You're viewing a single thread.
If Kamala looses: All of the blame gets put on third party voters for not "voting hard enough" (especially if she wins the popular vote and looses in the electoral college). Absolutely none of the blame gets put on her supporting genocide, her vague positions, the fact that her campaign page contains very little about her views or policies, her support of fracking, her general support of oil and gas, her support of genocide, and her support for imperialism. Of course that could all be incorrect but Kamala refuses to dispute those claims.
If Kamala wins: She will do basically nothing, compromise with the Republicans, allow states to ban abortion, allow states to restrict womens rights, allow states to ban trans healthcare, generally allow the far-right to do whatever they want, and continue to fund genocide. When all of this happens third party voters will be blamed for "not voting hard enough" and Kamala will take no responsibility whatever.
Regardless of outcome the next election: The Democrat candidate will be even more right wing because leftists didn't "vote hard enough", they will be even more bipartisan and even less progressive. All of the Liberals will demand everyone vote for this candidate yet the candidate will make no attempt to implement any popular policy. Americas rapid decline into fascism will continue and nobody in power will do anything to stop it.
Once again I ask the question what harm is reduced by "harm reduction"? If anything a more accurate term would be slowing down fascism. But what Liberals refuse to answer is what practical purpose is there to slowing down fascism? Congratulations you get maybe a few extra decades from fascism but then what? Clearly Liberals are buying their time but what exactly are they buying their time for? What is the grand strategy? We've already seen the Democratic Candidate clearly use fascist rhetoric, how long is it until these compromise candidates compromise the rights of minorities? How long until they compromise on Fascism? I would vote "harm reduction" if I knew that at the end of it all theres a plan to eventually fight back but I dont think there is one. I think the Liberal plan is to keep doing "harm reduction" indefinitely, however even if you're a hardcore liberal you have to acknowledge thats a fundamentally unsustainable plan.
TLDR: The only people responsible for Democrats not getting elected are the Democrats themselves and their corporate sponsors who hold them back from instituting popular policy, I get its easy to pin the blame on some group but fundamentally thats little more then a logical fallacy.
It's crazy how if I vote third party, or not at all I am both voting for Harris and for Trump, depending on who you ask.
My theory, and it is just a theory, is that Trump wins the electoral college vote, but Kamala wins the popular vote by a wide enough margin that by the next election, if there is one, they start to abolish the electoral college. Maybe then a third party candidate could actually make some changes.
I think the fact that Walz spoke out against the ec shows that even he thinks this is a likely outcome.
Unlikely, both parties love the electoral college because it destroys any chance of a third party victory.
"loses" not "looses"
One of Trump's goals is to "crack down" (aka ban) protests. So let's get Kamala elected first, and then you can bust out the molotovs or whatever the plan is, please.
Biden has literally cracked down on protests, why wouldn't Kamala Harris do the same?
Which protests? I hadn't heard about this
Have you not been paying attention to the Palestine protests?
Apparently not. I read about college campuses strong-arming protests, but not about federal action.
What type of Nostradumbassery is this? You have no clue what Harris is or is not going to do. What YOU are doing however, is predicting her behavior in such a way that it conveniently falls within the boundaries of some ideological fantasy of yours that involves you as the hero, chanting
“i tOLd yOu so!”
to anyone dumb enough to listen.
None of what you said is even remotely accurate or based in any semblance of reality in which it could even be challenged properly. The only thing to do at this point is to simply dismiss it as nonsense. .
I said that myself, however if Kamala refuses to officially document any of her positions then I think its fair to go by her interviews and statements. Im her public appearances she has expressed support for Israel, publicly abandoned anti-fracking while supporting "energy independence", and made it very clear that she would compromise all of her positions in the name of "bipartisanship".
Okay…. Cool. Because Trump will be SO much better on these issues.
Man. I really wish people understood how this shit works.
Strawman argument, critiquing your favorite corporate sponsored puppet doesn't mean I support the other guy.
You’re getting one or the other. Only, one hates women, abhors the LGBTQ+ and intends to revoke many of their rights, has threatened to use the military against American citizens, will bring back concentration camps, is a convicted rapist, and a 34 time convicted felon, will enact Project 2025, is easily bought out by Christian fundamentalists and Russia, and has sad that he will help Israel “finish the job.”
He is going to turn Palestine into a crater. So stop pretending this is about them when you know this. He will be worse. Provenly worse.
So let’s talk about being a puppet mmmmkay??
Because as we all know, Shill Stein’s stings were made in Russia and Cornell West’s masters won’t even take him out of his box.
You’ve got no options other than to keep the bad one out. And if you’re going to respond with “bUt tHeY aRe bOtH bAd!” I’m going to assume you can’t tell the difference between a speck of dirt in your glass full of water, and glass full of raw sewage, and just end this right here.
what harm is reduced by “harm reduction”? If anything a more accurate term would be slowing down fascism.
That's exactly it. Harm reduction. Not eliminating harm altogether, but reducing the amount of it that takes place.
Will Harris continue and introduce policies that are antithetical to working-class interests? Yes. Would Trump do the same? Yes, and more.
The situation is complete shit, and nobody wants to just have to vote for the lesser of two evils. Of course we'd all like a stronger, more left-leaning party than the Democrats.
But not voting for the Democrats means getting the even worse fascist party.
When you only have two options, and one of them will inevitably be chosen as the outcome, the most you can possibly do is choose the one that leads to the least harm. Hence, harm reduction.
If we had ranked-choice/rated voting, third party votes as your primary vote cast would be ideal, but we don't, and until we can even get close to something like that in the US, it's imperative we don't let fascists come into power.
You don't solve Democrats being weak by siphoning their votes off to third-party candidates with even weaker overall pull on the voter base, just to let Republicans win.
"I would vote “harm reduction” if I knew that at the end of it all theres a plan to eventually fight back but I dont think there is one."
You don't increase your chances of a future plan being implemented to fight back against fascism by actively reducing the chances of winning the election of the party most likely to favor your ideal plan in the future.
You either get a 0% chance of your plan happening by voting fascist, or literally any number above 0% by voting for the party that's not as fascist. And the choice will be made with or without you, so you might as well help to influence it.
Okay, that still doesnt explain how we fix this problem, which is what that poster is talking about.
So we sacrifice our vote this round cause Nazi cheetoh blah blah blah, what do we do next election when the next Nazi supreme is running? We do the same thing then?
I'd be more willing to listen to your position if there was some semblence of a long term plan. Also, you seem to trivialize how awful it is to vote for an administration currently committing genocide. A bunch of people are voting kamala and very upset about it.
that still doesnt explain how we fix this problem
what do we do next election when the next Nazi supreme is running?
This is the exact point I made in my comment.
This does not fix the problem, but it reduces how bad it gets within a general timeframe. Harm reduction can never actually fix the harm being done, it can only make the harm less severe.
Again, just like I said before,
The situation is complete shit, and nobody wants to just have to vote for the lesser of two evils.
But if we don't vote for the lesser of two evils, we just get an even more genocidal, fascist maniac in office.
you seem to trivialize how awful it is to vote for an administration currently committing genocide.
This election will happen. It doesn't matter who you want to win. If you vote for Kamala, she will perpetuate the genocide. If you vote for nobody, you increase the chance of Trump winning (since the more people vote, on average, the more likely it is for Democrats to win.) If you vote for Trump, you, of course, increase the chance of Trump winning. If Trump is in office, we know he will not only continue the genocide, but will also likely engage in further genocide on American soil, as he's already clearly demonstrated he's a racist freak that doesn't see immigrants as people.
I am not proposing a solution. This is not a solution. I don't know how I can make that more clear. I'm not proposing a solution, I'm proposing a harm reduction measure that can then be used in tandem with other, further actions to try and save our democracy.
But it is the best possible, or rather, least bad option we have, given our circumstances. Do you want the fascist, or the lesser fascist? Because you have to pick.
The only way you can increase your chances of other, good plans being enacted, is to make sure the situation is as favorable to you as possible. Having a far-right fascist like Trump in power will most certainly not do that. Anything that reduces his chances of winning is beneficial.
If you want a long-term strategy outside of just voting for the lesser of two evils, you can directly contact representatives in the party to try and sway their opinions more to the left, which could possibly change their trajectory as a party. You can engage in direct action like legal, or even illegal protests in order to demonstrate the public support your opinions hold, to increase the likelihood your positions will be seen favorably in congress. You can campaign on the easier-to-influence local level to enact ranked-choice voting for city and state elections, which will grow the overall support for better voting systems nationwide. You can donate to nonprofits that inform misinformed senators, and raise public awareness and outcry against fascist policy.
Are any of those a silver bullet? Of course not. Is that an extensive list? Hell no. But you're not getting any of that done if the guy in power is so unbelievably fascist, you're not able to protest without being trampled by a militarized police force within 5 minutes, or if you have even less economic power compared to corporations that just got tax breaks, while your wages went down. I don't like the Democrats, but I hate Trump even more. This election will pick one of them, and anything I can do to stop Trump from getting in power will then make it easier to take other politically left-leaning steps in the right direction after.
I envy that you think theres a material difference between how trump and kamala would handle Israel, and also that you weigh a potential genocide as more than an existing one. I hope you will be just as happy that you voted for Kamala in a few years once this all shakes out though.
You didn't answer how harm reduction works as a long term strategy which is being done right now. In addition you didn't answer whats the point of buying extra time.
You can check out the other comment I wrote in response to a similar response here, but I'll give an additional short answer here too.
The point of buying extra time is to increase the chance of any other action being taken against the right succeeding. It doesn't matter what that action is (although I did give a list in that other comment), and that's not what my comment was originally about. It was solely about the fact that voting for the lesser of two evils is objectively better than letting the worse of two evils have a higher chance of getting into power.
Harm reduction doesn't work as a long-term strategy on its own, but not doing it just means any other politically beneficial action you want to take is less likely to succeed, since there's now an even bigger fascist in power.
I would be fine if the "harm reduction" politican didn't actively go against other actions taken. If Liberals were willing to do anything in addition to harm reduction I would respect them even slightly. Fundamentally the problem is nothing else is being done, we have incompetent and lazy people on the "left" while the right is completely fascist. You and I may acknowledge that harm reduction alone cannot stand as a real political strategy but until Liberals understand that as well it fundementally stands as a false hope and leads people to complacency.
Of course, we can definitely agree on that. Liberals don't seem to understand that voting Democrat isn't the end of the road for positive political change.
But of course, if liberals have no power at all, then changing their mind won't exactly lead to them doing any action in the end anyways. Regardless of how stacked the deck is, voting Democrat at least won't lead to as bad a result.
Couldn’t have said it better! Well done!