497
Even Bernie didn't vote third party when it counted.
(lemmy.world)
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 18 Oct 2024
497 points (90.0% liked)
Political Memes
5381 readers
1907 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It's easier to sell when he used that term to load the courts with sympathizers, including 3 SC justices who ruled that the president is above the law. Also he tried multiple times overturn the election. Also this time there's an organized game plan. Because incremental progress toward your goals is more effective than big performative gestures with no results. The GOP realizes this, even if you don't.
"Absolutely" is optimistic. There is, as you like to say, a non-zero chance of no elections in 2028.
You've done nothing of the sort. You've shared your own immature fantasies.
Except where I explicitly said it's nothing but a lesser evil strategy to buy time until there's a viable candidate. It's like you're deliberately straw manning my position to pretend your strategy isn't counterproductive. You have the 2000 and 2016 elections as minimum showing your strategy is doomed to failure. I have every party split in history to show my strategy works. You're using your fantasy to cajole leftists into a voting strategy that fundamentally harms them and their cause.
Democrats associate themselves with the status quo
The status quo is a system in decline
As the status quo declines, people will be less inclined to support a party that is associated with the status quo.
Which part of that, exactly, is an "immature fantasy?"
3 for sure. That's not supported by any historical or sociological evidence.
That's a pretty strange thing to disagree with. It's very straightforward logic so it would take quite a bit of evidence to put it in doubt.
And I have no idea what evidence you're looking at but I know what evidence you're not looking at, for example, the rise of Hitler in Germany. As the status quo became worse and worse, more people turned away from the establishment parties and to the far-right (and to the far-left, unfortunately to a lesser extent), which brought about the end of the republic. You can see similar cases in most every fascist state that has ever existed. I would very much like to know which historical examples you are looking at that don't support my third statement.
Oh, I thought you were talking about people abandoning the status quo for the left. I do not contest that frustrated people flock to fascism. Your strategy is excellent at driving people to fascism, I've been saying that from the start.
Do we not agree that flocking to fascism is bad? In that case yeah, our goals are definitely not aligned.
That's a deliberate mischaraterization of my position. There is not a single thing I've said anywhere that could possibly be construed into what you said.
Obviously, people flocking to fascism is bad. But that is what's going to happen so long as what passes for the left is aligned with the declining status quo. That's why the only two possibilities for stopping fascism are implementing policies that will actually stop the decline, or creating a leftist party that can criticize the establishment while offering a non-fascist explanation of the decline and how to fix it.
Since you retracted your disagreement with my third statement, I'll ask again - which of my three statements is wrong?
Your strategy is for people to get fed up with the status quo (Dems) and unseat them for good.
You cite examples of how this plays out in fascist states all the time.
Seems like a justified characterization.
My rejection is entirely contingent on your rejection of what I had mistakenly presumed was an implicit assumption: the goal is to disrupt the status quo with a leftist power, not a fascist one.
If you reject that assumption, then sure, you are doing exactly the right thing to help unseat the status quo with a fascist power.
If you want to adopt that assumption, then no I still disagree with your third statement.
All the examples you could think of were specifically fascist. The strategy doesn't work for leftists, it specifically breeds fascism. There's no evidence of this strategy replacing the status quo with leftists.
Liar. Where did I claim this?
What I've said, that you're deliberately mischaraterizing, is that people will inevitably get fed up with the status quo (Dems) and turn to fascism, unless something is done to stop it, either the Dems enacting the necessary policies or people moving to a new party, which are what I advocate for. In other words, the exact opposite of what you're characterizing my position as.
Is this all you have? You can't actually find fault with my reasoning, so finding yourself backed into a corner you just try to lie and slander your way out of it?
Water on the grease fire
So you've given up even trying to argue now.
Like I said
I made my point, it remains valid. You're throwing water on a grease fire because it's obvious to you that water puts out fire.
The only reason you're talking about "nuh-uh-yuh-huh" is because you can't make a coherent argument beyond that.
Your "point" is grounded in deliberate lies and mischaracterization.
Me: If I see something that's going to start a house fire, I should try to stop it or put it out, or, failing that, plan around the house fire occuring.
You: Your strategy is for the house to burn down.
In what way is that not a blatant and deliberate lie?
You see a grease fire on the stove (shortcomings of the duopolistic system), you know that water puts out fire (voting for a candidate is how they get elected), and you refuse to let any words sway you from throwing water on the grease fire (voting for a spoiler candidate in a FPTP election).
The only blatant and deliberate lie here was when you claimed to have supported this strategy with any logic or evidence. In fact you demonstrated yourself how, historically, it's led to fascism every time.
You are not a serious person. Clearly we've gotten far enough down the chain that there are no naive leftist passers by left to debunk your nonsense for. I'm not wasting any more time thrashing a position you've already said you can't be reasoned out of. I hope you're at least getting paid well to be such a freckles class traitor.
You're just spewing lies left and right without defending yourself at all. You know that every word you're saying is a blatant lie and you just don't care.
This is just you going "nuh uh" again. You can't defend what you said at all, so you just assert it wasn't a lie without backing it up at all.
I haven't actually done this. Of course, what you lie and call a """strategy""" is actually just a recognition of trends beyond my ability to control. Those trends do not always lead to fascism, but when fascism emerges, it's generally because of a failure to stop that trend.
To be clear, your blatant, knowing lie is claiming that by recognizing a trend I'm somehow responsible for it.
Absolutely incredible for you to accuse me of being unreasonable, or a class traitor, or being paid off, when you're defending the powerful through lies and bad faith.
Sounds like projection from a class traitor to me.
Sounds like someone caught in a lie to me.
The projection continues.
Why do you love "nuh uh"-ing so much and then you complain about it? If you don't like it then you shouldn't do it. Maybe you were lying about not liking that just like you lied about everything else. Idk why people in your camp always lie so much.
Liberals.
I haven't told a single lie. Name one. If fascists lie as easily as they breathe, then I have to wonder if you're a fascist, since you lie so much and just move on without defending or addressing it. Can you even speak without lying?
I thought I was clear
Try not to install any fascists on your way out.
When you get caught in a lie and lose an argument, simply baselessly accuse your opponent of being a fascist. One weird trick to win every argument with anyone.
And you continue to project, again, your own behavior. You're embarrassing yourself. Here's a weird trick: don't wanna be called a fascist enabler, stop enabling fascists.
"I know you are but what am I" goes great with your, "nuh-uh"-ing and baselessly calling me a fascist, we've truly reached the height of liberal discourse.
Funny how you concluded I was a fascist the very moment you were caught in a lie.
I'm not enabling fascists, the only argument you've made to that effect was the one based on a blatant, deliberate lie that you cannot defend.
God I hate liberals. Why can't you just be honest?
Can you not read?