472
Voting for the lesser evil is still evil
(feddit.uk)
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 17 Dec 2024
472 points (78.0% liked)
Memes
45895 readers
1340 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
No.
Look at how the system actually works. There are two choices. Both candidates have to compete for all the people who vote. If you sit out the election that doesn't mean either candidate will try to get your vote; they'll ignore you and go after the people who do vote.
Someone else came up with this analogy. It's like the trolley problem except the there's a third option. The third choice is to throw the switch to "Neither," but "Neither" isn't connected and the trolley kills someone anyway.
Or as Rush put it, “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.”
My friend, what you wrote totally ignores the passage of time. Everything you wrote is true if we only look at one election, and none of it is true if we consider the passage of time and how pressure operates. If the political party is not getting votes, if all of their candidates are losing, either they will disband or they will find different policies to push.
Actually I paid attention to history. The pendulum swung the other way a few years back; arch Conservative Ronald Reagan courted the Left by picking the first woman on the Supreme Court and making Colin Powell his Number One guy.
George Carlin did a great job blowing this nonsense apart
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9X4Z1lLUMfw
If George was alive today he'd be begging people to vote against Trump.
No he wouldn't, and the video I linked explains clearly why. Maybe watch it and try to comprehend what he's saying there.
Let me explain something you may not be aware of.
The man was an entertainer. His job was to make people laugh. I can cherry pick his work and come up with all kinds of absurd ideas he put into his act.
If the only argument you can make is based on a comedy routine, then we have nothing more to discuss.
Let me explain something you may not be aware of. Entertainers often say serious things that cannot be said in other mediums. If you don't understand that Carlin was doing political commentary, and appreciate his insights then you're a very dim individual indeed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_George_Carlin_Show
George did a TV show on the FOX network.
I love his stuff, but that doesn't blind me to the fact that he was primarily an entertainer.
The fact that you thought this was a good argument shows how utterly intellectually impoverished you are.
I'm keeping this going because you're entertaining me.
Simple minds, simple pleasures.
Yeah bro, the anti war hippie who was challenging the FCC in the 70s would have totally been team corporatocracy. Carlin had several interviews where he talked about how the two party system in America is an illusion of choice and ragged on Bill Clinton for being phony, and that's the farthest left liberal candidate in like 30 years, a fucking neoliberal.
Yall sound exactly like the conservatives claiming MLK.
Like I said, if you can't come up with anything except a comedy act, we have nothing to discuss.
Here's a clip from his early days, proof that he couldn't possibly have ever changed his thoughts about anything.
https://youtu.be/-sx-7NucjEk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKO8qMJtbng this is from the 90s through the early 2000s, but I imagine you'll find another reason to dismiss his words to pretend you know what was in his heart was different tho.
For the record, I don't agree with his defeatist outlook, I think there's comedians with better takes on American politics, but to pretend Carlin would be blue MAGA just because you wish him to be is ridiculous.
Liberals will co-opt anyone who doesn't flag a hammer and sickle flag
Which begs the question, why fly the Hammer and Sickle at all?
Politics is a game and if you want to win elections you should learn to play it.
Nixon hid his anti-Black agenda behind phrases like 'safe streets' and 'the War on Drugs.'
Do you want to win elections or do you want to lose but be able to boast about how pure your intentions were?
They'll co-opt you if you do too lmao, as long as you're already dead. They been co-opting Tupac ffs.
Exactly. Ray Bradbury was angry that Obama never did any meaningful space exploration during his terms. After Bradbury died the Right tried to depict him as a life long GOP.
Carlin was born and raised in New York City. Morningside Heights [aka 'White Harlem']
New York City voted 90% against Donnie.
Carlin also came out for McGovern against Nixon.
Unlike many people, Carlin could adapt and change with the times. Heck, he even did a show on Fox.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_George_Carlin_Show
If 5% of the general election popular vote for POTUS, knowing that the candidate cannot win, still voted for the Green Party platform then what effect would that have upon the Democratic Party platform?
On a five point difficulty scale this is a two. The test gets way harder than this.
If my grandmother had wheels she'd be a tea trolley.
Right now the reality is the Donald Trump is going to take office because a lot of people didn't vote for the alternative.
All the 'what if...?' games in the world isn't going to change that.
Thank you for the opportunity to teach.
Minimization.
Red herring.
Minimization.
This is a bit better than typical nonsense because there's two tactics in a sandwich. Next is usually ad hominem. But, this one may have another trick up their sleeve.
Simply naming fallacies isn't teaching. The point of learning fallacies isn't so that you can just name them and feel like you've made a point.
I asked a question. I received a fallacy sandwich in return. There's no point in investing further.
unsupported
strawman
The point of teaching is sharing knowledge, not just poking holes in whatever argument you can (intentional hyperbole, not strawman)
Instead of just "strawman, therefore you're wrong" and leaving it at that, how about you explain what was incorrect in that statement. That way you become more understood, and everyone understands you more.
This isn't a courtroom debate. This isn't a debate you "win" or "lose". This is a debate where everyone should be trying to understand each other, so that everyone ends up better off by the end. This sort of debate is a cooperative thing, not competitive.
The audience I wish to reach doesn't need their hand held as a child.
A. I hate to do this, but
Strawman, saying that this is about "leading people like they're children" not "clear and effective communication as equals"
B. What I'm talking about is proactively sharing your views, both to save time on questioning and to fill gaps that others would have never thought to ask about. Please, tell me why this isn't a needed part of discussion.
I need not accommodate everyone.
Who do you think you're actually reaching?
That's by far the best question I've been asked in this thread. However, satisfying your curiosity would require me to break a well-reasoned commitment I've already made to others.
I'm reminded of children in grade school who "I know what that means, I'm just not going to explain it to you."
Okay. You're a lot of talking for someone who doesn't want to say anything.
Yes. In this endeavor you're beginning to understand the means I've chosen for the majority.
Ad hominem. How ironic, who could have expected this! Blocked lmao.
None of your assertions have been supported
How do you not choke on your irony?
With well-reasoned and nuanced principles supported by vast experience.
Unsupported
You're going to have to explain that in detail. Trump got more votes. He won. How is that anything except a cold, hard fact?
Pompous.
Make your 3rd party an arm of the dems. A coalition of sorts
If you're saying that the Left should vote for the Dems I agree.
I'd love to have Bernie as President, but our side dropped the ball twice and failed to get him nominated.
You understand how things work! Ignore the apathy trolls. They are trying to silence your vote. Here's what actually happens if you vote for the lesser of two evils. You're rights are protected and next time use the primary process to pick someone even better.
Oh, Like how we voted for the lesser evil in 2020 and didn't have a fucking primary in 2024. Don't tell us to do something that your party makes sure doesn't happen.
Lol. What planet do you live on?
Like how Roe V. Wade was protected when Biden got into office? Like our right to protest the atrocities which our taxes are paying for in Gaza?
Do yourself a favor and read the novels of Ross Thomas. He was a Washington reporter turned crime novelist. All his books have a strong political basis. Two of his best; "The Fools In Town Are On Our Side," an ex-CIA hot shot is hired to clean up a small Southern city by making it so corrupt even the pimps will vote for reform; "The Porkchoppers," a nuts and bolts look at a Union election with characters ranging from White House aides and Washington power mongers to factory line workers.