this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2024

-46 points (29.5% liked)

Progressive Politics

884 readers

228 users here now

Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)

(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

TokenBoomer@lemmy.world

-46

New Phone, Who Dis? (lemmy.world)

submitted 2 weeks ago by Linkerbaan@lemmy.world to c/progressivepolitics@lemmy.world

37 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 37 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] solsangraal@lemmy.zip 20 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

[+] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world -13 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I think OP is dumb but I don't understand how you people can reconcile "we have to save our democracy!" with "if you don't vote for our party, you're vote is worthless."

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Logic. We do it with basic logic.

[–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world -4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Please break down that logic for me

[–] lengau@midwest.social 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Harm reduction. The two options with a non-zero chance of winning are the two major parties. Voting third-party or not voting is essentially splitting your vote between those two major parties. So in the short term, you vote for the harm reduction option while you work to get better options in the long term.

[–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world -4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

Democracy isn't the right to vote for the Democratic Party, it's the right to vote, period. That means you have to defend the rights of people whose beliefs you strongly disagree with. If you actually care about democracy as a concept, you cannot actually defend the statement "People who don't vote for me party shouldn't vote."

So in the short term, you vote for the harm reduction option

No, you vote for the candidate that you support. That's how democracy works. If a person decides for themselves that they're willing to concede some beliefs for a candidate with better odds of winning, who's better in the long-run, etc., then that's fine, too, but they (as in, the voter) have to make that decision on their own.

spoiler

If it stings, that means it's working.

[–] lengau@midwest.social 7 points 2 weeks ago

No, I can't defend a strawman you're posing. But I don't have to. I only have to defend my own positions, which are:

Under the current system in the US, voting third party is at best ineffective, but often actively harmful.
People who advocate for people on the left voting third-party are either ignorant of the fact that said actions make a fascist takeover of the US more likely or, worse yet, aware of that fact. Either way, their actions are tantamount to advocating for fascism, whether they're an intentional bad actor or not.

Your comment above implies that by supporting people's right to vote, I give up my right to advocate for how they should vote, which is part of where the strawman comes from. I can defend their right to vote whilst also saying that voting certain ways are stupid or harmful. I never have to say "good on ya for making a terrible decision."

[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

Either Harris will win, or the insurrectionist promising to be a dictator will win. The latter has theocratic fascist groups drawing up game plans and a theocratic fascist SCOTUS has granted him a Long Knife.

"If you actually care about democracy as a concept." I do. I wish we had democracy instead of FPTP.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

There's almost no chance you haven't heard it a million times and rejected it repeatedly

[+] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world -6 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Assume I haven't. Just indulge me, because "we have to prevent people from voting the way they want to vote to protect democracy" doesn't add up to me.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I remember you from the past. I can explain that your protest vote is not more important than preventing fascism until I'm blue in the face, but it would be like talking to a wall.

[+] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world -6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Who ever said anything about a protest vote?

You do know there are third party supporters who vote for them because they actually support the policies, right? Although I do suppose this is probably an alien concept for someone whose only reason for voting the way they do is because "they're not the other guy."

until I'm blue in the face

Heh

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

It's a protest vote because you know without any doubt whatsoever that the third party candidate could not possibly win. They will surely lose and you will have done nothing to prevent the harm that Trump will certainly bring if elected. It would not be a protest vote if you knew that in America third party candidates could win, but you know the opposite is true.

If you think I'm going back and forth on this bad faith escapade, you're mistaken. It is literally the same fucking argument every time with you people.

[–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world -3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It’s a protest vote because you know without any doubt whatsoever that the third party candidate could not possibly win.

That's not what a protest vote means. "Vote for the person you want to" is the foundation of democracy. You cannot subvert that concept and still claim to be pro-Democracy.

They will surely lose and you will have done nothing to prevent the harm that Trump will certainly bring if elected.

A well-informed voter would be aware of this and will have decided that support of the third party is worth more than that. As a self-descibred savoir of democracy, you have to respect their choice or recognize yourself as a hypocrite.

It is literally the same fucking argument every time with you people.

Ditto. It's always the same "We love democracy! Unless you don't support The Party, then your vote doesn't matter. Vote for us even if you don't want to because we'll protect your right to vote (for our party)," coupled with some weird Abrahamic Doomsday scaremongering to keep the rubes in line.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Didn't read this boring/unoriginal excuse for an argument

[–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world -3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

But you surely took the time to dowvote it immediately 👍 okay dude

U lost lol

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Nah I'm not a third party candidate...

Curious, why did you waste our time here? You 100% knew it would end like this, you knew it even before I told you it would.

Edit: no response so I assume it was canvassing

[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

"Assume I haven't. Just indulge me," has got to be the most hilarious and self-aware thing a sealion has ever written.

[+] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world -6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Liberal Credo:

Your vote has no influence on politics, all politicians are sold to AIPAC
You must vote Democrat to save Democracy no matter what.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Trump-shill credo:

Gaza is 100% the most important issue in world history
Trump isn't an allowed topic
Post that the war is directly Democrats' fault every single day, constantly
Encourage voting to increase the slaughter
I'm the only one who cares about Palestinians

[–] solsangraal@lemmy.zip 6 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

i remember OP's username as someone who habitually posts the same "if you vote for dems, then you're pro-genocide" dreck. it's refreshing to see the post's votes are in the negative

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Agreed. Immediately after the election happens I expect them to disappear.

if you vote for dems, then you’re pro-genocide

It has never once bothered them that the reverse is true in reality. They won't engage about that at all because there's nothing they can say.

[–] solsangraal@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

pretty telling also that there's never a single mention of what candidate people SHOULD be voting for, ostensibly in order to end the genocide. nope, it's only "u R pRo GeNoCiDe" if you vote D

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Haha so this guy sometimes bounces between Cornell West and Jill Stein, I'm guessing according to whichever seems less bonkers at the time. If he's talking to someone who understands basic logic, he knows not to bother and instead just deflects any mention of trump asap

[–] solsangraal@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

i'll be the first to admit, i learned my lesson when i voted for jill stein in 2016--

never. again.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

Thank you for caring enough to admit to yourself that you were wrong. It's not easy to do.

[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

It's not so much "habitual" as it is "exclusively" and "ubiquitously."

[–] Soulg@sh.itjust.works 12 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

You know, I'm starting to really question what you guys think you're going to accomplish if we're to take you at your word that you're not just pro Trump in disguise.

Everyone already knows about Gaza. A significant amount of us are also upset about it and hate it. So your constant posts demanding it be the topic instead of whatever else a post may be about (I'm referring to comments here, not necessarily cases where you start your own post like this one), what are you even trying to achieve? We literally cannot do anything about it. Harris has said she's against the war, so there's a chance that headway could be made.

Trump has advocated for "finishing the job" repeatedly, and recent reporting came out claiming that he was outright urging Netanyahu to reject any cease fire deal explicitly to help himself win.

I get that Harris could be doing more, but seriously, what the hell do you want us, the people you're actually screaming at, to do about it? You're being insufferable cunts to everyone who is even slightly different from you in terms of opinion, then accuse everyone of being pro genocide for calling you out for your bullshit. If you're not foreign provocateurs or trying to help Trump win, then what the fuck are you even trying to do?

[–] FlaminGoku@reddthat.com 6 points 2 weeks ago

It's to try to sow discord among voters as a wedge issue.

These "people" are either Russian or Chinese trolls.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Trump has advocated for "finishing the job"

The only logical conclusion is that Linkerbaan also wants the job finished.

[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Linkerbaan wants the guy who bombed the fuck out of Yemen to take over because this genocide isn't fast enough for their tastes.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah, I don't even think they're paid anymore. Money can't buy bloodlust like this.

[–] feddylemmy@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

Funny how they didn't get the new talking points yet. Same old attempt at trying to get people to not vote.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 11 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Working overtime as the election nears. Most of your posts blaming Israel's sovereign actions on America, never ever mentioning or acknowledging Trump being many times worse even when directly asked about it. Or even when news occurs that confirms it. Totally a mystery why it's unequivocally "the Democrats' fault" and no one else's, not even Netanyahu's...

When will you admit that you don't give a rat's ass about Palestinians?

I suspect right after the election when your account suddenly goes dormant or gets deleted.

[–] tpihkal@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

Vermin Supreme 2024! Why buy an EV when you could have a free pony?