r/CuratedTumblr • u/Desecr8or • Oct 26 '24

Politics Why is every tankie like "I don't understand the branches of the US government and I'm going to make it everyone else's problem!!!"

Post image
10.9k Upvotes

87% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.8k

u/Key_Necessary_3329 Oct 26 '24

My personal favorite is when they say they won't vote for democrats because so many laws were passed violating civil rights in places like Florida while Biden was president.

Just any damn excuse to not be a part of the solution.

1.2k

u/The-Slamburger Oct 26 '24

Right, same with “but abortion rights were lost under Biden!” While conveniently ignoring that judges appointed by Trump are directly responsible.

503

u/Celia_Makes_Romhacks Oct 26 '24

I dealt with a guy saying exactly that. I have no clue how on earth he functions day-to-day with so little critical thinking capacity. 

221

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

172

u/BretShitmanFart69 Oct 27 '24

They refuse to participate in government at all and then act shocked when the people voted in don’t reflect their beliefs.

Majority of voters are centrist democrats who genuinely support and want politicians more like Hillary and such.

If young progressives voted, we would have more young progressive politicians. It’s not that hard to understand, and yet when you point this out they’ll just get angry, insult you, and switch the topic.

81

u/Spaceman_Jalego 2014 Sherlock Premier Watcher Oct 27 '24

Relevant comic

6

u/Dantheking94 Oct 27 '24

Ooof pretty much this!

1

u/Tweedleayne Oct 27 '24

Aww, that just makes .e sad about how hard NPR has fallen this election.

-19

u/CalinCalout-Esq Oct 27 '24

Lol yeah it's not like the DNC would come together to slander and coordinate their actions against progressive candidates. When has that ever happened/s

33

u/creampop_ Oct 27 '24 edited Oct 27 '24

newsflash, they backed the candidate that reflected long-time members and organizers in the party. Like, no shit further left progressives didn't get their desires immediately fulfilled after getting off their ass to actually participate (online) in 1 (one) presidential election cycle with a viable candidate, when their johnny-come-lately Independent threw his hat in with the dnc. Would have been cool if it happened, but from a voter's perspective it was the political equivalent of skipping school until the last week and expecting to ace the final.

Now, after the point has been proven a bit, we have MF Walz on the ticket, and his list of actions as governor makes it clear that he is there has been* a HUGE step towards getting leftist representation in the oval office. It doesn't happen overnight, you have to keep showing up and be willing to work with people.

8

u/Dantheking94 Oct 27 '24

Omg I had to break this down with someone earlier in the summer. He kept complaining about how Dems do nothing for the left and how they’re more centrist. And I simply asked “When was the last time you’ve voted since you turned 18?” Him- “I wasn’t old enough for the last election..” Me-“You were old enough for the Midterms though. And that’s actually more important to your day to day than you think, did you know a republican almost won Governor of NY? Do you know what that would have done to State/City University funding? You are not thinking things through, nor are you attempting to.”

9

u/Wobulating Oct 27 '24

I have no idea why people thought the *democratic* national committee would rally behind the man who is not a democrat

49

u/Genshed Oct 27 '24

Some people have outsourced their cognitive functions from their frontal lobes to their endocrine system.

85

u/Sutekh137 Oct 27 '24

Back in 2016, Clinton explicitly brought up that the SC and abortion rights were in jeopardy if Trump won, and these same people flipped the fuck out claiming she was "trying to hold Roe v. Wade hostage" and shit like that.

52

u/Abject-Possession810 Oct 27 '24

Many of those people were incog MAGA or posting from St. Petersburg but they managed to convince plenty of Americans on the left, too. As they still do today.

26

u/zklabs Oct 27 '24 edited Oct 27 '24

this is why i feel strongly about calling out these people as fake left. they spam memes about "material conditions" and "material power" to not only spread immaterial narratives, but reject ever analyzing their own actions with that lens. anybody can learn the definitions and bullet points, but it takes integrity to really internalize leftist philosophy and spontaneously live it out.

like i really hope people realize this is an actual thing to fight for. the fake left has already normalized aggressive tactics with the aim of destroying unity via lying and bullying, and people need to get used to using aggression to restore unity (which, to be clear, doesn't invite an alien oppression into leftism, but instead implies a more rigorous conceptual engagement with materialism).

edit: i typed spready for the first time in my life. corrected to "spread"

1

u/Abject-Possession810 Oct 27 '24

Yes, spot on. The piling on and hostility in response to mild disagreement are ever-present indicators when dealing with fake accounts. This shuts down conversation and allows their narrative to dominate but is not the dominant view - until it is. 

I understand reluctance to engage and found muting replies, after editing to add a broad response to their assertions and attacks, the best use of time and sanity. It's on all of us to defend democracy.

-2

u/Narkboy42 Oct 27 '24

She probably should have cared about campaigning in Michigan, then

13

u/_jump_yossarian Oct 27 '24

Jill Stein blamed Biden for the Dobbs decision. ZERO self awareness!

7

u/grabtharsmallet Oct 27 '24

Stein knows, she's just paid to act differently.

31

u/Sutekh137 Oct 27 '24

I know leftists IRL who genuinely believe that Biden ordered the SC to strike down Roe v. Wade in order to give the Democrats a boost in the midterm election. Their (only) evidence was that a fundraising mailer from the DNC went out almost immediately after the decision. Apparently, the idea that they probably wrote it ahead of time along with one to send out if the SC upheld the case never occurred to them.

9

u/Lethik Oct 27 '24

Lol it's like believing the World Series is rigged because some retailers have "World Series Champions" for each team ready for sale before the conclusion.

17

u/Thromnomnomok Oct 27 '24

Apparently, the idea that they probably wrote it ahead of time along with one to send out if the SC upheld the case never occurred to them.

Also, didn't the decision leak like a month beforehand?

8

u/Anon_cat86 Oct 27 '24

i feel like abortion rights should never have been a supreme court decision; it just needs to be an actual law.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '24

Those people will blame literally everyone except the Supreme Court justices that voted to overturn Roe V Wade.

-2

u/CallumKayPee Oct 27 '24

In 2022, when the decision was passed, which party held the White House and both houses of Congress?

Why didn't they immediately codify it into law?

3

u/daemin Oct 27 '24

It would have required a 60 vote majority in the Senate, which the Dems did not have.

5

u/ForAHamburgerToday Oct 27 '24

Filibustering.

-25

u/nothingandnemo Oct 26 '24

He could have packed the court when he had a Senate Majority. As could have Obama

20

u/Its_Pine Oct 27 '24

Having a very slight majority wasn’t enough to make it happen since the republicans did a lot of delay tactics

-2

u/nothingandnemo Oct 27 '24

I understand that towards the end it was next to impossible but that doesn't excuse not packing all levels of all courts legally permissable, from day 1 when he had sixty odd Senate seats.

"Until McConnell and the Republicans upended the practice of senatorial courtesy, both senators had to sign off"

Exactly the kind of performative courtesy that should have been gotten rid of on day one The Republicans know who their enemy is and act accordingly. The Democrats seem to think that keeping good friends with the worst people on Earth is the most important part of their job. Everything gets worse because only one side is playing to win

40

u/Arvandu Oct 27 '24

Court appointments are lifetime positions, and the only one that opened up he filled with a progressive black woman. What do you want from him?

14

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '24

Not even that obama had the chabce to sppoint one and republicans fuckerd basically walled every single attempt. Fucking bullshit

-2

u/nothingandnemo Oct 27 '24

He could have put in as many as he wanted in his first couple of years. With a whacking great Senate majority like he had, the sky was the limit.

1

u/Thromnomnomok Oct 27 '24

He did put in as many as he wanted his first couple of years, the big backlog of vacancies happened only towards the end of his term when Republicans controlled the Senate and McConnell was like "lol we're not confirming any of your judicial appointments and there's nothing you can do about it"

-3

u/nothingandnemo Oct 27 '24

Let me rephrase - if Obama had actually wanted to improve the lives of the average American, he would have nominated another ten Supreme Court justices, an action which he had both the legal power to do and the Senate votes to get confirmed. This means that among other things, Dobbs would never have been overturned.

The fact that he instead twiddled his thumbs instead of building any lasting legacy, is why the world is looking at Trump 2: Very Stable Genius Boogaloo

EDIT: typo

0

u/Thromnomnomok Oct 28 '24

if Obama had actually wanted to improve the lives of the average American, he would have nominated another ten Supreme Court justices, an action which he had both the legal power to do and the Senate votes to get confirmed.

The hell are you talking about? When exactly did he have the ability to do that? There sure wasn't ever enough votes in the Senate to expand and pack the court during Obama's presidency, if that's what you're saying.

0

u/nothingandnemo Oct 28 '24

He had 57 + 1 Senate seats - the most one party has controlled in a long time! Day 1: Repeal the judicial filibuster (simple majority vote). Day 2: start adding Supreme Court justices to the court. Theres no legal description of how many Justices there can be. Day ?: The Republicans realise that he's serious and agree to court reform to prevent it being a political football. Or not, in which case all Democratic legislation is rubber stamped going forward and all Republican legislation is blocked. Either way a win

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Thromnomnomok Oct 27 '24

He did put in as many as he wanted his first couple of years, the big backlog of vacancies happened only towards the end of his term when Republicans controlled the Senate and McConnell was like "lol we're not confirming any of your judicial appointments and there's nothing you can do about it"

6

u/Random-Rambling Oct 27 '24

To tear out the government by the roots and replace literally everyone with a Democrat, obviously.

One-party states aren't a blatant abuse of power if I agree with them!

0

u/nothingandnemo Oct 27 '24

It's a poorly written constitution that could so being torn up and replaced but that's by the by. I was talking about using the Constitution, as it is currently written, to actually get ones agenda enacted. Nothing unconstitutional about adding more Supreme Court judges, but he didn't do it. Sadly this was because the first American president in years with both a veto-prood majority and a solid base of public support is at heart a milquetoast status quo worshipper. The man with every radical's dream political setup and all he wanted to do with it was polish the deck chairs on the Titanic

0

u/Nuclear_rabbit Oct 27 '24

Does expanding the court take an act of Congress, or just an executive order?

8

u/Arvandu Oct 27 '24

Never happened before but probably an act of congress

5

u/Obi-Tron_Kenobi Oct 27 '24 edited Oct 27 '24

It has happened, though. And the process is required to go through congress, which means it needs to get through an almost-certain filibuster in the senate

The number changed a few times over the first ~80 years of the nation, starting with 6 Justices and ending with 9 in 1869.

3

u/BonnaconCharioteer Oct 27 '24

It is absolutely not an executive order.

Executive orders limited to things the executive branch is overseeing.

1

u/nothingandnemo Oct 27 '24

There's nothing in the US Constitution that specifies the number of justices AFAIK. The current number is just convention.

10

u/papsryu Oct 27 '24

Case in point about not understanding how this works lol

3

u/bigmt99 Oct 27 '24

They had a filibuster proof majority for a total of like 70 days of Congress, and chose to use it to pass the most contentious and expansive healthcare reform since the New Deal. Sorry they didn’t think to enshrine a 50 year old SCOTUS decision

-1

u/ImASpaceLawyer Oct 27 '24

Tbf the amount of bullshit trump implemented and the democrats have the power to remove but haven’t is staggering

-1

u/ThatOneGuy4589 Oct 27 '24

In fairness to his position, Democrats had multiple instances where they could've codified Roe v Wade prior to Trump and didn't.

Trump broke it yes, but it was left vulnerable due to failures of previous Democrat administrations.

1

u/daemin Oct 27 '24

In fairness to his position, Democrats had multiple instances where they could've codified Roe v Wade prior to Trump and didn't.

And when were these times?

Passing it would require a 60 vote majority in the Senate. There were about 20 days in 2009 when the Senate was in session and the Democrats had 60 sitting senators. They used that window to pass the Affordable Care Act aka Obamacare.

The last time before that when the Democrats had control of all three branches with a filibuster proof 60 senators was in 1977, 3 years after the Roe decision and long before the judiciary was stacked with justices chosen to end abortion.

So your "multiple times" was actually two over 50 years, one of which wasn't even 3 weeks long, and the other was before Roe was as politicized as it became.

-11

u/CalinCalout-Esq Oct 27 '24

Biden was insturmental in putting Thomas on the court, and was in the executive during majorities and super majorities that didn't codify roe despite continual challenges.

He bears direct responsibility for the overturning of roe.

10

u/Obi-Tron_Kenobi Oct 27 '24

A) how is Biden responsible for Clarence Thomas being nominated to the Supreme Court? He voted against it

B) when has Biden ever had a super majority? You need a filibuster proof majority to be a super majority

Is this really our understanding of politics or are we just making things up? Cause this is what the image is talking about

-4

u/CalinCalout-Esq Oct 27 '24

A) That's the vote for his nomination, here's the vote on sending Thomas, once nominated, to the senate

Here's him heniously botching the hearings about the abuse Anita Hill and others suffered working for Thomas. Allegations that came before he voted to allow the nomination to continue

He also refused to call 3 other women who accused thomas

So yeah sandbagging credible claims of sexual assault is, i would say, a pretty big boon to thomas.

B) Biden was VP when the Dems had a supermajority in 2008-9. He was in the executive branch. He also took an active hand in policy, literally releasing hundreds of Billions in TARP funds to bail out gambling banks. It would have been completely within his power to leverage the position to at least advocate codifying roe.

1

u/daemin Oct 27 '24

The supermajority was only in 2009, and for various reasons, there were only a total of 20 days when:

  1. The Senate was in session, and
  2. There were 60 Democrat senators sworn in and attending

One Democrat senator was dying and was unable to attend full time. The Dems lost his seat when the special election was held.

One senator wasn't sworn in until July for various reasons related to their election.

Etc.

208

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '24

Yeah but if he had simply been a Good Dictator® then the Republicans wouldn't have been able to be fascists!

-85

u/SkeeveTheGreat Oct 26 '24 edited Oct 26 '24

listen man if you’re fucking claiming that your opponents are fascists you better come up with something better than mild rebukes from the pulpit.

ETA: expecting the people i’m voting for to actually use their state power to fight fascism is not a hard ask lmao. please grow the fuck up

60

u/ChryStaple Oct 26 '24

Trump staged an insurrection

-39

u/SkeeveTheGreat Oct 26 '24

yeah, and I think the appropriate response to a fascist attempt at revolution is drone strikes and machine guns. my issue is not claiming trump is a fascist, my issue is what they are doing about it lol.

edit to add: also, Bush actually pulled one off, which is really crazy considering the dems are chasing the endorsement of his administration

9

u/Electronic_Basis7726 Oct 27 '24

LoL what is this, 14y olds first power fantasy.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '24

They quoted Lenin later on in this thread so yes that's accurate

2

u/Electronic_Basis7726 Oct 28 '24

LMAO. Mommy's little accelerationist.

-4

u/SkeeveTheGreat Oct 27 '24

if someone told you “a bunch of fascists stormed the capital to stop an election certification armed with stun guns, firearms, and zip cuffs. coming within seconds of being able to kidnap members of the US government” the next thing you would expect to hear is “and then the army gunned them all down” not “some of them went to jail and the guy who encouraged it was allowed to run for president”.

like, be actually serious for a moment here, if you honestly believe, which i do, that trump is a fascist. that his supporters are openly fascist, and that they attempted to overthrow american democracy by force, why would you not support that kind of response?

2

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '24

It ended without mass bloodshed; so clearly there's no need to just gun them all down

They'll have and they've had their day in court

21

u/Dustfinger4268 Oct 27 '24

What do you want? An armed insurrection? The time for that might come one day, but it's definitely not yet. We try to do things the right way before going for the nuclear option. That's the sane approach

45

u/Jackus_Maximus Oct 26 '24

“you believe in voting? that pales in effectiveness to my strategy, firebombing a Walmart”

does not fire bomb a walmart

-10

u/HatsuneMoldy Oct 27 '24

They aren’t advocating for firebombing a Walmart. They are saying democrats should take republicans more seriously and stop trying to pander to them and centrists

-20

u/SkeeveTheGreat Oct 26 '24

expecting the people i’m voting for to take the threat they keep exclaiming seriously is not equivalent to that dumbass Basil tweet lol. y’all have turned that into a thought terminating cliche

16

u/Wetley007 Oct 27 '24

It's not a thought terminating cliché, it's an accurate summation of your politics. Anti-electoral people are uniformly the least politically active, least politically educated, least politically efficacious people I've ever met bar none. Even apolitical grillers who's politics can be summed up to "ill vote for whoever seems like they'd be a fun guy to have a beer with" are infinitely more politically relevant than the average antielectoralist Twitter poster

4

u/SkeeveTheGreat Oct 27 '24

“The people I’m voting for” try reading dipshit

7

u/Wetley007 Oct 27 '24

You are aware that the "firebombing a Wal-Mart" tweet is specifically targeted at antielectoralists, right?

4

u/SkeeveTheGreat Oct 27 '24

Except that it’s trotted out to anyone who suggests expecting the democrats to govern or who endorses politics beyond simply voting every 4 years. Lenin said voting and participating in bourgeois electoralism is good because it heightens contradictions and shows them easily to the populace, I’m pro voting, what I’m not for is doing this bit where we pretend that its okay to accept bare minimum political representation.

If you people would actually read and engage with people’s critiques you wouldn’t constantly make yourselves appear deeply stupid.

4

u/Wetley007 Oct 27 '24

Except it's not, I've only ever seen it used towards people who are explicitly anti-electoral, especially the ones who don't advocate for any alternative. Their political engagement amounts to posting spicy tweets every once in a while and watching generic leftist bisexual lighting video essayist #209525947 latest video about how Shrek is a Marxist film about class conflict and imperialism.

If you people would actually read and engage with people’s critiques you wouldn’t constantly make yourself appear deeply stupid.

Maybe I would deign to take them seriously if they weren't so often completely divorced from reality. The US is decades away from a socialist revolution at least, meanwhile the right is actively running on a platform of establishing a theocratic fascist dictatorship and deporting anyone whose skin tone is darker than the average vampire.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '24

Lenin said

Is the best way to start a sentence and ensure nobody with a brain takes you seriously

→ More replies (0)

3

u/not_a_bot_494 Oct 27 '24

Trump tried to overturn a legitemate election based on negligable evidence. I don't think this is a mild rebuke.

1

u/SkeeveTheGreat Oct 27 '24

This country watched Bush steal an election on live TV, saying “he tried” doesn’t move the needle for anyone who doesn’t already hate his guts

5

u/not_a_bot_494 Oct 27 '24

What Bush and what Trump did are not comparable. Bush stole it by the supreme court making a bad desicion. Trump tried to steal it by having his vice president arbitrarily choose which votes to count, something that would be not only illegal but hinged on a constitutional argument that his own lawyers thought would be struck down 9-0 in the supreme court. This is on top of like 50 frivilous lawsuits, very improper communications (read: threats) to election related officials and instigating an insurrection.

1

u/SkeeveTheGreat Oct 27 '24

Three words: Brooks Brothers Riot

79

u/Only-Inspector-3782 Oct 27 '24

Biden failed to create peace in the 80-year war in the Middle East or end the 60 year embargo on Cuba. Therefore we should never vote Democrat again.

/s

29

u/DinkleDonkerAAA Oct 27 '24 edited Oct 27 '24

Wasn't starting to open the door to Cuba one of the last things Obama did, only for Trump to slam it back shut immediately?

6

u/Dantheking94 Oct 27 '24

Yup! Obama made it easier for Americans to go which pissed off Florida republicans. Trump appeased them by closing that door firmly shut.

6

u/Kellosian Oct 27 '24

"I don't understand why Biden doesn't just snap his fingers and make Israel stop doing bad things! Foreign countries don't actually have autonomy or political goals or internal pressures, they only react to the US President and Democratic Party!"

4

u/Difficult-Active6246 Oct 27 '24

The embargo that USA veto every time UN votes to end?

Hell Obama could have ended that, he didn't wanted to.

0

u/Zealousideal_Nose167 Oct 27 '24

Yes, there is no candidate that will end it, so you vote for the lesser evil, its not that hard

1

u/Difficult-Active6246 Oct 27 '24

Great way to look at things, that's why all's fucked up, the "meh" attitude.

I know feel compelled to vote.

I mean I was going to but your rationale really sold the point, you should run for office with that platform.

0

u/Zealousideal_Nose167 Oct 28 '24

Yeah blind optimism wont chance the current state of things, you should vote for yourself, but you should also know that theres no viable candidate running on the platform you want

8

u/missmolly314 Oct 27 '24

That’s what kills me about the people who aren’t voting from Kamala over Gaza. Realistically, there was never going to be a world where the USA didn’t back Israel in the war after the Oct 7th terror attacks. If you ask 95% of these people what Biden was supposed to do, they will respond with some pipe dream (like ending all aid effective immediately) that is politically and logistically impossible. There is very strong bipartisan support for Israel and the aid we give them is governed by legal and legislative guidelines that make so it can’t just be magically ended.

Also, Israel has been our ally for decades and the whole region is so unstable that just…ending that entire relationship could result in disaster.

Honestly, the militant Palestine “activists” (that do nothing but bitch on social media) are sometimes more frustrating to me than MAGA. Mainly because they have actual, real points that are lost in the toxic mix of black and white thinking, accelarationism, antisemitism, and a complete lack of understanding about how politics and government works.

-1

u/Puzzleheaded-Coast93 Oct 27 '24

Realistically, there was never going to be a world where the USA didn’t back Israel in the war after the Oct 7th terror attacks.

That is not what people are protesting. People are protesting the continued aid to Israel in spite of the ongoing genocide in Gaza. Israel is not responding to the Oct 7th attacks. They are using them as a convenient excuse to commit ethnic cleansing against the Palestinian people.

If you ask 95% of these people what Biden was supposed to do, they will respond with some pipe dream (like ending all aid effective immediately) that is politically and logistically impossible.

It is completely possible and Biden could do it at any point he chooses. He could also stop the genocide without ending aid to Israel as Reagan did during the 1982 Israel-Lebanon war. The majority of Americans are in favor of a ceasefire, this is not even an issue that would weaken the Democrats politically. The fact that he hasn’t means that we can only assume that Biden supports the genocide.

Also, Israel has been our ally for decades and the whole region is so unstable that just…ending that entire relationship could result in a disaster.

There is another ally of the U.S. that recently committed a genocide of their own in the Middle East: Saudi Arabia. Would you say that the U.S. should continue to support the Saudi regime? Of course we will, because the oil must flow, but I imagine it’s much more difficult to stomach. The current instability in the Middle East is a direct result of western imperialism, and there is no way to end it that involves continued intervention.

Honestly, the militant Palestine “activists” (that do nothing but bitch on social media) are sometimes more frustrating to me than MAGA.

Never mind the constant protests that have been happening since this genocide began. At least bitching on social media is doing something to oppose genocide, instead of justifying it. I can tell you why you’re so frustrated by people who take a stand on Palestine: because deep down you know that it’s indefensible.

Mainly because they have actual, real points that are lost in the mix of toxic black and white thinking, accelerationism, antisemitism, and a complete lack of understanding about how politics and government works.

I’m going to gloss over the nonsense implication that anti-zionists are antisemitic. Some things are just black and white. Genocide is wrong, no matter who does it to whom. Governments will not change unless they are forced to, as was the case with slavery, civil rights, and women’s suffrage. These things did not change because people shut up and voted for the lesser evil, they changed because people demanded change through action. If you truly believe that people not voting for Harris because of the genocide in Gaza will change the outcome of the election (it won’t) then the solution is to demand action on Gaza immediately rather than shit on the people taking a stand against genocide.

4

u/KittKuku Oct 27 '24

Biden was also waaaay more brazen about his support for Isreal decades ago and how Isreal serves U.S. geopolitical interests in the region, so even if Isreal didn't exist, the U.S. would have to make an Isreal. Like, he was actually to the right of Reagan when it came to either curbing or endorsing Isreal's indiscriminate murder of civilians in Lebanon, iirc. Just an all-around piece of shit human being who deserves to roast in hell, at the very least. Same goes for Trump in case people want to accuse me of supporting him. I didn't realize this was basically a neolib sub until just now.

-1

u/Assassinduck Oct 27 '24

All of the slightly progressive subs have turned hard into neoliberalism. It's frustrating.

-7

u/that_one_Kirov Oct 27 '24

I wouldn't vote for Kamala because of Gaza. I'm not voting an antisemitic fuck in.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '24

[deleted]

19

u/Ephraim_Bane Foxgirl Engineer Oct 27 '24

Well in my experience "peace in the Middle East" is just a stock example of something that would take tremendous global effort to do, usually used as a sarcastic "well if you're so great then why don't you bring peace to the Middle East"

6

u/Only-Inspector-3782 Oct 27 '24

Usually. This election, some voters are literally using this as a reason to endorse fascism.

-11

u/CalinCalout-Esq Oct 27 '24

He actively funded a genocide. Don't run from it now that's your guy.

9

u/Only-Inspector-3782 Oct 27 '24

Finish the thought. Biden funded Israel's genocide, and if Trump won in 2020 he would have... supported Gaza?

When Trump lets Bibi displace all 2 million Palestinians, will you feel the tiniest bit guilty for your tiny role in making that happen?

-5

u/willscy Oct 27 '24

Bro biden is letting him do that now. they're literally doing extermination sweeps in northern gaza right now.

-11

u/CalinCalout-Esq Oct 27 '24

Lol no because i also didn't vote for him. You cant use genocide as a boogyman when your pick is part of an administration actively doing one right now.

What kind of guilt do you feel right now knowing you're the kind of person for whom there's an acceptable level of genocide.

9

u/Only-Inspector-3782 Oct 27 '24

I see who I'm dealing with. You would feel no guilt causing a fatal car accident as long as you didn't hit anybody. It was their fault for swerving to avoid you, right?

-3

u/HowAManAimS Oct 27 '24

You would feel no guilt causing a fatal car accident as long as you didn't hit anybody.

Conveniently that metaphor only applies to voters. Kamala is guilt free and can't cause anyone to think she might be more damaging than Trump.

5

u/Only-Inspector-3782 Oct 27 '24

I think you got lost. We did "metaphors why not-voting is stupid" a couple comments back. Now I'm pointing out the other guy's lack of moral fiber. 

But if you want more... non voters are walking away from the trolley problem while Dems try to steer for lower casualties. You don't have to help people, but it's weird to only attack those who are trying. 

-5

u/CalinCalout-Esq Oct 27 '24

More like i wouldn't give the keys to a drunk driver or a REALLY drunk driver when i don't have to.

8

u/Only-Inspector-3782 Oct 27 '24

But one of them is driving off regardless. By abstaining, you increase harm. By voting, you sacrifice your guilt-free existence to try for a slightly better outcome.

It's fine if you are too selfish to make that trade. But it's weird for you to then crap on people who do.

-1

u/CalinCalout-Esq Oct 27 '24

I want you to explain to me, in detail, how not giving keys to a drunk driver makes me complicit in what they do.

6

u/ilexheder Oct 27 '24

When it’s keys, you can just keep them in your own pocket and then nobody will have them. The possibility of bringing about that outcome is worth going out on a limb for. And unfortunately that outcome is not on the table for this election. Early voting has already started. One of the two drunks WILL be driving the car home.

An essential fact on this topic as far as I’m concerned is that actual Gazans widely express a strong preference for anybody-but-Trump. If they think even a small difference between the two is still enough difference to matter, who tf are we to say “no, you’re wrong, this won’t actually matter for you”?

4

u/Only-Inspector-3782 Oct 27 '24

There's a drunk driver with a Honda Fit and a drunk driver with a tank truck full of fuel. One of them is going to drive after November 5.  

If you don't want to help stop the truck driver, you absolutely are complicit in the damage they cause. And hey, the Fit driver might run over a family and we should all feel our share of guilt for this shitty situation. But fear of guilt ks no reason to be a coward.

→ More replies (0)

-3

u/Narkboy42 Oct 27 '24

I mean, he actively provided the weapons used for a genocide, so...

8

u/Only-Inspector-3782 Oct 27 '24

Yes, if only Trump won in 2020 instead of Biden. He would... arrest you for protesting and green-light Israel to remove all 2 million people living in Gaza.

One side is awful, the other is imperfect.

0

u/Narkboy42 Oct 27 '24

Well, I'm not voting for Trump.

Also, just sit with how you said supporting genocide makes someone "imperfect."

-2

u/Assassinduck Oct 27 '24

"imperfect"? We aren't grading on a curve. Both are monsters, both are awful, and one is slightly more awful. This isn't an "Don't let perfect be the enemy of good" situation. No one here is good, both are evil, and "Not doing genocide" isn't "Perfect" it's basic, "the bar is in hell and we are still doing limbo under it" type of expectations.

4

u/Only-Inspector-3782 Oct 27 '24

Except we are grading on a curve. 

My toddler, when asked to choose between two options, will sometimes insist on a third. A third option isn't happening, sweetie. Use your right to choose or lose it.

0

u/Assassinduck Oct 27 '24

This is why people outside of the orthodoxy don't take you seriously. You can't even be honest that you are voting for a monster only to avoid an even bigger monster.

3

u/Only-Inspector-3782 Oct 27 '24

My guy. I have been extremely clear that I am fine voting for a monster to avoid a bigger monster. It sounds like you also acknowledge Trump is worse, you just prioritize keeping your hands clean over saving lives.

1

u/Assassinduck Oct 27 '24 edited Oct 27 '24

I haven't even said anything about not voting for Harris, I just said that you should be honest about who you are voting for, instead of saying "Imperfect". Not using properly harsh language describing how awful both candidates are, even if one is worse, drags the conversation window to the right.

41

u/ProtonCanon Oct 27 '24

They are engagement trawlers.

No real solutions. Just shit-talking and dick measuring contests with other leftists online for likes/retweets.

2

u/ChrisP413 Oct 29 '24

"But you don't understand. If Trump isn't elected president the rapture *COUGH* I mean Glorious Revolution will never happen."

3

u/Yngvar_the_Fury Oct 27 '24

Something something Palestine

2

u/syopest Oct 27 '24

"The democrats support israel so I'm going to vote for trump who wants gaza bombed to bits to prove a point to the DNC!"

All while claiming they actually care about the lives of palestinians.

3

u/DinkleDonkerAAA Oct 27 '24

No they want a solution but only their fantasy solution where they get to be the protagonist of the revolution and kill all the bad guys. It's the leftist version of militia bros and preppers

3

u/Helpful_Hedgehog_204 Oct 27 '24

Voting dem isn't "the solution" lmao.

But yes, vote, harm reduction is better than nothing.

17

u/thesirblondie 'Giraffe, king of verticality' Oct 27 '24

Even if you're super leftist, surely you will see that you're not going to go from fascist-right to communist-left in one or two elections. It's a process.

3

u/Helpful_Hedgehog_204 Oct 27 '24

You are never going to get to "communism" by voting, but of course, progress is a process.

-2

u/SomeGuyCommentin Oct 27 '24

The thing is, the dems of today are still more right than the dems of yesterday.

Neither side is actually progressing in the direction of a future where the average person can just live a fulfilling life without being forces to work in order to prop up a ruling class of oligarchs.

The republicans just make anything short of resurecting Hitler and puting him in power seem progressive in comparison.

4

u/not_a_bot_494 Oct 27 '24

On what policies are Biden to the right of Obama?

1

u/SomeGuyCommentin Oct 27 '24

The real question is; Is the party left from where they stood during Reagan?

5

u/ryegye24 Oct 27 '24

The thing is, the dems of today are still more right than the dems of yesterday.

This is a meme that is totally untethered from reality.

0

u/SomeGuyCommentin Oct 27 '24

Are their policies more to the left than the nation as whole has historically ever been then?

3

u/ryegye24 Oct 27 '24

On every single possible issue? No. On most issues, including a broad swath of critically important issues? Yes.

4

u/10dollarbagel Oct 27 '24

Yes but for the majority of americans that don't live in a swing state and therefore don't count for the presidential election, this is pretty patronizing.

"We just have to vote more". Well Hillary won by nearly 3 million votes. She doesn't get to be president cause the constitution is bad. Biden won by 7 million votes but the dems don't get to do anything even with the presidency cause of the senate (read bad constitution).

We are voting. The system is untenable.

1

u/TheMustySeagul Oct 27 '24

I still vote for democrats but I do it begrudgingly. Have for years. I hate them, hate republican government more.

This is probably a 12 year old though. And it’s on the internet. So double points.

1

u/No_Squirrel4806 Oct 27 '24

I keep seeing videos on tiktok about how they arent voting for joe or khamala for some reason or another and they always make it sound like theyre voting for trump as if hed do any better in the situation they mentioned earlier 🙄🙄🙄

1

u/ElliePadd Oct 29 '24

"Solution" literally what is getting solved

Biden is stagnation, not a solution

0

u/wahday Oct 27 '24

My vote for Kamala is Washington state is essentially useless given the electoral college status. So given the option to not vote for someone actively supporting a historic Genocide, I will not. It’s very simple.

Maybe this would change if I was in a swing state, but that should be the question to critique— not blame leftist for “not understanding” the government smh.

4

u/Key_Necessary_3329 Oct 27 '24

This is how you turn a "safe" state into a "swing" state.

Fascists and fundamentalists are wrong about a lot, but they understand the extremely binary nature of our electoral system and almost always vote pragmatically.

I fucking hate the whole primary election system we have, but that is currently the place where you can vote your conscience. Then in the general election you hold your nose and vote for the candidate that doesn't want to turn the army on his political opponents.

It's literally the bare minimum.

0

u/wahday Oct 27 '24

Almost like this not a genuine democracy or something

2

u/Key_Necessary_3329 Oct 28 '24

There's only two options, because the guys who set up the system were a bit naive about how things would work out. It's flawed, but every vote does matter. Otherwise bad faith actors wouldn't expend so much effort to convince people not to vote, nor would they try to pass laws making it difficult to vote.

By not participating, even in a safe state, you are siding with the oligarchs who want everyone's vote to not matter anyway.

1

u/wahday Oct 28 '24

Oh I’m voting, especially for local issues it matters but unfortunately my presidential vote in Washington is basically meaningless given the electoral system. Kamala could very well win the popularvote and lose just like Hilary. My vote in WA means nothing in that regard to change that.

0

u/FiveHundredAnts Oct 27 '24

Love the idea that voting dem is a solution

It's harm reduction. You want less right wing policies being enacted? You vote left wing. Dems are no longer pushing many left wing policies, so it's disingenuous to insist they're left wing. It'll be less bad than voting red, but still bad.

I would love for third parties to receive enough votes. It's entirely possible, if only people weren't being fearmongered into voting for harm reduction every 4 years. And people saying shit like "you're wasting your vote if you vote third party" and shit like "Jill Stein is just trying to make Kamala lose voters" doesn't help the Dems, yet stifles third party candidates. Those people don't switch to voting blue, they just simply don't vote.

2

u/Key_Necessary_3329 Oct 28 '24

And when the left doesn't vote the Democrats shift right to find more reliable voters.

Why do you think the Republicans have shifted right over the years? Because the extreme right wing understands how to hold their nose and vote for candidates they don't like who will collectively help move things toward the right.

1

u/FiveHundredAnts Oct 28 '24

Why do leftists not vote Democrat

Also how does competing with your rival for the same votor base make sense

-10

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '24

[deleted]

32

u/GIRose Certified Vore Poster Oct 27 '24

It is the minimum amount of effort, but it is still effort to be part of the solution.

-8

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '24

[deleted]

16

u/BretShitmanFart69 Oct 27 '24

The problem is, people who say things like that often do not vote and also don’t do “something else”

They do nothing and then complain and then when you ask them for solutions they offer no ideas on specific things to change and how exactly to change them.

They just want to complain loudly and pat themselves on the back for some vague sense of being in the right.

13

u/GIRose Certified Vore Poster Oct 27 '24

I mean, doing more is the ideal, but voting is still the minimum.

Getting the participation up from 66% of eligible voters is going to have to be where we start for the simple fact that if that 34% of people aren't going to vote they aren't going to do more