191
submitted 1 month ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

"I don't like murder, but I'm sure as hell not going to vote for the 'less murder' option! I'm going to keep my hands clean and help more murder happen instead."

Not taking action is still a choice. Your convictions are sacraficed by not preventing the worse thing. In the trolley problem, not pulling the lever that saves lives is still a choice. You aren't helping anyone by plugging your ears with your fingers. You're only keeping your childish self-view intact. You didn't actually do anything.

[-] sub_ubi@lemmy.ml -5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

There is no lesser genocide. Israel is getting everything it wants currently, from Democrats.

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 month ago

You're stupid if you actually buy that. You need to actually consider your position, not listen to whatever stupid stuff you've heard. That's such a childish stance.

[-] sub_ubi@lemmy.ml -3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Yeah there is a difference.

Biden/Harris shrug off the rape prisons, decapitated children, bombed hospitals, etc. and publicly repeat some hasbara, then "leak" to the press that they're secretly very angry and "working on a deal". A few hours later they send Israel more bombs.

Trump, in contrast, would also send more US made bombs, except tweet that he's "very happy" and the destruction is a "good deal".

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 month ago

Trump would increase the amount we're sending. He has said that Israel should "finish the job." I'm sure you're intelligent enough to know what effect your actions have. Figure it out. You don't get to pretend like your hands are clean, because no matter what you do you made a choice and you're a member of our society. You aren't clean. Do what's best for the people suffering, not for yourself. Being self-centered is not a virtue. It's a flaw.

[-] sub_ubi@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I acknowledge Trump uses frank, coarse rhetoric, however the result is the same: unlimited weapons and money for genocide. Trump can't increase the amount we're sending, as the current cap is a supply-chain issue. Unless he can magically turn money into tanks and bombs.

If you want to make this about Palestinians, consider why Jill Stein leads Harris among Palestinian Americans - especially in Michigan.

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 month ago

It's large, but it isn't unlimited. It's also not supply-chain limited. We stockpile plenty, sell some, and are also giving some to Ukraine (which Trump will likely stop). Stop being so nieve.

If you want to make this about Palestinians, consider why Jill Stein leads Harris among Palestinian Americans - especially in Michigan.

First, I don't really care. She is nothing except a spoiler taking Russian money.

Second, sure she says better things. She won't do shit though because she has zero chance of winning. She's able to say literally anything that benefits herself because there's zero accountability because there's no chance she'll be required to follow through. None of what she says has any value.

Vote however you want, but consider the consequences of your actions. Don't just do what makes you feel like you're superior to others. Do what is likely to help the most people. For example, even if we assume Palestinians will suffer equally under either (they won't, but let's assume), trans people, immigrants, and women will be much worse off under Trump.

Take responsibility for your actions. If you choose to throw away your vote, whatever happens after you are partially to blame for. You aren't outside of society. You're part of it. As such, you play a role in what comes next. Make your choice and make it one you won't have to regret.

[-] sub_ubi@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I'm aware of the mainstream opinion on 3rd party voting 😉 The issue is that it conflicts with the academic US historian consensus, which is that 3rd parties are responsible for major progressive policies, from women's suffrage to social security. It's possibly the most powerful vote one can make.

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 month ago

Mainstream? It's fucking Engels' opinion as well. It's the only reasonable opinion. Anything else is trolling. There are many other things that caused those movements. Protests and direct action are a large reason why public opinion shifted, which forced a political shift.

[-] sub_ubi@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago

I know it's not what you hear in newspaper editorials, but there really is an academic consensus on US third party voting.

The impact of third parties on American politics extends far beyond their capacity to attract votes. Minor parties, historically, have been a source of important policy innovations. Women’s suffrage, the graduated income tax, and the direct election of senators, to name a few, were all issues that third parties espoused first.

John D. Hicks,

Let a third party once demonstrate that votes are to be made by adopting a certain demand, then one of the other parties can be trusted to absorb it. Ultimately, if the demand has merit, it will probably be translated into law or practice by the major party that has taken it up…The chronic supporter of third party tickets need not worry, therefore, when he is told, as he surely will be told, that he is “throwing away his vote.” [A] glance through American history would seem to indicate that his kind of vote is after all probably he most powerful vote that has ever been cast.

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 month ago

Carl Beijer is a blogger. As far as I can tell, he's not an academic. I've never heard of an academic use a pen name, but it's hard to know anything about him if he's hiding his identity.

Just because he says there's an academic concensus doesn't mean there is one. He has to prove it. I haven't finished reading this yet, but I'll probably post a new reply when I do.

[-] sub_ubi@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago

He links the papers, it's also on Wikipedia if you don't like the blog format.

this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2024
191 points (95.3% liked)

politics

19090 readers
4551 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS