Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said in an interview with NBC News that he will encourage progressive voters to still back Democrats on the ticket in November even if moderates are victorious in the primaries.
If you are part of a party that support it then the blame is on you too.
Seems like a great way to make sure that the party never improves…
didn’t fit trump “no more wars” policy too, until he did it.
Breaking News…Trump lies!
No one with two braincells in their head to rub together believed that because it did not fit within his geopolitical ambitions.
War has always fit red and blue geopolitical ambitions, always.
That’s a idiotic generalization. Yes, Democrats have historically supported unjust wars. However, they still have geopolitical strategies that differ from conservatives. There is zero chance that Kamala would have broken up the Iran nuclear deal and gone to war with Iran… That deal was their biggest accomplishment in the modern age.
I’m sure you are the type to advocate for voting third party, which I honestly don’t have a problem with. The problem is that we are a two party system. Even if a third party were popularized it would just take the place of one of the two standing parties.
If you honestly want a third party to advance to that place you would first have to create a schism in the democratic party by primarying the old guard with young progressives. Telling people to disregard the politician and only focus on the party does nothing but serve the fascist currently running the government.
Seems like a great way to make sure that the party never improves…
If the party you are trying to improve is evil and corrupted as fuck you have more chances to improve humanity not associating yourself with them. Your argument is like trying to improve nazism within the nazi party.
That’s a idiotic generalization. Yes, Democrats have historically supported unjust wars. However, they still have geopolitical strategies that differ from conservatives. There is zero chance that Kamala would have broken up the Iran nuclear deal and gone to war with Iran…
You are speculating what someone endorsing a genocide where thousand of kids died would have done.
Telling people to disregard the politician and only focus on the party does nothing but serve the fascist currently running the government.
If you actually want to fight fascists you want to promote something better than voting for the lesser evil fascist
If the party you are trying to improve is evil and corrupted as fuck you have more chances to improve humanity not associating yourself with them. Your argument is like trying to improve nazism within the nazi party.
The party is a human construct, it’s the people in the party who make it evil. If you change the people it is a different party in all but name.
like trying to improve nazism within the nazi party.
The Nazi party ceased to be subject to the democratic process and thus had to be destroyed and not changed.
what someone endorsing a genocide where thousand of kids died would have done.
Yes…based on all information we know about the party and the person. You know, the only way you can judge people.
you actually want to fight fascists you want to promote something better than voting for the lesser evil fascist
Voting for the lesser evil is better than voting for something that is not possible…which is the same as supporting the fascist.
You’re just ineffectually virtue signaling to make yourself feel better and at the same time making everything worse for the rest of the world.
The party is a human construct, it’s the people in the party who make it evil. If you change the people it is a different party in all but name.
Same goes for the republicans, if it’s just a color why don’t blue canditates run for red to change it and make it good?
Voting for the lesser evil is better than voting for something that is not possible…which is the same as supporting the fascist.
“that is not possible” is your assumption, what it is not an assumption is that voting for lesser evil fascists is a vote for fascists.
You’re just ineffectually virtue signaling to make yourself feel better and at the same time making everything worse for the rest of the world.
To me it sound like that’s something you are projecting on others, supporting and advocating for the lesser evil it’s doing exactly that, it’s the rest of the world that pay the most for what the US government is doing.
Yes, and we have seen them radicalize even farther right very recently .
why don’t blue canditates run for red to change it and make it good
Because the voting population of the Republican party would be less likely to choose a progressive candidate. What would motivate a progressive candidate to enroll in a conservative party?
that is not possible" is your assumption
I have backed my assumption with actual evidence… What evidence do you have to support your theory?
voting for lesser evil fascists is a vote for fascists.
Says who? There are candidates that just won there primary as Democrats who have disavowed Israel and are democratic socialist. How is voting for them a vot for fascists?
To me it sound like that’s something you are projecting on others,
Ahh yes, because you are the expert who can’t understand political science taught at a highschool level.
advocating for the lesser evil it’s doing exactly
Which is better than advocating for the greater of the two evil… Which is what you are unwittingly doing.
rest of the world that pay the most for what the US government is doing.
And you seem more than happy to let them do that so long as you can waste your vote on a prospect that has zero chance of winning.
Because the voting population of the Republican party would be less likely to choose a progressive candidate. What would motivate a progressive candidate to enroll in a conservative party?
What would motivate a progressive canditate to enroll in an evil party that support a genocide?
I have backed my assumption with actual evidence… What evidence do you have to support your theory?
A prediction on what people will vote for is no evidence to prove that a third party can’t win. It’s easy to understand why, you cannot predict the outcome of the vote.
Says who? There are candidates that just won there primary as Democrats who have disavowed Israel and are democratic socialist. How is voting for them a vot for fascists?
In the scenario where you are voting for the lesser evil fascist you are voting for fascists, that’s the scenario of people voting for the lesser evil fascist in the latest US presidential elections. A vote for someone who is part of the democratic party is a vote for someone in a party that supports a genocide.
Which is better than advocating for the greater of the two evil… Which is what you are unwittingly doing.
I’ve never advocated for evil, I’ve always advocated to do the correct thing and to not support criminals with blood on their hands, don’t you realize how twisted your logic is?
And you seem more than happy to let them do that
I’ve been here advocating against an ongoing genocide in every post how the hell i’m happy to let them do that?
on a prospect
It sound to me that you are taking for granted a prospect. Instead of trusting prospects made by the government try to think with your mind. If people decide to vote for a third party a third party will win, if you believe people won’t decide to do that instead of advocating for the lesser evil try to change people mind or at last don’t attack people who are trying to do that.
What would motivate a progressive canditate to enroll in an evil party that support a genocide?
Because it is the most progressive party that has a chance at winning elections and they want to change it to become even more progressive.
Again, a party’s stance on any given policy is dictated by the members of the party. Which means that the voters can force the party to adopt a new position if they vote for candidates who want change.
prediction on what people will vote for is no evidence to prove that a third party can’t win.
That’s literally what the theory and paper supporting it is about… Just because you refuse to accept what it claims does not mean it’s not supporting evidence.
It’s easy to understand why, you cannot predict the outcome of the vote.
That’s not what the theory or paper is claiming to do… I think you might have issues with your reading comprehension.
the scenario where you are voting for the lesser evil fascist you are voting for fascists
Voting for people who run on an anti fascist platform is fascist…sure.
A vote for someone who is part of the democratic party is a vote for someone in a party that supports a genocide.
Again, that’s a hasty generalization made with the intent to avoid context and any iota of nuance. Especially considering that the vast majority of voters have no independent or third party voters on their ballots.
In a hypothetical situation where the only options for a candidate is a person like Abdul El-Sayed (dnc) or a person like Mike Rogers (rnc). Your claim would suggest that both candidates are just as bad because the leaders of their respective parties have both endorsed Israel? Even though Israel spent 60 million dollars in against Abdul’s primary election?
I’ve never advocated for evil, I’ve always advocated to do the correct thing
Which is why I said I unwittingly…
not support criminals with blood on their hands, don’t you realize how twisted your logic is?
So they are guilty by association? By that logic why are you supporting the genocide of Palestinians?
You are tax paying citizen of a western nation supporting the genocide of Palestinians. Why would you associate yourself with a country that bombs children? Why not just move to a nation that has nothing to do with genocide?
I’ve been here advocating against an ongoing genocide in every post how the hell i’m happy to let them do that?
Yeah, but according to your own argument advocating against genocide doesn’t mean anything. Your decisions still aid a party and a country that supports genocide.
Instead of trusting prospects made by the government try to think with your mind.
My mind is telling me that out of the 535 seats that make up the house and Senate there are currently three 3rd party members.
1 representative in the house, who was a Republican until his district was redrawn in 2026 so he chose to switch to independent. He still caucuses with the Republican party.
2 representatives in the Senate both of which cuacus with the Democratic party.
So even if you ignore the fact that these independent representative are Republican or Democrat in everyway except name… That’s a .56% success rate for third party candidates.
don’t attack people who are trying to do that.
If you see education as a personal attack …it might explain some of your difficulties with comprehension.
Again, a party’s stance on any given policy is dictated by the members of the party. Which means that the voters can force the party to adopt a new position if they vote for candidates who want change.
It also means that if most of members of the party are criminals who support a genocide that becomes the party’s stance.
That’s literally what the theory and paper supporting it is about… Just because you refuse to accept what it claims does not mean it’s not supporting evidence.
If the theory claims that you can predict people vote then it’s a wrong theory because you cannot do that. People vote is a variable that can change according to a number so high of parameters that makes it “impossible” to predict.
Voting for people who run on an anti fascist platform is fascist…sure.
The democratic party is an anti fascist platform? The same platform supporting corporations, mass surveillance, authoritarian regimes and a genocide where kids are being murdered?
In a hypothetical situation where the only options for a candidate is a person like Abdul El-Sayed (dnc) or a person like Mike Rogers (rnc). Your claim would suggest that both candidates are just as bad because the leaders of their respective parties have both endorsed Israel? Even though Israel spent 60 million dollars in against Abdul’s primary election?
If you decide to affiliate with and to be under a leader who support a genocide because it gives you more popularity and votes you are not a good person. If a candidate was actually bad for israel government they would spend 60 millions to assasinate them.
So they are guilty by association? By that logic why are you supporting the genocide of Palestinians? You are tax paying citizen of a western nation supporting the genocide of Palestinians. Why would you associate yourself with a country that bombs children? Why not just move to a nation that has nothing to do with genocide?
You could indeed argue that anyone who pay taxes in a first world country is supporting the genocide, we are all guilty of enabling a corrupted system the same way germans were in nazi germany. Not paying taxes has direct repercussions such as going to jail, there aren’t any of such repercussions in choosing a different party to run with.
Your decisions still aid a party and a country that supports genocide.
That’s your assumption based on the propaganda that if you don’t vote for THE party you are doing something bad.
If the party you are trying to improve is evil and corrupted as fuck you have more chances to improve humanity not associating yourself with them.
So we can improve humanity by not voting in protest or voting for a non-viable 3rd party, thus allowing a fascist party to take control, which is exactly what happened in 2024?
Your argument is like trying to improve nazism within the nazi party.
Because now you’re comparing the Democrat party to the Nazi party. You are fantastically irrational and at this point I can’t take anything you say with even the remotest sincerity.
You are speculating what someone endorsing a genocide where thousand of kids died would have done.
It’s not speculation. They pointed out that the Iran Deal was one of the Democrat’s biggest accomplishments in the modern era. Why would she, if she was a Democrat president, want to undo that? Come on kiddo, use some common sense at least once today.
If you actually want to fight fascists you want to promote something better than voting for the lesser evil fascist
If you are part of a party that support it then the blame is on you too.
It didn’t fit trump “no more wars” policy too, until he did it.
War has always fit red and blue geopolitical ambitions, always.
Seems like a great way to make sure that the party never improves…
Breaking News…Trump lies! No one with two braincells in their head to rub together believed that because it did not fit within his geopolitical ambitions.
That’s a idiotic generalization. Yes, Democrats have historically supported unjust wars. However, they still have geopolitical strategies that differ from conservatives. There is zero chance that Kamala would have broken up the Iran nuclear deal and gone to war with Iran… That deal was their biggest accomplishment in the modern age.
I’m sure you are the type to advocate for voting third party, which I honestly don’t have a problem with. The problem is that we are a two party system. Even if a third party were popularized it would just take the place of one of the two standing parties.
If you honestly want a third party to advance to that place you would first have to create a schism in the democratic party by primarying the old guard with young progressives. Telling people to disregard the politician and only focus on the party does nothing but serve the fascist currently running the government.
If the party you are trying to improve is evil and corrupted as fuck you have more chances to improve humanity not associating yourself with them. Your argument is like trying to improve nazism within the nazi party.
You are speculating what someone endorsing a genocide where thousand of kids died would have done.
If you actually want to fight fascists you want to promote something better than voting for the lesser evil fascist
The party is a human construct, it’s the people in the party who make it evil. If you change the people it is a different party in all but name.
The Nazi party ceased to be subject to the democratic process and thus had to be destroyed and not changed.
Yes…based on all information we know about the party and the person. You know, the only way you can judge people.
Voting for the lesser evil is better than voting for something that is not possible…which is the same as supporting the fascist.
You’re just ineffectually virtue signaling to make yourself feel better and at the same time making everything worse for the rest of the world.
Same goes for the republicans, if it’s just a color why don’t blue canditates run for red to change it and make it good?
“that is not possible” is your assumption, what it is not an assumption is that voting for lesser evil fascists is a vote for fascists.
To me it sound like that’s something you are projecting on others, supporting and advocating for the lesser evil it’s doing exactly that, it’s the rest of the world that pay the most for what the US government is doing.
Yes, and we have seen them radicalize even farther right very recently .
Because the voting population of the Republican party would be less likely to choose a progressive candidate. What would motivate a progressive candidate to enroll in a conservative party?
I have backed my assumption with actual evidence… What evidence do you have to support your theory?
Says who? There are candidates that just won there primary as Democrats who have disavowed Israel and are democratic socialist. How is voting for them a vot for fascists?
Ahh yes, because you are the expert who can’t understand political science taught at a highschool level.
Which is better than advocating for the greater of the two evil… Which is what you are unwittingly doing.
And you seem more than happy to let them do that so long as you can waste your vote on a prospect that has zero chance of winning.
What would motivate a progressive canditate to enroll in an evil party that support a genocide?
A prediction on what people will vote for is no evidence to prove that a third party can’t win. It’s easy to understand why, you cannot predict the outcome of the vote.
In the scenario where you are voting for the lesser evil fascist you are voting for fascists, that’s the scenario of people voting for the lesser evil fascist in the latest US presidential elections. A vote for someone who is part of the democratic party is a vote for someone in a party that supports a genocide.
I’ve never advocated for evil, I’ve always advocated to do the correct thing and to not support criminals with blood on their hands, don’t you realize how twisted your logic is?
I’ve been here advocating against an ongoing genocide in every post how the hell i’m happy to let them do that?
It sound to me that you are taking for granted a prospect. Instead of trusting prospects made by the government try to think with your mind. If people decide to vote for a third party a third party will win, if you believe people won’t decide to do that instead of advocating for the lesser evil try to change people mind or at last don’t attack people who are trying to do that.
Because it is the most progressive party that has a chance at winning elections and they want to change it to become even more progressive.
Again, a party’s stance on any given policy is dictated by the members of the party. Which means that the voters can force the party to adopt a new position if they vote for candidates who want change.
That’s literally what the theory and paper supporting it is about… Just because you refuse to accept what it claims does not mean it’s not supporting evidence.
That’s not what the theory or paper is claiming to do… I think you might have issues with your reading comprehension.
Voting for people who run on an anti fascist platform is fascist…sure.
Again, that’s a hasty generalization made with the intent to avoid context and any iota of nuance. Especially considering that the vast majority of voters have no independent or third party voters on their ballots.
In a hypothetical situation where the only options for a candidate is a person like Abdul El-Sayed (dnc) or a person like Mike Rogers (rnc). Your claim would suggest that both candidates are just as bad because the leaders of their respective parties have both endorsed Israel? Even though Israel spent 60 million dollars in against Abdul’s primary election?
Which is why I said I unwittingly…
So they are guilty by association? By that logic why are you supporting the genocide of Palestinians?
You are tax paying citizen of a western nation supporting the genocide of Palestinians. Why would you associate yourself with a country that bombs children? Why not just move to a nation that has nothing to do with genocide?
Yeah, but according to your own argument advocating against genocide doesn’t mean anything. Your decisions still aid a party and a country that supports genocide.
My mind is telling me that out of the 535 seats that make up the house and Senate there are currently three 3rd party members.
1 representative in the house, who was a Republican until his district was redrawn in 2026 so he chose to switch to independent. He still caucuses with the Republican party.
2 representatives in the Senate both of which cuacus with the Democratic party.
So even if you ignore the fact that these independent representative are Republican or Democrat in everyway except name… That’s a .56% success rate for third party candidates.
If you see education as a personal attack …it might explain some of your difficulties with comprehension.
It also means that if most of members of the party are criminals who support a genocide that becomes the party’s stance.
If the theory claims that you can predict people vote then it’s a wrong theory because you cannot do that. People vote is a variable that can change according to a number so high of parameters that makes it “impossible” to predict.
The democratic party is an anti fascist platform? The same platform supporting corporations, mass surveillance, authoritarian regimes and a genocide where kids are being murdered?
If you decide to affiliate with and to be under a leader who support a genocide because it gives you more popularity and votes you are not a good person. If a candidate was actually bad for israel government they would spend 60 millions to assasinate them.
You could indeed argue that anyone who pay taxes in a first world country is supporting the genocide, we are all guilty of enabling a corrupted system the same way germans were in nazi germany. Not paying taxes has direct repercussions such as going to jail, there aren’t any of such repercussions in choosing a different party to run with.
That’s your assumption based on the propaganda that if you don’t vote for THE party you are doing something bad.
So we can improve humanity by not voting in protest or voting for a non-viable 3rd party, thus allowing a fascist party to take control, which is exactly what happened in 2024?
Because now you’re comparing the Democrat party to the Nazi party. You are fantastically irrational and at this point I can’t take anything you say with even the remotest sincerity.
It’s not speculation. They pointed out that the Iran Deal was one of the Democrat’s biggest accomplishments in the modern era. Why would she, if she was a Democrat president, want to undo that? Come on kiddo, use some common sense at least once today.
Not if the other thing can’t beat the fascists.
Yes, because there aren’t a whole range of other policies to consider and hundreds of Democrat reps, many of whom don’t condone what Israel is doing.
How simple is the inside of your mind? What you got in there? A twin bed and a computer that only goes to Lemmy and archivegenocide.org?