This is just a monstrous reframing of a bipartisan genocide. Voting dem or voting rep is a vote for genocide, full stop, because they support the same genocide to the same magnitude, materially. Pretending Dems are better because genocide makes some of their voterbase sad is wrong.
I will use my vote to choose the least genocide that it has the power to choose
Look, if you don’t care about LGBT folks, women who need abortions, asylum seekers, etc. you can pull that “don’t care” lever. But “I care about making a symbolic, but ultimately toothless, gesture about Palestine more than I care about the lives of thousands, possibly millions of others” is what voting third-party is telling the system right now. If that makes you feel morally superior, we’re at an impasse because I don’t know how to explain to someone that an action to save lives is more powerful than an unrealistic gesture about saving even more lives, but which will realistically increase the amount of death and suffering.
Is there a red line for you in the sand, or would you vote for Hitler if 101% Hitler was running? When do you abandon hope in the Democrats, if being genocidal Imperialists doing nothing to help marginalized groups, and are running to the right of Trump in 2016 with respect to immigration, doesn’t?
That’s a non-sequitur, because that’s not what’s happening by any means. But thanks for ceding the point that you’re okay feeling morally superior by doing something that’ll get more people killed.
Yes yes, we all see the rhetorical trap you’re trying to deploy. It’s not exactly subtle.
Meanwhile in the real world, in most of the US there is no realistic alternative to the red/blue dichotomy, and so while we’re actually building that alternative we have to choose between those two. At the national level and in most (possibly all) senate/house races, that’s the reality of the situation. You either work with the coalition you think is less evil and try to convince them to be even less evil, or you admit that you’re okay with the more evil option if it gives you a feeling of moral superiority.
Meanwhile in the real world, in most of the US there is no realistic alternative to the red/blue dichotomy, and so while we’re actually building that alternative we have to choose between those two.
You aren’t building the alternative, you’re arguing against building the alternative. You support the status quo.
You either work with the coalition you think is less evil and try to convince them to be even less evil, or you admit that you’re okay with the more evil option if it gives you a feeling of moral superiority
Correct, you’re doing the latter while I’m doing the former. Trying to work with Socialists and build a good party is better than sitting on your hands and giving the genocidal imperialists the keys forever.
Look, if you don’t care about LGBT folks, women who need abortions, asylum seekers, etc. you can pull that “don’t care” lever
Not a person living in USA, wouldn’t a coalition govt be better then, as the Roe vs Wade issue happened while the Democrats were in power?
Or are coalitions not allowed?
Or is the central govt powerless in such issues?
The US government is essentially a theatre troup trying to convince the public there is nothing outside the 2 party system, while both parties serve their donors alone.
The overturning of Roe vs. Wade was a direct consequence of Trump’s election, as it was the three justices he was able to appoint (including Mitch McConnell’s fuckery about Merrick Garland) who changed the Supreme Court’s makeup to include so many right-wing partisans.
Aah. Thank you.
Would the govt be able to create any laws to counter the case being overturned?
And unrelated:
Could the Green party and Democrats form a coalition and choose the President accordingly, if the results are bad?
I’m an Indian, where we have parliamentary democracy.
Parties can form coalitions and the leader set by the coalition becomes the Prime minister and the President is not as powerful, eventhough they’re technically the head of the nation.
Is it different in USA? If Trumps gains most votes, can the Greens and Democrats channel votes against him by creating a coalition?
That’s hard to say. With the current makeup of the supreme court, it’s likely they’d simply declare any law protecting abortion rights as unconstitutional because mumble mumble and get away with it. But what’s preventing them from doing even that is that Republicans (thanks in large part to politicised redrawing of district boundaries) have a majority in one of the two legislative bodies, so the Democrats couldn’t pass that protection regardless.
So likely the minimum that’s needed to codify abortion rights would be a Democratic majority in both legislative houses and a Democratic president.
On the topic of coalitions: The US doesn’t have coalitions in the ways many other countries have, partially because of the way the president is elected. Voters have a separate item on their ballot to elect (electors who will then vote in the electoral college for) the president. The way this occurs is through first past the post, where the largest portion of the votes (even if a minority) gets all the electors in that state (except in Nebraska and New Hampshire, where the state breaks it into districts). I’m in Michigan, for example. In 2016, Donald Trump got 47.5% of the vote in Michigan to Hillary Clinton’s 47.3% and thus got all 16 of Michigan’s electoral votes (out of 538). Had 11,000 more people voted for Clinton (let’s say, by not voting for the Green party), she would have won Michigan’s electoral votes, which is a 3% swing in the electoral college, but given that most states are pretty much guaranteed to go one way or the other (e.g. Indiana is a safe Republican state while neighbouring Illinois is a safe Democratic state), those 11,000 votes would be massively influential. This is why “swing states” are so stupidly pivotal in US elections.
So because of all of that, there’s not an option for the Greens to join a coalition, even if they wanted to (which I don’t think they would, as the US Green party is currently under the control of a Russian asset and it’s well known that Putin wants a Trump victory).
The American electoral system is ridiculously, stupidly backwards and basically designed to empower certain people over others. If there were a parliamentary democracy here the US, and probably the world (given the US’s love for foreign intervention), would be much better off.
Could the Green party and Democrats form a coalition and choose the President accordingly
They certainly could, but why would they? Not only democratic party stand for a lot of things greens find unacceptable (and vice versa), but disproportion between both parties is so huge that greens would at best got given some paltry compensation (and a huge bill of firming democratic party atrocities with their names, this would essentially be their end) and most likely just become completely ignored and cut off after election.
What I’m going to have to explain to them is why I voted “don’t care” in 2016. That’s a mistake I will forever have to live with. But if I can convince a few people not to make that same mistake, I will at least be able to reduce the harm I did.
This is just a monstrous reframing of a bipartisan genocide. Voting dem or voting rep is a vote for genocide, full stop, because they support the same genocide to the same magnitude, materially. Pretending Dems are better because genocide makes some of their voterbase sad is wrong.
Then vote Greens or PSL.
Sorry, I’m not going to vote “don’t care” on genocide no matter how many faux leftists pretend it’s the morally superior option.
It’s morally superior to vote for genocide but pretend your flavor of genocide isn’t the exact same as the other flavor of genocide.
Look, if you don’t care about LGBT folks, women who need abortions, asylum seekers, etc. you can pull that “don’t care” lever. But “I care about making a symbolic, but ultimately toothless, gesture about Palestine more than I care about the lives of thousands, possibly millions of others” is what voting third-party is telling the system right now. If that makes you feel morally superior, we’re at an impasse because I don’t know how to explain to someone that an action to save lives is more powerful than an unrealistic gesture about saving even more lives, but which will realistically increase the amount of death and suffering.
Is there a red line for you in the sand, or would you vote for Hitler if 101% Hitler was running? When do you abandon hope in the Democrats, if being genocidal Imperialists doing nothing to help marginalized groups, and are running to the right of Trump in 2016 with respect to immigration, doesn’t?
That’s a non-sequitur, because that’s not what’s happening by any means. But thanks for ceding the point that you’re okay feeling morally superior by doing something that’ll get more people killed.
So either there’s no red line, or genocide doesn’t matter if it’s against Muslims for you.
Yes yes, we all see the rhetorical trap you’re trying to deploy. It’s not exactly subtle.
Meanwhile in the real world, in most of the US there is no realistic alternative to the red/blue dichotomy, and so while we’re actually building that alternative we have to choose between those two. At the national level and in most (possibly all) senate/house races, that’s the reality of the situation. You either work with the coalition you think is less evil and try to convince them to be even less evil, or you admit that you’re okay with the more evil option if it gives you a feeling of moral superiority.
You aren’t building the alternative, you’re arguing against building the alternative. You support the status quo.
Correct, you’re doing the latter while I’m doing the former. Trying to work with Socialists and build a good party is better than sitting on your hands and giving the genocidal imperialists the keys forever.
Not a person living in USA, wouldn’t a coalition govt be better then, as the Roe vs Wade issue happened while the Democrats were in power?
Or are coalitions not allowed?
Or is the central govt powerless in such issues?
The US government is essentially a theatre troup trying to convince the public there is nothing outside the 2 party system, while both parties serve their donors alone.
The overturning of Roe vs. Wade was a direct consequence of Trump’s election, as it was the three justices he was able to appoint (including Mitch McConnell’s fuckery about Merrick Garland) who changed the Supreme Court’s makeup to include so many right-wing partisans.
Aah. Thank you.
Would the govt be able to create any laws to counter the case being overturned?
And unrelated:
Could the Green party and Democrats form a coalition and choose the President accordingly, if the results are bad?
I’m an Indian, where we have parliamentary democracy.
Parties can form coalitions and the leader set by the coalition becomes the Prime minister and the President is not as powerful, eventhough they’re technically the head of the nation.
Is it different in USA? If Trumps gains most votes, can the Greens and Democrats channel votes against him by creating a coalition?
That’s hard to say. With the current makeup of the supreme court, it’s likely they’d simply declare any law protecting abortion rights as unconstitutional because mumble mumble and get away with it. But what’s preventing them from doing even that is that Republicans (thanks in large part to politicised redrawing of district boundaries) have a majority in one of the two legislative bodies, so the Democrats couldn’t pass that protection regardless.
So likely the minimum that’s needed to codify abortion rights would be a Democratic majority in both legislative houses and a Democratic president.
On the topic of coalitions: The US doesn’t have coalitions in the ways many other countries have, partially because of the way the president is elected. Voters have a separate item on their ballot to elect (electors who will then vote in the electoral college for) the president. The way this occurs is through first past the post, where the largest portion of the votes (even if a minority) gets all the electors in that state (except in Nebraska and New Hampshire, where the state breaks it into districts). I’m in Michigan, for example. In 2016, Donald Trump got 47.5% of the vote in Michigan to Hillary Clinton’s 47.3% and thus got all 16 of Michigan’s electoral votes (out of 538). Had 11,000 more people voted for Clinton (let’s say, by not voting for the Green party), she would have won Michigan’s electoral votes, which is a 3% swing in the electoral college, but given that most states are pretty much guaranteed to go one way or the other (e.g. Indiana is a safe Republican state while neighbouring Illinois is a safe Democratic state), those 11,000 votes would be massively influential. This is why “swing states” are so stupidly pivotal in US elections.
So because of all of that, there’s not an option for the Greens to join a coalition, even if they wanted to (which I don’t think they would, as the US Green party is currently under the control of a Russian asset and it’s well known that Putin wants a Trump victory).
The American electoral system is ridiculously, stupidly backwards and basically designed to empower certain people over others. If there were a parliamentary democracy here the US, and probably the world (given the US’s love for foreign intervention), would be much better off.
They certainly could, but why would they? Not only democratic party stand for a lot of things greens find unacceptable (and vice versa), but disproportion between both parties is so huge that greens would at best got given some paltry compensation (and a huge bill of firming democratic party atrocities with their names, this would essentially be their end) and most likely just become completely ignored and cut off after election.
You’re going to have to explain this convoluted logic to your grandchildren when they ask you why you voted for genocide.
What I’m going to have to explain to them is why I voted “don’t care” in 2016. That’s a mistake I will forever have to live with. But if I can convince a few people not to make that same mistake, I will at least be able to reduce the harm I did.