this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2024
535 points (85.5% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2635 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Genocide is bad. Multiple genocides, and faster, is worse. One genocide is closer to my preferred ideology of zero genocides than that same genocide but worse, plus additional genocides. The only people who are unconvinced by that arithmetic are idealists who care more about maintaining their ideological purity than actually helping people.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'm not voting for any genocide, sorry. It sucks you have no red line, no limit to your loyalty, no bottom depth to your depravity you willingly vote for, but I have a simple one:

No genocide.

Until the US stops contributing soft power, arms, cash, and troops on the ground to a genocide, the people in exclusive control of that don't get my vote.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how voting works, mechanically, in a FPTP system. You don't vote for things. You vote against them.

Once RCV takes hold (thank your local and state representatives) I'll be right there beside you voting my conscience. Until then, that's not a productive strategy. It does not achieve the intended goal.

Lesser evil buys time. Vote for progressives on your state ballots. If there aren't any, vote for progressives on your local ballots. If there aren't any, run for local office as a progressive.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

You've been voting the lesser evil for 80 years, does it feel like it's bought you time?

I'm not voting for genocide, in voting against it, hence why I'm not voting for Dems or Reps.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Sounds like you're voting hard in favor of worse genocide. Either that or basic logic isn't your strong suit and you're doing it unknowingly

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

"worse genocide" do you people actually read what you type?

Say that out loud to yourself. That you are voting for less genocide instead of no genocide, and then tell me you're still the good guy.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I can use logic to defend my view much unlike yourself. Accelerationists are the fucking worst 🤮

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Let me know when you start doing that, then. I'm sure the Palestinians appreciate that they're the only ones to be genocide by your direct choices, I'm sure they're happy you voted for "less genocide" instead of no genocide.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Oh, stop. The best personal choice to actually help Palestinians is to vote for Harris.

Outcomes are how you further ideals.

And the “say everything possible to equate Democrats with Genocide” tactic is so worn out.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Palestinians seem to think otherwise, at least the ones here. But I guess you wouldn't be a white savior if you didn't override their voice, like you do with pretty much anyone of color that doesn't vote dem.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

I no longer waste my time arguing with walls

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You've been voting the lesser evil for 80 years, does it feel like it's bought you time?

Unequivocally yes. Imagine if the right wing clinched power in 1944 and never lost traction. You think civil rights would be better?

I'm not voting for genocide, in voting against it, hence why I'm not voting for Dems or Reps.

What's that accomplished in the last 80 years?

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The right wing did clinch power in 1944, hence the dramatic stop to progressive legislation.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Strange, that's right about when the entire civil rights movement started. What are you smoking?

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The 1940s is the mid 1830s?

Also the civil rights movement was not supported by government, and especially not the Dems.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

If we're being pedantic, we can go bank to the Magna Carta, or Hammurabi as the beginning of civil rights. But you're the one who set the 80 year mark, which coincides with the 20th century civil rights movement which was a distinct movement from the abolitionism of the 1830s.

But you're wrong either way. The 20th century civil rights movement was absolutely supported by Democrats, or was Lyndon Johnson not a Democrat when he signed the voting rights act?

And the 19th century civil rights movement was championed by the pre-switch liberal Republican party. So yes, the liberal party has been supportive, if not integral, to civil rights. You'd have to be pretty poorly educated in US history to be ignorant of that fact.