Fun Fact: Despite near unanimous claims by voters to the contrary, the data bears out that negative campaigning is far more productive than espousing the positives of your own candidate.
deleted by creator
hold Harris to the highest standards
What’s the unreasonably high standard they’re applying?
What if I told you… Harris needs to do more positive things to get voters to want to vote for her.
My favourite is telling a trumper I don’t fucking care what they think.
Letting the air out of their sails is more entertaining when it’s become obvious they are living for the drama of controversy and feeling their opinion matters so much to someone else than the message itself.
Removed by mod
It was established they won’t change saying what they say. Just gotta take the power out of them saying it.
Get out and vote.
i think the bottom text has it wrong.
this is probably a stronger argument to get people to vote for her:
what she’ll do
what her opponent won’t be able to do if she wins.What if I told you: No Shit
Part of the fucking problem is that Dems seem to have kinda given up on ever getting anything nice. The only thing that matters is “BEAT TRUMP”. Healthcare, civil/labor rights, debt relief, the anti-war movement, environmental protections, business regulation, green infrastructure development… none of that is even being offered up.
The only thing you hear is “Whatever position you have, know that Trump will be worse than Harris, so you have to vote Harris”. How do you go up to someone’s door and ask for their vote on those grounds? What do you say to someone who looks at Trump and Harris, shrugs, and says “They look the same to me”?
It isn’t the MAGA voter that you have to worry about. It’s the voter that’s been getting burned election after election by disappointment and can’t be bothered this time around.
What do you say to someone who looks at Trump and Harris, shrugs, and says “They look the same to me”?
What do you say? You say “are you suffering a stroke, would you like me to call you an ambulance?”
Americans aren’t being given a real choice here, too bad, but that’s how it is. Anyone who is eligible to vote but doesn’t realise Trump is a genuine threat to democracy the world over maybe shouldn’t be allowed to vote.
If you were caught in someplace where you didn’t have access to water, and the only choices were a bottle of piss with blood in it (Trump, in this metaphor) and a warm, stale coke light (Harris, in this metaphor), which one would you choose? Neither of them are particularly enjoyable or healthy in the long run, but if you were in a place which had no access to fresh water (spelling out my metaphor here, but democracy), you would die without consuming liquids. Still, you probably wouldn’t choose the pissy blood, because that’d actually be dangerous to drink no matter how dehydrated you were. A warm, stale coke light would still be a functional drink, no matter how much you’d never choose it if you had an option.
See where I’m going?
Chomsky did have a good point once about how there’s a difference of the type of lack of democracy that you can see between America and Russia. (I’m Finnish, btw, fuck Putler.) He made the point that Americans tend to like to think they have a choice, whereas Russians are pretty openly certain they don’t. As a heavy exaggeration, that is. I don’t recall which book it was, but I think it was honestly one of his books from the 70’s about linguistics, which made it weird, since it started with a chapter about CIA shenanigans and propaganda.
Removed by mod
Does “Do the least harm” just not apply in some situations?
I think its a fundamentally false choice. People get bound up in the moral weight of their vote, when they spend an hour or two making the decision every 2-4 years. Then they spend 2080 man hrs+ / year working for an employer and god knows how many hours engaging in consumerist behaviors which plays a drastically more meaningful impact on the political and social economy of their neighborhood than the weight of their votes.
A Harris guy working for Raytheon has more blood on their hands than a thousand Trump voters who work construction or do email jobs. A postal worker doing the yeoman’s work of processing all those mail-in ballots has more consequence to their community than a dozen canvassers trying to GOTV. A gym teacher making off-color jokes about LGBTQ students in the locker room is going to weigh heavier on civil rights than a hundred ACT BLUE donators.
If I travel to the edge of the middle east and someone wants to kill me
After all the bombings and killings we’ve done in the Middle East, you’re less likely to be murdered by an angry local dissident than to die of cholera or dysentery because the place you landed has no access to safe drinking water.
it feels like l’m being told to shoot an innocent or maybe get shot myself.
You’re being told to feel complicit in a system that’s totally outside your control, while being hoodwinked into participating in systems within your control without thinking about what you’re really doing.
Moral weight isnt absolute. Just because you don’t put much weight on what america and by extension its citizens is participating in, does not mean everyone else should. Its interesting you assume someone who’s concerned about minimizing harm would even consider working for Raytheon to begin with.
You also described the palestinian genocide as a system outside our control, which you’d really need to elaborate on. Why are google employees quitting over their assistance of israel in genocide?
The argument that if a vote doesnt end up going to one of the two most likely candidates, that its the same as going to one of them anyways makes no sense. Why anyone would count votes they didnt get is beyond me.
Just because you don’t put much weight on what america and by extension its citizens is participating in
I do put weight on it. I simply ascribe that weight to their lifelong careers rather than their fleeting political selections.
The argument that if a vote doesnt end up going to one of the two most likely candidates, that its the same as going to one of them anyways makes no sense.
I agree. But then I’d argue individual votes, even whole elections, don’t matter much in a heavily privatized economy.
The only issue I have is that not everyone is lifelong careers deep into all of this. Some people have made good attempts to minimize their harm while taking care of themselves and their families.
You make it sound like the average american has been working for the military industrial complex for 25+ years.
You make it sound like the average american has been working for the military industrial complex for 25+ years.
Hardly the average American. But the average rich American? Much closer to the mark.
Abstaining from voting makes you somewhat complicit in whoever wins. You have the ability to affect the outcome with whatever choice you make (Harris, Trump, neither). If you choose neither, it is partially your fault the winner won as you could have voted against them.
It can be boiled down to a classic trolley problem. A greater harm the trolley is hurling towards, a lesser harm you could divert the trolley to. You can choose inaction and let the greater harm happen or you can choose action and cause the lesser harm. Most people think the lesser harm, even if they enact it, is better. But it’s a classic morality problem for a reason. Some people view the action to cause the lesser harm as less moral even if it prevents the greater harm.
In the classic trolley problem, if you do nothing then the murderer is the person who tied the people to the tracks. You are not using that analogy correctly.
Even if they did hit a switch, they bear no responsibility for who is murdered. Again thats to the person who created the situation.
I have never heard that interpretation. Everyone I’ve ever seen talking about it agrees that if you flip the switch, you are complicit. Why else would there even be a discussion of if you should or not?
Except if you flip the switch while the trolley is halfway (front wheels have passed, rear one haven’t). Then you derail the trolley and nobody dies.
A lot of people on the trolley might.
You can have that discussion but neither makes a person a murderer, thats the point. Much like a person who refuses to vote for a democrat or republican is not genocidal.
Besides all that, there is no consensus that the democrat track is less genocidal than the republican track. Try the trolley problem again but with equal life on each side.
If voting for Harris makes you complicit, not voting does as well. Neither option is “murderer” or “genocidal”. But you contribute your small part to the outcome just by virtue of having some modicum of influence.
Removed by mod
People who can vote but don’t vote for Trump or Harris are complicit in any act that the winner takes. You had your say, and you decided either is fine. Not voting doesn’t get you out of being a citizen of this country.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Putting this on a bumper sticker
Removed by mod
Awhile ago I saw post about having fun arguing with magats about going libertarian. Pretend to lump Trump in with then Biden now Kamala, as old Washington big wigs. Wanting to be free of big govt, ma freedoms, whatever. They were never gonna vote Democrat, but maybe stop em from voting Trump?
I have discussed politics with actual magats maybe 3 or 4 times since then. I think one actually thought about it. Pretty sure I saved America.
Removed by mod
Not that it will have any immediate effect, but - if you wear the right skin and attitude - you can leverage your perceived position as being on the in group to sow seeds of doubt against the whole in-group/out-group thing. These people will bend over backwards to be perceived as worthy by the in group, which makes them highly fuck-with-able
Get it in their head that they are part of the out group for even bothering with the in-group/out-group nonsense
Removed by mod
If we stopped constantly arguing logic and reason to people that clearly have none, and focused on discussions of how we improve the country through governance and policy, we could actually convert some of them. But If i were to imagine life as a Trumper all I would see is hatred towards me everywhere, why the fuck would I listen to people insulting me?
Not that this would happen because at the end of the day, both sides of the aisles have their fair share of people whose political ideology is just to regurgitate what their own social circles reinforce while simultaneously be unable to withstand some minor pushback on topics and then confirming to the other that they dont know what theyre talking about. And the media will constantly put a megaphone up to this ignorant minority so the other side can confirm to themselves how dumb that side is.
Shit half the time I try to make the point that most people voting for trump are doing so because of their social circles influence on them, and that we should try and treat them with decency if we ever want to change their minds, and I get downvoted into the floor and hear a bunch of “centrist bad” nonsense. Political parties are just sports teams to many at the end of the day, they were raised to follow one and think the other one sucks, and most involved don’t realize how brainwashed they are that they now see the other half of the country as a hostile foreign entity.
Meanwhile capitalists rob us all blind and continue to spread this narrative that we should fight each other, so we dont unite against them.
So the main reason to vote for her is “I am not Trump”. Is that it? I don’t think that sound that good.
I think the only reason Republicans have for voting for Trump is “he is Trump”. Did they release a platform this time or just repeat the one from last time that was just “what Trump says goes”?
If you had a choice between 2 cars and one explodes when you turn it on, are you really thinking about the merit of the other one’s adaptive cruise control?
Then “this car doesn’t explode AND has cruise control” is better than just “it doesn’t explode”.
what do you mean “ours”, did you mean “mine”? I don’t know you and I’m not associated to any group except my family
let me know when she stops supporting a genocide, promises to retain Ms Khan, and actually has detailed plans for inflation/health care and then i’ll care.
She’s committed to saying nothing until after the election, so I guess we just have to wonder if she’s for burning Palestinians or against it. Clearly its a tough decision to make right now…
Incorrect. she has said plenty on gaza. for example she has said she’ll remain committed to supporting israel’s war, that they have a right to our weapons and support. shes remained uncommitted on khan and other policy issues. I dont see why I should support a candidate with such a questionable moral compass and a well known history for prosecuting weed crimes and being a corporate bootlicker. 🤷 but again your vote is your vote. just don’t removed about your candidate losing when she can’t even clear a basic human decency bar of fucking not enabling genocide.
I meant from now until election, but you are correct about those things.
Yes, and most of her funding is coming from known individuals who want exactly the opposite of what I want (khan, healthcare reform, decriminalization). trust is not a commodity to freely give to politicians and she sure as hell hasnt earned it historically or through a primary.
Does feel like the facade is breaking though, but maybe just wishful thinking.
she has until the end of the week to earn my vote. 🤞 ;)
She does not exhibit leadership qualities. It’s going to be preaching to the converted, because only the converted could be so blind to her failings.
Has she shown regret as a proponent of profits in the California prison system at the expense of humanity?
Has Trump? Is it worth giving up your right to democracy over? Giving up the health and welfare of ALL women. The future of the world over? No it fucking isn’t.
Vote, and then you can go back to being a faceless idiot on the Internet or bot or whatever.
You’re doing it wrong
If you are bringing up Trump when I talk about Harris, then we are not having the same conversation. Learn how to use critical thinking, even when your “common sense” gets in your way.
If you want to talk about democracy, then we need to address the problem with our system of elections and representation.
If you want to talk about health and welfare, then neither party gives a shit. Harris shows she is okay with the way things are going except returning to Roe v Wade. Trump blames immigrants, his favorite red herring, because he has no concept of health and welfare. Unless you mean corporate welfare.
I’m not sure what you are referring to in “future of the world over.”
I can see you are as frustrated as we all are with the direction of our politics. It will never stop me from voting, no matter how futile it seems. I wish everyone did. Again, that leads to the topic of systemic issues with our voting. I hope someday our passions for a just and fair country with sound, constitutional decision making will become reality. For now, we are stuck with bought and paid for politicians and self-righteous eccentrics. It IS hard to accept this state of the union.
You’re failing to follow the advice of the meme
Whataboutism argument
That is correct. That’s the argument they were making
Two logical fallacies dont add up to a cohesive argument
You’re so smart!
Talking about missing the point whilst said point is staring you in the eyes…
Very true, but much more difficult because Harris actually has to commit to something positive. It’s easier for the astroturfers to just throw dirt at Trump.
deleted by creator
That’s great, sincerely (despite over half of the pages being cover art, pictures, or other filler).
Use that in their advertising, not more beating a dead Toupee.
😭😭😭
Ctrl+F “climate crisis” - only non footnotes result:
Vice President Harris and Governor Walz will work to lower household energy costs and create millions of new jobs, ^(while tackling the climate crisis)
Like we get it you’re a centrist capitalist that wants to appease those two classes - but I’m sick of folk pretending that the Democrats are what’s gonna move the needle to the left instead of remembering how they kicked Bernie to the ground because their corpo interests couldn’t stomach actual progressive policies.
Get tf out of here with that vote for the lesser evil shit - removed at this point it feels like far right fascism has more power to turn people away and toward leftist solutions than this milk toast centrist bullshit pandering smh…
“you see you have to vote for the right of center candidate because otherwise you’re being naïve and not a real leftist, I am very smart!!” - like start fucking voting for your own class interests and abolish the two party system - but frogs must love the warmth I guess…
This is quite disingenuous, as the document offers several things that will help mitigate climate change, including improving energy efficiency of buildings and investing in renewable energy. It also mentions climate resilience (though you won’t find that if you simply Ctrl-F the term).
I’m being disingenuous?
Ok, show me where does the policy book say anything about upholding international climate agreements? Where does it say anything about reducing fossil fuel usage? What does it say about banning fracking? What does it say about taxing mass polluters? What does it say about holding industry accountable for externalities, environmental damage or health impacts? What does it say about, right to repair, production reduction and shifting focus on extending product lifecycles? Nothing!
My screenshot is literally all that’s said about the climate crisis - and you’re the one pretending that some thin veiled renewable energy investment and tax credits incentives for insulation and heat pumps is in any way enough to “help mitigate climate change” - and yeah I’m sure those two sentences about resilience is anything but self-centered slop to protect US interests from foreign oil instability and global warming induced climate disasters.
Look I understand that as an economic centrist that only cares about job creation and GDP you may think this policy has enough to pacify those damn environmental hippies so they shut up and let the economy keep chugging on - but don’t try and convince anyone that this is anything but self-serving capitalistic propaganda 🤡
Trump deserves all the dirt thrown at him.
I do hope you’ll notice how many people have downvoted you. I know it won’t matter to you, but check out that number.
Yes, it’s important to stop Trump. But don’t fool yourself into thinking that Harris has your best interests at heart. She sees the people as a tool she must convince to get into a position of power. Not as someone who she should serve.
I won’t argue over whether she does have my best interests at heart. It. Does. Not. Matter.
I don’t want to marry her, I want her to keep Trump out of office - and right now, she is the only one who can.
Fun fact: Most exterminators don’t have your best interest in mind - they just want to make a living. Yet, they do keep the bedbugs away, so it’s all good.
America when it comes to electing the most powerful person on the planet: well as long as we don’t elect the fat pants shitting criminal rapist liar again we’re doing a pretty good job.
It’s a little bit below the absolute bare minimum a democracy has to offer but the struggle is still real.
Democracy vs autocracy send a very different and way more important dichotomy.
In my opinion, this is not the dichotomy that is present because a democracy should have more than one option. If there is only a single sane party to vote for then you don’t actually have a choice. Democracy is supposed to be about choice. Additionally, in my opinion, both parties support genocide and I think this because they both support israel and israel is carrying out a campaign of genocide, as determined by multiple experts on the matter. When the only parties that have a chance getting any power both support something as horrific as genocide, I feel this cannot be considered a democracy.
Removed by mod
It seems you didn’t read my first sentence. OP implied that Harris will do positive things. She will not. She is nothing more than the lesser evil.
Removed by mod
I have read all the sentences, and I agree with the first one.
What I felt needed a little commentary was the rest. See, minds more impressionable than yours and mine may come to the conclusion that voting is pointless if you can only vote for the lesser evil.
I don’t know whether she is better than you think she is - my point was that it doesn’t matter, and that speculating, postulating and pontificating about how she may not be as good as we want her to be just turns people off of voting. Which would be bad.
That was my whole point.
See, minds more impressionable than yours and mine
Get off your high horse.
Also: how many people will make their decision for the election based on /c/politicalmemes?
Harris could sit in the Oval Office and spin around in her chair for four years and still be an immeasurably better president than Trump.
OP’s statement was that she’ll do more than that. I agree that she’s better than Trump. What are you trying to tell me that I haven’t already stated?
Decades of civil service would beg to differ. Of course all politicians in a democracy need to sway voters to vote for them, but it’s absurdly cynical to believe that no politician in any democracy ever has given any fucks about the well-being of their constituents. Unless you’re saying that this is something mostly unique to her, which is equally silly. I have my doubts about how much of her campaign promises can actually be delivered on, mostly due to congressional Republicans who will definitely stonewall everything possible, but it’s outrageous to claim without any supporting evidence that Harris is uninterested in serving the people when she’s already been doing so for her entire career.
it’s absurdly cynical to believe that no politician in any democracy ever has given any fucks about the well-being of their constituents.
It’s a harsh oversimplification, but yes: Most politicians primarily focus on maintaining their own power. Claiming to have the best interest of their constituents at heart is one strategy to achieve that.
without any supporting evidence
Why would she be different than centuries of historical precedent?
