Rolling Stone spoke with diehard Trump supporters who waited hours in the snow to watch the former president stump in New Hampshire
Fresh off a historic victory in the Iowa caucuses, former President Donald Trump traveled to New Hampshire and complained to his supporters that he had to leave the White House after losing the 2020 election.
Fans had lined up for hours outside in the snow for a chance to see the presumptive Republican nominee in person — excited over his Iowa win, appearing confident he will once again be president.
During his speech, Trump said it “was ridiculous that we had to leave, but we had to leave, we have to follow the laws of our land.” He quickly doubled down on his 2020 election lies: “They don’t investigate the people that cheated in the election. They investigate the people that understand they cheated and go after them. But they don’t investigate the people who cheated like hell. We have to have fair and free elections.”
Of course, Trump is being prosecuted for attempting to rig the 2020 election and overturn the results in key swing states — and as Rolling Stone has reported, he and his allies are working diligently to predetermine the results of the 2024 election and make sure they favor Trump.
And it’s about to happen again because ideologically “pure” leftists constantly fall for right-wing propaganda and fail to understand the real world impacts of harm reduction.
Isn’t life in the 21st century just so fucking grand?
Leftists aren’t to blame for the right wing.
ok, but also: not voting empowers an avowed fascist. so…
look the only way to hold biden to account is to make sure we still have a democracy next year.
It’s not leftists’ fault there is fascism on the right.
Just because something isn’t your fault doesn’t mean it’s not your problem
Yes, it’s everyone’s problem, not leftists’
I agree with that
voting isn’t harm reduction
It is absolutely harm reduction.
Is it though?
I am not going to respond to anything else that is not in your own words. Back your shit up or fuck off.
So you’d rather hear that it’s a genocide from some random on the internet than a Jewish Holocaust and Genocide scholar? People post links to experts and researched studies and you can’t trust that? Good luck 🍀
Disingenuous bullshit gets you blocked. Goodbye.
If you block people that disagree with you, then what you want is an echo chamber.
https://www.indigenousaction.org/voting-is-not-harm-reduction-an-indigenous-perspective/
no, it’s not
Removed by mod
I love you.
Thanks, I’m sure you’re pretty swell too ✌
edit: typo
Absolutely on point until the very last line. Edit the comment, remove the attack, and it’s allowable. As it is? Removed - Keep it civil.
I tried to edit the comment but it seems to still just read as removed, so I apologize jordanlund but I’m going to tag repost my comment below this one, minus the offending last line so as to hopefully be within policy compliance. Comment (sans final line), was as follows:
What disingenuous bullshit. Did you actually read that page or just find the first google result that supports your claim?
Because that page is basically two things: legitimate raging against real anti-activism efforts and a bunch of defeatist bullshit nothing based on a strawman assumption that the harm reduction argument is inherently one which is at odd with other forms of activism. Yeah no shit the deeply systemically-rooted problems aren’t going to magically get solved just because you got off your ass for one day in November. And yeah no shit there are more effective, necessary, and righteous ways of affecting change and activism.
But nobody, nobody, is saying otherwise.
But the fact remains that whether you abstain from the practice entirely or you’re the most involved on the street activist in the world, an election will happen in November the results of which will have real world impact. And yes, again no shit both options are horseshit. Yes life under Joe Biden will be one where corporate interests reign free, minority and indigenous and disenfranchised people will continue to be treated unequally and exploited in America, and the economic divide will only further. Yes, that’s all true. But it’s also true that all of those things will happen, but even worse under Donald Trump, as well myriad other genuinely measurable worse things. So if we want to reduce the harm that will happen, logic dictates we ensure Donald Trump isn’t President.
Now tell me where, anywhere in that I say that voting is a panacea for all ailments or anywhere discourage any kind of genuine activism outside of voting.
You can take comfort in being so pure and above it all by not stooping to the levels of supporting an imperfect system all you want, but at the end of the day that’s just selfishness that serves only to feed your own ego. In the meantime, in the real world, abstaining from the system just makes things worse. The point is to do all the shit that I’m sure you pretend to encourage from your desk chair here on Lemmy but never actually do, and also take the fucking 1 hour out of your day once ever four years it takes to vote as well. It literally only helps things and does not in any way take away from legitimate efforts.
Works for me!
i never said you did. i said that voting is not harm reduction.
Then explain how you mean so, in your words, not in links.
deleted by creator
don’t be petulant.
edit: https://lemmy.world/comment/6828594
No, don’t be disingenuous and obtuse. Back up your claim.
edit: edited for civility
Good read
Not voting and letting insane fascists take over is clearly the better choice when trying to reduce harm.
Voting isn’t a panacea, but saying it isn’t harm reduction makes you sound ignorant or like you’re arguing in bad faith.
i didn’t propose not voting
So what are you proposing? Go on, say it with your chest.
i propose voting for people who won’t participate in genocide.
That’s awesome to hear and a great principle to have! Tell me what steps you’ve taken to personally motivate the Democratic party to run primaries and which candidate you’re choosing to support in the primaries and how exactly you’re providing said support.
Or if you’re talking third party, that’s awesome too! Please tell me the steps you’re taking to legitimatize your chosen candidate, raise awareness of them, and prepare them and their supporters for opposition. I’m excited to hear the stories of both your hard fought battles, and more importantly since this is paramount to the viability of this as a strategy, the wins and achievements you’ve accomplished so far so as to cement your candidate as a legitimate option!
And then, if you’re really feeling up for sharing, I would love to hear at which point in the process after your chosen candidate has either lost their primary slot (if they do so, god forbid) or been proven statistically irrelevant as a third party (which I truly, truly, as somebody who has actually worked with local third party candidates in their campaigns, hope doesn’t happen) in the general election will you concede that your battle was hard-fought but ultimately lost in greater war effort that is change and make the reasonable harm reduction choice to vote for the objectively better of the two remaining viable candidates rather than standing on your own ideological purity selfishly at real world expense of greater harm befalling countless real world America citizens?
it’s not a strategy. it’s a vote.
this whole narrative of viability is a snow-job. a candidate is viable if they win, and no one wins until the election is over.
i don’t do that.
why should i try to legitimize any candidate?
i said vote. i will spend like… 2 hours a year participating in electoralism at maximum. unless you count whining on the internet.
that’s not whats happening
My friend, that is the good faith benefit of the doubt reading of what’s happening. If that’s not what’s happening, that is not in your favor.
i object to the classification of candidates as “third party”.
Your personal classification is entirely inconsequential.
voting isn’t harm reduction.
this false dichotomy doesn’t belong on this instance or in this community
i’m saying it because i know what harm reduction is, and it’s not voting.
Asserting your same point multiple times without expanding upon it doesn’t make your point any stronger, and definitely doesn’t help people think that the quoted portion of my statement doesnt apply to you.
Harm reduction includes many, many different actions, of which voting is but one of them. You’re welcome to explain how voting isn’t harm reduction, but I bet I’ll be able to tear down that argument fairly easily once you actually look at possible outcomes to who is in office. For example, it’s absolutely harm reduction to keep MAGAts and the GOP out of office for any LGBT+ people, given the war the right has been wagging on these communities.
Also, calling it a false dichotomy without explanation doesn’t make it so, no matter how many times you reply to a single comment.
no, it’s not.
harm reduction recognizes that people are going to be effected by some social ill, and helps them to mitigate some of those problems, like giving clean needles to addicts. voting doesn’t directly help anyone.
Don’t be pedantic. We are talking about reducing the amount of harm that will be done. I don’t care if it fits your clinical definition of the term, I’m not speaking in phraseology, I’m speaking in plain language. Voting reduces harm being done.
objectively, it doesn’t. plenty of people voted in 2016. plenty of people voted in 2020. things are getting worse, not better.
it’s not pedantry to insist that you are misusing this term, and using it to guilt people into doing something which might be against their self-interest.
that’s not what harm reduction is.
Voting certainly can be harm reduction. In its current US form where there is little direct democracy and a lot of single seat voting its not a particularly reliable form of harm reduction given its reliance on swing state voters and gerrymandered seats, but its still harm reduction.
no, it can’t. that’s not what harm reduction means.
I bet you think a taco isnt a sandwich.
this isn’t a pedantic argument. it’s about actual harm and actual harm reduction strategies.
It absolutely is a pedantic argument. If I see a shitty beater car competing in a race and say “that’s a race car” and you say “no a race car is a professional racing car” you’re being pedantic, its both, “race car” is shorthand for “professional/sport racing car” but its also just what the words mean together.
Language isnt always as clear as we like: if you want to be crystal clear about “drug harm reduction programs” which are part of broader “addiction harm reduction models” that can sometimes include non drug models, well you can be precise with your meaning or you can be flexible in meaning, but outside that its just pedantry. So yes, you can consider a lot of things “harm reduction” because its shorthand.
voting doesn’t reduce harm. it’s not harm reduction.