The result of Kamala and De La Cruz was exactly the same. 0 EC votes wins just as much of the presidency as anything under 270.
You either pick a side or you don’t vote in a way that matters.
Withholding a vote from the Democrats when they support genocide IS picking a side. And is voting in a way that matters.
I’m really struggling to understand how you’re fighting me on ‘do least bad now; make next choices better’.
Because the former is precluding the latter. Everytime you vote blue no matter who, you broadcast one loud message . . . .“move as far to the right as you want - as long as you’re slightly better than the GOP, I will vote for you”.
Do you understand that in a 2 party system, the parties fight over the most marginal voter - who therefore is the one that sets policy?
I don’t think anyone is listening to your protest vote. Similar to how companies have captured their markets so thoroughly that they can enshittify everything and know the demand will remain, the parties here have captured their voters. I don’t think the marginal voters are the ones that really matter - I think it’s the ones who aren’t voting.
I’m going to step back a bit. Your vote for Claudia is fine. You seem to be engaged. My original point waaaay back at the top was (paraphrased) ‘We’ve got to stop talking about this like it’s futile and it doesn’t matter who is elected’. We need more people willing to spend the energy to be part of the system, and generate the options, instead of letting the system tell them what the options are.
I think ‘both sides’ kinds of comments reduce engagement and convert into more non-voters. I want to add engagement so that people not only vote in the presidential election, but also in mid terms, and in primaries, and in municipal elections, and get into the local politics that will change the parties from the bottom up.
Right now the Democrats are effectively just as captured by money as the Republicans, and the money is evil. Getting more normal people to engage will eventually put normal people in the positions to make decisions instead of the money. There’s inertia there that we need to overcome and I don’t think we’ll do it by telling people both sides are the same. The spirit of Democracy is engagement and anything aiming to reduce engagement is antithetical to Democracy.
I think this is specifically where we are at odds. “the former precludes the latter” is just wrong. I can vote in the system I have while trying to change the system from within. My engagement didn’t end at the ballot box.
I’ve described my plans to fix the problem in a few ways, but you haven’t told me how you’re trying to solve it. ‘Get out or get guns’ is a reaction, not a plan.
I don’t think anyone is listening to your protest vote
Schroedengir’s leftist - apparently we spoil ever election by not giving the centrist Dems our votes that were promised to them 3,000 years ago. But we’re simultaneously not important enough to actually try to win votes from.
You can support whatever you like - but unless you make your vote conditional upon it, the party isn’t going to listen to you. Why should it? You’re giving them everything you have already - and so they can ignore you to court the (mythical) moderate Republican voter instead.
‘Get out or get guns’ is a reaction, not a plan.
No, it’s literally a plan, just one you don’t like.
I’ve tried to explain my rationale and get yours. I’ve asked for your plans, solutions, goals. All I get are snippets that you can take and respond to with a quip.
'Get out or get guns" is not a plan I like. I don’t think it will work. When the US implodes because every sane person fled, the world will not be better.
Yes, we’ve established that. So, since you don’t like that, your plan is to keep trying the same “vote for lesser evil” plan that’s been failing for decades.
In the face of an dying empire (dying much faster now due to the Iran War), climate change, and the rest.
In my opinion . . .
When the US implodes because every sane person fled, the world will not be better.
Meh, as we’ve seen for a while, the US is a dangerous force against peace. So maybe the chaos being directed inwards instead of outwards for once will be better for the rest of us.
Neat. Your plan? Run from the responsibility vs violence? Still haven’t heard it beyond those two options. “Get out or get guns” is defeatist and surrenders the initiative to the chaos.
The US is a dangerous force against peace
When I was growing up, Russia was the global boogie man. I’d like to prevent the US from being the next one. Am I making things worse by trying to reverse our destruction? I don’t think I am.
Putting words in your mouth, you’re saying “it’s too late” and I should just run? What happens when the US is 100% “republican”? I don’t think that will help on the global stage and I think it will be worse for everyone when things fail here, so I’m trying to prevent that. I think we get an imperialist nation with crumbling infrastructure that needs to take what it can’t produce and will do so with force. We’re like mostly there - see Iran.
I guess one last try. Attack my position again without a solution and I’ll give up.
With some detail, and not in a one-liner, how do we make this better?
When I was growing up, Russia was the global boogie man
According to who? Americans?
The Soviets had lots of things bad with them. That said, the US was killing millions in Vietnam and Latin America. It just doesn’t compare.
What happens when the US is 100% “republican”?
The same as now? The exact problem is your supposed “lesser evil” strategy has wound up with them controlling all parts of the US government.
We’re like mostly there
Yes, you are.
how do we make this better
You overthrow your government and seize the funds of the rich? At this point, how do you actually think this gets better absent that? You’ve got wealth inequality worse than any other society ever measured, you’re the current leading cause of climate change per capita (maybe 2nd to Canada), you’re in so many wars I doubt you can even name every country you’ve bombed this year . . . .and it’s about to get far, far worse.
if you want my recommendation for what to do personally - yes, get armed, and get ready. Also create dual power systems. Organize, but not just in the failed political realm of the Democratic party. As you’ve seen, they will not do anything even if they have power.
You overthrow your government and seize the funds of the rich? At this point, how do you actually think this gets better absent that
I think I’m done. It’s been an interesting and introspective week. And for that, I thank you.
Your ‘solution’ is violence - and I get that. There’s a bunch of people with your opinion. I don’t have it. I think if we have to get to ‘overthrow’, then we make things really bad for a long time for a lot of people; whereas we can use the system to put better people in the places of power and make things more better-er in a shorter timeframe. It might also make things bad for different people for longer time. I can’t tell from where I sit. I happen to be one dude in a country of 350 million.
In all honesty, I’ve got a foot in both sides. When shit goes down, I’m in; but I’m not going to start it. I’ll leave that up to people braver than me. I will block you if you fight me on this stance.
You imply I’m stopping at the ‘lesser evil’ strategy and I can’t stress enough how much that’s a stepping stone and not, or even a significant part of, my whole solution or even what I advocate for (My old instance is shutting down, you can see my older comments as korazail@lemmy.myserv.one and there are many versions of ‘join your local org’). I vote for lesser evil right now while actively trying to make better options later so I don’t have to and encouraging others to be part of the process.
I think we differ on whether that could actually work; which is a whole conversation on it’s own since, if it can’t, can democracy work at all? Do we all just shoot each other? And which side does that best serve?
My actually trying to make things better is done by being engaged with the processes that make decisions and tell others they can be engaged too. Back to the original original point. The ‘both sides’ one-liners reduce engagement. We should stop making them.
Don’t pick a phrase from above to reply to. Respond to this:
Should the average person attempt to be more or less engaged with their political systems?
The result of Kamala and De La Cruz was exactly the same. 0 EC votes wins just as much of the presidency as anything under 270.
Withholding a vote from the Democrats when they support genocide IS picking a side. And is voting in a way that matters.
Because the former is precluding the latter. Everytime you vote blue no matter who, you broadcast one loud message . . . .“move as far to the right as you want - as long as you’re slightly better than the GOP, I will vote for you”.
Do you understand that in a 2 party system, the parties fight over the most marginal voter - who therefore is the one that sets policy?
I don’t think anyone is listening to your protest vote. Similar to how companies have captured their markets so thoroughly that they can enshittify everything and know the demand will remain, the parties here have captured their voters. I don’t think the marginal voters are the ones that really matter - I think it’s the ones who aren’t voting.
I’m going to step back a bit. Your vote for Claudia is fine. You seem to be engaged. My original point waaaay back at the top was (paraphrased) ‘We’ve got to stop talking about this like it’s futile and it doesn’t matter who is elected’. We need more people willing to spend the energy to be part of the system, and generate the options, instead of letting the system tell them what the options are.
I think ‘both sides’ kinds of comments reduce engagement and convert into more non-voters. I want to add engagement so that people not only vote in the presidential election, but also in mid terms, and in primaries, and in municipal elections, and get into the local politics that will change the parties from the bottom up.
Right now the Democrats are effectively just as captured by money as the Republicans, and the money is evil. Getting more normal people to engage will eventually put normal people in the positions to make decisions instead of the money. There’s inertia there that we need to overcome and I don’t think we’ll do it by telling people both sides are the same. The spirit of Democracy is engagement and anything aiming to reduce engagement is antithetical to Democracy.
All that - but in the meantime, I vote for the least bad option that I think has a chance of winning and that will likely be the democratic nominee and not a third party. yet. I support, nationally, candidates that support ranked choice or other non-binary voting systems.
I think this is specifically where we are at odds. “the former precludes the latter” is just wrong. I can vote in the system I have while trying to change the system from within. My engagement didn’t end at the ballot box.
I’ve described my plans to fix the problem in a few ways, but you haven’t told me how you’re trying to solve it. ‘Get out or get guns’ is a reaction, not a plan.
Schroedengir’s leftist - apparently we spoil ever election by not giving the centrist Dems our votes that were promised to them 3,000 years ago. But we’re simultaneously not important enough to actually try to win votes from.
You can support whatever you like - but unless you make your vote conditional upon it, the party isn’t going to listen to you. Why should it? You’re giving them everything you have already - and so they can ignore you to court the (mythical) moderate Republican voter instead.
No, it’s literally a plan, just one you don’t like.
I’ve tried to explain my rationale and get yours. I’ve asked for your plans, solutions, goals. All I get are snippets that you can take and respond to with a quip.
'Get out or get guns" is not a plan I like. I don’t think it will work. When the US implodes because every sane person fled, the world will not be better.
Yes, we’ve established that. So, since you don’t like that, your plan is to keep trying the same “vote for lesser evil” plan that’s been failing for decades.
In the face of an dying empire (dying much faster now due to the Iran War), climate change, and the rest.
In my opinion . . .
Meh, as we’ve seen for a while, the US is a dangerous force against peace. So maybe the chaos being directed inwards instead of outwards for once will be better for the rest of us.
Neat. Your plan? Run from the responsibility vs violence? Still haven’t heard it beyond those two options. “Get out or get guns” is defeatist and surrenders the initiative to the chaos.
When I was growing up, Russia was the global boogie man. I’d like to prevent the US from being the next one. Am I making things worse by trying to reverse our destruction? I don’t think I am.
Putting words in your mouth, you’re saying “it’s too late” and I should just run? What happens when the US is 100% “republican”? I don’t think that will help on the global stage and I think it will be worse for everyone when things fail here, so I’m trying to prevent that. I think we get an imperialist nation with crumbling infrastructure that needs to take what it can’t produce and will do so with force. We’re like mostly there - see Iran.
I guess one last try. Attack my position again without a solution and I’ll give up.
With some detail, and not in a one-liner, how do we make this better?
According to who? Americans?
The Soviets had lots of things bad with them. That said, the US was killing millions in Vietnam and Latin America. It just doesn’t compare.
The same as now? The exact problem is your supposed “lesser evil” strategy has wound up with them controlling all parts of the US government.
Yes, you are.
You overthrow your government and seize the funds of the rich? At this point, how do you actually think this gets better absent that? You’ve got wealth inequality worse than any other society ever measured, you’re the current leading cause of climate change per capita (maybe 2nd to Canada), you’re in so many wars I doubt you can even name every country you’ve bombed this year . . . .and it’s about to get far, far worse.
if you want my recommendation for what to do personally - yes, get armed, and get ready. Also create dual power systems. Organize, but not just in the failed political realm of the Democratic party. As you’ve seen, they will not do anything even if they have power.
I think I’m done. It’s been an interesting and introspective week. And for that, I thank you.
Your ‘solution’ is violence - and I get that. There’s a bunch of people with your opinion. I don’t have it. I think if we have to get to ‘overthrow’, then we make things really bad for a long time for a lot of people; whereas we can use the system to put better people in the places of power and make things more better-er in a shorter timeframe. It might also make things bad for different people for longer time. I can’t tell from where I sit. I happen to be one dude in a country of 350 million.
In all honesty, I’ve got a foot in both sides. When shit goes down, I’m in; but I’m not going to start it. I’ll leave that up to people braver than me. I will block you if you fight me on this stance.
You imply I’m stopping at the ‘lesser evil’ strategy and I can’t stress enough how much that’s a stepping stone and not, or even a significant part of, my whole solution or even what I advocate for (My old instance is shutting down, you can see my older comments as korazail@lemmy.myserv.one and there are many versions of ‘join your local org’). I vote for lesser evil right now while actively trying to make better options later so I don’t have to and encouraging others to be part of the process.
I think we differ on whether that could actually work; which is a whole conversation on it’s own since, if it can’t, can democracy work at all? Do we all just shoot each other? And which side does that best serve?
My actually trying to make things better is done by being engaged with the processes that make decisions and tell others they can be engaged too. Back to the original original point. The ‘both sides’ one-liners reduce engagement. We should stop making them.
Don’t pick a phrase from above to reply to. Respond to this: Should the average person attempt to be more or less engaged with their political systems?