Nobody likes voting for the “lesser of two evils.” Casting a vote in favor of someone who is diametrically opposed to your viewpoint(s) absolutely sucks. The shitty reality is that we aren’t going to change the electoral process in the next two months.
If you don’t see either major candidate as a champion that you can support, it seems more beneficial to see it as selecting your enemy for the next four years. I would rather fight against someone that I have a chance of changing. At minimum I would rather protest against someone that I think has a lower chance of authorizing lethal force against a march that I attend.
Voting for a 3rd presidential candidate (or not voting at all), is letting someone else make that decision for you.
That said, we have got to get out of this constant cycle of only having two options. There’s too much money at a national level to start there. We’ve got to start local and get third party candidates into offices at a city level, then state, then national. It’s going to take a long time and it should have happened so very long ago. We can’t change the past, we can only change the future. The only time to start changing the future is in the present.
This argument doesn’t really work in your favor, Leftist organizing was much stronger under Trump, because liberals had a common enemy with Leftists.
That said, we have got to get out of this constant cycle of only having two options. There’s too much money at a national level to start there. We’ve got to start local and get third party candidates into offices at a city level, then state, then national. It’s going to take a long time and it should have happened so very long ago. We can’t change the past, we can only change the future. The only time to start changing the future is in the present.
This has no chance of working. Electoralism is designed to not work like that. If any third party showed any chance of winning at the local level, the DNC and GOP would collaborate against them. We have seen this in Georgia, where they kicked PSL off the ballot. The only way to legitimately get somebody not in the DNC or GOP in power is via Revolution.
If any third party showed any chance of winning at the local level, the DNC and GOP would collaborate against them. We have seen this in Georgia, where they kicked PSL off the ballot. The only way to legitimately get somebody not in the DNC or GOP in power is via Revolution.
Local is smaller than state. State still has too much money and will trounce smaller parties just like you said. Looking at PSLs election results, the only showings of note are board seats, city council, and mayor. That’s where we need to start.
I’m not saying this is the only path forward. I’m all for guillotines, but you need the people on your side for that and getting the people aware of the movement is a tough process.
Local is smaller than state. State still has too much money and will trounce smaller parties just like you said. Looking at PSLs election results, the only showings of note are board seats, city council, and mayor. That’s where we need to start.
I understand that Local is smaller than State. I also understand that the second a Third Party posed any threat, both establishment parties would collaborate against them, regardless of having won local elections or not. You can’t vibe a party into power.
I’m not saying this is the only path forward. I’m all for guillotines, but you need the people on your side for that and getting the people aware of the movement is a tough process.
Correct, which is why voting for PSL is good for visibility.
Please, you desparately need to read Theory.
Which theory?
I’m a Communist, so I recommend Marxist Theory, but any Leftist Theory would be good for you.
Particularly, The State and Revolution and Reform or Revolution are relevant in this case, but I don’t know what you have or have not read.
This argument doesn’t really work in your favor, Leftist organizing was much stronger under Trump, because liberals had a common enemy with Leftists.
So your stance is that in order to see real change, we must increase the amount of suffering and only then will people be motivated enough to do something about it? Sounds pretty risky to me.
It feels more like they’re explaining why your argument doesn’t work in your favor because it’s accelerationism, not that they’re advocating for accelerationism.
I don’t understand how enabling a Trump victory isn’t an acceleration towards suffering
They’re not saying one should enable a Trump victory.
That’s what happens when you don’t vote or vote for a third party.
Yes, but they’re not proposing that either.
No, your argument that we should vote for whoever would be the best to protest under is acceletationism. By your logic, Leftists should vote for Trump. That’s your line of logic.
Police killings have gone up every single year under Biden, yet the streets are empty.
We don’t need to increase suffering, we need liberals to stop pretending everything is fine.
Police killings have gone up every single year under Biden, yet the streets are empty.
That’s a great stat that should be shared more widely.
We don’t need to increase suffering, we need liberals to stop pretending everything is fine.
Agreed!
If you think those numbers won’t continue to rise under a Trump regime, you and I have irreconcilable differences of opinion
These stats show that the amount of suffering will continue to increase regardless of who the president is, so accelerationism is pointless. Trump oversaw the largest protest movement in US history and that category of suffering has only increased since he left office, but the protests are small and easily controlled. That tells me that increasing suffering isn’t actually relevant.
The real problem is that liberals are staying home. They tune out and go back to brunch when a Democrat is in office.
That tells me that increasing suffering isn’t actually relevant.
Big oof
People are suffering right now, but the streets are empty.
No, your argument that we should vote for whoever would be the best to protest under is acceletationism. By your logic, Leftists should vote for Trump. That’s your line of logic.
The only way it’s best to protest under Trump is if you want to die while protesting.
The only way it’s best to protest under Trump/Harris is if you want to die while protesting.
Why not vote for the lesser of two evils and still protest them in office?
Why protest if you aren’t going to hold them accountable in any material way? Why would they care?
Yes! Literally this is what I’m trying to say!
Somehow I, and everyone else here, read your post as “vote for the worst of two evils to shift the general political landscape by protest and making the lesser of two evils have to work extra hard to be less evil than the slightly-less evil greater of two evils”. Re-reading, I can see your point, but somehow we all misunderstood it
Well you worded it absolutely awfully, because the conclusion I came to was that you are trying to encourage people to vote for Trump
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Did you mean to respond to a different comment? Cause you seem to be agreeing with the initial post that you’re replying to.
Ugh. Probably. My bad Nuking it.
@jaaake I wish we had a serious realistic third party out there
If enough people keep voting for them, we can.
