To Pay for Trump Tax Cuts, House GOP Floats Plan to Slash Benefits for the Poor and Working Class
A menu of options being circulated by congressional Republicans also includes new tax cuts for corporations and the ultrawealthy.
You're viewing a single thread.
I knew this would happen and loads of people on lemmy accused me of “fearmongering” or “only caring about myself” when I said I’d vote Harris
"Kamala Harris is not the perfect progressive candidate in every way. How can I possibly vote for her? I'll sit this one out. That'll show 'em!"
People need to accept that the electoral system in the US is just a trolley problem at the end of the day unfortunately.
At this point the trolley problem is "would you like to vote for killing 1000 per year for the next four years or would you like to vote for killing 4000 people this year with the hope that maybe it'll cause the whole trolley system to self destruct...? (The numbers are purely illustrative).
Edit: apparently it's not obvious that I think these are both horrible options, and I voted for the limping painfully along for an extended period.
Making things worse based on the idiotic hope that it might somehow magically spark things to get better is the absolute dumbest fucking idea one can have.
If by "trolley system to self-destruct" you mean violent revolution and a new system of government imperfect in a completely different way, yes. Good luck with the wait.
That's exactly what I mean, and I agree that it sounds awful. It's like people go into these conversations deciding which side the other person is on based on which they can argue the most with.
At least you're honest about this half-baked excuse for a plan
That isn't how trolleys work.
Not quite.
For starters it didn't use to be a choice of "who would you rather see killed" - or in other words, nothing was forever lost if one side won instead of the other - and beyond that it has always been a cyclical choice, so it made sense for voters who felt insufficiently catered to, to punish a side on one cycle to try and get it to offer a better deal on the next cycle.
Whether that remains the case - i.e. will Trump make himself dictator for life - is the big question.
That's true but I didn't mean it as a choice of who you'd rather see killed, just that the system is set up in such a way that as a rational voter you are forced into a situation where you must act to prevent the worst outcome rather than voting for your interests and what you believe in.
I think I used a wrong methaphor (sorry!) because the whole death thing carries a lot more implications than what I meant to convey.
In a Trolley Problem the A/B choice is fixed, is a once-only choice and its effects cannot be undone. My point is that, unlike a Trolley Problem, even in the US deeply flawed voting system the choice is (so far) not an irrevocable one time only choice - there is a new choice every 4 years, most effects from the previous choice can be undone (the chosen one of the next cycle always has the option to undo most of what the chosen one of the previous cycle did) and the actual choices available at voting time are not fixed and can be influenced before the actual vote (Parties can be convinced to field different candidates).
My theory is that in part Presidential Elections in the US system are a Cyclical Ultimatum Game, in that for each Party a candidate is fielded whose political offerings are a certain approportioning of the "cake" amongst different societal interests and the voters who care about such societal interests can chose to Accept or Reject, and given the cyclical nature of the choice, one can use Reject to Punish a party for fielding a candidate who is offering a specific approportioning of the "cake", the difference between a mere Reject and Punish being that the latter is done with the intention of affecting the choice of "cake" approportioning of the other side of the game (i.e. the Party whose candidate is being rejected) that they offer on the next cycle.
Or in common language, in the US system it's a logical strategy to, on one election, reject the candidate of one's "natural" Party who is offering an unacceptable approportioning of the "cake", to incentivise that Party to offer a better candidate in the next electoral cycle - the decision tree in the system is a lot deeper than merelly the single unrevocable choice of a Trolley Problem.
Had most Democrat voters actually been following this logic for the last couple of decades, rather than treating each vote as an independent event from all other votes, the situation in the US would be totally different, IMHO, not least because somebody like Trump would be facing Democrat candidates who actually would be trying much harder to appeal to the common people (as they otherwise would be rejected and hence never win).
Further, the mob here claiming that "natural" Democrat voters who refrained from voting Democrat in this election are losing everytime Trump does one of his extreme measures are totally missing the picture - those people did not reject Democrat to get Trump, they Rejected Democrat to get a better Democrat next time around and a Trump presidency was the risk they were taking for it. That choice will only be a "loss" if the Democrats do not field a better candidate next time around (or if Trump somehow manages to make it so that there is no "next time around").
Thanks for taking the time to come back and clarify your position in detail like that, I think I see where you're coming from here and I have to disagree with you. I think the trolley problem is still the best analogy and I'd go so far as to say some of the assumptions underpinning your view here are very dangerous.
Firstly, I would say voting is absolutely an irrevocable one time only choice from the simple fact that the past is immutable. Trump will always have been the president from 2016 - 2020 and now he's going to be the president for another term. No amount of voting in the future can ever change that. Roe v Wade is still overturned for example and the supreme court is still stacked as far as I understand.
Just ask Josseli Barnica's loved ones how easily the damage of some of Trump's decisions can be undone.
If someone thinks that the price is worth it for sending a message to the Democrats then that's up to them. Let's not be under any illusions though that we can simply change anything in the present day to undo history. That's why the trolley problem is the more apt analogy in my view because you must choose between two different bad outcomes irrevocably.
I'm also not from the US.
I would say that the full picture is somewhere in the middle - generally most actions of a President are not irrevocable but many do have consequences which are irrevocable (for example, Bush's decision to invade Iraq after 9/11 has as a consequence destroyed many lives and created ISIS and that will never be undone, especially the deaths, even if the president after him had immediatelly pulled the troops out from Iraq).
As you say, Trump might very well turn what was mainly (IMHO) not a Trolley Problem, into much more of one by (in "more likelly" to "less likely" order):
The time for Punishing the Democrats to try and influence the approportioning of the "cake" they put forward in the next round of the "game" was before in elections before this one, but that was not done hence the "quality" of the candidate offered by the Democrats. The wisdom of Punishing it in this election was, with hindsight, not so great, but it's still understandable that some people chose to Punish the Democrats by refraining from voting, even if one thinks their estimation of the associated risks of doing so was very wrong.
I suppose I agree with your original idea that in this cycle the US elections have turned into a Trolley Problem (though I see it as a high probability rather than absolute certainty), though I disegree with the wider portrayal (maybe not by you, but many others) of people who chose to not vote Democrat as responsible for what Trump is doing - I strongly suspect they merelly erred by underestimating the risk they were taking, which is understandable since in the Propaganda Heavy US environment the extreme warnings about Trump coming from Democrats were self-serving and very much a repeat of their propaganda techniques in previous elections, so many simply did not believe they were true or at least that they were not purposeful exagerations (i.e. a "boy who cried wolf" situation).
I voted for her because she was the lesser evil, but describing her as just “not the perfect progressive candidate in every way” is a gross misrepresentation. She was probably the most right leaning Democratic candidate to run in a general election and was openly adopting many of the Republican stances. There were basically two Republicans running.
Really? She was to the right of the Clintons? Obama? John Kerry, even? I think you have a selective memory.
There were basically two Republicans running.
Fucking absurd. There is a reason you don't name one specific
Single issue voters are the reason the USA is now a dictatorship building concentration camps. That's not an opinion.
With me, at least, they have moved on to, "you care more about your gay daughter than Palestinians!" Which... yeah. That's called parenting. Along with, "why are you worried about a queer genocide that hasn't happened yet?!" Because I don't want to chance it? People can be such assholes.
It’s like yeah.
If both candidates mean gaza is fucked, but one of them means hundreds of thousands of extra unnecessary deaths to disabled people, homeless people, migrants, poor people, queer and trans people etc.
Of fucking course I’ll pick the least bad option instead of being apathetic about it. Especially since I’m a disabled poor person who has had bouts of homelessness.
These same people do not seem to understand that "least bad option" does not mean "good option." Some of them are now justifying it by saying Harris supports genocide but all Trump supports is ethnic cleansing. Seriously.
I have always taken the advice of W.C. Fields: "I never vote for, only against." Because there has never been a politician in my adult life that I would have voted for in a general presidential election. Or even a senatorial election,
Same. I’m an anarchist. I don’t believe in this distorted liberal democratic system that seems to benefit the elite no matter the outcome.
But I sure as hell am going to exercise my right to vote. It being a shitty system where I have little power doesn't mean I should throw away the power I do have!
That’s nuts. “Only voting for yourself” is usually a trump vote. Generally, a Left-wing voter asks “What’s best for everyone?” and a Right-wing voter asks “What’s best for me?”
Of course, the Democrat party isn’t left-wing (more like middle-right) but still, it’s a far less selfish vote than trump.
I don't know about your life, but my life is made better by the acceptance and participation of all sorts of people. I'm selfishly voting for Democrats because I have 4 daughter and a gay son.
My wife and I make enough money and I could be happy on less if it improved the environment around me by improving the lives of the people I share the world with. Those brown people would be a hell of a lot less scary to us white people if so many of them weren't in desperate financial straits, and if we didn't teach them to expect hatred and cruelty from us.
I'm a selfish-as-fuck-left-wing-voter.
Amen brother, a rising tide raises all ships
