148
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2024
148 points (83.3% liked)
News
36086 readers
3175 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
No you don't. Because you have 2 options: Biden or Trump. If you are considering Trump as a legitimate pick, then just say you're a fascist and save everyone time.
Despite what the internet says, most of America is not that progressive. Else we'd have more progressive candidates down ballot. People love to bitch and whine about how there's no good options. Well that's because America is pretty conservative on a lot of issues. It's not like there's this giant leap from left-leaning to far-right fascists. It's a huge spectrum. People not wanting to recognize this is why we get posts like this.
If America was truly as progressive as some people thought, a third party could sweep the Democrats with a popular progressive candidate. Unfortunately that's just not the case. But it is changing. Albeit slowly.
So get out there and campaign or run for office. Because this kind of grandstanding only creates voter apathy.
In a word, no. The GOP and the DNC actively collude to ensure that no one else can compete.
So our choices are 1) fascists who support a fascist or 2) ethnic cleansing apologists who are 100% okay with voting for the man supplying weapons and aid to those committing the cleansing.
Hitler was voted in.
Part of the problem with the political system of fascism is that it leads to scapegoating and then genocide.
We've got genocide right now, though.
Not quite. He was named chancellor. https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/adolf-hitler-1
But your point stands: Hitler gained power in a legitimate fashion. Chancellorship (it's why that's the fascist win condition in Secret Hitler, not Hitler being elected President). And then he took the rest of the power and made himself a dictator. Which is why we should be absolutely terrified of risking a Trump election. Giving him the pretense of legitimacy will only make it that much easier for him to take absolute power. And Trump has said he would. He said he'd be "dictator for a day". Which is the biggest red flag possible.
Yeah fucking right. Money is the number one determining factor in candidate success, and after that it is the organizational power of the DNC. How deluded do you have to be to think that ANY third party is going to be able to muster populist support given the current economic & political paradigm. I'm sorry, but that is just so fucking naive I can't believe you even tried to float that.
Jesus, get some reading comprehension skills. The person you're responding to agrees with you.
No, no they do not.
They're arguing against voting for a third party, just as you are.
I don't agree with either of you, but this isn't about what I agree with or disagree with:
You're arguing that anyone voting for a third party is a waste, and that anyone arguing for that is naive.
The person you responded to is saying the same thing, but with more words, and the final paragraph arguing that if people are unhappy they should run or organize for political offices, rather than argue for or vote for a third party.
I guess you could potentially read that interpretation into what they said, but that is not how I personally took it. To me it seemed like they were arguing that if there was any real appetite for a progressive populist candidate that it would be possible to get them elected through grassroots support alone, and I just don't agree with that at all for the reasons that I already stated. The nature of the two party system is that it necessarily creates the artificial appearance of majority support for candidates that would otherwise not even represent a plurality within their own party a lot of the time.