One of the two is going to win in November and dictate future foreign policy. There are two outcomes, that’s literally an actual dichotomy. Your actions regarding the election (personal voting strategy as well as comments that sway the personal voting strategies of others) ultimately support one of those two outcomes. If you get enough people to abstain in protest against Democratic foreign policy, you are increasing the probability of getting Republican foreign policy.
One of the two is going to win in November and dictate future foreign policy. There are two outcomes, that’s literally an actual dichotomy
Sure, if you willfully ignore all of politics except for the elections themselves as if it’s a fucking football match.
Useful idiots like you settling for “not as awful as the other ones” and browbeating others into doing the same is how things got this awful.
When “less awful than literal fascists” is all voters demand and rich donors demand that they’re somewhat awful out of greed, the Dem leadership doesn’t have any incentive to be good and plenty of incentive to be awful.
This, in combination of your arrogant and condescending “you’re either with us 100% or you’re with the fascists 100%” attitude is EXACTLY the kind of thing that alienates tens of millions of people by making them feel like everything is going to be awful no matter what, so they don’t vote.
I’m not saying that they shouldn’t vote. I’m not even saying that it’s not an awful idea to not vote. I’m just saying that it’s not as simple as you insist it is and that we should be able to demand that the politicians we vote for (and I’ve voted in every election since I was first allowed to 23 years ago) at the VERY least don’t commit unspeakable atrocities in our names.
And what is your alternative? That a majority of Americans spontaneously organize and rise up outside of the purview of elections? That they spontaneously organize and vote third party?
“Useful idiots”, look in the mirror champ. There are plenty of good times to levy well-deserved criticisms at the not-literally-fascists party. Months before a close election between them and the literally-fascists party is not one of them. It’s probably the worst time in fact, and only serves, whatever your moral reasoning is, to increase the probability of a literally-fascists party win. You’ve unwittingly volunteered as a stooge in the troll army helping the right. Congrats, you played yourself.
You’re strawmanning ultimatums that no one’s saying. All we’re saying is that, functionally, high turnout for Democrats is the best outcome leftists get from the election. Republicans are worse for leftists than Democrats, across the board, full stop. Republicans are worse for the genocide you’re talking about, full stop.
Muddying the water about the failings of democratic leadership are entirely counterproductive in securing an administration that’s better for the left than the alternative. Big tenting with the neo-libs is how things haven’t gotten more awful than they are.
There are plenty of good times to levy well-deserved criticisms at the not-literally-fascists party. Months before a close election between them and the literally-fascists party is not one of them
Fun fact: I DO in fact levy well-deserved criticisms at them at all times when warranted, but neither they nor any of the apparatchiks seem to care when it’s not close to an election.
It’s probably the worst time
Not if you want anyone to listen. Between election cycles, nobody gives a fuck and during, everyone is telling people expressing dissent to wait until after the election. It’s a nice little racket you’ve got going to avoid all accountability.
only serves, whatever your moral reasoning is, to increase the probability of a literally-fascists party win
That’s categorically false. The things I complain about the loudest are things that are both wrong and unpopular.
For example, I predicted that there was a significant risk of Biden’s insistence on staying in leading to a loss in November, partially because of his intransigence on Gaza. Now that he’s stepped aside in favor of the first American presidential candidate to ever talk about the security and self determination of Palestinians, everyone including myself are much more optimistic about the election.
I’m not taking the credit for Biden finally seeing sense, of course, but it’s a good example of people who don’t want the Mango Mussolini to win criticizing the shortcomings of those in power is changing the chances for the better.
You’ve unwittingly volunteered as a stooge in the troll army helping the right. Congrats, you played yourself.
Nope. I bet you were one of the people saying that Biden dropping out 4 months before the election would guarantee a defeat. You were wrong then, you’re wrong now, and you’ll continue being wrong in the future.
You’re strawmanning ultimatums that no one’s saying
You flat out said that it IS a dichotomy. That’s not a strawman, that’s literally what you said in your own words.
All we’re saying is that, functionally, high turnout for Democrats is the best outcome leftists get from the election.
And I agree on that. I just believe that the candidates earning the votes of the left by not doing awful things is more effective in generating turnout than just going “shut up and vote, children”, like you are.
Republicans are worse for leftists than Democrats, across the board, full stop. Republicans are worse for the genocide you’re talking about, full stop.
I know that and I’ve never said anything to the contrary. Who’s strawmanning, now? 🙄
Muddying the water about the failings of democratic leadership are entirely counterproductive in securing an administration that’s better for the left than the alternative
I’m not muddying any fucking waters. I’m just not following your authoritarian, paranoid and flat out wrong creed of “don’t say ANYTHING negative about Democrats, otherwise Republicans win” 🙄
Or your equally authoritarian insistence that any behavior or policy better than that of the Republicans is perfect and nobody’s allowed to say otherwise.
That’s hyperbole to get the point through and mock your ridiculous position btw. Just clarifying in case you were about to call it a strawman again.
Big tenting with the neo-libs is how things haven’t gotten more awful than they are.
No. Apparatchiks like you letting them get away with ignoring the left in favor of always pretending it’s 1992 by chasing an ever-shrinking demographic of “almost but not quite Republicans” is how the party keeps drifting rightward every time the GOP does.
It’s reached the point where the Dem leadership is not just an imperfect ally to the left, but more often than not the lesser of two adversaries. Pretending otherwise is not going to improve anything. Disallowing dissent is going to ensure that it gets even worse.
If you don’t vote, it means you are ok with either one and don’t care enough either way to go to the ballot.
Not voting it’s not a third option, it’s a statement that you don’t care about either of the two options. Voting a third candidate is instead simply useless and in practice amounts to the same thing as not voting or voting with a blank ballot.
So in practice the options are: voting for the Democrats, voting for the Republicans, doing nothing and being ok with either one winning or leaving the fucking country.
If you don’t vote, it means you are ok with either one and don’t care enough either way to go to the ballot.
I plan on voting, my point is that disaffected leftists voting for third parties or refusing to support genocide does not mean support for Trump.
Not voting it’s not a third option, it’s a statement that you don’t care about either of the two options. Voting a third candidate is instead simply useless and in practice amounts to the same thing as not voting or voting with a blank ballot.
Not quite accurate. Voting third party signals that third party platforms are more popular, and can shift the larger parties.
So in practice the options are: voting for the Democrats, voting for the Republicans, doing nothing and being ok with either one winning or leaving the fucking country.
Not entirely true, Electoralism is perhaps the least effective way to gain major change. Organizing and mass protesting can get meaningful change, same as striking. Forcing concessions is the way true change has occured historically, not simply at the ballot box.
my point is that disaffected leftists voting for third parties […] does not mean support for Trump
With the current American Electoral law, it kind of does. Let’s say that 5% of the votes instead of going to the Democrats go to some other third party. In an election this close, where both parties are likely to get between 48 and 52% of the votes, this would mean ensuring the victory of the Republicans.
This is a huge problem with the FPTP system, but that’s the law for this election. It would be great to change it, but that’s talk for the next one. Voting for a third party ensures that the party you like the least will win in a FPTP system. CGP explains it best: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
Not quite accurate. Voting third party signals that third party platforms are more popular, and can shift the larger parties.
Maybe, but you are still conceding these elections.
Organizing and mass protesting can get meaningful change, same as striking. Forcing concessions is the way true change has occured historically, not simply at the ballot box.
You can definitely do this as well as voting for the party that best represents you. If you don’t vote, it means you leave the choice of who will rule the country to the others. At least vote for the candidate that you think is more likely to listen to your protests, rather than forfeiting the elections in favor of the candidate that you know for sure will never listen to you.
With the current American Electoral law, it kind of does. Let’s say that 5% of the votes instead of going to the Democrats go to some other third party. In an election this close, where both parties are likely to get between 48 and 52% of the votes, this would mean ensuring the victory of the Republicans.
You’re assuming the Right Wing DNC is entitled to Left Wing votes just because they are not as far right as the GOP. If the DNC wants Leftist votes, it should cater to Leftists. The fact that it hasn’t done so means their electoral strategy does not depend on Leftist votes.
This is a huge problem with the FPTP system, but that’s the law for this election. It would be great to change it, but that’s talk for the next one. Voting for a third party ensures that the party you like the least will win in a FPTP system. CGP explains it best: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
How do you change it? You do realize people have been advocating against FPTP for centuries, right? FPTP serves both the DNC and GOP, so they won’t change it. It’s always “next election,” and has been for a century.
Maybe, but you are conceding these elections.
Even if leftists voted for the DNC they are conceding the election, just to the Dems instead of Reps. A DNC victory is still a loss for Leftists. Leftists have lost every single election in US history, with the possible exception of Lincoln and FDR.
You can definitely do this as well as voting for the party that best represents you. If you don’t vote, it means you leave the choice of who will rule the country to the others. At least vote for the candidate that you think is more likely to listen to your protests, rather than forfeiting the elections in favor of the candidate that you know for sure will never listen to you.
If you seriously mean this, then you’re advocating for me to vote for PSL, not the Dems. Neither candidate represents me, neither has shown themselves willing to bend to protests, and I am sure neither will listen to me. That’s why it’s important to organize and force concessions, because neither will give them unless they have to.
You don’t understand the basics of a First Past The Post system.
Let’s say, for example’s sake, that 52% of the people voting tend left, while 48% tend right, and let’s also remove all the state, gerrymandering and grand elector bullshit for a moment (I know, so much bullshit)
If everyone were to only vote for either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, come November, the Democratic Party would win with 52% of the votes and secure the presidency. Now let’s assume that there’s a third party, let’s call it “The True Left Party” and let’s say they can have a very successful campaign and secure 5% of the votes, which would come from the left leaning side of the voting pool, aka from those who would have otherwise voted for the Democratic Party. Now come November the results would look like this: Republicans still at 48%, Democrats now at 47% and True Left at 5%, so now the Republican Party wins and Trump becomes president.
This is how voting for a third party only helps your enemy. If I were the Republicans, I’d be turbo donating to any left party right now. Divide et Impera as the Romans said.
You don’t understand the basics of a First Past The Post system.
I do, and asserting that I must not because I disagree with your analysis is juvenile and insulting.
Let’s say, for example’s sake, that 52% of the people voting tend left, while 48% tend right, and let’s also remove all the state, gerrymandering and grand elector bullshit for a moment (I know, so much bullshit)
Tons of bs, sure, but let’s go with that.
If everyone were to only vote for either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, come November, the Democratic Party would win with 52% of the votes and secure the presidency. Now let’s assume that there’s a third party, let’s call it “The True Left Party” and let’s say they can have a very successful campaign and secure 5% of the votes, which would come from the left leaning side of the voting pool, aka from those who would have otherwise voted for the Democratic Party. Now come November the results would look like this: Republicans still at 48%, Democrats now at 47% and True Left at 5%, so now the Republican Party wins and Trump becomes president.
No, if 52% voted for a Left party, PSL or the Greens would win. The 5% for the “true left party” isn’t coming from the liberals that vote for and support the DNC. You’re assuming leftists to automatically vote with the DNC, which is a false narrative. The DNC doesn’t represent the Left in any capacity, nor do they pander to Leftist voters.
This is how voting for a third party only helps your enemy. If I were the Republicans, I’d be turbo donating to any left party right now. Divide et Impera as the Romans said.
The DNC are the enemy of Leftists as well, neither the GOP nor the DNC represent Leftists, which is why your previous paragraph doesn’t add up.
Ok, let’s try again. Those who like the left usually don’t vote for the GOP, agree?
Then, for them, the options are three, either vote Dems, vote third party or don’t vote. Now, if, like in the example of before, these people are that 5%, do you agree that not voting or voting a third party will result in the GOP winning, while voting for the Dems will result in the Dems winning?
If you think that the Dems and the GOP are one and the same, then fine. If instead you’d rather the Dems win, then do you agree that these people should vote Dems rather than do nothing or vote for a third party, which would lead to a GOP win?
Btw, this is why there’s no third party in a fptp system and there can never be one. Your votes are better spent on the candidate you dislike less rather than on the one you actually like, because voting for the one you like will inevitably result in the one you really dislike going to power.
Edit:btw watch that cgp grey video, it’s really good. He’s really good in general tbh, great guy, very good at explaining.
This is a huge problem with the FPTP system, but that’s the law for this election. It would be great to change it, but that’s talk for the next one. Voting for a third party ensures that the party you like the least will win in a FPTP system. CGP explains it best: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
that is not the correct analysis. the correct analysis is that strategic voting leads to party consolidation, so the solution is values voting, even if you think another party that has somewhat close values has a better chance of winning.
I agree. Let’s support Trump, the person who legalised the West Bank occupation.
When I use my sarcasm-detector on your comment, I get a reading of 3.6. Not great, not terrible.
You gotta go get the good sarcasm-detector from the safe.
Immediately maxed out. Obviously defective.
Guess you’ll have to go look into the sarcasm pit and report back what you see.
Holy false dichotomy, Batman!
Holding domestic non-fascist politicians accountable for enabling the war crimes of foreign fascists ≠ supporting domestic fascists.
One of the two is going to win in November and dictate future foreign policy. There are two outcomes, that’s literally an actual dichotomy. Your actions regarding the election (personal voting strategy as well as comments that sway the personal voting strategies of others) ultimately support one of those two outcomes. If you get enough people to abstain in protest against Democratic foreign policy, you are increasing the probability of getting Republican foreign policy.
Sure, if you willfully ignore all of politics except for the elections themselves as if it’s a fucking football match.
Useful idiots like you settling for “not as awful as the other ones” and browbeating others into doing the same is how things got this awful.
When “less awful than literal fascists” is all voters demand and rich donors demand that they’re somewhat awful out of greed, the Dem leadership doesn’t have any incentive to be good and plenty of incentive to be awful.
This, in combination of your arrogant and condescending “you’re either with us 100% or you’re with the fascists 100%” attitude is EXACTLY the kind of thing that alienates tens of millions of people by making them feel like everything is going to be awful no matter what, so they don’t vote.
I’m not saying that they shouldn’t vote. I’m not even saying that it’s not an awful idea to not vote. I’m just saying that it’s not as simple as you insist it is and that we should be able to demand that the politicians we vote for (and I’ve voted in every election since I was first allowed to 23 years ago) at the VERY least don’t commit unspeakable atrocities in our names.
And what is your alternative? That a majority of Americans spontaneously organize and rise up outside of the purview of elections? That they spontaneously organize and vote third party?
“Useful idiots”, look in the mirror champ. There are plenty of good times to levy well-deserved criticisms at the not-literally-fascists party. Months before a close election between them and the literally-fascists party is not one of them. It’s probably the worst time in fact, and only serves, whatever your moral reasoning is, to increase the probability of a literally-fascists party win. You’ve unwittingly volunteered as a stooge in the troll army helping the right. Congrats, you played yourself.
You’re strawmanning ultimatums that no one’s saying. All we’re saying is that, functionally, high turnout for Democrats is the best outcome leftists get from the election. Republicans are worse for leftists than Democrats, across the board, full stop. Republicans are worse for the genocide you’re talking about, full stop.
Muddying the water about the failings of democratic leadership are entirely counterproductive in securing an administration that’s better for the left than the alternative. Big tenting with the neo-libs is how things haven’t gotten more awful than they are.
Fun fact: I DO in fact levy well-deserved criticisms at them at all times when warranted, but neither they nor any of the apparatchiks seem to care when it’s not close to an election.
Not if you want anyone to listen. Between election cycles, nobody gives a fuck and during, everyone is telling people expressing dissent to wait until after the election. It’s a nice little racket you’ve got going to avoid all accountability.
That’s categorically false. The things I complain about the loudest are things that are both wrong and unpopular.
For example, I predicted that there was a significant risk of Biden’s insistence on staying in leading to a loss in November, partially because of his intransigence on Gaza. Now that he’s stepped aside in favor of the first American presidential candidate to ever talk about the security and self determination of Palestinians, everyone including myself are much more optimistic about the election.
I’m not taking the credit for Biden finally seeing sense, of course, but it’s a good example of people who don’t want the Mango Mussolini to win criticizing the shortcomings of those in power is changing the chances for the better.
Nope. I bet you were one of the people saying that Biden dropping out 4 months before the election would guarantee a defeat. You were wrong then, you’re wrong now, and you’ll continue being wrong in the future.
You flat out said that it IS a dichotomy. That’s not a strawman, that’s literally what you said in your own words.
And I agree on that. I just believe that the candidates earning the votes of the left by not doing awful things is more effective in generating turnout than just going “shut up and vote, children”, like you are.
I know that and I’ve never said anything to the contrary. Who’s strawmanning, now? 🙄
I’m not muddying any fucking waters. I’m just not following your authoritarian, paranoid and flat out wrong creed of “don’t say ANYTHING negative about Democrats, otherwise Republicans win” 🙄
Or your equally authoritarian insistence that any behavior or policy better than that of the Republicans is perfect and nobody’s allowed to say otherwise.
That’s hyperbole to get the point through and mock your ridiculous position btw. Just clarifying in case you were about to call it a strawman again.
No. Apparatchiks like you letting them get away with ignoring the left in favor of always pretending it’s 1992 by chasing an ever-shrinking demographic of “almost but not quite Republicans” is how the party keeps drifting rightward every time the GOP does.
It’s reached the point where the Dem leadership is not just an imperfect ally to the left, but more often than not the lesser of two adversaries. Pretending otherwise is not going to improve anything. Disallowing dissent is going to ensure that it gets even worse.
You don’t have to support Biden or Trump if genocide is a red line for you.
If you don’t vote, it means you are ok with either one and don’t care enough either way to go to the ballot.
Not voting it’s not a third option, it’s a statement that you don’t care about either of the two options. Voting a third candidate is instead simply useless and in practice amounts to the same thing as not voting or voting with a blank ballot.
So in practice the options are: voting for the Democrats, voting for the Republicans, doing nothing and being ok with either one winning or leaving the fucking country.
I plan on voting, my point is that disaffected leftists voting for third parties or refusing to support genocide does not mean support for Trump.
Not quite accurate. Voting third party signals that third party platforms are more popular, and can shift the larger parties.
Not entirely true, Electoralism is perhaps the least effective way to gain major change. Organizing and mass protesting can get meaningful change, same as striking. Forcing concessions is the way true change has occured historically, not simply at the ballot box.
With the current American Electoral law, it kind of does. Let’s say that 5% of the votes instead of going to the Democrats go to some other third party. In an election this close, where both parties are likely to get between 48 and 52% of the votes, this would mean ensuring the victory of the Republicans.
This is a huge problem with the FPTP system, but that’s the law for this election. It would be great to change it, but that’s talk for the next one. Voting for a third party ensures that the party you like the least will win in a FPTP system. CGP explains it best: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
Maybe, but you are still conceding these elections.
You can definitely do this as well as voting for the party that best represents you. If you don’t vote, it means you leave the choice of who will rule the country to the others. At least vote for the candidate that you think is more likely to listen to your protests, rather than forfeiting the elections in favor of the candidate that you know for sure will never listen to you.
You’re assuming the Right Wing DNC is entitled to Left Wing votes just because they are not as far right as the GOP. If the DNC wants Leftist votes, it should cater to Leftists. The fact that it hasn’t done so means their electoral strategy does not depend on Leftist votes.
How do you change it? You do realize people have been advocating against FPTP for centuries, right? FPTP serves both the DNC and GOP, so they won’t change it. It’s always “next election,” and has been for a century.
Even if leftists voted for the DNC they are conceding the election, just to the Dems instead of Reps. A DNC victory is still a loss for Leftists. Leftists have lost every single election in US history, with the possible exception of Lincoln and FDR.
If you seriously mean this, then you’re advocating for me to vote for PSL, not the Dems. Neither candidate represents me, neither has shown themselves willing to bend to protests, and I am sure neither will listen to me. That’s why it’s important to organize and force concessions, because neither will give them unless they have to.
You don’t understand the basics of a First Past The Post system.
Let’s say, for example’s sake, that 52% of the people voting tend left, while 48% tend right, and let’s also remove all the state, gerrymandering and grand elector bullshit for a moment (I know, so much bullshit)
If everyone were to only vote for either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, come November, the Democratic Party would win with 52% of the votes and secure the presidency. Now let’s assume that there’s a third party, let’s call it “The True Left Party” and let’s say they can have a very successful campaign and secure 5% of the votes, which would come from the left leaning side of the voting pool, aka from those who would have otherwise voted for the Democratic Party. Now come November the results would look like this: Republicans still at 48%, Democrats now at 47% and True Left at 5%, so now the Republican Party wins and Trump becomes president.
This is how voting for a third party only helps your enemy. If I were the Republicans, I’d be turbo donating to any left party right now. Divide et Impera as the Romans said.
I do, and asserting that I must not because I disagree with your analysis is juvenile and insulting.
Tons of bs, sure, but let’s go with that.
No, if 52% voted for a Left party, PSL or the Greens would win. The 5% for the “true left party” isn’t coming from the liberals that vote for and support the DNC. You’re assuming leftists to automatically vote with the DNC, which is a false narrative. The DNC doesn’t represent the Left in any capacity, nor do they pander to Leftist voters.
The DNC are the enemy of Leftists as well, neither the GOP nor the DNC represent Leftists, which is why your previous paragraph doesn’t add up.
Ok, let’s try again. Those who like the left usually don’t vote for the GOP, agree?
Then, for them, the options are three, either vote Dems, vote third party or don’t vote. Now, if, like in the example of before, these people are that 5%, do you agree that not voting or voting a third party will result in the GOP winning, while voting for the Dems will result in the Dems winning?
If you think that the Dems and the GOP are one and the same, then fine. If instead you’d rather the Dems win, then do you agree that these people should vote Dems rather than do nothing or vote for a third party, which would lead to a GOP win?
Btw, this is why there’s no third party in a fptp system and there can never be one. Your votes are better spent on the candidate you dislike less rather than on the one you actually like, because voting for the one you like will inevitably result in the one you really dislike going to power.
Edit:btw watch that cgp grey video, it’s really good. He’s really good in general tbh, great guy, very good at explaining.
that is not the correct analysis. the correct analysis is that strategic voting leads to party consolidation, so the solution is values voting, even if you think another party that has somewhat close values has a better chance of winning.