Oh I’ve noticed. The way I see it, there are three options when it comes to the “both sides”/protest vote camp, every single one of them is one of the following:
a bad faith actor cosplaying as a leftist
an accelerationist
a misguided idealist who legitimately believes a non-mainstream candidate could win and/or completely disregards the cold hard fact that FPTP means a third party/abstain vote simply endangers the lesser of two evils candidate while empowering the greater of two evils candidate
No matter what I will never stop throwing shade at that crowd hard and heavy. The first two on that list will never change. I do hope, however, that continued social pressure on that last type of person will make some of them realize that voting is just as much a responsibility as a right, and consider that maybe there’s a good reason their views are so unpopular.
Edited after a good point made by samus12345.
Also I noticed the single downvote on every one of my comments. I know who you are lol. Glad to see I’m still living in your head rent-free.
I think there are also misguided idealists who think it’s more important that they feel good about not voting for the “genocide” guy while absolving themselves of any blame should his opponent win. They know a third party candidate can’t win, but that’s not as important as them being “right”.
NO, These are all bad points! With the regularity of these posts, I am starting to suspect you are all bots.
If you want Biden to stop doing something, like supporting a genocide, you don’t just say “please stop, but I’ll support you no matter what”. You tell him, pollsters and everyone who asks that you definitely won’t be voting for someone who supports x. When it’s time to vote, it might be time to vote for the least evil choice.
With the regularity of these posts, I am starting to suspect you are all bots.
lol… I went ahead and measured my heart rate and blood oxygen for ya, 67bpm and 98% respectively; I am decidedly flesh and bones. Perhaps the reason these posts are so regular is because a good number of people don’t agree with you? Ever consider that?
You tell him, pollsters and everyone who asks that you definitely won’t be voting for someone who supports x. When it’s time to vote, it might be time to vote for the least evil choice.
Ok. There’s a lot to unpack here. If you’re considering voting for him anyway, there’s no weight behind your threat to withhold your vote. The problem is that not everyone thinks that way, and encouraging people to essentially burn their vote and endanger Biden’s reelection is that the only other option is Trump. Myself, and many others in this community see this as a flagrantly irresponsible gamble to be making. That’s why we push back against it. I emphatically support protesting, but not protest voting. I emphatically support the idea of a general strike, but still not protest voting. There are plenty of people like me, who want to see the genocide end, but also recognize the very real fact that the consequences of fucking around come general election time may very well be continued genocide and fascism. Just like some people say voting for a candidate supporting a genocide is a line they won’t cross, ushering in the age of trumpist fascism in the US is a line we won’t cross. The thing you seem to fail to consider is that there are more of us than you think.
What about a more nuanced approach, such as both sides are shit. One side is clearly a bit less shit than the other, and so, I’ll vote for that side, out of duress. I don’t want to, I want to vote someone I actually believe in. I can’t say many good things about the party I’m voting for, but I can’t say ANYTHING good about their only viable opponent. And so, in an effort to keep the worst case scenario from happening, I’m going to vote for the only viable option.
This is the core of the “both sides” argument to me. We’re going to vote dem. But we cannot forget that neither of these parties are the ones we want. It’s important to make that known. We are not voting for you because we like you, we’re voting for you because we REALLY DON’T LIKE THE OTHER ONE. As long as we keep talking about that, as long as that very critical voice isn’t silenced, we can slowly move the needle, until eventually one election we’ll actually be able to elect the one we want.
As long as we keep talking about that, as long as that very critical voice isn’t silenced, we can slowly move the needle, until eventually one election we’ll actually be able to elect the one we want.
Which is why centrists are so keen on silence from their critics to the left. And only ever the left.
I’ve noticed they will have a little tirade if you ask them what is the logical consistency that they support China despite being “against” Gaza genocide in a way that means they couldn’t possibly vote for harm reduction.
voting isn’t a harm reduction strategy. a harm reduction strategy would be recognizing those bad things are going to happen and helping people mitigate the fallout.
Yes, by voting for the party that isn’t saying we should have the National Guard brutalize protesters, that protesters should be deported, and that Israel would be justified in nuking Gaza.
you are ignoring what harm reduction means and pretending voting fits the definition of this specific jargon. it does not, and claiming it does actually impedes the educational work that harm reductionists need to do to advance their strategies.
I’ve been pointing that out all the time. They’re never on any posts critical of Trump. Only anything about Biden. It it’s critical, they’re there to agree- if it’s positive, they’re there to shit all over it.
POTUS has the power to pause military equipment shipments. Biden did exactly this with Israel, as have a few other presidents in other situations. The current congressional Republicans put forward legislation to prevent POTUS from being able to do that. (I’m not sure whether that bill got anywhere or not.) Biden said he would veto such a bill.
Foreign military aid to Israel is supplied as of the terms of the United States - Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014, a ten year agreement to supply Israel with certain military aid, which was signed by the US and Israel in 2016, and which took effect in 2018. That was passed by Congress. POTUS does not have the power to unilaterally end that agreement; Congress does.
The Arms Export Control Act of 1976 gives the President of the United States the authority to control the import and export of defense articles and defense services.
“The law is clear and aligned with the majority of Americans who believe the U.S. should cease arms shipments to Israel until it stops its military operation in Gaza”
Nor any suggestions on who could win in his place. Ask them. Every time- make a game out of it.
They NEVER answer it. Not once. I’ve asked them who is currently running that can win November. Not a single one of them has made a peep of a suggestion.
To be entirely fair, the Republican party does a good job of criticizing themselves.
Consider that a lot of the discourse you’re seeing is from people who already believe the democratic party is the lesser of the two evils they’re probably going to vote for them regardless.
If you’re engaging in a conversation with someone else, whose only tangible difference between the two of you is that one of you believes Dems are a-okay, and one believes that both parties are shit, the only real talking points they have are what the Dems do that aren’t great.
Obviously I don’t think this is every case, but I know that if I wasn’t already primed to have THIS argument, that’d probably be the route it’d take.
If the United States determines at any time that a transfer is no longer in accordance with United States foreign policy objectives, national security goals, or legal obligations, the United States may cease the transfer of or future support for a transferred defense article or service.
Biden could act unilaterally here.
This is elementary school civics in the US.
Yes, and he needs a declaration of war to go to war. 🙄 Just because your education ended with an elementary school reading of the constitution, doesn’t mean that’s how the country operates in practice.
“Checks and balances” exist in name only. Sure the supreme court or congress could strike down new social programs, but war and spy powers exist independently from the legislative and judicial branches.
Republicans don’t pretend to care they wear their bigotry on their shoulder, Democrats are covert in their bigotry and their racism that’s why they are often called out for it
Notice how they only ever criticize Biden, and never the Republican party, which fully supports Israeli bullshit?
Oh I’ve noticed. The way I see it, there are three options when it comes to the “both sides”/protest vote camp, every single one of them is one of the following:
No matter what I will never stop throwing shade at that crowd hard and heavy. The first two on that list will never change. I do hope, however, that continued social pressure on that last type of person will make some of them realize that voting is just as much a responsibility as a right, and consider that maybe there’s a good reason their views are so unpopular.
Edited after a good point made by samus12345.
Also I noticed the single downvote on every one of my comments. I know who you are lol. Glad to see I’m still living in your head rent-free.
I think there are also misguided idealists who think it’s more important that they feel good about not voting for the “genocide” guy while absolving themselves of any blame should his opponent win. They know a third party candidate can’t win, but that’s not as important as them being “right”.
I believe the vast majority of these are privileged people whose family wealth will shield them from legislation they don’t want to be subject to.
Or just white cis straight males, who will be protected from much of it as well.
you don’t actually have any evidence for that, though, do you?
Only their words showing them to be clearly insulated from and cavalier about the effects of Republican legislature, true.
so can you link that?
Certainly: https://lemmy.world/comment/10594717
that doesn’t support your claim
Yeah that’s a good point.
NO, These are all bad points! With the regularity of these posts, I am starting to suspect you are all bots.
If you want Biden to stop doing something, like supporting a genocide, you don’t just say “please stop, but I’ll support you no matter what”. You tell him, pollsters and everyone who asks that you definitely won’t be voting for someone who supports x. When it’s time to vote, it might be time to vote for the least evil choice.
lol… I went ahead and measured my heart rate and blood oxygen for ya, 67bpm and 98% respectively; I am decidedly flesh and bones. Perhaps the reason these posts are so regular is because a good number of people don’t agree with you? Ever consider that?
Ok. There’s a lot to unpack here. If you’re considering voting for him anyway, there’s no weight behind your threat to withhold your vote. The problem is that not everyone thinks that way, and encouraging people to essentially burn their vote and endanger Biden’s reelection is that the only other option is Trump. Myself, and many others in this community see this as a flagrantly irresponsible gamble to be making. That’s why we push back against it. I emphatically support protesting, but not protest voting. I emphatically support the idea of a general strike, but still not protest voting. There are plenty of people like me, who want to see the genocide end, but also recognize the very real fact that the consequences of fucking around come general election time may very well be continued genocide and fascism. Just like some people say voting for a candidate supporting a genocide is a line they won’t cross, ushering in the age of trumpist fascism in the US is a line we won’t cross. The thing you seem to fail to consider is that there are more of us than you think.
What about a more nuanced approach, such as both sides are shit. One side is clearly a bit less shit than the other, and so, I’ll vote for that side, out of duress. I don’t want to, I want to vote someone I actually believe in. I can’t say many good things about the party I’m voting for, but I can’t say ANYTHING good about their only viable opponent. And so, in an effort to keep the worst case scenario from happening, I’m going to vote for the only viable option.
This is the core of the “both sides” argument to me. We’re going to vote dem. But we cannot forget that neither of these parties are the ones we want. It’s important to make that known. We are not voting for you because we like you, we’re voting for you because we REALLY DON’T LIKE THE OTHER ONE. As long as we keep talking about that, as long as that very critical voice isn’t silenced, we can slowly move the needle, until eventually one election we’ll actually be able to elect the one we want.
Which is why centrists are so keen on silence from their critics to the left. And only ever the left.
The neolib centrists need the right to guarantee their power. The left is the only group threatening that.
Amen! I feel like my post history is 90% calling out these bullshit accounts, and 10% random other non-political stuff.
That’s almost all I do here. These people should be outed for what they are.
Yeah, same. Mine is a mix of dumb memes posted to Ten Forward, dumb joke comments on random posts, and “both siders are fucking morons”-type comments.
That is why every time someone brings up Genocide Joe, I bring up Turbo Genocide Donny
literally whataboutism
It’s not, though. Nice try.
saying something doesnt make it true.
Take your own advice then, champ.
i’ve been right this whole time.
Opinions aren’t fact.
it’s not a matter of opinion whether the other user is engaging in whataboutism.
Needs more alliteration
I’ve noticed they will have a little tirade if you ask them what is the logical consistency that they support China despite being “against” Gaza genocide in a way that means they couldn’t possibly vote for harm reduction.
voting is not a harm reduction strategy.
It is if you think women losing access to healthcare or Ukrainians being massacred is harm.
voting isn’t a harm reduction strategy. a harm reduction strategy would be recognizing those bad things are going to happen and helping people mitigate the fallout.
Yes, by voting for the party that isn’t saying we should have the National Guard brutalize protesters, that protesters should be deported, and that Israel would be justified in nuking Gaza.
you are ignoring what harm reduction means and pretending voting fits the definition of this specific jargon. it does not, and claiming it does actually impedes the educational work that harm reductionists need to do to advance their strategies.
Nah, none of that is correct.
saying something doesn’t make it true.
I’ve been pointing that out all the time. They’re never on any posts critical of Trump. Only anything about Biden. It it’s critical, they’re there to agree- if it’s positive, they’re there to shit all over it.
Also notice how there’s never any talk about what they wish Biden was doing instead.
I wish Biden would stop sending weapons to Israel.
From another comment:
POTUS has the power to pause military equipment shipments. Biden did exactly this with Israel, as have a few other presidents in other situations. The current congressional Republicans put forward legislation to prevent POTUS from being able to do that. (I’m not sure whether that bill got anywhere or not.) Biden said he would veto such a bill.
Foreign military aid to Israel is supplied as of the terms of the United States - Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014, a ten year agreement to supply Israel with certain military aid, which was signed by the US and Israel in 2016, and which took effect in 2018. That was passed by Congress. POTUS does not have the power to unilaterally end that agreement; Congress does.
False
From the article you linked:
And that’s a different act that strictly applies here. The AECA enables the existence of the US-Israel Strategic Partnership Act.
It also says:
Now, I’m not a lawyer, but these people are and they say:
Biden himself exercised an emergency provision in the law to bypass congress, in order to send more weapons to Israel
Oh, hey, I have seen you before. One of the accelerationists who wants China to expand its influence despite what they are doing to Uyghurs.
Nor any suggestions on who could win in his place. Ask them. Every time- make a game out of it.
They NEVER answer it. Not once. I’ve asked them who is currently running that can win November. Not a single one of them has made a peep of a suggestion.
To be entirely fair, the Republican party does a good job of criticizing themselves.
Consider that a lot of the discourse you’re seeing is from people who already believe the democratic party is the lesser of the two evils they’re probably going to vote for them regardless.
If you’re engaging in a conversation with someone else, whose only tangible difference between the two of you is that one of you believes Dems are a-okay, and one believes that both parties are shit, the only real talking points they have are what the Dems do that aren’t great.
Obviously I don’t think this is every case, but I know that if I wasn’t already primed to have THIS argument, that’d probably be the route it’d take.
Biden is the fucking commander in chief.
Congress exists as a coequal branch of the government and is who actually makes laws. The president can only exercise policies to execute those laws.
This is elementary school civics in the US. Being commander in chief doesn’t mean Biden can change funding and laws on a whim.
From: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2023/02/23/memorandum-on-united-states-conventional-arms-transfer-policy/
Biden could act unilaterally here.
Yes, and he needs a declaration of war to go to war. 🙄 Just because your education ended with an elementary school reading of the constitution, doesn’t mean that’s how the country operates in practice.
“Checks and balances” exist in name only. Sure the supreme court or congress could strike down new social programs, but war and spy powers exist independently from the legislative and judicial branches.
Republicans don’t pretend to care they wear their bigotry on their shoulder, Democrats are covert in their bigotry and their racism that’s why they are often called out for it