this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2023
289 points (87.7% liked)

politics

19238 readers
2096 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

"We recognize that, in the next four years, our decision may cause us to have an even more difficult time. But we believe that this will give us a chance to recalibrate, and the Democrats will have to consider whether they want our votes or not."

That's gotta be one of the strangest reasonings I've heard in a while.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You've only got three options.

  1. Pick Gun A. Someone shoots 8 people with Gun A.

  2. Pick Gun B. Someone shoots 20 people with Gun B.

  3. Don't pick either gun. Other people decide which gun will be used. Someone shoots either 8 or 20 people with the chosen gun.

If I don't want people to die, what should I pick? Should I pick Gun A because I want to make sure the fewest people die? Or should I not pick at all, so that I can feel good about myself if gun B is chosen and 20 people die?

I'm sympathetic to them, but refusing to participate in the system doesn't mean the system goes away. It just means you pretend you don't have blood on your hands. If you care about keeping the Palestinian death toll as low as possible, you vote for the option that will kill the fewest. That's voting for Biden. Choose not to vote, and the death toll may be higher.

Blood will be on my hands no matter what I pick. I choose to see and accept that blood, if it means even one life is saved that would be doomed otherwise.

[–] Kbin_space_program@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I suppose congrats are in order. We have a real life Trolley Problem.

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

If you don't need their votes, keep acting like you can order them to vote like you want. You can always blame them for the results, but you'll still have the results.

The party would rather lose to Trump and have someone to blame than try to appeal to the voters it regards with withering contempt. It may make you feel morally superior to scream at people, but that doesn't move the needle in the direction you need.

[–] Uranium3006@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Pretty much. If fascism takes over America centrist Democrats will be partly to blame

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Won't stop them from blaming all the people they alienated.

[–] WalrusDragonOnABike@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Weird so many in this thread seem to think if you insult people for not wanting to be genocided, they'll support the candidate you like. Make it feel more clear that these people don't actually care about them and just see them as pawns for their own goals.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

Weird so many in this thread seem to think if you insult people for not wanting to be genocided, they’ll support the candidate you like.

"Vote for me to do shit you hate, moron! Wait... why are you staying home?"

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you refuse to vote for the option that will result in the fewest Palestinians being killed, you care more about your ideals than you do their lives. Full stop. You aren't an ally if you're content with letting the more deadly option win because the less deadly option is still lethal.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

As I keep having to say, I'm voting for Biden.

The party needs to start trying to get back votes it's losing. That is if they care about beating Trump and not just having yet another opportunity to punch left and never right.

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I know you are, that's why I find it interesting to engage with you. You understand what I'm saying if you're voting for Biden.

I don't disagree. I'm all for discussing what Democrats can realistically do so long as we agree that Trump is an existential threat that takes priority over everything else.

So, let's discuss it. We both know that outright telling Israel to go fuck itself isn't an option. What do you think would be the best, realistic way to stop their massacre while alienating the fewest voters overall and leveraging our relationship to put pressure on them?

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I’m all for discussing what Democrats can realistically do so long as we agree that Trump is an existential threat that takes priority over everything else.

It takes priority over everything else for a certain segment of the party. Expecting it to take priority over everything else for the entire party gets people leaving the party as we're seeing here.

We both know that outright telling Israel to go fuck itself isn’t an option.

Sadly yes. One of us is sad about it, and the other is gloating.

What do you think would be the best, realistic way to stop their massacre while alienating the fewest voters overall and leveraging our relationship to put pressure on them?

We both know that the party doesn't actually care about stopping the massacre. They'll do as little as possible to upset the status quo of supporting Israel no matter what they do. Someone high up in the centrist wing of the party needs to advocate for placing conditions on aid. It'll be a bill of goods, of course. The party deals in bills of goods. It's exceedingly good at promising things and then preventing itself from delivering, like with the public option, bbb, and increasing the minimum wage.

The party isn't even bothering to make empty promises it has no intention of keeping here.

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Well at the very least I'll need to keep a closer eye on my tone, because I very much do not want to gloat about Israel having support. The rest of what you said is good food for thought too, even if I tend to disagree initially.