There used to be two opposing superpowers. Then there was one superpower, with nobody else powerful enough to keep it in check. How on earth was it not more balanced? How could anything be less balanced than a world with one superpower?

It was more balanced than it is today. And especially more balanced than it was immediately after the the USSR collapsed.

My example of a world with a balance of power isn’t any better than a world dominated by a single power?

Anyone who’s in camp 2 will be labelled as a “tankie” regardless of anything they say or don’t say.

But surely it’s better to have a balance of power between multiple flawed countries with some ability to keep each other in check, than to have one bad country that can act as a sole superpower and can do whatever it wants with impunity.

There we have what? A consistent stance that the US shouldn’t be able to dominate the entire world?

The USSR is a poor example of a counterbalance to the US as it engaged in the same behaviours as the US, just with the lie being communism rather than the democratic system touted by the US.

So, say what you want, your premise has a faulty foundation.

What I actually said was:

But surely it’s better to have a balance of power between multiple flawed countries with some ability to keep each other in check,

So what part of my premise is “faulty,” exactly?

The goals of 2 and 3 are completely aligned at this moment. So you can obviously dismiss anybody who supports 2 by accusing them of supporting 3.

“Simping” is a ridiculous, childish term to apply to geopolitics. This also doesn’t really have anything to do with my question.

I think the USSR served as a useful counterbalance to the US, and that the world was safer when there was such a force keeping the US in check. I don’t “simp” for it or consider it perfect by any means.

The question remains of whether you want to see any kind of force emerging that is capable of putting checks and balances on US aggression, or whether you want it to remain as the global hegemon.

I don’t “simp” any country and never have. But surely it’s better to have a balance of power between multiple flawed countries with some ability to keep each other in check, than to have one bad country that can act as a sole superpower and can do whatever it wants with impunity.

I voted and encouraged others to do so.

Harris and Clinton bent over backwards to win over the mythical “moderate republicans” and ate shit. Only reason Biden won was because of COVID.

If the democrats can’t be pressured or reasoned with, that’s all the more reason to give up on them.

Say that it’s valid to place conditions on voting democrat. Then explain what possible condition could be more valid than “no genocide.”

Literally nothing else you can say matters at all. Because if you can’t answer this, then when you say your position is not unconditionally voting democrat, you are simply lying.

If you want to argue for unconditionally supporting them, and admit that that is your position, then it might be worth considering any of your other arguments, because then at least you’re being honest and consistent. But unless you can either do that or answer my challenge, you are obviously engaging in bad faith and dishonesty.

Either you’re ok with placing conditions on them or you support them unconditionally. That’s what “unconditionally” means. You don’t get to have it both ways.

And, if you can answer that challenge, then you’ll have already refuted all the arguments you just made for me.

I never said to unconditionally vote for the Democratic candidates to begin with so the rest of your response to this imagined position is moot.

Y’all always play this little game. “I didn’t say that, don’t put words in my mouth.” OK then, say unequivocally that that is not your position. Say that it’s valid to place conditions on voting democrat. Then explain what possible condition could be more valid than “no genocide.”

You just don’t like me rephrasing your position bluntly.

I’m advocating for maximizing the power of your vote in the system we currently have. If you’re living in a district in a state with any kind of ranked choice voting, absolutely vote third party if that’s where your alignment falls.

No, you have it completely backwards. I am going to vote according to my values and beliefs. If they give me ranked choice voting, then I will happily put them above the Republicans. Otherwise, they will acquiesce to my minimum demands or they will not get my vote.

Third parties just aren’t viable in districts without ranked choice, so to get ranked choice we the voters need to put candidates who support election reform in power thru the major party primaries. Which is exactly what I’m advocating for

Oh, you’re one of those. “My car broke down.” “Well then, just drive it to the mechanic!”

The problem that ranked choice is meant to address is that the current system does not provide a viable means for us to get policy enacted. Your “solution” is to keep using ineffective, broken means in the hopes that it will somehow be effective at fixing itself. If we could achieve RCV through the existing system, then we could just achieve whatever end policy we want through the existing system. The logic is incredibly backwards, putting the cart before the horse.

If you had an ounce of spine, then you would demand RCV, then you would say that you should only vote for those candidates who support it. And if enough people did that, perhaps it could be achievable. And I’d certainly have more respect for your position.

As it is, your position is simply complete, unconditional support for the democrats, and then you say some irrelevant shit about voting reform to distract from that fact. Like, “It would sure be nice if the king decided to institute democracy out of the kindness of his heart, I’ll keep supporting him either way though.” If that is false, then address my first paragraph.

I don’t think Trump being president is better than Kamala, which is why I didn’t vote for him.

If Kamala had won, then she would still be black bagging people to concentration camps. ICE existed before and both Biden and Kamala explicitly support it. The silver lining is that, because Trump is doing it blatantly, as you say, at least more people are aware of it and upset about it. Doing fascism while following the rules and keeping everything out of sight and out of mind is arguably worse, but it’s kind of a toss up.

Of course, the strategies I mentioned were and are longshots, which may take a while to work if they will at all. But they have a nonzero chance of working, which is more than “vote blue no matter who” does. That is, if the goal is actually stopping fascism and not just easing into it more comfortably.

Primaries aren’t even required to be fair elections. The party can pull whatever shenanigans it wants, and there’s nothing any of us can do about it so long as third parties are ruled out.

If the democrats decided to straight up go back to the days of deciding nominees in smoke-filled rooms with no primary process at all, then would you still say we need to vote for them unconditionally as the lesser evil? Is there any breaking point at all where you’ll reject that approach?

Because if so, then I am simply already past that point. And if not, then you seem utterly hopeless to me. They can keep moving further and further right, removing any possibility for you to do anything about it, and you’ll keep supporting them unconditionally. I consider that a ridiculous position and it’s even more ridiculous to think the general public would accept that.

Then either the democrats change to appease the third party voters, or the third party keeps growing until it no longer matters what the democrats do.

If those scenarios seem unrealistic, they are much more realistic than democrats spontaneously deciding to do a 180 and actually fix things.

Starting to think centralizing the internet into platforms owned by far-right billionaires might have been a bad idea.

I swear to God, “whataboutism” just means, “You stated a fact I don’t like.” Of course it’s relevant that the guy criticizing ICE was someone who could’ve actually done something about them and chose not to. What a load of bull.

She’s auditioning for 2028.

Are you sure on that? My understanding of Marxism is that they believe even fair elections are rigged, so to speak, because they are bourgeois election and they discourage all participation in any election that is a bourgeois election.

Common misconception, but yes, I’m quite sure. Should We Participate in Bourgeois Parliaments? - V.I. Lenin

Even if only a fairly large minority of the industrial workers, and not “millions” and “legions”, follow the lead of the Catholic clergy—and a similar minority of rural workers follow the landowners and kulaks (Grossbauern)—it undoubtedly signifies that parliamentarianism in Germany has not yet politically outlived itself, that participation in parliamentary elections and in the struggle on the parliamentary rostrum is obligatory on the party of the revolutionary proletariat specifically for the purpose of educating the backward strata of its own class, and for the purpose of awakening and enlightening the undeveloped, downtrodden and ignorant rural masses. Whilst you lack the strength to do away with bourgeois parliaments and every other type of reactionary institution, you must work within them because it is there that you will still find workers who are duped by the priests and stultified by the conditions of rural life; otherwise you risk turning into nothing but windbags.

That’s an analysis that I agree with. I don’t think that Lenin’s goal of revolution is necessarily applicable to modern day conditions, but I think there are other methods like strikes that could be encouraged by a radical party.

By calling it out and stating exactly what they are doing, and how, you bring awareness to it and it shows the world that it is rigged. My hope is that then other countries will take economic action and populations across the world will begin to boycott thing i.e. The World Cup and USA made goods.

I think countries are more likely to take action based on the US’s bizarre and imperialistic foreign policy, which directly affects them, than the prospect that elections might not happen.

The thing is that there’s so much horrible shit that the administration is doing right now, in front of our eyes, that I don’t really see much point in messaging about what they might do. At that point, if elections do happen, then everyone who said they wouldn’t looks silly and discredited, and the administration gets to dismiss the opposition as doing paranoid fearmongering.

What do you believe the Democratic party should be doing then? You’ve made it clear what you think they will do. Of you were in their position how would you deal with the rigged election situation?

Well look, I fundamentally disagree with their approach, but if we’re talking about messaging strategy then I think we have to stay within the realm with what’s actually plausible. Since they’re committed to an electoral approach, they can’t cast doubts on the election because it could decrease turnout. They have to operate on the assumption that the elections will happen, and focus on criticizing things like ICE, while promising things that will materially improve people’s lives, like Mamdani’s approach.

The Democrats to be talking more about the possibility of election manipulation by the GOP and making the public aware of their intent to fight any such plans, I imagine?

Why? To what end?

There is a political theory that says you should continue to participate in rigged or unfair elections, while explicitly calling them out as rigged, for the purpose of reaching people who are invested in electoralism and convincing them to engage in direct, mass action, such as strikes or revolution. That theory is called Marxism-Leninism. The democratic party are not Marxist-Leninists. They have no interest in getting people to abandon electoralism in favor of other means of resistance, they want the exact opposite of that.

There’s another political theory that says you shouldn’t focus your efforts on elections but should instead focus on building dual power through things like mutual aid networks. This theory is called Anarchism. The democratic party are not Anarchists. If you want to take that strategy, then you shouldn’t even be looking to the democratic party, because it is a political party.

So why on earth would a party that is completely committed to electoralism as the only avenue of affecting change go around telling people the elections are rigged? It’s nonsense. It goes against everything they believe in.

They are intrinsically tied to the system and they will continue to uphold the system until the day comes that they get dragged away to a torture dungeon in El Salvador. It’s technically correct that they should change, but I don’t see how it’s remotely possible that they would change to anything like the extent necessary.