1365
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
1365 points (100.0% liked)
Leopards Ate My Face
9698 readers
259 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
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.