122
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by shreddy_scientist@lemmy.ml to c/usa@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

You'll vote for trump/desantis then? Or will you kid yourself by saying "not voting isn't the same as voting for trump"?

[-] kingthrillgore@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

No, it is entirely voting for Trump/DeSantis if I stay home. And it will be the consequence. My patience for the Dems to fix things, as impossible as it is, is running out. I am ready to let the accelerationsists have their fun and leave us a burning husk of a world. Let the heavens fall.

...I may change my mind on this when the time comes.

I'm just frustrated that i've been above the board in every possible way, empathetic, nice, and compassionate, just like I was raised to be; and the world has become jaded and bitter, and a few rich fucks have doomed our future. I can't keep doing this forever. My desire for revenge grows.

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

There are two options.

Option 1: You get 60% of the things you want.

Option 2: You get nothing.

You pick... Option 2?

Edited to add: This attitude is very peculiar and seems to be specific to whiny liberals. You almost never see conservatives make such statements. They'll complain about how RINOs aren't what they want but would never even consider voting for the other party as a result.

[-] APassenger@lemmy.one 0 points 1 year ago

There are other options. The Constitution affords us numerous rights, including protest, among others.

They said they're mad that nothing changes for the better and you said, why not spend an hour a year doing something.

I think they're open to more. I'd like to see more doing more. THAT's how things change.

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Your "other options" are not mutually exclusive with "voting for the least bad option".

I think this is why the older republicans win over young democrats. They realize that they need to compromise and pick something that is less "bad" to them. The kids in the democrat party whine and protest - but don't vote.

[-] APassenger@lemmy.one 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm not saying to do something other than voting. I'm saying you keep framing this like that's the only thing when they could do more.

Voting is not the only option. It's a good one, but we have more/additonal.

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

You made all that up. I never said nor implied it was the only thing you can do. But you should do it as it's the most effective thing you can do.

[-] APassenger@lemmy.one 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You've done it here, you're doing it in others threads.

Instead of telling them to vote for a candidate they barely believe in, why not recommend they find candidates they like, locally, state, etc and help them. But then in general elections, vote for someone who can win.

It's an entire extra sentence that takes less time than calling them whiny.

You're boiling the options down to a suck ass, "eat your dinner" message and if you want to prevent rightward movement, I think calls to action are better.

We move things to the correct position by having candidates that make a compelling case for why this (waves around) isn't working. Then voting for what we got when we must.

Edit: it is NOT the most effective thing to do. Getting additional people to vote is more effective than standing in line individually like a dumb ass and saying, "this is the best I can do." You can do more than that.

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You’ve done it here, you’re doing it in others threads.

No - it's what you want me to be doing because that's what you have arguments against. But it's not what I'm doing.

Instead of telling them to vote for a candidate they barely believe in, why not recommend they find candidates they like, locally, state, etc and help them. But then in general elections, vote for someone who can win.

So.. You're saying they should vote for somebody on the ballot even if they barely agree with them?

We move things to the correct position by having candidates that make a compelling case for why this (waves around) isn’t working. Then voting for what we got when we must.

So you ARE saying they should vote for a candidate they barely support.

Edit: it is NOT the most effective thing to do. Getting additional people to vote is more effective than standing in line individually like a dumb ass and saying, “this is the best I can do.” You can do more than that.

So voting is the most effective thing people can do?

Do you fucking realize that you don't disagree with me and that I don't disagree with you?

EDIT: Here's the thing internet - if I say "eating broccoli is healthy!" I'm not saying "eat only broccoli!" or "eating other vegetables is NOT healthy!" So if I say "voting is the most important thing you can do" I'm NOT saying "only go to the polls and do nothing else!"

[-] APassenger@lemmy.one 0 points 1 year ago

I provided a cogent reply explaining that getting more people to vote is more effective than simply voting alone.

All I was asking is why you're telling people they have to vote for "x" when it's clear they want options.

Tell them how to find/create them but, yes, like you I want their support in a general.

They could do other things:

  • organize
  • get out the vote
  • run for office (even low/local helps)
  • protest

Example: sometimes protest moves things further than voting. What I have above gives them a way to be involved and help move things in a positive direction.

If they cause 9 more people to vote, but miss the date themselves. Are we worse off?

Telling them that voting for someone they barely agree with is the most important thing... it's not the packaging that I think most find compelling.

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Telling them that voting for someone they barely agree with is the most important thing… it’s not the packaging that I think most find compelling.

Remember that this entire thread began because I was replying to somebody who literally said they would NOT vote for Biden because they were mad about his Union support.

They then doubled down and said they'd be fine if that supported Trump as a result.

From your replies I would infer that you would also support my position of "just go vote anyway". You can do all the other things if you want. Fine - I don't see why you're even arguing with me.

[-] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 year ago

Do we live in a democracy or not? How come not voting for biden is the same as voting for trump, but not voting for trump isn't the same as voting for biden? So how about if our democratically elected representatives don't represent our interests, we DO NOT VOTE FOR THEM? Is that too much to ask for in a supposed democracy?

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

It lowers the bar for Trump/DeSantis to take a "likely democratic voter" and have them not vote. It's like playing a sport and purposefully NOT taking a free shot on goal. It's not quite the same as scoring for the other team, but it's also not "nothing" since it makes it easier for the other team than it would have been.

[-] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml -3 points 1 year ago

Sure but this "sport" has more than 2 teams, and also 100million more participants then who you are focusing on. I'd say that participating in the minor distraction of the two teams competing to see who can get the most money from lobbyists is probably the worst thing you can do.

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Sure but this “sport” has more than 2 teams

No. No it does not.

[-] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 year ago

In first past the post there will only be two teams, but fortunately you do not need to vote for the Capitalists. You should not vote for the Capitalist, and if you do vote for them you are a bad person.

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

If you choose not to participate or not to vote you deserve the government you get.

[-] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 year ago

Agreed. Vote for the solution, and that means never voting for R or D.

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Vote for any of the options on the ballot. You won't find anyone but R and D though. But pick one - and stop the petulant whining. Change comes through voting - not by bitching.

[-] APassenger@lemmy.one 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

He needs to be primaried, tradition or not.

He's done an assortment of good things. He's also older and sympathetic to economic "centrism."

I'd like to see a credible democratic challenger primary him and force him to maintain a more left leaning posture. If done correctly, he'd re-message and it would help him in the general.

We need to pull people out of their culture war mindset and get them voting for their own best interests. Fanciful notions of "the wrong gender" in a restroom aren't going to matter as much as domestic economic health, global climate change, or a changing geo-economic outlook. We need people voting real-worl issues and someone who can message to that.

I'll add: everyone deserves certain fundamental rights. So when I say culture war, I'm referring to DeSantis types. I have no quarrel with treating LGBTQ+ with respect and decency.

this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2023
122 points (100.0% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7212 readers
348 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS