• Dagwood222@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    21 hours ago

    No.

    Look at how the system actually works. There are two choices. Both candidates have to compete for all the people who vote. If you sit out the election that doesn’t mean either candidate will try to get your vote; they’ll ignore you and go after the people who do vote.

    Someone else came up with this analogy. It’s like the trolley problem except the there’s a third option. The third choice is to throw the switch to “Neither,” but “Neither” isn’t connected and the trolley kills someone anyway.

    • orcrist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 hours ago

      My friend, what you wrote totally ignores the passage of time. Everything you wrote is true if we only look at one election, and none of it is true if we consider the passage of time and how pressure operates. If the political party is not getting votes, if all of their candidates are losing, either they will disband or they will find different policies to push.

          • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            8 hours ago

            Let me explain something you may not be aware of.

            The man was an entertainer. His job was to make people laugh. I can cherry pick his work and come up with all kinds of absurd ideas he put into his act.

            If the only argument you can make is based on a comedy routine, then we have nothing more to discuss.

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              7 hours ago

              Let me explain something you may not be aware of. Entertainers often say serious things that cannot be said in other mediums. If you don’t understand that Carlin was doing political commentary, and appreciate his insights then you’re a very dim individual indeed.

            • Grapho@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              8 hours ago

              Yeah bro, the anti war hippie who was challenging the FCC in the 70s would have totally been team corporatocracy. Carlin had several interviews where he talked about how the two party system in America is an illusion of choice and ragged on Bill Clinton for being phony, and that’s the farthest left liberal candidate in like 30 years, a fucking neoliberal.

              Yall sound exactly like the conservatives claiming MLK.

              • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                8 hours ago

                Like I said, if you can’t come up with anything except a comedy act, we have nothing to discuss.

                Here’s a clip from his early days, proof that he couldn’t possibly have ever changed his thoughts about anything.

                https://youtu.be/-sx-7NucjEk

                • Grapho@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  8 hours ago

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKO8qMJtbng this is from the 90s through the early 2000s, but I imagine you’ll find another reason to dismiss his words to pretend you know what was in his heart was different tho.

                  For the record, I don’t agree with his defeatist outlook, I think there’s comedians with better takes on American politics, but to pretend Carlin would be blue MAGA just because you wish him to be is ridiculous.

    • Belgdore@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Or as Rush put it, “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.”

    • WeUnite@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      6 hours ago

      You understand how things work! Ignore the apathy trolls. They are trying to silence your vote. Here’s what actually happens if you vote for the lesser of two evils. You’re rights are protected and next time use the primary process to pick someone even better.

      • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 hours ago

        You’re rights are protected and next time use the primary process to pick someone even better.

        Oh, Like how we voted for the lesser evil in 2020 and didn’t have a fucking primary in 2024. Don’t tell us to do something that your party makes sure doesn’t happen.

    • ReadMoreBooks@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      13 hours ago

      If 5% of the general election popular vote for POTUS, knowing that the candidate cannot win, still voted for the Green Party platform then what effect would that have upon the Democratic Party platform?

      On a five point difficulty scale this is a two. The test gets way harder than this.

      • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        11 hours ago

        If my grandmother had wheels she’d be a tea trolley.

        Right now the reality is the Donald Trump is going to take office because a lot of people didn’t vote for the alternative.

        All the ‘what if…?’ games in the world isn’t going to change that.

        • ReadMoreBooks@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          11 hours ago

          Thank you for the opportunity to teach.

          If my grandmother had wheels she’d be a tea trolley.

          Minimization.

          Right now the reality is the Donald Trump is going to take office because a lot of people didn’t vote for the alternative.

          Red herring.

          All the ‘what if…?’ games in the world isn’t going to change that.

          Minimization.

          This is a bit better than typical nonsense because there’s two tactics in a sandwich. Next is usually ad hominem. But, this one may have another trick up their sleeve.

          • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            11 hours ago

            Simply naming fallacies isn’t teaching. The point of learning fallacies isn’t so that you can just name them and feel like you’ve made a point.

            • ReadMoreBooks@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              2 hours ago

              I asked a question. I received a fallacy sandwich in return. There’s no point in investing further.

              Simply naming fallacies isn’t teaching.

              unsupported

              The point of learning fallacies isn’t so that you can just name them and feel like you’ve made a point.

              strawman

          • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            11 hours ago

            Right now the reality is the Donald Trump is going to take office because a lot of people didn’t vote for the alternative.

            Red herring.

            You’re going to have to explain that in detail. Trump got more votes. He won. How is that anything except a cold, hard fact?