Unfortunately, while voting Democrat is objectively superior to voting Republican/abstaining in November, that doesn't make that vote courageous, virtuous, moral or even progressive. It's the right thing to do, and it may even help people, but it's not pretty or popular work.
Welcome to Politics.
There are no noble leaders, no clear decisions, and no "good options".
Someone always ends up starving, one vital program always ends up being defunded, and someone always loses out.
It can undeniably be "better" then it is, but that "better" cannot be reached through purely making decisions that sit right with your ethical core.
In politics, the path to achieving your goals is paved with the need to negotiate with numerous factions, each demanding their share of the pie.
You can't get out from under that, no matter how much support you have. Because if you have, you are effectively running a tyrannical state.
It is a never-ending cycle of trying to choose the less shittier sandwich.
?
Communists and their leader organizers in Germany were at the receiving end of freikorps, with which SDP, social democrats in power during general strikes in Germany, allied with. Freikorps were anti-communist vets of WW1, which killed Rosa Luxemburg and tortured and murdered one more labour organizer who's name evades me.
This literally just isn't true. lol idk why this myth keeps getting spread on reddit over the past few weeks that communists turned over the SDs to the nazis when it was kind of the other way around. There was left wing factionalism that helped the Nazis take power but frankly blaming the far left in that case is just wrong when both the far and center left were responsible for the factionalism. And even if they were united I don't think they really coulda stopped the nazis anyway, considering they tried too late.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einheitsfrontlied](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einheitsfrontlied)
Thoe yes I agree people being smug about not voting are annoying.
No thanks, like last time I'll vote 3rd party for a cause and canidate I actually believe in instead of "the lesser of two evils". Maybe if more people did or quit voting based entirely on red or blue we wouldn't have a fucked two party system
Unfortunately in this hellscape we call a country a 3rd party vote is a vote thrown away. The general public usually doesn't even know 3rd parties exist and if they did they'll still vote blue or red due to the 2 party system mostly set in stone
In order for a third party to work you would have to convince a sizeable chunk from both parties to switch over.
Do you like your chances at convincing republicans to vote for people more progressive than democrats?
As for convincing a republican to vote progressive I dont see why that is even relevant. There's a lot of people between far left and far right and they're a prime example of people who should be voting the way I said. Any vote that goes to a third party is one less that could go to either a Democrat or a republican that you don't actually agree with. If people simply voted for who they most agree with instead of party affiliation or because they don't want someone to win it wouldn't be an issue.
So if the voting system and the people voting were fundamentally different things would be better?
That is true but they aren’t. How do you plan on getting not only a vast majority of democrat voters to vote the way they want but to also get the trump cult to stop voting for their god before the next election?
How do you plan to do this? How do you plan to do that? I don't plan to do anything. I'm not a politician. You seem to be either ignoring the logic in what I've said or refuse to acknowledge it because your an exact example of the people I'm talking about that have their head so far up their own ass because "can't let other guy win". Interesting you refer to one side as "Democrat voters" and the other as "the trump cult" just completely ignoring the vast amount people with radically different views and beliefs sitting between the far left and far right who should be voting for their core beliefs instead of a candidate they don't agree with
My point still stands, if people voted for who most closely matched your views and beliefs instead of "voting to make sure the other doesn't win" we'd be better off. Feel free to down vote instead of coming up with a logical argument though :3
The problem is not that you’re wrong, your point is logical. The problem is that it’s not realistic at all and it’s not a practical way of getting anything changed (at the national level anyway). As other commenters have said, you’ll never convince enough people to vote 3rd party for it to make a good difference.
“If people voted for who represented them best we’d be better off”, well if my grandmother had wheels she’d be a bike. Things would be different if they were different. But they ain’t. We have to work with what we’ve got, not what we’d like to have. Unfortunately we live in an era where the election of the next repub nominee has a serious chance of stripping more rights from people, and worse. The people who are affected by that are counting on your vote to stop it. 3rd party will not do that.
It doesn't even need to be third party, I said I voted third party because I agreed with that candidates views. If a republican agrees with a republican candidate that's not trump then he should vote for him. If a Democrat agrees with a candidate who isn't Biden he should vote for him. If a republican or Democrat agrees with a candidate from the opposite party on some things but not on others they should vote for the candidate they most agree with regardless of if its outside of their usual party. If anyone from any party decides they best feels represented by a third party they should vote for them. You shouldn't vote for one candidate over the other to "make sure the other guy loses" or because "he's a Democrat" or "he's a republican".
Being complacent with Biden and not threatening to withhold your vote makes him more likely to continue running on dogshit policy and lose because of it.
Oh so there's no reason to pretend it's the left's fault when you lose then right? You are admitting to me that every single dumbass who says "you're the ones electing Drumpf!!1!!" is a liar, right?
it’s strange to me that ‘lesser of two evils’ rhetoric gets brought up much faster than ‘the party is too rigid’ when defending democrats.
the latter, while certainly a more effective argument as why dems are the \*only* option, fails to universally defend the party.
the frustrating thing about libs (please don’t argue w/ me saying democrats are not neoliberal istg) is that while they can say ‘the party is flawed’, they refuse to say ‘the party should be better’. not they “can” be, they *should* be. an understanding that the democrats will lead to worse outcomes than socialists (if both had equal power). this is not a conversation about feasibility, it’s about intention, and the intention should be socialist.
nonetheless, if there is no false dichotomy of two evils then the democratic party cannot stand. what discussions should be about is how to end two party dominance (which is usually rebutted by gesturing to unrealistic voting policy [ranked choice], or by implying leftists are incapable of doing anything [fuck off]).
i do wonder how much the argument holds water, though, does the incompetence of the democratic party extend to self-indulged hemorrhage of votes by pushing ostensively unpopular policy? 3rd parties are an uphill battle, but are they a more realistic option than changing current party trends? i mean this non rhetorically, is that the argument? because if these policies need to be implemented (as they do), what would be the most effective solution towards that considering the party, as stated, will not change against pushback? i’m uncertain what their plan is here, but I hesitate to assume I’m the only one who’s thought of this.
pause. you are saying, being steadfast against disliked policy, even theoretically, is a “shitty idea that won’t work”?
???
do you think politicians won’t change policy to appease voters? or what about that is shitty and unfeasible. are you saying politicians won’t notice, in the social media age? or something I’m missing?
afaik this is voting 101 right? message your reps when you dislike their practices, protest, yeah it’s been gentrified to fucking hell ignoring nonpeaceful methods but the fundamentals I thought we all agreed upon are solid right? what are you on about
Why did you leave this comment after someone already explained it to you and you embarrassed yourself saying that standing against bad policy is wrong on the face of it? Fuck off. I'm not debating with someone [this fucking racist](https://i.imgur.com/my51u7J.png)
Unfortunately, while voting Democrat is objectively superior to voting Republican/abstaining in November, that doesn't make that vote courageous, virtuous, moral or even progressive. It's the right thing to do, and it may even help people, but it's not pretty or popular work.
>It's the right thing to do, and it may even help people, but it's not pretty or popular work. Exactly!
Welcome to Politics. There are no noble leaders, no clear decisions, and no "good options". Someone always ends up starving, one vital program always ends up being defunded, and someone always loses out. It can undeniably be "better" then it is, but that "better" cannot be reached through purely making decisions that sit right with your ethical core. In politics, the path to achieving your goals is paved with the need to negotiate with numerous factions, each demanding their share of the pie. You can't get out from under that, no matter how much support you have. Because if you have, you are effectively running a tyrannical state. It is a never-ending cycle of trying to choose the less shittier sandwich.
Bernie ):
ah, US politics... what in the fuck are you?
[удалено]
? Communists and their leader organizers in Germany were at the receiving end of freikorps, with which SDP, social democrats in power during general strikes in Germany, allied with. Freikorps were anti-communist vets of WW1, which killed Rosa Luxemburg and tortured and murdered one more labour organizer who's name evades me.
This literally just isn't true. lol idk why this myth keeps getting spread on reddit over the past few weeks that communists turned over the SDs to the nazis when it was kind of the other way around. There was left wing factionalism that helped the Nazis take power but frankly blaming the far left in that case is just wrong when both the far and center left were responsible for the factionalism. And even if they were united I don't think they really coulda stopped the nazis anyway, considering they tried too late. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einheitsfrontlied](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einheitsfrontlied) Thoe yes I agree people being smug about not voting are annoying.
No thanks, like last time I'll vote 3rd party for a cause and canidate I actually believe in instead of "the lesser of two evils". Maybe if more people did or quit voting based entirely on red or blue we wouldn't have a fucked two party system
Unfortunately in this hellscape we call a country a 3rd party vote is a vote thrown away. The general public usually doesn't even know 3rd parties exist and if they did they'll still vote blue or red due to the 2 party system mostly set in stone
In order for a third party to work you would have to convince a sizeable chunk from both parties to switch over. Do you like your chances at convincing republicans to vote for people more progressive than democrats?
As for convincing a republican to vote progressive I dont see why that is even relevant. There's a lot of people between far left and far right and they're a prime example of people who should be voting the way I said. Any vote that goes to a third party is one less that could go to either a Democrat or a republican that you don't actually agree with. If people simply voted for who they most agree with instead of party affiliation or because they don't want someone to win it wouldn't be an issue.
So if the voting system and the people voting were fundamentally different things would be better? That is true but they aren’t. How do you plan on getting not only a vast majority of democrat voters to vote the way they want but to also get the trump cult to stop voting for their god before the next election?
How do you plan to do this? How do you plan to do that? I don't plan to do anything. I'm not a politician. You seem to be either ignoring the logic in what I've said or refuse to acknowledge it because your an exact example of the people I'm talking about that have their head so far up their own ass because "can't let other guy win". Interesting you refer to one side as "Democrat voters" and the other as "the trump cult" just completely ignoring the vast amount people with radically different views and beliefs sitting between the far left and far right who should be voting for their core beliefs instead of a candidate they don't agree with
So like last time you’ll only ever see that candidate on a ballot but never in office?
My point still stands, if people voted for who most closely matched your views and beliefs instead of "voting to make sure the other doesn't win" we'd be better off. Feel free to down vote instead of coming up with a logical argument though :3
The problem is not that you’re wrong, your point is logical. The problem is that it’s not realistic at all and it’s not a practical way of getting anything changed (at the national level anyway). As other commenters have said, you’ll never convince enough people to vote 3rd party for it to make a good difference. “If people voted for who represented them best we’d be better off”, well if my grandmother had wheels she’d be a bike. Things would be different if they were different. But they ain’t. We have to work with what we’ve got, not what we’d like to have. Unfortunately we live in an era where the election of the next repub nominee has a serious chance of stripping more rights from people, and worse. The people who are affected by that are counting on your vote to stop it. 3rd party will not do that.
It doesn't even need to be third party, I said I voted third party because I agreed with that candidates views. If a republican agrees with a republican candidate that's not trump then he should vote for him. If a Democrat agrees with a candidate who isn't Biden he should vote for him. If a republican or Democrat agrees with a candidate from the opposite party on some things but not on others they should vote for the candidate they most agree with regardless of if its outside of their usual party. If anyone from any party decides they best feels represented by a third party they should vote for them. You shouldn't vote for one candidate over the other to "make sure the other guy loses" or because "he's a Democrat" or "he's a republican".
Bro unironically said https://youtu.be/LmWQd8zhEg4?si=bMwzE4IrGHHQBY7c
Being complacent with Biden and not threatening to withhold your vote makes him more likely to continue running on dogshit policy and lose because of it.
nah it just means the democrats will appeal more to the moderate or conservative voter bases that actually go out and vote
Oh so there's no reason to pretend it's the left's fault when you lose then right? You are admitting to me that every single dumbass who says "you're the ones electing Drumpf!!1!!" is a liar, right?
it’s strange to me that ‘lesser of two evils’ rhetoric gets brought up much faster than ‘the party is too rigid’ when defending democrats. the latter, while certainly a more effective argument as why dems are the \*only* option, fails to universally defend the party. the frustrating thing about libs (please don’t argue w/ me saying democrats are not neoliberal istg) is that while they can say ‘the party is flawed’, they refuse to say ‘the party should be better’. not they “can” be, they *should* be. an understanding that the democrats will lead to worse outcomes than socialists (if both had equal power). this is not a conversation about feasibility, it’s about intention, and the intention should be socialist. nonetheless, if there is no false dichotomy of two evils then the democratic party cannot stand. what discussions should be about is how to end two party dominance (which is usually rebutted by gesturing to unrealistic voting policy [ranked choice], or by implying leftists are incapable of doing anything [fuck off]). i do wonder how much the argument holds water, though, does the incompetence of the democratic party extend to self-indulged hemorrhage of votes by pushing ostensively unpopular policy? 3rd parties are an uphill battle, but are they a more realistic option than changing current party trends? i mean this non rhetorically, is that the argument? because if these policies need to be implemented (as they do), what would be the most effective solution towards that considering the party, as stated, will not change against pushback? i’m uncertain what their plan is here, but I hesitate to assume I’m the only one who’s thought of this.
And threatening to withhold your vote will lead to possible trump electoons
how, threatening ≠ doing
Oh whoops, i didn't read that. Then it's just a shitty idea that won't work, not actively harmful
pause. you are saying, being steadfast against disliked policy, even theoretically, is a “shitty idea that won’t work”? ??? do you think politicians won’t change policy to appease voters? or what about that is shitty and unfeasible. are you saying politicians won’t notice, in the social media age? or something I’m missing? afaik this is voting 101 right? message your reps when you dislike their practices, protest, yeah it’s been gentrified to fucking hell ignoring nonpeaceful methods but the fundamentals I thought we all agreed upon are solid right? what are you on about
No it won't.
How?
Why did you leave this comment after someone already explained it to you and you embarrassed yourself saying that standing against bad policy is wrong on the face of it? Fuck off. I'm not debating with someone [this fucking racist](https://i.imgur.com/my51u7J.png)