615
Electorialism (tempted to vote biden)
(slrpnk.net)
I am so so divided on if I should vote for biden or not. I wanna vote third party to at least do something or should I just stay home and protest and advocate where I can? Thoughts?
But you didn't answer the question, not really. You haven't explained why voting for down ticket Dems and refusing to vote for Biden is any different from volunteering for down ticket Dems and refusing to volunteer for or donate to Biden (which is what you are doing).
The result with the most harm reduction is a split government with Democrats in control of the Legislature, because if Trump was president Democrats would oppose Israel's genocide. Under Biden even Bernie is refusing to endorse a ceasefire, but if Trump was president you know he and other Dems lining up under Biden would fight against Trump.
Because biden has massive money interest in his campaign, where as my local government office holders do not. I have finite time and resources, they have finite time and resources, I have a larger impact on them, they have a larger impact on me. All the money in the world is already going into the corporatist's campaign to vi for my vote, and I am casting it. With the exception of interpersonal connections I am not going to change people's mind about Biden because they are already inundated with campaign propaganda about him. Every time I have campaigned for a presidential candidate, one that has a chance of actually winning, I never got "oh, I didn't know much, or anything, about them, I didn't realize their positions, now I am going to consider this information" where as I get that pretty often with local candidates. So, my vote goes to the tally of the lesser evil, my campaigning subjects are better served by my time, and their exposure supports the president ultimately as well.
Where as you do nothing in support of Biden, while doing something that is well understood to actually benefit his, worse, competitors. This is the difference. Your actions benefit the trumps out there, mine support their detractors at that level.
"The result with the most harm reduction is a split government with Democrats in control of the Legislature, because if Trump was president Democrats would oppose Israel's genocide."
Do you actually believe this? If you do, I am sorry to inform you, that you are wrong. One of the handful of things both the GOP and the DNC are in hard agreement on is Israel. Those running against Biden for the GOP are not discussing how they wouldn't support such a horrific act, they are discussing how he isn't doing enough. Even when trump, and bush, and daddy bush, etc. were thumping for Israel, the DNC was right their going "uh-huh, yup, no, I agree, yes, of course." They might make some small grandstanding about how, while they totally support isreal's right to defend it's self, maybe the GOP is a little much, while they try to crush the voices of anyone who disagrees in their party, just like now. The DNC and the GOP are both pro destabilizing other countries who don't bow to our trade, they are both pro indiscriminate killing of people in countries who spurn our trade, they are both willing to slaughter innocent people for corporate profits. The DNC, being a more varied party, has a larger number of detractors, and their base, being more varied, has a large number of detractors, so there is room to wedge open a change against supporting these things. That is the only thing that might make the democrats "better" in this situation.
Now hold on! My one vote has very little impact on an election with millions of voters, so by the same logic it doesn't even matter if I vote in the first place. By the same logic, I'm focusing my votes where they actually matter in local elections and not bothering with the presidential election. Same as you. There is zero difference, you just want to have your cake and eat it too.
And yet the DNC was opposed to Trump moving the US embassy to Israel. Did you forget?
And yet the GOP is disrupting the war in Ukraine. Partisanship is actually a useful tool to hinder the empire. You can't ignore this.
Now you are just stretching to keep your argument seeming sound.
I do both, so I acknowledge they are both worth doing, you are the one who is not. When we had Obama running I actually did work for him because he made the pr move to use mostly grass roots initiatives because it looked great for him, and he didn't need to get the massive corporate campaign sponsors. Not so much for his re-election though.
The DNC opposed the GOP moving the embassy to Jerusalem, we already had one in Israel. They didn't do this to spite the GOP, nor because they do not support Israel, they did it because it's stupid to move the embassy away from the most important political location in the country to a place simply to pander to the second coming crowd. That is what it was too, pandering on the part of the GOP to their base, the actual politicians running the show didn't actually give a shit. The reasoning was completely different and would not apply to israel massacring palastinians due to a hammas attack.
The GOP wants to disrupt the war in Ukraine because they are in bed with russia, ukraine kicked the russian puppet GOP operatives helped to install out, and they don't have as strong of business ties there. So they are picking the country they get the most money from. Which, again, is different than what would happen in israel.
Partisanship is a useful tool for confounding empire, but the situation with helping israel bomb brown people that continually buck US hegemony is not a point of contention that can be used in this way.
Even when the GOP was raising it's hackles, in public, about obama attacking libya, they actually did nothing to stop it. They let it happen because knocking down a country that was refusing to cooperate with the petrodollar was in their interest. So they himmed and hawed on cspan and fox but did nothing to actually disrupt it.
No you don't. You have said it yourself, you don't donate to Biden or volunteer for his campaign.
There's literally no difference, again, you just want to have your cake and eat it too. I refuse. No ceasefire, no votes. It's literally the only leverage I have on this administration and you want me to just give it up because orange man bad. If things look bad enough, Biden actually might relent on this. We have to pressure him until he cracks, and kick him if he doesn't.
There are Democrats right now who are calling for a ceasefire, I guarantee if Trump was president that the vast majority of Democrats would join them in the same demand. Bernie certainly would, instead of the weak lib shit he's doing now. You want to cynically wave this off, but I'm convinced that the public unrest under Trump would be high enough to force even Zionist Democrats to endorse a ceasefire. This can have lasting impacts on the electorate too:
The consequence of the GOP raising its hackles is they riled up their base, and this eventually lead to Trump and the current extremism in their Party. This, in turn, amplified partisanship to such an extent that now the GOP can't even govern without eating themselves alive to own the libs. Hyper-partisanship is now the norm for their Party. Trump has had a lasting impact on Republicans. I'm willing to bet that a second Trump term would radicalize Democrats too, and then we might actually fucking get somewhere.
No ceasefire, no votes. It's not an unreasonable demand. If that means Trump wins then, silver lining, Democrats might actually grow a spine again.
Yes, orange man bad, specifically orange man worse than democrats. The GOP raising it's hackles over libya isn't what created the tea party that led to the maga hats. It was a small, slow growing movement as the democrats alienated rust belt blue collar workers. It exploded into the forward momentum that turned into the maga cult when a black man was elected president. I was traveling around with a camera man friend of mine collecting b-roll of the tea party at the time for a news station. We spent a lot of time sitting just outside of groups of tea partiers, listening to them, from state to state. They felt alienated and then a black man was elected and they lost their shit. Trump simply took that and ran with it. He succeeded because people felt the way about Hillary you do about Biden. Now we have lost the judiciary, possibly for decades, to theocrats.
The members of the DNC who are strongly against what is happening in Israel do not have the influence, and wont have it in time, to do anything for palastine.
I have read many first hand accounts from people leading up to highly authoritarian take overs, and there is a lot of rhetoric from people who were sure that shutting themselves off to politics, not voting for the lesser evil, etc. was reasonable, that it was the only way to exercise influence over politicians they weren't happy about, and that if those extremist reactionaries got into office they would implode and the other side would have to grow a spine as people got fed-up with their bullshit. Spoiler, those parties did implode, but only after taking over and installing something far worse than the status quo. They stayed there until enough violence was applied to stop them, or they ruined their economies so badly that they collapsed. No one living in the aftermath, who maintained this rhetoric, said "worth it!" in the end.
Have you read the 2025 project? If you haven't I highly suggest reading it. It spends almost 1k pages detailing exactly why much of what you say is meaningless to them, and actually would help them in pulling this shit off.
here - Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Poject 2025 The Presidential Transition Project
https://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf
If you haven't read it, well, the most egregiously opposed to your political/philosophical alignment element has literally published their play book, or war stratagem, if you will. If you want to think you know anything about what the GOP plans to do, here it is, what they have spent about 50 years laying the groundwork for, in fine detail.
I'm not shutting myself off to politics. I'm voting down ticket! I'm involved in- ~~other ways I'd rather not discuss.~~ I'm just not voting for Biden. That's a completely different supposition than just not voting at all, which is what the 2025 project would assume. Trump only had success because people who refused to vote for Hillary refused to vote down ticket and just stayed home. I'm not doing that.
If Trump doesn't have a cooperative legislature or state governments then he can't accomplish shit. He'll be an impotent cry baby that screams about how this is the most unfair etc etc. Also, like I said, if Trump is in power I am almost certain that partisanship would force Democrats to grow a spine and progressive Dems would be able to recruit a lot of party members because Orange Man Bad.
I. Am. Voting. I'm just not voting for Biden.
Now, if winning the presidency alone is enough for a fascist takeover then that shit is inevitable, unless you think there will never be another Republican president ever again. And if that's enough, then it's better for it to be a dumbass like Trump than a smart fascist.
Reading comprehension
when discussing the zeitgeist of politics leading up to a historic even and listing some of them, saying many people were shutting themselves off to politics, not voting for the lesser evil, etc. It does not mean everyone, nor the person I am addressing, is doing all of those things. It means that is a quick example of the various types of things that were common at the time. You fall into the second one because you are specifically not doing that with the presidency.
You did not read the 2025 Project plan. It is designed to specifically nullify the effects of most local voting powers by using a lot of legally questionable "powers" of the executive office. Meaning the only thing stopping it from being allowed is the USSC, you know, the one they stacked specifically for this, when people took your stance with Hillary. Don't comment on something you haven't read.
... so you're just smearing everything together in a big blob of "them" so you can tear down a strawman.
Am I arguing with ChatGPT? What the fuck is this?
I'm not going to read a 920 page document for an internet argument lol
No, I named 2 common ideas I saw espoused reading first hand accounts leading up to said historical events, one of which is exactly what you did, the other is also a common talking point for the same general crowd. It's not my fault you can't parse a tiny amount of information. How is pointing out that what you are doing, which I am arguing is bad if you don't want a more authoritarian government, has historically been a common thought process leading up to authoritarian control, a strawman? It is literally a historical example of what happens in the type of situation being discussed.
Don't read the document for an internet argument, read it because it is an important piece of information to understand if you want to participate with society in an informed manner. Simply don't comment on the scenario when you don't even know what it is.