threatening to let conservatives further mangle the country when you have a progressive alternative is selfish and incredibly narrow-minded.
And how exactly is not voting doing that when…
the democrats are already winning the votes of young and decided voters
Either the Democrats are comfortably winning (in which case we can vote with our conscience), or they’re not (in which case vocal opposition to genocide might encourage them to change policies to garner our vote).
The alternative is that nothing will get them to change policies because they’re not interested in our vote. In which case the whole “turn up and the Democrats will move left” theory is nonsense.
none of this is the neat logic game you want it to be.
And yet…
in this election, Harris is the clear better choice for people who are not selfish.
So presumably it is the “neat clear logic game” you want it to be.
You haven’t answered any of the criticisms raised against your argument.
It’s OK to just disagree with me and explain why, you know. You don’t have to label all opposing arguments as ‘nonsense’ (or misinformation, or ideologically biased, or whatever the latest buzz-term is…). You can just disagree. Humans are marvellous like that, we look at things differently from each other and form different views as a result. We even have this amazing tool ‘rational discourse’ whereby we can dissect those differences. It’s great.
If you think one (or more) of my criticisms flawed, then quote it and point out the flaw. Try it, you might like it.
I literally said it isn’t the clear logic game you wanted to be.
Yes,and then you went on to present a clear logic game of your own (vote for Kamala=good), hence my criticism.
Go ahead, ask away.
I thought I had but…
If the Democrats are not assured victory (as you now seem to be saying) then why is the anti-genocide strategy supposed to be ‘vote for them anyway’, and not ‘refuse to vote for them unless they change their policy’.
We start from the premise that Democrats need votes (either because they’re losing, or because they don’t want to rest on their laurels). We agree one of these is the case, yes?
So your anti-genocide solution is to just give them the votes they need without asking for anything in return.
The solution @when@lemmy.world suggested, which you’re arguing against, is to negotiate. To use the power we have as voters whose vote they need (or really, really want), to ask for a change in policy in return for that vote.
You haven’t explained why the latter won’t work other than the Democrats not wanting those votes, or not wanting to end the genocide.
If we assume both - the Democrats want to end genocide and want more votes, them why wouldn’t they offer to end genocide in exchange for more votes?
And how exactly is not voting doing that when…
Either the Democrats are comfortably winning (in which case we can vote with our conscience), or they’re not (in which case vocal opposition to genocide might encourage them to change policies to garner our vote).
The alternative is that nothing will get them to change policies because they’re not interested in our vote. In which case the whole “turn up and the Democrats will move left” theory is nonsense.
“Either the Democrats are comfortably winning”
Don’t get comfortable in a democracy that works.
people get to vote who they want to vote for.
“The alternative is that…” - the illusion of only two choices comes from your having grown up with a broken democracy.
“In which case the whole “turn up and the Democrats will move left” theory is nonsense.”
this is nonense.
none of this is the neat logic game you want it to be.
in an election, people get to vote for who they want to vote for.
in this election, Harris is the clear better choice for people who are not selfish.
this does not mean that she wins.
And yet…
So presumably it is the “neat clear logic game” you want it to be.
You haven’t answered any of the criticisms raised against your argument.
It’s OK to just disagree with me and explain why, you know. You don’t have to label all opposing arguments as ‘nonsense’ (or misinformation, or ideologically biased, or whatever the latest buzz-term is…). You can just disagree. Humans are marvellous like that, we look at things differently from each other and form different views as a result. We even have this amazing tool ‘rational discourse’ whereby we can dissect those differences. It’s great.
If you think one (or more) of my criticisms flawed, then quote it and point out the flaw. Try it, you might like it.
“So presumably it is the “neat clear logic game” you want it to be.”
no, I literally said it isn’t the clear logic game you wanted to be.
“You haven’t answered any of the criticisms raised against your argument.”
i’ve addressed every criticism I’ve received so far, but if you wrote them to other people or somewhere else then I haven’t seen them.
Go ahead, ask away.
Yes,and then you went on to present a clear logic game of your own (vote for Kamala=good), hence my criticism.
I thought I had but…
If the Democrats are not assured victory (as you now seem to be saying) then why is the anti-genocide strategy supposed to be ‘vote for them anyway’, and not ‘refuse to vote for them unless they change their policy’.
We start from the premise that Democrats need votes (either because they’re losing, or because they don’t want to rest on their laurels). We agree one of these is the case, yes?
So your anti-genocide solution is to just give them the votes they need without asking for anything in return.
The solution @when@lemmy.world suggested, which you’re arguing against, is to negotiate. To use the power we have as voters whose vote they need (or really, really want), to ask for a change in policy in return for that vote.
You haven’t explained why the latter won’t work other than the Democrats not wanting those votes, or not wanting to end the genocide.
If we assume both - the Democrats want to end genocide and want more votes, them why wouldn’t they offer to end genocide in exchange for more votes?