Yes, they suck. They suck a lot less than Trump and the Republican party though, and in a choice between two you absolutely should be voting for the less shit choice.
I’ll remind that a vote for anyone doesn’t prevent you from taking other actions. Considering the way that this administration has gone so far, not voting might drastically limit other actions that can be taken.
From best option in voting to worst:
Voting for a good candidate
Voting for a better candidate than you have
Voting for the least shit choice
Not voting
Voting for the worst possible choice
My options will not be great in all races, but you can damn well bet I’ll be voting.
I’ll also note that they wouldn’t be working so hard to try and take away peoples right to vote if they didn’t think it risked their plans.
Please, put their plans at risk. Take every path to a better option.
Voting takes five minutes. Do those too, but they are not mutually exclusive to voting. If you have the time and energy to participate (let alone organize) those then do them! It certainly means you have five minutes spare to vote too.
Yes, they suck. They suck a lot less than Trump and the Republican party though, and in a choice between two you absolutely should be voting for the less shit choice.
the less shit choice is any third party candidate on your ballot. You didn’t draw the line at genocide.
I can’t wait for you to realize your voting option list is literally this for many people:
Voting for a good candidate -> trump!
Voting for a better candidate than you have -> trump!
Voting for the least shit choice -> trump!
Not Voting -> fuck this noise
Voting for the worst possible choice -> what troll dems are running!
Once you start putting magnitudes on directionality you wont get the outcome you think you’ll get. see literally the campaigns of harris/clinton.
When people tell you your candidate sucks and they wont vote for them, that’s a problem for you and your candidate to resolve not the voter who is informing you of their disdain for your candidate.
Please, put their plans at risk.
Yes, this is exactly what I’m doing when I’m withholding my vote from shitty dem and repub candidates who have been enabling this behavior for decades. (see above)
I have a related degree, but it’s no secret that you target those who are never going to vote for you with propaganda to make them cynical and abstain from voting. It’s what Cambridge Analytica was infamous for (Brexit, first Trump campaign, etc.), but there are others.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. Cynicism was a significant factor in the downfall of the Weimar Republic. That cynicism was in large part fostered and exacerbated by Nazi propaganda.
Everyone is susceptible to propaganda, but especially those who think they aren’t. Propaganda is especially effective when it contains a kernel of truth.
Its funny that the propaganda you refer to is always ‘well they werent going to do anything for you anyways’ and have it be true. last time i heard a mainstream democrat run on a decent platform was obama. since then its been nothing but ‘well we cant do that! its not capitalist!’
My dad is worse than your dad! I Never said it was a tough choice. just that my choice is not to vote for either shit pile. you’re free to continue voting for whatever idiot you want to. I’ll occassional toss my vote in when it offers material change on the ground. if it doesnt, then i wont.
Here is a list of things that will get that check box:
candidate needs to full throatedly support single payer.
candidate needs to shut their whore mouths about ‘supporting {minority group} is costing us the elections!’
full throated prolabour positions: minimum paid / sick leave / paternity leave / living wage automatic inflation adjustments / forcing companies to bring labor position back or UBI.
full throated support for monopoly busting.
I’ll take any one of those bullet points and I’ll be arsed to roll out of bed for your candidate. There are other things as well but I dont think an exhaustive list is necessary.
I’m curious why you frame your vote as a reward to a candidate for checking your boxes, and not a tool to exert some control over your material conditions. It just seems like such a strange way to treat your vote.
American politics is an emotive subject if you’re American, which I assume you are.
Apply your argument to the brexit referendum, where many of the same arguments you’re making were made by pro-brexit campaigners, and where mainstream politicians on both sides of the aisle have also failed many British people, especially the working classes.
While the latter was and still is absolutely true, it was also used by Cambridge Analytica, to decrease voter turn-out in targetted demographic groups.
Would you have voted in that referendum?
The end result was arguably emboldened racists, a divided Europe, lack lustre economic and job growth, poor treatment of migrants, a country closer to far-right rule than it has been in a long time, and a select elite getting richer. But then life would have gotten worse for many people even if the UK had voted to stay in the EU, and the leave result did give the establishment a much necessary bloody nose, so you could argue there wasn’t much point voting either way.
This is a genuine question. I don’t have easy answers.
yes, and I would have voted against brexit. just like i actively engage in activities that prevent isreali from murdering palestinians.
Classifying shit as propaganda isnt useful. its basically just the dissemination of information at its core good or bad.
The reason activities like cambridge analytica work is because the information is often true and verifiable. We have a long history of moderate dems never delivering on workers interest by always having just enough votes not to.
The only way to get it to not work is for the democrats to start fucking delivering to the working class. but that wont happen until your remove the corporate mouth pieces.
Kamala never would have lost if she came out hard for workers and gaza. instead she gave us… drumroll legalized weed. something 80% of the population already has.
I dont vote for genocide however you wish to classify the scope as more or less.
Here’s the thing though, you could argue that voting in favour of brexit, would have emboldened the centrists and the establishment in the UK, to keep making the lives of the working class worse. Brexit gave them a much necessary bloody nose.
In French they say “Choisir entre la peste et le choléra”. Choosing between plague or cholera. Let’s take the French example:
The French will likely soon get to choose between Le Pen and Macron’s successor. The latter is a likely corrupt centrist dickhead from a party which has lead the country to the brink and emboldened fascists. The former is Le Pen, a Russian aligned fascist.
The propaganda will tell people Macron’s successor is a neo-liberal thief and part of why France is in deep trouble. Which is absolutely true. But the alternative is a literal fascist. You can vote for Macron’s successor, but then the establishment thinks it’s business as usual. You can not bother voting at all, but then it’s likely Le Pen wins…
Electoral systems which favour multi-party governments are often better. But then look at Germany, where ever more parties are forced into a coalition against the far right AfD, because people vote for AfD(or don’t vote against them) in increasing numbers. The propaganda tells them that mainstream parties are incompetent, corrupt, and have ended up costing thousands their jobs. Which is absolutely true.
If Germans don’t vote or vote for smaller parties, they potentially let the fascists in.
If they do vote for a bigger party, who are often quite pro-Israel for historical reasons, it’s likely these parties will think they can get away with business as usual, which emboldens the fascists and further disenfranchises voters for next time around…
Personally, I would always vote for the lesser evil, but I get where you’re coming from.
Who said I’m pouting/not playing. just because i dont for your candidate doesnt mean Im not taking actions. Sorry I’m currently busy running a network protecting my local community from the jackboots. LMK when you have a candidate who isnt running on ‘planning to murder friends and family in the middle east’ and ‘going to continue promoting corporate interests at the expense of working americans’ and I’ll vote for them.
You’re literally doing the same thing the person who I called out is doing. inferring incorrect motives from a noisy signal.
I’m just curious if you’re getting involved in grassroots activism, promoting candidates you agree with, canvassing the neighborhood to try to drum up support, etc. Because these are the sorts of things that need to happen in order to produce a candidate you agree with. It’s completely disienguous to put the entire onus of finding a candidate you agree with on other people.
I want you to vote. I care less about who you vote for than I do you voting at all. Exercising your civic right to choose your representation is a big deal, and I encourage you to stop getting mad at other people for not doing your own legwork, and instead get out there and promote a candidate you agree with. Hell, maybe you should run yourself. I don’t know, but I do know that sitting around getting mad because you don’t like the major candidates without doing anything about it gets us all nowhere.
Oh so now someone has to promote candidates they agree with in order to be involved in grassroots organizing
this is an anarchist space
Why is it so hard for people to get that the problem is the system, that by promoting any candidate for any role is promoting the system itself? There will never be a candidate I agree with because the people who are empowered by the American constitution to dissolve the union aren’t elected officials.
“I tried nothing and it didn’t work” isn’t a strategy that works for me.
I’m not going to sit on my butt and complain into the void. I will do everything I can to get to where I want the world to where I hope it can go.
Organizing is not in conflict with anarchism.
Pretending the system doesn’t exist or that not participating in any way will change it is a fool’s errand.
Feel free to find another way to participate, but trying to push others to not do what they can, to me, is (at best) an effort to continue the downward trend.
This is absurd. Electoral organizing isn’t the only kind of organizing. Organizing outside of electoral campaigns is not doing nothing. Telling people the only way to organize or do anything to influence politics is through election campaigns is absolutely in conflict with anarchism.
I’m just curious if you’re getting involved in grassroots activism, promoting candidates you agree with, canvassing the neighborhood to try to drum up support, etc. …
It’s completely disienguous to put the entire onus of finding a candidate you agree with on other people.
Talk about being disingenuous. not to mention holier than thou.
Sorry I’m currently busy running a network protecting my local community from the jackboots.
What part of this statement makes you think I havent/dont do all the above. I’m mad that you chuckle fucks keep riding the vote harder while continuing to give your support to candidates neither of us, allegedly, want instead of letting those candidates just lose because they literally suck.
I’m mad that you chuckle fucks keep riding the vote harder while continuing to give your support to candidates neither of us, allegedly, want instead of letting those candidates just lose because they literally suck.
What would that accomplish? Sincerely, no one has been able to explain to me how the slightly-less-bad candidate losing provides any benefit whatsoever.
It’s not like the other mainstream candidate doesn’t also suck, and moreso in fact.
It’s not like if enough people sit out the election it triggers some secret clause written into the Constitution in invisible magic ink. One of the candidates that suck still wins.
I’m genuinely curious, what is supposed to happen if we let them lose? Who does that help besides the slightly shittier candidate?
I’ve read through like this entire comment section, and most of your comments specifically, and I haven’t seen it. Care to link or quote the comment where you answer this question? I can’t find it
Yeah… Reading your other comments, I think you actually have a decent take on this, but I think the way you’re communicating it isn’t working for the audience…
What’s the point of communicating if you know that you’re being misunderstood?
It’s not about reading comprehension, it’s about frame coherence. Other people don’t have your particular history of experiences, so some things that make obvious sense to you need more context for other people (the same is true in reverse, obviously).
You are confusing individual action to limit further harm with a candidate’s strategy to win votes. They are not the same thing. No one is saying “we want apathetic do-nothings to win” they’re saying “I’d rather not have the villians win, if possible”
Oi, god people are so dense. Please tell me, which one did I think was not a villian? If you want your candidate to win, please put forward one who isnt a villian and I’ll glad vote for them.
This isnt about you. I’ve told you this repeatedly. Its about the people you’re trying to get to vote and they dont care about your preferences. LMK when you have a point that isnt ‘other people should vote like i do’
Yes, they suck. They suck a lot less than Trump and the Republican party though, and in a choice between two you >absolutely should be voting for the less shit choice.
I’ll remind that a vote for anyone doesn’t prevent you from taking other actions. Considering the way that this administration >has gone so far, not voting might drastically limit other actions that can be taken.
From best option in voting to worst:
literally the initial comment I responded to w/ you. lol. if you can’t find a candidate you can say ‘hey this is the person you can vote for because of …’ thats a candidates problem. not the voter who has 0 interest in voting for them because they’re shitty.
you’re entire post is ‘vote for this less genocidal candidate’ as if its incentive. fuck off.
you think not voting is different from voting for the least shit choice. where is my corporate needs you to find the differences photo… if you want someones vote you need to find a candidate that has a platform they’ll vote for. simple as that.
No, its not. you can’t infer that. jfc people read what I’m writing to you.
Not Voting can mean a number of things depending on the individual, including but not limited to:
I needed to work
My polling place had unrealistic hours.
X/Y/Z for Candidate/Issue were unacceptable to me wholesale.
I’d be fine with either
If ALL candidates are unacceptable from the get go that’s a candidate issue not the voters problem. thats literally the definition of a line in the sand. the fact you can’t distinguish it from ‘being fine with either’ doesnt mean what you’re implying is true. BOTH voters are fairly easy to win over long as your candidate isnt ideologically opposed to something they actually care about.
Here is a simple action you can take to distinguish between the two non-voters:
‘What issue would get you to support candidate Y?’
-> if they give a policy that neither candidate is running on you’ve found someone who finds both objectionable.
-> if they say they’re not interested in politics / can’t think of anything then you’ve found someone who is actually indifferent.
you need to approach these two voters very differently when trying to get them to vote. For example: my answer is ‘support universal health care, fix the visa program so people are not tied to a company, set a inflation matching living wage’ there are a ton of issues personally that would get me to cast my vote, and not a single one starts with ‘but Y (republicans) are X (murdering children)!’ or uses the phrase ‘least worse choice’.
You can get away with the ‘least worse choice’ nonsense with the indifferent candidate. but you’re still more likely to win them over with something they want.
false. I vote every election, I dont vote for everything on the ballot, sometimes i leave the ballot empty. two very different things. all you need to do is look at mandami’s results for the distinction. spend some time there and understand that there are many people willing to show up for the right candidate but wont show up for the shitshow that is the dem party currently.
You need to stop putting your values into your distinctions between the tiers.
false. I vote every election, I dont vote for everything on the ballot, sometime i leave the ballot empty. two very different things
So… You didn’t “not vote”. Cool. What I said. Awesome.
I think there is some fundamental confusion here that I can’t go into your brain and point to.
spend some time there and understand that there are many people willing to show up for the right candidate but wont show up for the shitshow that is the dem party currently.
There are many things on a ballot, and many different dems. There are members of the DSA running under the dem ticket. There are members of the WFP running under the dem ticket.
I will apologize only slightly for the caps here - NOT VOTING SENDS A MESSAGE THAT YOU ARE OK WITH ANY OUTCOME. Whether you want that to be the message or not is inconsequential. If you want to do something about the candidates, DO IT MORE THAN A MONTH AND CHANGE BEFORE AN ELECTION.
All I see if you here struggling to prove yourself right.
That sounds like a you problem. ;)
functionally I’m grateful harris lost it woke a lot of people up. sadly not you though. you’ll continue trucking on with your ‘at least I voted for the least horrible fucking option!’ path blindly until the ground falls out below you into fascism.
“I’m grateful people are dying, children are being murdered, and families are being torn apart because I feel like some people realized Trump does bad things” is a pretty shit take IMO.
Vote anyway.
Yes, they suck. They suck a lot less than Trump and the Republican party though, and in a choice between two you absolutely should be voting for the less shit choice.
I’ll remind that a vote for anyone doesn’t prevent you from taking other actions. Considering the way that this administration has gone so far, not voting might drastically limit other actions that can be taken.
From best option in voting to worst:
My options will not be great in all races, but you can damn well bet I’ll be voting.
I’ll also note that they wouldn’t be working so hard to try and take away peoples right to vote if they didn’t think it risked their plans.
Please, put their plans at risk. Take every path to a better option.
Before “voting for a good candidate” there’s also “mass protests” and “general strike”
Those aren’t election items though, and please read the last line again.
Voting takes five minutes. Do those too, but they are not mutually exclusive to voting. If you have the time and energy to participate (let alone organize) those then do them! It certainly means you have five minutes spare to vote too.
the less shit choice is any third party candidate on your ballot. You didn’t draw the line at genocide.
I can’t wait for you to realize your voting option list is literally this for many people:
Voting for a good candidate -> trump!
Voting for a better candidate than you have -> trump!
Voting for the least shit choice -> trump!
Not Voting -> fuck this noise
Voting for the worst possible choice -> what troll dems are running!
Once you start putting magnitudes on directionality you wont get the outcome you think you’ll get. see literally the campaigns of harris/clinton.
When people tell you your candidate sucks and they wont vote for them, that’s a problem for you and your candidate to resolve not the voter who is informing you of their disdain for your candidate.
Yes, this is exactly what I’m doing when I’m withholding my vote from shitty dem and repub candidates who have been enabling this behavior for decades. (see above)
So what’s your solution? Pouting in the corner and saying “I’m not playing”?
Removed by mod
Plenty have been targetted with propaganda.
I have a related degree, but it’s no secret that you target those who are never going to vote for you with propaganda to make them cynical and abstain from voting. It’s what Cambridge Analytica was infamous for (Brexit, first Trump campaign, etc.), but there are others.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. Cynicism was a significant factor in the downfall of the Weimar Republic. That cynicism was in large part fostered and exacerbated by Nazi propaganda.
Everyone is susceptible to propaganda, but especially those who think they aren’t. Propaganda is especially effective when it contains a kernel of truth.
Its funny that the propaganda you refer to is always ‘well they werent going to do anything for you anyways’ and have it be true. last time i heard a mainstream democrat run on a decent platform was obama. since then its been nothing but ‘well we cant do that! its not capitalist!’
Yes that is just as bad as Trump and Co actively dismantling institutions and lining their pockets at our expense. What a tough choice.
My dad is worse than your dad! I Never said it was a tough choice. just that my choice is not to vote for either shit pile. you’re free to continue voting for whatever idiot you want to. I’ll occassional toss my vote in when it offers material change on the ground. if it doesnt, then i wont.
Here is a list of things that will get that check box:
I’ll take any one of those bullet points and I’ll be arsed to roll out of bed for your candidate. There are other things as well but I dont think an exhaustive list is necessary.
I’m curious why you frame your vote as a reward to a candidate for checking your boxes, and not a tool to exert some control over your material conditions. It just seems like such a strange way to treat your vote.
That is certainly a lovely list to vote for.
American politics is an emotive subject if you’re American, which I assume you are.
Apply your argument to the brexit referendum, where many of the same arguments you’re making were made by pro-brexit campaigners, and where mainstream politicians on both sides of the aisle have also failed many British people, especially the working classes.
While the latter was and still is absolutely true, it was also used by Cambridge Analytica, to decrease voter turn-out in targetted demographic groups.
Would you have voted in that referendum?
The end result was arguably emboldened racists, a divided Europe, lack lustre economic and job growth, poor treatment of migrants, a country closer to far-right rule than it has been in a long time, and a select elite getting richer. But then life would have gotten worse for many people even if the UK had voted to stay in the EU, and the leave result did give the establishment a much necessary bloody nose, so you could argue there wasn’t much point voting either way.
This is a genuine question. I don’t have easy answers.
I apologize I didnt mean you ignore you.
yes, and I would have voted against brexit. just like i actively engage in activities that prevent isreali from murdering palestinians.
Classifying shit as propaganda isnt useful. its basically just the dissemination of information at its core good or bad.
The reason activities like cambridge analytica work is because the information is often true and verifiable. We have a long history of moderate dems never delivering on workers interest by always having just enough votes not to.
The only way to get it to not work is for the democrats to start fucking delivering to the working class. but that wont happen until your remove the corporate mouth pieces.
Kamala never would have lost if she came out hard for workers and gaza. instead she gave us… drumroll legalized weed. something 80% of the population already has.
I dont vote for genocide however you wish to classify the scope as more or less.
Here’s the thing though, you could argue that voting in favour of brexit, would have emboldened the centrists and the establishment in the UK, to keep making the lives of the working class worse. Brexit gave them a much necessary bloody nose.
In French they say “Choisir entre la peste et le choléra”. Choosing between plague or cholera. Let’s take the French example:
The French will likely soon get to choose between Le Pen and Macron’s successor. The latter is a likely corrupt centrist dickhead from a party which has lead the country to the brink and emboldened fascists. The former is Le Pen, a Russian aligned fascist.
The propaganda will tell people Macron’s successor is a neo-liberal thief and part of why France is in deep trouble. Which is absolutely true. But the alternative is a literal fascist. You can vote for Macron’s successor, but then the establishment thinks it’s business as usual. You can not bother voting at all, but then it’s likely Le Pen wins…
Electoral systems which favour multi-party governments are often better. But then look at Germany, where ever more parties are forced into a coalition against the far right AfD, because people vote for AfD(or don’t vote against them) in increasing numbers. The propaganda tells them that mainstream parties are incompetent, corrupt, and have ended up costing thousands their jobs. Which is absolutely true.
If Germans don’t vote or vote for smaller parties, they potentially let the fascists in.
If they do vote for a bigger party, who are often quite pro-Israel for historical reasons, it’s likely these parties will think they can get away with business as usual, which emboldens the fascists and further disenfranchises voters for next time around…
Personally, I would always vote for the lesser evil, but I get where you’re coming from.
TLDR: I’m going to watch a shitty vampire show.
Removed by mod
Who said I’m pouting/not playing. just because i dont for your candidate doesnt mean Im not taking actions. Sorry I’m currently busy running a network protecting my local community from the jackboots. LMK when you have a candidate who isnt running on ‘planning to murder friends and family in the middle east’ and ‘going to continue promoting corporate interests at the expense of working americans’ and I’ll vote for them.
You’re literally doing the same thing the person who I called out is doing. inferring incorrect motives from a noisy signal.
I’m just curious if you’re getting involved in grassroots activism, promoting candidates you agree with, canvassing the neighborhood to try to drum up support, etc. Because these are the sorts of things that need to happen in order to produce a candidate you agree with. It’s completely disienguous to put the entire onus of finding a candidate you agree with on other people.
I want you to vote. I care less about who you vote for than I do you voting at all. Exercising your civic right to choose your representation is a big deal, and I encourage you to stop getting mad at other people for not doing your own legwork, and instead get out there and promote a candidate you agree with. Hell, maybe you should run yourself. I don’t know, but I do know that sitting around getting mad because you don’t like the major candidates without doing anything about it gets us all nowhere.
Oh so now someone has to promote candidates they agree with in order to be involved in grassroots organizing
this is an anarchist space
Why is it so hard for people to get that the problem is the system, that by promoting any candidate for any role is promoting the system itself? There will never be a candidate I agree with because the people who are empowered by the American constitution to dissolve the union aren’t elected officials.
“I tried nothing and it didn’t work” isn’t a strategy that works for me.
I’m not going to sit on my butt and complain into the void. I will do everything I can to get to where I want the world to where I hope it can go.
Organizing is not in conflict with anarchism.
Pretending the system doesn’t exist or that not participating in any way will change it is a fool’s errand.
Feel free to find another way to participate, but trying to push others to not do what they can, to me, is (at best) an effort to continue the downward trend.
This is absurd. Electoral organizing isn’t the only kind of organizing. Organizing outside of electoral campaigns is not doing nothing. Telling people the only way to organize or do anything to influence politics is through election campaigns is absolutely in conflict with anarchism.
Who said it was?
You’re coming to absolutely ridiculous conclusions based on fabrications of what I said.
Feel free to point to where I said any of that.
I’ll wait.
This is literally what you’re doing, right now.
Talk about being disingenuous. not to mention holier than thou.
What part of this statement makes you think I havent/dont do all the above. I’m mad that you chuckle fucks keep riding the vote harder while continuing to give your support to candidates neither of us, allegedly, want instead of letting those candidates just lose because they literally suck.
What would that accomplish? Sincerely, no one has been able to explain to me how the slightly-less-bad candidate losing provides any benefit whatsoever.
It’s not like the other mainstream candidate doesn’t also suck, and moreso in fact.
It’s not like if enough people sit out the election it triggers some secret clause written into the Constitution in invisible magic ink. One of the candidates that suck still wins.
I’m genuinely curious, what is supposed to happen if we let them lose? Who does that help besides the slightly shittier candidate?
sounds like a you problem. I’ve addressed this literal question repeatedly.
I’ve read through like this entire comment section, and most of your comments specifically, and I haven’t seen it. Care to link or quote the comment where you answer this question? I can’t find it
I mean, the DSA is doing a half way decent job of that in at least a few electorates…
Indeed they are. guess what candidates I’ve done work for…
Yeah… Reading your other comments, I think you actually have a decent take on this, but I think the way you’re communicating it isn’t working for the audience…
Reading comprehension on their end isnt my problem to solve. They are either incapable or unwilling to comprehend.
What’s the point of communicating if you know that you’re being misunderstood?
It’s not about reading comprehension, it’s about frame coherence. Other people don’t have your particular history of experiences, so some things that make obvious sense to you need more context for other people (the same is true in reverse, obviously).
You are confusing individual action to limit further harm with a candidate’s strategy to win votes. They are not the same thing. No one is saying “we want apathetic do-nothings to win” they’re saying “I’d rather not have the villians win, if possible”
Oi, god people are so dense. Please tell me, which one did I think was not a villian? If you want your candidate to win, please put forward one who isnt a villian and I’ll glad vote for them.
I wasn’t the person you replied to here, but I think we are talking about Palpatine vs Team Rocket here.
I’d vote for Team Rocket over Palpatine any day of the week.
This isnt about you. I’ve told you this repeatedly. Its about the people you’re trying to get to vote and they dont care about your preferences. LMK when you have a point that isnt ‘other people should vote like i do’
I don’t believe I said that at any point, and I’d encourage you to not try and put words in my mouth.
literally the initial comment I responded to w/ you. lol. if you can’t find a candidate you can say ‘hey this is the person you can vote for because of …’ thats a candidates problem. not the voter who has 0 interest in voting for them because they’re shitty.
you’re entire post is ‘vote for this less genocidal candidate’ as if its incentive. fuck off.
I suggested people vote.
You continue to try and make my words something they aren’t, and you can fuck right off with that behavior.
I think you grossly underestimate my understanding.
No, my answer does not change. If you take the time to read it rather than blindly respond to me recommending to vote anyway, you may discover why.
you think not voting is different from voting for the least shit choice. where is my corporate needs you to find the differences photo… if you want someones vote you need to find a candidate that has a platform they’ll vote for. simple as that.
Yes.
It is. And I consider it foolish to pretend otherwise.
Exactly, I understood your point precisely. The problem is you dont understand human behavior and its why you end up losing. repeatedly. to trump.
You: I dont have to change! You have to change!.
Other person: walks away
You: shocked pikachu
No, you clearly did not understand.
“Not voting” is a message of apathy, not discontent.
“Not voting” is being OK with things as they are.
“Not voting” is not taking every avenue possible.
“Not voting” is nothing more than giving up.
You should try reading my comment again.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
No, its not. you can’t infer that. jfc people read what I’m writing to you.
Not Voting can mean a number of things depending on the individual, including but not limited to:
If ALL candidates are unacceptable from the get go that’s a candidate issue not the voters problem. thats literally the definition of a line in the sand. the fact you can’t distinguish it from ‘being fine with either’ doesnt mean what you’re implying is true. BOTH voters are fairly easy to win over long as your candidate isnt ideologically opposed to something they actually care about.
Here is a simple action you can take to distinguish between the two non-voters: ‘What issue would get you to support candidate Y?’
-> if they give a policy that neither candidate is running on you’ve found someone who finds both objectionable.
-> if they say they’re not interested in politics / can’t think of anything then you’ve found someone who is actually indifferent.
you need to approach these two voters very differently when trying to get them to vote. For example: my answer is ‘support universal health care, fix the visa program so people are not tied to a company, set a inflation matching living wage’ there are a ton of issues personally that would get me to cast my vote, and not a single one starts with ‘but Y (republicans) are X (murdering children)!’ or uses the phrase ‘least worse choice’.
You can get away with the ‘least worse choice’ nonsense with the indifferent candidate. but you’re still more likely to win them over with something they want.
As I said. you’re not understanding.
false. I vote every election, I dont vote for everything on the ballot, sometimes i leave the ballot empty. two very different things. all you need to do is look at mandami’s results for the distinction. spend some time there and understand that there are many people willing to show up for the right candidate but wont show up for the shitshow that is the dem party currently.
You need to stop putting your values into your distinctions between the tiers.
So… You didn’t “not vote”. Cool. What I said. Awesome.
I think there is some fundamental confusion here that I can’t go into your brain and point to.
There are many things on a ballot, and many different dems. There are members of the DSA running under the dem ticket. There are members of the WFP running under the dem ticket.
I will apologize only slightly for the caps here - NOT VOTING SENDS A MESSAGE THAT YOU ARE OK WITH ANY OUTCOME. Whether you want that to be the message or not is inconsequential. If you want to do something about the candidates, DO IT MORE THAN A MONTH AND CHANGE BEFORE AN ELECTION.
If thats a message you are OK with, go for it.
I’m not.
Edit: mobile typo.
Lol, then walk away bro. All I see if you here struggling to prove yourself right.
That sounds like a you problem. ;)
functionally I’m grateful harris lost it woke a lot of people up. sadly not you though. you’ll continue trucking on with your ‘at least I voted for the least horrible fucking option!’ path blindly until the ground falls out below you into fascism.
You’re glad we’re at war with Iran? You’re glad ICE is murdering citizens and disappearing non citizens with impunity? You are 14
“I’m grateful people are dying, children are being murdered, and families are being torn apart because I feel like some people realized Trump does bad things” is a pretty shit take IMO.