyway?
What's at stake here is people actively arguing that we should just guarantee one political party our votes, no matter what their policies are, out of blind faith.
That's not a democracy, it's a theocracy.
You've successfully looped back to my first point.
You vote in the current election to get the conditions to do your grassroots work under.
I got the point. Just not the mechanism. It's all very well to hand-waive vaguely toward 'grassroots work', but its far from clear how, under the voting policy in question, this will affect anything.
Let us say our grassroots campaign went really well and we get some great local politicians. Now what?
They advise Kamala (or her replacement) to drop support for genocide? Why would she listen? They're going to be in no different a position to us, they have to vote in her favour no matter what all the while there's a worse person on the ballot.
And why would anyone even advise it in the first place when leftist votes are guaranteed anyway? It'd be political insanity to risk loosing the centrist vote for no gain.
So, explain the mechanism. We get a great local politician and she does what....?
Local politicians > work way into DNC primary machine > work to change how the primaries work > reduce ability for $ and top brass to pave way in primaries for their chosen people > get candidates we actually want winning primaries. It's a long game.
If you're asking me how to get Kamala Harris herself to change course on all this immediately, I have no idea. But witholding your vote isn't going to sway things, either. Even if we got every leftist in the country to not vote in solidarity - that wouldn't be enough. There's not enough of us yet. That's the reality of working within a democracy, you need enough people organized to vote. But you need time and an actual strategy WELL BEFORE THIS STAGE OF THE ELECTION CYCLE. All that would do now is spoil the election, give it to Trump, and that very well may end democracy in the US as we know it.
Regarding "guaranteed leftist votes" you must consider that the opposite also applies. Why would Kamala Harris care about your views if you're never going to vote for her? (Maybe you would if she vowed to save Palestine and forego allyship with Israel until they stop genociding, though, which is fair. But a lot of folks out here making these arguments are not doing so in good faith.)
Sounds very cloak-and-dagger. Aren't these systems largely democratic? If so, why aren't they caught in the same trap, they have to give their votes to the least worst candidate?
"Yet"? From when? The beginning of the socialist movement? Is there a point in time you begin to question this slow-and-steady policy? 100 years? 1000?
Is there some threshold at which you might begin to look at the utter failure of such a process, it's total and utter net support for the status quo and start to question who really benefits?
Because if that day ever comes, you might take a glance at the media promoting such a view and the degree to which their owners and sources of revenue benefit from exactly the outcome this policy results in.
But I'm not holding my breath. Experience has taught me that people these days seems quite happy to believe that when powerful forces get exactly the results which benefit them most, it's most likely to be a completely fortuitous coincide and anything else is just conspiracy theory.
Cloak and dagger? It's literally just applying for positions of lower power to help influence systems to open the gates for higher levels of power. It's... normal everyday shit.
If there were "enough" socialists we'd either have a valid third party or we'd be able to democratically take over DNC primaries. So far that hasn't materialized.
Given there are other countries, like the Nordic countries, that have achieved greater quality of life for their people through democratic socialist means... yeah I'd much prefer that approach than a full on revolution led by some vanguard and the horrendous amount of risk that entails.
You've studiously avoided the question no one seems willing to address.
Why would anyone move their policies an inch to the left if they are assured of the votes anyway?
Doesn't matter if they're in the primaries, the presidential election or the bloody village mayor. No one will shift to meet the policies of a group whose votes they are guaranteed to get anyway.
Ahh. The Nordics. You mean the countries famous for their coalitions where people vote even for the smaller candidates who suit their preferences to form small elements in a mixed government... Those Nordic countries?
Incidentally, the same Nordic countries that are now facing the same rise in racist populism that evey other country is facing across the globe?
It's almost as if the problem were systemic and nothing to do with a bunch of leftists not wanting to vote in favour of genocide...
Biden and soon Harris are, to my understanding, the most progressive presidents we've had in the US. Why are they moving (slowly) left over time?
And yes, those Nordics. To my understanding it's not just social culture forming those coalitions, but an actual government system that allows for such coalition building. I would like the same or similar systems, sure.
Fascism and racism are systemic, nobody is disagreeing with you about that?
Anyway, that's as much energy as I'm willing to spend on someone who does not converse in good faith. Stay safe out there.
Ahh. The apocryphal 'bad faith'. Last resort of failing argument. If in doubt, accuse your interlocutor of arguing in 'bad faith' and retreat to the comforting safety of your echo chamber.
Would you like a reassuring copy of the New York Times to read? I'm sure they'll have an article somewhere about how everything's going to be be just fine so long as we tick the right box at election time.
At the risk of feeding a sea lion, there’s actually a simple reason a candidate might shift their position toward voters that are already “guaranteed” to vote for them: if that “guaranteed” base grows, it provides a voting offset that could allow the candidate to worry less about losing the support of less progressive voters.
Sure.
But why would they? If the base that's 'grown' is guaranteed, then why shift at all? Why not have the new larger guaranteed base, and the less progressive voters. After all, the guaranteed base is guaranteed, you don't need to do anything to get their votes.
But let's say they want to risk it for ideological reasons (no evidence at all that this is the case, but for the sake of argument we could assume it).
You've still not addressed the two main questions.
How do they know the extra votes came from left-leaning but 'guaranteed' voters, and not from voters who really liked their centrist policies?
If they have some way of knowing (polls, focus-groups etc) then why can't they use that way of knowing to ask about voter commitment, and make the move to the left before the election, why do they need us to actually vote first to find out if we're in this 'guaranteed base'?
Oh. I've just looked up 'sea-lion'. Jesus fucking Christ. In one thread we've had the argument, from supposed progressives, that;
This is the progressive position now?
This isn't politics, it's a fucking religion.
It's not a religion, it's reality and acknowledging that we can't always get what we want when we want, and sometimes, the best option is harm reduction. You're going on and on, like voting is always about ideological purity, but it's not. The current system we have means you can push as far in whatever direction you want during the primary elections, but when it comes down to the general election, there are two viable candidates. The reality is, most third party slates, don't even have a path to 270 electoral votes. Of the two that do, only the Libertarian Party has ever received an electoral vote, and that was in 1972 because of a "faithless elector," rather than support at the ballot box. The Green Party? They only show up every four years to make perfect the enemy of better. They're not serious. That leaves you with Trump and Harris. If we characterize them as cynically as you seem to view them, the choice is between someone that impulsive, vindictive, transactional, and devoid of even being able to pretend to a modicum of empathy, versus someone that isn't stopping genocide fast enough. Of those two, which one do you think is more likely to exacerbate genocide the most?
Saying you're not going to vote for a candidate that "allows genocide," doesn't mean genocide isn't going to happen, it just means you get to feel better about yourself rather than inching things toward less genocide that might actually save some lives. So take how you will feel about yourself voting for someone that "allows genocide," and set that aside, and ask yourself, out of the two, who is going to make it worse and who will make it less worse — because that vote has real life-and-death consequences.
Just declaring it to be 'reality' doesn't stand in for an argument. I obviously disagree so if you want to have a discussion you have to forward some rational argument for your view.
Why will withholding a vote when neither candidate is acceptable not stop genocide?
You've simply declared that it will, but not given any reasons.
If both candidates are going to continue arms sales, then there's no difference. The idea that Trump's going to sell more is silly, there's no current limit, Israel buys what they need. So the only affect I can have is in the long term.
Here, there's two options:
Make it clear that genocide does not win votes.
Make it clear that even genocide is not going to dissuade me from voting Democrat and so give them basically a free ticket to ignore voters complety.
The former is the most likely to stop genocide.
Same goes for any other issue.
All the while you vote as if it were a duopoly, it will remain a duopoly. It's not about getting 'the least worst person' into power next month, it's about the long term value of making it clear to politicians that they cannot simply threaten us into voting for them, that they need to present policies we want in order to secure votes. Anything less and you might as well chuck democracy now. All they have to do is build up the bogeyman again and you'll vote for them no matter what. In what way is that remotely "for the people, by the people"?
The “long term” doesn’t matter if the candidate that wants to “be a dictator on day one” gets his way, but you know what, maybe your self-righteousness will save us all. You say what you want but you have no way of achieving it. So, bye Felicia.
?
You've expended less than 500 words arguing your case and you're giving up because I haven't capitulated in the first two replies?
Either you have a very low confidence in your persuasiveness, or a very low confidence in the strength of your argument.
What did you expect from this exchange, I unquestioningly accept the wisdom of your Delphic monologue?
It’s FAR too late in the game to explain to you how a non-vote or a throwaway vote helps Trump. It’s explained nearly every time this comes up. So you either know- or you refuse to accept reason when it’s provided to you.
Either way- you’re entirely wrong. But you’re free to be wrong, so long as America remains a democracy.
Lets hope that there are enough of us trying to save America from a “dictator for a day” to make up for the willful ignorance of protest voters.
It's so disheartening to see society descend into this monolithic, unthinking, blob.
An argument doesn't become an 'explanation' just because you agree with it.
People have made their case. I've disagreed with it and given reasons. That's how rational debate works (or at least it used to in better times).
What's happening here is people are disagreeing about a matter and exchanging reason why they reached their differing conclusion.
It's not one party 'explaining' some fact to another. It's not maths, people disagree. Experts disagree. It's an open question still.
Some things are empirical. Like… throwing away your vote on third parties- and how protest votes are batshit stupid.
Look up 'empirical'. It doesn't mean 'point of view I agree with'.
No it means absolute truth- as in, it’s an absolute truth that a protest vote is stupid.
.. we’re done here
Well, no, it doesn't mean that either, but I get the point anyway. You're not here to defend your position, that's fine. It's not obligatory.
Observation and experience.
By observation, protest votes are stupid.
By experience, third party votes are stupid.
And I love the IMAX quality projection you’re displaying here. it’s obvious you have no position to defend. You just put people on the defensive to cover up for it. None a so or one of you have provided any policy offered by third party candidates. Not one of you have explained any logic that can argue against the concept that you’re knowingly tossing away votes while simultaneously allowing a much worse candidate to win.