Former democratic party activists are organizing Muslims and Arab-Americans in Swing states to vote against Biden with the demand that he support a ceasefire in Gaza.

I’ll allow them a little bit of electoralism this time.

  • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Good lord, so the plan is to vote for Trump? The guy who has a pattern of simping for right wing authoritarian fuckheads like Nettanyahu?

    Honestly, their efforts would be much better spent trying to get election reform like ranked choice voting up as local election issues in order to break the two party system’s kneecaps.

    • Doubledee [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Did you read the article? They specifically say they won’t vote for him and would organize for a candidate that was willing to stand up to US Islamophobia. He’s not gonna vote for Trump.

      And who exactly is simping for who? At least Donny and Bibi liked each other, Joe is the one pathetically prostrating himself for a guy who openly dislikes him.

    • BurgerPunk [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Honestly, their efforts would be much better spent trying to get election reform like ranked choice voting up as local election issues in order to break the two party system’s kneecaps.

      Congratulations on telling the uppity muslims how to best proceed with their struggle

      Get fucked lib pigpoop

    • Starlet [she/her, it/its]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Good lord, so the plan is to vote for Trump? The guy who has a pattern of simping for right wing authoritarian fuckheads like Nettanyahu?

      Biden has given Netanyahu and Zelensky countless billions of dollars. Trump would not have done anything differently.

      Honestly, their efforts would be much better spent trying to get election reform like ranked choice voting up as local election issues in order to break the two party system’s kneecaps.

      There is no “reform” to be had; the Democrats will never peaceably give up their power over the US and the world as a whole.

      • synae[he/him]@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        I’m failing to understand this POV. Even if you think neither outcome is good why wouldn’t you do what minimal thing you can to keep the worse option from happening?

        • zephyreks [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          If neither party represents your interests, what’s your vote doing? Making sure that they can both ignore your interests even more?

          The US two-party system is a complete and abject failure of democracy.

          • synae[he/him]@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 months ago

            If a fascist finds it important to vote, I intend my vote to counteract theirs.

            It’s less important that someone “represents my interests” than it is that overall suffrage and equity is reduced at a slower rate. It’s sad, but that’s what it seems we’re up against in the modern republican party.

            The two party system IS a failure, and I have a laundry list(*) of electoral changes I want throughout the country, some of which are already in place in a few voting districts including my own. How is not voting going to improve any of that?

            (* If you’re interested I can add them tomorrow when I’m more sober and at a keyboard)

            • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              overall suffrage and equity is reduced at a slower rate.

              If you are doing this at the expense of not taking even a chance at stopping the reduction of equity, you are in fact helping the reduction of equity even as you are slowing it.

            • zephyreks [none/use name]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              If you’re forced to vote for a party to avoid the collapse of your democracy, that’s no longer a democracy. That’s a one-party state with a few more steps.

              • synae[he/him]@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                That’s a fair point - in that event, is it still not an improvement to keep that bare-bones separation from a one-party state rather than run headlong into it? Worded differently- if there is ostensibly a revolution brewing, would the revolutionaries benefit from the additional time granted by the dysfunction of the almost-one-party ? Or are we talking accelerationism?

                I guess I’ll also ask, at what point of a democracy-in-decline is it “ok” to vote for a person or party en masse to turn that decline around? As an analogy I’m thinking of like, a car teetering on a cliff. This sounds like sitting in the car with arms crossed saying “you’re just a few steps from falling to your death, no point in getting out of the car now”. Sorry if that’s hyperbolic; I’m trying to give a clear example and that’s the first thing that came to mind.

                • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Or are we talking accelerationism?

                  This is, in my view, the real issue. Statistically, anti-electoralism is in no way functionally different than accelerationism. Both have the exact same outcomes as right-wingers, especially the far-right vote consistently and toe the line.

                  I’ve not seen an ounce of evidence that accelerationism actually works to achieve its stated goal, which on some level makes me suspect that the whole lot of anti-electoralism and accelerationism is encouraged by authoritarians on the far-right to further disenfranchise any ideas left of center from having representation. That and there’s real harm to LGBTQ+ folks, indigenous peoples, minorities, and their allies caused by empowering the far-right more.

                  Might that lead to an actual revolution at some point? Maybe. There’s not yet any evidence to say that it will that I’ve seen in historical data, however. And I cannot ethically agree with “end justifies the means” thinking as it nearly always results in increased suffering for workers and “common” people to whom I owe my allegiance.

                  Now to wait for my anarchist self to be flamed as a “shitlib”. (I hope not because this is supposed to be a leftist unity instance but, it’s happened to me before over misunderstandings).

        • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Materially all you are doing is helping the Democrats keep being shit because they believe they are entitled to the vote of every decent person on the basis of this lesser evilism. Breaking their base, even if it lets the Republicans win one cycle, would actually pressure concessions out of them.

          • synae[he/him]@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 months ago

            Breaking their base, even if it lets the Republicans win one cycle

            I appreciate what you’re saying, but its not resonating with me.

            “This is the most important election of our lifetime” – yes, I know you all make fun of people for saying that, and I am mostly quoting it because I know I’ll get called out if I try to dance around the wording. But, that sentiment seems true to me based on what R’s have been getting up to lately. They seem poised to take over if they win one more cycle.

            • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              I appreciate your attempting to exercise self-awareness, but I am again asking you to step back and look at the bigger picture: Let’s say there is validity to the claim “This is the most important election of our lifetime.” I reject that claim, it seems to have no material basis, but let’s say it is real. What is this really saying? “This is the most important election you have encountered yet” This is a critical distinction that is never articulated because the simple fact of the matter is that what you are saying didn’t become a meme this cycle, it became a meme – being generous – in 2016 (less generous would put it in the mid-20th century). 2016 got this treatment, 2020 got this treatment, 2024 is getting this treatment, and can you tell me with a straight face that 2028 won’t be treated the same way?

              So we have a pattern of crisis being proclaimed, where each one is said to be worse than the previous crises, and there is absolutely no model to stop it except by being so myopic you can’t see the future 3 inches past your nose. Let us say that it is “the most important election of our lifetimes [so far],” that’s because it beat out the previous crises, but the ones after will surely be worse. Even giving what I view as an unreasonable amount of leeway to your hypothesis, the calculus of risking Trump winning in order to actually make positive change and develop a means to break this vicious cycle of ever-greater threat of catastrophe. You are sinking and debating that we should spend forever slowing how quickly we sink instead of trying to get out of the water.

              • synae[he/him]@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                11 months ago

                I appreciate your attempting to exercise self-awareness

                Lol! I appreciate your well-crafted backhanded compliment :)

                To lay it bare, why do I think this election (and the previous two, and the next) are so important? I think there are two major crises facing us simultaneously. One is the climate crisis. The other is the web of corruption, subversion of truth, weaponization and/or crippling of institutions, and legalized bribery – a nebulous but worsening condition that I believe started with Reagan but has continued relatively unabated for 50 years and took off like a rocket under Trump and has metastasized to all levels of government, and shows no signs of stopping.

                In the case of climate, every year that passes without remediation is bringing us closer to hell on earth and there may be no going back. In the case of corruption etc - US democracy is eroded faster and faster if unaddressed and it might already be too late to save it. You might even agree with me there – except on the point that it makes each upcoming election “important”, of course.

                IMO these are two different forms of existential crisis and until they are addressed – seriously addressed, not just assuaged out of the public consciousness – the conditions are getting worse and worse and the possibility of resolving them shrinks. Every other problem we face takes a back seat to these order-of-magnitude-larger issues, and no meaningful progress can be made on the lesser issues.

                So I don’t think it’s much of an exaggeration to say each election is the “most important of our lifetime”. With the magnitude of these crises, why wouldn’t the importance of these choices be outsized compared to other points in recent history?


                In all honesty, I think the most important presidential election of my life was 2000. Not only do I believe that the country could have been a leader on climate issues under Gore, Bush’s War on Terror response would’ve been different/less-bad (maybe not, I’m sure folks around here will argue), we also would’ve had a completely different supreme court and all that comes with that.

                I probably have a few more things I could add to that paragraph but to continue with my attempted self-awareness, I realize now that I’m probably just spewing standard lib talking points that don’t bear repeating, so I’ll knock it off.


                You are sinking and debating that we should spend forever slowing how quickly we sink instead of trying to get out of the water.

                Good analogy, and you’re 100% right. I won’t deny it because that is exactly what I am arguing for and I’m trying to understand the other viewpoint(s). IMO the longer we have (i.e. the slower we sink), the more time we have to figure out how to get out of the water, or how to execute the get-out-of-the-water plan. But also, the impression that I get from this community - the one I’m trying to get clarity on throughout this discussion - is that we should stop treading water and get on with the sinking already. Or, that shouting “get out of the water” constitutes a plan of action. (Note: this sounds overly dismissive, and I don’t mean it that way - following along the analogy brought me here)


                After a few mishaps I’ve now learned to write my responses in a different editor so lemmy-web doesn’t eat them, and when I pasted this from my text editor into lemmy I realized this is my longest response yet. So, I want to say thank you again for the spirited discussion and your patience with me throughout. Hope you’re having a good day despite (what I assume is) an exasperating online discussion!

                • BurgerPunk [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  The other is the web of corruption, subversion of truth, weaponization and/or crippling of institutions, and legalized bribery – a nebulous but worsening condition that I believe started with Reagan but has continued relatively unabated for 50 years and took off like a rocket under Trump

                  This web of corruption you are refering to is capitalism and liberal democracy itself. It did not begin with Reagan, its always been this way. What you view as it “starting” with Reagan is the ascendence of neoliberalism which is still just capitalism and liberal democracy.

                  The idea that any of this became worse with Trump is ludicrous and massively ahistorical. You could say it became more visible because libs chose to examine it more closely and because Trump is more transparently corrupt. But its hard to argue he’s more corrupt than other admins lor politicians. The main reason Trump was not impeached on emoluments was because congressional dems are guilty of the same shit.

                  IMO the longer we have (i.e. the slower we sink), the more time we have to figure out how to get out of the water, or how to execute the get-out-of-the-water plan.

                  I think this is your stumbling block to understanding our position. Sink-more-slowly by unconditionally voting for one of the people pushing you into the water is not a plan. We already know how to get out of the water. Other people have done it, other countries are not in the water because they’ve had revolutions against liberal democracy. And that is the problem - liberal democracy can not stop this, because liberal democracy is the sustem which maintains capitalism and the oppression of the ruling class.

                • Your example of the 2000 presidential election should give you a bit of insight into why voting at a presidential level is pointless. Gore won, but the Supreme Court interfered and put the guy they wanted in place.

                  There will always be some equivalent force to prevent any real change at the presidential level. See also the DNC rat-fucking Bernie in 2016 and 2020 and the DNC pied-pipering in trump in 2016

        • Venus [she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          If they want my vote they’ve got to do something to earn it

          I was willing to vote for Bernie Sanders in 2020 for harm reduction reasons. He was the compromise. Dems rejected it.

        • reverendz [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          The vote is performative.

          At this point, you’re voting for the window dressing.

          • Which bill was it where dems legalized gay marriage?

          • Which bill was it where they protected abortion rights?

          • Which bill was it where they protected the right to marry other races?

          etc.

          Basing your record on a few supreme court decisions, which can (and have) get overturned is fatuous.

          Aside from taking a slightly less shitty stance on things, you’ll find that for the most part, the dems, when they had full government control, did fuck all to enshrine minority rights, provide a living wage, or make steps towards universal healthcare.

          I used to think like this, I’m 50 and voted like my life depended on it since '92. All I’ve seen since then, are conditions getting worse and worse, regardless of who was in office. I bought Obama’s schtick and watched as he did half assed measures and frittered a majority away.

          And by the way “b-b-but conservative democrats” line has been used as far back as I can remember. If you consistently see members of a party blocking vital legislation over and over and over again. Maybe that shit is performative too.

          This country needs a reset.

          • synae[he/him]@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 months ago

            It seems to me that when it comes to the late late late point of who to vote for president, the time to change them has passed.

            I’m my mind, the time for a “change” vote comes during primaries. When it comes to the official vote (especially presidential), I vote for the least fascist candidate… who has a chance at winning, I suppose.

            • fox [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              And there lies the rub. Bernie was ratfucked during the primaries so that Joe could get the nomination. The machine would rather be in control and lose than let the popular candidate win.

              • synae[he/him]@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                11 months ago

                Yes, I voted for Bernie in the primaries and then Biden in the general. I’m pissed about how Biden became the candidate. I still voted to negate a Trump vote. What am I missing?

                • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  That your unconditional support is the sort of thing that makes the ratfucking a viable strategy. Just look at that fucking interview where a reporter points out that most voters don’t want Biden to run again and he counters that they also said they would vote for him if he was the general candidate. This whipped attitude is openly being cited by these monsters as being what enables them even among populations that hate them. They have long given the game away and you keep fucking falling for it irrespective!

          • synae[he/him]@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            I can agree Joe is a genocider and still vote for him instead of trump*.

            Trump is happy to apply his genocidal ideals to his own countrymen. Biden, less so - mostly directed outward/foreign. If my vote has influence on this matter, even slightly, who am I going to choose?

            Moreover, I’m not pretending my vote is some sacred gift I can only give to the most perfect candidate. Rather, I am happy if my trash vote can negate a even more-trash vote.

            * I predict being the_dunk_tank material and I accept my fate.

            Also I want to say, I am really trying to understand this. even if I say wierd/bad faith/something stuff it’s an accident and I want to understand the point of view of “anti electoralism” – if that’s the right term.

              • synae[he/him]@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                11 months ago

                Maybe this is what’s hard for me to understand about the anti-electoral stance. From what I’ve gathered in this thread, my vote is simultaneously completely worthless and inffective, yet also the most precious thing I should only give to the most worthy.

                I’m having a hard time figuring out how to word this comment to sound less snarky, but I am legitimately interested in your thoughts on this dichotomy. Or if you think this is not a good interpretation of your+other commenter’s comments, I’ll be happy to be corrected. Thanks.

                • AbbysMuscles [she/her]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  From what I’ve gathered in this thread, my vote is simultaneously completely worthless and inffective, yet also the most precious thing I should only give to the most worthy.

                  I think of it like this. In an ideal society (or at least vaguely functional political system), your vote would and should be precious. Yet in our shithole nation, this precious thing of yours is forced to be given to one of two genocidal evils. the-democrat is the face of a party who pretends like they’ll take your vote and do something useful. Stand up for minorities, do something about climate change, maybe reduce the mass social murder in this country, or just do fucking anything at all. Yet time and again, they only make things worse. If your vote is precious and should only be given to the most worthy, why give it to a racist, senile, sex offending, warhawk?

                  And we all know that to vote for anyone other than the two candidates is a useless gesture, accomplishing nothing. So in practical terms, voting in this nation is voting for one of holden-bloodfeast this guy’s two masks. Why fucking bother?

                  Edit to add-

                  I can agree Joe is a genocider and still vote for him instead of trump

                  Why? Why the shitting fuck would you decide “This genocider is deserving of my vote”. That is a physical manifestation of your thought that this man should lead our country. You’re not just passively thinking it, you’re taking an active step to make sure that happens. If a daycare was trying to choose between John Wayne Gacy or Albert Fisch to be its director, it would be fucking insane to give it serious thought and then vote on one of them. You should demand to know why this is the choice in the first place, and not shrug and vote for one of them like a browbeaten little b----

                • culpritus [any]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  It’s pretty simple, if your vote is for a ‘lesser evil’ that is a negative choice proposition, hardly worthy of the word ‘choice’ or ‘democracy’. Two bad choices are still two bad choices, even if one is marketed as slightly less bad. The entire Dem strategy for like decades now has been this prisoners dilemma proposition. They never provide federal protection enshrined in law because that would take away the leverage of this strategy. The only way to break out of this pattern is to really threaten it directly by not acquiescing to it like good little liberals. That is why you have cognitive dissonance over this topic. The social pressure of ‘lesser evil’ is so deeply embedded in the liberal worldview that any questioning of it is adjacent to being a terrible right-winger.

                  The cultural war divide benefits Dems, so they do everything to perpetuate it instead of reconciling it. You need to comprehend this to have a realistic understanding of US political economy.

                  • synae[he/him]@lemmy.sdf.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    I can acknowledge all of that, and understand it intellectually, and still see that a vote can reduce the speed of encroaching facism.

                    Trump lost Georgia by 11k votes, Bush won Florida by 537 votes – sometimes meaningful things do happen with relatively tiny margins and if they can be swayed in a preferred direction, I’ll take it.

                    threaten it directly by not acquiescing to it

                    How is this a threat? This is, I think, core to my failure to understand your position. To me that sounds like giving up and giving free rein to continue rolling back abortion rights, lgbtq protections, etc. This sounds completely irrational to me so if I’ve misunderstood you (or others, or this position in general) I am happy to be corrected on my assumptions. Thanks!

            • Doubledee [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              11 months ago

              I want to understand the point of view of “anti electoralism” – if that’s the right term.

              That’s relatively straightforward. Elections are a distraction, they redirect energy into a form the political order can digest without changing. The more you invest in them the less you are putting into alternatives that are more useful. Vote, if you want, it might do marginal good in an infinitesimal scale, but agonizing over voting is playing into a system that exists to funnel all your energy into itself.

              • synae[he/him]@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                11 months ago

                Vote, if you want, it might do marginal good in an infinitesimal scale, but agonizing over voting is playing into a system that exists to funnel all your energy into itself.

                I guess this is where I’m lost. They mail me ballots, I fill them out and mail them back. It’s almost the least I can do. If every person opposed to fascism did the same, I believe fascism’s encroachment would be slowed.

                • Doubledee [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  I don’t know what you mean. Democrats keep winning by the numbers. Fascism is still encroaching. It’s been encroaching my entire life, and Republicans have won the popular vote once in that time. People do vote. And this still happens.

                  I’m not telling you not to, I keep saying it’s fine to do if you feel like it. So is watching a movie or getting a snack at 3 in the morning. You do you. But don’t act like it’s fixing anything. It clearly isn’t. That’s why you get to keep doing it.

                • BurgerPunk [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  If every person opposed to fascism did the same, I believe fascism’s encroachment would be slowed.

                  That should be true. Its totally sound reasoning. Except the system in the US is designed to frustrate popular will and facilitate minority rule. Individuals simply voting their conscious will never solve anything within this system.

                  Liberal democracy and the spectacle of the election, is a perfect vehicle for the rise of fascism, but it actively hinders what is needed to stop it

                  • synae[he/him]@lemmy.sdf.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    Even if it’s designed to “frustrate popular will”, isn’t not voting frustrating that will even further? That just seems to be playing into their hands.

                    To me, the question is accentuated further when considering those people who willingly give up their suffrage which many others fought and died for. And further with the sentiment of “If voting didn’t do anything, they wouldn’t try to stop certain people from doing it”.

                    I can’t shake any of that when the barrier is so low and the stakes can (occasionally) be so high.

            • CyborgMarx [any, any]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              11 months ago

              Trump is happy to apply his genocidal ideals to his own countrymen. Biden, less so - mostly directed outward/foreign. If my vote has influence on this matter, even slightly, who am I going to choose?

              Biden has Trump beat on deportations, police funding, military funding, and he’s completely unwilling to stand for abortion right, trans rights, and debt forgiveness

              And now he’s a genocider, so what actually are we supposed to be afraid of from Trump? At least with Trump most of the media and 50% of the establishment will oppose him, unlike with Biden where the 90% of the media backs him and 80% of the establishment cosigns his genocidal ideals

              I fear Biden and his ilk more than I fear Trump and his incompetent clown show, because at least with Trump I can be confident most of the country will oppose him

              I can’t even be confident that so-called “leftists” will oppose Biden, because here you are arguing we should vote for a man who’s committing genocide

              • synae[he/him]@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                11 months ago

                I’m not going to defend Biden or dems in general, but part of your point that I want to address directly is this:

                completely unwilling to stand for abortion right, trans rights, and debt forgiveness

                While he and other dems are “unwilling to stand”, they are also not actively working against those or certain other causes. If everyone who believes in these causes chooses to not vote because they’re not being addressed, republicans will win and do their damndest to stomp all over marginalized groups even more. This is why I vote (against them).

                at least with Trump I can be confident most of the country will oppose him

                Oppose him verbally, sure. But that has no effect, and actually sometimes emboldens him and other R’s as they do stuff to “own the libs”. Why is opposing him like this good, but opposing him with my vote bad?

                I think my stumbling block in trying to understand this POV is that I do believe there is inherently a difference between voting for someone and voting against someone else. I’d rather not freely cede anything to those I consider to be worse. I understand you may see the outcome as “the same” and for some people, it is. But I do believe that there are people where a difference between the parties exists and is important in their lives.

                To address your last point, I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything, certainly not against their conscience. I’m trying to understand why walking away from elections is (or at least seems to be) the general consensus amongst this community.

                Thanks for your thoughts.

                • CyborgMarx [any, any]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  While he and other dems are “unwilling to stand”, they are also not actively working against those or certain other causes. If everyone who believes in these causes chooses to not vote because they’re not being addressed, republicans will win and do their damndest to stomp all over marginalized groups even more. This is why I vote (against them).

                  Why did you zoom in on the “completely unwilling to stand for abortion right, trans rights, and debt forgiveness” part, but completely ignore the “Biden has Trump beat on deportations, police funding, military funding” part? BIDEN IS DOING his damndest to stomp all over marginalized groups, even more then Trump when it comes to those specific areas of contention

                  Also not being willing to stand up to republicans in terms of abortion rights IS the same thing as “actively working against those or certain other causes”, in fact false alliance is worse than outright hostility, because it confuses and disarms marginalized people who look for allies

                  Oppose him verbally, sure. But that has no effect

                  Really? An entire country with every liberal and leftist org united against Trump and the only opposition would be verbal? And I thought I was a doomer

                  Why is opposing him like this good, but opposing him with my vote bad?

                  Because your vote strengthens the Ratchet Effect, as we’ve seen with Biden’s rightward shift

                  I think my stumbling block in trying to understand this POV is that I do believe there is inherently a difference between voting for someone and voting against someone else

                  If the person you’re voting FOR is doing the same or worse things than the person you’re voting AGAINST, then your politics are frankly incoherent and insincere, and you’ll end up valuing the lives of certain people over the lives of others, and at that point you might as well just become a republican