It’s not wrong to say regulatory capture is a problem, it just doesn’t go far enough. The US government was never not captured by the bourgeoisie, because the US was born of a bourgeois revolution[1]. The wealthy, white, male, land-owning, largely slave-owning Founding Fathers constructed a bourgeois state with “checks and balances” against the “tyranny of the majority”. It was never meant to represent the majority—the working class—and it never has, despite eventually allowing women and non-whites (at least those not disenfranchised by the carceral system) to vote. BBC: [Princeton & Northwestern] Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy
The game is rigged. The election cycle’s pomp and circumstance is to divert your energy and attention from the fact that it’s a big club, and you ain’t in it.
No, he’s not. Despite that, there sure are a lot of folks here who were eager to hand him the keys of the country, and continue to to defend their choice.
The game is rigged. The election cycle’s pomp and circumstance is to divert your energy and attention from the fact that it’s a big club, and you ain’t in it.
Mostly agree, with the caveat that it’s not all pomp and circumstance, only mostly pomp and circumstance. Take genocide for example, which seems to be the theme of the thread: we didn’t get the choice of no genocide, our only options were more vs less. Those are shitty options, but if we have that wiggle room, it’s worth voting for less in order to prevent more. Damage mitigation. Still genocide, still shitty options, but tangibly distinct options.
We’re given a crumb of freedom - use it. It’s the only official voice we’ve got.
Fortunately there lots of other options too - everything from shouting into the void like I’m doing here in this thread, to throwing molotovs at Nazis: each tool comes with its own risk-to-impact ratio. Voting is low impact, but it’s safe and (for most people) accessible. It’s the bare minimum.
There’s a lot of strawman in this thread against the non-existent argument of voting and only voting. I’m with you on that one: that would be fucking stupid. But that’s not what I’m advocating for.
No, he’s not. Despite that, there sure are a lot of folks here who were eager to hand him the keys of the country, and continue to to defend their choice.
Trump already has the keys. That ship has sailed. If he has a third term it will be through extralegal measures, not the ballot box.
Take genocide for example, which seems to be the theme of the thread: we didn’t get the choice of no genocide, our only options were more vs less. Those are shitty options, but if we have that wiggle room, it’s worth voting for less in order to prevent more. Damage mitigation. Still genocide, still shitty options, but tangibly distinct options.
Whether it would have been a “lesser” genocide is unfalsifiable. We’ll never really know. But I don’t have the faith in it that you have. I’m not sure what a more competent genocidal administration would have done.
Consider what many US Palestinians did: threaten to withhold their votes if Harris didn’t say there was at least some daylight between herself and Biden regarding Gazans. And she wouldn’t even do that much.
But that’s how you use the vote, if you use it at all. You use it as leverage. If the Democrats know you’ll “vote Blue no matter who” or “vote Blue no matter what,” then they’ll ignore you altogether, because you’re already in their pocket. You’ve made yourself irrelevant.
Whether it would have been a “lesser” genocide is unfalsifiable. We’ll never really know. But I don’t have the faith in it that you have. I’m not sure what a more competent genocidal administration would have done.
Correct. But I’m confident the Harris administration wouldn’t have taking the swan-dive that Trump’s did. Same with all the other evils he’s committed outside the scope of genocide: bad under Harris, worse under Trump. Given what we know about the two, that assumption seems pretty reasonable. If you disagree, well like you said, that comes to which candidate we have less faith in. For me, Trump is the obvious rock-bottom worst outcome, but I can’t compare to an administration that never happened, so speculate as you will.
Consider what many US Palestinians did: threaten to withhold their votes if Harris didn’t say there was at least some daylight between herself and Biden regarding Gazans. And she wouldn’t even do that much.
But that’s how you use the vote, if you use it at all. You use it as leverage. If the Democrats know you’ll “vote Blue no matter who” or “vote Blue no matter what,” then they’ll ignore you altogether, because you’re already in their pocket. You’ve made yourself irrelevant.
Half correct. Withholding votes won’t get their attention - we’ve seen that play out again and again. Democrats would rather lose than change. If you want their attention and real change, you’ll need to do things other than vote.
Half correct. Withholding votes won’t get their attention - we’ve seen that play out again and again. Democrats would rather lose than change. If you want their attention and real change, you’ll need to do things other than vote.
If neither withholding nor not withholding will get their attention, then you’re making an even stronger case against voting’s worth than I am.
But I’m confident the Harris administration wouldn’t have taking the swan-dive that Trump’s did.
You genocide denying scum. The genocide was just as bad under Biden, who Harris promised to emulate. Your lie that there was some kind of “swandive” is genocide denying bullshit
Despite that, there sure are a lot of folks here who were eager to hand him the keys of the country, and continue to to defend their choice.
Mate, everyone told you people that Democrats would lose if they didn’t change tact, but you refused. You were the ones who eagerly handed Trump the keys to the country!
our only options were more vs less.
No, you were just a genocide denier when it was your team doing it. It took Trump winning for you to actually admit the extent of the genocide.
Mate, I was one of the people saying Democrats would lose if they didn’t change tact. But I still advocated against Trump. The Democrats handed the election to him on a silver platter. Fucking twice. But I still advocated against Trump.
No, you were just a genocide denier when it was your team doing it. It took Trump winning for you to actually admit the extent of the genocide.
Also incorrect. I bit my tongue during the election (did I mention the bit about advocating against Trump?) but was and remain opposed to genocide regardless of who’s in power.
He’s not our man, dumb-ass. Previously:
The game is rigged. The election cycle’s pomp and circumstance is to divert your energy and attention from the fact that it’s a big club, and you ain’t in it.
No, he’s not. Despite that, there sure are a lot of folks here who were eager to hand him the keys of the country, and continue to to defend their choice.
Mostly agree, with the caveat that it’s not all pomp and circumstance, only mostly pomp and circumstance. Take genocide for example, which seems to be the theme of the thread: we didn’t get the choice of no genocide, our only options were more vs less. Those are shitty options, but if we have that wiggle room, it’s worth voting for less in order to prevent more. Damage mitigation. Still genocide, still shitty options, but tangibly distinct options.
We’re given a crumb of freedom - use it. It’s the only official voice we’ve got.
Fortunately there lots of other options too - everything from shouting into the void like I’m doing here in this thread, to throwing molotovs at Nazis: each tool comes with its own risk-to-impact ratio. Voting is low impact, but it’s safe and (for most people) accessible. It’s the bare minimum.
There’s a lot of strawman in this thread against the non-existent argument of voting and only voting. I’m with you on that one: that would be fucking stupid. But that’s not what I’m advocating for.
Trump already has the keys. That ship has sailed. If he has a third term it will be through extralegal measures, not the ballot box.
Correct. That’s what I’m bitching about.
Whether it would have been a “lesser” genocide is unfalsifiable. We’ll never really know. But I don’t have the faith in it that you have. I’m not sure what a more competent genocidal administration would have done.
Consider what many US Palestinians did: threaten to withhold their votes if Harris didn’t say there was at least some daylight between herself and Biden regarding Gazans. And she wouldn’t even do that much.
But that’s how you use the vote, if you use it at all. You use it as leverage. If the Democrats know you’ll “vote Blue no matter who” or “vote Blue no matter what,” then they’ll ignore you altogether, because you’re already in their pocket. You’ve made yourself irrelevant.
Correct. But I’m confident the Harris administration wouldn’t have taking the swan-dive that Trump’s did. Same with all the other evils he’s committed outside the scope of genocide: bad under Harris, worse under Trump. Given what we know about the two, that assumption seems pretty reasonable. If you disagree, well like you said, that comes to which candidate we have less faith in. For me, Trump is the obvious rock-bottom worst outcome, but I can’t compare to an administration that never happened, so speculate as you will.
Half correct. Withholding votes won’t get their attention - we’ve seen that play out again and again. Democrats would rather lose than change. If you want their attention and real change, you’ll need to do things other than vote.
If neither withholding nor not withholding will get their attention, then you’re making an even stronger case against voting’s worth than I am.
Can we please ban this genocide denier?
You genocide denying scum. The genocide was just as bad under Biden, who Harris promised to emulate. Your lie that there was some kind of “swandive” is genocide denying bullshit
Flagrantly false. Gaza has been leveled since Biden left. Not leveled vs leveled =/= just as bad.
Gaza was leveled while Biden was in office you genocide denying scum
Mate, everyone told you people that Democrats would lose if they didn’t change tact, but you refused. You were the ones who eagerly handed Trump the keys to the country!
No, you were just a genocide denier when it was your team doing it. It took Trump winning for you to actually admit the extent of the genocide.
Mate, I was one of the people saying Democrats would lose if they didn’t change tact. But I still advocated against Trump. The Democrats handed the election to him on a silver platter. Fucking twice. But I still advocated against Trump.
Also incorrect. I bit my tongue during the election (did I mention the bit about advocating against Trump?) but was and remain opposed to genocide regardless of who’s in power.
Oh, I thought leftists on Lemmy handed him the election. And hear you are now, doing the thing that BlueMAGA keeps telling me made Trump win.
100% correct. You’re up and down this thread making the false claim that Democrats were less supportive of the Palestinian genocide.
Except for the part where you will engage in genocide minimisation to defend the Democrats.