• fubo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    You can’t stop fascism over there by threatening to put fascists in charge here. Trump expressly approves of human rights violations, remember? He doesn’t just tolerate them in allies; he likes them. They’re a show of strength. Fascists love strength.

    I’d like to see US military aid to Israel contingent on a better human rights record. Hell, I’d like to see a policy of bankrupting China if it doesn’t free its slaves (including the North Koreans, who are held in slavery by Chinese support for Juche fascism).

    I think those are long shots under liberalism, but they’re impossible under fascism.

    But if you throw the US to fascism because the liberals didn’t do good enough, that is a revealed preference for fascism here on your part.

    Our voting system sucks. But we still have to use it to keep fascists out of office.

    • TokenBoomer@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re refusing to understand my comment, and doggedly holding to the false dilemma. If you have to compromise your morals now, to win tomorrow, then you’ve already lost. The election is next year, a lot can change before then. The war is happening now.

      • fubo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Our voting system requires that voters “compromise their morals” if they want to avoid electing the most immoral candidate.

        That is a mathematical truth about first-past-the-post voting. It is part of why we should switch to approval voting, ranked choice, or another such system as soon as possible. Most other systems require less compromising your morals to meet the goal of keeping the worst candidate out of office.

        The moral voter recognizes this, realizes they cannot fix the voting system before the next election …and refuses the temptation to let the bad guy win just to spite the insufficiently-good guy.

        Morality ultimately rests on outcomes, not purity. If you take actions that are consistent with getting fascists elected, that is your morality right there.

      • Perfide@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Alright, fine. Turn the pressure up on Biden hoping he’ll shift positions before the election. Cool.

        The thing is, even if he doesn’t shift, he’s still the best option. At the moment, Biden is sympathetic to a fascist foreign government, but he’s not trying to institute fascism in the US. Trump IS an outright fascist, and literally tried to overthrow the government. Biden is bad, but Trump is far worse, and unfortunately because of the way our election system works, any vote that isn’t for Biden is equivalent to a vote for Trump, including not voting at all.

        It’s simple math. Ex: Biden has 5 votes, Trump has 6 votes, and 15 people didn’t vote at all. Of those 15, 4 are Republicans against Trump, 7 are leftists that think Biden is too right wing, and 4 are genuine fence sitters. The fence sitters split evenly, so 7 votes for Biden and 8 for Trump, the other 11 stay home. So in total you have 14 people who ostensibly are more left wing and 12 more right wing, so a left wing majority… but Trump the actual fascist right wing candidate wins.

        You can argue all you want that Biden isn’t good enough for you, but the truth is Trump isn’t bad enough for you. If he was, you’d be willing to make compromises to prevent him regaining power.