So it's all functioning as designed. BoTh PaRtIeS blame the other for their failures and lack of progress, neither could exist without their evil twin.
They have no actual platform other than wealth acquisition, those issues that they deem important for an election cycle are "bait".
For example, Biden's bait was "15 an hour". The American voters took the bait and elected him; no minimum wage increase.
Trump's bait was "no war". The American voters took the bait and elected him, so... war.
Biden and Ds could have passed minimum wage bill easily. The "super majority requirement" is a parliamentary rule that can be changed whenever they would like with majority vote (they circumvent it all the time, see "exceptions to nuclear option", like budgets)
Most American voters have no idea that this is so, and it works very well to deceive the majority of them right out in the open. Blatantly and repeatedly.
I vote every election, and you should too! It's funny
"No bro, you don't understand bro, 3rd party or bust. Yeah, the Green and Libertarian parties haven't had ANY representation in lower forms of government, but they'll get it done right if we make them president."
If OP is more than 2 years old, should be able to remember that the current government was not the lesser of 2 evils when it was elected. Don't need to look farther into history.
Seem to be missing a few administrations there. Though I notice BlueMaga liberals are basically having to memory hole every democratic president for the last forty years because "if you just vote us in we'll stop the Republicans!" Doesn't convince anyone when they look at what democrats actually did in office
Ok then, so what's your solution? I'm still gonna vote for the lesser evil, while still organizing and doing direct action, to reduce harm unless presented with an alternative.
Maybe a candidate that's good? You could run for an office.
Edit: essentially I mean for the situation at hand, especially with this upcoming election, what else can we do?
You just keep doing what the bumper sticker says, obviously. You vote for the red and they hit you and rob you, vote for the blue and they rob you nicely.
How is this hard for people?
Republicans do what they want and the Democrats ask us to vote for them a little harder and, eventually, they will be able to do something, as long as precedent isn't broken, as long as it's the "high road", as long as it's not something the parliamentarian can override, etc...
currently,
-hakeem is secretly meeting with kushner. He is also taking Thiel money and setup and AI "regulations committee" with other Dems who take Thiel money.
-AIPAC Dems are funding AIPAC Republicans over actual left candidates
-tammy duckworth says that we shouldnt impeach and should work WITH the traitornazirapistpedophilicwarcriminals.
Can you please explain to me how voting for the "lesser" evil is helpful?
The solution is Ranked Choice Voting. Anyone can run and voters rank all the candidates. So if you put Stein (for example) first and she doesn't get enough votes, your vote then goes to your second choice, and so on. It lets you vote the way you really want it to go, not just strategically.
Ranked choice/instant runoff voting is not doing a lot for Australia. The "left" major party is centrist at best, the "right" major party is drifting further right and the only minor party of note is basically Nazis.
Ok, maybe I wasn't clear, so I apologize, I'm talking about the situation as it is, like with this election.
Edit: I think maybe getting people to run who will change things for racked choice voting is a good strategy long term, and we could and should work for that
Clinton, Obama, Biden. So not every time. And every time the republicans won were also times where we ran with "vote for the lesser evil" which you have to count too - Your strategy of "voting for the lesser evil" doesn't even win you elections.
So you think Clinton, Obama, and Biden were the greater evil? I could maybe see that argument with Clinton, but Obama and Biden? I'd love to hear your explanation.
You wrote voting for the "greater" evil got us here. I pointed out that those three are just as responsible and, in your eyes, they are "lesser" evil.
Thus the line of reasoning that the "greater" evil got us here does not stand. I then add to this line that even if the blame were to solely lie at the feet of the "greater" evil, then that argument rests on absolving the democrats of blame for losing to the "greater" evil, which I find to be completely nonsensical. Running someone so evil they are barely distinguishable from a republican is part of why republicans win.
I think those three men are evil, too. Just like I think the republicans are evil.
What so many miss is that EVERYONE votes for the lesser of two evils. When Trump won, the lesser of two evils won, in the minds of those who voted for him.
So, yes, we HAVE ALL been choosing the lesser of two evils for generations, the fake bumper sticker is right.
MAGA could have this exact same thread with the evils reversed.
And, no it's not a two party system. We've been manipulated into accepting that there are only two viable parties.
We could have had Bernie, who ran as a DINO but we all know is socialist, (we've been manipulated into believing socialism is bad for generations) but someone with a voice said "Bernie is unelectable" and that was all it took, his numbers dropped overnight.
What people don't understand is that the DNC was NEVER going to give Bernie the nomination, no matter how many votes he got in the primary. He's an Independent who has never respected the Democratic party. He doesn't support them, he doesn't raise money for them, and he has criticized them often over the years. They hate him, he's not a Democrat, and they are not going to reward him with the biggest award a party can offer a member - their candidacy for President. Bernie's not a Democrat, and the Dems aren't going to make him their leader.
I'll vote in the primaries if there is a candidate I like. Otherwise I won't. And I wont vote for democrats if I dont like their candidate either. Doing so is a fools' game and exactly what got you trump.
Of course this is just a false dilemma, you can always vote third party.
Americans aren't particularly politically savvy and have been taught their entire lives that the only acceptable way to enact change is through voting. Pointing out that Democrats at the national level often function as controlled opposition raises an extremely frightening possibility: that voting only creates a small amount of change on a handful of token issues and otherwise their government is largely is out of their control.
So they spin up the false dichotomy that pointing out how the tacit cooperation of both parties in undermining the rights of US citizens is somehow not suggesting that the population must take action in addition to the government-sanctioned method of civic engagement, i.e., voting, but is instead suggesting one not vote at all. It's frankly one of the most smooth-brained standpoints I regularly see on Lemmy, but American liberals seem to cling to it like a talisman against the discomfort that is the very real possibility that far more than voting will be required to enact the significant, lasting change that will stop their country from careening into fascism, and unlike voting, that type of action does not provide a clear path with simple instructions.
The weird need to other anyone who dares to critique the democratic party is not some simplification of a complex situation. Its an extension of russiagate and is now just some insane conspiracy where everyone who disagrees with bluemaga is subhuman (a bot) or a dastardly foreigner (subhuman), because no true person could ever dare point out Obama installed Tom Homan.
This isn't profound. It's actually just a dumb "both sides bad" take said by people who would snub a candidate they agree with on 70% of issues with a 50% chance of winning for a person they agree with on 90% of issues with a 5% chance of winning.
The 70% candidate losing isn't a win for your cause because now a person you agree with on 5% of issues just won.
And you not being able to see where two controlled parties got you shows you can't think beyond an election.
It's not hard, MAJORITY of Democrats are neoliberal, that is conservative. They felt they had to go more conservative after Reagan and have ever since. Which means that we have DROFTED AWAY FROM LEFT LEANING VALUES.
we drifted away from they by voting for the candidates that were MORE ALIGNED with our values and yet here we are.
Now, intelligent people can also look at what the "blue good guys" are doing right now to prep for "winning" the midterms in my post above.
I dont agree with Democrats on 70% of issues. You people keep making these disingenuous framings where the issue people have with democrats is just some teeny tiny thing and not their policies. The democrats committed a genocide, that was the straw that broke the camels back - It is not the one thing we disagree on. I dont like them deporting more people than Trump, I dont like their fanatic militarism, their police state, the way they fuck the climate, healthcare, their kowtowing to corporate interests, their constant sabotaging of left-wing movements, their starvation of people through sanctions, their repressive violence against democratic protesters, their interventionism, their brinksmanship, etc.
And even if it was, GENOCIDE is pretty fucking massive. Voting for a genocide will only end up with you getting sent to the camps as well.
I - and seemingly many others - have been willing to accept voting for democrats despite their many many many dogshit policies, as long as they: Protected Roe v. Wade and didnt gleefully directly commit a genocide.
And they fucked it up. So now people won't vote for them, because there is no reason to.
Seeing as how that has never been the plan of the majority, its a plan that has never been tried. As opposed to the plan of voting for democrats even though they're (at best) republicans with a 2 year delay. We've tried that plan a bunch and all it has gotten us is genocide, mass deportations, a police state and an ever-worsening climate.
Yeah, just as blue-MAGA won't. Good thing there's a large group of non-voters and a large group of people who vote against the incumbent because they can tell things are shit, they just dont know why.
Voter participation has not been below 50% for any presidential election in modern history - Las time was in the 1920's and before that it was in the 1880's.
I was, however, thinking of registered Democrats and organised movements like the Uncommitted movement.
Congratulations, you’re both wrong. As if Russia has money to waste on influencing a tiny number of people on a non-profit social media platform that no one’s heard of.
That BlueMaga is once again pulling out the same McCarthyism that has failed them for the past decade is also not surprising. Screeching that everyone who disagrees with you is a subhuman foreigner isn't exactly winning elections for you.
Those are the same thing dipshit, just because you call one by a dysphemism doesn't change the underlying fact that I'm expressing my beliefs and your only response is to call me a subhuman foreigner for it.
"Everyone who disagrees with me is either a foreigner or an unthinking machine" And Other Insane Conspiracies For The Right Wing Mind.
Anyway, why do I never see you accuse people agreeing with you of being bots? The US also has massive bot farms, as does the individual parties. The most active city on Reddit was an air force base, yet I dont see you be cautious about people reinforcing your narrative? Why?
Funny to talk of semantics when you're the one engaging in it. Do you not know how communication works? I am using you as a jumping off point for a generalisation.
So how would I point to a place where youre agreeing with someone you think is a bot, when I point out people like you don't accuse those who agree with you of being bots?
You’re talking to Americans here. Fucking cowards aren’t even willing to block traffic or occupy buildings. The mere suggestion of a response that’s a step or two beyond that, approaching something halfway proprtionate? They’ll piss their pants in fear, clutch their pearls and start attacking YOU more forecefully than they’d ever come at MAGA.
Have you seen American police? They have machine guns, tanks, and air support. They've been trained to see citizens as the enemy for years (see Warrior Cop Training).
really it seems like it's blaming people for just voting & hoping, instead of organizing and building a movement. voting for the lesser evil is not enough.
Bringing attention to a problem is fine (even though I’d wager we’re all painfully aware of this one already). But blaming the victims is not. So there’s that.
We the people are the victims of a two party system that suppresses our will due to corporate interests. The dems are not innocent in this problem. They are the lesser of two evils, but they are still considered evil (e.g., Kyrsten Sinema, John Fetterman, Chuck Schumer, et all). Meaningful change by us normal people is intentionally difficult; not impossible, I admit, and people Like Mamdani are helping, but the bar is set very high and very expensive.
“…[my] choosing…” is blaming me (and every American) for things I fundamentally have no control over. I do what I can locally, but AOC, Mamdani, and Bernie I am not.
It also really sucks when a member of congress from some other state/district pushes and enacts some imposing change that affects people in other states/districts, and the people in the other states/districts can only write letters/make calls to their reps and if they’re lucky they may receive back some canned form letter written by a staffer. I’m projecting on that one, but I suspect my state and district aren’t unique in that problem.
I am not wasting my time reading all that. Joe Biden is a rapist who killed the MeToo movement, the democrats are enacting a genocide and people can vote third party. Pretending like you're a "victim" when you vote for genociders is insane. And its fucked up to appropriate language used to describe what happens to women who come forward about sexual assault, to shield yourself from critique for voting for rapist genociders.
Seems to me that, if at the end of your presidency homelessness is up 18% and people can't afford basic food staples, and you're still sending billions in free WMD's to a genocider mid-genocide anyway, maybe you don't get to claim you're a 'lesser evil'.
Americans don't want to admit it, but what you're usually getting is two greater evils in different packages.
Just to be clear about language, "lesser evil" and "greater evil" aren't like, classifications of evil like a tier list or something, they are directly comparative. If comparing two evils and one is greater, then the other is lesser, definitionally.
That’s some good framing if your goal is to give power to great evil. Like, you know that doesn’t let you off the hook for voting for great evil, right? That there is no moral high ground there?
See I think electing the traitorous, racist, malignantly narcissistic, pedophilic rapist who hates the American people just as much as he hates people of every other nation on Earth would have been far less reasonable. And the first two years of Trump's second administration have proved me right, no speculation necessary. I'd thank you back, but since your opinions are fucking fecal, instead I'll ask you kindly to stop sharing, thanks.
You think that the blue guy doing genocide, poverty, war, and the like is okay because they package themselves as a nice guy. I concern myself more with actions than words personally.
You're welcome to your opinion. Have a pleasant day.
The real issue is everyone forgets to actually grow support for actual good candidates between elections. Everyone just waits to see who is on the ballot and gets disappointed it's only self serving assholes who did the work themselves.
As opposed to choosing the greater evil for a change?
The actual issue is money in politics. It's the reason no politician wants voter reform. It's why Bernie never had a chance, not just as a presidential candidate. You need preferential voting, no more electoral college and no more Senate - pro rata representation only.
I don't know USA history very well at all, but was there really an election with a dramatically low voter turn out, which eventually triggered the civil war?
I just don't understand why the sentiment seems to be that if you advocate/participate in more change than just voting, then you should not vote, and if you vote, then you cannot participate in change more than that. Like surely these things can happen in parallel? Try to enact real change, but also vote for the lesser evil until those changes actually take hold?
Ahh, I think I've been misunderstanding this side then. I thought it was along the lines of "don't vote since both sides are bad, instead protest and riot, etc", but it's rather "vote for someone else"
The collapse of a party and/via creation of a new one happened like 3 times in American history. How is banking on that more likely to help in the next 40 years than voting for the lesser of two evils?
"Oh you pointed out that voting for democrats is worse than nothing? Well better immediately organize a violent revolution, otherwise your argument is moot!"
You are aware there's other things a person can do than vote or immediately lead a proletarian uprising, right? You understand how disingenuous a proposition it is you are making, right?
There really is no reason to only do one of them.
Following your line of argument there is no reason to vote.
Someone doesn't understand that the Democrats have been running that platform for a while now and been using it as a whipping rallying call to kowtow the actual left into compliance with them without any real consideration given to their ideology. The Democrats are not actually left, they're at best middle of the road conservatism and people need to realize that.
Hillary Clinton was the lesser evil against Barack in 2008. Her whole campaign platform was that she was more electable and that voting for Obama was throwing your vote away.
The lesser evil thing doesn't apply to primaries, you always vote as progressive as possible in the primaries. And anyway, Clinton and Obama were both establishment candidates, they were the same level of evil.
And that election came as a result of decades of "lesser evil" "strategic" voting, where each election managed to be a worse more decrepit choice than the previous. Looking at these things through the lens of just this specific election is part of what has got us here. The ahistoric approach to politics is why you end up running defense for a genocider who can't even win an election against Trump.
Apparently not allowed to have an opinion here due to a one-way application of rule 4 "lessor evil" rhetoric. So enjoy your uninformed circle-jerk in a joke sub that can't stand up to the simplest of criticisms. You win, congratulations on posting an opinon that is explicitly protected by your mods.
"waaah waaaah you have to hear my clichés about why you have to vote for genociders waaah waaaah"
You could also just formulate what youre saying in a civil manner and not have the issue. Civility is not just about tone, but content and action as well.
If you can't actually engage with the actual critique and facts of the matter, then why would one want to hear what you have to say?
Finally mods applying rules unevenly is something that happens everywhere, stop being pissy because you felt like it happened to you now. When I interact with something on lemmy world and people behave like shit, its me who gets moderated for responding in kind. It sucks, but Im not gonna pretend its something unique to your group.
Now I will say in this instance the rules havent been applied unevenly, youre just a pissbaby.
If you can’t actually engage with the actual critique and facts of the matter, then why would one want to hear what you have to say?
I did engage, with facts. My comment was removed because harm reduction is a contraversial topic in this community.
Per the interpretation of rule 4 by the mods, this is a manufactured echo chamber for 2024 non-voters to jack off about how great they are for not voting for a "genocider". Fine. You all can have your safe space, and I won't bring in basic facts like "if trump didn't win the election because we all voted for someone else then we wouldn't be dealing with 99% of the bullshit we've got today".
I get that you all want a fantasy space where people are free to post their protected opinion with uniform agreement enforced by the moderators, you have a right to that. However, you should consider how weak those positions are when people are banned from examining them and poking at the (fairly large and obvious) holes. You know what I'd call a set of unsupported fantasies enforced by authoritarians and banned from basic examination that is detached from the actual results it produces? Religion.
As far as I can see you did not do that to my comment. Did you respond to the wrong comment?
Per the interpretation of rule 4 by the mods, this is a manufactured echo chamber for 2024 non-voters to jack off about how great they are for not voting for a “genocider”.
Call it what you want, but just be aware your favorite comm is as much of an echo chamber. The difference is that the people here exist within the same cultural hegemony you do, so they hear plenty of what you say every day. They, unlike you, are not in an echo chamber, since they hear your bs all the time. You have to seek it out.
I won’t bring in basic facts like “if trump didn’t win the election because we all voted for someone else then we wouldn’t be dealing with 99% of the bullshit we’ve got today”
I think I see the confusion. What youre presenting here is an opinion, not a fact. And it is an unfalsifiable opinion. Looking at policies and the history of the party and the candidate, I cannot agree.
However, you should consider how weak those positions are when people are banned from examining them and poking at the (fairly large and obvious) holes.
So I would again point you towards the previous thing I wrote about people hearing your clichés all the time. Id then add to that with a reassurance nobody is missing on anything if your "poking holes" is just more of you aggressively spewing text about how you think Kamala would be better. I think you would get further in these spaces if you:
Engaged with the critique people give your position
Differentiate facts from feelings
Substantiate your feelings with facts
Present your arguments civilly and engage others with an open mind
You know what I’d call a set of unsupported fantasies enforced by authoritarians and banned from basic examination that is detached from the actual results it produces? Religion.
Seems like an odd definition of religion that excluded quite a few spiritualistic practices.
I would again point you towards the thing I said before: Its like that everywhere, you just dont notice it elsewhere because you rarely spout heterodox opinions. You are now in one of the few online spaces where the western cultural hegemony isn't the absolute baseline, and so you find yourself as part of the outgroup. Most users here will have similar stories to tell you of whatever comm you think does it well.
I think you also need to get a better understanding of authoritarian, because calling a modaction "authoritarian" is very funny.
As far as I can see you did not do that to my comment. Did you respond to the wrong comment?
No. I had a comment removed earlier that would have been basically what I would have sent back to you, but it was removed per a biased application of rule 4, no "Lessor Evil" rhetoric. I'm not going to type it all up again just have it removed. You're welcome to find some repository of old comments and read it if it is available.
Edit: also the irony of complaining about my civility (without citation) and calling me a whiny pissbaby in the same comment is rich.
You can just find comments in the modlog. I just found yours. It had a bunch "facts" (opinions), some unsubstantiated claims, some statements that were straight up untrue, and finally it was just a disingenuous reductive statement that failed to engage with the other.
It was also a statement that diminished Democrats involvement in many of the things you take issue with. I assume that was the reasoning for having it removed. That or just it being regular trite unsubstantiated text with the regular trite rhetorical tricks that everyone sees through.
The 2024 election was the result of choosing the lesser evil in 2020. You can't analyze these problems by looking at only one election at a time. In the grand scheme of things, Biden winning in 2020 was a net-negative for the country. It gave us four more years of milquetoast centrism that did nothing to reduce the appeal of MAGA. If Trump had won again in 2020, he wouldn't have had four years to prepare for a second term. There wouldn't have been a Project 2025.
Electoral myopia is a mortal sin of Democrats. Every election they pretend that no other election has ever happened before, and no other election will ever happen again.
Post is explicitly about "lessor evil" (can't even spell it right in the side bar)
Lessor is a participant of the lease who takes possession of the property and provides it as a leasing subject to the lessee for temporary possession
Mods, restore my comment, or remove the whole post or admit this is a joke sub that is about idealistic anarchist masturbatory fantasies and just ban my ass so I don't have to keep reading the smooth-brained drivel that got the orange fascist elected in the first place, whilst being unable to interject with basic logic and facts.
250 years. We've had a form of First Past the Post for as long as we've has government, and mathematically that always results in two parties, aka lesser of two evils. Without changing that, we can point fingers of blame wherever, but the people don't get a real choice.
I wonder if this sticker is on the car of someone who always voted third party or abstained? Clearly, since it's "you" and not "us", so not taking responsibility for generations of voting. Do they realize that their choice might have caused this outcome too? Probably not, since they're using a bumper sticker to blame everyone else.
You're ignorant of history. Yes, we'll have two parties due to our electoral system, but precisely which two parties can easily change. It's happened before. In fact, that's how the Republican party came to be. The Abolitionists spent nearly a century doing exactly what you advocate - voting for the lesser evil. Slavery only became more entrenched. It was only when they were willing to abandon the existing parties entirely and support a new third party - the Republicans, that Abolition actually happened.
We would have never had a President Lincoln if our ancestors had followed your advice.
It’s also the direct result of simply not voting. It’s also the direct result of half-ass voting only on big ticket elections, not the state or primary elections.
And the alternative to lesser of two evils is f’ing what? Some third party candidate that spouts boilerplate slogans and no practical solutions?
The United States has had a long history and gone through many changes. The changes don’t happen overnight, but they happen. They just don’t happen instantly with a super perfect candidate.
Blaming voters when the primary cause for all of that is corporate interference in every aspect from candidate selection to gerrymandering districts to lobbying to the ads seen online and on television to the misinformation/disinformation sewed into widely accepted corporate media.
The people with money are the ones to blame. Not the pool of potential voters beaten into submission at work and propagandized into thinking a far right party and center right party are our only options.
I participate politically in my city but it isn't about me, this isn't about atomization of each individual's participation level. The problem is systematic and framing it as such is important, not blaming individual nameless voters.
Well first of all, ditch the fucking pretense that the Democrats collectively are actually leftists. They're not, never were, never will be while you continue voting for them. Gavin Newsom is looking like the potential Democrat front runner for 2028, and he has a lot of negative things to say about LGBTQ+ people. That human rights are negotiable is an abhorrent political view.
Nah, that “first of all” guarantees a Republican victory. And Republicans are absolutely worse than Democrats. The “there’s no difference” crowd are simply wrong. It’s a two party system and that isn’t going to change anytime soon. You change the Democrats one elected official at a time. That’s your only choice.
This is true, unless you're an immigrant or a Palestinian or a union organizer or a peaceful protester or against expanding the police state or against fucking up the climate or you want to protect womens right to abortion or you want to protect queer people or you want universal healthcare or you want to lower the military budget or you want to stop interventionism. Its also not true about changing the democratic party one elected official at a time.
But if we ignore all that, then its true, Yeah.
You can look at what our ancestors did. It took voting against the lesser evil to end slavery. The Republican Party was a third party that abolitionists put forward after generations of effort failed to work either of the existing parties from within. In the end it took forming an entirely new party to actually push forward with abolition.
Ok. What’s going to work? Seriously, tell us a strategy. Because bitching on social media is not a strategy. Third party clearly not a strategy. What’s the plan, chief?
Grass roots party funded by the people and truly for us. Because big money isn't going to allow anyone to fundamentally change the system. Elect independent individuals into local and state governments as well who will work to remove first past the post and put in ranked choice voting. Again, expecting any of the big money parties to make change is the definition of insanity.
And what did that get us? Genocide, more deportations than Trump 1, massive fracking bills, more money to cops, violent crackdowns on peaceful protesters. The only good thing biden did was pull out of Afghanistan and he was hated for it and followed it up with immediate sanctions to stave the people already suffering under a taliban government.
That's how democracy works everywhere. Do you think that in countries with more than two parties, somehow there's a party for everyone where you agree with everything that party stands for?
The united snakes very deliberately picked the biggest evil and as it turns out that things have been a bit shit since then for everyone who isn't a billionaire nazi or has a very specific bootlicking fetish.
You’re going to be force fed it either way. I’d rather take the horse shit that’s basically just straw than DJT’s putrescent, loathsome hamburger bile.
Lmao, this is the correct take. If you blame the current system on people who voted for the lesser of two evils then you can also clearly blame the system on those who didn't vote. In fact, most of the voting population choose not to vote. So if anything they are the most to blame. The implication is that instead of voting you should do something more radical or -insert some butt-ass thing- but clearly that worked the same amount or less than voting by this very logic.
213 replies
It's the result of rich people only making shitty choices available. So sick of the victim blaming gaslighting shit.
That "lesser evil" works well, you must admit.
So it's all functioning as designed. BoTh PaRtIeS blame the other for their failures and lack of progress, neither could exist without their evil twin.
They have no actual platform other than wealth acquisition, those issues that they deem important for an election cycle are "bait".
For example, Biden's bait was "15 an hour". The American voters took the bait and elected him; no minimum wage increase.
Trump's bait was "no war". The American voters took the bait and elected him, so... war.
Biden and Ds could have passed minimum wage bill easily. The "super majority requirement" is a parliamentary rule that can be changed whenever they would like with majority vote (they circumvent it all the time, see "exceptions to nuclear option", like budgets)
Most American voters have no idea that this is so, and it works very well to deceive the majority of them right out in the open. Blatantly and repeatedly.
I vote every election, and you should too! It's funny
Should we have chosen the greater evil?
"No bro, you don't understand bro, 3rd party or bust. Yeah, the Green and Libertarian parties haven't had ANY representation in lower forms of government, but they'll get it done right if we make them president."
Idiots.
The point is that revolution is necessary, and electoralism is a dead end.
I don't understand. We're bush, Nixon, Reagan and trump the lesser of 2 evils? I'm pretty sure they're the cause of the current MAGAstan government.
Maybe OP is just starting highschool?
If OP is more than 2 years old, should be able to remember that the current government was not the lesser of 2 evils when it was elected. Don't need to look farther into history.
What is your source for the Clintons "convincing" Trump to run? According to Politico "What the sources from both camps agreed upon, however, was that Clinton did not urge Trump to run. " https://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/report-bill-clinton-talked-with-donald-trump-as-he-was-considering-white-house-run-121052
https://smry.ai/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clinton-called-donald-trump-ahead-of-republicans-2016-launch/2015/08/05/e2b30bb8-3ae3-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html
Seem to be missing a few administrations there. Though I notice BlueMaga liberals are basically having to memory hole every democratic president for the last forty years because "if you just vote us in we'll stop the Republicans!" Doesn't convince anyone when they look at what democrats actually did in office
Ok then, so what's your solution? I'm still gonna vote for the lesser evil, while still organizing and doing direct action, to reduce harm unless presented with an alternative.
Maybe a candidate that's good? You could run for an office.
Edit: essentially I mean for the situation at hand, especially with this upcoming election, what else can we do?
You just keep doing what the bumper sticker says, obviously. You vote for the red and they hit you and rob you, vote for the blue and they rob you nicely.
How is this hard for people?
Republicans do what they want and the Democrats ask us to vote for them a little harder and, eventually, they will be able to do something, as long as precedent isn't broken, as long as it's the "high road", as long as it's not something the parliamentarian can override, etc...
currently,
-hakeem is secretly meeting with kushner. He is also taking Thiel money and setup and AI "regulations committee" with other Dems who take Thiel money.
-AIPAC Dems are funding AIPAC Republicans over actual left candidates
-tammy duckworth says that we shouldnt impeach and should work WITH the traitornazirapistpedophilicwarcriminals.
Can you please explain to me how voting for the "lesser" evil is helpful?
A handful of jurisdictions have tried just that, it's absolutely wild.
The solution is Ranked Choice Voting. Anyone can run and voters rank all the candidates. So if you put Stein (for example) first and she doesn't get enough votes, your vote then goes to your second choice, and so on. It lets you vote the way you really want it to go, not just strategically.
Ranked choice voting as a topic comes up every 2-4 years. Then no one does anything about it after the election is over.
If you want it so bad, do whatever you can to keep the conversation going between elections.
Ranked choice/instant runoff voting is not doing a lot for Australia. The "left" major party is centrist at best, the "right" major party is drifting further right and the only minor party of note is basically Nazis.
K, we don't have that option though.
Ok, maybe I wasn't clear, so I apologize, I'm talking about the situation as it is, like with this election.
Edit: I think maybe getting people to run who will change things for racked choice voting is a good strategy long term, and we could and should work for that
It's not like picking the worse evil would get you to a better place either.
Good thing there's other choices, then.
who said anything about that?
Except that choosing the greater evil is what's gotten us exactly where we are. Nixon, Reagan, W, Trump = greater evil every time.
Clinton, Obama, Biden. So not every time. And every time the republicans won were also times where we ran with "vote for the lesser evil" which you have to count too - Your strategy of "voting for the lesser evil" doesn't even win you elections.
Huh?? I wasn't old enough to remember Clinton but even during Obama's first election I clearly remember people calling him the lesser evil.
So you think Clinton, Obama, and Biden were the greater evil? I could maybe see that argument with Clinton, but Obama and Biden? I'd love to hear your explanation.
You wrote voting for the "greater" evil got us here. I pointed out that those three are just as responsible and, in your eyes, they are "lesser" evil.
Thus the line of reasoning that the "greater" evil got us here does not stand. I then add to this line that even if the blame were to solely lie at the feet of the "greater" evil, then that argument rests on absolving the democrats of blame for losing to the "greater" evil, which I find to be completely nonsensical. Running someone so evil they are barely distinguishable from a republican is part of why republicans win.
I think those three men are evil, too. Just like I think the republicans are evil.
Definitely true with Biden. Did anyone WANT to vote for him?
What so many miss is that EVERYONE votes for the lesser of two evils. When Trump won, the lesser of two evils won, in the minds of those who voted for him.
So, yes, we HAVE ALL been choosing the lesser of two evils for generations, the fake bumper sticker is right.
MAGA could have this exact same thread with the evils reversed.
And, no it's not a two party system. We've been manipulated into accepting that there are only two viable parties.
We could have had Bernie, who ran as a DINO but we all know is socialist, (we've been manipulated into believing socialism is bad for generations) but someone with a voice said "Bernie is unelectable" and that was all it took, his numbers dropped overnight.
What people don't understand is that the DNC was NEVER going to give Bernie the nomination, no matter how many votes he got in the primary. He's an Independent who has never respected the Democratic party. He doesn't support them, he doesn't raise money for them, and he has criticized them often over the years. They hate him, he's not a Democrat, and they are not going to reward him with the biggest award a party can offer a member - their candidacy for President. Bernie's not a Democrat, and the Dems aren't going to make him their leader.
I'll vote in the primaries if there is a candidate I like. Otherwise I won't. And I wont vote for democrats if I dont like their candidate either. Doing so is a fools' game and exactly what got you trump.
Of course this is just a false dilemma, you can always vote third party.
This is literally the sheep cheering on the wolf so they don't get eaten by the bear
Mmm, I sure do love a false dichotomy.
Yes, it is entirely possible to vote in the primary but not in the general election. You just... shouldn't do that.
The 'lesser evil' is only there so that people feel like they can change the status quo without protesting violently.
Which has been true for exactly 0% of recorded history.
Every time someone says something for sure never happened like this? They're wrong.
Actually we've chosen the worse of two evils about half the time.
Which is the real reason why the lesser evil can get away with being as evil as they are.
So far, after watching pedophiles coup the government and strip it for parts while conducting treasonous acts, the Democrats have:
-secrety had meetings between dem leadership and Jared Kushner
-funded AIPAC Republicans campaigns over non AIPAC DEMS
-said that if they win the midterms that they shouldn't impeach anybody, and we should work with the Nazi pedophile traitors.
-NOT provide funding to left candidates in FL (chuck Schumer).
-will NOT commit to abolishing the secret police stablished by pedophilic traitors to terrorize us.
-will NOT speak out against CONCENTRATION CAMPS AND BAN THEM.
-Jeffries, who takes Peter Thiel money, setup an AI regulatory committee with some other Dems that TAKE PETER THIEL MONEY
IDK, beyond words, can anyone show me actions that show that Democrats are actually an opposition party?
Again the liberals think their lesser evil will result in change. It's all the difference of how much breaking the party is pushing out.
And here come the blueanon McCarthyists to screech about how all their problems are the fault of evil foreigners
"Everyone who disagrees with me is either a foreigner or an unthinking machine" And Other Insane Conspiracies For The Right Wing Mind
It's just a way to simplify a complex situation.
Americans aren't particularly politically savvy and have been taught their entire lives that the only acceptable way to enact change is through voting. Pointing out that Democrats at the national level often function as controlled opposition raises an extremely frightening possibility: that voting only creates a small amount of change on a handful of token issues and otherwise their government is largely is out of their control.
So they spin up the false dichotomy that pointing out how the tacit cooperation of both parties in undermining the rights of US citizens is somehow not suggesting that the population must take action in addition to the government-sanctioned method of civic engagement, i.e., voting, but is instead suggesting one not vote at all. It's frankly one of the most smooth-brained standpoints I regularly see on Lemmy, but American liberals seem to cling to it like a talisman against the discomfort that is the very real possibility that far more than voting will be required to enact the significant, lasting change that will stop their country from careening into fascism, and unlike voting, that type of action does not provide a clear path with simple instructions.
I think you responded to the wrong comment.
The weird need to other anyone who dares to critique the democratic party is not some simplification of a complex situation. Its an extension of russiagate and is now just some insane conspiracy where everyone who disagrees with bluemaga is subhuman (a bot) or a dastardly foreigner (subhuman), because no true person could ever dare point out Obama installed Tom Homan.
Don't like being called out, do you?
You guys really like to live up to your instance name, don't you .ml?
Called out? Im neither russian, nor a bot.
In reality I just dont like to see people who are ostensibly "liberal" espouse insane jingoistic racism in response to someone disagreeing with them.
What do you think .ml has to do with anything?
"We're eating shit because you keep eating the shinier of two turds."
This isn't profound. It's actually just a dumb "both sides bad" take said by people who would snub a candidate they agree with on 70% of issues with a 50% chance of winning for a person they agree with on 90% of issues with a 5% chance of winning.
The 70% candidate losing isn't a win for your cause because now a person you agree with on 5% of issues just won.
And you not being able to see where two controlled parties got you shows you can't think beyond an election.
It's not hard, MAJORITY of Democrats are neoliberal, that is conservative. They felt they had to go more conservative after Reagan and have ever since. Which means that we have DROFTED AWAY FROM LEFT LEANING VALUES.
we drifted away from they by voting for the candidates that were MORE ALIGNED with our values and yet here we are.
Now, intelligent people can also look at what the "blue good guys" are doing right now to prep for "winning" the midterms in my post above.
*Hint - it's ACTIVELY helping the GOP
I dont agree with Democrats on 70% of issues. You people keep making these disingenuous framings where the issue people have with democrats is just some teeny tiny thing and not their policies. The democrats committed a genocide, that was the straw that broke the camels back - It is not the one thing we disagree on. I dont like them deporting more people than Trump, I dont like their fanatic militarism, their police state, the way they fuck the climate, healthcare, their kowtowing to corporate interests, their constant sabotaging of left-wing movements, their starvation of people through sanctions, their repressive violence against democratic protesters, their interventionism, their brinksmanship, etc.
And even if it was, GENOCIDE is pretty fucking massive. Voting for a genocide will only end up with you getting sent to the camps as well.
I - and seemingly many others - have been willing to accept voting for democrats despite their many many many dogshit policies, as long as they: Protected Roe v. Wade and didnt gleefully directly commit a genocide.
And they fucked it up. So now people won't vote for them, because there is no reason to.
Genocide apologia
No, it's not. Bush v. Gore decided this trajectory for us, by some Supreme Court justices.
Anybody who was around for that and doesn't oppose FPTP knows what they're doing.
Jeez...I hope this plan of not voting again works out for us this time.
Groceries keep getting more expensive though
Seeing as how that has never been the plan of the majority, its a plan that has never been tried. As opposed to the plan of voting for democrats even though they're (at best) republicans with a 2 year delay. We've tried that plan a bunch and all it has gotten us is genocide, mass deportations, a police state and an ever-worsening climate.
I'm quite sure MAGA is not going to go along with your plan...
Yeah, just as blue-MAGA won't. Good thing there's a large group of non-voters and a large group of people who vote against the incumbent because they can tell things are shit, they just dont know why.
What do you mean "never the plan of the majority"?
Don't the majority of US adults already not vote?
Voter participation has not been below 50% for any presidential election in modern history - Las time was in the 1920's and before that it was in the 1880's.
I was, however, thinking of registered Democrats and organised movements like the Uncommitted movement.
BlueMaga liberals have memory holed the entire Biden administration
Nice to start off with an insane ad hominem.
Sister, the democrats are fascists too.
Congratulations, you’re both wrong. As if Russia has money to waste on influencing a tiny number of people on a non-profit social media platform that no one’s heard of.
That BlueMaga is once again pulling out the same McCarthyism that has failed them for the past decade is also not surprising. Screeching that everyone who disagrees with you is a subhuman foreigner isn't exactly winning elections for you.
"Your comment history shows that in the past you held the same beliefs you espouse now, thus proving you're a subhuman foreigner!"
Those are the same thing dipshit, just because you call one by a dysphemism doesn't change the underlying fact that I'm expressing my beliefs and your only response is to call me a subhuman foreigner for it.
Good, I'm glad you fascist fuckers don't like me
"Everyone who disagrees with me is either a foreigner or an unthinking machine" And Other Insane Conspiracies For The Right Wing Mind.
Anyway, why do I never see you accuse people agreeing with you of being bots? The US also has massive bot farms, as does the individual parties. The most active city on Reddit was an air force base, yet I dont see you be cautious about people reinforcing your narrative? Why?
Plural you, dumbass. As in "you types".
You want me to cite a comment where you aren't doing something?
Funny to talk of semantics when you're the one engaging in it. Do you not know how communication works? I am using you as a jumping off point for a generalisation.
So how would I point to a place where youre agreeing with someone you think is a bot, when I point out people like you don't accuse those who agree with you of being bots?
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
So instead of blaming the system that gave us two parties, you blame the voters who had no choice but to vote for two parties?
Sounds solid. 👍plus it's objectively wrong as exemplified by the last election
Seriously. Someone let me know when we’re getting off the internet and rioting.
You’re talking to Americans here. Fucking cowards aren’t even willing to block traffic or occupy buildings. The mere suggestion of a response that’s a step or two beyond that, approaching something halfway proprtionate? They’ll piss their pants in fear, clutch their pearls and start attacking YOU more forecefully than they’d ever come at MAGA.
What country are you from again?
Not blocking traffic in a country where running over protestors is fine is not cowardice.
Have you seen American police? They have machine guns, tanks, and air support. They've been trained to see citizens as the enemy for years (see Warrior Cop Training).
I heard they were just waiting for you, man.
really it seems like it's blaming people for just voting & hoping, instead of organizing and building a movement. voting for the lesser evil is not enough.
Evolution can't work if we back-slide.
Let us know when your clip airs on the news.
"the lesser" evil is still evil, it is still a backslide in your line of argument
Let me know when your strategy of voting for genociders stops the genocide
You chose to confine yourself inside that box.
No more than you, who does nothing but complain loudly.
So instead of complaining and bringing attention to a subject we're supposed to shut up and comply? How good of an authoritarian view you have there.
Bringing attention to a problem is fine (even though I’d wager we’re all painfully aware of this one already). But blaming the victims is not. So there’s that.
Fucked up to talk about victim blaming in relation to someone critiquing the democrats
How so?
We the people are the victims of a two party system that suppresses our will due to corporate interests. The dems are not innocent in this problem. They are the lesser of two evils, but they are still considered evil (e.g., Kyrsten Sinema, John Fetterman, Chuck Schumer, et all). Meaningful change by us normal people is intentionally difficult; not impossible, I admit, and people Like Mamdani are helping, but the bar is set very high and very expensive.
“…[my] choosing…” is blaming me (and every American) for things I fundamentally have no control over. I do what I can locally, but AOC, Mamdani, and Bernie I am not.
It also really sucks when a member of congress from some other state/district pushes and enacts some imposing change that affects people in other states/districts, and the people in the other states/districts can only write letters/make calls to their reps and if they’re lucky they may receive back some canned form letter written by a staffer. I’m projecting on that one, but I suspect my state and district aren’t unique in that problem.
So yeah, I ask again, how so?
I am not wasting my time reading all that. Joe Biden is a rapist who killed the MeToo movement, the democrats are enacting a genocide and people can vote third party. Pretending like you're a "victim" when you vote for genociders is insane. And its fucked up to appropriate language used to describe what happens to women who come forward about sexual assault, to shield yourself from critique for voting for rapist genociders.
Are you referring to Genocide Joe or Sleepy Don?
genocide joe was still somehow de lesser of the 2 evils
Was he?
Seems to me that, if at the end of your presidency homelessness is up 18% and people can't afford basic food staples, and you're still sending billions in free WMD's to a genocider mid-genocide anyway, maybe you don't get to claim you're a 'lesser evil'.
Americans don't want to admit it, but what you're usually getting is two greater evils in different packages.
Just to be clear about language, "lesser evil" and "greater evil" aren't like, classifications of evil like a tier list or something, they are directly comparative. If comparing two evils and one is greater, then the other is lesser, definitionally.
That’s some good framing if your goal is to give power to great evil. Like, you know that doesn’t let you off the hook for voting for great evil, right? That there is no moral high ground there?
Yes he was
I don't think that's a reasonable opinion, but thank you for sharing.
See I think electing the traitorous, racist, malignantly narcissistic, pedophilic rapist who hates the American people just as much as he hates people of every other nation on Earth would have been far less reasonable. And the first two years of Trump's second administration have proved me right, no speculation necessary. I'd thank you back, but since your opinions are fucking fecal, instead I'll ask you kindly to stop sharing, thanks.
I understand.
You think that the blue guy doing genocide, poverty, war, and the like is okay because they package themselves as a nice guy. I concern myself more with actions than words personally.
You're welcome to your opinion. Have a pleasant day.
Nope, it’s also a consequence of often choosing the greater evil.
And for favouring short term over long term planning.
And zero-sum thinking.
And us vs them mentality.
And a lack of critical thinking in general.
I think you're forgetting that this is the most important election of our lifetimes. If we lose this one, there won't be a next election.
— last election
Long term thinking would be voting third party.
As of liberals think long term. They are reactionary like their conservative bedfellows
The real issue is everyone forgets to actually grow support for actual good candidates between elections. Everyone just waits to see who is on the ballot and gets disappointed it's only self serving assholes who did the work themselves.
As opposed to choosing the greater evil for a change?
The actual issue is money in politics. It's the reason no politician wants voter reform. It's why Bernie never had a chance, not just as a presidential candidate. You need preferential voting, no more electoral college and no more Senate - pro rata representation only.
Slavery only ended after abolitionists stopped voting for the lesser evil. 50 years of voting for the lesser evil got them nowhere.
I don't know USA history very well at all, but was there really an election with a dramatically low voter turn out, which eventually triggered the civil war?
I just don't understand why the sentiment seems to be that if you advocate/participate in more change than just voting, then you should not vote, and if you vote, then you cannot participate in change more than that. Like surely these things can happen in parallel? Try to enact real change, but also vote for the lesser evil until those changes actually take hold?
The US has more than two parties, you dont have to vote for genociders
Ahh, I think I've been misunderstanding this side then. I thought it was along the lines of "don't vote since both sides are bad, instead protest and riot, etc", but it's rather "vote for someone else"
You can do a revolution and still vote for the lesser evil in the meantime. Not voting supports the others.
If the message is "revolutionize!" say that, don't imply to stop participating in democracy.
No, the message is "don't expect things to get better when you vote for genociders" you imbecile.
lol.
The collapse of a party and/via creation of a new one happened like 3 times in American history. How is banking on that more likely to help in the next 40 years than voting for the lesser of two evils?
How has the last forty years of voting for the lesser evil worked out for you?
How has changing parties 3 times in a quarter millennia stopped them from getting where they are now?
Wow, its almost like electorialism is a fundamentally broken tool that does not allow you to change the system!
How is what you are arguing not an argument against voting?
Then revolt AND vote at the same time.
There really is no reason to only do one of them.
"Oh you pointed out that voting for democrats is worse than nothing? Well better immediately organize a violent revolution, otherwise your argument is moot!"
You are aware there's other things a person can do than vote or immediately lead a proletarian uprising, right? You understand how disingenuous a proposition it is you are making, right?
Following your line of argument there is no reason to vote.
Using AI for some tepid take about evil is fucking hilarious.
That's just stupid... First of all, what are we supposed to do? Vote for the greater of two evils? Second, we DO vote for the greater of two evils!
OP must be Maga to think that Trump was a lesser evil than Kamala.
Someone doesn't understand that the Democrats have been running that platform for a while now and been using it as a whipping rallying call to kowtow the actual left into compliance with them without any real consideration given to their ideology. The Democrats are not actually left, they're at best middle of the road conservatism and people need to realize that.
"The lesser of 2 evils."
America voted for the greater evil and is now experiencing face eating leopard.
Hillary Clinton was the lesser evil against Barack in 2008. Her whole campaign platform was that she was more electable and that voting for Obama was throwing your vote away.
The lesser evil thing doesn't apply to primaries, you always vote as progressive as possible in the primaries. And anyway, Clinton and Obama were both establishment candidates, they were the same level of evil.
Why doesn't the same logic apply to primaries?
You think that changes the truth?
I think that it fucking sucks.
No, I just think it's ironic given the community this is posted in.
The only truth here is that this post pushes an objectively false statement.
Hmmm. Really seems like the government today is directly the result of not choosing the lesser evil 2 years ago.
And that election came as a result of decades of "lesser evil" "strategic" voting, where each election managed to be a worse more decrepit choice than the previous. Looking at these things through the lens of just this specific election is part of what has got us here. The ahistoric approach to politics is why you end up running defense for a genocider who can't even win an election against Trump.
Apparently not allowed to have an opinion here due to a one-way application of rule 4 "lessor evil" rhetoric. So enjoy your uninformed circle-jerk in a joke sub that can't stand up to the simplest of criticisms. You win, congratulations on posting an opinon that is explicitly protected by your mods.
"waaah waaaah you have to hear my clichés about why you have to vote for genociders waaah waaaah"
You could also just formulate what youre saying in a civil manner and not have the issue. Civility is not just about tone, but content and action as well.
If you can't actually engage with the actual critique and facts of the matter, then why would one want to hear what you have to say?
Finally mods applying rules unevenly is something that happens everywhere, stop being pissy because you felt like it happened to you now. When I interact with something on lemmy world and people behave like shit, its me who gets moderated for responding in kind. It sucks, but Im not gonna pretend its something unique to your group.
Now I will say in this instance the rules havent been applied unevenly, youre just a pissbaby.
I did engage, with facts. My comment was removed because harm reduction is a contraversial topic in this community.
Per the interpretation of rule 4 by the mods, this is a manufactured echo chamber for 2024 non-voters to jack off about how great they are for not voting for a "genocider". Fine. You all can have your safe space, and I won't bring in basic facts like "if trump didn't win the election because we all voted for someone else then we wouldn't be dealing with 99% of the bullshit we've got today". I get that you all want a fantasy space where people are free to post their protected opinion with uniform agreement enforced by the moderators, you have a right to that. However, you should consider how weak those positions are when people are banned from examining them and poking at the (fairly large and obvious) holes. You know what I'd call a set of unsupported fantasies enforced by authoritarians and banned from basic examination that is detached from the actual results it produces? Religion.
As far as I can see you did not do that to my comment. Did you respond to the wrong comment?
Call it what you want, but just be aware your favorite comm is as much of an echo chamber. The difference is that the people here exist within the same cultural hegemony you do, so they hear plenty of what you say every day. They, unlike you, are not in an echo chamber, since they hear your bs all the time. You have to seek it out.
I think I see the confusion. What youre presenting here is an opinion, not a fact. And it is an unfalsifiable opinion. Looking at policies and the history of the party and the candidate, I cannot agree.
So I would again point you towards the previous thing I wrote about people hearing your clichés all the time. Id then add to that with a reassurance nobody is missing on anything if your "poking holes" is just more of you aggressively spewing text about how you think Kamala would be better. I think you would get further in these spaces if you:
Seems like an odd definition of religion that excluded quite a few spiritualistic practices.
I would again point you towards the thing I said before: Its like that everywhere, you just dont notice it elsewhere because you rarely spout heterodox opinions. You are now in one of the few online spaces where the western cultural hegemony isn't the absolute baseline, and so you find yourself as part of the outgroup. Most users here will have similar stories to tell you of whatever comm you think does it well.
I think you also need to get a better understanding of authoritarian, because calling a modaction "authoritarian" is very funny.
No. I had a comment removed earlier that would have been basically what I would have sent back to you, but it was removed per a biased application of rule 4, no "Lessor Evil" rhetoric. I'm not going to type it all up again just have it removed. You're welcome to find some repository of old comments and read it if it is available.
Edit: also the irony of complaining about my civility (without citation) and calling me a whiny pissbaby in the same comment is rich.
You can just find comments in the modlog. I just found yours. It had a bunch "facts" (opinions), some unsubstantiated claims, some statements that were straight up untrue, and finally it was just a disingenuous reductive statement that failed to engage with the other.
It was also a statement that diminished Democrats involvement in many of the things you take issue with. I assume that was the reasoning for having it removed. That or just it being regular trite unsubstantiated text with the regular trite rhetorical tricks that everyone sees through.
The 2024 election was the result of choosing the lesser evil in 2020. You can't analyze these problems by looking at only one election at a time. In the grand scheme of things, Biden winning in 2020 was a net-negative for the country. It gave us four more years of milquetoast centrism that did nothing to reduce the appeal of MAGA. If Trump had won again in 2020, he wouldn't have had four years to prepare for a second term. There wouldn't have been a Project 2025.
Electoral myopia is a mortal sin of Democrats. Every election they pretend that no other election has ever happened before, and no other election will ever happen again.
Only in that he wouldn't be able to run again in 2024 if we had let the greater evil win.
So your solution to Trump having a second term, would be to give him a second term?
Your lack of nuance and reading comprehension disturbs me.
Decades of 'lesser evil' gave us trump
Rule 4 "lessor evil rhetoric"
Post is explicitly about "lessor evil" (can't even spell it right in the side bar)
Mods, restore my comment, or remove the whole post or admit this is a joke sub that is about idealistic anarchist masturbatory fantasies and just ban my ass so I don't have to keep reading the smooth-brained drivel that got the orange fascist elected in the first place, whilst being unable to interject with basic logic and facts.
Um, I'm pretty sure some of it was choosing the greater of two evils
Why do we only have evils to choose from in the first place?
Because that's one of the evils tolerated by lesser evils.
Because good people aren't wealthy enough or have the right connections outside of local elections MAYBE
They just need to remain active to shape those choices and they refuse to, leaving a small group to trade favours.
Pretty sure the greater of two evils won a whole bunch of times.
L take
250 years. We've had a form of First Past the Post for as long as we've has government, and mathematically that always results in two parties, aka lesser of two evils. Without changing that, we can point fingers of blame wherever, but the people don't get a real choice.
I wonder if this sticker is on the car of someone who always voted third party or abstained? Clearly, since it's "you" and not "us", so not taking responsibility for generations of voting. Do they realize that their choice might have caused this outcome too? Probably not, since they're using a bumper sticker to blame everyone else.
It's not even a real bumper sticker, this image isn't a real photo
You're ignorant of history. Yes, we'll have two parties due to our electoral system, but precisely which two parties can easily change. It's happened before. In fact, that's how the Republican party came to be. The Abolitionists spent nearly a century doing exactly what you advocate - voting for the lesser evil. Slavery only became more entrenched. It was only when they were willing to abandon the existing parties entirely and support a new third party - the Republicans, that Abolition actually happened.
We would have never had a President Lincoln if our ancestors had followed your advice.
"Someone disagrees with me? Clearly an evil foreigner"
Elaborate on how abstaining or voting for the more evil version would yield a better outcome
Elaborate on how decades of lesser evilism and foreigner blaming has helped
Can't elaborate on the value of something we've never tried
???
This has been the Democrat strategy for at least 15 years
Sure but they've lost most of those races to the greater evil, so we can't say how it would have worked out voting for the lesser every time.
Damn, sure sounds like lesser evilism didn't work very well then
It’s also the direct result of simply not voting. It’s also the direct result of half-ass voting only on big ticket elections, not the state or primary elections.
And the alternative to lesser of two evils is f’ing what? Some third party candidate that spouts boilerplate slogans and no practical solutions?
The United States has had a long history and gone through many changes. The changes don’t happen overnight, but they happen. They just don’t happen instantly with a super perfect candidate.
Blaming voters when the primary cause for all of that is corporate interference in every aspect from candidate selection to gerrymandering districts to lobbying to the ads seen online and on television to the misinformation/disinformation sewed into widely accepted corporate media.
The people with money are the ones to blame. Not the pool of potential voters beaten into submission at work and propagandized into thinking a far right party and center right party are our only options.
Oh ok, throw that on the big list. Whatcha all gonna do about it?
I participate politically in my city but it isn't about me, this isn't about atomization of each individual's participation level. The problem is systematic and framing it as such is important, not blaming individual nameless voters.
Well first of all, ditch the fucking pretense that the Democrats collectively are actually leftists. They're not, never were, never will be while you continue voting for them. Gavin Newsom is looking like the potential Democrat front runner for 2028, and he has a lot of negative things to say about LGBTQ+ people. That human rights are negotiable is an abhorrent political view.
Nah, that “first of all” guarantees a Republican victory. And Republicans are absolutely worse than Democrats. The “there’s no difference” crowd are simply wrong. It’s a two party system and that isn’t going to change anytime soon. You change the Democrats one elected official at a time. That’s your only choice.
This is true, unless you're an immigrant or a Palestinian or a union organizer or a peaceful protester or against expanding the police state or against fucking up the climate or you want to protect womens right to abortion or you want to protect queer people or you want universal healthcare or you want to lower the military budget or you want to stop interventionism. Its also not true about changing the democratic party one elected official at a time.
But if we ignore all that, then its true, Yeah.
This is ahistorical drivel.
Oh ok tell us your plan then.
You can look at what our ancestors did. It took voting against the lesser evil to end slavery. The Republican Party was a third party that abolitionists put forward after generations of effort failed to work either of the existing parties from within. In the end it took forming an entirely new party to actually push forward with abolition.
We've been trying this "incremental change" in Democrats for decades now and this is the results we've got. Nah, don't think it's going to work chief.
Ok. What’s going to work? Seriously, tell us a strategy. Because bitching on social media is not a strategy. Third party clearly not a strategy. What’s the plan, chief?
Grass roots party funded by the people and truly for us. Because big money isn't going to allow anyone to fundamentally change the system. Elect independent individuals into local and state governments as well who will work to remove first past the post and put in ranked choice voting. Again, expecting any of the big money parties to make change is the definition of insanity.
You know the only US election where voters outnumbered nonvoters was 2020, right?
And what did that get us? Genocide, more deportations than Trump 1, massive fracking bills, more money to cops, violent crackdowns on peaceful protesters. The only good thing biden did was pull out of Afghanistan and he was hated for it and followed it up with immediate sanctions to stave the people already suffering under a taliban government.
Edit: Its also just not true. The last time a US presidential election had a turnout below 50% was in the 1920s
You can always trust Westerners to blame all their problems on evil foreigners.
And you can always trust BlueMaga liberals to write like the most cringy losers imaginable
It's almost like people talk more about politics during the political season!
Putting in overtime this close to the election, I see. I'm sure tRump will thank you for your services.
There is no reason not to do both.
Revolt and vote for the lesser of two evils. Because if the one doesn't work, at least it isn't the bigger of two evils on the throne.
Bingo!
I mean no. They literally chose the greater of two evils almost half the time.
Indeed, and I don't know when things will get bad enough that people stop voting D and R.
Maybe we'll get a dozen DSA's elected this time. I dunno.
That's how democracy works everywhere. Do you think that in countries with more than two parties, somehow there's a party for everyone where you agree with everything that party stands for?
The united snakes very deliberately picked the biggest evil and as it turns out that things have been a bit shit since then for everyone who isn't a billionaire nazi or has a very specific bootlicking fetish.
Nonsense. It's from choosing the worat of two evils/imperfect choices. There are very few if any perfect choices ever.
You were offered 2 bowls of shit, and instead of refusing shit you chose the one that you thought was the better choice. Either way you chose shit
You’re going to be force fed it either way. I’d rather take the horse shit that’s basically just straw than DJT’s putrescent, loathsome hamburger bile.
Your daily reminder that BlueMaga shitlibs don't consider Palestinians human
Yeppppp
Lmao, this is the correct take. If you blame the current system on people who voted for the lesser of two evils then you can also clearly blame the system on those who didn't vote. In fact, most of the voting population choose not to vote. So if anything they are the most to blame. The implication is that instead of voting you should do something more radical or -insert some butt-ass thing- but clearly that worked the same amount or less than voting by this very logic.