• Knightfox@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 hours ago

    What you’re talking about is idealism. In a perfect world you would be correct. In a perfect world the US could have affordable and efficient mass transit within a few years. In a perfect world we could end climate change in just a few years. When your argument is based on a state of the world that doesn’t exist the point of the argument is immediately useless.

    This is the problem with the anti-work movement, the anti-car movement, and people who are anti-single family homes. The arguments they make are theoretically possible, but getting enough people to move in tandem to that is just never going to happen so belaboring the point over and over is just not helpful.

    We live in a world where the US has 2 political parties, if one wins we get a beige moderate government, if the other wins we get Project 2025. If your idealism makes it so hard for you to determine which outcome you want then literally nothing can be done for you. If you have the idea that letting the republicans win so that then a true progressive party can exist then you need to look at history because right wing dictators historically kill the idealistic liberals and progressives right behind the Jews, POC, and homosexuals.

    • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 hour ago

      Well I disagree that my view isnt possible. It very much is, and is likely the only way to break the two party system to begin with.

      Other than that we would have to convince politicians to give away power, which is very unlikely.

      And I already voted for Kamala but she wasnt the best choice for me by much, and I’m not saying trump was second. But that has more to do with the state I’m in than anything. If I was a county over I would have voted for a third party.

      • Knightfox@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        46 minutes ago

        Well I disagree that my view isnt possible.

        Your disagreement has about as much weight and value as a flat earther disagreeing that the world is round.

        Other than that we would have to convince politicians to give away power, which is very unlikely.

        Which is why your disagreement doesn’t matter.

        And I already voted for Kamala but she wasnt the best choice for me by much, and I’m not saying trump was second. But that has more to do with the state I’m in than anything. If I was a county over I would have voted for a third party.

        Hey that’s totally fair, I’m not saying she should be everyone’s preferred choice, but people are going around in circles saying that they won’t vote for Kamala like they don’t understand the ramifications of that. We have a two party system, those parties aren’t vague ideas but private corporate entities with tax benefits and assets. After Bernie lost in 2016 there was a lawsuit that alleged that the DNC had committed fraud by making certain efforts to ensure Hillary won the primary. The result of the case was that they found the proof and the DNC chair persons admitted it in court. The result was that the case was dismissed, nothing illegal was done, donating to the party or voting in the primaries makes no promise that a candidate you pick will win the primary. The judge basically said that the parties private entities that are allowed to conduct their party business the way they want.

        The system that exists is built to keep it two parties and benefits those two parties.

        If you’re in a county or state where your vote won’t matter than do what you want. My state lets you vote in either primary so I voted in the Republican Primary because we will go Republican and I at least wanted to have a say on who would be getting state positions.