Anonymous yypotion 20h

now when the next presidential primaries come up we can try to get someone more progressive but if we don’t we have to be realistic about what the future of each candidate will look like and if one makes things only slightly better instead of incredibly worse then that’s the candidate to support

12

Anonymous #1 20h

ok what do you purpose

2

Anonymous yypotion 20h

cause as far as next democratic presidential nominee’s go the most popular candidates are establishment democrats so are you just not gonna do anything for that one

1

Anonymous yypotion 20h

I’m cynical about electoral politics in general, and material support for a genocide certainly doesn’t get me excited to vote for a candidate. Even if they promise to be nice to Americans. Both major parties represent the interests of their wealthy donors, not you and I

3

Anonymous #3 20h

Morons genuinely believed that it was good not to vote when the republican who targets more minority groups was on the ballot

1

Anonymous yypotion 20h

All the DNC has to do is listen to its voters, don’t run the same failed candidate twice, and not accept corporate bribes or Israeli blood money. The only reason the Dems are a failing party is because they still choose to listen to mega donors over the voters

2

Anonymous #2 20h

be cynical all you want but people still live here and the democrats aren’t the ones actively trying to turn the country into a christian nationalist ethnostate which harms everyone

6

Anonymous #4 20h

Also, harm reduction as a voting strategy is a REALLY shit strategy. It’s ironic that so many people who didn’t like Kamala were said to be “single issue voters” when she basically ran a single issue campaign. “Trump bad” is a correct statement, but it’s a shit foundation for your entire campaign.

0

Anonymous #1 20h

ok cool the establishment democrats aren’t going to push for an establishment candidate. and again it would be great to have a more progressive candidate running but if not what is the plan

0

Anonymous yypotion 19h

The plan is to spend any term with yet another bought out centrist dem pointing out exactly how that kind of candidate hurts the average American with the hope that the next cycle will be more representative of the average american

0

Anonymous #1 19h

We simply cannot afford to be unquestionably loyal to a political party anymore, it’s obviously ideal to keep the right out of power but continuing to put barely left-of-center candidates in charge is just empowering the right wing

5

Anonymous #1 19h

So your plan is to hope

5

Anonymous #3 19h

It’s not exactly like your average American has any real influence over electoral politics? At the current moment our options are to hope or end up in federal prison

0

Anonymous #3 19h

If the options are 99% Hitler or 98% Hitler then maybe you shouldn’t spend all your energy arguing for the smaller Hitler and try to build grassroots alternatives

-1

Anonymous #1 19h

i get not be unquestionably loyal but you’re not gonna have to right to vote the way things are going now and you’re not getting third party at the presidential level period

2

Anonymous #2 19h

This only works if I accept that the dems for the last 3 cycles have been hitlers lol What’s better in your mind, 1 minority group getting hurt or 12?

5

Anonymous #1 19h

That’s a crazy statement lmao

1

Anonymous #3 19h

I’ve heard this represented as “would you rather eat a plate of shit or a chicken breast?”. In that situation I think it would be reasonable to ask how the chicken is cooked, don’t you?

1

Anonymous #4 19h

What’s reasonable is presenting a valid equivalency

1

Anonymous #3 19h

What would you say is a valid equivalency then?

0

Anonymous #4 19h

ok let’s say the chicken is fried but you liked baked, are you gonna eat the plate of shit

5

Anonymous yypotion 19h

I’m still going to ask how the chicken is prepared and about the conditions of the kitchen considering that the other option is a plate of human feces.

1

Anonymous #4 19h

options are still plate of shit and plate of chicken

1

Anonymous yypotion 19h

Are they prepared in the same place? Is the chicken contaminated? Is the chicken even fully cooked?

1

Anonymous #4 19h

Would you rather be forced to feed a starving family literal shit which will result in plenty of illnesses, or undercooked meat

1

Anonymous #5 18h

Reducing harm means people still might get hurt. The idea that it’s better to vote for nobody when the republicans were campaigning on the genocide AND removing rights of other minorities is moronic

2

Anonymous #3 18h

it is moronic to act as if genocide is not a line that should not be crossed. again, as I originally stated in the cited picture, “our individual safety and security here at home should not be used as a bargaining chip to further attacks on another”.

1

Anonymous #5 18h

It wasn’t used as a bargaining chip. Mexicans started getting targeted by ICE. Trans people started facing civil rights violations from the federal government, the DOJ stopped de-segregation efforts. Instead of burning 1 group, not voting burned them all

3

Anonymous #3 18h

and I never said harm reduction = people not getting hurt; I said harm reduction does not entail doing so at the cost of causing harm to others. That means *achieving harm reduction by redirecting harm onto others, or reinforcing harm being committed towards others*

3

Anonymous #5 18h

You’re not the one directing the harm. The choices are already set. It’s either one group gets hurt or multiple.

4

Anonymous #3 18h

Just one more marginalized group under the bus bro please just one more and we’ll beat the republicans this time trust

-1

Anonymous #3 18h

I am trans. don’t start in with me about the attacks on my own community. I know. again, our lives as Americans does not outweigh the lives of others, and our safety is not a bargaining chip to be used as a means to further an ongoing genocide. if you dislike this rhetoric, maybe you can comprehend why we need a different candidate aside from institutional democrats in favor of genocide.

3

Comment Deleted

0

Anonymous #4 18h

“Yeah bro let’s just let the pro ICE party take power, not engaging is how we help them!”

1

Anonymous #4 18h

Which would you rather?

1

Anonymous #3 18h

The democrats are pro ICE the fuck are you talking about

3

Anonymous #3 18h

I prefer feeding people food.

1

it is inherently a moral choice, regardless of whether you accept that or not. don’t act as if the Dems aren’t in favor of this ethnic cleansing as well, the majority of institutional Dems were talking about overhauling or retraining ICE officers instead of fully abolishing the department. I refuse to provide my vote to any candidate who cannot ensure that they will fight against an ongoing genocide, and that goes for the growing genocide toward our community, and the ethnic cleansing towards

1

Anonymous #5 18h

the immigrant population. it’s not a “pick one” option, every single bar needs to be passed, otherwise it is not enough. a candidate saying “oh I’ll protect trans people and immigrants” (even though they don’t) while turning around and arming an active genocide, is fucking meaningless. and the worst part is that they barely do shit to protect us.

4

Anonymous #5 18h

It’s moral to choose to let the party that targets more minorities, take control. Got it.

0

Anonymous #5 18h

like they can say whatever the fuck they want, their actions speak far louder than any empty words they offer during they bullshit campaigns. how the fuck have most Americans become this gullible?

3

Anonymous #5 18h

That’s funny, I don’t remember Harris running on rounding up immigrants and mexicans like cattle.

2

Anonymous #5 18h

Not engaging with the vote is an option already given to americans. You not engaging only serves to help the party with the worst intentions to the largest amount of vulnerable groups

2

Anonymous #3 18h

like I said, gullible as fuck. that responsibility lies with the democrats for following THE SAME TACTIC THAT LOST THEM THE LAST ELECTION (what should’ve been the easiest election they’ve ever had, I might add) this shit is so unserious, the two-party system has rotted the fuck out of everyone’s brains, and it’s just depressing as fuck.

0

Anonymous #5 18h

Yes it does, but it’s also on you to acknowledge that you’re choosing not to help more groups because you’re prioritizing one.

6

Anonymous #3 18h

At this point in the conversation it seems fair to say that you think that people have some sort of moral obligation to vote for a candidate, rather than the candidate’s entire job being to convince people to vote for them. Correct?

1

Anonymous #4 18h

So you’d prefer the less worse option then?

1

Anonymous #4 18h

No, that’s not fair to say lol

3

Anonymous #3 18h

Undercooked meat is not food.

3

Anonymous #3 18h

and yall wonder why we say “scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds”? this shit is fucking crazy.

1

Anonymous #3 18h

How is it not fair?

2

Anonymous #5 18h

You’re acting like I’m pro democrat lol. I just don’t think it’s right to force more than one group to suffer because one group is and will.

1

Anonymous #4 18h

Out of the two, which would you choose.

1

Anonymous #3 18h

I’m going to choose to build my own kitchen where we cook the food properly and don’t serve shit.

1

Anonymous #4 18h

I think people need to recognize harm reduction, while also pushing for a change. It’s not unreasonable to want a good candidate. It’s completely unreasonable to abandon minority groups because the less bad candidate isn’t less bad enough

4

Anonymous #4 18h

So you won’t engage with the hypothetical. Okay lmao, well once you can, we’ll continue

1

Anonymous #3 18h

Except this isn’t harm reduction. “Vote for me, I’ll only kneecap you and that guy will shoot you” isn’t a good electoral strategy nor is it harm reduction.

2

Anonymous #4 18h

We can’t engage if you’re not going to engage with any hypothetical I give you

3

Anonymous #3 18h

I have engaged with your hypothetical, you just refuse to acknowledge that “choosing between the awful dogshit party and the slightly less awful dogshit party” is 1, not harm reduction, and 2, is not the only valid option.

8

Anonymous #4 18h

I’ll rephrase my hypothetical that way you can have the chance to make an argument. If you don’t choose one of the food options, everyone will be given shit. Knowing that, if you were presented with giving people undercooked meat or actual illness causing shit. Which would you choose?

1

Anonymous #4 18h

The fact that you’re qualifying that it’s less awful is quite literally asking harm reduction lol

1

Anonymous #3 18h

“Harm reduction” still actively causing harm lol

1

Anonymous #3 18h

dude genuinely fuck your hypotheticals lmao. you’re over here confusing self-preservation as being synonymous with harm-reduction as you sit there relentlessly running propaganda in favor of people guilty of aiding and abetting an ongoing genocide. it’s genocide sympathy at its finest, rooted in self preservation. “no we can’t address this genocide right now because my own life would become at risk as well” its fucking sociopathic, and heartless; AND AGAIN, the Dems barely so shit to protect

1

Anonymous #2 18h

Harm reduction doesn’t mean zero harm

1

Anonymous #3 18h

Harm reduction is building community and structures to ensure that people, as the name implies, will not be harmed. “I hate you slightly less than that guy and will not defend you” is not a valid response to “I hate you and hope you die”

3

Anonymous #5 18h

our community, and they’re entirely in favor of ICE and it’s ethnic cleansing, only a handful of elected Dems are willing to entertain the idea of abolition. this is psychotic, and I’m done.

5

Anonymous #5 18h

I gain nothing by voting against the party that runs on trying to ban muslims from public life. Thats not self preservation. Thats harm reduction.

1

Anonymous #5 18h

You choose to let every minority group targeted by the trump admin burn. That’s sociopathic lol.

1

Anonymous #4 17h

Even if your statement about Kamala was true (it’s not), doing nothing would have been better than the Trump admin. Americans have suffered because of the Trump admin, including those affected by ICE, cuts to government spending, the increasing distrust in institutions, infringements on the press. The democrats would not have done any of those material harms

8