None of those candidates will get more than low single digit percentages of the vote. You can vote your conscience or vote pragmatically. Voting pragmatically means voting for Harris to prevent Trump from winning.
So practical that you’ve all totally lost your moral compass. Who would write their name under a column that has active genocide support marked off? Blows mu mind that you people act like you have some sort of practical moral high ground while actively supporting genocide (voting is an act).
This may be, but the probability is unarguably higher than with Trump. Voting exclusively for candidates you morally agree on only works if enough people have the same morale (in this case i.e. are educated on Israel and so on) and are also not willing to make compromises.
Even if unfortunate, this is currently not the case; and you voting independent has smaller chances of changing that than voting democratic. So you will probably have to accept this situation for the moment and choose the “best actually feasible” strategy— and feasible means having the highest probability to win in real life, not merely trying.
Personally, I’d even argue that it’s unethical to not vote for a candidate like Harris, just because the chances of getting stuff like ranked choice voting or educating voters done (which will then lead to you being able to realistically vote for others) is significantly higher when voting Democrats than… letting Trump win?
Notice that I don’t say you have to agree with anything else she stands for, you’re trying to achieve certain goals/get out of the very unfortunate current situation, and even a low chance of reaching that is infinitely better than none.
I’m voting both pragmatically and with my conscience by voting for Claudia De La Crúz. The Democrats can gain my vote by sanctioning Israel or taking similar measures.
Removing legitimacy from the system itself, and forcing the DNC to appeal to the left if they wish to gain more votes, rather than allow them to get away with genocide.
The same DNC that blamed the left for Hillary losing and then credited centrism with Biden winning?
Those are fine goals, but pragmatism involves addressing reality as it is, not how you would like it to be. I doubt you can achieve both removing legitimacy from the system as you see it and forcing the DNC to speak to the left simultaneously since the DNC is a part of the system that’s in place. Unfortunately the DNC appealing to the left needs to be a two way street, make the left more appealing to the DNC than the right. All those Republicans endorsing Harris is the right appealing to the DNC, the left needs to out do that effort to pull the DNC to the left. Rejecting them won’t do that, only the opposite.
The same DNC that blamed the left for Hillary losing and then credited centrism with Biden winning?
Yes. They can continue to blame, but they will continue to lose.
Those are fine goals, but pragmatism involves addressing reality as it is, not how you would like it to be. I doubt you can achieve both removing legitimacy from the system as you see it and forcing the DNC to speak to the left simultaneously since the DNC is a part of the system that’s in place. Unfortunately the DNC appealing to the left needs to be a two way street, make the left more appealing to the DNC than the right. All those Republicans endorsing Harris is the right appealing to the DNC, the left needs to out do that effort to pull the DNC to the left. Rejecting them won’t do that, only the opposite.
This is peak liberalism, lmao. The DNC is pulling right because of their donors, if they think they can win without the left then that is their miscalculation.
Lol, yes. There are metaphorical carrots pulling the DNC to the right, I think we agree there. Now if you want to be “pragmatic” about it will a metaphorical stick from the left move them more left, or more right given the way we can see they calculate?
None of those candidates will get more than low single digit percentages of the vote. You can vote your conscience or vote pragmatically. Voting pragmatically means voting for Harris to prevent Trump from winning.
So practical that you’ve all totally lost your moral compass. Who would write their name under a column that has active genocide support marked off? Blows mu mind that you people act like you have some sort of practical moral high ground while actively supporting genocide (voting is an act).
I think Harris could likely change her mind on Israel. Not so for Trump, and the other candidates don’t stand a chance so why vote for them.
Harris will never change her mind on Israel
This may be, but the probability is unarguably higher than with Trump. Voting exclusively for candidates you morally agree on only works if enough people have the same morale (in this case i.e. are educated on Israel and so on) and are also not willing to make compromises.
Even if unfortunate, this is currently not the case; and you voting independent has smaller chances of changing that than voting democratic. So you will probably have to accept this situation for the moment and choose the “best actually feasible” strategy— and feasible means having the highest probability to win in real life, not merely trying.
Personally, I’d even argue that it’s unethical to not vote for a candidate like Harris, just because the chances of getting stuff like ranked choice voting or educating voters done (which will then lead to you being able to realistically vote for others) is significantly higher when voting Democrats than… letting Trump win?
Notice that I don’t say you have to agree with anything else she stands for, you’re trying to achieve certain goals/get out of the very unfortunate current situation, and even a low chance of reaching that is infinitely better than none.
I’m voting both pragmatically and with my conscience by voting for Claudia De La Crúz. The Democrats can gain my vote by sanctioning Israel or taking similar measures.
What’s pragmatic about voting for a long shot candidate in a system that so heavily favors the two major parties?
Removing legitimacy from the system itself, and forcing the DNC to appeal to the left if they wish to gain more votes, rather than allow them to get away with genocide.
Yeah, that’ll show them. I’m sure that their monitoring your vote with great interest.
FFS 🤦🏽
Depends.
The same DNC that blamed the left for Hillary losing and then credited centrism with Biden winning?
Those are fine goals, but pragmatism involves addressing reality as it is, not how you would like it to be. I doubt you can achieve both removing legitimacy from the system as you see it and forcing the DNC to speak to the left simultaneously since the DNC is a part of the system that’s in place. Unfortunately the DNC appealing to the left needs to be a two way street, make the left more appealing to the DNC than the right. All those Republicans endorsing Harris is the right appealing to the DNC, the left needs to out do that effort to pull the DNC to the left. Rejecting them won’t do that, only the opposite.
Yes. They can continue to blame, but they will continue to lose.
This is peak liberalism, lmao. The DNC is pulling right because of their donors, if they think they can win without the left then that is their miscalculation.
Lol, yes. There are metaphorical carrots pulling the DNC to the right, I think we agree there. Now if you want to be “pragmatic” about it will a metaphorical stick from the left move them more left, or more right given the way we can see they calculate?
It’s a carrot, not a stick, but either way electoralism won’t save anyone.
Says the guy advocating poorly applied electoralism