FoundFootFootage78

The Democrats make it pretty clear that they do not care about our votes, or about beating Republicans. We have to organize outside of the Democratic party infrastructure, while reluctantly voting for the lesser of two evils.

And they’ll suddenly throw away that excuse that they’ve relied on for decades, just to spite the world’s developing countries by cutting USAID funding a few months sooner?

The Democrats famously adhere to American norms. Do you think they’d suddenly start bypassing congress and appoint a special government employee to go around causing chaos? They’re entire identity is “we’d love to, but we can’t because of congress”.

Why? Why do you say this? You keep getting trapped in this idea of the DNC being “more moral” in actions, despite their actions still propping up imperialism and protecting it.

I literally just explained.

The Democrats would’ve, at a bare minimum, left USAID slower. They wouldn’t have sent Musk in to immediately halt payments, they would’ve just removed the funding from the next congressional budget. Aid organisations would’ve had warning and people wouldn’t have been suddenly cut off from their HIV medication.

Leaving the WHO is not something even the rich are really calling for. It’s a conspiracy theorist thing that Trump is pushing on a personal level. Nobody in the imperial periphery is really following him either.

I’m not going to bother responding to the last part. Unless it’s easier to organize under the GOP, it’s irrelevant. Hell the communist revolution is besides my point entirely. All I’ve been trying to say is that more people die when a Republican president is elected, and even if that might usher in a communist revolution you’d still be gambling with lives by choosing that.

Cutting USAID killed hundreds of thousands of people. How many the Democrats would’ve killed is almost definitely less, although how much less is up for debate. Maybe the wouldn’t have cut USAID, maybe they would’ve just reduced it, maybe they would’ve cut it completely but done so more gradually.

They certainly wouldn’t have left the WHO. Staying in the WHO is just good business sense, aside from for the private hospitals but the impacts of a highly lethal global pandemic on stability and on the safety of the rich isn’t worth it.

And people will have more space to organize when under a predictably evil government than a chaotic one. Unless you’re relying on the death and destruction for a recruitment drive.

“Some of you may die, but it’s a price I am willing to pay for the collapse of the American empire” - Lord Farquaad (Shrek)

Even if the Democrats would’ve cut it USAID, they would’ve been far less sudden about it. According to people who work in humanitarian aid, the suddenness of Trump’s cuts to USAID got a lot of people killed in the developing world.

Even if the DNC haven’t meaningfully countered climate change, they haven’t done nothing either. They also likely wouldn’t have abolished USAID which, while it existed for propaganda purposes, did save lives.

It’s not a solution, but as you said it’s easier. We can and should do both. Even if voting for the Democrats saves one life from climate change or ICE, it’s worth doing.

I stopped reading them after the first 20 or so.

I’m not American in the first place.

“Voting against the Nazi’s didn’t work for Germans, so let’s just try letting the Nazi’s win from the get-go”

It looks like Hitler’s rise to power was the result of Germany’s proportional representation political system and the inability to form government. He was able to keep forcing elections until he won.

So the analogy is not appropriate.

Took me a while to get wikipedia to tell me the voting system.

Trump is an exception to the Republican rule, not for his incompetence but for his unpredictability.

And the domestic policy of the Republicans effects the rest of the world too. Climate change is a big one, Trump would never pass the “inflation reduction act” and as much as that bill had flaws it did contribute to renewable energy in the United States. Trump also cut USAID and while that funding probably wouldn’t come back under the Democrats, it is yet another example of how non-Americans were hurt by his actions.

We need to effect what we can control first and foremost. Harm minimization and resistance, it’s not one or the other and either way it’s not fascism to acknowledge that there is a path towards harm minimization.

I adopt the terminology of the person I’m replying to in order to avoid a debate on semantics. Clearly you’re interested in debating semantics at any cost.

If you think that’s what I’ve been doing, you need better reading comprehension.

I’d say Trump isn’t much better, but the Gaza Peace Plan is an improvement over the status quo from before. But the parallels between Trump and Hitler are far stronger than between Biden and Hitler, especially on domestic policy.

I’m not faulting people for not voting in 2024, Trump was more of a wildcard than Biden. Voting Biden in guaranteed a continued genocide but nobody knew what Trump would do.

Trump is an exception to the Republican rule, his foreign policy is very idiosyncratic and his domestic policy is more mask-off (metaphorically, not literally). The Republican party behind him is more uniform in their unconditional support for Israel. The Democrat party is fractured on that front and broadly (though not unanimously) united against the most murderous of Trump’s domestic policies.

Maybe abstaining or voting third-party will incite a communist revolution, I don’t know, but right now more people are dying than would under a Democrat senate majority and I don’t see them being able to make things worse in Gaza (and they’re not really ideologically pro-genocide, they just don’t care as long as they have access to Israeli military bases).

If he had a chance of winning, yes.