this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2024
1120 points (94.2% liked)
Political Memes
5344 readers
2686 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Because your comment is so disconnected from reality that it's the only thing that makes sense to me. Genuinely concerned for you.
The absolute liberal irony in this is fucking hilarious.
You people are just genuinely lost in hyperreality, aren’t you?
p.s. try sneering harder, you’re totally winning over the working class.
"If I act like a smug asshole, people will want to vote who I like!"
It doesn't work for Musk, it won't work for weirdos online who think bad polices are okay when it's blue.
In what way is anything I said disconnected from reality? What are you confused about?
I think you replied to the wrong comment. The quote you're including and answering does not exist here.
The quote is from the image, which the person who responded to me is defending.
... except that they didn't?
You introduced the Israel-Hamas war into this topic. The other poster said "none of the candidates will change that". You assumed that he defended the quote that you posted.
At no point did the other poster state which candidate they vote for, only that they didn't make their choice of American President based on the Israel-Hamas war.
I responded to OP, and then they responded to me. I assumed that what they said was related to comment and not just a complete non sequitor.
We can play this game of pretenses but it still doesn't work for you and I see little reason to.
The fact that you're asking just leaves me more concerned for you.
When we ask the question, "Was Taft a good president?" we look at the things Taft did in office, we don't look at who he ran against or whether there was another candidate who would've done things differently. If Taft supported a genocide, then it would be pretty hard to defend him as a good president, unless you just don't care about the victims. Whether the person he ran against would've done the same is largely irrelevant to his legacy.
Now replace the word "Taft" with "Harris." In evaluating whether Harris would be a "great" president, "objectively," that doesn't mean that she's the best of awful choices, it means that she is actually good, irrespective of any other choices.
You are pretending that you recognize how bad it is to be pro-genocide, but that you'll reluctantly look past it and support a pro-genocide candidate, because, wouldn't you know it, your hands are tied, that's just how elections work, wish we could have someone else but that's just the way it is. That stance is bullshit. It's just something you say to try to appeal to people who care about Palestine. The reality is what OP so plainly expressed, that you think Harris would be a great president and her support for genocide doesn't really bother you.
What did I say that is in any way unclear?
You responded to the previous poster quoting something they never said and your answer doesn't follow the conversation. JFC read your own comment chain before being an ass.
Read the OP, silly.
I really think you should, fam.
All you ever talk about is how genocidal Harris is, when I don't think she is actually pro genocide, and I know Trump and other republicans really are. Your negatives about republicans are few and far between, but you talk at great lengths of the evils of the democrats, and then you get cross with people who point out that you're echoing right wing talking points.
The genocide thing is standard Republican projection - Trump literally supports the genocide in Gaza, calls himself the best king of Israel ever, then calls Biden "genocide Joe". Every accusation an admission.
You're gross. I don't care if they censor this. It's true.
Which "they" did you think would censor your weird insult?
Then you're not paying attention. She has not distanced herself at all from Biden's position of unconditionally arming Israel and reaffirms her support for Israel every time she talks about the issue.
I'm not a Republican, so it's not "Republican projection." Republicans are also genocidal and you shouldn't vote for them, obviously.
Again, we're not talking about Trump here. We're talking about whether Harris would be an "objectively great" president. I think her legacy will be greatly tarnished by her support for genocide. You can't say that she'd be "great" while simultaneously trying to paint her as a "lesser evil."
It wasn't me who said she'd be great, actually, but as usual, you spend more time trashing Democrats than Republicans, and yet try to persuade me that you're left wing. Doesn't quite add up from where I'm sat.
Oh, I guess this conversation is settled then, we're in agreement on the point of her not being great. Not entirely sure why you replied to me in the first place tbh.
Because you spend all day trashing the Democrats and barely mention any of the downsides of the Republicans and yet claim to be left wing. It doesn't add up.
I literally just explained this to you in another thread. Obviously your conspiracy theory about me is baseless and unfalsifiable.
Point me to anyone on Lemmy who supports Trump and I'll be happy to argue with them about why Trump is bad. I actually just did. I just don't see people like that often around here. But I'm sure your conspiracy theory can explain that away, just as it could explain away anything else I do or don't do, because that's how conspiracy theories work.
I don't have to prove anything to you anyway. Why don't you prove to me that you don't work for the NSA?
It doesn't add up because actual left wing folks would be able to draw very obvious conclusions about who would be the better president, but even in your criticism of Trump, all you can manage is "no better than the Democrats".
Yes, you claim to argue from a leftist perspective, and I'm sure that you have plenty of reading to help you with that, but when your advice to other leftists is to hand the presidency to a lunatic right winger, I've got to doubt your motives. At the least, you're an accelerationist who doesn't care how badly the country burns if you think there's a chance that years later your pipe dream that America turns communist could happen.
I never asked you to, I just expressed my pretty reasonable doubts about your motives for spending so much time and effort convincing leftists to abstain from deciding the presidency.
Firstly because I would have to doxx myself, and secondly because I don't feel the need to convince you of that, mainly because I haven't been toeing the NSA line on lemmy throughout the election period whilst claiming to be against everything they stand for, so I don't believe there's a case to answer.
I am a third party voter. I am critical of both the Democrats and Republicans from the left, because they are both right wing parties.
Of course I'm not going to make the case to someone that Democrats are a good choice, because I don't believe they are. Basically you're claiming that I'm operating in bad faith solely on the basis that I disagree with your position. It's completely ridiculous.
If I were actually an accelerationist, I'd be spoiled for choice and perfectly happy with either candidate.
Good old both sides.
There are differences, but conditions will continue to decline regardless of who gets elected.
Biden managed to push Russia and China together while increasing military spending to an all time high. The old Sino-Soviet split was the greatest geopolitical blessing the US ever got, then the US defeated the USSR and installed a new government just how they liked, and yet, now the geopolitical situation is worse than ever. If I were an accelerationist, I'd be completely satisfied with Biden and happy to support his successor. Liberal idealists have absolutely no restraint or concern about what is and isn't viable, as long as they believe they're in the right they'll stretch us too thin and hasten collapse.
On the other hand, Trump also played a role in pushing China and Russia together, plus he prolonged the war in Afghanistan, further draining blood and treasure (while Biden bears some responsibility for supporting it, I also give him credit for ending it, no matter how much liberals criticize him for it). He completely botched the handling of the pandemic while undermining public trust in institutions to cover his own ass for selling off emergency supplies for quick cash.
It's legitimately a tough choice from an accelerationist perspective. Either would be fine. But I'm not an accelerationist. I want to actually address the conditions that created Trump in the first place, and to focus on addressing the myriad of domestic crises that are destabilizing the country. Only third party candidates are interested in doing that. The last three elections have been between Trump and the people who created the conditions for Trump. If we just get more of the same, then continued decline is inevitable.
Accelerationism is stupid, because it's far more likely that the US is going to go haywire and start nuking everyone or starting major wars if shit starts to hit the fan. Both parties want to rile people up to hate other countries in order to justify military spending, which they profit greatly off of, and while they don't actually want a hot war, there's always a risk of someone who believes their own propaganda getting into a position they shouldn't. The situation is a powder keg and will keep getting worse no matter who wins.
You: both sides are the same from a leftist point of view.
Me: obviously not.
Meanwhile trump:
Trump announces that it's a good idea to shoot down leftists and you're still struggling to see any difference between him and Harris?!?!
Did you read the first three words of my comment?
Yes, but your overall message is still both sides, and you've given no indication that you might be prepared to vote democratic to avert the oncoming fascist takeover of America.
What effect do you think sending the military after people who disagree with Trump will have on the Overton window?
Of course I'm not going to vote democrat, that's not the same as saying that both sides are the same. There are differences, but that's not the question, the question is whether either of them is acceptable, to which my answer is no.
So we're back to you agreeing with the the guy proposing that leftists be shot in the street if he becomes president that leftists should abstain from choosing the president.
I can't even
I've explained my reasoning in the other thread that we're talking in. I believe that voting third party is the most effective way for leftists to exert influence to get the kinds of policies we need. If someone on the right agrees with me for completely opposite reasons, that's not really relevant, I'm not going to abandon my reasoned positions just because someone shitty agrees with me. I could just as easily say, "So you agree with Dick Cheney on who should be the next president. I can't even." That's not really a rational line of argument.
You don't think shooting leftists is worth avoiding at all?
The only way to prevent leftists getting shot is to address the root issues that gave rise to Trump. Yes, it's worth avoiding that, which is why I want to. Is it worth accepting that that's definitely going to happen, in exchange for kicking the can down the road a bit? No, I don't think so.
No, the only way to prevent leftists getting shot is to elect Kamala Harris so that trump isn't in charge of the military a couple of months after the supreme court ruled that he can't break the law with an official act and a couple of weeks after promising to shoot leftists.
I'm not going to support the mass murder of innocent people over fears about what might, potentially happen. The US is already involved in killing leftists, and rightists, and centrists, and queer people, and cishet people, and everyone else.
If Trump wins and your worst alarmist fears come true, then I'll go to the grave knowing that I did what I could to stop it. Supporting genocide is not something I could do, as I'm not interested in tearing down other innocent people for my own preservation, like crabs in a bucket.
The only real chance of safety is through solidarity, including international solidarity. That solidarity is destroyed by selling out individual minority groups. What you're saying about Palestinians today, you could just as easily be saying about trans people tomorrow. If democrats decide that not killing trans people is too much of an electoral liability, but the republicans want to kill trans people AND other people, then you'll repeat the same lesser-evilist ideological nonsense to justify and make peace with it, and it will become an inevitably. No one is safe if anyone can be sold out.
By voting third party, allowing him to win?
Yeah, right.
That's the opposite of stopping it.
That's enabling it.
Trump warned you he would be a dictator on day one. His co-planners wrote down the agenda in project 2025. The supreme court ruled that he cannot face consequences. He warned you he would start shooting leftists. One thing can stop it: Kamala Harris winning.
Then there's nothing I can do to stop it, period. Supporting genocide is completely off the table, not even considerable.