Progressives acknowledging the fact of genocide is a good first step, and it’s useful that Ocasio-Cortez and others have done so — “I think [unconditional aid to Israel] enabled a genocide in Gaza,” she said in Munich — but it is not in and of itself sufficient. Before anyone in the party can move on to selling a post-Biden vision of human-rights-first foreign policy, they must address what accountability for the war criminals in the Biden administration — those who aided, armed, and funded genocide — should look like.
Yes it is. Will I vote in the next election? Binary choice. Will I vote Democrat or Republican? Also binary choice.
Only if you include options that are not related to voting does it become a non-binary choice. Since we are talking about voting, which is a binary choice, the other options are either irrelevant or still boil down to yes I will vote or no I will not vote.
As a news service your timeliness is horrible.
People who don’t agree with your opinions are fascists. Got it!
Now, allow me to reword my previous point:
Stop making excuses for the people who didn’t vote in 2024 and therefore allowed Trump to win the election. Every Dem KNOWS Harris and the DNC screwed the pooch and blame them for their loss. But, and this really important, we also blame those Dems who didn’t vote. What percentage of blame is assigned to Harris, DNC, and non-voters gets probably differs greatly between individuals. Personally, 40-40-20.
Voting is binary in the sense that one of two people is going to win. It’s not like TropicalDipshit staying home is going to somehow result in a do-over election.
Then how did the millions of vote difference between Harris 24 and Biden 20 not end up in the Republican column. Voters always have another choice and its the one they are making by default because its where all voters begin: to stay on the couch.
And as an aside, even within your 2x2 matrix you acnwledge voting isn’t a binary. There are 4 outcomes possible in what you outlined. Likely Democrat, Vote; Likely Democrat, Don’t vote; Likely Republican, Vote; Likely Republican, Don’t vote. 4 possibilities.
So not voting isn’t related to voting? The whole point here is that the game theoretical strategy of “strategic voting” or “voting for the lessor of two evils” falls apart when it meets reality. It doesn’t work, as in, it doesn’t give you the strategic outcomes you want it to because you didn’t represent the game correctly. Voting isn’t a binary, no matter how much so you insist that it is. A voter can simply not vote, or not even register. Or vote third party, or write in the name of their cat. You approving of or not approving of those things doesn’t mean they aren’t available as options to a voter.
If you want to blame voters, then you need to offer a mechanism to move them. I know how we can move individual politicians and campaigns because we’ve done it before. I don’t think we disagree about that. But there is no credible mechanism for changing the inarticulate mass which is the “electorate” to adopt your perspective that they should have just voted to support genocide. There is no tool which performs that operation. You can’t move voters in this manner. A single voter is a grain of sand. It behaves like a solid, like a tiny rock. A mass of voters is a river of sand. They have fundamentally different properties.
You are demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding how elections work, how they function. Effectively, you are subject in the same kind of propaganda that the petroleum industry used to convince consumers that individual actions, specifically recycling plastics, was going to save the world. This is a bad faith approach because it shifts the responsibility for the outcomes or consequences of elections from those who actually have power in the system, like parties, political campaigns, and candidates, to those who effectively have the least power in the system: voters. That perspective you hold, is the result of a long effort on the parties to dismiss the responsibility they hold for actually appealing to voters and their demands.
There is one path to winning elections: understand the electorate, and then move candidates into adopting those positions. You can’t shame, badger, or otherwise abuse voters into voting how you want them to. It doesn’t work. It doesn’t matter if you don’t like that. Trying to do so is counterproductive.
Blame percentage (Harris, DNC, and non-voters): 100, 0, 0
All Harris had to do was change her policy on Gaza and she wins the election. One person could have made a different choice and we would have a different outcome.
Putting the responsibility of a failed campaign on the backs of voters just shows more electoral illiteracy on your part. If you can’t offer a credible mechanism for how you get 6 million people to do what you want them to do, its fucking irrelevant.
Just wanted to check: how has not voting gone for y’all, so far?
Huh. Wonder what the losing strategy is.
Listening to voices like yours is the losing strategy.
Hmm…
The most popular and effective policy… Competent and compassionate base… Political strategy of emphasizing protest non-voting…
Huh. I wonder why we aren’t winning, yet? I mean, we have everything going for us!
We lost the last election, after all! The protest non-voting was a huge success! Why are we still losing???
Always vote! Let’s primary these genociders!
Edit: non-voters are the issue. If they weren’t, we wouldn’t have genociders going past primaries. Dipshit.
The fact is, if you didn’t support motivating the candidate to change their policy on a genocide, you weren’t opposing fascism.
It follows that you make the arguments you do because you support both the genocide and fascism.
There was one path to stopping Trump: get Harris to change.
Huh, from my perspective, I’m anti-genocide and anti-fascism. On the other hand, you opted to support a platform of “allow the state of America to worsen and deepen further into the pit of authoritarianism so that people die and eventually revolt”, which is de facto supporting genocide and fascism.
I guess we both think that the ends justify the means. The difference is that my means is… voting for the least bad candidate so the least amount of people are harmed… and yours is… not voting so the maximum amount of people are harmed.
Cope :)
You supported a pro-genocide candidate, and through some extraordinary mental gymnastics you think that makes you anti genocide.
If you didn’t demand the candidate change their policy in genocide, you are neither anti genocide or supportive of the candidate, since there was no way for the candidate to win supporting a genocide. They had to change their policy to win the election.
I’ll remind you that your plan was to intentionally allow as much harm as possible.
Actually, now that I think about it, whenever your plan leads to something, that isn’t just allowing and condoning… yeah man, you intentionally CAUSED as much harm as possible. Alex Pretti. Renée Good. Blood directly on your hands. :)
Edit: more names whose deaths you directly caused by not voting, encouraging not voting, not primarying, etc Tens of thousands of Palestinians Unnamed Honduran Man Felix Bauckholt Rubin Ray Martinez Elena Catarina Morales-Chan Enrique Juan Tizol Macario (14 years old) Unnamed man near San Diego Unnamed man near Rio Grande City James Alanis Roberto Carlos Montoya Valdez Unnamed Equadorian woman Unnamed Mexican man Silverio Villegas González Yahir David Martinez Axel Everado Iquic-Sequen Manuel Mateo Lopez Jose Castro-Rivera Bartolo Baltazar Baltazar Epifanio Molina Bravo
Bask in the direct consequences of your inaction.
You created a second “No” option for choosing whether or not to vote just to be right.
Not voting is not voting is not voting. If you want to add in other qualifiers to whether or not someone votes so you can be right okay.
It does but I’ll address this as we go on.
Again, it does but I’ll address this as we go on.
Not voting. Option one.
Voting. Option two.
Yes, there are two options,: vote or do not vote. Glad we cleared that up, again.
No idea if there are studies to support this but I would bet my bottom teeth that something close to a majority of those who did vote for Harris were not supporting genocide or even the DNC. We, they, were voting against Trump 2.0 and Project 2025. The fact that some voters decided to cut off their nose to spite their face and not vote at all because, again, Harris wouldn’t say the words to make them happy? Yeah, I am going to assign blame to them for where we are now.
Can’t tell what exactly you are talking about here. Third party candidates? Or just insulting me because I don’t agree with your apologism.
Good idea! Got a few billion dollars I can borrow?
If America survives the remainder of Trump’s term hopefully those who didn’t vote and helped Trump get back in the White House and realize how stupid they were then the shame, badgering etc will have been worth it.
The failed campaign that is on Harris and the DNC. Trump winning the election I already gave my breakdown.
Gonna try to address this one claim at a time. First and most consistently you make the claim that:
This is an easy one to dismiss, because, just… its obviously not. Like its not even point worth engaging with beyond the performative aspect of making you look like an idiot. If its a binary, how did Kennedy get any votes in the general? Or De la Cruz. Or Stein. If voting is a binary and there is no secret third option, then how did the vote totals change between 2020, 2024? How is it the Democratic vote total went down from 2020 to 2024 if there isn’t some “other choice” voters have between Republicans or Democrats?
A voter has many options when it comes to voting. You can approve of or disapprove of the options, but pretending that voters only have two options is just… not true.
EG, you don’t understand how elections work. You already demonstrate that with your insistence that voting is a binary. You’ve drunk decades of propaganda which shifts the responsibility for electoral outcomes from candidates and campaigns, and shifts that blame to voters. A corollary is how petroleum used the exact same approach to convince people that they individually were responsible for the outcomes of climate change, specifically around recycling. You’re engaging in the same bait and switch that petroleum company used to shed responsibility for climate change.
Yes. 1.5 billion. That’s how much in donations the Harris campaign got.
Here lets run the experiment
It’s August 2024, the night before the convention, and I’m appointing you Kamala Harris’s campaign manager. You are just coming off the big bump in polling you got from naming Tim Walz your vp. So far, your polling has been meteoric. You managed to got from the low forties high thirties to high forties in weeks.
You’ve got 1.5 billion dollars to spend, and a week of captured media going into the convention. You have three months.
The experiment (0, 1) is conducted by you answering the following questions follows:
0 You are not allowed to change the candidates policy positions. Explain how you would use 1.5 billion dollars and 3 months to win an election.
1 You are allowed to change the candidates policy positions. Explain how you would use 1.5 billion dollars and 3 months to win an election.
If there is no credible approach where you can accomplish a Democratic victory, the you have to cede that the only way Democrats could have won the election without Harris changing their policy on Gaza.
And it would have cost 0 dollars for Harris to change her position on Gaza. The only people to blame for Trump being in office are Harris and the Harris campaign. They were the only ones in a position to convert an L to a W. No other individuals held that power.
Are you advocating third party voting? Is that what you’ve been dancing around?
They are advocating that genocide support not exist within the democratic party. And if it is allowed to by people like yourself, then the democratic party shouldnt exist.
And what you’re doing is attemtping to hold voters hostage to allow for genocide to exist within the party. You want to say if a dem candidate is 1% better than Donald Trump, then we all must raklly behind the genocide Dem. Reality itself has shown you your argument is false and an openly corrupt dem cant get Dems-- especially young ones off the couch to win, and cant get republican votes, but you refuse to acknowledge this because you like genocide for some reason. Thats the reality here-- you are a racist or religious fanatic.
You spend hours explaining something to someone. And then they come back with the reading comprehension and ability to understand of a clay pot.
Just go re-read the thread dude. And if thats too much, go to a library and ask for the book “One fish, Two fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish”.