i think the bottom text has it wrong.
this is probably a stronger argument to get people to vote for her:
what she’ll do
what her opponent won’t be able to do if she wins.their value system is completely opposed to ours. there is no point in any kind of good faith debate. they want in groups and out groups. they cannot be reasoned with. drop that entire concept and ask yourself what comes next if the fate of the world hangs in the balance.
If we stopped constantly arguing logic and reason to people that clearly have none, and focused on discussions of how we improve the country through governance and policy, we could actually convert some of them. But If i were to imagine life as a Trumper all I would see is hatred towards me everywhere, why the fuck would I listen to people insulting me?
Not that this would happen because at the end of the day, both sides of the aisles have their fair share of people whose political ideology is just to regurgitate what their own social circles reinforce while simultaneously be unable to withstand some minor pushback on topics and then confirming to the other that they dont know what theyre talking about. And the media will constantly put a megaphone up to this ignorant minority so the other side can confirm to themselves how dumb that side is.
Shit half the time I try to make the point that most people voting for trump are doing so because of their social circles influence on them, and that we should try and treat them with decency if we ever want to change their minds, and I get downvoted into the floor and hear a bunch of “centrist bad” nonsense. Political parties are just sports teams to many at the end of the day, they were raised to follow one and think the other one sucks, and most involved don’t realize how brainwashed they are that they now see the other half of the country as a hostile foreign entity.
Meanwhile capitalists rob us all blind and continue to spread this narrative that we should fight each other, so we dont unite against them.
So the main reason to vote for her is “I am not Trump”. Is that it? I don’t think that sound that good.
She does not exhibit leadership qualities. It’s going to be preaching to the converted, because only the converted could be so blind to her failings.
My favourite is telling a trumper I don’t fucking care what they think.
Letting the air out of their sails is more entertaining when it’s become obvious they are living for the drama of controversy and feeling their opinion matters so much to someone else than the message itself.
bingo. who would care what a cretin thinks. now, the next problem is what do you do when they still get a say in what your life and the lives of others will be like?
What if I told you: No Shit
Part of the fucking problem is that Dems seem to have kinda given up on ever getting anything nice. The only thing that matters is “BEAT TRUMP”. Healthcare, civil/labor rights, debt relief, the anti-war movement, environmental protections, business regulation, green infrastructure development… none of that is even being offered up.
The only thing you hear is “Whatever position you have, know that Trump will be worse than Harris, so you have to vote Harris”. How do you go up to someone’s door and ask for their vote on those grounds? What do you say to someone who looks at Trump and Harris, shrugs, and says “They look the same to me”?
It isn’t the MAGA voter that you have to worry about. It’s the voter that’s been getting burned election after election by disappointment and can’t be bothered this time around.
there’s no point in trying to legislate when they know that everything they do will be sabotaged by the opposition.
What do you say to someone who looks at Trump and Harris, shrugs, and says “They look the same to me”?
What do you say? You say “are you suffering a stroke, would you like me to call you an ambulance?”
Americans aren’t being given a real choice here, too bad, but that’s how it is. Anyone who is eligible to vote but doesn’t realise Trump is a genuine threat to democracy the world over maybe shouldn’t be allowed to vote.
If you were caught in someplace where you didn’t have access to water, and the only choices were a bottle of piss with blood in it (Trump, in this metaphor) and a warm, stale coke light (Harris, in this metaphor), which one would you choose? Neither of them are particularly enjoyable or healthy in the long run, but if you were in a place which had no access to fresh water (spelling out my metaphor here, but democracy), you would die without consuming liquids. Still, you probably wouldn’t choose the pissy blood, because that’d actually be dangerous to drink no matter how dehydrated you were. A warm, stale coke light would still be a functional drink, no matter how much you’d never choose it if you had an option.
See where I’m going?
Chomsky did have a good point once about how there’s a difference of the type of lack of democracy that you can see between America and Russia. (I’m Finnish, btw, fuck Putler.) He made the point that Americans tend to like to think they have a choice, whereas Russians are pretty openly certain they don’t. As a heavy exaggeration, that is. I don’t recall which book it was, but I think it was honestly one of his books from the 70’s about linguistics, which made it weird, since it started with a chapter about CIA shenanigans and propaganda.
I’d never vote republican under any circumstance. …But if I click “Harris” am I complicit with her clearly stated intentions to commit mass murder, when I also have a choice to not vote for either candidate? Whats the responsibility of individuals which comprise and propel groups which openly state they are about to commit that stuff? Does “Do the least harm” just not apply in some situations? I know that legally its not a defense. If you aided murder you are getting punished unless its self defense, which this is not.
If I travel to the edge of the middle east and someone wants to kill me for his murdered wife and children who died screaming, burning slowly in a israeli hellfire missile strike, do I have it coming? I honestly dont know. Part of me thinks yes, I have it coming if I voted for either Harris or Trump. Can someone more philosophically inclined than me help me with this?
Metaphor wise, it feels like l’m being told to shoot an innocent or maybe get shot myself.
Abstaining from voting makes you somewhat complicit in whoever wins. You have the ability to affect the outcome with whatever choice you make (Harris, Trump, neither). If you choose neither, it is partially your fault the winner won as you could have voted against them.
It can be boiled down to a classic trolley problem. A greater harm the trolley is hurling towards, a lesser harm you could divert the trolley to. You can choose inaction and let the greater harm happen or you can choose action and cause the lesser harm. Most people think the lesser harm, even if they enact it, is better. But it’s a classic morality problem for a reason. Some people view the action to cause the lesser harm as less moral even if it prevents the greater harm.
In the classic trolley problem, if you do nothing then the murderer is the person who tied the people to the tracks. You are not using that analogy correctly.
Even if they did hit a switch, they bear no responsibility for who is murdered. Again thats to the person who created the situation.
I have never heard that interpretation. Everyone I’ve ever seen talking about it agrees that if you flip the switch, you are complicit. Why else would there even be a discussion of if you should or not?
Except if you flip the switch while the trolley is halfway (front wheels have passed, rear one haven’t). Then you derail the trolley and nobody dies.
Does “Do the least harm” just not apply in some situations?
I think its a fundamentally false choice. People get bound up in the moral weight of their vote, when they spend an hour or two making the decision every 2-4 years. Then they spend 2080 man hrs+ / year working for an employer and god knows how many hours engaging in consumerist behaviors which plays a drastically more meaningful impact on the political and social economy of their neighborhood than the weight of their votes.
A Harris guy working for Raytheon has more blood on their hands than a thousand Trump voters who work construction or do email jobs. A postal worker doing the yeoman’s work of processing all those mail-in ballots has more consequence to their community than a dozen canvassers trying to GOTV. A gym teacher making off-color jokes about LGBTQ students in the locker room is going to weigh heavier on civil rights than a hundred ACT BLUE donators.
If I travel to the edge of the middle east and someone wants to kill me
After all the bombings and killings we’ve done in the Middle East, you’re less likely to be murdered by an angry local dissident than to die of cholera or dysentery because the place you landed has no access to safe drinking water.
it feels like l’m being told to shoot an innocent or maybe get shot myself.
You’re being told to feel complicit in a system that’s totally outside your control, while being hoodwinked into participating in systems within your control without thinking about what you’re really doing.
Moral weight isnt absolute. Just because you don’t put much weight on what america and by extension its citizens is participating in, does not mean everyone else should. Its interesting you assume someone who’s concerned about minimizing harm would even consider working for Raytheon to begin with.
You also described the palestinian genocide as a system outside our control, which you’d really need to elaborate on. Why are google employees quitting over their assistance of israel in genocide?
The argument that if a vote doesnt end up going to one of the two most likely candidates, that its the same as going to one of them anyways makes no sense. Why anyone would count votes they didnt get is beyond me.
Just because you don’t put much weight on what america and by extension its citizens is participating in
I do put weight on it. I simply ascribe that weight to their lifelong careers rather than their fleeting political selections.
The argument that if a vote doesnt end up going to one of the two most likely candidates, that its the same as going to one of them anyways makes no sense.
I agree. But then I’d argue individual votes, even whole elections, don’t matter much in a heavily privatized economy.
The only issue I have is that not everyone is lifelong careers deep into all of this. Some people have made good attempts to minimize their harm while taking care of themselves and their families.
You make it sound like the average american has been working for the military industrial complex for 25+ years.
What if I told you… return2ozma is part of the problem. They continuously post negative articles about Harris and very little negatives about Trump…
very little negatives about Trump…
The problem with lemmy.world is the lack of Trump-negative articles. There simply isn’t enough of them.
Um, out of interest I went through their posts of the last week or so. Three were critical of trump, one was critical of biden
Perhaps a bit of cognitive bias going on there?
People had an utter panic attack about this a few months ago. It’s just that they post so much stuff that their name becomes recognizable so people freaked out because they noticed some of it, a small percentile really, was critical of Joe Biden. They panicked and tried to ban the user from basically everything they could. Most of them never thought to look and see what you did which is this user basically posts ad nauseam everything they can find. Some of it critical of Biden some of it critical of trump most having nothing to do with politics at all.
I had thought that people calmed down and cooler heads had prevailed. I guess there’s some weak-willed people still out there though.
Nice to know we’re not developing a hivemind like on Reddit /s
Every chamber will form an echo. It’s how humans are hardwired—to seek out community and belonging.
After a certain point, I’m more interested in direct action ideas from like-minded people than yet another debate about utopia.
Yep, and it’s why we’re never going interstellar. Our tribes are too small.
Sounds like good news for the galaxy
We need to send all the billionaires and politicians to space to experience the Overview Effect so they can realize we need to collaborate and stop worrying about our slight differences.
IDK, man, Bezos went up and came back thinking there’s nobody above him.
I had to read this twice to confirm, but it sounds like you’re intending to bring them back from space with this plan?
I’m open to suggestions on that one…
I think slingshotting the rich people around the sun should be considered, even if they just wanted to go to orbit. We can tell them its for the coolness factor.
It would be a shame to launch all those expensive satellites just to bring them back down immediately.
Due to budget cuts the heat shield for re-entry was cut. Thanks to these budget cuts we gave everybody in the lower echelons of your company a big fat bonus.
We hope you have a pleasant stay in space.
deleted by creator
I don’t see why that’s a problem. This platform not gonna move vote as much as you like to believe, and reading news get you informed on the ups and downs. It’s not like the ml/grad folks that only post bad thing about the west and only good thing about china/russia, i did see ozma post a wide variety of stuff.
This platform not gonna move vote as much as you like to believe,
Man, none of us are gonna move serious numbers of votes. Yet elections are decided by millions of people who are engaging in civic behavior in the election and the lead-up to the election, every instance being inconsequential individually, but in aggregate deciding the future of nations.
“It’s too small, it doesn’t matter” is one of the ways the GOP pushes out consistent wins while the Dems flounder despite nearly every policy, some of moderate Dems and some of progressive Dems, being overwhelmingly popular in this fucking country. The GOP lacks popular policy positions, and yet because they continuously and consistently push their electoral viewpoints at EVERY turn, not just when it’s ‘big’, they get electorally rewarded. They treat civic duty like a religious duty, and yet I have to limp my ass and beg people door to door just to fucking vote against fascism.
… alright, I’ve never begged. My anxiety is bad enough that I keep things polite. But the point stands.
What you are talking about can both be true, that our individual actions matter as part of a whole, but by themselves have very little power. Its sort of like a big ocean of water, very powerful when moving together. Take a bucket of that water and it loses a lot of its overall power but the individuals drops are the same as they’ve always been, and they work together with other drops just the same.
The drops aren’t aware of the bucket size or much past its immediate neighbors, but together with the other drops they can do more than a single drop could.
If we lose some drops, thats not a big deal, they didnt contribute much individually, but if we lose more drops than we take in, that is a big deal.
In this way everyone’s actions are both important and insignificant.
I know the anxiety is high in US, and while the rhetoric works in real life, i doubt it did anything in lemmy, a platform of 50k user that mostly made up their mind, to the point they will call any dissenting voice as people against them. While it makes sense because of how notorious the reds are, from the outside it really looks pretty much like idolising a party not dissimilar to the reds. I mean, you guys can’t just accusing republican for idolising trump while at the same time idolising harris, that’s just hypocrisy.
Disclaimer, i’m not from the US so i can’t do much, but i did went through the same thing for the past two elections of my country, to the point the party i voted for is now working together with the one we worked hard to defeat two elections ago. Try give Malaysia election 2018/2022 a read, it’s insane.
-
Very few people idolize Harris. Hell, Harris is not particularly popular even within the Democratic Party. The issue is that banging the drum on all the reasons not to vote for her two weeks before it’s decided whether we’re going under a literal fascist regime, or getting another four years of time to unfuck as much as we can, is a strategically stupid decision from any actor who doesn’t want fascism. Yes, Harris is a moderate who supports all the long-standing fuckwaddery of US foreign and domestic policy. No, that’s not particularly relevant ten metaphorical minutes before an election with a candidate who supports all the long-standing fuckwaddery of US foreign and domestic policy getting much worse as a core ideological aim.
-
The idolization makes it ridiculous, but the essential difference between the two parties isn’t that “GOP idolizes its candidate while We, The Clear-Sighted, do not!”, the essential difference is “The GOP has openly announced that it’s going for a fascist regime, and the Dems don’t want that.” If someone were insane enough to start plastering Harris’s head on Rambo Trump style, man, it’d be worthy of mockery, but even if it was widespread, it wouldn’t change that one party is essential to support in this election over the other. We want another four years of not-fascism so we can reinforce and build new structures against fascism. Maybe even a better world, though for the next few weeks I’m focused on not getting sent to a concentration camp.
-
If you think that a platform of 50k isn’t enough to be worth talking to, I dread to consider what you think of attending town halls.
If you think that a platform of 50k isn’t enough to be worth talking to, I dread to consider what you think of attending town halls.
Look, i know it’s a desperate time now, but to take the 50k in lemmy as undecided rather than an echo chamber is another level of desperate. Like, come on man.
You think the population in a town hall is mostly undecided? I assure you, it’s not.
We do what we do in the hopes that one or two votes might come out of it. That’s all we can do. And there sure as shit are plenty of people here who are on the fence about voting, or voting Dem.
Are you concerned this type of rhetoric could also lose kamala votes? Its very condescending type talk to tell someone they should care more about potential problems in this country vs an actual genocide in their home lands.
Say what you will but the actual lived experience for some has ended up better under trump than the current democrat administration, and Kamala is part of that.
I don’t think those are the type of people you can just bully into your position, I’d assume the opposite rather.
-
I can never tell if you people are in bad faith or just legitimately so detached from a realistic view of politics that that sounds profound to you.
I can never tell if you people are in bad faith or just legitimately so detached from a realistic view of politics
Leveraging more empathy trying to understand others viewpoints better is seldom completely wasted effort when dealing with non-republicans. But I admit I dont even try with republicans anymore.
I have to limp my ass and beg people door to door just to fucking vote against fascism.
Rather than beg your party to adopt the policies all the data shows would actually win then this election?
What on earth makes you think the best ‘evelenth hour’ strategy is to try and persuade thousands of people to vote, but that it’s apparently “too late” to persuade a single executive to change one policy?
Some people are good. Can’t say the same for executives.
That’s a good point. There may a reason in that.
I can never tell if you people are in bad faith or just legitimately so detached from a realistic view of politics that that sounds profound to you.
Aw, did you get so upset that you decided to downvote everything I commented in the last day? lmao. I guess anti-genocide and anti-billionaire comments are worth a downvote in your eyes. Didn’t have you pegged for a Zionist or a capitalist, but I guess they come in all shapes and sizes.
Gurl please. There’s a million “Trump is bad” articles. Why would I post duplicates?
Equal level of scrutiny > equal number of negative posts
Maybe there are a million “trump is bad” articles because there are a million unique reasons that trump is bad. We don’t need a million “Harris is bad” articles to make it fair, we need legitimate comparison on equal ground. Nobody is insisting that you repost what’s already been said, but nobody needs to hear “Harris is also bad” when the only reasonable goal of such a thing is to draw a false equivalency in order to either encourage people that voting for trump isn’t actually all that bad, or discourage barely-motivated Harris voters from actually getting up off their asses to vote for her.
To be clear, Harris isn’t perfect, but she’s proven to be competent and capable of growth as a human being who is engaging in a similar human experience as other people and understands the actual struggles we endure, their causes, and has proposed some solutions. The other fucking guy is airing out personal grievances, bitching about consequences for his actions, and spreading blatantly racist lies about immigrants which would make Hitler himself blush.
If anyone is legit not going to vote because of a negative news article posted by a stranger online… they’re dumb AF.
You’ve been here a while and most have told you about how it looks time and time again.
Either you’re the living embodiment of the Skinner “No, it’s the children who are the problem” meme or you’re a “hidden” Trumpet/Russian asset/Bot
And I keep saying I’m far left.
Then why are you so hell bent on helping Trump?
I see we have gone with option a, living embodiment of the Skinner meme.
I’m not a Democrat I’m not a Republican. It’s the Democrats that are starting to court Republicans even praising war criminal Cheney. Politicians should constantly be critiqued. Hold their feet to the fire.
That’s a fine thing to say, but nobody believes you because of inconsistencies in your reasoning.
Welcome to America, where people think that Fox News is a legitimate news source because “‘news’ is right there in the name!”
Oh, okay, glad all we needed was the smart votes and the votes from the deeply politically engaged.
It reminds me of other instances of left purity, where somehow large swathes of voters don’t count because they’re too dirty, or something.
Removed by mod
Why would I post duplicates?
It would help your staunch support of the GOP go unnoticed if you did.
Also it would help people like me respect your opinions if you were to show some level of consistency.
Fun Fact: Despite near unanimous claims by voters to the contrary, the data bears out that negative campaigning is far more productive than espousing the positives of your own candidate.
ok, can I see the data?
https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/why-negative-campaigning-works-and-how-fight-it
Ledgerwood and her colleagues have also found that a negative frame is much more persistent, or “stickier,” than a positive one. If you come at an issue negatively, but are later reminded of the policy’s positive aspects, you will still think it’s a bust. And if you start out thinking favorably about the policy, but are reminded of its downsides, your positive perception will be swept away and a negative one will take its place.
The beauty of negative attacks — from a campaign standpoint — is that they influence everyone. Even a candidate’s supporters will be affected by negative attacks, Ledgerwood and her collaborators have found. Once a negative idea has been planted, it’s very hard to shake.Looking at correlations between the volume of negative ads and the vote shares achieved by U.S. Senate candidates in 2010 and 2012, the researchers found that “while positive political advertising does not affect two-party vote share, negative political advertising has a significant positive effect on two-party vote shares.”
https://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/when-campaign-ads-go-low-it-often-works/
“Negative campaigning has been around as long as campaigning,” Lovett says. “It stays around because it works.”
https://www.cnn.com/2012/01/02/opinion/lariscy-negative-ads/index.html
So if we don’t like negative ads and even perhaps suspect they contribute to political malaise, why are they increasingly dominating candidates’ strategies?
The answer is simple: They work. And they work very well. Gingrich’s drop in polls in Iowa last month was no accident – it was choreographed by negative advertising. . . .
. . . Our brains process information both consciously and non-consciously. When we pay attention to a message we are engaged in active message processing. When we are distracted or not paying attention we may nonetheless passively receive information. There is some evidence that negative messages may be more likely than positive ones to passively register. They “stick” for several reasons.
First, one of the most important contributors to their success may be the negativity bias. Negative information is more memorable than positive – just think how clearly you remember an insult.
Second, negative ads are more complex than positive ones. A positive message that talks about the sponsoring candidate’s voting record, for example, is simple and straightforward. Every negative ad has at least an implied comparison. If Mitt Romney is “not a true conservative,” then by implication the candidate sponsoring the ad is saying he or she is a true conservative. This complexity can cause us to process the information more slowly and with somewhat more attentiveness.From what I’m reading if may have some positive effect on voter share and possibly a negative effect on voter turnout. And that positive messages have have a positive effect on turnout. Isn’t that the claim meme?
And, historically, Democrats win with greater turnout. At least as far as I’m aware.
Disclaimer: I’ve only spent 20 minutes on this. A properly measured response would take longer.
References
How Much Do Campaign Ads Matter?
The researchers found that, in the 2000 election, allowing only positive ads would have increased overall voter turnout from 50.4 percent to 52.4 percent. Meanwhile, airing only negative ads would have decreased turnout to 48.8 percent. The gap between the all-positive and all-negative scenarios was about 10 million voters.
“That’s pretty big,” Gordon says. “It does suggest that negative ads might have a detrimental effect” on election participation.
The Effects of Negative Political Campaigns: A Meta-Analytic Reassessment
This 2007 meta analysis is the most recent meta analysis I could find. It throws into question both claims, that negative ad have a positive effect on voter and negative effect on turnout. There’s been a lot of studies since then, but this still gets cited.
The conventional wisdom about negative political campaigning holds that it works, i.e., it has the consequences its practitioners intend. Many observers also fear that negative campaigning has unintended but detrimental effects on the political system itself. An earlier meta-analytic assessment of the relevant literature found no reliable evidence for these claims, but since then the research literature has more than doubled in size and has greatly improved in quality. We reexamine this literature and find that the major conclusions from the earlier meta-analysis still hold. All told, the research literature does not bear out the idea that negative campaigning is an effective means of winning votes, even though it tends to be more memorable and stimulate knowledge about the campaign. Nor is there any reliable evidence that negative campaigning depresses voter turnout, though it does slightly lower feelings of political efficacy, trust in government, and possibly overall public mood.
Positive Spillovers from Negative Campaigning
Negative advertising is frequent in electoral campaigns, despite its ambiguous effectiveness: Negativity may reduce voters’ evaluation of the targeted politician but may have a backlash effect for the attacker. We study the effect of negative advertising in electoral races with more than two candidates with a large‐scale field experiment during an electoral campaign for mayor in Italy and a survey experiment in a fictitious mayoral campaign. In our field experiment, we find a strong, positive spillover effect on the third main candidate (neither the target nor the attacker). This effect is confirmed in our survey experiment, which creates a controlled environment with no ideological components or strategic voting. The negative ad has no impact on the targeted incumbent, has a sizable backlash effect on the attacker, and largely benefits the idle candidate. The attacker is perceived as less cooperative, less likely to lead a successful government, and more ideologically extreme.
How dare you try to bring strategic decisions into this
Stop trying to bully me into voting against fascism
Stop trying to bully me into voting against fascism
no.
Well, I WAS going to vote against fascism, but now you’ve literally forced to vote FOR fascism. This is your fault
:(
Trump is a miserable moron with terrible ideas. The only reason he wins is because of his negative campaigning. If he didn’t do any negative campaigning, he would have no following whatsoever.
While we are busy demanding to know in detail exactly how Harris plans to solve every issue of this country, Trump is out there flat-out making up statistics and boogeymen, inventing conspiracy theories about birth certificates and sexual climbing in politics, and using hate and racism dog-whistles to rally the worst of us.
I hope those of you that hold Harris to the highest standards will remember what you did when we are living in the Trump sewer you helped elect.
hold Harris to the highest standards
What’s the unreasonably high standard they’re applying?
let me know when she stops supporting a genocide, promises to retain Ms Khan, and actually has detailed plans for inflation/health care and then i’ll care.
She’s committed to saying nothing until after the election, so I guess we just have to wonder if she’s for burning Palestinians or against it. Clearly its a tough decision to make right now…
Incorrect. she has said plenty on gaza. for example she has said she’ll remain committed to supporting israel’s war, that they have a right to our weapons and support. shes remained uncommitted on khan and other policy issues. I dont see why I should support a candidate with such a questionable moral compass and a well known history for prosecuting weed crimes and being a corporate bootlicker. 🤷 but again your vote is your vote. just don’t bitch about your candidate losing when she can’t even clear a basic human decency bar of fucking not enabling genocide.
I meant from now until election, but you are correct about those things.
Yes, and most of her funding is coming from known individuals who want exactly the opposite of what I want (khan, healthcare reform, decriminalization). trust is not a commodity to freely give to politicians and she sure as hell hasnt earned it historically or through a primary.
Has she shown regret as a proponent of profits in the California prison system at the expense of humanity?
Has Trump? Is it worth giving up your right to democracy over? Giving up the health and welfare of ALL women. The future of the world over? No it fucking isn’t.
Vote, and then you can go back to being a faceless idiot on the Internet or bot or whatever.
Whataboutism argument
That is correct. That’s the argument they were making
Two logical fallacies dont add up to a cohesive argument
You’re so smart!
If you are bringing up Trump when I talk about Harris, then we are not having the same conversation. Learn how to use critical thinking, even when your “common sense” gets in your way.
If you want to talk about democracy, then we need to address the problem with our system of elections and representation.
If you want to talk about health and welfare, then neither party gives a shit. Harris shows she is okay with the way things are going except returning to Roe v Wade. Trump blames immigrants, his favorite red herring, because he has no concept of health and welfare. Unless you mean corporate welfare.
I’m not sure what you are referring to in “future of the world over.”
I can see you are as frustrated as we all are with the direction of our politics. It will never stop me from voting, no matter how futile it seems. I wish everyone did. Again, that leads to the topic of systemic issues with our voting. I hope someday our passions for a just and fair country with sound, constitutional decision making will become reality. For now, we are stuck with bought and paid for politicians and self-righteous eccentrics. It IS hard to accept this state of the union.
You’re failing to follow the advice of the meme
You’re doing it wrong
Talking about missing the point whilst said point is staring you in the eyes…
Very true, but much more difficult because Harris actually has to commit to something positive. It’s easier for the astroturfers to just throw dirt at Trump.
82-page policy plan from Harris, for the naysayers that somehow continue to pretend that the best candidate available to us this election supposedly has no positions
https://kamalaharris.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Policy-Book-Economic-Opportunity.pdf
😭😭😭
Ctrl+F “climate crisis” - only non footnotes result:
Vice President Harris and Governor Walz will work to lower household energy costs and create millions of new jobs, ^(while tackling the climate crisis)
Like we get it you’re a centrist capitalist that wants to appease those two classes - but I’m sick of folk pretending that the Democrats are what’s gonna move the needle to the left instead of remembering how they kicked Bernie to the ground because their corpo interests couldn’t stomach actual progressive policies.
Get tf out of here with that vote for the lesser evil shit - bitch at this point it feels like far right fascism has more power to turn people away and toward leftist solutions than this milk toast centrist bullshit pandering smh…
“you see you have to vote for the right of center candidate because otherwise you’re being naïve and not a real leftist, I am very smart!!” - like start fucking voting for your own class interests and abolish the two party system - but frogs must love the warmth I guess…
This is quite disingenuous, as the document offers several things that will help mitigate climate change, including improving energy efficiency of buildings and investing in renewable energy. It also mentions climate resilience (though you won’t find that if you simply Ctrl-F the term).
I’m being disingenuous?
Ok, show me where does the policy book say anything about upholding international climate agreements? Where does it say anything about reducing fossil fuel usage? What does it say about banning fracking? What does it say about taxing mass polluters? What does it say about holding industry accountable for externalities, environmental damage or health impacts? What does it say about, right to repair, production reduction and shifting focus on extending product lifecycles? Nothing!
My screenshot is literally all that’s said about the climate crisis - and you’re the one pretending that some thin veiled renewable energy investment and tax credits incentives for insulation and heat pumps is in any way enough to “help mitigate climate change” - and yeah I’m sure those two sentences about resilience is anything but self-centered slop to protect US interests from foreign oil instability and global warming induced climate disasters.
Look I understand that as an economic centrist that only cares about job creation and GDP you may think this policy has enough to pacify those damn environmental hippies so they shut up and let the economy keep chugging on - but don’t try and convince anyone that this is anything but self-serving capitalistic propaganda 🤡
That’s great, sincerely (despite over half of the pages being cover art, pictures, or other filler).
Use that in their advertising, not more beating a dead Toupee.
Trump deserves all the dirt thrown at him.
I do hope you’ll notice how many people have downvoted you. I know it won’t matter to you, but check out that number.
Yes, it’s important to stop Trump. But don’t fool yourself into thinking that Harris has your best interests at heart. She sees the people as a tool she must convince to get into a position of power. Not as someone who she should serve.
Harris could sit in the Oval Office and spin around in her chair for four years and still be an immeasurably better president than Trump.
OP’s statement was that she’ll do more than that. I agree that she’s better than Trump. What are you trying to tell me that I haven’t already stated?
I won’t argue over whether she does have my best interests at heart. It. Does. Not. Matter.
I don’t want to marry her, I want her to keep Trump out of office - and right now, she is the only one who can.
Fun fact: Most exterminators don’t have your best interest in mind - they just want to make a living. Yet, they do keep the bedbugs away, so it’s all good.
America when it comes to electing the most powerful person on the planet: well as long as we don’t elect the fat pants shitting criminal rapist liar again we’re doing a pretty good job.
It’s a little bit below the absolute bare minimum a democracy has to offer but the struggle is still real.
Democracy vs autocracy send a very different and way more important dichotomy.
Removed by mod
It seems you didn’t read my first sentence. OP implied that Harris will do positive things. She will not. She is nothing more than the lesser evil.
I have read all the sentences, and I agree with the first one.
What I felt needed a little commentary was the rest. See, minds more impressionable than yours and mine may come to the conclusion that voting is pointless if you can only vote for the lesser evil.
I don’t know whether she is better than you think she is - my point was that it doesn’t matter, and that speculating, postulating and pontificating about how she may not be as good as we want her to be just turns people off of voting. Which would be bad.
That was my whole point.
See, minds more impressionable than yours and mine
Get off your high horse.
Also: how many people will make their decision for the election based on /c/politicalmemes?
Removed by mod
Decades of civil service would beg to differ. Of course all politicians in a democracy need to sway voters to vote for them, but it’s absurdly cynical to believe that no politician in any democracy ever has given any fucks about the well-being of their constituents. Unless you’re saying that this is something mostly unique to her, which is equally silly. I have my doubts about how much of her campaign promises can actually be delivered on, mostly due to congressional Republicans who will definitely stonewall everything possible, but it’s outrageous to claim without any supporting evidence that Harris is uninterested in serving the people when she’s already been doing so for her entire career.
it’s absurdly cynical to believe that no politician in any democracy ever has given any fucks about the well-being of their constituents.
It’s a harsh oversimplification, but yes: Most politicians primarily focus on maintaining their own power. Claiming to have the best interest of their constituents at heart is one strategy to achieve that.
without any supporting evidence
Why would she be different than centuries of historical precedent?
