You must log in or register to comment.
Fascists are trying to suppress/dissuade/undermine the vote… all im sayin.
Way to pretend there couldn’t possibly exist a leftist critique of American electoralism on a platform created by Marxists, but you do you.
Yes, but also, the timing is always dangerous. Let’s removed about it all however much we want, but let’s not fall for the thought trap of growing disenfranchised from the voting process, however rigged it may be. Whatever argument you have against the system, we all have to admit that Trump winning the first time was not something even the establishment expected. If they can do surprises, so can we. Their biggest trick is to make you think your vote doesn’t matter when it so clearly does, even when the electoral college is stacked against it. The electoral college wouldn’t be so dearly protected if your vote didn’t matter.
… Not that I’m saying you personally hold these views, but I’ve seen them around enough that I feel the need to voice my thoughts as well.
Since you knew Harris would not win without our votes last election, and you knew we wouldnt vote for her, then why did you? Thats basically the same as voting for Trump.
Serious question. What is your actionable alternative? Actionable as in something you do
Revolution, which depends on worker organizing in preparation for the inevitable crisis points of capitalism to take the entire working class in a unified direction against the capitalist state. Smash it, and replace it with one run by the working class, for the working class.
Vote is good, go vote.
Dont vote for democrats or republicans though
Those yandex servers must be back up
Something I had forgotten I realised last cycle that this post somehow reminded me of:
People argued we had to vote for democrats because they would lose without our votes. To them not voting and voting third party was essentially the same and it was actually just like voting for Trump, since the party would not be able to win if they did not get our votes.
Yet if you were to point out that since we aren’t voting for genociders like the democrats and therefore the party is sure to lose and thus, by their own reasoning, their votes are wasted; then they have to vote for the party I want them to vote for, if we are to beat Trump. It should be entirely reasonable if all that matters to them is beating Trump, yet somehow the argument was clearly faulty, despite it being the very same they make: “[Your party] will not be able to get enough votes to win, the most important thing is beating Trump, therefore you have to vote for [my party] otherwise it will not be able get enough votes to beat Trump!”
They can see the issue with the reasoning as long as it does not benefit them. Odd how that is.This tactical voting or lesser evil voting is nothing but a trap to maintain the status quo. It makes people vote for a fake opposition instead of creating a platform for dissemination of alternative political projects. The consequence is that political parties get ever more reactionary, since there’s no real opposition to the left and ample opportunity to go right.
It’s the fucks who didn’t vote that got Trump elected.
That and election rigging.
A vote for Harris was basically a vote for Trump, since she was destined to lose.
Actually the way elections work is the people who vote for a candidate are the ones responsible for bringing that candidate into office. This, in theory, leads to political representatives seeking policy that is popular within a large part of their constituency so as to have as large a voter base as possible. If you fail to do so, then you are likely to lose the election (See: Kamala Harris).
That’s like saying that 5 wheels on a semi that stop turning are responsible for the truck turning right instead of left.
Candidates win elections based on the numbers of people that vote for them, not the numbers of people that don’t vote for them.
I’m pretty sure that’s how electoral democracy works, but check me if I’m wrong about that, if there’s some byzantine requirement for a plurality of citizens that frames everything in a counterfactual way.
Uhm, if the wheels are functioning, then what is their use? Man, that’s a poor metaphor.
You are calling non-voters useless while defending their lack of operation?
I have nothing to say. You said it.
Why are you types so hell-bent on making conversation as difficult as possible? You write as though you are trying to convince people to vote for democrats, yet you consistently flee at any chance of having an actual discussion, resulting in only being able to preach to your genocidal choir.
Typically in forums such as these a person does not write in order to convince the one they are responding to, but to influence the people just reading the sidelines. In order to influence those people you have to make your position appear cogent and reasonable. If you continually fail to engage with anything the other argues, then all you do is make yourself look stupid and uneducated, reflexively defending a position you in no way understand.Your initial argument was terrible, yet instead of just writing that people decided to explain why it was terrible. The user you are responding to here did so via an analogy that could be better, but one that was completely understandable. Yet you decide not to engage with their argument, instead you behave like a petulant child playing dumb in the face of something they do not care to understand. Why then even write anything to begin with? What is the point of your text? I know I will not get an answer to these questions from you, since you types are allergic to answering questions for some reason. I don’t understand it, not even from a vitriolic or hostile perspective. When I am certain in my beliefs, my position, my reasoning, my arguments, then I do not shy away from answering simple questions or at least adressing why I feel they are beneath a response.
So the fucks who put up a shitty candidate against Trump have nothing to do with it?
Dude, you just don’t know what the republicrats are. Really look into the two party system.
Your neighbor wants freedom as much as you.
You seem to think the democrats are somehow any different. If you are my neighbor and you are arguing this much to vote for the fascist genocidal bigots that is the Democratic Party, then my neighbor does not want freedom, they want to kill Muslims.
Also answer the question. Why do you types always have such a hard time answering a question? Its basic social interaction, basic civility, and you can never do it. I suppose an imperious attitude does make sense when you are an imperialist like you are, but the democrats are supposed to be the civil imperialists, try to act like it.
Really look into the two party system
I have. What about you? They are both the same party, catering to two different population groups.
You haven’t answered the question though.
The real solution is boycotting a “cuntry” that isn’t real.
Downvoted for the sexist slur
I’ll upvote you for explaining yourself. Please avoid going to the following countries though, Ireland, England, Scotland, Australia. But if you’re a supporter of a country that isn’t real then say so.
In those countries the word is not used as a slur, but as a familiar way of referring to one another, which is far from your usage. You pretty clearly did not intend to signify familiarity, but instead to denigrate by use of the word. There are many ways to be denigrating without being chauvinistic, being anti-zionist is not an excuse to do something bigoted.
Its like when liberals say shit like “Hahaha Trump is fat and gay with Putin!”
I’m sorry. The last line is kinda … really accurate. You are talking about Tent Peg Rump.
Edit: Also I’ve spent a fair amount of time in different countries so my language skills are cooked. I don’t really see words as strongly as you do and self censor myself to the most petty degree. It’s like saying 逃げるmakes you racist.
Talk me through the last line. Why is it bad that Trump and Putin are gay? Why do you think homophobia is awesome as long as it is directed towards someone you dont like? Why do you think body-shaming is good to do when it is against people you do not like?
Language is cooked
I speak five languages. Fuck off.
It’s like saying 逃げるmakes you racist.
“Saying a word in a foreign language that sounds kind of like a slur in another language is just the same as saying the actual slur.” Great argument buddy.
“Talk me through the last line. Why is it bad that Trump and Putin are gay? Why do you think homophobia is awesome as long as it is directed towards someone you dont like? Why do you think body-shaming is good to do when it is against people you do not like?”
I’d don’t intend to be mean, but do you live under a bridge? I mean the story of how he got ram-rodded by the helicopter pilots kid that he was abusing caused him to wear a diaper. With all the leaks, do you think that didn’t happen?
Also why did you imply homophobia? What because I’ve friends come out to me and told me they liked me and I just said I’m good and we can still be friends?
“I speak five languages. Fuck off.”
Okay so I speak eight and comprehend even more. I had to learn them for various reasons.
You’re phrasing is no different than using slurs, you’re getting upset and telling me to fuck off. How are you really any different?
I’d don’t intend to be mean, but do you live under a bridge? I mean the story of how he got ram-rodded by the helicopter pilots kid that he was abusing caused him to wear a diaper. With all the leaks, do you think that didn’t happen?
So that isn't actually an answer to my question or in any way related to anything Ive been arguing.
It is very typical of your types to be allergic to answering questions, but please do try to answer them. In general I would recommend you actually read what the person you are trying to interact with writes - It helps you to actually have a gainful discussion. Otherwise you end up arguing against ghosts.
To help you I’ve honed the questions in even more: Why do you think Trump being gay is a bad thing? Why do you think the sexuality of a person is an inherent negative quality worthy of mockery, as long as the person is someone you dislike?
You also have yet to address the body-shaming. Is this because you do understand why it is bad, and by admitting to that then your line of argument for the homophobia would be transparently disingenuous?
Why homophobia
Mocking someone for being gay is homophobic. Pretty straightforward.
Languages
Okay? Then you should understand how dumb your argument is, and you should understand speaking more than one is more than enough to understand your argument and see the flaws in it.
You’re getting upset
I think you are confusing “reading what the other wrote and responding to it” with some other thing? But since we can apparently determine the others emotional state from a brief text: You’re defensive, reactive and malding
How is telling someone to fuck off different from using slurs?
How is not using slurs different from using slurs? Pretty simple: I’m not using them. You should really try to read what it is I am writing.
