Foolz said:No, it isn't consistent if you only apply moral responsibility for some things, yet not others.
Additionally, If you vote for harm reduction, you are not responsible solely for the reduction in harm, you are also responsible for the perpetuation of harm itself.
You haven't posed a problem that is solved by not voting. The moral responsibility is collective, I don't care if you can find something to disagree with Democrats about. One of the parties will be elected, with or without your vote.
Are you not following why, after writing extensively on the many issues affected by recent elections and ongoing events, including how there is a concerted effort currently to remove my ability to exist in society, how I really don't give a shit when you go "But Afghanistan!"? Yeah, I didn't like Obama's use of drones. Everything about middle-east policy has been a disaster for the entire history of middle-east policy, even though I don't think that's at all solely on Democrats. Certainly wasn't a fan of Obama-era NSA surveillance for that matter. He also deported a record number of immigrants. Did you know that? That they never closed Guantanamo. That they didn't use their brief 60-vote majority with urgency. That the ACA was the best they could do. That they still haven't killed the filibuster. That Joe Biden campaigned on Republicans having a come-to-Jesus moment. Biden not undoing Trump's immigration mess with any urgency. Pelosi thinking Congress should be able to freely trade stocks. I can keep going. Do I need to? I don't like the Democrats. Healthcare out of everything is my pet issue, and that they can't organize around universal healthcare is a disgrace.
IT DOESN'T MATTER. They are not in the same universe as Republicans. Maybe this is a you-have-to-live-here thing, because Dvader is the only one here who seems to understand the grave severity of the situation. The US is on the verge of a Christo-fascist dictatorship. Republicans attempted a coup already. They're gaining power and putting into place the pieces to make sure it works next time, if necessary. The Supreme Court is stacked with partisans, which is why Roe v Wade is about to end. Do you understand how critical that decision is? It is foundational to women's rights. It's not some lofty ideal. Removing the right to abortion devastates gender equality. I'm going to mention where this is going, but I really need to emphasize how severely this sets back society on its own. But beyond that, they aren't stopping there. Gay marriage and the ability to buy and use contraception is next, which is all a part of right to privacy. It's unclear if it will go so far as racial segregation, but it's on the table. The right has a feedback loop of information that flows from right-wing media to consumers to politicians back into right-wing media, that is generating extremism.
My life is on the line and I don't get a vote. Republicans don't want me to be here at all. They don't want me to have healthcare. To have housing. Employment. A marriage. I don't know what to say, when I point all these things out, provide detailed references to back up everything I'm saying, news follows shortly after confirming predictions I made just a week prior, and the response is, "What about the Afghans?". I can't. I fucking can't. This is the last I'm saying on this.
---
Tell me to get back to rewriting this site so it's not horrible on mobile
I'm following exactly how you feel. Do I believe the right in America is extremist? Absolutely! Do I believe the Republicans ignore democratic norms? Absolutely!
But how is voting going to stop the Republican's political strategy? I hope you understand that in a democracy, one side is not going to be permanently in power in a culture like America. So electing the democrats every election is simply not going to happen. Therefore, voting is not a solution to the fundamental issue which has allowed for something like Roe v. Wade to possibly be overturned.
For the record, at no point have I said not voting is a solution to it, either. But if you want to stop a political force that ignores democratic norms and plots coups, it should be self-evident that voting isn't going to work. And, indeed, historically, voting for conservatives who accept fascists doesn't stop the fascists.
---
Tell me to get back to rewriting this site so it's not horrible on mobile
Foolz said:I'm following exactly how you feel. Do I believe the right in America is extremist? Absolutely! Do I believe the Republicans ignore democratic norms? Absolutely!
But how is voting going to stop the Republican's political strategy? I hope you understand that in a democracy, one side is not going to be permanently in power in a culture like America. So electing the democrats every election is simply not going to happen. Therefore, voting is not a solution to the fundamental issue which has allowed for something like Roe v. Wade to possibly be overturned.
For the record, at no point have I said not voting is a solution to it, either. But if you want to stop a political force that ignores democratic norms and plots coups, it should be self-evident that voting isn't going to work. And, indeed, historically, voting for conservatives who accept fascists doesn't stop the fascists.
Particularly in America the democrats have more voters. If everyone voted in every election democrats would be in power almost always. The main reason republicans win elections lately is because of lack of enthusiasm from the left, poor voter turnout when they mobilize like an army. So if everyone did vote this country would look very different.
Dvader said:Particularly in America the democrats have more voters. If everyone voted in every election democrats would be in power almost always. The main reason republicans win elections lately is because of lack of enthusiasm from the left, poor voter turnout when they mobilize like an army. So if everyone did vote this country would look very different.
Indeed, but why is it that people are apathetic about voting for the Democrats?
Messaging. Democrats are horrible at reaching out and getting their message across. The "We go high when they go low" strategy doesnt work either. Voters want them to fight back and not sit there and take it.
But it's also just harder for Democrats systemically to get their message out. Mainstream media is stuck in a frame of treating everything like a sport in terms of wins and losses, and cares mostly about access. This leads to a lot of both-sidesing, and indifference about substantive issues. It's also baked into expectations that Republicans are horrible, so Republicans doing horrible things isn't seen as much of a story.
Another problem is that the right has propaganda networks. There's no left equivalent to Fox News, that is a media outlet working directly with and for a political party. This is somewhat a symptom of the fact that you just can't do that for the left. It's too diverse, as well as not nearly as prone to accepting information in that way. Republicans are more homogeneous, so a consistent simple message is easier than the much more diverse coalition Democrats have formed.
I should note, though, that Democrats do actually still manage to get the votes. In the last 7/8 Presidential elections, the Democratic candidate received more votes. Democrat members of the Senate currently represent 40 million more people than Republicans, despite the number of Senators being split 50/50. Structurally they're just at a large disadvantage due to rural areas and small states receiving outsized voting power.
---
Tell me to get back to rewriting this site so it's not horrible on mobile
Yeah, I had typed up a long reply that would have solved all issues with all of politics globally, but the internet seems to have eaten it. 
In short: you yourself say people shouldn't listen to Republicans. Seems like a pretty extreme point to me. Democracy isn't about blocking out half of the populace, it's about talking and coming to an understanding and through that to decisions. It's just that the USA took that, ran with it and came up with this zero sum model of it. It's a horrible idea to have only 2 parties. Same goes for SCOTUS appointments. Why, in all of its existance did nobody figure that having the make up of that highest of institutions basically be a lottery based on when judges kick the bucket, was a bad idea? It's the system that's broken.
SupremeAC said:Democracy isn't about blocking out half of the populace, it's about talking and coming to an understanding and through that to decisions.
There I was referring to Republicans, as in the politicians, not republicans, as in the voters. Some individual people who vote Republican are reachable by exposing them to new information. Republican politicians act entirely in bad faith. You can't talk and come to an understanding because they aren't willing to do that, and they don't mean what they say. They are Jean-Paul Sartre's anti-semite.
Also keep in mind that often the idea of coming to an understanding is through some sort of compromise, and there will never be an acceptable compromise on being allowed to exist.
---
Tell me to get back to rewriting this site so it's not horrible on mobileWe're not going to get anywhere with this. To me you're coming across exactly as polarized as any republican voter. The only good republican is one who can be convinced to vote democratic.
Reverting trans people is taking it too far. When I argue that good policy comes from compromising, you pull out one example that is so extreme you see no way to compromise it, implying that this proves compromise is impossible.
I have all respect for every kind of people, and I don't want to come over as bashing you Yoda. I understand that you are very much taken aback by republican policy, but the only peacefull way democracy can go on is to listen to eachothers concerns. It's just that American politics seem to make this very hard to do.
Though before I get into that, voters actually agree with Democrat's agenda much more than they vote for Democrats. For example, Florida voted for Trump, but approved a ballot measure raising the minimum wage to $15. $15 minimum wage is an entirely Democratic issue.
Let me take you back to 2015. We're well into Obama's second term. Republicans have refused to work with Democrats on anything. We're years past when The Affordable Care Act, a compromise healthcare bill modeled after Republican Mitt Romney's healthcare plan from when he was governor of Massachusetts, got zero Republican votes, and was continuously tried to be repealed. Even came right out and said their only goal was to block Obama's agenda at all costs. And yet Democrats continue to desire to find that mythical bipartisanship you propose.
There is a recurring, stupid procedural issue in US government. It is the debt ceiling. There's a running total of debt for the US, and a cap on it. If the US ever reaches that cap, it could cause absolutely worldwide financial chaos as the US defaults on its debt. It shouldn't exist. They have to just raise it.
Republicans in recent years have used the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip. McConnell introduced a bill to raise the debt ceiling. When he was surprised the Democrats actually had the votes to pass the bill, he filibustered it. HE FILIBUSTERED HIS OWN BILL. He only introduced it because he didn't think the votes were there to pass it.
It was in 2010 they publicly and proudly went 100% obstructionist and refused to negotiate. In reality I'm not simply saying Democrats shouldn't negotiate just moralistically, but they literally can't in any meaningful way. Any attempt to work cooperatively is largely a distraction and waste of time. Republicans refuse to negotiate. They refused even to have hearings for Obama's supreme court nominee. And this is all before Trump. Before it got a lot more explicitly bigoted and hateful. Before the incentives became say the most crazy things possible for attention to win the primary because voter suppression and gerrymandering meaning a primary is much more of a threat than the general.
There may be nobody shot, via legislation, yet (though those voters you mentioned are picking up the slack). But Idaho wants life in prison for providing gender-affirming care, and their rhetoric is literally to shoot us. If you move into abortion rights, GOP representatives are already floating the death penalty for having an abortion.
It has been so, so common to call the ones who predicted Jan 6 as hyperbolic, for those who predicted the overturning of Roe v Wade as hyperbolic, that it will move onto gay marriage and contraception as hyperbolic. By pretending bipartisanship is possible, and continuing to insist that it's important, it's only giving Republicans what they want. Republicans don't want to pass anything at the national level. They want to give tax cuts, and gain power via the courts. That's it. If you have to have bipartisanship to help people, they can just say "No" and nothing ever happens. They've done that for over a decade now.
And all of this said, the "work with the other side" messaging and methodology is what Democrats have already been doing to abject failure. Joe Biden ran on Republicans having a post-Trump "epiphany". Joe Manchin's recurring excuse is he wants everything to be bipartisan and get Republican votes. Pretending Republicans are on-the-level is a huge part of the messaging problem. People want to see Democrats caring. They want to see them fighting. They want to see them defending their constituents. But when they're scared to say what they should because they want to be buddy-buddy to try and naively win votes in the future, it's a terrible look when those people are the ones calling your voters pedophiles, saying rape victims should enjoy it, labelling immigrants as drug dealers.
---
Tell me to get back to rewriting this site so it's not horrible on mobileThe above is the reason I'm confused by your voting strategy as a way of resolving this issue. As you've outlined above, the democrats have shown they have no interest in offering much, if any, resistance to the Republicans and if a party is not willing to follow democratic norms, it should be self-evident that we shouldn't assume they can be stopped by democracy, just because on a few cultural issues voting can have an impact.
But I know you ended the discussion with me on that point, taking your cues from JPS' anti-semite, so I guess I won't get a reply. But I'm actually genuinely curious, not to mention on your side. And I think there is a reasonable argument for non-federal block voting potentially having an effect, which has been the Republican strategy. But that wasn't the argument you were making, and if your strategy is to convince other people to vote...patronising them, mocking their response with absurd strawmen is not a good strategy lol. Either way, neither of us can vote in America.
Though America would be much better off if we both had that right, as foreigners. 
Foolz said:Either way, neither of us can vote in America.Though America would be much better off if we both had that right, as foreigners.
So you could then opt to not vote? 
SupremeAC said:So you could then opt to not vote?
Correct. My non-vote would clearly annoy more people than it would in Australia.
Foolz said:The above is the reason I'm confused by your voting strategy as a way of resolving this issue. As you've outlined above, the democrats have shown they have no interest in offering much, if any, resistance to the Republicans and if a party is not willing to follow democratic norms, it should be self-evident that we shouldn't assume they can be stopped by democracy, just because on a few cultural issues voting can have an impact.
I'm happy to answer questions, we had simply exhausted the previous topic.
So if you mean, "if the election is rigged, why vote?" It's because it's not completely rigged, yet. Republicans aren't fully there for being able to overturn elections. A major reason they failed in 2020, despite really trying was that a few levers of power weren't in their control, and key positions in the Republican party refused to go along. If they were to win back power via elections (and gerrymandering, and voter suppression), it may be at that point voting can't do anything, but we're not there yet. Remember, Nazis were initially elected democratically.
If you mean, why elect Democrats if they won't fix the problem, give me a better option. It's possible electing Democrats for consecutive elections and/or large enough margins will force change within the Republicans. It's also possible with enough Democratic votes, the practical results look very different. Right now the margins are so slim, something only happens if it can be passed via budget reconciliation with 100% of Democrats on board. 90% or more Democrats are often on board for a tonne of terrific things. But since you almost always get 0 Republican votes, that makes it very difficult. Just 2 more Democratic Senators (bypassing Manchin and Sinema) and it could potentially look a lot different. It is also possible that any practical amount of change won't be enough and we're too far gone, but I don't see how giving up is a reasonable course of action by comparison.
And if you mean, "Voting isn't enough", certainly! Activism is much broader than "just vote". But voting is the start, and the premise of my article wasn't that someone who is politically apathetic needs to immediately become an activist, but rather, to give reasons why maybe they should care about elections, even if they don't think they're personally affected that much, because I guarantee they know and care about people in their lives who are.
FYI I can't vote in America, either. So I just want to see people who can make use of it.
---
Tell me to get back to rewriting this site so it's not horrible on mobileI think this is probably the crux of where we disagree. To me, electoralism is not the first step, but the last step of activism. Indeed, pestering politicians either through bribery or harassment is generally more effective than voting. But in any case, the Republican block voting which has been so effective in creating the opportunity for the Republicans to do things like overturn Roe v Wade would not have been possible without the highly effective reactionary movement following the 60s, which not only built a political party willing to behave in a progressive manner (or regressive to people like us, I guess!) but also a constituency who were active in all forms of activism, from violence to the ballot box.
I can definitely respect your position better as described in that post, though!
P.S. It's a bit of an oversimplification to say that the Nazis were initially elected democratically, but in any case, the way the German elections were structured really bears no resemblance to the American system at all. It's not a useful comparison when we're talking about electoralism.
And my point isn't that 30s Germany had a similar electoral system, but that often authoritarianism starts with electing officials that go on to use the system to forcefully remain in power. Republicans want to use Hungary as a model.
---
Tell me to get back to rewriting this site so it's not horrible on mobileJust saying you could have picked a more apropos example. 
This is somewhat to the side of my point, but my position would be the opposite. The other side should not be listened to. As evidenced by the recent Supreme Court leak, and so many other things, the right operates entirely in bad faith. Listening to the other side, and journalists pushing the need to work together as a story, is part of how we've gotten here. The polarization is asymmetric. Democrats have slowly slightly drifted left as American society has moved left. Republicans have gone into a fascist tailspin. Democrats just elected Joe Biden, the epitome of business-as-usual, and even if you went to the most progressive members of congress, they want universal healthcare and childcare. Republicans want to overturn elections and their healthcare plan is none.
You're probably right in that, as trends go, Republicans will likely win power without really moderating. But it's nihilistic to simply go "I guess fascism is inevitable!" and give up. Republicans are acting this way in large part because it has been working electorally.
---
Tell me to get back to rewriting this site so it's not horrible on mobile