You're viewing part of a thread.
Say I'm a single-issue voter for nuclear disarmament, which party represents my interest?
Clearly the Democrats (specifically progressives) align most closely with what you want.
Cool story, bro.
Ok genius, first sentence. Who was on board from the getgo to stop the rollback?
Republicans. SOME Democrats join them, unlike ALL Republicans who are against nuclear rollback altogether.
Ergo, the Democrats most closely align with your goals.
Please inform me of the method by which one can vote for "SOME Democrats" without also implicitly consenting to be represented by the rest of the party.
And also, why you think your time is better spent trying to convince a hypothetical single-issue voter to capitulate than calling the Dems and demanding they do better.
You act like you have an alternative. Republicans are directly opposed to your pov, and Dems aren't perfect. Those are your choices.
Exactly. There is no alternative. This is a hostage situation.
And when the guy holding you hostage asks you to pick which of your kids he should murder first, the right move isn't to vote for the "lesser" evil, but to spit in his eye.
And by doing so you implicitly vote for the side that represents you the least.
Perhaps you should look up how first past the post works. Not voting IS voting, but not in a favorable way for yourself.
Neither party represents my interests and, as you've seen, the "lesser evil" argument doesn't motivate me in the slightest. If you want me to vote for Dems then you'll have to make them worth voting for and stop acting like they can coast to victory on fear of the Republicans alone.
I'm aware of FPTP and its mathematical implications, our country is designed to provide only the appearance of democracy while actually limiting choice to those candidates the parties deem inoffensive to their campaign financiers. And we're stuck with them unless you can convince the two-party state to abolish the leverage it has over third parties, so stop acting like they'll let you vote your way out of this situafion.
Real change would require a political revolution, and I've long since lost my faith that Americans would build something less fascist given the chance.
And there it is. The dumbest thing I'll read all day.
Let me know when the 2 party stranglehold allows you to vote it out. Until then you'll sit high atop your bullshit mountain preaching on the internet, whining on and on about how things should be.
Meanwhile, completely oblivious that you and people like you are exactly the reason why we don't have enough voting power to enact real change.
You don't even irritate me. I pity you.
Let me know when the 2 party stranglehold allows you to vote it out.
You're the one insisting I don't have a choice here. Why should anyone bother helping reinforce a system designed to disenfranchise them? To keep the "wrong people" from taking power, as if that wasn't already the case?
If that sounds like Accelerationism to you, then you're reading me correctly. Preservation of the intolerable status quo only delays and inflames the inevitable upheaval.
Meanwhile, completely oblivious that you and people like you are exactly the reason why we don't have enough voting power to enact real change.
Oblivious?
No, I'm counting on it. The Democrats won't change unless they have to, and people like me are the ones they need to change for. People like you, who "vote blue no matter who", can be safely ignored by party leadership since they know you'll vote for them anyway.