this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2024
41 points (72.5% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7213 readers
412 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Hey Mega, I'm entering this debate late, so I'm not sure why any vote on any side would be expected to support someone 100%. I can't think of anyone I've ever supported 100%. Is that a requirement somewhere?
Any yes, for a bunch of people -- but not all -- not voting (D) for President (and just about every other race) is a help to Trump. The most obvious and dire case is people in swing states. It matters less for solid blue and red states, but it would be helpful to show a strong and active rejection of Trump given that he and his people have already announced they will be contesting the results. If you are not a U.S. citizen, or otherwise ineligible to vote in the U.S., then congratulations, it doesn't matter if you don't vote for Biden.
Withing a FPTP system like ours, I think when one candidate is a fascist and the other is not, yes you should vote for the non fascist candidate 100% of the time. This is the situation we will find ourselves in November regardless of who the Democratic nominee is.
I was pointing out that Ozma is once again being disingenuous with their concern that the other poster was somehow helping Trump by supporting Joe Biden's candidacy. Ozma has no qualms with Trump, a fascist, winning the election. They simply want Joe Biden to lose. I think it's important to point out those motivations.
And you're correct about certain states having more weight, but that doesn't mean we need to create a permission structure for others to stay home. The priority has to be keeping Trump out of office, not Joe Biden.
I can't predict how a split in the timeline would resolve on paths where Biden is and is not replaced as the Democratic candidate, but I do worry that Trump will win if things don't change. If I KNEW that Biden or Kamala Harris (or someone else) could beat Trump, I would back whichever I knew had a chance. In my family, one is sure the only chance Democrats have is to stick with Joe and another that they must Ditch Joe for a new voice with a new message to attract new voters.
I don't know. I can't argue about it because I don't have any data for either case. I care, but my concerns have no where to go, so instead my current conflict is over how amazing the pro-Union speech was ... at the RNC.
You mean the one doing a genocide?
If the other option is even more genocide, yes. Is that really a question?
Okay, but now you're voting for the lesser of two fascists. It was never "one candidate is a fascist and the other is not".
If every reluctant Biden voter joins us to demand Biden step aside or joined us in declaring "no ceasefire, no votes", he'd have no choice but to do it. Yet, because of every enabler like you, Biden believes he doesn't need to drop out and doesn't need to force Israel to end its genocide. He believes he can do anything he wants and not lose a single vote.
Many of us like to ask ourselves, “What would I do if I was alive during slavery? Or the Jim Crow South? Or apartheid? What would I do if my country was committing genocide?”
The answer is, you’re doing it. Right now.
Honestly, I think we're all tired of responding to this same absurd argument. The gamble that you propose is risking fascism AND doesn't have a high likelihood of success. Joe Biden stepping aside doesn't magically make Bibi stop the war. Bibi needs this shit to keep going to stay in power/out of prison. You're doing nothing to change that dynamic, if anything you're helping Bibi. And Joe Biden losing because they don't agree to a ceasefire does not stop the war, it escalates it.
I'm done responding to this, have a nice evening.
Without the endless flow of weapons from the US the genocide can't sustain itself. Cut them off, it stops.
I will never have a nice evening.
It's easy to gamble when you are comfortable. It's not so easy for the vast swathes of people trump views as undesirable when their rights and way of life is endangered (non-cis people, non-hetero people and women to name the first that come to mind). This is exactly why it's such a gamble and I agree with you that at this time idealism, while commendable and something I agree with, is in practice a luxury.