this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2024
-65 points (21.2% liked)

Political Memes

5354 readers
1469 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes 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 misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Ephoron@lemmy.kde.social 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Anyone who wants a different candidate in 2028 that supports their views needed to get really involved in 2020, at the latest.

They did.

Again, your blind faith that the system will work if only the people just tried harder is sycophantic at best, if not downright insulting.

And besides, you're the one imploring them to just vote without any regard to policy, so what exactly is "getting involved"?

Why would the Democrats listen to anything anyone says if they're guaranteed your vote come election day anyway?

[–] echo@lemmings.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And besides, you’re the one imploring them to just vote without any regard to policy, so what exactly is “getting involved”?

No, I'm saying that at this point in time that the next POTUS is either going to be Harris or Trump. Which of those two do you want it to be? Vote accordingly.

[–] Ephoron@lemmy.kde.social 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

That's the same thing.

Your claim is that, come election time, we should always vote for the least worst party which has a chance of getting in. That's always the Democrats and always will be if we follow your system.

So the corollary of your system is that one party runs America for ever.

So why bother with elections at all?

[–] echo@lemmings.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You can deny reality all you want, but Harris or Trump is going to be the next POTUS. Which one do you want it to be?

[–] Ephoron@lemmy.kde.social -1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I want it to be whichever results from us attempting to preserve democracy.

Our nation has taken far, far bigger risks than 4 years of Trump to preserve democracy.

Determining something to be an acceptable risk is not the same as wanting it. Casualties are an acceptable risk of a just war. No one says people want soldiers to die.

I'm prepared to risk a Trump presidency to preserve some semblance of democracy and make it clear that genocide is never an acceptable option. That doesn't mean I want a Trump presidency any more than being prepared to risk soldier's lives during war means you want soldiers to die.

[–] Soup@lemmy.cafe 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I’m prepared to risk a Trump presidency

This is beyond the pale. You must have checked off on all of your entitlements before you came to this realization. Because what you’re doing by “risking” a Trump presidency is potentially going to hurt a lot of people. Get over yourself and pay attention to what’s going here.

[–] Ephoron@lemmy.kde.social -2 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

what you’re doing by “risking” a Trump presidency is potentially going to hurt a lot of people

This is beyond the pale. You must have checked off on all of your entitlements before you came to this realization. Because what you’re doing by “risking” genocide being normalised is potentially going to hurt a lot of people. Get over yourself and pay attention to what’s going here.

See how pointless conversation becomes if you just assume your interlocutor is mistaken without a case.

We might as well be in a school-yard yelling "no you are..."

If you think a Trump presidency risks more harm than normalising genocide and undermining democracy, then make the fucking case. This is a discussion forum. Discuss. What is your evidence, how have you weighed it, what critique can you offer of the case I've made... Give us something beyond childish bleating.

[–] Soup@lemmy.cafe 1 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 children)

bUt mUh gEnOciDe!!

No one is normalizing anything here except you- normalizing the idea that it’s okay to selfishly hurt others by withholding a vote.

It’s too late now to bother with the details. Bur since you feel you need to have it explained to you why Trump is worse, I’ll bite:

What you’re doing by pissing away your vote, is you’re essentially giving the middle finger to the LGBTQ+, women, immigrants, and non-Christians- all because of your entitlement and inability to find reason in arguments against your decision. He is going to help Israel finish the job against those that live in a country I’d wager you couldn’t point to onna map a year ago.

We’re at the eleventh hour. You single-issue “leftists” know better and chose to pull this shit anyway- so at this point I’m going to say you are all purposefully trying to hurt people.

And to me, that’s as bad faith as it gets.

[–] Ephoron@lemmy.kde.social 0 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

So still no actual counter-argument then? You realise that just saying option 1 is bad doesn't constitute an argument for choosing it over option 2?

I've argued thay voting for a party supporting genocide will create a norm that supporting genocide is OK, that it doesn't risk loss of support. That's a dangerous precedent to set because if politicians find it expedient to support another genocide they will know they can do so without risking their power. Withholding a vote is the only way of ensuring politicians know they will lose support if they are complicit in genocide. Therefore it is the only option to ensure genocide is not normalised.

I've also argued that if we follow a principle of voting Democrat no matter what their policies are, this will set another dangerous precedent that a) politicians do not have to adjust policy to meet the will of the electorate, and b) that we're effectively thereby creating a one party state.

Note the uses of phrases like "because..." and "therefore..." These are how you construct an argument. Take some agreed premise and draw conclusions with rational steps.

Your counter-argument can't just be "but Trump's goimg to do bad things to minorities" because that doesn't counter any of the points in the argument I made. You'd have to disagree with some premise or one of the conclusions therefrom, or argue why you think minority rights are more import than the consequences I've reasoned toward.

And it may alarm you to discover that putting something in alternating capitals doesn't really persuade anyone of even moderate intelligence of anything. It's not really a stand in for justificatory reasoning.

[–] Soup@lemmy.cafe 1 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

I have no idea why I bothered. Enjoy your entitlement and- have a….. day.

[–] echo@lemmings.world 2 points 1 day ago

I’m prepared to risk a Trump presidency

You're not taking a risk. You are promoting a Trump presidency. If you can't or won't accept reality then there is no need to continue this conversation.