Bernard “Genocide” Sanders: “I disagree with Adolf Hitler’s position on the war in Russia. How can I vote for him?”
Bernard “Genocide” Sanders: “I disagree with Adolf Hitler’s position on the war in Russia. How can I vote for him?”
Join us at www.berniesanders.com!
Bonus genocide apologia from the comments:
To radlibs, supporting genocide is “well-reasoned logic”. You live in a horror story. Every person you walk past on the street could be a depraved ghoul who thinks torturing and murdering children is “well-reasoned logic”. Every person you walk past on the street could be a depraved ghoul who looks at the NSFL photos coming out of Gaza and calls that ”well-reasoned logic”. Just think about that for a minute. Just think about how many people you pass every day, people who can hold the door open for you, who can smile at you, who can line up at the coffee shop while browsing cute pictures of cats online, all while also happening to be depraved genocide supporters. Just think about how happy it makes them to support genocide. So incredibly happy yet so incredibly banal that the pleasure they derive from genocide becomes a fixer-upper like their morning cup of coffee. Tell me that isn’t a horror story.
You're viewing a single thread.
I’m not too versed on the subject on lesser-evil voting and the arguments against. Anyone willing to educate me and share resources about it please?
Disclaimer: I’m not american so don’t try to persuade me to vote or not vote in this election as I’m tired of having to explain to people that not everyone on the internet is from the USA.
It pretty simple in shitland u got two parties, one that is openly racist and fascist and the other that is also that but hides it.
The one that hides it will continuously point at the open one as a scare tactic so you vote for them.
People sometimes understand the situation and prefer to vote for the non-openly fascist one because it seems better than the other option.
There's a concept of an argument similar to the French "clothespin" election a decade ago, where the left argued voters should put pinch their nose with a clothespin (figuratively) and vote for the conservative candidate in order to prevent a win by fascist Le Pen. Of course, the difference is that in the French system multiple parties have a (relatively) fair shake in the first round of voting, so applying this logic to the US just means you will be voting for Democrats, forever, no matter what else happens or how genocidal the Democrats get.
Essentially, there are two parties in the USA. The fascist and liberal ones. But because the fascist one keeps drifting right, it means the liberal one can keep drifting right, too, ostensibly to capture the voters the other party is going too far right to leave behind. And because they pressure their voters to keep voting for them because they are in fact the lesser of evil, they don't actually have to do anything for them except rhetoric and maybe one or two good bills an administration. On the whole, though, the country still keeps drifting to the right over time.
Threatening the liberal party that you actually have to earn your vote shocks them out of their complacency, because a lot of them don't actually want fascism, they just want the same liberal bourgeois society they have now, but don't have the theory or historical knowledge that makes them realize their still making life worse with their strategies. A lot of their donor class on the other hand absolutely doesn't care which party wins, though, which is also important to understand, although a lot of the liberal voters themselves don't understand that.
At least that's how I've come to see it on my short time on hexbear.
The argument for: the only options are the polite fascists and the more aggressive fascists, so of the two the best choice is the polite fascists.
The argument against: if you vote for polite fascists you're still getting fascism.
I didn't vote for either fascist and I'm still getting fascism, this game needs a rebalance.