It’s not a trolley problem, and even if it were the consequences of greenlighting democratic support for genocide are not fully represented appropriately in this image.
We all know what happens if the Republicans get in - they do what they want, and what they want is fervent, unquestioning support of Israel, and to continue trampling on the rights of millions of minorities.
That’s where the Trolley goes if the leftwing can’t agree on what it wants to do.
While I agree that you’re right in stating that the long-term consequences of allowing democrats to get away with this aren’t properly laid out, what’s the alternative exactly?
You could argue to vote an independent, but if everybody disagrees on which independent to vote for, then you fragment the leftwing and the Republicans get a free lunch.
You could argue to refuse to vote to teach the democrat party a lesson, which sounds nice, but every lost vote against the Republicans only helps bring them closer to victory.
If you’ve got another idea, then by all means go ahead, but those are the two I hear over and over again.
Except communicating to Democratic leadership that this is acceptable moves us to the right, not to the left. I think it’s time we all admit at least that we’re past pretending Democrats are going to reform themselves without any meaningful pressure, no?
How far to the right do we let the DNC use fear to push us before being “left” only in relation to the extreme right doesn’t cut it? If genocide is not where you draw the line what the fuck will be?
Voting or not voting by itself will not move democrats to the left. That can only be achieved by organizing. In the meantime, keeping republicans out of power is worthwhile.
Again, I agree with what you’re saying in principle, but how do you propose to draw that line now?
Both realistic outcomes of the election involve the US government continuing to support this genocide in one way or another - that’s why OP’s meme is drawn out like it is, because people arguing your exact viewpoint seem to think there’s some magical third track everybody else has missed that sidetracks this issue entirely.
Everybody loses this election no matter what happens, but I guarantee you the loss will be worse with the Republicans in the driving seat.
Again, I agree with what you’re saying in principle, but how do you propose to draw that line now?
There will never be a perfect time to draw the line, because the DNC will always play chicken with its own base as long as that continues to get them elected, they will always be putting us in that position of choosing between their fascist lite pick and the gop’s fascist. The only weapon we have that they care about is our ability to deny them power. They don’t care about protests, they don’t care about articles and letters, debate or polls or anything, as we see none of that changes their behaviour. They care about money and access to power.
So, the solution is to starve them until they realize the party simply can’t sustain itself on non-existent maga swing voters. It can’t leech enough “moderate” conservatives to survive. They need to be brought to the understanding that their route to power is not to be Alt Republican, it’s to be progressive and anti-fascist.
People can say the DNC won’t care and it will never work that way, but we’ve seen a real example from history that starving parties works. When Republican support was waning in the 1950s and 60s, the Republicans went out hunting for a new demographic to sustain them. That’s what the Southern Strategy was. Granted they were going in the opposite direction, but the Democrats can be put in the same position and since the GOP already occupies all the white racist territory, Dems have very few other places to hide from Millenials and GenZ.
And in the meantime those groups need to keep voting and keep fighting to get progressives in every position they can. They just need to be disciplined about not backing corporate candidates, they need to be unelectable.
And yes, I understand this would likely mean some really shitty years, but that’s the cost to make Democrats understand they need their base.
One, that is a very long way of saying the idea you’re bringing to the table is don’t vote - and I’ve already said what I think about that.
And yes, I understand this would likely mean some really shitty years, but that’s the cost to make Democrats understand they need their base.
Two, that’s a bit of an understatement considering just one highlight of Trump’s last presidency was rigging the SCOTUS towards being openly corrupt and against the people for literally decades to come.
And in the meantime those groups need to keep voting and keep fighting to get progressives in every position they can. They just need to be disciplined about not backing corporate candidates, they need to be unelectable.
Yeah, I did see that section, but given that a “corporate” candidate is already the democrat nominee, that also amounts to not voting in this election - or voting for independents, which I have also made my opinion known on - so there was no point in talking about that.
There’s more than the presidency on the ballot. People should vote, they should just refuse to vote for any right-wing candidate forced on them by the DNC. That’s why you vote even when Dems nominate a Republican, to send that message.
There’s only one way to teach the DNC that corporate conservative dems are unelectable, and that’s to consistently deny them wins in primaries and in the general if necessary.
It’s funny you say the philosophy is simple when strategic voting requires multiple layers of analysis and voting for bubblegum ice cream just amounts to what feels good. You can’t bring yourself to accept the reality of the situation, so you pretend like the problem is easy to solve if you just ignore it. That’s truly simple minded. Pathetic projection on your part.
It’s not strategic if the outcome of either option in the binary you present is fascism. You’re not “saving” anyone on either of the tracks in the narrow political world you paint.
Simplistic philosophy for simplistic minds.
It’s not a trolley problem, and even if it were the consequences of greenlighting democratic support for genocide are not fully represented appropriately in this image.
It is a trolley problem for leftwing voters.
We all know what happens if the Republicans get in - they do what they want, and what they want is fervent, unquestioning support of Israel, and to continue trampling on the rights of millions of minorities.
That’s where the Trolley goes if the leftwing can’t agree on what it wants to do.
While I agree that you’re right in stating that the long-term consequences of allowing democrats to get away with this aren’t properly laid out, what’s the alternative exactly?
You could argue to vote an independent, but if everybody disagrees on which independent to vote for, then you fragment the leftwing and the Republicans get a free lunch.
You could argue to refuse to vote to teach the democrat party a lesson, which sounds nice, but every lost vote against the Republicans only helps bring them closer to victory.
If you’ve got another idea, then by all means go ahead, but those are the two I hear over and over again.
Except communicating to Democratic leadership that this is acceptable moves us to the right, not to the left. I think it’s time we all admit at least that we’re past pretending Democrats are going to reform themselves without any meaningful pressure, no?
How far to the right do we let the DNC use fear to push us before being “left” only in relation to the extreme right doesn’t cut it? If genocide is not where you draw the line what the fuck will be?
Voting or not voting by itself will not move democrats to the left. That can only be achieved by organizing. In the meantime, keeping republicans out of power is worthwhile.
Again, I agree with what you’re saying in principle, but how do you propose to draw that line now?
Both realistic outcomes of the election involve the US government continuing to support this genocide in one way or another - that’s why OP’s meme is drawn out like it is, because people arguing your exact viewpoint seem to think there’s some magical third track everybody else has missed that sidetracks this issue entirely.
Everybody loses this election no matter what happens, but I guarantee you the loss will be worse with the Republicans in the driving seat.
There will never be a perfect time to draw the line, because the DNC will always play chicken with its own base as long as that continues to get them elected, they will always be putting us in that position of choosing between their fascist lite pick and the gop’s fascist. The only weapon we have that they care about is our ability to deny them power. They don’t care about protests, they don’t care about articles and letters, debate or polls or anything, as we see none of that changes their behaviour. They care about money and access to power.
So, the solution is to starve them until they realize the party simply can’t sustain itself on non-existent maga swing voters. It can’t leech enough “moderate” conservatives to survive. They need to be brought to the understanding that their route to power is not to be Alt Republican, it’s to be progressive and anti-fascist.
People can say the DNC won’t care and it will never work that way, but we’ve seen a real example from history that starving parties works. When Republican support was waning in the 1950s and 60s, the Republicans went out hunting for a new demographic to sustain them. That’s what the Southern Strategy was. Granted they were going in the opposite direction, but the Democrats can be put in the same position and since the GOP already occupies all the white racist territory, Dems have very few other places to hide from Millenials and GenZ.
And in the meantime those groups need to keep voting and keep fighting to get progressives in every position they can. They just need to be disciplined about not backing corporate candidates, they need to be unelectable.
And yes, I understand this would likely mean some really shitty years, but that’s the cost to make Democrats understand they need their base.
One, that is a very long way of saying the idea you’re bringing to the table is don’t vote - and I’ve already said what I think about that.
Two, that’s a bit of an understatement considering just one highlight of Trump’s last presidency was rigging the SCOTUS towards being openly corrupt and against the people for literally decades to come.
You clearly didn’t read it then, we’re done here.
Yeah, I did see that section, but given that a “corporate” candidate is already the democrat nominee, that also amounts to not voting in this election - or voting for independents, which I have also made my opinion known on - so there was no point in talking about that.
There’s more than the presidency on the ballot. People should vote, they should just refuse to vote for any right-wing candidate forced on them by the DNC. That’s why you vote even when Dems nominate a Republican, to send that message.
There’s only one way to teach the DNC that corporate conservative dems are unelectable, and that’s to consistently deny them wins in primaries and in the general if necessary.
It’s funny you say the philosophy is simple when strategic voting requires multiple layers of analysis and voting for bubblegum ice cream just amounts to what feels good. You can’t bring yourself to accept the reality of the situation, so you pretend like the problem is easy to solve if you just ignore it. That’s truly simple minded. Pathetic projection on your part.
It’s not strategic if the outcome of either option in the binary you present is fascism. You’re not “saving” anyone on either of the tracks in the narrow political world you paint.
You’re reducing things to a single issue and have the gall to say my political world is narrow. You’re unreal.
Literally. How do people like this exist
Image fully representing the consequences of any voters in the US deciding to “greenlight genocide”: