The genocide argument is a really bad one. Yes the Biden administration is culpable. The Trump administration would pump more money into it and start parading around the genocide like it’s a good thing.
There’s voting for the side who might get tired of the public opposition and stop funding that shit, or letting the genocidal wannabe dictator win.
No I’m thinking in terms of we cannot revive the dead so let’s not put the genocidal wannabe dictator in power for 4 years. I clearly can’t stop what’s currently happening but I’m sure as hell not going to vote in a way that results in more people dying more quickly.
You mistake accepting genocide with trying to prevent a worse genocide.
Okay, so when the election happens, vote to keep the fascists out of power, and every other day the 4 years in between do something to push politics in the direction you want it to go.
Okay, so we punish the Democrats and the Republicans necessarily win as a result. Hopefully that’s not a controversial assumption.
How many such intentional losses should be planned on so that we can get the Democrats try to move left to recapture support? How are we going to ensure they try to better court the left instead of moving to the right?
I’m always so confused by this argument because “punishing the Democrats by letting Republicans win”…wouldn’t the assumption just be that the people WANT a more right wing government?
Wouldn’t that simply encourage politicians to be like “Oh, the crazies won last time. Maybe that’s who our voting block is now. Maybe it’s time to also be crazy.”
I’m not asking you to read minds. Just to explain how this works in your mind. I understand the frustration, and desire to express it, and the expression I’m, possibly incorrectly, assuming you have is to not vote for them. What is the process by which this accomplishes more than making Republicans win elections, and pushing the Democrats to the right?
Okay, fair. I asked that in that way because I believe that politicians listen primarily to corporations, sure, and secondarily to reliable voting blocs. My thought was that by proving to be an unreliable voting bloc, there’s a reasonable risk that instead of trying to court that bloc to make it turn out more, they would just go after other blocs that already are reliable.
But! You don’t think the democrats would try to court the right instead of the left if the left proves to be an unreliable voter bloc. Fair! What about the rest? We punish them via withholding of votes, they lose, and then… by what mechanism are they pushed to the left? By the loss, or is there more to the idea? What if they don’t, or don’t do it good enough? Withhold votes and make them lose again? Is there ever an adjustment to the plan, or is it just an unfortunate helping of our ideological opponents for however long it takes for the Democrats to get it right?
deleted by creator
The genocide argument is a really bad one. Yes the Biden administration is culpable. The Trump administration would pump more money into it and start parading around the genocide like it’s a good thing.
There’s voting for the side who might get tired of the public opposition and stop funding that shit, or letting the genocidal wannabe dictator win.
deleted by creator
No I’m thinking in terms of we cannot revive the dead so let’s not put the genocidal wannabe dictator in power for 4 years. I clearly can’t stop what’s currently happening but I’m sure as hell not going to vote in a way that results in more people dying more quickly.
You mistake accepting genocide with trying to prevent a worse genocide.
Okay, so when the election happens, vote to keep the fascists out of power, and every other day the 4 years in between do something to push politics in the direction you want it to go.
Okay, so we punish the Democrats and the Republicans necessarily win as a result. Hopefully that’s not a controversial assumption.
How many such intentional losses should be planned on so that we can get the Democrats try to move left to recapture support? How are we going to ensure they try to better court the left instead of moving to the right?
I’m always so confused by this argument because “punishing the Democrats by letting Republicans win”…wouldn’t the assumption just be that the people WANT a more right wing government?
Wouldn’t that simply encourage politicians to be like “Oh, the crazies won last time. Maybe that’s who our voting block is now. Maybe it’s time to also be crazy.”
deleted by creator
I’m not asking you to read minds. Just to explain how this works in your mind. I understand the frustration, and desire to express it, and the expression I’m, possibly incorrectly, assuming you have is to not vote for them. What is the process by which this accomplishes more than making Republicans win elections, and pushing the Democrats to the right?
deleted by creator
Okay, fair. I asked that in that way because I believe that politicians listen primarily to corporations, sure, and secondarily to reliable voting blocs. My thought was that by proving to be an unreliable voting bloc, there’s a reasonable risk that instead of trying to court that bloc to make it turn out more, they would just go after other blocs that already are reliable.
But! You don’t think the democrats would try to court the right instead of the left if the left proves to be an unreliable voter bloc. Fair! What about the rest? We punish them via withholding of votes, they lose, and then… by what mechanism are they pushed to the left? By the loss, or is there more to the idea? What if they don’t, or don’t do it good enough? Withhold votes and make them lose again? Is there ever an adjustment to the plan, or is it just an unfortunate helping of our ideological opponents for however long it takes for the Democrats to get it right?
deleted by creator