181
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2023
181 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10162 readers
84 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Dude it's basic math.
If person a gets 20 votes and person b gets 19 votes and if you were going to vote for person b then didn't, person a wins instead of ties. Do that on a major scale to one party and you get a party that will never win again.
So I don't know where you get off on pretending I'm playing make believe. It makes me think you have to resort to these adhoc attacks because your stance is super weak and you know it.
You are making shit up. 1 plus 0 DOES NOT EQUAL 2.
Here is how the actual math works. Red Fascist gets 20 votes, Blue Fascist gets 19 votes if blue party has abandoned their liberal ideals in favor for "lesser evil" progressive fascism and I'm the only one who refuses to vote for genocide. That means the voting record is:
Model 1
Red Fascist: 20 votes
Blue Fascist: 19 votes
Disenfranchised voters: 1
If the people stop believing your made up bullshit, then they too could decide to stop voting for the death of America, stop voting for fascism, stop voting for genocide, etc.
Then the voting record is:
Model 2
Red Fascist: 10 votes
Blue Fascist: 10 votes
Disenfranchised voters: 20
Voter turnout is a massive factor in establishing the political ethos of the person in office. A person sitting on 98% turnout can say "I represent America" and has much better odds of pushing whatever genocide or tax break for billionaires they want.
A person sitting on a 50% turnout is going to have "you don't represent the people" hurled at them at every turn, and they will have a much harder time sending another funding package to the genocide.
Under Model 1, neither fascist has anything to worry about. They have the world by the balls, their overlords are happy, and regardless of which cover the overlords put on their actions (red or blue), they will get their payout. Nothing changes. The whole system continues to decay.
Under Model 2, the fascists have a big problem. The world can see that the people don't approve, the people see that the people don't approve. Now there is fire on the heels of the fascists, and they might need to consider actually not being evil sometimes to encourage more people to vote again.
Even under a third model:
Model 3
Red Fascist: 20 votes
Blue Fascist: 10 votes
Disenfranchised voters: 10
After a really shitty 4 years, the Blue Fascists now have a reason to stop being fucking fascists to get the 10 disenfranchised voters back. They have incentive to actually combat the Red Fascists by trying to be GOOD instead of lesser evil.
Let me destroy your argument with one fact. We've already had 50% voter turnout. It's how we got Bush Sr. No one is going to care if you don't vote. In fact no one said to Bush Sr he didn't represent the people. So you should look into some of the things you're saying first. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_United_States_presidential_elections
Yes, and that was because the people wanted Gary Hart, but the DNC decided to install Dukakis instead.
Exactly like Hilary/Bernie, except at least for Gary Hart, there was some drama in the news to pin the decision on. For Hilary/Bernie, it was simply that Hilary is one of the overlords in the DNC.
So you are just highlighting a great point where the DNC didn't listen to their constituents and paid the price. Good conscientious liberals refused to vote for the "lesser evil". They wanted their solid candidate to vote for.
It motivated the Democrats to get strong on climate, social service, and fighting AGAINST genocide, and that's how we got the Clinton/Gore years (some of the best years in moderate history).
It worked. We saw actual improvement. Then we got complacent again and Democrats are now funding genocide.
Time to do it again.
Argument perfectly in-tact if not stronger.
First, Clinton and Gore weren't abnormally strong in climate change or genocide.
Second, That's not a good strategy when the Republican candidate is quoting Hitler and saying he's going to install concentration camps.
You're just fucking with me now.
Gore has always been one of the strongest leaders in the effort to combat climate change and Clinton literally brought the Croation genocide to a halt by DEFENDING the Croatians and ATTACKING Serbs and Bosnians.
Your "but he's Hitler!" Lost all its punch when Biden went genocidal.
Who needs the concentration camps when you just fund the bombing of schools and hospitals?
Seriously. Learn to see 2 feet past your nose. Stop sucking your owners dick. Educate yourself.
Again. Don't support fascists. It's not that hard to wrap your brain around. Scroll up to see a documented instance in moderate history where the tactic worked.
Come back when you can stop being an angsty child.
Come back when you can stop being a delusional Boomer.
edit: also tried not to say it, but I gotta. When you lose an argument, its generally better to say "I stand corrected, I guess I have some things to consider." or nothing.
Responding with simple name calling really just makes you look that much stupider.