• Xhieron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      If the Republic plunges into a dark age, for example because democracy ended, and you stayed home when your contribution could have prevented it, you’re still sharing in the blame. No amount of smug self-righteousness will wind back the clock. You already have one previous devastating administration and an insurrection worth of warning.

      Do you want to keep the Republic, or not?

      • natural_motions@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        19
        ·
        3 months ago

        Imagine describing not supporting genocide as “smug”…

        We’re in this predicament directly due to 40 years of neoliberal strategy. There’s no one to blame but people who continue to reward “less evil” dems with power.

        Do you want to keep the Republic, or not?

        Corporates Dems are Republicans. When are you guys going to grasp this?

        • pandacoder@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          The genocide argument is a really bad one. Yes the Biden administration is culpable. The Trump administration would pump more money into it and start parading around the genocide like it’s a good thing.

          There’s voting for the side who might get tired of the public opposition and stop funding that shit, or letting the genocidal wannabe dictator win.

          • natural_motions@lemmynsfw.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            18
            ·
            3 months ago

            You’re thinking in terms of a single election cycle. That’s why neoliberals are able to keep doing this every single election, how they get you to accept genocide.

            • Sciaphobia
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              Okay, so we punish the Democrats and the Republicans necessarily win as a result. Hopefully that’s not a controversial assumption.

              How many such intentional losses should be planned on so that we can get the Democrats try to move left to recapture support? How are we going to ensure they try to better court the left instead of moving to the right?

              • AquaTofana@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                I’m always so confused by this argument because “punishing the Democrats by letting Republicans win”…wouldn’t the assumption just be that the people WANT a more right wing government?

                Wouldn’t that simply encourage politicians to be like “Oh, the crazies won last time. Maybe that’s who our voting block is now. Maybe it’s time to also be crazy.”

              • natural_motions@lemmynsfw.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                3 months ago

                You’re asking me how much Dems have to lose in order to understand why they’re losing and to stop playing chicken with our democracy?

                How would I know that? You would hope one lost election to a reality TV star rapist would be enough to prompt a post-mortem, but the idiots learned nothing from 2016 so I would imagine it might take a while for it to sink into their thick skulls. How long does it take someone to add 2+2?

                • Sciaphobia
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  I’m not asking you to read minds. Just to explain how this works in your mind. I understand the frustration, and desire to express it, and the expression I’m, possibly incorrectly, assuming you have is to not vote for them. What is the process by which this accomplishes more than making Republicans win elections, and pushing the Democrats to the right?

                  • natural_motions@lemmynsfw.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    3 months ago

                    What makes you assume the Dems would move to the right? Where do you think they would get votes from?

                    As much as the democratic establishment likes to pretend there’s some untapped well of “moderate” republicans they can access if they just get their messaging right, it doesn’t exist. Anyone who thinks GOP voters are going to vote democrat is deluded, Trump is going on criminal trial and is still loved by Republicans.

                    Even the exit polling for Democrats’ “tricky” Nikki Haley scheme in New Hampshire showed that most of the right-wing voters who despise Trump still wouldn’t ever vote democrat, they’re just staying home.

                    They can move further to the right if they want, but Democrats are barely able to scrape enough votes together to beat Donald Trump of all people, let alone compete with the GOP on their own turf. Meanwhile they refuse to acknowledge that their base is now increasingly Millenials and Gen-Z.

                    There’s a reason Obama won in a landslide before everyone realized he was full of shit, and it wasn’t because he signaled leaning to the right. It was because he convincingly pantomimed as a progressive promising “change”. Those same voters he fooled are now grown up and more saavy, they understand that money tells the truth. They’re much harder to fool.

                    Dems realize that they cannot pull the same old tricks but actually have to reform in order to get those base voters back. They understand it, they just don’t want to because it means an inevitable end to the corporate gravy train. So they paint their own base as “extremists” and concoct these crazy schemes to prop up right-wing nutjobs as their competition so their corporate candidates look better, but it’s simply not working. They’ve brought us to the brink of fascism and it’s not working unless you make it work for them.

            • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              3 months ago

              Okay, so when the election happens, vote to keep the fascists out of power, and every other day the 4 years in between do something to push politics in the direction you want it to go.

            • pandacoder@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              No I’m thinking in terms of we cannot revive the dead so let’s not put the genocidal wannabe dictator in power for 4 years. I clearly can’t stop what’s currently happening but I’m sure as hell not going to vote in a way that results in more people dying more quickly.

              You mistake accepting genocide with trying to prevent a worse genocide.

    • gmtom@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Enjoy having your bodily autonomy stripped away and turned into a baby making factory because you don’t understand the concept of harm reduction.

      • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        The fact that this is even on the table is why I’m upset. A sane government would not let that sort of thing happen. But we have a majority of the Supreme Court nominated by two presidents who lost the popular vote because a bunch of slave owners over 200 years ago were butthurt at the idea that the popular vote for president wouldn’t go their way.

        • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          The Electoral College was also established to aid in guiding uninformed voters. It was logical to implement it for presidential elections, since most people wouldn’t have heard about the policy or platform of either candidate.

          We have the Internet now, so that point is moot.