Can I get a smug lecture on how you’re choosing the third, disconnected track?

  • boonhet@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    11 hours ago

    It’s the Zionists and their money. Conspiracy theorists were right all along unfortunately, with Israel doing everything possible to validate them.

    But in an election once the candidates are locked between

    “We’ll give money to the Israelis and they’ll kill Palestinians”

    and

    “We’ll give money to the Israelis and they’ll kill Palestinians, but also we want to get rid of Latinos and LGBTQ people, also poor people should lose the little healthcare they do have and hey there’s probably more bullshit we’re gonna pull, but some of it’s so stupid we haven’t even thought of it yet”

    I can’t see how anyone with a brain would not vote against #2.

    Donald Trump won completely legitimately and in addition to the 77.3 million Trump voters, there are about 90 million other eligible voters to blame for the kidnapping of Maduro, the war in Iran, the stupid ass tariffs, and so many other things. That’s what they all were willing to accept.

    • BassTurd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 hours ago

      I can’t see how anyone with a brain would not vote against #2.

      I love reading all of the replies to your comment that illustrate this sentence so clearly.

    • SwingingTheLamp@piefed.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      8 hours ago

      I can’t see how anyone with a brain would not vote against #2.

      Because you’ve been around long enough to have been in this situation before. Voting #1 is at best a stop-gap measure. Option #1 doesn’t do anything to fix the underlying problem, and in fact, the next time around, #2 is way worse. (As is #1.) And this pattern keeps repeating. It doesn’t matter which you choose, you’ll end up with #2, just a bit later. (We’ve reached the stage at which genocide support is the lesser evil, fer chrissakes.)

      As an analogy, the situation we have with the two parties is like a choice faced by person with Type 2 diabetes: Fall into a hypoglycemic coma right now and maybe die, or consume sugar by the spoonful. The second option is the correct choice, obviously. But next time around, it’s the same choice, and again after that. This person can choose the lesser evil every time, but it still leads to death.

      So, painful and unlikely at it may be, some voters are thinking beyond the immediate moment and want to at least try to avoid the death of democracy.

      • NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 hours ago

        So, no matter what, we are just inevitably fucked regardless of what we do, so let’s just hammer on the gas harder to let fascism win and destroy everything and get it over with? Do you not see how that is just authoritarian absolutism?

        What kind of rollover defeatist cuck shit is this? Your stance is theologically conservative accelerationism, point blank.

        • isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          That’s a bad faith interpretation.

          Parties are coalitions that change over time. The neoliberal wing of the Democratic party has been ascendant since the Clinton years. But they are declining now. And the sole reason is that their brand is proving incapable of actually winning elections. If a party keeps winning, the people running the party maintain credibility and business as usual just keeps trucking along. Parties can only undergo fundamental change after losing a few cycles. It took the 3 losses of the Reagan and Bush Sr. years before something like Clinton’s triangulation strategy had any hope of winning support among the Democratic party.

            • BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 hours ago

              An accelerationist wants capital accumulated in the hands of capitalists as quickly as possible, so as to ensure the contradictions of capitalism to occur as quickly as possible. Therefore an accelerationist would vote for whichever they considered to be the most competent capitalist - in most eyes, that would be Kamala.
              Accelerationism is not just “when you want a thing to happen faster”.

            • isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 hours ago

              Because the goal is not to make the situation worse with the hope of later making the situation better. The goal is to hold people accountable for supporting genocide. The point is that we shouldn’t be afraid of a short-term loss, because that can lead to superior long-term improvement. We shouldn’t let the fear of a short-term loss prevent us from making the morally right decision today.

              Accelerationism would be deliberately seeking to collapse the current Democratic party. For example, by convincing a bunch of Democrats to stay home, not out of any real response to their actions, but simply because Democrats losing could shake up the political structure.

              The key difference is that one is simply not allowing the fear of being labeled “accelerationist” to prevent us from the right decision, while the latter is actually accelerationism.

              Accelerationism is meant to have a very specific meaning. Unfortunately, it gets used as a cudgel to argue that every short-term win must be obtained at any cost, even at the cost of superior long-term success.

            • freagle@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 hours ago

              It’s literally telling the Democrats to run, not walk, in the OTHER DIRECTION. If you don’t communicate that, then, they accelerate in the wrong direction. Essentially voting for them no matter what their policy is the accelerationism.

      • baines@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 hours ago

        at this point i’d take stop-gap

        this all gas no brakes into collapse is so much worse than milquetoast corpo democrat

    • rumimevlevi@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      8 hours ago

      You still supported the extermination of a whole population that are currently getting exterminated. Despite the oppression of the groups you are mentioning none are facing eminent extermination with mass murder and starvation and the destruction of the majority . No wonder the rest of the non western world hate you american scums