If you have to vote between a candidate who wants to build 5 concentration camps and another candidate who wants to build one. You vote for the candidate that only wants to build only one concentration camp. Sure, both candidates are really bad, but one is considerably worse.
Therefore, we must still vote for the lesser of two evils. Not voting at all because both sides bad is how democracy dies, especially when democracy itself is under attack right now.
If you have to vote between a candidate who wants to build 5 concentration camps and another candidate who wants to build one. You vote for the candidate that only wants to build only one concentration camp.
Well it’s a good thing that we didn’t have that binary choice then. My ballot had a few options, some of them even opposing concentration camps, so I got to vote against them.
I would vote a third party if it doesn’t just help the right win. If only we had ranked choice voting instead of the electrol college, then we could crub the 2 party system. Unfortunately, in the US, it’s either red team or blue team because until you can change the hearts and minds of millions of people, then it’s always going to be one of them.
I mean, I believe nixus was talking about voting third party, which here in America is just another way of abstaining to vote. The concentration camp example was just to point out that to say one bad candidate against an objectively worse candidate doesn’t automatically mean they’re both equally as bad. I regret using concentration camps as an example though. Perhaps a better example would be if you had the choice of voting for either Benito Mussolini or Bill Clinton. Both candidates are bad, but if I vote for one of them, am I in the wrong to make sure Mussolini doesn’t win by voting for Bill Clinton?
The concentration camps are a perfect example. No one’s saying both sides are the exact same. They’re saying they both serve US imperialism. Case and point: one side wants 5 concentration camps, the other thinks that’s a little too much and we should settle for 1.
If you want to build concentration camps you’re a fascist. If you’re okay with a party wanting to build concentration camps or can look past it you’re a fascist. You wouldn’t accept someone in the 1930s saying “yeah what the nazis are doing with the Jews is bad but have you seen their treatment of animals? I’ll vote for them but I’m no Nazi.”
So, what do you suggest I do then as an alternative to voting in this scenario? I suppose I could spill the blood of the politicians that want to build concentration camps, but once again unless I change the minds of millions of people and start a full blown civil war, then the bloodshed will be pointless. I could also move away from America, but that’s assuming I could even afford to do that let alone be able to do it legally. The only power I have as an American citizen as of now is to vote. That’s the only power I have. Protesting will eventually just get me arrested or murdered once Trump completes his power grab.
You have more power than just voting every 4 years lmao. Get organised and start interacting with like minded people and get other people on your side. Every 4 years there’s 1540 days where you could be fighting fascism and you’re only doing it for 1.
I mean tbf, this is more personal rather than political but, if this comment section is any identification I doubt I should be the person who does organize a resistance. This is me with time to think about my replies too, imagine me with a real time debate with someone. I have a group of friends and a family with similar opinions to mine, but would that truly be enough to resist fascism or would we all be broken or annihilated with no impact at all?
More so pointing out how silly it is. If the US wasn’t a democracy, then why vote? If they’re referring to the electrol college or lobbying, then yeah, I don’t support those and think it’s anti-democratic. We’d be in agreement.
Even strict dictatorships have elections to gauge how much support they have. They’re limited in how far they can go before spawning a revolution. Just because votes aren’t capable of inacting actual change against the ruling class’s interests doesn’t mean it isn’t useful. By voting for a third party you’re showing solidarity with the movement and demonstrating how the current system is a sham. By voting for the system you only legitimise it and give the rulers the excuse to say they’re acting legally and with the will of the people.
It’s wild how people can look at sham elections where both parties serve the same oligarchs in other countries, but then think the biggest oligarchy there is, America, is somehow built different.
But do you mean "then why do people vote, or why should people vote? Cause the answer varies
If you have to vote between a candidate who wants to build 5 concentration camps and another candidate who wants to build one. You vote for the candidate that only wants to build only one concentration camp. Sure, both candidates are really bad, but one is considerably worse.
Therefore, we must still vote for the lesser of two evils. Not voting at all because both sides bad is how democracy dies, especially when democracy itself is under attack right now.
Well it’s a good thing that we didn’t have that binary choice then. My ballot had a few options, some of them even opposing concentration camps, so I got to vote against them.
I would vote a third party if it doesn’t just help the right win. If only we had ranked choice voting instead of the electrol college, then we could crub the 2 party system. Unfortunately, in the US, it’s either red team or blue team because until you can change the hearts and minds of millions of people, then it’s always going to be one of them.
You’re admitting to being one of the millions of people that votes and therefore legitimises the construction of concentration camps.
You’re a fascist.
I mean, I believe nixus was talking about voting third party, which here in America is just another way of abstaining to vote. The concentration camp example was just to point out that to say one bad candidate against an objectively worse candidate doesn’t automatically mean they’re both equally as bad. I regret using concentration camps as an example though. Perhaps a better example would be if you had the choice of voting for either Benito Mussolini or Bill Clinton. Both candidates are bad, but if I vote for one of them, am I in the wrong to make sure Mussolini doesn’t win by voting for Bill Clinton?
The concentration camps are a perfect example. No one’s saying both sides are the exact same. They’re saying they both serve US imperialism. Case and point: one side wants 5 concentration camps, the other thinks that’s a little too much and we should settle for 1.
If you want to build concentration camps you’re a fascist. If you’re okay with a party wanting to build concentration camps or can look past it you’re a fascist. You wouldn’t accept someone in the 1930s saying “yeah what the nazis are doing with the Jews is bad but have you seen their treatment of animals? I’ll vote for them but I’m no Nazi.”
So, what do you suggest I do then as an alternative to voting in this scenario? I suppose I could spill the blood of the politicians that want to build concentration camps, but once again unless I change the minds of millions of people and start a full blown civil war, then the bloodshed will be pointless. I could also move away from America, but that’s assuming I could even afford to do that let alone be able to do it legally. The only power I have as an American citizen as of now is to vote. That’s the only power I have. Protesting will eventually just get me arrested or murdered once Trump completes his power grab.
You have more power than just voting every 4 years lmao. Get organised and start interacting with like minded people and get other people on your side. Every 4 years there’s 1540 days where you could be fighting fascism and you’re only doing it for 1.
I mean tbf, this is more personal rather than political but, if this comment section is any identification I doubt I should be the person who does organize a resistance. This is me with time to think about my replies too, imagine me with a real time debate with someone. I have a group of friends and a family with similar opinions to mine, but would that truly be enough to resist fascism or would we all be broken or annihilated with no impact at all?
The US is not and has never been a democracy
Oh, you’re right. My mistake. I guess I’ll just stop voting or even protesting then :/
Please do stop protesting. I don’t want white supremacists protesting against the destruction of the usa empire, I want them behind bars.
Protesting against the actions of Donald Trump makes me a white supremist? Sorry, I didn’t realize.
You get told you’re wrong and immediately throw your toys out the pram
More so pointing out how silly it is. If the US wasn’t a democracy, then why vote? If they’re referring to the electrol college or lobbying, then yeah, I don’t support those and think it’s anti-democratic. We’d be in agreement.
Even strict dictatorships have elections to gauge how much support they have. They’re limited in how far they can go before spawning a revolution. Just because votes aren’t capable of inacting actual change against the ruling class’s interests doesn’t mean it isn’t useful. By voting for a third party you’re showing solidarity with the movement and demonstrating how the current system is a sham. By voting for the system you only legitimise it and give the rulers the excuse to say they’re acting legally and with the will of the people.
It’s wild how people can look at sham elections where both parties serve the same oligarchs in other countries, but then think the biggest oligarchy there is, America, is somehow built different.
But do you mean "then why do people vote, or why should people vote? Cause the answer varies