You don't even have to vote for anything else (but you should look because it can effect you)
You don't even have to vote for anything else (but you should look because it can effect you)
Not to say that everyone that votes for Trump is a Nazi, but we do know who the Nazis are voting for.
You're viewing a single thread.
This is the saddest state of affairs ever. When your campaign is “it could be worse” it’s an insult to the working classes intelligence.
1933 Germany would like to have a word with you.
Stop fascism.
Liberals historically enable fascism.
Bruh, Trump has been repeatedly talking about using the military to quiet political dissent.
The only reason you guys have trump in the first place is that liberals block every attempt from leftists to do anything about it.
But that's not the campaign. This is citizens telling other citizens that not casting a vote IS voting - for the obviously worse candidate.
Which you guys have been doing for decades and it has resulted in leftists NEVER getting anything they want.
Honest question...
How is it only and always a vote for the worst candidate, and not a vote for the better candidate? Like, couldn't Republicans also argue that by not voting, you're actually voting for Harris? From an objective standpoint, who would be correct?
Because historically the Republicans have had better turnout in swing states. Anger and hyperbole are great motivators, regardless of topic. Democrat-leaning folks tend not to be as angry, scared, and swayed by cult-like leaders, so tend to be more complacent. It’s a matter of trying to even the behavioral playing field. Not to mention the gerrymandering fuckery that has made it even harder for democrats to be fairly represented in crucial geographic areas. Finally, consider where the underhanded tactics are coming from, and rather than sink to that level, an OVERWHELMING and unquestionable show of support is needed for those tactics not to be successful.
It entirely depends on who you would vote for if pushed to vote for the viable candidates. If you would vote for Harris but don't vote, it helps Trump because that's one less vote he needs to beat. If you would vote for Trump but don't vote, it helps Harris because that's one less vote she needs to beat. So it's true for every individual's worst candidate.
When campaigns/people use this message, they're usually pretty confident them and the person they're talking to agree on who is the worst.
It’s person by person. A trumper helps Harris if they stay home.
IF you have a preference between the two major candidates
AND you stay home or vote third party
THEN you have helped the major candidate you dislike
If you’re siding with the more extremist candidate, then you’ve probably made up your mind to vote.
If you haven’t made up your mind yet, then you’re probably doubting about the more moderate candidate. The post is about setting aside those doubts and vote anyway.
Any vote not cast will strengthen the side which is likely to assert a win no matter how badly they lose.
The “it could be worse” is “US is having a president who’s fine with using military action against his political opponents”, aka dictatorship.
Not just military action. Vigilantism and pardons. I'm waiting for him to make it clear that if you're going to murder someone who opposes Trump, make sure to transport them across state lines, so that it's a federal crime that he can pardon you for.
No, I’d say it’s exactly what we deserve.
Imagine if we had to vote for a national ice cream flavor. It would probably end up being pretty unpalatable for most people, but it’s the only one we can get even a plurality of people to vote for.
Nah it's super easy. Moose tracks 100%
“Moose” polls poorly outside of Maine and Minnesota. “Tracks” alienates truckers who are a significant union.
Please try again.
That's a factor of our first-past-the-post system. We end up having to strategically vote against the ice cream we don't want instead of for the ice cream we do want.
As someone who likes teaberry ice cream I don’t think anything other than anarchy will get me that flavor.
With anarchy you have to get yourself that flavor and make everyone else eat it too. It would still be easier to do in a democracy.
That is not anarchy.
It is based on your analogy. There wouldn't be a national ice cream flavor in a stateless society definitionally speaking.
Yes, but that doesn't mean everyone gets what I want. It means I find my tiny group of teaberry enjoyers and we make our own teaberry ice cream because that's what we like.
Democracy is everyone taking a vote and me and my comrades not getting teaberry ever because there's not enough of us to have any power.
No, there can only be one ice cream flavor considered to represent the group as whole in you analogy for it to even be internally consistent. Making other people eat wasn't the best phrasing, it's more making other people decide it's their favorite which is even harder.
Your group of teaberry enjoyers assumes that in the absence of the state your group could determine what everyone's preferred ice cream is, not which ice cream they could actually eat. Which ice cream could be consumed by individuals or groups was never the question at hand. Instead we are asking what is considered the larger group's preferred choice as whole which is still an open question in the absence of the state. And undoubtedly best determined by the majority of people in the absence of an ice cream that satisfies everyone.
You can already enjoy whatever ice cream you want currently. Deciding what everyone's favorite or preferred option is not a power suddenly invested in anyone in the absence of a state. In a sense no ice cream enjoyer is an island.
No, there can only be one ice cream flavor considered to represent the group as whole in you analogy for it to even be internally consistent.
Not if I'm describing anarchy. Rather than organization coming from above, people are free to self-organize. Vanilla people can live with other vanilla people. Teaberry freaks like me can head to the hills and have teaberry.
The state is why I'm forced choose between freezer-burnt Dollar General vanilla-flavored refrigerated dairy byproduct and a literal frozen turd.
Not if I’m describing anarchy. Rather than organization coming from above, people are free to self-organize. Vanilla people can live with other vanilla people. Teaberry freaks like me can head to the hills and have teaberry.
Again, this is accomplished with state based societies currently. Minorities are protected. The actions of groups and individuals are tolerated as long they adhere to the social contract of tolerance themselves.
The question is about what a society as a whole will decide to do when faced with a choice where it can only chose one or at least not all of the available options.
What your strategy proposes is effectively succession where a larger group breaks itself into smaller groups. Each group will then face this same problem. What to do in when they have to choose some, but not all available options.
Their original identity may prove insufficient to provide a clear answer or perhaps some of the group's identity will have changed over time. Either way this algorithm would have us divide the population for every decision where there is a disagreement until every individual was essentially isolated.
Your not getting the larger groups consensus which was supposed to be the appeal of this analogy with the proposed national ice cream flavor. Worst of all, there isn't going to be a lot of ice cream going around if no one works together.
Your analogy tries to have its ice cream and eat it too. It starts with the promise of group consensus, but then fails to deliver on that by establishing smaller groups that deny the possibility of any consensus. And those groups can't even produce the ice cream they think everyone should eat.
The state is why I’m forced choose between freezer-burnt Dollar General vanilla-flavored refrigerated dairy byproduct and a literal frozen turd.
Again, this is specifically a consequence of a fptp system which mathematically arrives at a two-party system given enough time. A state based society with ranked choice or approval voting system would allow for a wider range of options. Each of the groups created by your strategy provides one option to whoever finds themselves in such a group. So not only does the strategy fail to deliver on more options it actually delivers fewer options.
It would be vanilla vs literal shit. Everyone would complain about how boring vanilla is. The news would talk about how the literal shit doesn't smell as bad as you'd think and complain that the vanilla ice cream isn't even nutritious.
Shit would win with 48% of the vote.
TAKE THE FUCKING VANILLA!
you guys keep equating kamala with "good" and "vanilla". Genocide's not vanilla flavored. Its shit flavored.
It's a sad state of affairs when a politician that cares about her country isn't enough to get people to vote against a literal fascist who fantasizes about being a dictator.
God Americans are easily propagandized.
They've drank the Koolaid for a better dystopia. It's been forcefed to the nation.