It has proven to be less effective at stopping the orphan crushing machine than voting for democrats. It is possible that in the long run it could be more effective, though that has not yet been proven.
Democrats tend to produce meaningfully different results within the US. I would say this is true even outside of it. At least they weren’t blowing up random ships outside Argentina and were able to make and keep deals and treaties with other countries.
Doing something that hasnt been done has not been proven to do anything because it hasnt been done. Voting democrat has only accelerated the orphan-killer, so I struggle to see how legitimising the people who want to kill orphans could in any way be a more effective way to stop them than doing the bare minimum of not legitimising them.
I don’t believe terms like “legitimising” have any practical purpose when used in this context. People vote democrat because they think it’s the most effective way to minimise harm, not because they want to signal allegiance or agreement with any one particular policy.
People vote democrat because they think it’s the most effective way to minimise harm,
if you want to minimize harm, then having an incompetent leader like Trump steer the imperial ship and sinking it. Rather than a competent one. As the imperial ship harms way, way more people than every person living in Amerika.
Oh so you’re a Political Compass user too huh… that explains things.
To try and help someone like you understand; Amerika, the country you live in, has and is still involved in mass slaughter, genocide, collective punishment, destruction of societies and displacement of millions of people. Your country has killed MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of people through various ways in the past 100 years.
Your country is built on the backs of slaves and supported by pillars of bones of those that lived there long before white men touched the shore.
The world is bigger than Amerika, it should be gone so that the indigenous people can get their land back and ending world suffering for once.
I don’t actually use the political compass lmao, it’s called a meme. What, do you think OP believes there’s a physical hydraulic press crushing the orphans and not a metaphorical one?
Anyways I’m aware of America’s history. Why would you assume I am not?
Okay? In that case I declare I dont really believe it matters whether you vote for a democrat or a republican since they’re the same. There we go, I win, thats that discussion.
I dont really care what you believe, especially when the observable reality is one that differs from what you’d like it to be. It matters to politicians whether or not people vote for them and they use it to determine how much appeasement to capital they can get away with. Politicians do not walk around and ask voters whether they got the vote in spite of a policy or not. They win and, correctly, assume that the course they’ve kept is one they can continue on.
On top of that they use the amount of votes they receive as legitimising their rule. They quote it in speeches, they use it in their retrospectives, it is the foundation on which they rest their claim of experience when they train new generations and when they try to push legislation through. Voting for a politician signals you support them and their policy, thats what a vote is.
If you actually believe democrats and republicans are the same then yes, you “win”. Voting third party would be the correct choice.
The existence of the phrase “strategic voting” proves a vote is not a blind show of support. A vote in a FPTP system reveals only that you think that candidate is 1. better than the alternatives and 2. meaningfully more likely to win if you vote for them. Adhering to the politicians’ lie that a vote means full support isn’t logically consistent with how people make choices in the voting booth. Even in ranked choice voting a vote doesn’t signal full support, although it would only signal #1 and not #2, which is a meaningful improvement.
If you actually believe democrats and republicans are the same then yes, you “win”.
Why do you types insist on pretending that you’re more obtuse than a caveman? Do you pretend not to understand arguments because you know you cannot make it in a straightforward discussion ?
Voting third party would be the correct choice.
If you put faith in the electoral system, yes. Glas we agree.
The existence of the phrase “strategic voting” proves a vote is not a blind show of support.
As did your statement that voted despite certain policies. As I’ve detailed, that doesn’t matter.
Adhering to the politicians’ lie that a vote means full support isn’t logically consistent with how people make choices in the voting booth.
So you admit politicians claim legitimacy from votes. Neat. What isn’t logical is then continuing to support them, when that is what they do.
Again, the rest of your spiel is pointless. What matters is the practical reality of what a vote is and does, which you’ve admitted yourself is a sign that you support that politician. You can say whatever you want to make yourself feel good about voting for genociding police-state fascists, the police state fascists only care that you vote for them, not why.
If your argument is that from the politicians’ perspective they believe, or claim to believe, that people support them based on the amount of votes they receive while ignoring the context of what the other choices in that vote are, and use those votes as proof they should continue holding their current policies, then yes, that’s probably true. My reaction to this would be to say the proper place to give a politician “legitimacy” by voting for or against their policies while avoiding the negative consequences of a protest vote getting someone like Trump elected is in the primaries, not the general.
Alright, so you can vote for someone other than the orphan crushers. Weird how you pretended like that wasn’t a possibility.
It has proven to be less effective at stopping the orphan crushing machine than voting for democrats. It is possible that in the long run it could be more effective, though that has not yet been proven.
Has it? Did the orphan crushing machine even slow down a little bit when democrats were in power? Because I’m pretty sure that it didn’t.
Democrats tend to produce meaningfully different results within the US. I would say this is true even outside of it. At least they weren’t blowing up random ships outside Argentina and were able to make and keep deals and treaties with other countries.
Doing something that hasnt been done has not been proven to do anything because it hasnt been done. Voting democrat has only accelerated the orphan-killer, so I struggle to see how legitimising the people who want to kill orphans could in any way be a more effective way to stop them than doing the bare minimum of not legitimising them.
I don’t believe terms like “legitimising” have any practical purpose when used in this context. People vote democrat because they think it’s the most effective way to minimise harm, not because they want to signal allegiance or agreement with any one particular policy.
if you want to minimize harm, then having an incompetent leader like Trump steer the imperial ship and sinking it. Rather than a competent one. As the imperial ship harms way, way more people than every person living in Amerika.
Oh so you’re a Political Compass user too huh… that explains things.
To try and help someone like you understand; Amerika, the country you live in, has and is still involved in mass slaughter, genocide, collective punishment, destruction of societies and displacement of millions of people. Your country has killed MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of people through various ways in the past 100 years.
Your country is built on the backs of slaves and supported by pillars of bones of those that lived there long before white men touched the shore.
The world is bigger than Amerika, it should be gone so that the indigenous people can get their land back and ending world suffering for once.
I don’t actually use the political compass lmao, it’s called a meme. What, do you think OP believes there’s a physical hydraulic press crushing the orphans and not a metaphorical one?
Anyways I’m aware of America’s history. Why would you assume I am not?
Okay? In that case I declare I dont really believe it matters whether you vote for a democrat or a republican since they’re the same. There we go, I win, thats that discussion.
I dont really care what you believe, especially when the observable reality is one that differs from what you’d like it to be. It matters to politicians whether or not people vote for them and they use it to determine how much appeasement to capital they can get away with. Politicians do not walk around and ask voters whether they got the vote in spite of a policy or not. They win and, correctly, assume that the course they’ve kept is one they can continue on.
On top of that they use the amount of votes they receive as legitimising their rule. They quote it in speeches, they use it in their retrospectives, it is the foundation on which they rest their claim of experience when they train new generations and when they try to push legislation through. Voting for a politician signals you support them and their policy, thats what a vote is.
If you actually believe democrats and republicans are the same then yes, you “win”. Voting third party would be the correct choice.
The existence of the phrase “strategic voting” proves a vote is not a blind show of support. A vote in a FPTP system reveals only that you think that candidate is 1. better than the alternatives and 2. meaningfully more likely to win if you vote for them. Adhering to the politicians’ lie that a vote means full support isn’t logically consistent with how people make choices in the voting booth. Even in ranked choice voting a vote doesn’t signal full support, although it would only signal #1 and not #2, which is a meaningful improvement.
Why do you types insist on pretending that you’re more obtuse than a caveman? Do you pretend not to understand arguments because you know you cannot make it in a straightforward discussion ?
If you put faith in the electoral system, yes. Glas we agree.
As did your statement that voted despite certain policies. As I’ve detailed, that doesn’t matter.
So you admit politicians claim legitimacy from votes. Neat. What isn’t logical is then continuing to support them, when that is what they do.
Again, the rest of your spiel is pointless. What matters is the practical reality of what a vote is and does, which you’ve admitted yourself is a sign that you support that politician. You can say whatever you want to make yourself feel good about voting for genociding police-state fascists, the police state fascists only care that you vote for them, not why.
If your argument is that from the politicians’ perspective they believe, or claim to believe, that people support them based on the amount of votes they receive while ignoring the context of what the other choices in that vote are, and use those votes as proof they should continue holding their current policies, then yes, that’s probably true. My reaction to this would be to say the proper place to give a politician “legitimacy” by voting for or against their policies while avoiding the negative consequences of a protest vote getting someone like Trump elected is in the primaries, not the general.