Entirely unsurprising. Relevant wikipedia article:
The Syrian Social Nationalist Party (SSNP)[a] is a Syrian nationalist party operating in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Palestine. ... is the second-largest political party in the pro-Assad National Progressive Front led by the ruling Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party ... Political rivals of SSNP have commonly labelled Antoun Saadeh as a fascist ideologue who formed relations with Nazis during the Second World War. ... Saadeh remained a strong admirer of Adolf Hitler and introduced Nazi symbolism into SSNP insignia. Similar to the "Fuhrer" title, Saadeh took the designation of "az-Za'im" and the party set him up as their "leader for life". The party adopted a reversed swastika as its symbol and the party anthem was sung to the tune of Deutschlandlied. ... Saadeh adopted many themes related to fascism: pushing a personality cult around the party leader, establishing a totalitarian state that policed all aspects of life, belief in "the organic whole of the Syrian Volk" ... Throughout the Second World War, Saadeh was rumoured to have close contacts with officials of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. ... Western journalists also describe it as fascist. Terry Glavin writes that it "sports its very own stylized swastika [and] sings an anthem to the tune of Deutschlandlied", while Bellingcat calls its a "rabidly anti-Semitic, fascist organization [with] international ties to the far-right." ... According to historian Stanley G. Payne, interwar Arab nationalism was influenced by European fascism, with the creation of at least seven Arab nationalist shirt movements similar to the brown shirt movement by 1939, with the most influenced ones being the SSNP ... SSNP wanting the complete control of Syria, belief in the superiority of their own people (with Saadeh theorizing a "distinct and naturally superior" Syrian race) ... Anglo-American journalist Christopher Hitchens and his team were assaulted in February 2009 by SSNP paramilitaries ... The attack left Hitchens with body injuries and a limp in his leg. Reporting to Vanity Fair in May 2009, Hitchens described SSNP as a "suicide-bomber front" that carries out terrorist operations in Lebanon on behalf of Ba'athist Syria. He asserted that SSNP was a violent fascist movement; noting its irredentist ambitions of creating "Greater Syria"
why don’t we talk about the 26 million Soviets who were killed in that war? Are the six million more precious?
This is what the far right in Russia think, and is why they don't see the irony in calling Zelensky a Nazi. Relevant article:
The dominant version of antisemitism alive in parts of eastern Europe today is that Jews employ the Holocaust to seize the victimhood narrative from the “real” victims of the Nazis, who are Russian Christians (or other non-Jewish eastern Europeans). Those who embrace Russian Christian nationalist ideology will be especially susceptible to this strain of antisemitism. ... in a 2021 article, former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev denounced Zelenskiy as disgusting, corrupt and faithless. The free democratic election of a Jewish president confirms in the fascist mind that the fascist bogeyman of liberal democracy as a tool for global Jewish domination is real. ... By claiming that the aim of the invasion is to “denazify” Ukraine, Putin appeals to the myths of contemporary eastern European antisemitism – that a global cabal of Jews were (and are) the real agents of violence against Russian Christians and the real victims of the Nazis were not the Jews, but rather this group. Russian Christians are targets of a conspiracy by a global elite, who, using the vocabulary of liberal democracy and human rights, attack the Christian faith and the Russian nation.
Yeah let’s just ignore how the Assad family have been pursuing a “foreign policy” goal that basically amounts to, “Lebensraum but Alewite”
This is a state for which the resolution to both the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and Cyprus/North Cyprus conflict is, “ALL WILL BE CRUSHED BENEATH THE BOOT OF THE ASSAD DYNASTY!”
Isn’t it better for the IDF/Israel if they don’t catch him since hunting him down is just about the only justifiable part of this whole war? If they catch him the pressure to stop the war will just increase, but if he’s still out there they can use that as a reason to continue their genocide.
How short would the war in Afganistan be if the US didn’t bomb everything to shit in the opening months and instead gathered Intel and sent in a special forces unit to take Bin Laden down? But if they did that then how would the Military Industrial Complex get their billions.
I know I’m being a bit of a conspiracy nut now but it’s just too convenient, isn’t it?
If they capture/kill leadership then they lose their rational for why their genocide is ok…
Same reason Netanyahu was letting suitcases of cash into Gaza for years.
For a far right government that doesn’t care about their own citizens, Hamas is a good thing. And it’s really hard to believe their support was tanking and they might lose power, then coincidentally all this shit popped off.
Either that, or the IDF is completely and totally incompetent
Gaza on top of being impoverished with unemployment, the ones with job permits were farm slave labors. This proves israel is not an aparthied and the palestinians were happily living in open-air concentration camps their whole lives /s
OK, so hear me out: anyone who is for a Two State Solution can legitimately call themselves a zionist, because one of those two states is going to be Israel.
a political movement that was originally begun in order to establish an independent state for Jewish people, and now supports the development and protection of the state of Israel
In current parlance, “zionism” has come be equated with kahanism and its variations, but that is wildly inaccurate. This is to say that Netanyahu’s and his allies’ brand of zionism is an extremist variant that threatens to subsume the whole.
But there are other brands of zionism that are peaceful and pro-palestinian. Namely: the zionism of Fatah and the PLO, who have accepted the 2 state solution.
I would even go so far as to claim that any One State Solution that envisions a pluralistic and democratic country shared in freedom and liberty between Jews, Muslims, Christians and others is also a zionist vision, as it assumes that this state would also be for the Jewish people (similar to how Canada is supposed to be also for the Quebecois people).
So, I am not sure why “zionism” should be a dirty word. Call the extremist zionists what they are: kahanists, reclaim the basic idea that zionism means that Jews also have the right to be safe in the lands of Israel-Palestine, and let’s have some peace and reconciliation.
That’s great, except it’s not how it’s actually used in either a geopolitical or casual context.
I doubt, very, very much Biden meant it that way either, because no one would ever use it that way in these circumstances without adding in your very explanation by requirement to make it clear they’re not calling for genocide.
Until Bernie Sanders the word socialism was a dirty word in American politics. Now it’s a millennial and gen Z staple and does not connotate the soviet union and other cold war ghosts.
The fact that the kahanist Zionists are almost done eating up the word zionism doesn’t mean we should let them. We need to be appropriating the word back and putting it to good use.
Conceding Zionism to the extreme right (both in and out of Israel )is just a lack of political imagination, that condemns us to stay locked in the cycle.
The word Zionism can and should be réappropriated and made a tool for peace. It has a strong emotional attachment for Jews, while the majority of Palestinian political and civil society organizations have embraced its original and literal meaning in the sense of support for a Two State Solution. This means that Zionism can be a word that means the common sense of peace, justice and reconciliation. When the PLO and Fatah stand for the common sense solution, Palestinians have won.
Call me naive but I actually think that soon there will exist a brief window where peace will be more possible than it has been for a long time. So long as Israel, currently controlled by the kahanist virus, is not allowed to carry out genocide, that is. And as much as my commie ass hates to admit It, I kinda have a bit of faith on the Americans to play a good role in this.
Socialism is still very demonized in American politics. Try to get into a position of power while describing yourself as a socialist (and I mean an actual socialist eg. ending the Cuban embargo, supporting left-wing movements across the world and advocating for the end of capitalism).
Also neither Bernie nor any democratic politician is a actually socialist, they are still very capitalist. At best they are for "capitalism with a human face)
Exactly, I’m also thinking Mercosur’s role in this conflict will be decisive! Or were you talking about the USA that has eaten up the word America?
I agree with your point though, words get eaten up all the time. It’s a very good strategy for capturing the attachment people have with the word. It’s been done with the word democracy as well.
You used a learner’s dictionary definition of the word, which is a little bit different. Learner’s dictionaries are for people who are first learning their first language, and give simple definitions using simple language. Think of it like comparing Wikipedia to Simple Wikipedia
Zionism has always had multiple different meanings, so this isn’t a new phenomenon. Humans made up every word in existence. There is no single definition for any word and there is no universal dictionary handed down by some higher power. We make up everything and write the rules ourselves. Pretending that isn’t how language works on a fundamental level is simply wrong.
Why did you use the Oxford Leaner’s Dictionary to define Zionism, as opposed to the Oxford Reference? From the Oxford Reference, emphasis mine:
A movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann.
In the same vein, why didn’t you use wikipedia to define Zionism like you did for for kahanism? FTA on Wikipedia about Zionism, emphasis mine:
Zionism (/ˈzaɪəˌnɪzəm/; Hebrew: צִיּוֹנוּת Tsīyyonūt, [tsijoˈnut]; derived from Zion) is a nationalist movement that emerged in the 19th century to enable the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine, a region roughly corresponding to the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition.
What both of these definitions point out that the one you linked did not mention is that original Zionism was about more than just the creation of a Jewish state–it was about the creation of a Jewish state in the Jewish holy land. That last bit is important-- there would be no Israeli-Palestinian conflict if Israel was located in Idaho.
I did not know the difference between the two types of dictionaries. I just used the last reference (#11) of the first paragraph from the Wikipedia article on Zionism.
But I don’t see how my argument is changed by the addition of the geographical component in the dictionary definition, which I already was assuming in my head at least. The Two State Solution is about two states in the areas that are currently Israel, the West Bank and Gaza.
Not sure yet. Maybe a Green Party candidate or Cornel West. I’ve previously tried to vote for the lesser of two evils, but when this is what that entails, it’s not worth it.
It is not the fault of the voters that the democrats can’t put forward a candidate that makes someone who is generally likely to vote Democrat not want to throw up in their mouth. If Trump gets in again that falls squarely on the democrats and Biden for constantly doing abhorrent bullshit like this.
That is such a simplified and reductive view of the way democracy in the states works. This attitude towards your political system over the last few generations is why your country is even in this situation in the first place bud.
You sound like you don't understand first past the post. I fucking hate it but it's the system we live in and it's not going to change anytime soon. We can't even get more than a handful of partially left folks in all of Congress
This person is right. You can openly hate the way the US votes and refuse to be a part of the status quo, but this is how the system works now. If you want your current voting power to have a current impact, then you need to vote in a way that the current system works.
I’m very strongly principled myself, and greatly dislike how petty the voting ideals are. I also greatly dislike how little impact most people have in changing the way we vote. It very much feels like organized systems of corrupt power when you peek into the US system at any angle.
Therefore, if you’re strongly principled like me, I highly recommend that you observe these efforts as different principles:
We should vote in a way that gives us a voice with real impact (present day problems)
We should strive to change and shape both politics and our voting system however possible (present day and future problems)
Make your impact now and for the future. Don’t choose to be silent by not playing the game that is put in front of you. It’s dirty, it’s gross, and it’s political, but it is currently how your voice gets heard. While doing so, also be the change you want to see in the world by pushing for the ideals you are after.
If a new SCOTUS decides that marriage historically and thus always must mean a relationship between a man and a woman, yeah, I'm gonna fucking blame the voters.
He’s held positions antithetical to most of conservatism for quite a long time. Still some things bother me. His religiousity, issues of his personal finances, etc. So I’m still quite undecided. I’ve got 10 months or so to decide.
Yes, please don’t be a single-issue voter. There is no perfection in politics, so don’t pretend that this is the only thing that matters and pursue to make your vote meaningless. A lost vote from you is a vote for them.
“don’t vote for genocide” equals “don’t be a single issue voter” lmao. US is fucked, the lack of morality in the country is laid bare even to people who used to believe in the “good guys” rhetoric
Lol seriously though. My jaw literally dropped reading the comment you just replied to. I’m so glad I don’t live in the states. That attitude is an absolute embarrassment to the rest of the world.
Right, the voting system is bad. I don’t like it, either. However, if the dominating candidates are Biden and Trump, and you voted for lesser Democrat candidate, then Biden doesn’t get your vote. If Biden gets too little votes, then your next president is Trump. You wouldn’t have chosen it explicitly, but it is your implicit vote.
That being said, if Biden has some strong competition and another candidate is appearing favorable, then it makes sense to vote for them. Voting for someone you know is going to lose is just acting in principle without making any impact on the election.
Personally, I believe that Trump would deliver significantly more harm than most candidates. He’s the Republican leader.
I don’t agree with a handful of things that Biden has done. I believe that the situation with Hamas and Israel is much more nuanced than “arm Israel to the teeth.” We’re on the same page with this.
I can decide that I don’t like Biden because of his stance with Israel, and choose to vote for another candidate. Let’s say that the election is extremely close between Biden and Trump. And let’s say that there is a reasonable amount of people like me, who have decided not to vote for Biden.
If enough people do what I would be doing, and vote for a candidate that might get 5% of votes or so, then that’s 5% of the vote that could have gone to defeating Trump. However, because the election was so close, Trump wins.
If you protest the majority candidate in the election, you might as well check the box for your opponent and submit your vote. Voting is a dumb game that shouldn’t be a dumb game, but it is what it is.
Biden has literally said “I am a zionist” and is currently blocking resolutions for an immediate cease fire. He is complicit in a genocide. Do you understand what that is?
If nobody votes 3rd party, nothing changes. Ever. You got so pigeonholled into thinking “these are the only two choices :<” that you would rather vote for a genocide committing president than anyone else.
I say this as someone who’s going to vote third party - Trump and Biden are the only two choices. One of them is going to win, period. I’m voting third party because I know beyond reasonable doubt which one is going to win my state, so I have the privilege of throwing away my vote. I can’t fault someone for voting on a “lesser evil” basis in a swing state.
Maybe it won’t make an impact this election, but if people start voting for third parties regardless, the Democrats would be incentivised to do better and/or to introduce ranked-choice voting.
In any case, people need to stop waiting for elections and to start taking action now.
There certainly are ways to vote for your party that will result in your party being weaker, therefore making the opposing party stronger. Call it whatever you want.
Personally, I believe that Trump would deliver significantly more harm than most candidates. He’s the Republican leader.
I don’t agree with a handful of things that Biden has done. I believe that the situation with Hamas and Israel is much more nuanced than “arm Israel to the teeth.” We’re on the same page with this.
I can decide that I don’t like Biden because of his stance with Israel, and choose to vote for another candidate. Let’s say that the election is extremely close between Biden and Trump. And let’s say that there is a reasonable amount of people like me, who have decided not to vote for Biden.
If enough people do what I would be doing, and vote for a candidate that might get 5% of votes or so, then that’s 5% of the vote that could have gone to defeating Trump. However, because the election was so close, Trump wins.
If you protest the majority candidate in the election, you might as well check the box for your opponent and submit your vote. Voting is a dumb game that shouldn’t be a dumb game, but it is what it is.
Every fucking presidential candidate will continue the US policies that have been in place for decades. That includes Jill Stein, Cornell West, anybody. They will all continue to supply arms to Israel, because no president is going to revolutionize the entire US political system.
You don't stop genocide by hopes-and-dreams voting for an incompetent candidate who has no chance of winning, thus securing the presidency for the party that promises more genocide. That's how you make the problem far, far worse.
You wanna stop genocide? Start with your Representatives and Senators and convince them to forbid the president from taking military action without a formal declaration of war.
"Incompetent" is a stretch. No chance of winning, perhaps, but that's only true because the two major parties continue to work together to make it true. Colluding with a fledgling fascist dictator to lock out other competition and then smirking about "wasted votes" maybe be stabard operating procedure but it shouldn't be.
Trump is a monster. Biden is not a good person. Let's kick then both to the curb and agree to support someone who isn't an objectively terrible person.
You're right; incompetent is a stretch. Some of them probably are, but others are just... I don't know, out of touch with reality? And others are probably there knowing they will lose, but showing up anyway just to make their presence known for one reason or another, whether naive idealism, or cynical attention-grabbing.
I'd love to kick both Trump and Biden to the curb, truly. Well, a little farther than the curb for Trump. But the only way to do that is to change the way the system works. There is no scenario where a) it is realistically possible to elect a 3rd party candidate, and b) a 3rd party candidate, if elected, would have the ability to make any meaningful change to the system.
Remember, we're talking about changing election law here. And who is responsible for changing laws? Not the president. It's the legislature.
If we want something like a viable Green Party or Libertarian Party or whatever, we need to focus on the legislature, not the presidency. If we want to eliminate FTTP winner-take-all elections for the presidency, we need to focus on the legislature, not the presidency.
And believe me, I do want all of that. Which is why the puritanical grandstanding about protest votes by people who don't seem to understand the fundamental rules of US government is so painfully frustrating. If people were half as passionate about actual politics as they are about arguing badly about politics on lemmy, change would be possible. Instead, they are bamboozled time and time again, like clockwork, every four years by political insiders who feed them the notion that a protest vote that help the worst possible candidate is the most meaningful action they can take.
Yep. What's truly disappointing is that the voters in one of those major parties are extremely comfortable being complicit in genocide et al. It is entirely within their power to demand that their own party field someone less terrible... but they do not for reasons that only make sense if one looks at the process as one that values winning over all.
I agree that the system is broken. But the process that favors the two parties need not be used to field terrible candidates. THAT part of the process is 100% the responsibility of those who vote for those parties. If the candidates are terrible, then the blame for that rest solely on their shoulders.
Biden has a terrible history of friendship and collusion with racists, bigots, etc. Currently, he's a genocide apologist. I would LOVE it if the Democrats fielded someone I could get behind. It's not about one issue, it's about asking for a bare minimum level of humanity. "Not a bigoted genocide apologist" should not be a stretch goal.
I don't disagree with your assessment of Biden, but you're saying this like he's not the better choice of the two. Everything you accuse him of is amplified by entire magnitudes with anyone in the GOP.
And let's be real here, Israel has been a central pillar of US policy for generations. There are one or two high-ranking politicians in the entire government who don't support Israel, but they have zero chance of becoming president. Biden is being chosen not because of one belief or another, it's because of his track record and his experience. He is capable of one of the most important jobs of the office, which is working with the rest of the government, even the people who hate you, to get shit done.
The Democrats have a membership of millions. If they find someone who isn't objectively a garbage person, I guarantee they win. You'll still see the "must vote blue" crowd vote D because let's be real, they'll do as they're told every time. And you'll also get the votes of the people who believe in a better world.
Win win, but the millions of D voters will continue to sell the line that they are powerless to sway thier own party.
I don't know who's selling this line you think is being sold. I'll happily vote for a better Democrat than Biden. And I don't know of anybody who is so enamored with Biden that they'd throw a temper tantrum if he wasn't the nominee. I actually don't know what you're arguing here other than saying "a better person than Biden would be better." Which is true, but it's just a tautology.
I'm noting that expecting people to vote for the least bad candidate here is easily rectified by the Dems choosing someone less terrible. The base would vote for a pickle sandwich if it had a blue sticker on it. As such, choosing someone who appeals to swing allies is the right move.
Biden, whatever value he has, does not appear to have that appeal. So if winning is important, Democrats hold the key. Choose someone less repugnant to swing voters.
Again, that's just saying someone better than Biden would be better. I'm not sure who you're trying to convince that wouldn't agree with you.
I expect people to vote intelligently based on the outcome they want. If there's 2 outcomes and they don't want outcome A, they should vote for B. Complaining that B isn't sparkly and written in glitter doesn't change the fact that they don't want outcome A more.
If choices A and B are both bad and team B has full control of who they're fielding, rewarding them for choosing poorly perpetuates the same. If they're too blind or arrogant to see that B is losing them the contest, then that's their own fault.
What a weird take. You're not rewarding anybody. You're choosing who will be the next president. You're making a choice that will affect you and millions of other people.
I said previously I expect people to vote intelligently. You seem to be implying that allowing Trump to win just to spite the Democratic party for choosing Biden is somehow a rational choice.
You brought up blind arrogance.
Imagine being so blind that you fail to see that the outcome of a Trump victory would be devastatingly worse for yourself and for the world. That you'd be supporting an outcome that leads to more and worse genocide, despite that being a "single issue" for you. That's blind.
Imagine being so arrogant that you'd choose the path that leads to more genocide and greater global suffering, despite genocide apparently being a "single issue" for you, simply to punish a political party made up of millions of people because they didn't field the candidate you wanted them to. You said yourself: "The Democrats have a membership of millions." Yet you are the one stamping your feet and threatening that if they choose Biden, you're going to vote against him just to spite them. And help bring about more genocide, despite that apparently being important to you. That's arrogance.
You don't have to like Biden, you just have to prefer the outcome of a Biden victory over the outcome of a Trump victory. It's akin to choosing between lima beans or rusty nails for everyone's dinner. You don't have to like lima beans, but if you are so arrogant to choose the rusty nails for everybody because you don't want lima beans, you're blind to how you will hurt others and yourself.
I'm sorry man, but you need to take a big step back, read everything that you wrote, and apply it to your own position. Then think on the actual outcomes that the two paths before you lead towards.
Aah, the same old "lesser evil" arguments that put us here in the first place.
Trump is a direct result of this abjectly stupid idea that eating shit every 4 years is necessary because Daddy Blue says so. If he wins, its because the Democrats couldn't be bothered to read the room and select a candidate worthy of the presidency.
And there it is. Not voting for Biden is stamping ones feet. The sheer entitled arrogance. Jesus.
You offer me rusty nails or razor blades and tell me the razor blades are beans. No thanks.
And there it is. Not voting for Biden is stamping ones feet. The sheer entitled arrogance. Jesus.
Exactly. You are stamping your feet and exhibiting sheer entitled arrogance.
Your inability to comprehend the logical outcomes of your decisions is seriously disturbing. You've been polite enough and engaged honestly with me, and I appreciate that. But I don't think we're moving in any productive direction so let's end it here.
I'll just leave you with the same words I said before: You need to take a big step back, read everything that you wrote, and apply it to your own position. Then think on the actual outcomes that the two paths before you lead towards.
And you need to take 7 steps back and seriously considered whether you truly believe in democracy... or you value scoring points for "your" team above all else.
But don't take my word for it. Take a look at Biden's polling and tell me again how the reasonable ones are those trying to shove him down the rest of our throats.
If that's the understanding of my position that you came to after this several-days-long conversation, then I'm disappointed in your complete lack of attention to everything I've said.
I thoroughly read and thought about everything you wrote. You failed to convince me, but I at least listened to your position. It's really disappointing you didn't offer the same basic courtesy, and your last comment was the same kind of non-sequitur regurgitated rhetoric that the troll posters in this thread have been using.
Peace out, man. It's a shame we couldn't have a productive discussion.
You think voting for the GOP isn't voting for genocide? On top of handing Ukraine over and tearing out the rights of women minorities and LGBTQ. Consolidating power into the hands of Trump with the 2025 project is somehow "not voting for genocide?"
One of the golden rules in life is you should act like you want everyone to act.
If everyone voted for what they truly wanted and believed in, there would be no more political duopolies.
I know that's easy for me to say because I have proportional representation, but I don't think you should ever try to shame someone for voting with their conscience.
If everyone voted for what they truly wanted and believed in, there would be no more political duopolies.
I agree. However, this is not the reality we live in. If you vote for a candidate that gets 2% of votes, then they will lose, and the leading candidate that represents your party will not get your vote. This gives your political opponents an advantage by your choosing.
That’s the spoiler effect created by a first past the post system. You won’t get to the first result unless you change how voting works. A good way to get there is to start local instead of what most people do which is nothing until federal elections, then whine how the system isn’t giving them good candidates.
Personally, I believe that Trump would deliver significantly more harm than most candidates. He’s the Republican leader.
I don’t agree with a handful of things that Biden has done. I believe that the situation with Hamas and Israel is much more nuanced than “arm Israel to the teeth.” We’re on the same page with this.
I can decide that I don’t like Biden because of his stance with Israel, and choose to vote for another candidate. Let’s say that the election is extremely close between Biden and Trump. And let’s say that there is a reasonable amount of people like me, who have decided not to vote for Biden.
If enough people do what I would be doing, and vote for a candidate that might get 5% of votes or so, then that’s 5% of the vote that could have gone to defeating Trump. However, because the election was so close, Trump wins.
If you protest the majority candidate in the election, you might as well check the box for your opponent and submit your vote. Voting is a dumb game that shouldn’t be a dumb game, but it is what it is.
Yeah he is the lesser of two evils. I think we all know that. The idea is that some people would rather not take part in the farce known as American elections of the lesser of two evils is still going to support genocide.
The idea is that some people would rather not take part in the farce known as American elections of the lesser of two evils is still going to support genocide.
that is not supporting genocide. it’s opposing it.
this is not my standard. my standard is “do i want them to win”. you get to decide on your own standards. i hope your standards don’t allow you to vote for genocide.
I asked an important question that was not designed to be petulant in any way. I’ll be polite and not bother you if you refuse to answer it due to emotional reasons. Thank you for your conversation.
it’s not about emotions. it’s that your “important question” was in fact not asked in good faith. when i gave you a more complete answer than you wanted, you demanded simple yes-or-no answers so you could continue to brow-beat me. framing my response as emotional when, in fact, you are the one showing petulance, is just DARVO.
I have one apple. I can give it to Joe, to Dobald, or to Claudia. I choose to give it to Claudia. So now our count is Joe +0, Donald +0, Claudia +1. You see how Donald’s number didn’t go up, despite not giving the apple to Joe? That’s how it works.
Now I know what you’re going to say: that since I’m not giving the apple to Joe, that really puts him at -1 apple, but the same could be said about Donald, that I’m not giving him the apple either so he would also be at -1. If you argue that not giving the apple to Joe is the same as giving it to Donald, surely that means the opposite is true as well, that not giving the apple to Donald is the same as giving it to Joe.
So maybe instead of blaming everyone but the Democrats for putting forward a candidate who is openly supporting and facilitating an active genocide if Joe loses next year, you start asking why they deserve your apple at all.
Tell you what, since not voting once for Biden is a vote for Trump, how about I don’t vote for Trump a million times, that way it’s a million votes for Biden. Will that make you feel better?
I don’t know what’s stupider. This obvious bad faith nonsense example, or that the very-predictable outcome, seen repeatedly for longer than any human has lived, is of no concern to you whatsoever-- because you have a point to make, consequences-be-damned. Actually I do, it’s the latter.
A more compelling argument might be to just randomly bash your keyboard a few times and click reply. There’s a far greater chance of you winning the lottery than of your protest vote having a positive impact, so why don’t you go buy some tickets?
You’re incorect: what’s stupider is continually pouring your support into “the lesser of two evils,” and thinking that you’re doing anything other than showing them that it’s perfectly OK for them to be evil, since useful idiots like your good self will continue to spout this sort of party rhetoric without stopping to think for two seconds that they are in fact the problem. The reason other parties won’t succeed is because of people like you who refuse to even consider anything outside the status quo and will just blindly check the “D” column no matter how many drone strikes they launch or hospital bombers they sell the missiles to. So while some of us are trying to stop the mindless murder of innocents overseas by whatever tools we may have at hand, you sit there comfortably and tell yourself that you’re the real hero here by throwing your unwavering support behind the “lesser evil.” The parties will definitely change as long as we keep blindly supporting them no matter what their actions, who cares if thousands are being killed in Palestine. As long as no one tries to make any points about the direction our society is headed, it’s all worth it, right?
I’m not American and not the commentor, I’m observing from far away.
I agree, people should vote for the best possible candidate. Even single issue voters. The alternative is worse for this single issue. If I was American, I’d vote strategically like people on this thread are saying.
However
There are Americans that had friends, family members, and colleagues killed in this conflict, and they can’t stomach going to the polls and voting for Biden after how he’s acted throughout this conflict. I won’t hold it against those people for not voting.
I can’t even imagine what it would be like to have that happen and be told “go vote for him anyways”. As true as it might be, it’s not my place.
I’m not concerned with toppling the bipartisan system right now. I’m simply hoping to grow old in a semblance of a democracy. I appreciate your idealism but it is misplaced. The foe (the Fascists) uses your idealism against you, gaining your cooperation along the way. You think you’re opting out because ‘they’re all so equally evil’ but in reality you end up supporting them through your failure to oppose them; the worst of them.
Regarding Milei, isn’t he right-wing and fascist more or less? I’m hoping to have less of that in the world, not more. God help you if you think someone like that is an improvement.
“The vote represents a desperate attempt at something new, come what may,” said Benjamin Gedan, an Argentina specialist from the Wilson Centre. “The option [voters had] was more of the same in catastrophic economic conditions or a radical gamble on a potentially bright future with a lot of downside risk.”
Gedan believed there would be “a lot of buyer’s remorse in Argentina” if Milei pursued even a small fraction of his ideas. Those ideas include legalising the sale of human organs, dramatically slashing social spending, downplaying the crimes of Argentina’s 1976-83 dictatorship, and cutting ties with Argentina’s two most important trade partners, Brazil and China. On the campaign trail, Milei vowed to abolish Argentina’s central bank and dollarise the economy, and brandished a chainsaw intended to symbolise ferocious cuts he believes will help stabilise the economy and “exterminate” rampant inflation.
“Fascism is when less state control”, plus my point is that he is the president while being third party, not the party itself
Also, how will you grow old in a democracy by voting the same two parties that don’t seem to represent anybody? How will a democracy truly exist when they fearmonger you into voting them “or literal Nazis will kill you tomorrow”? The republicans probably do the same but switching Nazi with any other word. It’s the game they want you to play, and they use fear to do so
To say he hasn’t been better than trump is naive. Everything Biden has done that you hate will be done to a greater extent under trump. Remember this is the guy that moved the embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.
Just look at project 2025 to see the truly fascist intentions of trump and republicans at large. Neither are good but they aren’t close to being equally bad.
Uh, Abolishment of Roe v. Wade?! This happened as a result of Trump and the Republicans! The two parties both worship Mamon, that much is true, but there are important differences that should not be glossed over that will have an impact on the lives of everyday American citizens and all the people around the globe that are impacted by our politics which is a huge number of people. You’re painting with too broad a brush and I respectfully ask that you take a deep breath to clear some emotion and think about what I’m saying.
Trump by default. I mean, you might say Jill Stein when she emerges from her cave of irrelevance for her ten seconds of people remembering she exists, but really all you're doing is getting out of the Grand Old Cult's way.
If the Democratic party wants my vote all they have to do is put up a candidate who isn’t onboard with ethnic cleansing and genocide. If that’s too much to ask, and they lose to Republicans, they have no one to blame but themselves.
Whether by action or inaction, if your vote supports Trump getting elected, then you are a Trump supporter, a GOP supporter, and share a portion of the responsibility for the greater destruction and genocide that is brought about by that result.
So in fact, we all do get to blame you and others who support Trump.
I hate the system, and I genuinely sympathize with people who want to vote for their dream candidates.
I just wish they would open their eyes and understand how the system actually works, and how they are being duped by rich, powerful people into actively working against their own goals.
We can change the system by being active politically at the local level. But change will never come by voting in a dream candidate, because even if hypothetically someone like that won the presidency, they would simply be at the mercy of the legislature with zero support from either party. A third party president would be a lame duck before they even swore their inauguration oath.
By your logic if you voted Hillary in the primary that makes you a trump supporter because your vote delivered him a candidate he can beat. You vote shamers are really reaching for insults this time around.
Sure, that tracks. You'd have a share of responsibility for the result of that choice. But as it's much farther removed from the actual election, it would far less responsibility than someone who voted for Jill Stein, or who wrote-in Bernie Sanders, or anyone other than Hillary in the actual eleciton though.
The sad thing is you think I'm insulting you.
I'm not.
I'm trying very hard to help you understand that you've been fooled into acting against your own interests. There's no reason to take it personally or try to come up with some sort of "gotcha" to throw back at me. Especially since I actually agree with what I guess you thought was some kind of slam dunk take-down.
In fact it's extra tragic, because not only are you fooled so thoroughly, but you're also getting defensive about it rather than just listening to what I and others are saying and examining the consequences of that choice. You should be here for conversation, not for meaningless grandstanding and digging your feet deeper into a misunderstanding.
Their statement was totally relevant to this situation. You may not like it, but it was an accurate observation of what centrists expect from progressives.
Their post was a complete non sequitur. And since they deleted their post and had half their other posts in this thread removed by the mods, they clearly weren't here to have a discussion. It's a weird thing for you to defend.
It's obvious you didn't understand the conversation then, because I didn't say that at all, nor am I a centrist. So let's hold off on the accusations of batshit ignorance, yeah?
Like I said to the troll poster above: if you're interested in engaging honestly, let's do this. Otherwise...
It’s more that the third-party spoiler effect is inherent to the first past the post system, so voting your conscience (for a third party) is effectively the same as not voting, and if enough people vote their conscience, it’s effectively like voting for exactly the opposite of what you want.
Yeah, beyond that I was mostly responding to the assertion that “Americans are stupid and easily manipulated.”
No, they are responding to an imperfect system that punishes them for having strong morals. Far from stupid, it’s actually quite rational. The best thing you can do if you care about not having to choose between genocide and even more genocide is get involved in pushing ranked choice voting through ballot measures, lobbying your state legislature, or hell, start with just municipal elections if you think you can get that done.
I suppose that’s because parliamentary parties are much stricter with their membership. A small difference of opinion could lead to the expulsion of a member. US parties can’t really do that, so instead we have caucuses within the parties that vote along party lines most of the time, but differently on some important issues. In a parliamentary system, the caucus members would be expelled and would have to form their own party to have their views represented.
It’s definitely leaning that way… Still, it’s been a while since someone had their ass beaten on the floor of the House or Senate, that seems to happen in Parliament more often. :)
Hate on Biden all you want, but please vote for him. Trump is worse. Trump was behind moving the US embassy to Jerusalem. Trump instituted a ban on travel to the USA from some (note some) Muslim majority countries. If Trump gets elected, expect Project 2025 to come to fruition.
im guessing you aren’t functional. you are probably misrepresenting the premise on purpose, because i don’t think anyone is actually this stupid. you have some weird anti-social thing going on. i don’t care that much about american politics, but i probably wouldn’t like you as a person.
the premise is “A is shit but B is far worse”. it’s everywhere in the thread. it’s in your examples here. it’s a really common thing to say.
this premise is not in conflict with “A is still shit 4 years later”. this premise is not in conflict with “B is apocalyptically bad”. this premise is not equivalent to “A gets better if you vote A”.
Funny, that’s exactly what I was told in 2020 when I asked about 2024, and yet here we are once again, once again being yelled at about how we have no choice but to vote for the right wing war criminal.
I’m not sure what you’re alluding to. One party probably won’t win every election until the end of days, nor should it. However, votes are one way that we have a voice in government, and your government represents you less when your voice isn’t heard.
democracy is just going to end sooner or later anyway
This is speculative, and a bad reason to not vote on purpose. The US has a flawed democracy, and it can get better. Voting won’t “fix” our government alone, but not voting is a guaranteed way to let others choose and vote for you.
You should probably get some outside opinions that aren’t on Lemmy. Lemmy seems to have a very specific crowd that tends to be an echo chamber for certain beliefs and opinions. There are better things to do with your vote than not vote at all.
Edit: The fact that this was down-voted is proof of Lemmy’s echo chamber tendencies, ha.
It shows where the US stands compared to other countries in a democracy index. But it sounds like you aren’t interested, so I’m sorry to have bothered you.
It shows where a bunch of British conservatives think the US stands on a ‘democracy index’ they made up themselves. Oh what a shock, they think their allies are democratic and their enemies aren’t. Why should I care
Did you think the ‘democracy index’ was handed down by God on a gold tablet?
Trump is a Zionist too. He officially recognized Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel. Anybody who thinks they will fix the Israel problem by not voting for Biden is sorely mistaken.
ITT: Copium on still voting for this senile dumbass because the alternative is a brain dead orange or in the case that he is disqualified, another senile dumbass.
The choice is a guy who is okay with participating via weapons delivery in the active slaughtering of innocents half a world a way, or a guy who wants to slaughter everyone that doesnt worshop him as god at home.
or a guy who wants to slaughter everyone that doesnt worshop him as god at home.
Oh God, spare us the performative melodrama. The only difference between Trump and any Republican president in the last half century is that Trump is crass.
What, you don’t like the scare tactics being pushed by Dems and all of his supporters? You don’t like being shamed or scared into voting for a candidate you don’t really agree with?
Dang I thought that worked well in 2016, just barely in 2020, should be great this time around, too!
Yes. Correct, the main issue is the crassness. You nerds never gave a shit about this legalise bullshit before, and W Bush literally did overthrow “American democracy” and you people adore him.
Yes I give a shit about living in a democracy believe it or not. I’m an American. You’ve lost your mind to think that’s just some pretense.
The Supreme Court sided with Bush, Trump lost 50 court challenges and still denied the results and riled up his little cult of insurrectionists who attacked the capital and now continue to believe every GOP loss is the direct result of “Demonrats” stealing more elections.
Yes I give a shit about living in a democracy believe it or not.
Well I have news for you; you don’t.
The Supreme Court sided with Bush
Famously impartial and honest political body, the US supreme court. Do you actually know what happened in 2000? Like, this isn’t disputed, Bush straight up stole an election he lost, and the fact that he did it through bullshit legal manipulation doesn’t make it batter. In fact, the fact that you think it does make it better supports my point that you only care about crassness.
“Crassness”. What a fucking joke.
Again, Trump hasn’t done anything that every Republican president in the last half century didn’t do, and he didn’t do nearly as much damage to your democracy as Bush did, but you only care about it when he’s crass about it.
And Trump did much worse than Bush yet you cite Bush as some precedent to justify Trump even though you don’t actually support that precedent to begin with…? I have my own thoughts on Bush vs Gore, but sorry if I didn’t take your bait and engage about a completely different election, I knew it would end in some nonsense distraction like this.
Not even worth arguing with you, you seem perfectly content with arguing with whatever made up anti-crass, democracy-ambivalent character you’ve concocted in your head. Have fun with that.
I have my own thoughts on Bush vs Gore, but sorry if I didn’t take your bait and engage about a completely different election, I knew it would end in some nonsense distraction like this.
Sounds like you don’t have your own thoughts about it.
Not even worth arguing with you
What, were you expecting to get paid?
At the end of the day, if Trump was just polite and followed decorum, you’d have no more problem with him than you did Bush.
The statement was that Jewish people would not be safe anywhere without Israel
There are Jewish people living safely in many parts of the world, and those people are protected and loved by the communities they live as a part of.
The irony is that the statement was made to Jewish people in such a community outside of Israel. The other bit of irony is that statements like this are further divisions. Divisions that make life unsafe for everyone
There are millions of Jews in Israel (or their children), right now, who are there because they were forcibly expelled from other Arab countries in the Middle East.
Why do you think there's a 3000 year old synagogue in Aleppo, and only around four Jews in all of Syria?
So what, my ancestors built a brick house in Minnesota 180 years ago and its still there, I live in Califoria. Also did the Jews even exist as an identity back 3000 years ago? Pretty sure they had just barely split from the cananites by that point and were still largely isolated to the southern mountains.
I would like to bring a counter point for you to consider.
When I put all my money in a bank, I have a guaranty from a regulatory body /government that in case of bankruptcy I will still get my money back, even if the bank goes bust.
This is similar for Jews around the world - Israel is an insurance policy. If your local country starts leaning towards fascism and looking for a scapegoat (which is usually Jews), then you’d have the option to go to Israel immediately. Because historically they’ve seen and still see how refugees are being treated and not welcome globally.
If your local country starts leaning towards fascism and looking for a scapegoat (which is usually Jews), then you’d have the option to go to Israel immediately.
That’s a great plan, since Jews are completely safe and definitely not in any danger in Israel.
I didn’t say it’s a great plan. But it’s better than no plan.
I don’t understand all the down votes. You don’t have to agree with it, it doesn’t even mean that I agree with it… But I just wanted to shine some context to why it’s not ironic to many Jews.
Its bullshit, we deserve more choice and better choices. Unfortunately, the reality is its probably going to end in Biden v Trump. My choice is easy in that regard.
Listen, I dont want bombs falling anywhere. I don’t like what Israel is doing in Gaza at all. If I could I would summon the strength of Hercules and the wisdom of Solomon to put an end to this. But I can’t I’m a human. The most I can do right now is assist the nation with the most powerful military in the world with not electing a dictator. I can’t produce a miracle and make some unknown 3rd candidate win. And if you think Trump would be nicer to Palestinians, I got some news for you. What an incredibly disingenuous statement.
You could act like you care about the genocide atleast. You could also stop acting like Trump is any worse than any of the other Republican presidents, going back to atleast Nixon.
Do you see any other choices in this instance of our current election cycle? Do you see any other possible candidates that will continue to support Ukraine AND offer to pull support from Israel while also maintaining the possibility of an electoral victory? If you do see a US presidential candidate with these prerequisites please inform me immediately so that I may vote for them. Until then, Biden unfortunately holds my vote.
You called me callous dude. You came in here swinging. All I said was if I have to vote between a dictator and a zionists that I am sorry but I have to choose the zionist. If that upsets you, good. We need to do better. But to attack me over it? Get a life.
You could act like you care about the genocide atleast. You could also stop acting like Trump is any worse than any of the other Republican presidents, going back to atleast Nixon.
I dont want bombs falling anywhere. I don’t like what Israel is doing in Gaza at all. If I could I would summon the strength of Hercules and the wisdom of Solomon to put an end to this.
Would you? Republicans will let Russia eat Ukraine. This discussion isn’t a disccusion you’re just angry because I said I’d vote for Biden. I’m out. Free Palestine, Slava Ukraine, fuck Trump, and fuck u/brain_in_a_box.
Don’t pretend to give a shit about genocide and then start making a pitch for Trump as if he’d be calling for a ceasefire.
“There is no hatred like the Palestinian hatred of Israel and Jewish people. And probably the other way around also; I don’t know,” Trump said. “You know, it’s not as obvious, but probably that’s it too. So sometimes you have to let things play out and you have to see where it ends.”
timesofisrael.com
Active