Post An6hkRXjUEusG9dkEC by Jon_Kramer@mastodon.social
(DIR) More posts by Jon_Kramer@mastodon.social
(DIR) Post #An6ahRdxxP7c1WB9M0 by ErikUden@mastodon.de
2024-04-22T21:59:31Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
Joe Biden has deported more people than Donald Trump [1], funded the police more than Trump [2], and has now helped to kill more Palestinians than Trump [3].If you cannot allow criticism towards this person because you believe critiquing them is the same as endorsing the opponent, then you are participating in the very cult behavior you should be criticizing.Yes, Trump would be worse, way worse......but it's horrible to compare Trump's potential genocide to Biden's currently real and ongoing genocide. Voting Democrat is harm reduction, portraying it overall as anything else is, in my privileged opinion, incorrect. In many individual examples I can, however, see how you come to view the Democrats not just as the lesser evil, but even positively. Many vulnerable groups such as queer (especially trans) people are helped by a Democratic government, even maintaining the right to abortion is, visibly, helped by Democrats. There are examples in which voting the Democratic Party betters the lives of certain groups. Yet that change doesn't come sustainably and the tides may as well turn. If the Democratic Party is willing to throw one group of people under the bus for winning Republican voters, who is to say they won't do the same with your group? If you don't give human rights to everyone, it's not a right anymore, it's being treated human as a privilege. When it comes to foreign policy, unions, most social services, the treatment of the poor, healthcare, border policy, it's mostly the same between the two parties. Trump is merely the death of the euphemism.A queer person won't vote for a party that doesn't support queer rights, so what should someone of another marginalized group not supported by the Democrats do? Additionally, don't forget that it was the Democratic party that supported and funded Donald Trump's primary election in 2015 [4] as they always back the most far right candidate [5] in order to even make a distinction between the two parties visible. What I'm trying to say is that you, as a democratic voter, cannot blame someone for supporting an alternative party, nor claim that supporting that third party is horrible merely because it may “allow for a Republican victory.” If it was in the Democrat's interest to change the election system or electoral college to allow for something other than effectively a two party system, then they would've done so. I won't ride a high horse and claim it's morally wrong to support the Democrats, I don't think that. I do believe, however, that many people are disillusioned in voting for Democrats but know voting for Republicans only makes things worse. If not allowing a Republican victory was in the Democrat's interest, then they would adapt the party's stance to social, non-war/non-genocide, non-deportation, anticapitalist, pro-Housing, and pro-Healthcare for all positions. They don't, so what choice is there for people from marginalized groups other than voting for a third party? Can you tell them it's only morally right to vote for a party that worsens their living conditions or wishes to have them erased?A representative democracy exists so people can voice their opinions through voting in the representation they favor — if you critique them because the USA's democratic system fails to represent them, hence they should vote for one of the two representations that are possible, but aim to kill them or worsen their lives, then you are critiquing an individual for the faultiness of the system. And last but not least, any person should still be called out for “boycotting the election”, not voting is ridiculous which is perfectly explained by Jay Foreman here. Participate in every election while you can. :voteblue: :dsa:
(DIR) Post #An6ahSP786psNkEnqK by ErikUden@mastodon.de
2024-04-23T21:55:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Absolute catastrophe vs. :progress_pride: Absolute :BLM: Catastrophe :sp_pride:
(DIR) Post #An6ahTVX1jYznwFRU8 by ErikUden@mastodon.de
2024-10-17T18:15:08Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
I always thought the “lesser of two evil” argument had its limitations, and when both options include complete annihilation, I think that limit has been reached. Both candidates in the upcoming U.S. elections fail to enact policies to prevent climate change to a meaningful degree and in accordance to the Paris Climate Agreement. Instead of moralizing the decisions of each individual voter, claiming it's their fault if the more progressive candidate doesn't win, how about questioning the decisions of the democratic party's leadership? It would be the lesser of two evils for the Democrats to simply adopt policies that people would vote for (such as Medicare for All, actual infrastructure re-investments, not doing genocide...)What long term strategy is there behind continuously voting for a party, even to the point where it doesn't represent you anymore? If Harris/Walz win this election, and by 2028 the shift to the right has progressed so much further that the Democrat's positions are exactly the same as Trump's today, is the only strategy still voting for Democrats? Where and when do you draw the line? If it was so important to win this election, more important than anything else, why is the Democratic party not willing to sacrifice even the tiniest of their corporate sponsors? Here's what I believe: they don't care. They don't want to win this election. They know you will vote for them no matter what. They don't have to do anything that might go against their corporate sponsors but would win people over and ensure a better life for all. Because they don't have to. Because you let yourself be fooled.
(DIR) Post #An6cOvoNljPJzhLoZM by Mabande@mastodon.social
2024-10-17T18:34:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ErikUden Democrats are banking on two things:1. people voting for the lesser evil2. the greater evil letting business as usual continue and not doing what it said it wouldIf dems lose they're gonna blame 10% of Black men, and the anti-genocide protest non-voters right up into the torture chamber.
(DIR) Post #An6gqj0JNdsOCHRHbE by schoenswetter@social.vivaldi.net
2024-10-17T19:24:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ErikUden Zizek wrote a good piece on this question in the recent months. I have to find the link…
(DIR) Post #An6hkRXjUEusG9dkEC by Jon_Kramer@mastodon.social
2024-10-17T19:34:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ErikUden I drew this line during the Clinton administration. I voted for Bill his 1st term, and since then have not voted for a D for POTUS. Several down ballot elections for Ds got my vote, and even a few Rs. But I feel my vote is best going to 3rd parties that more accurately reflect my values.
(DIR) Post #AnShCWFWLDUxYrWSBM by matzeschmidt@masto.ai
2024-10-28T10:11:38Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ErikUden 'Trump's potential genocide to Biden's currently real and ongoing genocide' - what genocides are meant here? Guess the war against Hamas is meant. Actually this war is terrible, a terrible urban warfare. Such 'format' of war costs lifes the #Hamas dealt with as Gaza was built up like a garrison.
(DIR) Post #AnnrVM1YYos5B7ocds by mloxton@med-mastodon.com
2024-11-07T15:16:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ErikUden Yeah, sure, it is harm reduction, and they aren't saints.But criticism is most often just bothsiderism, whataboutism, or deflection, and I reject most criticism of Biden because it is ridiculous to be effectively nitpicking while the alternative is existential for so many people
(DIR) Post #Anny7J0IpzCmXZi0x6 by ErikUden@mastodon.de
2024-11-07T16:30:09Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mloxton I think especially when the alternative party is an existential threat to many people we should ensure the good guys have policies that remain good, and aren't willing to throw entire groups of people under the bus in case it is believed that'll win votes. For Harris to have such an unclear stance on whether she supports trans people a few days before the election just makes you lose your base.
(DIR) Post #AnnyzVoTQfn3uB1Wdc by mloxton@med-mastodon.com
2024-11-07T16:34:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ErikUden Right, but that means those people who defect are making a decision that is very much NOT harm reduction.Even if Harris had very clearly thrown some group under the bus, walking away and thus allowing the worse of the options to realize, is the opposite of harm reduction - it is harm enablementIt may FEEL really great to take a moral position and walk away from the table as a symbolic gesture, but it is ultimately very harmful, and hurts a wide range of people
(DIR) Post #Annzv4jwFDnejdLnZQ by ErikUden@mastodon.de
2024-11-07T16:50:20Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mloxton We can individualize the fault and talk about the responsibility of voting given two options, one of which being the lesser evil. I'm all for that discussion as well. However, I think the more important discussion is why the Harris campaign threw away policies that polled best and instead copied far right talking points in order to appear moderate. That loses votes. We can blame every person that still didn't vote for Harris, I find it more important to blame Harris for why such a decision was made. It can't be that every lost election it's the voter's fault, not the strategy or people running. I find it incorrect to scapegoat some sort of group or ideology now, because it was sort of Harris' job to appeal to that group. Back in 2020 many people were voting for Biden, especially due to promising cutting police funding and putting it into social programs. The BLM movement was pretty clear on that, yet all those promises were disappointed on day one. Things like Medicare for All polled best, both in 2016 and 2020 Bernie Sanders had the best chance against Trump, all polls confirmed that. Still, Democratic leadership decided to not run with that because of corporate sponsors. They decided to trade-off percentage points that may win them the election for their bought policies. Instead of playing into these shenanigans and Groundhog Day repeating this behavior every four years, we should realize this strategy and tactic simply doesn't work. We can talk about a responsibility of voting for the lesser evil, but I won't claim I have no understanding for people who voted for what they thought represents them best. Additionally, I may want to add, the people who did vote for a third party had zero effect on what happened. In no swing state, if you added all Jill Stein and Claudia De La Cruz votes to Harris, it would've made a difference. We need to go deeper than to criticize the individual aspect here, and we need to focus on strategy, messaging, and what went wrong in both the Clinton campaign, Biden/Harris government, and Harris campaign. I've written some more thoughts on this specific topic here, with some sources cited, as well as some screenshots of people who could express the things I'm feeling much better than I could:https://mastodon.de/@ErikUden/113436248472057590
(DIR) Post #Ano1w8EUwXwRlYHB5c by mloxton@med-mastodon.com
2024-11-07T17:12:51Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ErikUden Thanks. You have far more characters than I, so I need to segment my reply"the more important discussion is why the Harris campaign threw away policies that polled best"Actually, that is easy, and not that important.That is what the data told her, and she was hoping her base would understand, and stay firm, while she undermined TFG support by platforming Cheney, etc.They will always try that, because that is usually successful and is supported by the evidence.Importance/2