2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
i know right, thank you and you're welcome
and btw consistently voting "lesser evil" is exactly how you get to, oh idk, say doing a genocide, and then yelling that it's a moral imperative to vote in support of it. you just get ..... well, evil.
Perhaps you could give some examples of what policies and people you do support on this issue, as it seems a little easy to just go #bothsidesbad and ride the moral high ground into the sunset. I'm not really too interested in merely what you want to achieve, I'm more interested in what you think would achieve it.
Of course, professing support for something is tougher than criticizing something. The latter only puts the views of others on the line, while the former exposes yourself to criticism.
and btw consistently voting "lesser evil" is exactly how you get to, oh idk, say doing a genocide, and then yelling that it's a moral imperative to vote in support of it. you just get ..... well, evil.
Did you think your own view was so dumb that no other progressive would hold it? That's the only good faith reason you would need a citation.
first and foremost - I'm disgusted with the current USA administration selling bombs to Israel. Israel is and has always been capable of taking out Hamas without intentionally bombing Palestinian citizens and foreign aid workers.
Having said that, I'm not sure why any yeah bro give me a high five "pwned the libs" posters think things are going to improve if the MAGAs get into office. This is straight from JD Vance:
Where does Vance stand on Israel and Gaza?
Vance’s foreign policy can be surmised as “America first with an Israel exception”. When Hamas carried out its attack on October 7 last year, Vance pinned blame on the Biden administration for enabling the Palestinian group.
“Americans must face a stark truth: our tax dollars funded this”, he said, hours after the attack, according to media reports.
VanceÂ’s staunch support for a strong US-Israel relationship rests on his view that the country is essential to protecting US interests in the Middle East, according to Seth Eisenberg, CEO of PAIRS Foundation, a US-based organisation.
“Vance supports continued military aid to Israel, emphasising that a secure Israel contributes to regional stability and aligns with American strategic interests. He advocates for close diplomatic and defence cooperation, recognising Israel’s role as a democracy in a volatile region,” Eisenberg told Al Jazeera.
Indeed, Vance has rejected any limits on aid to Israel.
Vance has credited his Christian beliefs for his all-encompassing support for Israel.
Nixon was pretty tame compared to Bush and Trump.
I read "Being Nixon" by Evan Thomas a few years ago and just thumbed through the book again for this post. Tell me if any of these things sound or look familiar in Democratic Party politics today:
1.) Surged in Vietnam before implementing a ceasefire. More than what Obama did to end Afghanistan.
2.) Improved relations with China. Sure, for leverage against the USSR, but still.
3.) Met with Brezhnev in '73 and signed SALT I and the Anti-Ballistic Missle Treaty
4.) Upon establishing relations with Egypt (mostly to remove Soviet influence), threatened to withhold aid to Israel after the Yom Kippur War if they didn't negotiate a peace deal with Egypt and Palestinians.
5.) Reacted to high inflation by giving grants to states.
6.) Imposed price-fixing laws after Congress granted him the right to do so.
7.) Created Earth Day upon creating the EPA.
8.) Opposed busing, but enforced mass desegregation of schools. He didn't do enough, sure, but he could've turned a blind eye.
9.) Endorsed the Equal Rights Amendment.
10.) Revised Executive Order 11246 to desegregate government workplaces.
11.) Cooperated with the Soviet space program with a five-year joint program.
12.) Proposed a health insurance mandate for employers in the private sector.
13.) Supported replacing Medicaid with state-run single-payer systems.
14.) Declared the war on drugs, sure, but boosted funding for rehab facilities.
15.) Tapped Rehnquist for the SCOTUS, sure, but also swing voter Lewis Powell and relatively liberal Harry Blackmun.
And consistently not voting will get you a society where you no longer have to worry about voting at all.
Depends. Maybe not being in prison for your political beliefs is overrated too. You guys seem to idolise countries that didn't have elections and locked up or executed dissidents, so I guess that's all fine and dandy for you, but you probably haven't considered that you won't always be on the "right" side of those in power if and when that happens.
People have not been voting for a very long time. The Reagan/Bush years had dome of the lowest turnout in history. We're basically in the long run from that election as most people that voted for Reagan in 80 are dead. And nobody ever talks about the impact that those people who sat out in 80 are having today. Why would sitting out now be any different in 2060?
Exactly .
it might sound crazy but I think victor is even more on the left then luciom on the right because luciom clearly see a distinction between democrats and republicans …
Luciom would never vote for democrats .
I don't think it's about being further away from centre. While I disagree with many of Luciom's positions, he's clearly well read, well informed, and is in possession of sufficient mental horsepower to formulate a cogent world view. Victor is... not. Unless "everyone bad, everything bad, communists good" passes for a cogent world view, I suppose.
Perhaps you could give some examples of what policies and people you do support on this issue, as it seems a little easy to just go #bothsidesbad and ride the moral high ground into the sunset.
on the issue of genocide!? yeah i think it's pretty easy to say that both sides are bad for supporting it
as for how i'd solve the whole peace in the middle east issue, who cares, i don't have that power, so i'm not gonna do a book report on the subject just to make you happy. a lot of smarter people than i have looked into it over the years, feel free to google around for that if you actually care about anything other than wasting my time.
Did you think your own view was so dumb that no other progressive would hold it? That's the only good faith reason you would need a citation.
my view on whether accelerationism was a widely held opinion on the left in 2016? yeah, i don't think it was. i don't remember hearing much of that, and to that point there's the fact that a higher % of bernie supporters voted for hillary than hillary supporters voted for obama in 2008. the idea that accelerationism was some widespread thing on the left really seems like an anecdotal lib grudge thing on your part. like you saw brie suggest it once and its lived rent-free in your head ever since. pretty funny actually
were hillary supporters accelerationists, or just racists?
People have not been voting for a very long time. The Reagan/Bush years had dome of the lowest turnout in history. We're basically in the long run from that election as most people that voted for Reagan in 80 are dead. And nobody ever talks about the impact that those people who sat out in 80 are having today. Why would sitting out now be any different in 2060?
I was taking his suggestion to its logical conclusion - i.e. literally nobody votes (since obviously, no individual person is going to ever be in 100% agreement with the policy platform proposed by any party other than maybe the guy who proposed it), or say, fewer than 5% of eligible voters or something, if we want to put some number on it. Tbh I have no idea what exactly would happen in that scenario, but I suspect that some enterprising authoritarian would find a way to take advantage of the situation to get into and stay in power.
on the issue of genocide!? yeah i think it's pretty easy to say that both sides are bad for supporting it
as for how i'd solve the whole peace in the middle east issue, who cares, i don't have that power, so i'm not gonna do a book report on the subject just to make you happy. a lot of smarter people than i have looked into it over the years, feel free to google around for that if you actually care about anything other than wasting my time.
This is gold. Basically the Trump & Kushner "One state, two state, three state, who cares, we'll have it fixed by lunch" solution, then. Boy, you guys sure do have a lot in common with the MAGAs, don't you?
on the issue of genocide!? yeah i think it's pretty easy to say that both sides are bad for supporting it
as for how i'd solve the whole peace in the middle east issue, who cares, i don't have that power, so i'm not gonna do a book report on the subject just to make you happy. a lot of smarter people than i have looked into it over the years, feel free to google around for that if you actually care about anything other than wasting my time.
"I don't know a solution but genocide isn't it" is a totally fine response by an American citizen funding the genocide.
Sigh... you added widely held which nobody said. You claimed to need a citation for anybody saying it.
you said it, several times:
It was kind of funny in 2016 when online progressives were saying Trump beating Clinton was a good thing because democrats would have to move left.
Bros here were saying we’re better off with Trump because it would hasten the collapse and leftist revolution.
just stop bro jfc
"I don't know a solution but genocide isn't it" is a totally fine response by an American citizen funding the genocide.
yeah, and especially on a ****ing message board where literally nobody is gonna care about how any poster's peace plan lmao
that's what those words mean man
It's...not at all what those words mean.
1) this just uses the plural of the word "progressive." That could mean as little as 2. Not "widely"
2) same for this one with "bros."
3) we've added many "here," so at least I can see why you could be confused, but "many" is still not synonymous with "widely." For example, "many" could mean, 12, which would not mean "widely" in any group larger than, say 24, certainly.
ok, what do they mean? what was he saying?
lol
and btw consistently voting "lesser evil" is exactly how you get to, oh idk, say doing a genocide, and then yelling that it's a moral imperative to vote in support of it. you just get ..... well, evil.
Hum well not voting at all would not eradicate evil either so what your point ?
Actually you might allowed the bigger evil to be voted in …
How great that is .
Let’s say there are two candidates. One promises to kill 1 million random people. The other promises to kill 10 million people. I say it would be a moral imperative to vote for the one that will kill 1 million.
Everything else is just talking about what the threshold is. Saying you would never vote for the lesser evil though? Just seems like a weird voting strategy. I would actually respect “voting statistically doesn’t matter” people over “I will never vote lesser evil” people.
Let’s say there are two candidates. One promises to kill 1 million random people. The other promises to kill 10 million people. I say it would be a moral imperative to vote for the one that will kill 1 million.
Everything else is just talking about what the threshold is. Saying you would never vote for the lesser evil though? Just seems like a weird voting strategy. I would actually respect “voting statistically doesn’t matter” people over “
Utilitarianism is so evil that you should choose the opposite actually.
But anyway voting isn't a one time game so considerations are different.
You aren't playing the trolley game, you can actually they to put the trolley maker out of business
