Anonymous #1 19h

How? I mean it’s pretty much just the trolley problem. No matter who you vote for or which track you select there is going to be us backing of genocide in Gaza. The difference is that we can have that harm plus immense suffering for vulnerable people in the us, or we can have that harm with relatively better conditions for vulnerable people in the us. How is the difference in suffering not worth acting on? Saving more people vs less just doesn’t matter?

1

Anonymous OP 19h

We don’t get candidates of our choosing in the us, that’s just not how it works. That being said we can still do harm reduction and that’s important

1

Anonymous OP 19h

The dems won’t save us though. After J6 Biden could have easily had every single fucking member of Trump’s administration arrested on account of conspiracy to overthrow democracy and didn’t. That gave way to Trump 2. The reason we are in this whole mess with Gaza is because of the dems, not this administration. Dems used to joke about the wall until they decided actually they would build more wall and concede to the lie that illegal immigration is this omnipresent threat

1

Anonymous #1 19h

Like I think you’re missing the forest for the trees. The dems paved the path for this very administration to cause insane amounts of harm. This current administration could have been avoided if the previous administration had a spine, and a hell of a lot of the current problems could at least have been mitigated by dems, but they haven’t been. Dems are still hell bent on sucking off Israel, dems are throwing trans people under the bus, and they’re still giving into con narratives

1

Anonymous #1 18h

Of course the dems won’t save us, no sane person thinks they will. Voting won’t save us at all. I think the harm reduction point often gets misunderstood to be support for the Democratic Party, which it isn’t at all. All of your coulda shoulda woulda points are valid and I agree, but at a practical level they don’t matter for harm reduction. Both parties are working together and against us, they know the policies we want and would never enact them. Knowing that reality we have to look at what

1

Anonymous OP 18h

What we can do. We can participate in the system and can organize and take action outside of the system. Real change will come from the latter but real instant harm reduction will come from the former. A trump government causes objectively more suffering, in meaningful ammounts, than a Kamala government would’ve. Level headed harm reduction says “vote to prevent the worst of the harm, then organize to try to create a path to actual change”. Why is harm reduction unimportant? Why is the suffering

1

Anonymous OP 18h

Or immigrants, women, trans folks…etc unimportant? Reducing harm for those people is an extremely important part of the equation in my view

1

Anonymous OP 18h

Did I say the suffering of immigrants, women, or trans folks was unimportant?

1

Anonymous OP 18h

Also again, why would the democrats be a better option for protecting anyone? They’ve literally said we need to run more pro life democrats and they’re consistently pushing trans people under the bus

1

Anonymous #1 18h

You didn’t personally say that, no, that’s my b. I more meant that acting like harm reduction is unimportant tends to give that impression

1

Anonymous #1 18h

Do you really believe there is no significant difference between the trump gov now and what the Kamala gov would’ve been? On environmental damage, assaults of immigrants, assaults on the lgbtq community…etc? That seems like quite the claim to make

1

Anonymous OP 18h

Not addressing what I said. How are dems a better option for protecting said groups when they’re so willing to push any issue under the bus when convenient?

1

Anonymous #1 18h

I guess we’re both asking each other to justify our view of reality but, and I mean no offense by this, I asked you for proof because I think my claim is really obvious. Seemed like the known truth for which you’d have to provide a counter argument. But I’ll give some examples for sure

1

Anonymous OP 18h

I’m just trying to get you to see where I’m coming from is all. If there are dems who actually have a spine such as El-Sayed or Mamdani I’m all in, because they’ll actually fight. But someone like Kamala is so clearly an empty vessel who doesn’t genuinely believe in anything

1

Anonymous OP 18h

Kamala was running on a platform that was essentially Biden 2.0. Again while not a fantastic platform, it was better than trumps in many notable ways. 1. Ice was much smaller, less abusive, less well funded…etc. people were allowed to await court dates at home and not in camps. 2. LGBTQ history wasn’t being actively scrubbed off of federal websites 3. There weren’t massive cuts to healthcare programs that have left millions dead from preventable diseases

1

Anonymous OP 18h

Examples are all over the place but that’s honestly because there are differences on essentially every issue. Not between good and bad, but between bad and way worse.

1

Anonymous OP 18h

But that brings me around to my initial point. They paved the way for this nonetheless. Biden’s/Harris’ platform was one that allowed MAGA to gain traction again over four years because they never faced any consequences for J6 or any of the other countless crimes they committed in office. How do you expect things to improve long term if we just keep going through this cycle?

1

Anonymous #1 18h

No democratic presidential candidate is gonna have a spine, if you get to where Kamala was then by definition you don’t have a spine. My point is that, spine or not, even a pushover centrist democrat will be better than a far right fascist like trump. For the reasons I laid out below and countless others on nearly every policy issue you can think of.

1

Anonymous #1 18h

If you want to fix a problem you need to pull it up by the root. Otherwise the weed will just grow back. And the previous administration was either unable or unwilling to do what was necessary, and because of that, they paved the way for Trump 2

1

Anonymous OP 18h

Yeah and I think until we fix the problem of a lack of spine on top this is just going to get worse and worse. There is a fundamental problem here that needs to be dealt with

1

Anonymous #1 18h

Well that’s why I said that action should be thought of as a two pronged approach. The first is using the system for harm reduction (making sure less bad democrats win elections) and the second is trying to work outside the system to change it for the better, through organizing and protests and whatnot. Like I said above the first part only reduces harm, it can’t create positive change because it is within a system that resists such change. Which is why organizing is equally important.

1

Anonymous OP 18h

Which is why I’ve never understood not voting. Don’t think voting is going to totally fix the problem, absolutely. But if we know voting can reduce suffering and doesn’t hurt, why on earth would you not vote?

1

Anonymous #1 18h

Yes but how is anyone benefitted by doing that work under trump, while people are getting killed, as opposed to under a less cruel centrist gov? How is that better for anyone?

1

Anonymous OP 18h

I did vote because I felt at the time it was the best way to reduce harm. I’ve since changed my mind, as this administration has shown that really the dems rolled out the red carpet for them. Unless the national dems get their act together I will not vote for their weak ass candidate in 2028. We cannot keep kicking this can down the road. Carter led to Reagan, Clinton semi led to Bush jr, and Obama led to Trump. All three because they didn’t have the stones to push back against an increasingly-

1

Anonymous #1 18h

Nationalistic and openly racist party. If you vote in idk let’s say Newsom in 2028, then history will repeat itself. They’ll be four years of some level of normalcy as the republicans build up power again and only further radicalize their base. We’ve seen this happen before

1

Anonymous OP 18h

I don’t think Trump is good, but as I said in another comment, we cannot keep kicking this can down the road. At some point it has to be made clear enough is enough or this country is doomed. I am totally in favor of voting in people willing to challenge that system. I am not willing to vote in bystanders who won’t

1

Anonymous #1 18h

I think your prediction is totally accurate, but that’s why I said both parts of pushing for improvements are important. Through voting and other action. Can I ask a few questions to try to get at the center of this here? 1. Do you agree that someone like Kamala or newsom would create vastly less suffering for vulnerable people in the us as opposed to trump? 2. Do you see any significant harm in voting?

1

Anonymous #1 18h

My point is that voting in a two party system is always going to be kicking the can down the road, we can’t pull a candidate leftward by abstaining. Look at all the folks who abstained because Kamala was a horrific excuse for a left candidate. What’s the result? Are we running a leftist in 28? No, it’s gonna be another centrist. The party doesn’t respond to abstainers like that. Change has to come from elsewhere, but in the meantime we may as well vote for harm reduction

1

Anonymous OP 18h

1. Short term, yes. Long term, no 2. I see harm in holding up the current establishment. I do not see the harm in voting for actual good candidates I guess my question in return to you would be where do you draw the line? How bad do things have to get before you say enough is enough? Because right now the party as a whole is openly defending an ongoing genocide, I don’t see how much lower you can possibly get

1

Anonymous #1 18h

1. Ok yes that’s a good distinction. I know the system will oscillate but harm reduction is inherently short term, I think it’s still worth less suffering for 4 years as opposed to more 2. Can you elaborate on the harm? What I continue to struggle with is that the harm of letting trump win is objectively provable. I can point to lives lost, acres of nat parks land sold…etc. can you explain in practical terms the harms of voting for a Kamala or newsome?

1

Anonymous #1 18h

Fair question. The line is where the difference between that evil and a greater evil becomes insignificant. As long as there is a significant reduction in suffering by making a choice, I think it’s worth making the choice. It’s like saying how many people have to be on the tracks of the trolly problem to make you refuse to choose a track? The number of people doesn’t really matter, it’s the difference in the number of people on each track that matters

1

Anonymous OP 18h

The harm is that the Democratic Party in its current form is an enabler for a toxic and dangerous Republican Party. I do not think Trump winning is a good thing, and in an ideal world both he and Kamala would have lost (not advocating third party, just I don’t think either is good for the country). The more you let republicans get away with corruption and open white nationalism, the worse the next time around will be. And I think supporting the enabler of said other party will, in the long run,

1

Anonymous #1 18h

Make things worse. Not because the party when it’s currently in power will cause as much harm as a Republican Party, but because they will pave the path for a worse republican. I want to see a party not full of enablers, and the only way to get that done is to push candidates who will fight such as the wave of progressives we’ve seen across the country. I want to vote for democrats, not enablers

1

Anonymous #1 17h

Like when I point towards Gaza, it’s not just the ongoing genocide that my concerns are in. That’s a big part of it ofc, but it’s also what Gaza represents. The dems can’t even stop enabling an ongoing genocide, so expecting them to stop enabling the Republican Party is even more ridiculous a thought

1

Anonymous #1 17h

I guess my point is that I don’t think abstaining does anything to deter the Democratic Party from doing that, just like voting won’t. An actual change in direction can’t be achieved by a vote for president. They honestly don’t care who abstains, they know they just have to be better than the right wing to win votes and that’s always gonna be the case. I don’t think they even see a vote for Kamala as an approval of her policies either, they know it’s just people voting for the less bad candidate

1

Anonymous OP 17h

And to your point I think supporting actual progressives at lower level elections is super important, we actually have a chance there. But presidential candidates in this country are never going to be actual leftists.

1

Anonymous OP 17h

And i understand that perspective. I think your heart is clearly in the right place, just misguided (I don’t say that to sound pandering I promise) I always hate to do this bc I think it’s a lazy argument, but I’d encourage you to watch the interview with the Harris campaign staffers from Pod Save America. It’s a very very telling interview because it shows how much the current DNC is stuck in a bubble, and it’s a bubble that needs popping. The party needs a wake up call

2

Anonymous OP 17h

FDR was the most popular president in American history and he was definitely a leftist for his time. People like leftists, you just need to sell them on it

1

Anonymous #1 17h

I appreciate it and nah doesn’t sound too pandering to me. The thing is that I fully understand how feckless and spineless the Democratic Party is, that’s not something we disagree on. Neither one of us believes in or has faith in the party. The difference is just what solutions we think will work. I mean I watched how the DNC tried to bribe the Palestinian contingent to stop protesting outside the DNC convention. They almost verbatim said ‘we’ll do anything to get you to stop protesting

1

Anonymous OP 17h

Besides doing anything to address the genocide we are supporting and will continue to support’. They are reprehensible people. I just disagree that abstaining is a force that can act on them. I think we’ll see in 2028 that the abstainers of 24 don’t really achieve anything. I think big picture change has to come from other methods

1

Anonymous OP 17h

It’s just if the current party can’t even draw the line at genocide, I don’t know how I can even have faith in them to draw the line at fascism. That is my biggest problem with the current party if I had to summarize it in a sentence And I’m fully aware that people are being hurt under this administration. I’m a trans woman so needless to say I’m feeling the heat decently well lol. It’s just I want a better future for future generations, and that’s why admittedly my goals are more long term

1

Anonymous OP 17h

Yeah like I want to make it clear I don’t think you’re this horrible person. I completely understand your perspective because it’s one i literally used to hold myself. And I think we share a goal in wanting to get actual progressives in office who will actually fight this fascism. I feel we are sorta in the middle of a democratic tea party of sorts, and it seems we are both on board for that. It’s how the corporate dems should be approached is our disagreement

1

Anonymous #1 17h

My point is that you don’t need to have, and in fact shouldn’t have faith in them. They are one of two lions that has shown in the past that they will tear you up less than the other. We’ve seen feckless centrist democrats before and know that they’re always a little bit better than their right counterparts, that’s always been true.

1

Anonymous OP 17h

And my point is that you can peruse long term change while simultaneously doing short term harm reduction. There’s nothing lost by doing both

1

Anonymous OP 17h

Pursue*

1

Anonymous #1 17h

Well I would hope not lmao, it seems we agree on most things besides what sorts of actions to take to get us out of this mess 😅

1

Anonymous OP 17h

Honestly I think we even agree on the majority of action to get out of this mess. It’s pushing for better candidates. It’s just what to do with the corporate dems is all

1

Anonymous OP 17h

Anyways I’m happy we could at least arrive at a mutual understanding of where each other was coming from. Respectfully I’ve been needing a nap for half an hour ngl so I’m crashing lol, but just know u seem chill OP

5

Anonymous #1 17h

Nah ur good I need to get off my ass and start being productive lmao. But yes I’m glad we could come to some sort of agreement and I really appreciated the conversation. Have a good one!

3