|
Josef bugman posted:Would they also be put to one side if it meant voting for the lesser evil? At what point would you object? What distinguishes your genuine moral objection to participating in an event from simple indifference to participating? If you believe that casting a vote has a material influence on the outcome of the election,, that you are then morally culpable for any and all outcomes your influence may have caused (or prevented from causing), and that the most moral action is to abstain from expressing any actionable preference at all, what then separates you from someone who spends election day Tuesday golfing or playing Call of Duty or napping? Why not just do other things with your time instead of posting about elections or caring about votes? The election will still happen either way. Ultimately we all know that one of two people will be the president of the united states as decided by how people vote or don't vote in November. The rules of the game are tug of war, two sides line up months in advance to pull on a rope and the side that has more people tugging the rope where it matters is the side that wins. You can pick a side and pull on the rope, you can choose to stand and watch, you can stand in the middle and hold the rope. Whatever you do, at the end of the day the rope will be pulled to the left or to the right. (Let's set aside whether tug of war is the best or even a good system for choosing who takes charge of the world's strongest military force, and simply acknowledge that this is the game as it is played today.) I can't speak for others here but I'm posting in an election thread six months ahead of the actual event because I am invested in the event's outcome. I believe that something important is decided by whoever ultimately wins this contest; regardless of how it unfolds the outcome has an impact on my future, and it's important enough for me to think about which way I'd ultimately like to see the rope land. And come to think of it, I have a pretty strong preference that our country's big electoral rope get pulled in the leftward direction, I don't want it going the other way. I feel strong enough about this that I'm even announcing to strangers months in advance that I will spend a November tuesday pulling the rope that way, and they better not be thinking about gathering up with those jerks on the other side. From my perspective, the direction I'm pulling our politics toward with my vote is enough to justify me putting my hands on this bloody rope and yanking it with at least some small effort every other year or so. I feel good about my vote because I know that I'm pulling in the right direction even if I'm not always thrilled with where things end up landing. My feeling is that if everyone pulled on my side, we will have long decided issues like "which color of paint will we use on this year's bombing campaign." But if that's all my vote ends up deciding, I still would think it's worth some effort to vote blue, if for no better reason than the bombs would look nicer. I think it's fine and even understandable for others to not think what color our drones get painted is worth some number of hours of their time in October or November, or to think it's a big annoying spectacle that others get weirdly pushy or tribal about, or even to feel that participating in this spectacle is ultimately in service to a bloody violent system of evil. What I don't get is why people who feel this way feel compelled to show up every time anyway, stand on my side of the rope and hiss at me for pulling on it, as if they don't know I'm pulling it left. It's not even subtle that the people doing this are clearly rooting against my side. If you genuinely feel there's no difference between painting our bombs a tranquil calming blue instead of a garish bright shade of red, I can understand that in the same way that I don't give a gently caress about who wins the world cup even though people also pretend to care intensely about that every couple of years. On the other hand I care a lot about the NBA finals, I'm a Lakers fan and wanted them to win it, want the Nuggets to win it now that the Lakers are out, and if the nuggets lose I'll be rooting for the wolves in the conference finals. But no matter who wins the west, you can bet I'm rooting for them loudly over Boston, and in fact I'd prefer it greatly if Boston doesn't see the finals at all. Even the mavs winning (ugh) would be preferable to loving Boston. If you don't care about who wins the finals then great, watch whatever else instead. If you buy tickets to the game and spend your 48 minutes loudly booing Denver you're gonna look like a Boston fan, and at that point why not just wear their jersey.
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 04:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 23:16 |
|
|
BRJurgis posted:The same way one lives with themselves for not becoming a hermit under a rock in the woods, not self immolating in the town square, or not redacted. From your posts in this thread, you seem to have a very strong sense of justice and want to fight to make the world a better place, and you see voting as counterproductive to that fight because it convinces the masses that they're already doing their part. I agree that radical change is necessary, and that we most certainly will not get that through voting. I also agree that there are people who just drop their ballots off and pat themselves on the back for a job well done. To circle back to a general question I asked a few posts back: since you are not voting, are you engaged in any political activism right now? You have abdicated the one minuscule measure of power that this system has allotted you. Are you doing anything else in its stead? And, to reiterate, I am not asking this to try to judge you, and I am definitely not trying to guilt trip you. I don't care if you're on the front lines of every protest or if you're just posting guillotine memes on Bluesky. I am genuinely curious about your logical, ethical, and emotional framework that supports the idea that voting is meaningless and that only a revolution will really change things, and want to know how that framework manifests itself in your actions.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 04:25
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Let's also assume that you get the only vote, or the only one that matters, and if you do nothing, abstain, the first person wins. You get the deciding vote. Would you, in that situation, in that environment, really refuse to vote for the second person, if those were really your only two choices? That's what your morality tells you would be the right course of action? Yes. Fairly easily. The options both kill the people I love alongside thousands of others elsewhere. I would most likely be dead as well at that point to be honest too. But then I think actively working to undermine a genocidal state becomes, at that point, a more important imperative than voting for it's continuation with a "better" genocidary, who really wants to change it and believes in their heart of hearts that the killing must stop for some people, in charge. The Ninth Layer posted:What distinguishes your genuine moral objection to participating in an event from simple indifference to participating? If you believe that casting a vote has a material influence on the outcome of the election,, that you are then morally culpable for any and all outcomes your influence may have caused (or prevented from causing), and that the most moral action is to abstain from expressing any actionable preference at all, what then separates you from someone who spends election day Tuesday golfing or playing Call of Duty or napping? Why not just do other things with your time instead of posting about elections or caring about votes? The election will still happen either way. What differences is there between your nuanced support of a flawed politician from someone who just wants other people to die half a world away? Nothing unless you tell the politicians themselves. If we are morally culpable for not doing something, they you are morally culpable for doing it. Your belief that these things are set in stone and immutable are not, actually, based in anything. There is not any physical law that means an election will happen in November, it's a structure built by people and maintained by folks just like yourself, who believe that it is inevitable and the best thing to do is to try and direct it vaguely in the right direction. Instead of the, potentially, better options of changing the system itself. Will my vote matter in November, not unless the UK also has an election then and even then it won't matter, unless the Green Party/ An independent is running a none TERF in my locality. But then we can have a little look and see what can be done. Alongside that though you think that if you could get more people on your side that you could get more things done and stop painting the right colour on bombs is fundamentally based on the idea that politicans listen to you and would stop if they were told so. The fact that Eisenhower talked about the MIC 63 years ago is kind of a mark against that. I would also critique the idea that "the direction I am pulling politics in". Because, well, look at the world. Look around and see if it going the way you want it using the ossified systems that are straining at the seams because of their contradictions, and then unable to change because good people keep propping them up to keep bad people in charge. To quote James Baldwin "You've always told me it takes time, it's taken my fathers time, my mothers times, my uncles time, my brother and my sisters time, my nieces and my nephews time. How much more time do you want, for your 'progress'" Essentially, if you want to vote, please do so. If you don't want to vote for good reasons that is okay too. But I am going to be honest, I was closer to "I will vote for X to make the world better" and then I began reading why people were going to vote in threads like this and I kind of ended up thinking that I might be better off not voting. The more I read of people trying to convince me that I should vote, the less likely I am to do so, because the arguments come across very poorly. Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 07:55 on May 10, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 07:24
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Your belief that these things are set in stone and immutable are not, actually, based in anything. There is not any physical law that means an election will happen in November, it's a structure built by people and maintained by folks just like yourself, who believe that it is inevitable and the best thing to do is to try and direct it vaguely in the right direction. Instead of the, potentially, better options of changing the system itself. Who said that these things were set in stone or immutable? Obviously, no one believes that the elections are dictated by the laws of physics. They are, however, dictated by the laws of societies with tens or hundreds of millions of people. We as individuals have to acknowledge that truth so that we can work with it, instead of believing that we can force something better to come about through sheer force of will. Why are you presenting the choice to direct the system as it exists or to change it into something better as a dichotomy, when someone could try to do both?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 09:50
|
|
|
It is not a question of will, it's a question if organisation and opposition if necessary. Because, looking at the people being supported by people claiming to do both, it seems as if there is a direct conflict between those goals. You cannot serve God and Mammon, and eventually you have to look at the system you are supporting and decide to go with either supporting it or working against it. I don't think the system is fixable in it's current form. For the UK or the USA. If you think either are and want to work with it and I agree with most of what your saying I would help, but the threshold is going to be higher than "is not a bad a genocidairy".
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 10:26
|
|
|
Maybe I'm just not understanding you, but that doesn't make any sense at all to me. I do not see how I am "serving Mammon" by casting a vote. I also don't see how I am "serving God" by staying home and letting the election go as it will. Like other people said, a vote is an expression of preference - not an endorsement of all aspects of the outcome. If you don't think the system is fixable in its current form, how exactly do you advocate transitioning to a different system which works and why is the mere act of voting at cross purposes with this transition? Eletriarnation fucked around with this message at 10:53 on May 10, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 10:48
|
|
|
It's a quote about how you can't serve two different goals that are directly opposed to each other. If you are working on making the system more fair and equitable there is always going to be a level that you would go up to that other people may not and a level that other people would that you cannot. If it's an expression of preference, not saying "I agree with everything they do" then why is it treated as the latter? If a Trump voter were to say that they don't agree with any of Trumps policy but are voting for tax cuts and a better economy, would that, to you, not be an endorsement? Because every vote cast helps to uphold that system, and i think saying "well you tell me how to change it" is going a bit far into the weeds dont you think? Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 11:13 on May 10, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 10:58
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:It's a quote about how you can't serve two different goals that are directly opposed to each other. If you are working on making the system more fair and equitable there is always going to be a level that you would go up to that other people may not and a level that other people would that you cannot. The bolded statement is presented as if it's self-evidently true, but I don't agree with it at all. Do you have some logic that leads you to this conclusion? Josef bugman posted:If it's an expression of preference, not saying "I agree with everything they do" then why is it treated as the latter? If a Trump voter were to say that they don't agree with any of Trumps policy but are voting for tax cuts and a better economy, would that, to you, not be an endorsement? Saying that you don't support any of Trump's policy but are voting for tax cuts and a better economy isn't really an endorsement because it's just incoherent. Tax cuts are policy. "A better economy" is implicitly referring to economic policy, just in a uselessly broad sense. If someone said that to me, I would assume that they are either hopelessly uninformed or they're hiding the real reason for their vote and trying to tell me what I want to hear. I don't think I could conclude much from it without digging further. Josef bugman posted:Because every vote cast helps to uphold that system, and i think saying "well you tell me how to change it" is going a bit far into the weedsddont you think? Votes uphold the system in the sense that democratic outcomes are generally perceived as more legitimate when participation is higher, but I think you're getting ahead of yourself if you believe that merely withholding your vote is a step towards a better system. Staying home and allowing other people's votes to decide the outcome does not get you to a better system. So, if you're going to talk me out of what I'm doing, you need to explain why what you're doing is more effective and why there's a conflict between the two at all. e: I mean, Political Strategies is in the title of the thread. My strategy includes voting. You seem to be saying that your strategy is more effective than, but incompatible with voting. So, what is it? Eletriarnation fucked around with this message at 11:39 on May 10, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 11:17
|
|
|
If you consider yourself anti fascist and your only choice to vote for is between two fascist parties, would you still vote for one of them? And if they are serious and they see economics as not relating to social policy, would you still look for those hidden reasons? Going out and voting also doesn't get you closer to a better system. As has been proven by the last, what, 40+ years of governance? I'm not going to be able to convince you, most likely anyway, I'm just trying to see what you believe and explain what I believe. Again, I used to be closer to your good self, but now i am more about having to have something approaching stuff you won't vote for. I keep bringing up the miserable treatment of ethnic, gender and social minorities in my nation and how neither party wants to work to make life better, so why vote for the continuation of that? Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 11:48 on May 10, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 11:43
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:If you consider yourself anti fascist and your only choice to vote for is between two fascist parties, would you still vote for one of them? Why does it matter what I would do in a vague counterfactual scenario? If I answer "yes, I would vote for the more incompetent fascists so that I could more effectively overthrow the government" have you learned anything useful about what I think about actual reality? What about if I answer "no, as a proud anti-fascist I could never bring myself to do such a thing?" Josef bugman posted:And if they are serious and they see economics as not relating to social policy, would you still look for those hidden reasons? I'm not really sure what you're asking here. I'm "look[ing] for those hidden reasons" because you asked me what I thought about the hypothetical. I don't really care if a random Trump voter sees their vote as just a policy preference statement or a personal endorsement, and I'm certainly not going to interrogate strangers on the street to figure out why the incoherent tangle of ideas in their heads adds up to "I should vote for Trump." Josef bugman posted:Going out and voting also doesn't get you closer to a better system. As has been proven by the last, what, 40+ years of governance? We are both looking at the world and saying "well, this isn't quite as it should be." You seem to be going from that to "what we have been doing isn't helping, and if we stop doing it then we can shift our attention to things that actually work." You should be aware, though, that another possibility is "what we have been doing hasn't gotten us there yet, but if we hadn't at least done that much then we would have long since slid into a deeper abyss." We can't do A-B testing with a second world and controlled variables, so it's hard for you to credibly claim that anything "has been proven". Josef bugman posted:I'm not going to be able to convince you, most likely anyway, I'm just trying to see what you believe and explain what I believe. Again, I used to be closer to your good self, but now i am more about having to have something approaching stuff you won't vote for. I keep bringing up the miserable treatment of ethnic, gender and social minorities in my nation and how neither party wants to work to make life better, so why vote for the continuation of that? You aren't voting for the continuation of that. Like you said, neither party is making it better, so it's not something your vote can control. Fixating on that is taking your attention away from what power your vote does have.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 12:35
|
|
|
blastron posted:From your posts in this thread, you seem to have a very strong sense of justice and want to fight to make the world a better place, and you see voting as counterproductive to that fight because it convinces the masses that they're already doing their part. I agree that radical change is necessary, and that we most certainly will not get that through voting. I also agree that there are people who just drop their ballots off and pat themselves on the back for a job well done. Nothing that matters much to anybody but me! I've got a loud mouth, I try to stay informed and talk to people. It's certainly not enough, and we'll not establish a commune anytime soon, but the people around me are the people in my life and the people I can maybe reach. I've been surprised and encouraged sometimes by finding common ground, but honestly you mostly don't change anybody's mind. Generally it just highlights how the idea of two party electoralism going anywhere but round and round the drain is laughable. Americans are tragically uninformed, misinformed, self interested. People on these forums tell me to get more involved with politics? I work 10 hours a day, my car is about to die, and I don't have money or property. The people who do have the time and means are hand-wringing about Trump before golf, they're saying "glad I'll be dead before climate change!" and hopping in their fancy sports cars, or they're not here at all, because they're at one of their other homes. I went to a few protests back when I had a reliable vehicle. I donate an insignificant amount if the little money i have. Ultimately I just participate as little as possible. I live small and simple. I rarely leave town but for occassional music events. I am an anti-consumer and try to own as little bullshit as possible. I don't go to the doctor because my provider got swallowed up by a mega corporate monstrosity and I don't have health insurance. I don't worry about retirement, I don't do banking or paperwork. I will never receive my 401k, I've forgotten how to access it. Somebody talked about spite earlier, I suppose it is spite. I may not be able to change all this, but I don't have to let it in.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 12:37
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Going out and voting also doesn't get you closer to a better system. As has been proven by the last, what, 40+ years of governance?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 13:09
|
|
|
Because you seem to not believe that anything other than what is directly in front of you isn't relevant, and posing a hypothetical in the hope that you can realise why some people react the way they do? You suggested that you didn't understand why some people would not vote for certain things, or what could possibly make people not want to vote between two similar bad things. I am trying to provide an idea as to why. But you don't seem to be able to understand it. If we were in person and discussing it may be easier, as I am not the best at written info. But you'd interrogate strangers in the Internet about why they are not choosing or choosing something? It's meant to make you think about your position, why you think things and where do they come from. If you want to believe that, that's fine. But both positions are hypothetical, but homelessness, food poverty and economic decline are all writ large where I am, and they are worse than they were. What power? The voting ensures that the beatings will continue until all are dead, just as much as not voting does, so why engage with it?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 13:36
|
|
|
Have the systems improved? That's what I am saying there. Some things have improved, some things have gone backwards and gotten worse, but the systems that rule people have gotten worse. The US is still beholden to money and vast tracts of empty land have more sway than human beings. I'm not saying that things aren't better in some areas, definetly not, but what I am saying is that the structures of rule are generally bad and getting worse. Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 13:53 on May 10, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 13:41
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Have the systems improved? That's what I am saying there. Some things have improved, some things have gone backwards and gotten worse, but the systems that rule people have gotten worse. The US is still beholden to money and vast tracts of empty land have more sway than human beings. A lot of the systemic issues are artifacts handed down to us from the 1780s. And there are a whole lot of US citizens who don't actually see them as problems! That's a big issue and if you retreat behind a "systems bad front" and don't engage with that, whether by voting or conversations and outreach and ideally all of the above, everything only gets worse. That's why the attitude of "the systems are terrible, nothing can improve unless we change the people" scares me so much... historically, whenever someone has a really bright idea that if only everyone could be made to see my way, we'd have none of these pesky unbelievers around and everything would be better, there's a whole lot of bloodshed just behind that door. If you cannot come to grips with the fact that a lot of people really, truly do not have the same values and priorities that you do, and those people have rights just like you do, you will never be able to figure out a path towards any improvement.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 14:10
|
|
|
Timmy Age 6 posted:A lot of the systemic issues are artifacts handed down to us from the 1780s. And there are a whole lot of US citizens who don't actually see them as problems! That's a big issue and if you retreat behind a "systems bad front" and don't engage with that, whether by voting or conversations and outreach and ideally all of the above, everything only gets worse. Are you implying I am planning mass murder because I think the various different government structures are getting worse?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 14:40
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Are you implying I am planning mass murder because I think the various different government structures are getting worse? Apologies, posting before coffee metabolism occurs is a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 14:46
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:What differences is there between your nuanced support of a flawed politician from someone who just wants other people to die half a world away? Nothing unless you tell the politicians themselves. If we are morally culpable for not doing something, they you are morally culpable for doing it. I vote and participate in political discussions to support my own personal ideas and moral sensibilities about what would make for a better society and to influence others into acting in ways that promote my worldview. Ultimately my preferred candidate in every election would just be myself, because I would obviously do the best job of changing things toward my own worldview. If only people nominated me to run for president instead, we would have a perfect candidate on the ballot that I could trust completely to do the right thing, we wouldn't have to choose between two flawed alternatives. Unfortunately I'm not politically viable this year, but hey who knows how things will look next cycle. Until then I'm going to settle for throwing my support behind the best available alternative standing anywhere near the general vicinity of somewhere I would prefer to see our society go. There is absolutely a physical law that predicts an election will happen this November (and that I will not be the winner of it). That physical law is called inertia. Objects in motion tend to stay in motion. The US presidential election is an object propelled by the hundreds of millions of people worldwide who participate in it, anticipate it, discuss it, ponder it or simply observe it. Events may disrupt this process but these events would likely require their own inertia propelled by an equally large (or larger) number of motivated people in opposition. I don't think such a group of people exists in anywhere near those numbers. I can pretty much take as a given that at least a hundred million people in the United States will be voting for a president in November, that the vast majority of them will be voting for the two people officially nominated by the Democratic and Republican political parties, and that the specifics of how these votes are distributed will ultimately decide who picks our bombs' paint colors (among other things). To me this seems like a very important world wide event with an important consequence worth trying to influence, to whatever small degree I can influence it. In part I do so because I recognize that a hundred million other people recognize that it is an important enough event for themselves to want to influence it. And this has been happening like clockwork for hundreds of years now. If you really don't want to vote then just don't vote lol. Feel free to use your valuable time and vast political influence however you want. If you really think voting is evil and have a better alternative in mind, I think you're gonna need a much more convincing argument than "people caring about a popular thing makes me cringe."
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 15:00
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Because you seem to not believe that anything other than what is directly in front of you isn't relevant, and posing a hypothetical in the hope that you can realise why some people react the way they do? You suggested that you didn't understand why some people would not vote for certain things, or what could possibly make people not want to vote between two similar bad things. I am trying to provide an idea as to why. But you don't seem to be able to understand it. If we were in person and discussing it may be easier, as I am not the best at written info. I guess that makes sense, but I don't think I'm really getting a nuanced picture of what you think from considering a vague hypothetical. If you truly think the Democrats are fascists and as bad as the Republicans, you should just state that directly and we can discuss that concept without obfuscation. If you don't think that, then posting a what-if about "your only choice to vote for is between two fascist parties" is likely to mislead me to believing that you do think that and then I end up unintentionally strawmanning you. Josef bugman posted:But you'd interrogate strangers in the Internet about why they are not choosing or choosing something? It's meant to make you think about your position, why you think things and where do they come from. I'm interrogating strangers on the Internet because by posting here we've all self-selected as people who want to discuss this topic in a reasoned, detailed manner. I think that's interesting and it inherently makes me think more about my position and why I think things. I don't need to consider what I would say to a hypothetical stranger who is voting for a manifestly terrible president for incoherent reasons in order to get that. Josef bugman posted:If you want to believe that, that's fine. But both positions are hypothetical, but homelessness, food poverty and economic decline are all writ large where I am, and they are worse than they were. I don't know what you mean by the bit in bold here. Saying "my vote does nothing, so I will just not vote" is a self-fulfilling prophecy, so if you feel better using that as an excuse to wallow in despair then best of luck to you I guess. I happen to believe that in a society where much (if not most) of the power to steer the ship is held by elected officials, it's well worth my time to take a few minutes out of shitposting once or twice a year and do the most basic thing I can to help decide who those officials are.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 16:25
|
|
|
Until fairly recently gay people being able to have rights and women being allowed to vote were minority opinions. They were changed through legislative and none legislative means, and I would personally say that the latter produces better and more consistent results than the former. The Ninth Layer posted:If you really don't want to vote then just don't vote lol. Feel free to use your valuable time and vast political influence however you want. If you really think voting is evil and have a better alternative in mind, I think you're gonna need a much more convincing argument than "people caring about a popular thing makes me cringe." That's fine. My preferred candidate would not be myself, but would probably have a similar outlook. There is always a level of compromise with any political candidate, but the level of it matters a great deal. It is somewhat funny that this is the exact opposite answer given by Eletrination earlier on the in the thread but from the exact same viewpoint. Just a fun thing to note. That's fair, if you believe and feel okay with that then that's okay. Just folks are probably going to disagree with you the same way you are going to disagree with me. If it feels like it makes a difference, if you feel like it will make history then why are people continually telling us that there is no option when it comes to genocide in Gaza. That this is just the way things are. For you it's very important. For other people, it's a waterwheel turning and it makes not a blind bit of difference which paddle goes in. Already trying. I don't think voting is evil, but I want folks to understand and tell me why they think voting is an active good. And it's interesting and important seeing what people think. But it's not "cringe" it's just something that needs examining. Eletriarnation posted:I guess that makes sense, but I don't think I'm really getting a nuanced picture of what you think from considering a vague hypothetical. If you truly think the Democrats are fascists and as bad as the Republicans, you should just state that directly and we can discuss that concept without obfuscation. If you don't think that, then posting a what-if about "your only choice to vote for is between two fascist parties" is likely to mislead me to believing that you do think that and then I end up unintentionally strawmanning you. Fair enough. Put it this way: There are only two parties that you can vote between and they are both authoritarian groups. Both are going to kill a lot of people and specifically target both ethnic and sexual minorities. They are both going to continue committing war crimes and calling for the arrest and detention of dissidents, even expanding the security state in various measures. Your choice between them is that one does occasionally run very locally specific things that some people benefit from, and the other doesn't. If you vote for the first you are, directly, helping to institute a worse system in general and in specific against people you know and, in some cases, even love. But your voting for a lesser evil right. Do you see how no one in those groups could trust you, because you've supported the people trying to harm them? And what happens if the locally specific thing also does not get done? Do you see why betting on the thing you think will happen, whilst propping up a system that does manifestly terrible things. Eletriarnation posted:I'm interrogating strangers on the Internet because by posting here we've all self-selected as people who want to discuss this topic in a reasoned, detailed manner. I think that's interesting and it inherently makes me think more about my position and why I think things. I don't need to consider what I would say to a hypothetical stranger who is voting for a manifestly terrible president for incoherent reasons in order to get that. Fair enough. Eletriarnation posted:I don't know what you mean by the bit in bold here. Saying "my vote does nothing, so I will just not vote" is a self-fulfilling prophecy, so if you feel better using that as an excuse to wallow in despair then best of luck to you I guess. I happen to believe that in a society where much (if not most) of the power to steer the ship is held by elected officials, it's well worth my time to take a few minutes out of shitposting once or twice a year and do the most basic thing I can to help decide who those officials are. For the bolded part do you believe you have it now, or do you want that to be the case? Again, I did use to vote, and still will if the right candidate comes along and I want to show support. But it's time better spent elsewhere. There is more good to be done than holding up a rotting building.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 17:33
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Fair enough. Put it this way: There are only two parties that you can vote between and they are both authoritarian groups. Both are going to kill a lot of people and specifically target both ethnic and sexual minorities. They are both going to continue committing war crimes and calling for the arrest and detention of dissidents, even expanding the security state in various measures. Your choice between them is that one does occasionally run very locally specific things that some people benefit from, and the other doesn't. If you vote for the first you are, directly, helping to institute a worse system in general and in specific against people you know and, in some cases, even love. But your voting for a lesser evil right. Do you see how no one in those groups could trust you, because you've supported the people trying to harm them? And what happens if the locally specific thing also does not get done? Do you see why betting on the thing you think will happen, whilst propping up a system that does manifestly terrible things. No, I don't see how someone could fairly mistrust me just for voting for the lesser evil, because the whole point of the "lesser evil" concept is that we don't have a better alternative. You say that I am "directly, helping to institute a worse system in general" but I have already categorically rejected this framing. The electoral system may be a legal construct, but your or my ignoring it does nothing to make it go away any more than I can make my taxes go away by not filing a return. I don't see casting a vote as being a statement of approval for the system or its outcomes and if you do, well, you know, that's just like your opinion, man. Your saying that the Democrats "occasionally run very locally specific things that some people benefit from" is just wrong, and I don't know why you keep repeating it. The Democrats have pushed significant federal-level policy in just the past few years addressing drug pricing, air pollutant emissions, student debt, and a lot more. The American Rescue Plan, which passed a couple months after Biden took office, directly handed out cash to adults below a fairly generous income level. Having a Democratic president and Senate is essential for getting federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, who will uphold legally defined rights instead of coming up with contorted, regressive explanations of why this law or that administrative rule is invalid. Also, again, the ability of the Democrats at the federal level to accomplish anything is massively limited by the fact that they can only intermittently get razor-thin majorities and obstructionism is the standard approach for the GOP these days. Did you pay any attention to the recent fiasco around a proposed immigration bill? Even when the Republicans are offered much of what they want, it's nearly impossible to peel off any support because they can't stand the idea of voting for a bill that Joe Biden will end up calling a success. If we could actually get strong majorities for a while, then we would be able to pass more policy and put more focus into defeating centrists in primaries. e: Josef bugman posted:For the bolded part do you believe you have it now, or do you want that to be the case? I am not sure if it is the case - clearly, a lot if not most of the power in society is held by corporations and wealthy people, and I accept that I can't directly influence them. However, I believe that at the end of the day our elected officials are still chosen by the will of the voters. That will is influenced by disinformation, and the officials are influenced by greed/the desire to be re-elected after they take office, but neither of those is an insurmountable obstacle to getting better results if we try. You say the time is "better spent elsewhere", but I've asked you already to elaborate on what that means and why it's exclusive with voting. Eletriarnation fucked around with this message at 18:28 on May 10, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 18:13
|
|
|
volts5000 posted:I am proud of my moral principles. I can look back and say "I did what I could" instead of "I didn't get my hands dirty". That's ok for me. I just can't understand any scenario where I would see Betsy DeVos revoke Title IX protections for LGBTQ+ and say "Well, I can take comfort in the fact that I didn't vote for Hillary". It seems from your posts you think that people who don't vote, me specifically because you quoted me in your longer post, think they are morally pure from their choices. That isn't the case; my hands are just as dirty. It is a system we were born into, and we cannot extricate ourselves from without blame. Not voting is the same as voting to me if you make the choice to not vote. A vote is a unique thing in my mind because I find it both incredibly important to perform but also meaningless on an individual level. It encompasses so many issues that our moral systems come into conflict. Moral systems that under most circumstances would lead us to the same conclusion, but not this time. The actual moral weight of a single vote is tiny compared to the thought we put into it. I cannot completely remove myself from consequentialist thought, I went into the primary with the intention of voting for Biden but voted for another candidate on the day of. I will vote in November and I'm going into it with the idea I won't vote for Biden based on what I've said and my previous actions in the primary this year. When I'm in the voting booth I don't know if it will hold up. The consequentialist view is understandable and convincing in its own way and a presidential vote has more value than a basically meaningless primary vote. I think that you can't remove yourself fully from basing your morality on not doing things because they are wrong too. It's harder to describe with voting, but something simple like drunk driving is an easy test. I don't think you would call a drunk driver more moral than a sober driver. Even if the sober driver got into an accident and nothing happened to the drunk driver. I don't disagree with you on other forms of direct action, they are important.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 18:41
|
|
|
One other thing to note - if people decide to not participate in a vote, then that doesn't cause the downfall of the system. It just makes candidates appeal harder to the demographics that do vote reliably (or increase efforts to suppress them, as the case may be). Checked wikipedia, and voter turnout has hovered between ~50% to ~65% or so in the from 1980 until 2020 for presidential elections (and midterm elections tend to knock a good ~10% off of that number). That's a hell of a lot of folks who are eligible to vote and are not voting, and yet the system persists. Refusing to vote sends no signal to the political establishment and will not result in any change. And, for me at least, voting does not require a huge amount of effort. I am fortunate that I get a mail-in ballot, and filling it out and dropping it off by hand costs me ~2-3 hours of time every 2 years (I've generally kept up on state propositions and just need to check out relevant local candidates). In my mind, that's time spent that's well worth it, especially on the state and local levels, even if I live in a state where the federal outcomes are a foregone conclusion (and my primary votes are, likewise, also useless for the same reason).
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 19:35
|
|
|
gurragadon posted:It seems from your posts you think that people who don't vote, me specifically because you quoted me in your longer post, think they are morally pure from their choices. That isn't the case; my hands are just as dirty. It is a system we were born into, and we cannot extricate ourselves from without blame. Not voting is the same as voting to me if you make the choice to not vote. But to me, with all things being messy and hosed up, why not vote? gurragadon posted:A vote is a unique thing in my mind because I find it both incredibly important to perform but also meaningless on an individual level. It encompasses so many issues that our moral systems come into conflict. Moral systems that under most circumstances would lead us to the same conclusion, but not this time. The actual moral weight of a single vote is tiny compared to the thought we put into it. I would hold both the primary and general election votes as equally meaningful. If you can get enough people in your state to vote for someone other than Biden in the primary, that would send a signal. He's the incumbent. His chances of winning the primary are exceedingly high, but if your vote can show some level of discontent among the voter base, that's a form of collective action. It doesn't even have to be a vote for another candidate. It could just be uncommitted. I'm sad that the current number of uncommitted votes isn't significant for change, but it was worth a shot. Maybe with better and earlier organizing, it could've worked. The general election, however, is for keeps. The winner of that election (along with his cabinet, executive hires, & judges) will be making decisions that effect the country and the world for four years. So, in short, primary vote to change the party and general vote against the opposition. And don't forget to do direct action (whatever form that takes) every other day of the year. Politics and activism don't just happen every two years. gurragadon posted:I think that you can't remove yourself fully from basing your morality on not doing things because they are wrong too. It's harder to describe with voting, but something simple like drunk driving is an easy test. I don't think you would call a drunk driver more moral than a sober driver. Even if the sober driver got into an accident and nothing happened to the drunk driver. This maybe just me, but I can't see "doing nothing" as proactive. If you can do something, just do it. Obviously, you can't do everything because there will be other things to consider like your safety, family obligations, financial wellbeing, etc. But voting is one of the easiest, most effortless, forms of action. Why go out of your way to NOT do it? I mean, people bled and died for the right to vote. Why take it for granted?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 19:36
|
|
|
I do in vote every election including primary elections. I think it should be mandatory to at least cast a ballot, even if its blank. My point was that even though I find it meaningless there is part of me that feels compelled to vote. That doesn't translate directly to vote for Joe Biden though.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 19:52
|
|
|
1) You don't see how a minority person would perhaps feel somewhat let down if you vote for someone who is going to take away their rights because "the other side would be worse"? Do you think that a person would not have the right to feel that way? 2) I was actually talking about my polity. Not the USA. I was using, once again, a somewhat obscured hypothetical to help you to see things differently. The fact that you went straight to the Democrats in this instance, as if I was arguing about them specifically is somewhat telling. 3) If those margins are so thin, despite overwhelming support from so many people, why are they so thin and why is the system allowed to continue as is? Do you not think it would be better to change things so that voting mattered more, instead of keeping with the same system over and over? 4) If your not sure, then how does your one source actually overrule those of the very wealthy? You can only select people who can work with other people with power, you are not selecting the candidate based on their ability or their beliefs merely if they are "less bad" than the other people. This means that there is no incentive to try to do any better, because you will always vote for them, no matter what. 5) Once again, I don't think it's really relevant to the thread.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 19:56
|
|
|
1) They have the right to feel however they want, but I would think that they are wrong because, as I've said time and time again, my not voting or voting differently would not have improved the outcome. You keep acting like if I just think the right thoughts while not voting that will somehow undermine the system, but this is completely divorced from reality. 2) You should probably have specified, then? I don't follow the details of what Labour is up to and I don't feel equipped to tell you whether or not you should vote for them. I don't know why you would have expected me to assume the discussion had shifted to Labour without anyone even having named them, and I think it's funny that you find it "telling", whatever that means. 3) The margins are thin because the Democrats don't have "overwhelming support", at least in a numerical sense. A lot of people would rather vote for Republicans. I don't know what you mean by "why is the system allowed to continue as it is" - the system continuing is the default state of affairs. It will continue unless it is overthrown, and I don't think I'm in a good position to attempt that. I also don't know what you mean by "change things so that voting mattered more". The head of state/government and all of the legislators are elected via voting. How would you make voting more powerful? If you mean "why does the electorate tolerate the influence of oligarchic/plutocratic interests which run counter to democracy", then I think it should be pretty obvious that a lot of people including myself would like to solve that problem. Unfortunately, it's a very complicated problem. 4) "You will always vote for [your party's candidate], no matter what" is only relevant in the general election. We can have a large role in selecting who that candidate is in the primaries and before. Also, it's risible to say "your candidate knows they have your support no matter what and can ignore you". In contrast, if you insist on never voting, all candidates know they don't have your support no matter what and this is better because... ??? e: Really though, no one thinks like that. Both parties have diehard supporters who will support them in the general election 100%, and both parties also have people who would probably be sympathetic but may not be motivated enough to go out and vote. Candidates know that the former is not enough to win, and therefore they will have to motivate the latter in order to stay relevant. What an individual voter thinks doesn't really matter to a candidate ever - votes are fungible, and the candidate needs as many as possible. 5) Actually, I think that your preferred alternative to voting is extremely relevant. Again, the title of the thread is Electoral Politics and Political Strategies. We're here to talk about achieving political goals, and the role that electoral politics play in that. You are repeatedly insisting that electoral politics should not play a role in that - indeed, that voting is not only a waste of time because it's inferior to your preferred ways of achieving your goals, but that it's incompatible with those ways and should be avoided entirely. But, you refuse to go into any detail whatsoever about what this alternative approach is, or why we would need to stop voting if we're going to be involved in it. If you actually have a good idea of how to accomplish anything, you need to go into that instead of just trying to talk everyone out of voting like some kind of nihilist. Eletriarnation fucked around with this message at 21:54 on May 10, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 20:24
|
|
|
gurragadon posted:I do in vote every election including primary elections. I think it should be mandatory to at least cast a ballot, even if its blank. My point was that even though I find it meaningless there is part of me that feels compelled to vote. That doesn't translate directly to vote for Joe Biden though. Why? What happens if you vote for Biden?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 20:27
|
|
|
volts5000 posted:Why? What happens if you vote for Biden? He gets one more vote. I'm not sure what you are asking by the question.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 21:08
|
|
|
gurragadon posted:He gets one more vote. I'm not sure what you are asking by the question. You said that your feeling about Joe Biden doesn't compel you to vote for him. But what do you think would happen to you, or to society at large, if you did vote for him? Like, so what if he gets one more vote. What is the ultimate consequence if you spend 15 minutes to mark his name on a ballot?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 21:23
|
|
|
volts5000 posted:You said that your feeling about Joe Biden doesn't compel you to vote for him. But what do you think would happen to you, or to society at large, if you did vote for him? Like, so what if he gets one more vote. What is the ultimate consequence if you spend 15 minutes to mark his name on a ballot? What I meant was I felt the compulsion to the act of voting, not the act of voting for a specific candidate. The consequences from that one vote would be tiny by itself.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 21:49
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:1) They have the right to feel however they want, but I would think that they are wrong because, as I've said time and time again, my not voting or voting differently would not have improved the outcome. You keep acting like if I just think the right thoughts while not voting that will somehow undermine the system, but this is completely divorced from reality. 1) "They can feel how they want but they are wrong for doing so" is the idea of someone who fundamentally doesn't regard people as having a legitimate complaint. But the vote would still make their life worse by voting in favour of disenfranchisement. 2) Why? Your the one who guessed wrong and decided I had to mean you and not either a hypothetical or the reference to my own polity. 3) They do in many places and in terms of raw voting numbers. But that doesn't matter because power in the US is divided amongst a a huge number of nigh on empty states who wield disproportionate power despite their actual voters being numerically smaller. The democratic party, as a collective entity, does not want to change this even if individual parts of it would. The system is not the default though? It's a constructed thing, as we've already expressed. Have it so that it's a one person one vote system that is not divided by state lines or "electors" but based on people voting for something overall. Alongside that have a voting system shifted to STV or another voting permutation. If you think this is all there is, and seem to believe that the best that can be done is "vote" then I am unsure you are taking thins seriously. 4) But you can't. Because money helps to buy access and support and just time to not have to be at work. I would love to run in a political party, but I lack the time or funds to do it because just working takes up a lot of time and energy. 5) Why? You keep cycling back to this because you seem to want to go "uhhh you got a better system" and then either immediately attack it as unworkable or, as we have seen already in this thread, claim I want to commit mass murder. I, personally, think widespread work stoppages and the introduction of a single transferable vote system linked in with various different labour groups organising a collective state, alongside the collectivization of land and property, would be a good start. I don't think voting is a bad way of organising a system. I just regard it as flawed in the current one because you only get a choice between unpalatable options. volts5000 posted:You said that your feeling about Joe Biden doesn't compel you to vote for him. But what do you think would happen to you, or to society at large, if you did vote for him? Like, so what if he gets one more vote. What is the ultimate consequence if you spend 15 minutes to mark his name on a ballot? Excuse me for interrupting, but does voting exist in a state of quantum uncertainty as both the only way to get your voice heard, but also completely meaningless and only means one more vote and what does it matter? Alongside that I am probably not going to respond for a few days as I am going to have a bit of time away with my Fiancee. Please do keep safe everyone. Thank you! Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 22:23 on May 10, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 22:03
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:4) But you can't. Because money helps to buy access and support and just time to not have to be at work. I would love to run in a political party, but I lack the time or funds to do it because just working takes up a lot of time and energy. Come on man you told us a few posts earlier that you would not prefer yourself to be your own presidential candidate, you'd rather someone who "probably" thinks like you step in and do it. Why would anyone ever consider putting you in charge of ANY office after admitting that? If you're not willing to put yourself up for jobs like this, and not willing to spend a few November tuesday hours helping to decide who gets selected to fill them... I'm sorry but why do you think anyone should listen to your opinion about anything those elected officials are doing, and not the opinions of the like hundred and fifty million people who showed up that tuesday with specific names in mind?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 22:28
|
|
|
1) How is my vote making their life worse? You keep saying this and I think it's completely nonsensical. My casting a vote for the better of two candidates in an election cannot possibly make the outcome of that election worse and that is why yes, you are right, I don't regard this as a legitimate complaint. Either the better candidate wins, and that's the best possible outcome, or the worse candidate wins and that's the outcome I was trying to prevent. My not voting cannot instantiate a third outcome into existence. 2) Uh, well, because I shouldn't have had to "guess". Your post about Labour, which didn't name them, was in response to a post which was very clearly framed in terms of the US parties. When you change the subject of a discussion, it's generally good form to be clear about that instead of throwing out non sequiturs and assuming that your conversational counterpart is reading your mind. 3) I think that the Democratic Party would actually love to change how the Senate/Electoral College are allocated, but it's not up to them and would require a constitutional amendment. You may be aware, but constitutional amendments are Very Hard To Get and having larger Democratic majorities would be a very helpful step towards that, if not absolutely necessary. I didn't say 'the best that can be done is "vote"' - that's completely your words - but I have been very consistent in saying that voting is a powerful tool for the minimal time and effort it requires. 4)I mean, yeah, everyone's access to free funds and free time varies, but we still have the power to participate in the primary system as far as those permit. It's not a perfect solution but lack of time and funds are a pretty powerful impediment to any kind of political action, so I don't really see how this is a unique flaw of the primary system. 5) I already explained why, repeatedly. You are presenting your approach as not just something that someone should do in addition to voting, but something which by its nature is mutually exclusive with voting. This does not make sense, as voting involves a minimal expense of time and cost. Work stoppages, single transferrable vote, collectivization? Those are great, I have no argument with them. They're also not incompatible in any way that I can tell with continuing to vote in the present system as long as it exists. In fact, I am not sure why you couldn't select candidates who support these things and then vote for those candidates. Eletriarnation fucked around with this message at 22:32 on May 10, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 22:29
|
|
|
1) Your voting for someone whose making peoples life worse because you think it's still better than the alternative. Your still doing harm, you just don't care because you've categorised it as "less harm" to get around thinking about the harm still being done. You invoke powerlessness with one hand and the ability to change things with the other and refuse to examine yourself because to do so would be to make you culpable for everything done in your name. 2) Because you pulled it out of thin air and instead of treating what I actually wrote you then mischaracterized it as an attack on democrats? 3) Do you? The same party that won't consider, overall, changing the make up of the Supreme Court would love to change that part of the US constitution? Chunks of the democratic party don't want it changed but you would still vote for them. 4) Which is not a lot because richer people can buy more time and speaking room and would you look at that they tend to win more because of all that support, and then they don't want to change things because they made it up the greasy pole, your just not trying hard enough. 5) Gave you an answer, and now, instead of reading it you instead go "uhhh that's not prevented by voting". It kind of is, parallel structures thrive in times of weakness of central governance and become more likely to change things when the system does not provide for people. Your vote helps to make sure that those do not develop or, if they do, that they are something that can be either co-opted or crushed by extant power structures. This is basic stuff mate. Considering this is your attempt at persuading, I can see why you think you'd be good at being a politician.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 22:54
|
|
|
gurragadon posted:What I meant was I felt the compulsion to the act of voting, not the act of voting for a specific candidate. The consequences from that one vote would be tiny by itself. I hate to sound like I'm making the argument of "C'mon man", but that's essentially it. You feel that the act of voting is important. You know there is a difference between the outcomes of Biden winning and Trump winning. So why should it matter how you feel about Biden personally? Just vote for him. You don't have to tell anyone. Just tell yourself that you know the difference between how their respective governments would function and you picked the one prevented harm to others. Josef bugman posted:Excuse me for interrupting, but does voting exist in a state of quantum uncertainty as both the only way to get your voice heard, but also completely meaningless and only means one more vote and what does it matter? Last word on this. I never ever said that voting is "the only way to get your voice heard". I have repeatedly said that voting should not be the only course of action. It HAS to coincide with direct forms of action like protesting, organizing, direct aid, etc. THAT'S how your voice is heard. Voting is just a piece of the strategy. It's not even the most reliable piece, but it is an essential piece. It becomes more reliable when more people engage in it, which is what I'm trying to do. Even with other elections, like forming a union, it's not going to succeed or fail just on my one decision to not vote. But, if enough people decided not to vote, forming a union would fail. I know I won't convince you. I'm just doing this hoping that enough people see this and choose to vote. I know that sounds ridiculous, especially on this forum. But, like I said before, I can't not try. volts5000 fucked around with this message at 23:07 on May 10, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 22:58
|
|
|
I do apologise I must have confused you with another respondent. I still disagree with yourself, but I understand your PoV. Sorry again.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 23:01
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:1) Your voting for someone whose making peoples life worse because you think it's still better than the alternative. Your still doing harm, you just don't care because you've categorised it as "less harm" to get around thinking about the harm still being done. You invoke powerlessness with one hand and the ability to change things with the other and refuse to examine yourself because to do so would be to make you culpable for everything done in your name. 1) "Your voting for someone whose making peoples life worse because you think it's still better than the alternative." No poo poo? This is literally a "water is wet" statement. Every possible candidate is going to make people's lives worse for at least some group of people. A person whom literally 100% of people approve of and are in complete agreement with on every issue has never appeared on any ballot, ever. People are individuals formed from their individual experiences, and hence will have different opinions. There are always "winners" and "losers" in politics. No matter what policies they support, someone is going to believe that their life will be worse off because of it. From the sound of it, you are seeking a mythical perfection which can never be achieved once it comes into contact with reality. You're criticizing others for living in reality and not delusion. 5) Your assertion is false. Voting is not magic which compels you to support the system against your will and prevents you from doing things other than voting. You also have not established how "not voting" can create a way for those "parallel structures" to come into existence and be able to replace or change the existing structure, or how "not voting" will prevent the existing power structure from crushing those "parallel structures," but voting will help crush them. Stabbey_the_Clown fucked around with this message at 04:57 on May 11, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2024 00:09
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Considering this is your attempt at persuading, I can see why you think you'd be good at being a politician. I'm not trying to persuade you of anything lol, if I made a list of Most Politically Influential Americans I would put you behind something like two hundred million people, including every single person that actually voted in 2020, several tens of millions of Call of Duty Kardashian nonvoters you could not pay to care, and many teenagers who despite being ineligible still may have swayed some actual voting. I'll ask again: what makes you think you have anything to contribute to electoral politics and strategy discussions beyond just heckling and grandstanding for attention? Why do you consider yourself morally superior to the one hundred and fifty million Americans who actually decided who our current President is?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2024 00:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 23:16 |
|
|
Josef bugman posted:1) Your voting for someone whose making peoples life worse because you think it's still better than the alternative. Your still doing harm, you just don't care because you've categorised it as "less harm" to get around thinking about the harm still being done. You invoke powerlessness with one hand and the ability to change things with the other and refuse to examine yourself because to do so would be to make you culpable for everything done in your name. Here's the thing - at the level of a country, any legislation passed will affect people negatively. Even not passing legislation will affect people negatively. Voting will always cause "harm" in the way you define it here, especially for the president of the most powerful country in the world. Abstaining from a vote does nothing, and does not absolve you of anything. It does not effect any political change, nor does it send any message to the political establishment, save that your demographic has slightly lower turnout. So yes, it's perfectly valid to vote for the "less harm" option. The only other choice is to do nothing and to make it easier for the "more harm" option to succeed. There's no magical third option where everything is sunshine and rainbows. And, as folks have pointed out, voting doesn't take that long to do, it's very important to vote for local/state options as well (where your vote has a much larger impact), and it can be done alongside other actions, such as protests, demonstrations, and strikes.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2024 05:35
|
|