• Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    Okay. Name the candidate aside from Trump or Biden that has a good chance of winning in 2024. Go ahead. Because otherwise, as I keep suggesting, it looks to me like a vote for someone else is no better than no vote at all.

    I keep asking what it achieves and I’m not getting an answer.

    If all you care about achieving is “I feel good about myself,” fine. But that doesn’t seem like a reason to make the effort to vote.

    • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      What is your obsession with only voting for who you personally think can win?

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        My “obsession” is stopping Trump and Project 2025 so that I’ll be able to vote again ever.

        • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          11 months ago

          Well you better stop voting for the parties of Capital then. Your vote is already almost meaningless, so use it to make a better world before its too late!

            • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              11 months ago

              Trump isn’t going to be president so no need to “stop” him. But if I assume you aren’t as myopic as your question suggests, then stopping the collusion of Capital via the false choice of the parties of Capital is the long term goal. Limiting our actions to voting, you have very little power, but power that none-the-less should be exercised.

              In a first past the post system, only 2 parties at a time can be front-runners. Those parties do not have to be the same for ever and ever. In the history of the US many parties have risen and fallen, and there is no reason the same can’t occur for the Capitalist parties. In fact it is inevitable. The material interests of you (assuming you aren’t a billionaire, or rent-seeking class) are currently not being addressed by either party. So it is your duty to vote for a party who DOES represent your material interests. If you vote either blue or red you are voting against your material interests and mine and 90% of the citizens of the US.

    • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      11 months ago

      Whichever you want.

      The Liberatian party seems like a decent alternative to the Dems so you could go for Jo Jorgensen. But anything that isn’t Republican or Democrats is a requirement for a moral vote.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        The Liberatian party seems like a decent alternative to the Dems so you could go for Jo Jorgensen.

        In what way are Libertarians an alternative to Democrats? Democrats want a strong social safety net and Libertarians want a government so small you could drown it in a bathtub.

        You either know nothing about Libertarians or nothing about Democrats.

        • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          11 months ago

          If you care about the cultural freedoms they’re the same. Also the non intervention policies are a lot better than throwning all your money into the military industrial complex which you seem to call “Healthcare”.

          Else you got the Greens.

          Unless of course you want everything the Democrats do including the genocide part. Then I can’t help ya.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            They’re not even close to the same. I have never heard a libertarian say that taxes should be raised on the rich to pay for social services. Every libertarian I have ever talked to or read about is against all taxation and thinks everything should be privatized. They’re as far apart politically as you can get.

            As for healthcare, please do show me the libertarian that wants universal healthcare paid for by taxes.

            • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              11 months ago

              I was looking through their comments to see if they were worth replying to, and this exchange here confirms it’s absolutely not worth it. It’s laughable how arrogant they are with how little they actually know about US politics.