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.
What meaningfully different results? Biden fast tracked money for the border wall. Stole from the working class to give handouts to his rich friends. Increased ICE, Police, Pentagon, and war funding. Deported immigrants, and sent them to torture prisons.
The Democrats were blowing up kids in syria. They were supporting genocide. They did more deportations than Trump’s first term. Lets look at the treaties and deals that they made: Dictators, Slave-Owners, Racists, Genocidists.
Different doesn’t mean Biden was good, just that he was so much better than the alternative. Did his administration blow up ships in international waters with no approval? Deport citizens arrested by ICE to third-world countries with no trial and refuse to bring them back? Dismantle USAID, killing multiple thousands of people? Remove protections from federal land and allow nature to be destroyed? Arrest citizens for using privacy features on their phones? Violate the first-amendment rights of national television broadcasters? Abduct and threaten to deport rival political candidates? Pardon traitors and create the corporate pardon? Get ICE to arrest judges? Ban themselves from IRS audits? Let goons run around with full illegal access to every government database? Delete the data on who owns which company that’s used to protect against fraud? Withhold federal aid from states based on their political affiliation? Pay AI companies to reject insurance claims? Talk in Nazi chatrooms and throw Nazi salutes onstage? Deny healthcare to women based on their marital status? Remove protections from LGBT people? Try to remove birthright citizenship and state their plans to mass incarcerate and possibly deport people who became citizens that way? Repeatedly ignore court decisions? Dismantle federal agencies based only on their political affiliation? Appoint the worst cabinet in US history? Threaten to jail the people investigating January 6th? Try to remove judges who ruled against them? Cut the suicide hotline for LGBT people? Beat and jail people protesting ICE raids? Try to run for a third term and sieze federal control of elections? Make moves to conquer Greenland? Lie, cheat, scam, rape, steal, corrupt, and otherwise destroy anything they get their hands on? Remove government watchdogs? Cancel federal funding for health research based on bullshit keywords? Destroy trust in public health? Destroy longstanding peace agreements? Legally erase trans people and steal their federal IDs? I could go on.
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.
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.
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.
Are you stupid
Are you? Can you at least try to be a little articulate? Or is that beyond your obviously limited capabilities?
Is there more than two parties in the US?
Functionally not, but voting third party is at least better than not voting
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.
What meaningfully different results? Biden fast tracked money for the border wall. Stole from the working class to give handouts to his rich friends. Increased ICE, Police, Pentagon, and war funding. Deported immigrants, and sent them to torture prisons.
The Democrats were blowing up kids in syria. They were supporting genocide. They did more deportations than Trump’s first term. Lets look at the treaties and deals that they made: Dictators, Slave-Owners, Racists, Genocidists.
Wow, what “meaningfully different results”.
Different doesn’t mean Biden was good, just that he was so much better than the alternative. Did his administration blow up ships in international waters with no approval? Deport citizens arrested by ICE to third-world countries with no trial and refuse to bring them back? Dismantle USAID, killing multiple thousands of people? Remove protections from federal land and allow nature to be destroyed? Arrest citizens for using privacy features on their phones? Violate the first-amendment rights of national television broadcasters? Abduct and threaten to deport rival political candidates? Pardon traitors and create the corporate pardon? Get ICE to arrest judges? Ban themselves from IRS audits? Let goons run around with full illegal access to every government database? Delete the data on who owns which company that’s used to protect against fraud? Withhold federal aid from states based on their political affiliation? Pay AI companies to reject insurance claims? Talk in Nazi chatrooms and throw Nazi salutes onstage? Deny healthcare to women based on their marital status? Remove protections from LGBT people? Try to remove birthright citizenship and state their plans to mass incarcerate and possibly deport people who became citizens that way? Repeatedly ignore court decisions? Dismantle federal agencies based only on their political affiliation? Appoint the worst cabinet in US history? Threaten to jail the people investigating January 6th? Try to remove judges who ruled against them? Cut the suicide hotline for LGBT people? Beat and jail people protesting ICE raids? Try to run for a third term and sieze federal control of elections? Make moves to conquer Greenland? Lie, cheat, scam, rape, steal, corrupt, and otherwise destroy anything they get their hands on? Remove government watchdogs? Cancel federal funding for health research based on bullshit keywords? Destroy trust in public health? Destroy longstanding peace agreements? Legally erase trans people and steal their federal IDs? I could go on.
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.
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 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.