Did you know Chevron caused a huge climate disaster through dumping waste into the Amazon river, which experts call “The Amazon Chernobyl”, and then locked up the lawyer trying to fight against it?
Chevron, who through a coup controlled the Equadorian government for many years, got the government to sign a law called “The Act of Liberation”, which, although very much contradicting the name, made it impossible for anyone (especially indigenous people) to sue the oil company.
you may not believe this, but back in 2018 (I was 14) I was such a huge fan of Elon Musk my sister gifted me this for my birthday. This was one year before moving to San Jose and meeting people who actually work for him, or experiencing his absolute meltdown over people not coming to work for following pandemic rules. I read his book and everything. All because of the PewDiePipeline
Joe Biden has deported more people than Donald Trump [1], funded the police more than Trump [2], and has now helped to kill more Palestinians than Trump [3].
If you cannot allow criticism towards this person because you believe critiquing them is the same as endorsing the opponent, then you are participating in the very cult behavior you should be criticizing.
Yes, Trump would be worse, way worse...
...but it's horrible to compare Trump's potential genocide to Biden's currently real and ongoing genocide. Voting Democrat is harm reduction, portraying it overall as anything else is, in my privileged opinion, incorrect. In many individual examples I can, however, see how you come to view the Democrats not just as the lesser evil, but even positively.
Many vulnerable groups such as queer (especially trans) people are helped by a Democratic government, even maintaining the right to abortion is, visibly, helped by Democrats. There are examples in which voting the Democratic Party betters the lives of certain groups. Yet that change doesn't come sustainably and the tides may as well turn. If the Democratic Party is willing to throw one group of people under the bus for winning Republican voters, who is to say they won't do the same with your group?
If you don't give human rights to everyone, it's not a right anymore, it's being treated human as a privilege.
When it comes to foreign policy, unions, most social services, the treatment of the poor, healthcare, border policy, it's mostly the same between the two parties. Trump is merely the death of the euphemism.
A queer person won't vote for a party that doesn't support queer rights, so what should someone of another marginalized group not supported by the Democrats do?
Additionally, don't forget that it was the Democratic party that supported and funded Donald Trump's primary election in 2015 [4] as they always back the most far right candidate [5] in order to even make a distinction between the two parties visible.
What I'm trying to say is that you, as a democratic voter, cannot blame someone for supporting an alternative party, nor claim that supporting that third party is horrible merely because it may “allow for a Republican victory.” If it was in the Democrat's interest to change the election system or electoral college to allow for something other than effectively a two party system, then they would've done so.
I won't ride a high horse and claim it's morally wrong to support the Democrats, I don't think that. I do believe, however, that many people are disillusioned in voting for Democrats but know voting for Republicans only makes things worse. If not allowing a Republican victory was in the Democrat's interest, then they would adapt the party's stance to social, non-war/non-genocide, non-deportation, anticapitalist, pro-Housing, and pro-Healthcare for all positions. They don't, so what choice is there for people from marginalized groups other than voting for a third party? Can you tell them it's only morally right to vote for a party that worsens their living conditions or wishes to have them erased?
A representative democracy exists so people can voice their opinions through voting in the representation they favor — if you critique them because the USA's democratic system fails to represent them, hence they should vote for one of the two representations that are possible, but aim to kill them or worsen their lives, then you are critiquing an individual for the faultiness of the system.
And last but not least, any person should still be called out for “boycotting the election”, not voting is ridiculous which is perfectly explained by Jay Foreman here.
Participate in every election while you can. :voteblue: :dsa:
I always thought the “lesser of two evil” argument had its limitations, and when both options include complete annihilation, I think that limit has been reached. Both candidates in the upcoming U.S. elections fail to enact policies to prevent climate change to a meaningful degree and in accordance to the Paris Climate Agreement.
Instead of moralizing the decisions of each individual voter, claiming it's their fault if the more progressive candidate doesn't win, how about questioning the decisions of the democratic party's leadership? It would be the lesser of two evils for the Democrats to simply adopt policies that people would vote for (such as Medicare for All, actual infrastructure re-investments, not doing genocide...)
What long term strategy is there behind continuously voting for a party, even to the point where it doesn't represent you anymore? If Harris/Walz win this election, and by 2028 the shift to the right has progressed so much further that the Democrat's positions are exactly the same as Trump's today, is the only strategy still voting for Democrats? Where and when do you draw the line? If it was so important to win this election, more important than anything else, why is the Democratic party not willing to sacrifice even the tiniest of their corporate sponsors?
Here's what I believe: they don't care. They don't want to win this election. They know you will vote for them no matter what. They don't have to do anything that might go against their corporate sponsors but would win people over and ensure a better life for all. Because they don't have to. Because you let yourself be fooled.
First of all: enlightened centrism Second of all: this shows you how little the rich need to care about politics, as their liberties are never on the line, in no election.
Maybe I am too dumb to use Facebook, but I don't get how so many people even can use it. Every time I tried creating a Facebook account (throughout the past years...) they were immediately locked after creation and I needed to wait multiple days for some admin to confirm it despite using 100% my real name, identity, even uploading a picture of my PASSPORT once. I never used a VPN or a public WiFi to create the account, I used a normal Gmail address as my E-mail etc.
The only working way I've found to use Facebook is to go on the dark web and buy accounts. Not kidding.
Admin of @MastodonDE | https://mastodon.deMitgründer von @AnneFrankInNorden#KnackigePfirsiche 🍑 #CrunchyPeachesMember of the FediverseDecentralize or Die! #SmallWebOpen Source is a Human Right!Socialize the Social Network for the Sake of All!Born at 375.64 ppm | :hehim::erihm: | tfrFormer Account: @Erik