Facing a January 30 deadline for another federal government shutdown, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said Tuesday that the Democratic leadership would not seek to block funding of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other units of the Department of Homeland Security.
Democrats don’t care about your vote, that should have been obvious during Harris’s campaign while they focused on the right wing vote.
Democrats are not the opposition, they are the enablers of fascism, they are complicit in everything happening right now.
That doesn’t answer my question. Who should we vote for that doesn’t result in the fascists staying in office?
I’m not gonna tell someone who to vote for, but a vote for Democrats = Fascism. A vote for Republicans = Fascism.
That is reductionist to the point of obsursity.
Republicans are demonstrably by more fascist.
Not voting against Republicans keeps more fascism in place.
Therefore, not voting only increases fascism. Voting for someone that can’t win against the Republicans increases fascism.
And before you say voting for Democrats also increases fascism, they are already less fascist than what is currently in place. Having anyone else, even a Democrat, in office will be less fascism.
Vote to decrease fascism. Move in that direction. Not voting only pushes us toward more fascism.
There is not choice available right now to remove fascism entirely. We must show politicians that they stand to gain by moving away from it. Not voting doesn’t do that.
Sounds like a bunch of incrementalism. That incrementalism that liberals preach helped shift the entire country to where it is right now. Can’t vote your way out of fascism when the people you are voting for have a vested interest in the status quo
That doesn’t disprove what I’m saying. That’s just your feeling with no evidence to back it up.
I have history to backup my claims. Yes, we’ve shifted right due to incrementalism because people on the right are more likely to vote, so it demonstrably does work. There’s no reason we can’t shift back if people who want change actually vote for it, rather than withholding their votes for a “perfect” solution.
You’re under the assumption politicians listen to us, voters have told them that they don’t have to listen. Voters have told politicians they can do whatever they want with no repercussions because they will keep coming back. 3 studies have shown that voters have zero impact on policy and direction of the party.
Did you vote for 69 cop cities across the country with police and other government agencies being trained by IDF? Did you vote for the largest increase of ICE funding and detention center construction? Did you vote for billions to be spent killing Palestinians? Because those are things that you got regardless of whether you supported them or not under Biden.
Incrementalism has nothing to do with Republicans or how they vote, it’s liberals under the delusion that lesser evilism is a good thing.
That is a much more interesting response, thank you.
I know very well that a politician is not required to listen to their voters. That is the nature of a representative democracy, and it has its pluses and minuses; but that’s another topic. A politician will do what they want once in office. Sometimes they do it for their own selfish reasons, sometimes they do it because they know something the American public doesn’t, sometimes they do things because they are weighing opposing agendas differently. That is why it is important to push for candidates that have principles that are the most aligned with yours. Then even if they are driven by their own selfish reasons, at least their actions are more likely to align with your desires.
That’s not to say that voters have no power at all. We got Trump because his principles (such as they are) aligned with a large enough portion of the American public that the Republic party thought he was their best chance of winning. Make no mistake that the Democrats DO want to win. Voters need to show them that a candidate whose principles are more left leaning is their best chance of winning. That is what the primaries are for. You will note that only two political parties even have primaries.
I believe you have a misunderstanding that anyone thinks that having to choose the lesser of two evils is a good thing. It’s not. It’s only better than choosing the greater of two evils. The main point that I have been trying to make is that NOT choosing the lesser evil is functionally equivalent to choosing the greater evil, even if the choice made is to not make a choice.
This is because there isn’t a better choice; there is no “no evil” choice. Even not choosing is still a choice. Unless you know of one and would care to enlighten me on the specifics of that choice. So far, the only point I’ve seen you try to make is that not choosing is the best choice; something that I vehemently disagree with.