Democrats: You have to vote for democrats to stop Trump from round up people and shipping them to concentration camps for slave labor.(hexbear.net)

posted 2 months ago

Posadas [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.net

chapotraphouse@hexbear.net

227 commentshide report

Also Democrats: Ve shall round up und eradicate ze undesirables from society!!! Ve shall put zem into ze camps and ve shall enslave them to benefit ze superior class!!!

https://fxtwitter.com/lastreetcare/status/1806869510483476829

Sort:

Hot Top Controversial New Old

You are viewing a single thread.

View all comments View context

[ - ]

emizeko [they/them]@hexbear.net

13 points

2 months ago

spoiler: it’s not democratic and never has been

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

notabot@lemm.ee

1 point

2 months ago

I did say ‘claims’. The point is that unless a significant proportion of the electorate are demanding a specific change it’s less likely to be made. If enough people demand it in exchange for votes a politician can’t ignore the issue without losing their next election and being replaced.

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

MolotovHalfEmpty [he/him]@hexbear.net

8 points

2 months ago

I did say ‘claims’.

So your arguement is that to change an undemocratic system you must only work within the boundries of the facade of that system (electorialism), whilst also not doing that (you must still vote for the party).

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

notabot@lemm.ee

1 point

2 months ago

I’m not saying you must vote for the party, we were originially just talking about the presidential election. However, individuals choosing not to vote for the party does tend to give the benefit to the opponent, which may not be a good choice in the current political climate. To be effective it has to be a large enough movement, making it’s requirements known clearly, for there to be a measurable effect. Without that there is no impetus for the system to change. Get enough people demanding better than FPTP voting and you’ll find a candidate that supports it. Find enough candidates across the nation who support it and it can be made to happen. Fix that and other changes become easier to achieve.

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

MolotovHalfEmpty [he/him]@hexbear.net

4 points

2 months ago

I’m not saying you must vote for the party, we were originially just talking about the presidential election

Yes, you are. And the elected president is the head of the party. Again, for someone so hung up on it, you don’t actually seem to know anything about how elections or electoral politics work.

However, individuals choosing not to vote for the party does tend to give the benefit to the opponent, which may not be a good choice in the current political climate.

Here you are saying it again, as you have dozens of times throughout this thread, as you well know.

To be effective it has to be a large enough movement, making it’s requirements known clearly, for there to be a measurable effect.

Plenty of movements throughout history have done this. Polling data shows this. It has no effect without the threat of combined removal of votes and (at least the implicit threat of) violent opposition.

You assert this repeatedly but never offer what those requirements are or how to achieve them. Only methods that directly limit the ability to do that. So please quantify your assertion and your strategy.

Get enough people demanding better than FPTP voting and you’ll find a candidate that supports it. Find enough candidates across the nation who support it and it can be made to happen. Fix that and other changes become easier to achieve.

But I can’t vote for those candidates because I have to vote for the supposedly ‘lesser evil’ of the two parties that oppose it, right? That’s your original premise here.

Also, FPTP has been used in the UK since the middle ages despite the fact that it’s always faced opposition from voters. So what’s your timeline for this reform via narrow electoralism?

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

notabot@lemm.ee

1 point

2 months ago

Yes, you are. And the elected president is the head of the party.

The elected president is typically the head of one of the parties, yes, although I haven’t seen anything saying they must be (please let me know if there is a rule about that). However, they are separate to the party, being the executive rather than legislative branch. The way I see it, this year’s election is uniquely evil, in that on the one hand you have Biden and on the other hand you have trump, who has stated his desire to be a dictator, and who wants to take all the worst positions the current administration have taken and make them even more extreme, whilst also stripping even more rights. Neither option is good, one is worse. Given that one of the two will be the next president of the United States of America, I would advocate for the less extreme one.

It has no effect without the threat of combined removal of votes

Yes, that’s what I am saying. Apologies if I wasn’t clear this time. Without that, no matter how big a movement is it’ll be ineffective. However unless it is large enough the removal of votes will either achieve nothing or be counter productive by letting a worse option in.

You assert this repeatedly but never offer what those requirements are or how to achieve them.

As I mentioned to someone else, look at the margin between the first and second place parties, and you probably need a movement of that order of magnitude to be able to swing the election. Then you need all of those people making contact with their representative or potential representative and laying out exactly what is needed to get their vote. It’s not complicated, just tough to get enough people to agree with you.

But I can’t vote for those candidates because I have to vote for the supposedly ‘lesser evil’ of the two parties that oppose it, right? That’s your original premise here.

As I said, initially we were talking about the presidential election, where I would say that ensuring trump doesn’t get in is vital. Swinging one or both houses to the Dems would also derisk trump being president. If you support an issue, say voting systems, you need enough people with you to ensure you are heard. Deciding to withhold your vote at a late stage, without explaining to the candidates exactly why will achieve nothing.

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

MolotovHalfEmpty [he/him]@hexbear.net

4 points

2 months ago

The elected president is typically the head of one of the parties, yes, although I haven’t seen anything saying they must be (please let me know if there is a rule about that). However, they are separate to the party, being the executive rather than legislative branch.

You literally have no fucking idea what you’re talking about. The president, senators, congresspeople, and all the way down are all the party dipshit. Go and learn the absolute basics. No investigation, no right to speak.

The way I see it, this year’s election is uniquely evil, in that on the one hand you have Biden and on the other hand you have trump, who has stated his desire to be a dictator,

I know how you see it, because you’re copy and pasting the same ignorant vibes-based nonesense I’ve already addressed elsewhere but you couldn’t reply to or defend. Next.

Yes, that’s what I am saying.

No, it’s not, because you advocate against even threatening to withhold voting for a candidate. That is the original premise of your entire arguement you came here to make.

(Also, don’t think I didn’t notice you cut the rest of my quote to make it only about electoralism again and not other pressures)

However unless it is large enough the removal of votes will either achieve nothing or be counter productive by letting a worse option in.

It’s not complicated, just tough to get enough people to agree with you.

Anything but assured victory is unacceptable and should not be risked. Also you must limit yourself to only a very narrow set of activities, during a tiny time window, that make that kind of organising impossible, while strengthing your opponent. This is definitely a good faith arguement.

You’re repeating your contradictory circular logic again here because you can’t engage with me addressing this point elsewhere. Are you not bored yet?

Deciding to withhold your vote at a late stage, without explaining to the candidates exactly why will achieve nothing.

Straw man bullshit because you can’t and won’t address the actual points people, including me have made elsewhere in the thread. No one is advocating for this. You’re arguing against a position that you made up because your orginal premise is, was, and has been shown to be bullshit concern trolling throughout this thread.

permalink

report

parent

Show more comments

Democrats: You have to vote for democrats to stop Trump from round up people and shipping them to concentration camps for slave labor.(hexbear.net)

chapotraphouse

!chapotraphouse@hexbear.net

Community stats

Community moderators