• notabot@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    5 months ago

    Fooled? I think we’re looking at this from different angles then, because, as I mentioned, I know this situation sucks, but I also acknowledge that it’s not going to change before the election. Given that, what is your optimum move?

    • robotElder2 [he/him, it/its]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      5 months ago

      Optimum? Nothing that can be discussed in a public forum. Within electoralism? At the very least punish the democrats for allowing a vassal state to commit genocide by withholding support. They’ll probably respond to a blowout defeat by getting even more racist but maybe a few will see that we won’t vote for 99% Hitler

      • notabot@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        And in the interim, what happens? Consider that the Republicans support this just as much, if not more than the Dems. Why reward them for that?

        • robotElder2 [he/him, it/its]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          31
          ·
          5 months ago

          Refusing to cooperate with good cop is not a reward for bad cop. They are not opposed to each other. They are on one side that is against us. I say again that you have been fooled the oldest trick in the book.

          • notabot@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            5 months ago

            I understand what you are trying to say, but refusing to cooperate with the ‘good cop’ absolutely is a reward for the bad cop as they have the same positions, but even more so. More violence in Gaza, more suppression of minorities, more rights stripped away, and a president who’s made it clear they wish to be a dictator.

            • robotElder2 [he/him, it/its]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              27
              ·
              5 months ago

              You don’t understand shit liberal. There is one fascist party wearing two different colored ties. Both colors of nazi want the immediate extermination of all Palestinians. The limiting factor on the speed of that process is not American tie color it is the heroic resistance of the Palestinian people and their allies. If the blue nazis support for domestic minority rights were anything more than kayfabe they would recognize the supreme court for the fundamentaly illegitimate institution that it is and break its power with court packing, jurisdiction stripping and impeachments. As in Palestine the limiting factor on the oppression of American minorities is not the insincere handwringing of the soft nazi faction but the on the street resistance of those same minority groups.

              • notabot@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                heroic resistance of the Palestinian people and their allies

                Absolutely.

                If the blue nazis support for domestic minority rights were anything more than kayfabe they would recognize the supreme court for the fundamentaly illegitimate institution that it is and break its power with court packing, jurisdiction stripping and impeachments.

                Maybe I’m insufficiently cynical, but I see that more as them just being woefully ineffectual, rather than a conspiracy. I recognise that the result is largely indistinguishable, but it means there is a chance to fix it given time and effort. Said effort would be strongly resisted unless it came from a large enough block of the electorate that doing so meant certainly losing your seat. Anything less than that is either ignorable, or if it does flip the seat, does so without presenting a lesson others can learn from.

        • somename [she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          30
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Well, if we vote for the democrats anyway, we’re signaling to them that committing genocide won’t cost them votes. That it’s a free thing they can do as they please. Does that not seem like a dangerous precedent to establish? It erodes the very basis of their “lesser evil” to the Republicans. They should actually have to not be evil, and remember that. There has to be some sort of electoral cost to being incredibly psychopathic.

            • somename [she/her]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              27
              ·
              5 months ago

              Didn’t you say that politicians have to chase votes earlier? To shift their positions to attract voters? Why does that not apply here? Shouldn’t they be courting us by moving away from committing genocide? That would solve the issue cleanly.

              • notabot@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                Yes, they should, if a large enough proportion of the electorate make that case. I’ve been looking for up to date opinion polls on this, and rather appallingly most of them seems to show that there is a roughly equal split in those that think the israel’s attacks are genocide and those who don’t [1]. I’ll be honest, I wasn’t expecting that, I was expecting a huge majority on the “it’s genocide” side but that could just be the polls I’ve found. If you have any more heartening results please do share them. Even amongst Dem voters the split isn’t as lopsided as you’d expect, and without those numbers changing the direction of decades of US policy towards Israel isn’t going to happen. Again, if the voters change their direction enough, politics will follow.

                [1] Here’s one poll I found, which is likely to be as biased as any other, but it at least gives an idea of the numbers.

                • TreadOnMe [none/use name]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  Lol no they won’t because the American Government funnels hundreds of millions of dollars to Israel, which gets put into places like AIPAC, which propagandize the public and have been doing so for decades. You are looking at the cart as if it is the horse, like a lunatic.

                  We literally can’t have a legible conversation if you don’t understand how consent is manufactured in the U S. Propaganda fucking works, that’s why people spend billions of dollars on it.

                  • notabot@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    I was trying to point out that the numbers of voters who think israel has gone “too far” isn’t high enough to tip US policy at the moment, precisely because of the propaganda you describe. That number seems to be changing, albeit slowly, and we’ve already seen biden’s tone change somewhat as that pressure changes.

          • notabot@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            OK, let’s take that as a really simple analogy. You have only two choices in front of you: one city gets destroyed, or two cities get destroyed. Yes, it’s the trolley problem all over again. You can obviously choose not to take part, but that increases the risk of both cites being destroyed, you can vote for both to be destroyed, or you can vote to destroy just one. It’s a grim choice, with no good outcomes, but one is noticeably less bad than the other.

            In reality the second bomb is aimed at things like minority rights, LGBTQ+ communities and even workers in general.

            • MolotovHalfEmpty [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              13
              ·
              5 months ago

              In reality there are myriad options that do not include waving a fucking banner supporting detonating a nuke. The only way you can begin to rationalise your arguement is by creating a hypothetical thought experiment in which there are only two possibilities and you can actually only pick one of them. And even within those completely silly parameters it’s still contradictory, with no mechanism to change the hypothetical, hence ‘the endless cyclical logic of the electoral hypothetical.’

              • notabot@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                5 months ago

                OK, given the current reality of the upcoming election, what, in your personal opinion are the other options, and what do you think the outcomes of those would be?

                • MolotovHalfEmpty [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  12
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  I’ve stated these, noting their historical successes and failures, elesewhere in response to you, before you made this comment. You didn’t engage, because you’re not looking for an answer or to discuss anything tangible. Just to repeat your tired, concern-troll imaginary hypotheticals again and again and again… jagoff

                  • notabot@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    As I said, I’m drowning in responses, and I’ve got to them out of order. I’ve seen your response to this elsewhere, but I’m talking about in this election, over the next few months, what are the options? Yes,the analogy was simple to the point of absurdity, but it wasn’t me who brought it up.

                    I realise there is much that can be done over time, ranging from trying to swing the existing candidates further left via voter pressure to rather more revolutionary means, but I’m more focused on the next event. What happens in November? I perceive that trump would be a worse president, for the US and the world at large, than biden would. I realize that that’s an arguable position, but all I’ve seen against it is people saying bidens bad. I’m not questioning that, he is, but that doesn’t change the conclusion. Given that, from my point of view, there is only one reasonable course of action in the presidential election itself. Actions preceding that are more open, but anything that risks increasing the chance of trump getting in would be dangerous. I’ve mentioned elsewhere that down ticket votes are more of an insurance, so, to my mind, not voting still isn’t the best course of action, but I can understand the other view point too.