• PopOfAfrica@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Every time progressives try to do anything, Democrats say that this is not the time and place for it seems like that goalpost keeps getting moved.

    • jumjummy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      So are you suggesting the November General Election is the time? This is what I don’t understand about these threads. They don’t seem based in reality at all. What do you think will happen if people either don’t vote, or protest vote a 3rd party candidate? Please play that scenario out for me with a Trump win and how that solves anything.

      • shikitohno@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Is it the ideal time? Absolutely not. But whether it’s the November general elections, midterms or local city council, there’s always plenty of people like you popping up to say “This is not the time, this is the most important election ever!” when there’s any chance of opposition to Democratic hegemony, but when they’re on path for a comfortable win, “Oh, those policies are too extremist, they’ll be unelectable.” No matter the circumstances, Democrats always have some pretext to try and dismiss progressives and socialist, while demanding unchecked fealty in the elections from them.

        If no time is ever a good time for you to listen to people, tough shit, you’re going to hear their voices when you don’t want to.

        • thebestaquaman@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          I’m just saying you should consistently vote for the candidate you prefer. That includes voting for the “far-left” (no such thing in US politics) democratic candidates when they pop up. I would also argue that it is never the time to “protest” by not voting, as that just signals that you don’t care who wins.

          It’s really quite simple: It’s always the ideal time to vote for the best (least bad) candidate. It is never the ideal time to abstain from voting because you dislike both candidates, unless you legitimately don’t care who wins.

      • 0xD@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        It’s really hard to discern between people who are fundamentally frustrated with the system and conservative bots (in flesh or code).

        In the end they’ll both lead to the same thing though, so does it really matter?

      • PopOfAfrica@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        For starters, I don’t live in a swing state, so my vote is completely irrelevant. Secondly, the ball was in the Democrats’ courts to win this earlier. They threw it, they have been throwing it, and they are still throwing this election.

        I fear they’ve already lost by not giving the people what they want. Again, they’re not even pretending to try to give the people what they want. What kind of selling point is “we’re not going to accomplish anything next term.”

    • thebestaquaman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      No: Every single election where a more left-leaning choice is pitted against a less left-leaning choice is the place to do that. If enough people consistently vote for the more left-leaning choice of the two, politics is pushed to the left.

      By not voting, you are saying that you don’t care which candidate wins. In this case, the choice is between a literal fascist and a more or less far-right (globally speaking) candidate. Of the two, one is clearly more left-leaning (less far-right) than the other. So you vote for that one. That’s how you make a difference.