You're viewing part of a thread.
There are differences, but conditions will continue to decline regardless of who gets elected.
Biden managed to push Russia and China together while increasing military spending to an all time high. The old Sino-Soviet split was the greatest geopolitical blessing the US ever got, then the US defeated the USSR and installed a new government just how they liked, and yet, now the geopolitical situation is worse than ever. If I were an accelerationist, I'd be completely satisfied with Biden and happy to support his successor. Liberal idealists have absolutely no restraint or concern about what is and isn't viable, as long as they believe they're in the right they'll stretch us too thin and hasten collapse.
On the other hand, Trump also played a role in pushing China and Russia together, plus he prolonged the war in Afghanistan, further draining blood and treasure (while Biden bears some responsibility for supporting it, I also give him credit for ending it, no matter how much liberals criticize him for it). He completely botched the handling of the pandemic while undermining public trust in institutions to cover his own ass for selling off emergency supplies for quick cash.
It's legitimately a tough choice from an accelerationist perspective. Either would be fine. But I'm not an accelerationist. I want to actually address the conditions that created Trump in the first place, and to focus on addressing the myriad of domestic crises that are destabilizing the country. Only third party candidates are interested in doing that. The last three elections have been between Trump and the people who created the conditions for Trump. If we just get more of the same, then continued decline is inevitable.
Accelerationism is stupid, because it's far more likely that the US is going to go haywire and start nuking everyone or starting major wars if shit starts to hit the fan. Both parties want to rile people up to hate other countries in order to justify military spending, which they profit greatly off of, and while they don't actually want a hot war, there's always a risk of someone who believes their own propaganda getting into a position they shouldn't. The situation is a powder keg and will keep getting worse no matter who wins.
You: both sides are the same from a leftist point of view.
Me: obviously not.
Meanwhile trump:
I don’t think [immigrants] are the problem in terms of election day,” Trump told Bartiromo. “I think the bigger problem are the people from within, we have some very bad people, sick people, radical left lunatics.”
“And it should be easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military,” he said.
Trump announces that it's a good idea to shoot down leftists and you're still struggling to see any difference between him and Harris?!?!
Did you read the first three words of my comment?
Yes, but your overall message is still both sides, and you've given no indication that you might be prepared to vote democratic to avert the oncoming fascist takeover of America.
What effect do you think sending the military after people who disagree with Trump will have on the Overton window?
Of course I'm not going to vote democrat, that's not the same as saying that both sides are the same. There are differences, but that's not the question, the question is whether either of them is acceptable, to which my answer is no.
So we're back to you agreeing with the the guy proposing that leftists be shot in the street if he becomes president that leftists should abstain from choosing the president.
I can't even
I've explained my reasoning in the other thread that we're talking in. I believe that voting third party is the most effective way for leftists to exert influence to get the kinds of policies we need. If someone on the right agrees with me for completely opposite reasons, that's not really relevant, I'm not going to abandon my reasoned positions just because someone shitty agrees with me. I could just as easily say, "So you agree with Dick Cheney on who should be the next president. I can't even." That's not really a rational line of argument.
You don't think shooting leftists is worth avoiding at all?
The only way to prevent leftists getting shot is to address the root issues that gave rise to Trump. Yes, it's worth avoiding that, which is why I want to. Is it worth accepting that that's definitely going to happen, in exchange for kicking the can down the road a bit? No, I don't think so.
No, the only way to prevent leftists getting shot is to elect Kamala Harris so that trump isn't in charge of the military a couple of months after the supreme court ruled that he can't break the law with an official act and a couple of weeks after promising to shoot leftists.
I'm not going to support the mass murder of innocent people over fears about what might, potentially happen. The US is already involved in killing leftists, and rightists, and centrists, and queer people, and cishet people, and everyone else.
If Trump wins and your worst alarmist fears come true, then I'll go to the grave knowing that I did what I could to stop it. Supporting genocide is not something I could do, as I'm not interested in tearing down other innocent people for my own preservation, like crabs in a bucket.
The only real chance of safety is through solidarity, including international solidarity. That solidarity is destroyed by selling out individual minority groups. What you're saying about Palestinians today, you could just as easily be saying about trans people tomorrow. If democrats decide that not killing trans people is too much of an electoral liability, but the republicans want to kill trans people AND other people, then you'll repeat the same lesser-evilist ideological nonsense to justify and make peace with it, and it will become an inevitably. No one is safe if anyone can be sold out.