1368
Punish the Democrats, she says
(discuss.online)
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 04 Apr 2026
1368 points (100.0% liked)
Leopards Ate My Face
9708 readers
560 users here now
Rules:
- The mods are fallible; if you've been banned or had a post/comment removed, please appeal.
- Off-topic posts will be removed. If you don't know what "Leopards ate my Face" is, try reading this post.
- If the reason your post meets Rule 1 isn't in the source, you must add a source in the post body (not the comments) to explain this.
- Posts should use high-quality sources, and posts about an article should have the same headline as that article. You may edit your post if the source changes the headline. For a rough idea, check out this list.
- For accessibility reasons, an image of text must either have alt text or a transcription in the post body.
- Reposts within 1 year or the Top 100 of all time are subject to removal.
- This is not exclusively a US politics community. You're encouraged to post stories about anyone from any place in the world at any point in history as long as you meet the other rules.
- All Lemmy.World Terms of Service apply.
Also feel free to check out:
Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.
_portrait.jpg){kind=link}
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Nobody argues about that. People are pointing out the choices US-American voters have
So arguing against voting for the Democrat party in 2016, 2020, and 2024 did nothing but help fascism.
That sounds a lot like, uh, doing that.
Nobody is doing that:
The Dems are the antifascist choice. Your system is fucked, do a revolution or vote Dems, then you won't get fascists who do all the things you hate the Dems doing plus more horrible things.
Are you voting for or getting paid by Trump, Orban, Erdogan or some other autocrat directly or are you doing their bidding just because?
I'm not even American bruh. I'm from Germany, where the consequences of underestimating fascists are only now being forgotten. Seems like y'all were a bit faster there.
I think if you put the responsibility on the voters and not the coalition of politicians that claim to represent them, after a while that starts to seem less like advocacy and more like victim blaming.
As a trans person, the past decade has progressively gotten more terrifying. For me, a politician that is actively trying to harm me is not going to be meaningfully distinct from a politician that is not trying to shield me from the repressive harm that is already built into the system.
Furthermore, I do not think shaming people for taking a stance on genocide is going to win anyone over aside from people who support genocide. The Democrats may have handled things differently but that doesn't mean it'd be better for the Palestinians or the Middle East.
When a party won't stand up for marginalized people and victims of genocide how can they be trusted to defend anyone when in power? At a certain point you have to recognize the problem, even if you still vote for them. Voter shaming people who reject the harm won't fix it.
I'm German. At some point, the Nazi party changed the law to be able to do what they want. They were voted into a position where they were able to do that.
Paul von Hindenburg who got elected in 1932 after winning support from the social democrats as a "lesser evil." Eight months later, Hindenburg appointed Hitler chancellor. A month after that, Hitler issued the Reichstag Fire Decree which suspended civil rights and allowed for detention without trial, which he turned on his political opponents.
And the lesson you want me to take from that is "voting for the lesser evil is effective at stopping fascism?"
Absolute revisionism, please educate yourself.
Germany (then and now) has a coalition system, so you don't need to vote for the lesser evil of two, more than one party can become a coalition.
There's still tactical voting of course, but Hitler became chancellor because enough people voted for Hitler that a coalition with the Nazi party or new elections were the only choices.
Yes, they could have gone for the latter, yes, conservatives are always happier to jump in bed with Nazis rather than leftists, so people might have tactically voted for Hindenburg, but my point stands: Hitler could have been voted out.
Doesn't really sound like "absolute revisionism" to me. Was there a single thing I said that was factually inaccurate, or are you just throwing the term around meaninglessly?
The only point I see is about Germany having a coalition system, but I was referring to a presidential election, not a parliamentary one.
Since the Nazis did not have a majority, theoretically, a coalition could have been formed that did not include them. But, as you said, conservatives were more willing to work with Nazis than leftists. Which says to me, and this might be "absolute revisionism" again, that if you're trying to stop fascists electorally, you should at least make sure that the person you're electing isn't just going to promote and work with the exact people you're trying to stop.
I might mention here that the Democrats campaigned alongside Dick Cheney while refusing to allow even purely symbolic things like allowing a Palestinian speaker at their convention.
Oh so you were intentionally using partial truths to misleadingly imply that votes couldn't have kept Hitler out of office? Which was the thing I said and the thing you quoted before arguing against ~~it~~ … something else apparently.
Agreed, maybe you should have led with that instead.
The Democrats are complicit in many inexcusable things that both parties will continue to do until something changes radically. They are however very much not complicit in trying to get rid of voting and other fascist shit Trump has been pushing relentlessly.
I believe what I said was that voting for a lesser evil was not a historically effective way of keeping Hitler out of power. Because the lesser evil won and things still played out the way they did. I didn't say anything about voting in general.
I guess so. Sorry for misunderstanding you then. There are some weird accelerationists in this thread and I'm probably irritable because of that.
There's no shame in being ignorant, it's the mix of ignorance and extreme arrogance that you're right that make people like you so supremely loathsome
Lmao. So you really just don't know how a coalition based democratic system works?
Why should I argue with someone who can't read?
Give it your best shot and try again. Maybe if you get right what I actually wrote I'll continue.
Are you trying to use that as a dunk because when you actually live under oppression from fascists you REALLY need your opposition party to be effective. Harris winning in 2024 was never going to solve a problem that she was part of, it was only going to delay the inevitable and I can promise you that all of the anti-trans legislation and the pro-genocide action still would have actually happened. Or are you as unwilling to listen to a person that belongs to a scapegoated community as your ancestors were?
Trump stacked the courts in 2016-2020 already, so that would have been the time to prevent that by voting Dems.
Now anti-trans sentiment is part of an executive order too, which could have been prevented by voting Dems.
How the fuck is “voting against fascism” not on your list of priorities?
And don't patronize me, I'm listening to my trans friends already thanks.
I'm a German anarchist
Takes one to know one. Or you're disingenuous. Only the finest vintage dumbassery or a bad faith actor can honestly not see a difference in the trajectory voting out Trump in 2016 would have resulted in.
I'm just really feed up by your insanity of trying to erase boundaries between a party that wants to abolish elections and one that doesn't.
You don't actually care about Palestine if you promote the USA becoming a dictatorship and glassing whatever other fucking country its god-king-toddler feels has slighted him last.
While I personally think that voting democrat out of fear of the alternative is far far more harmful in the long run, I had an issue with
Calling it victim blaming feels unfair. It acts like voters are completely innocent and are absolutely opposed to their representative's actions. Even though some of their actions are unpopular - US voters support their politicians, police, army, etc... Look at how they react whenever anything unfortunate happens to any of them.
If you actively support and defend a system you're kind of responsible for it's actions even if it ignored you when you politely asked it to do something else. E.g. Despite being unjustly sentenced to death Socrates still drank Hemlock because having supported the system his entire life he had that responsibility / ethical obligation.