• agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      18 days ago

      Very false. They both represent capital yes, but one is objectively more opposed to leftist policy than the other. Republicans are more anti-Union, more against single payer healthcare, etc.

      Voting isn’t about choosing who best represents you, that person isn’t going to win. Voting is about choosing who you’re going to be fighting for the next 4 years. I’d rather push left against the Democrats than the Republicans.

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        18 days ago

        You’re confusing social reforms with genuine Leftist movement. Both the Dems and the Reps are thoroughly anti-Leftist, and neither can be worked with along Leftist lines.

          • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            18 days ago

            You specifically mentioned policies like “single payer healthcare,” not the establishment of Socialism. How do you get these policies without establishing Socialism? By trying to use the existing system and parties in it, however futile that may be. Hence why Leftists focus on establishing Socialism, and why the Dems and Reps are equally hostile to Leftists.

            • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              18 days ago

              If you can’t tell the difference between bad and worse, I can’t help you. They’re both hostile to the left, but only one is also hostile to the center.

              I believe if leftists actually started showing up, and petitioned the Democrats for charge, they might get some meager nominal concessions. The Republicans not only won’t do that, they’ll double down on authoritarianism.

              The very same tepid institutionalism that prevents them from boldly accomplishing anything is exactly what makes them a more favorable enemy. Republicans don’t care about the institutions at all, they’ll install a Christo-fascist ethnostate the exact moment they have the opportunity. I’d rather fight neoliberals than Christo-fascists, and I’m not sure why you wouldn’t.

              But go ahead, don’t vote strategically to support an easier-to-defeat enemy. I’m sure playing on hard mode will establish socialism faster.

              • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                18 days ago

                If you can’t tell the difference between bad and worse, I can’t help you. They’re both hostile to the left, but only one is also hostile to the center.

                So you agree that both are hostile to the left, glad to see you come around.

                I believe if leftists actually started showing up, and petitioned the Democrats for charge, they might get some meager nominal concessions

                Are meager, nominal concessions enough?

                But go ahead, don’t vote strategically to support an easier-to-defeat enemy. I’m sure playing on hard mode will establish socialism faster.

                You haven’t explained how they are easier to defeat. The idea that Dems put the kid gloves on when dealing with genuine threats to the status quo is woefully naiive.

                • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  18 days ago

                  glad to see you come around.

                  I didn’t come around, that was always my view. We disagree on relative degree.

                  Are meager, nominal concessions enough?

                  Who said anything about “enough”? Again, relative degree. Meager, nominal concessions are better than Christo-fascism.

                  The idea that Dems put the kid gloves on when dealing with genuine threats to the status quo is woefully naiive.

                  I never said that. Their gloves are the same, but the Republicans are wearing brass knuckles.

                  • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    18 days ago

                    And yet you can’t explain how Dems are easier to overthrow than Reps. You keep saying that you can get minor concessions out of Dems, but that doesn’t mean they treat Leftists any less violently.

    • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      17 days ago

      If you think one genocide is just as bad as 3, when the difference is millions of lives, then you have no heart.

      Drag gets it, okay? “Just as bad” is a great soundbite. It gets people riled up and ready to take action. But it’s also false, because it erases millions of genocide victims. And drag wants to know whether you’ve thought about the millions of genocide victims you’re erasing to accomplish your goals. Has it not crossed your mind yet, or did you make a conscious choice to use genocide-denying rhetoric?