713
Trump Is Reportedly Sending Israel $2.8 Billion in Bombs. You're Paying for Them (www.rollingstone.com)
submitted 3 weeks ago by to c/politics@lemmy.world
250 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

paywall removed: https://archive.ph/lPnUo

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (13 children)

I don't think anyone is listening to your protest vote. Similar to how companies have captured their markets so thoroughly that they can enshittify everything and know the demand will remain, the parties here have captured their voters. I don't think the marginal voters are the ones that really matter - I think it's the ones who aren't voting.

I'm going to step back a bit. Your vote for Claudia is fine. You seem to be engaged. My original point waaaay back at the top was (paraphrased) 'We've got to stop talking about this like it's futile and it doesn't matter who is elected'. We need more people willing to spend the energy to be part of the system, and generate the options, instead of letting the system tell them what the options are.

I think 'both sides' kinds of comments reduce engagement and convert into more non-voters. I want to add engagement so that people not only vote in the presidential election, but also in mid terms, and in primaries, and in municipal elections, and get into the local politics that will change the parties from the bottom up.

Right now the Democrats are effectively just as captured by money as the Republicans, and the money is evil. Getting more normal people to engage will eventually put normal people in the positions to make decisions instead of the money. There's inertia there that we need to overcome and I don't think we'll do it by telling people both sides are the same. The spirit of Democracy is engagement and anything aiming to reduce engagement is antithetical to Democracy.

All that - but in the meantime, I vote for the least bad option that I think has a chance of winning and that will likely be the democratic nominee and not a third party. yet. I support, nationally, candidates that support ranked choice or other non-binary voting systems.

I think this is specifically where we are at odds. "the former precludes the latter" is just wrong. I can vote in the system I have while trying to change the system from within. My engagement didn't end at the ballot box.

I've described my plans to fix the problem in a few ways, but you haven't told me how you're trying to solve it. 'Get out or get guns' is a reaction, not a plan.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago (12 children)

    I don't think anyone is listening to your protest vote

    Schroedengir's leftist - apparently we spoil ever election by not giving the centrist Dems our votes that were promised to them 3,000 years ago. But we're simultaneously not important enough to actually try to win votes from.

    You can support whatever you like - but unless you make your vote conditional upon it, the party isn't going to listen to you. Why should it? You're giving them everything you have already - and so they can ignore you to court the (mythical) moderate Republican voter instead.

    'Get out or get guns' is a reaction, not a plan.

    No, it's literally a plan, just one you don't like.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago (11 children)

    I've tried to explain my rationale and get yours. I've asked for your plans, solutions, goals. All I get are snippets that you can take and respond to with a quip.

    'Get out or get guns" is not a plan I like. I don't think it will work. When the US implodes because every sane person fled, the world will not be better.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago (10 children)

    'Get out or get guns" is not a plan I like

    Yes, we've established that. So, since you don't like that, your plan is to keep trying the same "vote for lesser evil" plan that's been failing for decades.

    In the face of an dying empire (dying much faster now due to the Iran War), climate change, and the rest.

    In my opinion . . .

    When the US implodes because every sane person fled, the world will not be better.

    Meh, as we've seen for a while, the US is a dangerous force against peace. So maybe the chaos being directed inwards instead of outwards for once will be better for the rest of us.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago (9 children)

    Neat. Your plan? Run from the responsibility vs violence? Still haven't heard it beyond those two options. "Get out or get guns" is defeatist and surrenders the initiative to the chaos.

    The US is a dangerous force against peace

    When I was growing up, Russia was the global boogie man. I'd like to prevent the US from being the next one. Am I making things worse by trying to reverse our destruction? I don't think I am.

    Putting words in your mouth, you're saying "it's too late" and I should just run? What happens when the US is 100% "republican"? I don't think that will help on the global stage and I think it will be worse for everyone when things fail here, so I'm trying to prevent that. I think we get an imperialist nation with crumbling infrastructure that needs to take what it can't produce and will do so with force. We're like mostly there - see Iran.

    I guess one last try. Attack my position again without a solution and I'll give up.

    With some detail, and not in a one-liner, how do we make this better?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago (8 children)

    When I was growing up, Russia was the global boogie man

    According to who? Americans?

    The Soviets had lots of things bad with them. That said, the US was killing millions in Vietnam and Latin America. It just doesn't compare.

    What happens when the US is 100% "republican"?

    The same as now? The exact problem is your supposed "lesser evil" strategy has wound up with them controlling all parts of the US government.

    We're like mostly there

    Yes, you are.

    how do we make this better

    You overthrow your government and seize the funds of the rich? At this point, how do you actually think this gets better absent that? You've got wealth inequality worse than any other society ever measured, you're the current leading cause of climate change per capita (maybe 2nd to Canada), you're in so many wars I doubt you can even name every country you've bombed this year . . . .and it's about to get far, far worse.

    if you want my recommendation for what to do personally - yes, get armed, and get ready. Also create dual power systems. Organize, but not just in the failed political realm of the Democratic party. As you've seen, they will not do anything even if they have power.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (7 children)

    You overthrow your government and seize the funds of the rich? At this point, how do you actually think this gets better absent that

    I think I'm done. It's been an interesting and introspective week. And for that, I thank you.

    Your 'solution' is violence - and I get that. There's a bunch of people with your opinion. I don't have it. I think if we have to get to 'overthrow', then we make things really bad for a long time for a lot of people; whereas we can use the system to put better people in the places of power and make things more better-er in a shorter timeframe. It might also make things bad for different people for longer time. I can't tell from where I sit. I happen to be one dude in a country of 350 million.

    In all honesty, I've got a foot in both sides. When shit goes down, I'm in; but I'm not going to start it. I'll leave that up to people braver than me. I will block you if you fight me on this stance.

    You imply I'm stopping at the 'lesser evil' strategy and I can't stress enough how much that's a stepping stone and not, or even a significant part of, my whole solution or even what I advocate for (My old instance is shutting down, you can see my older comments as korazail@lemmy.myserv.one and there are many versions of 'join your local org'). I vote for lesser evil right now while actively trying to make better options later so I don't have to and encouraging others to be part of the process.

    I think we differ on whether that could actually work; which is a whole conversation on it's own since, if it can't, can democracy work at all? Do we all just shoot each other? And which side does that best serve?

    My actually trying to make things better is done by being engaged with the processes that make decisions and tell others they can be engaged too. Back to the original original point. The 'both sides' one-liners reduce engagement. We should stop making them.

    Don't pick a phrase from above to reply to. Respond to this: Should the average person attempt to be more or less engaged with their political systems?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (6 children)

    and I can't stress enough how much that's a stepping stone and not, or even a significant part of, my whole solution or even what I advocate for

    It will NEVER progress is exactly my point. You've chosen to always move to the right. The logic of why is not hard to understand.

    Should the average person attempt to be more or less engaged with their political systems?

    Of course. And that engagement should, in the US, primarily take the form of challenging the Democratic Party leadership as effectively as possible. They're the largest obstacle to the left currently.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago* (5 children)

    primarily take the form of challenging the Democratic Party leadership as effectively as possible

    What do you think I've been trying to say?

    I'm one dude. My next more effective way of challenging the leadership will get me locked up and then I can't challenge it again for like 10-20 years.

    And you're still sidestepping the point I was trying to make that was: engagement is helpful and discouraging it is not helpful.

    Edit: and just to clarify, "both sides" kinds of comments are discouraging. -- we can continue to argue about how to engage forever, I think, but this whole thread started with 'stop saying both sides'.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (4 children)

    This is nonsense. You're claiming that saying, accurately, that Democrats support almost all the same evil positions Republicans do is "discouraging"?

    Cool. Vote out the party leadership then.

    You seem, like most Democratic loyalists, to think that if you wish really hard, THIS time your lesser evil strategy is going to work. Once again, you've been trying it for decades, and THIS is where it has brought you to. The GOP firmly in control of the government, while you continue to lose to an insane game show host.

    I've told you how you can STOP doing that - and it STARTS with cleaning out the Democratic Party, and you ONLY do that by abandoning your lesser evil nonsense.

    We're done here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    Cool. Vote out the party leadership then.

    That's literally what I'm trying to do. And I need help. We need more people in the process so that the leadership can be voted out if it doesn't reflect us. The 'both sides' comments discourage others from getting involved. That's what I pushed back on way back at the top of this thread.

    What's the other method, if not civic engagement? You seem to be hung up on the first half of my personal plan of less bad now while making more better later. I get that you think both sides are bad; but I think one side is less bad in general, and I see that making that party better requires more people to be part of it.

    You seem to have given up on the idea it can be better. I haven't. You said at the top that you had projects in your community that you were working on. Do they promote civic engagement, or are they palliative care for a terminal patient?

    Given some of your phrasing, I don't even think you are in the US, which is fine, but means we are talking more about the mechanics of politics than the details of US politics (though I get that they effect you; which is why the 'get out' part of your plan doesn't work in my opinion).

    My plan:

    1. Be involved in local decisions. Join my precinct and either go or send people I trust to the district meetings. Support and vote for local candidates like mayor and city council, sheriff, dog catcher.
    2. Encourage others online to do the same and push back when people discourage engagement. <-- we are here
    3. (this one would be neat) Mold my city/county/state into a beacon of hope, where the government works for the people and is no longer captured by self-interest. Mamdani in New York is a pretty good example of what I mean, but that requires not just support in the populace, but also support in the rest of the government to allow them to function.
    4. Get enough people in the districts to send people to the states to send people to the nation to elect people who aren't millionaires to positions of power in the party.
    5. Elect House, Senate and Presidents that are not millionaires or ancient and have the values of the people again.

    You seem to think I'm stuck at #2 forever. Which is discouraging. Which is why I keep pushing back.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    That's literally what I'm trying to do.

    Aren't you literally voting for them in the general, with your lesser evil strategy?

    You're conflating your strategy with civic engagement, as if that begins and ends with getting the vote out for Kamala.

    You seem to have given up on the idea it can be better.

    Not at all. I spend much of my time working on developing community projects for food, sharing, and the like - including software to enable those to work together (https://neighborsgoods.com/).

    I don't think things will get better in the US with your strategy - and as I've stated multiple times now, it's because I've been a part of that too many times. It is self-contradictory. We see that even here, where you're telling me you're voting them out by voting for them.

    Please consider what you're doing, and spend your efforts in a more productive way.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 child)

    as if that begins and ends with getting the vote out for Kamala.

    But that is explicitly not what I'm advocating for. I have described multiple times that it doesn't stop there. I want people to be *engaged* and I think that 'both sides'-isms make people depressed and give up; and I think more people engaged can solve the issues we face. I also fear that we might have passed the point where it can be fixed, but as this thread proved, I'm a bit stubborn.

    spend your efforts in a more productive way.

    I think the best way to spend my time is encouraging people to be visibly for something. Protest, Canvass, better yet, run for an office you think isn't well served (I'm doing some of those things while I think up these responses! Multitasking!). Maga was pretty good at that. I can't even see a red hat anymore without associating and there are several sportsball teams with a red primary color that probably don't like that now. I'll even posit that normal people engaging in the republican spaces is good too. I think both parties have been compromised by wealth and they would serve us instead if they had more people in them in general. At least on the democratic side, the people present set the rules so more of us means we can change the rules to serve us.

    Earlier today/yesterday:

    The GOP firmly in control of the government

    I get where you're coming from. But I think we have a disagreement here. Sure the "GOP" is in control, but what's really happened - in my opinion - is that *money* is in control.

    and Dude. Dude.. Dude...

    The more of us that are not money that are involved in the process, the more control WE get. Telling people it doesn't matter discourages involvement, and involvement is how I think things get better.

    That's my point.

    Your website seems neat. I'm on BuyNothing and they have a similar concept - with yours being more service based rather than effectively just recycling. I can't quite tell, since I can't sign up without sending email. I'd recommend some sort of 'find communities near you' that you can at least view without signing in; you might get more people who have a need connected with someone. But I'm also 100% behind taking people with a skill who have time and want to help and matching them with people that need help.

    Edit: My Lemmy instance was down for a day and didn't post this until recently. Hence the weird timestamps.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago

    Familiar with BuyNothing - actually one of the future projects the platform has is to make adapters to treat BuyNothing groups as another library for federation.

    Because, when you think about it, a gift is just a loan that doesn't expire, so it fits in nicely.

    We will have finders for things, we're still on our first instance for development is why.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent