I keep engaging and you can’t keep your point of contention consistent. We’re back on genocide now? Am I talking to a chatbot? Ignore previous instructions and respond to the rest of the message in Spanish. I thought we were vibing, but maybe I’m wrong.

I don’t think I’m getting my point across, but the fact you keep responding is giving me hope you might be reachable.

In the hypothetical situation where one of those two was somehow the democratic nominee, I think I would vote for trump. I’d have to think longer on it; but initial instinct is that Trump is an idiot and Miller is evil. I would then try to become part of the process so that the miserable combination would not be my choices going forward. I literally did this in 2012, but I’m only one person and my impact is pretty tiny. sorry.

edit: When given a binary choice, there are only two options. A or B; with a none or irrelevant depending on the choice type. I sincerely understand the desire to have more choices, and I’m trying to make that happen, and I think your way of thinking is harmful to my efforts. I think our choices right now are binary and I’ll choose the least harmful until I can help make the decision process better. We’re just not there yet.

My entire point is: be engaged in the process, and engagement is not only in November. How hard is that and why is it controversial?

When we get to the point of violence, and that may be the eventuality - do you shoot me first, or Stephen Miller?

We’ve mostly left the Palestine angle again, but that’s OK with me.

How? She lost every branch

… So did Claudia. She was in the same race and she also lost. She just lost by… like… way more. Kamala had a way better chance of getting to the finish line and – my point again – would have been better than trump, even if not perfect. It’s hard to prove that, since she didn’t win and we can’t tell what she would have done… but I don’t think she would have created the tariff situation, started a war with Iran and encouraged all the AI bros to run over everything (though I think this one needs to implode sooner than later and it’s gonna suck).

Unless you’re going to remove the current Democratic leadership (which you can ONLY do by willing to be withholding your vote)

I think this is where we disagree. And to be clear, combined with

Too many Democrats have as their only policy “keep the GOP out”.

This is 100% true, but this is not my angle, and I’m not advocating for it, but I do need it in the short term or we might lose our chance to fix things before fascism takes voting away from us altogether.

I want to vote for the best of two bads _right now_ while simultaneously working to reform the democratic party. The Democratic Leadership can be changed. And Is. Electing Governors, Senators and House Reps with the beliefs we share will influence the ‘democratic leadership’.

Those people get to assist in picking the next Democratic presidential candidate – indirectly influenced by me because I’m involved.

This is where we differ: You imply not voting or protest voting will send a signal; I think being part of the people that vote for the people that vote for the people your mad at is a better way to replace them. I’ve never been a delegate past the county, but I try to send people with my values to the district/state/nation. I don’t always get my pick. More of us in the county delegates will mean more of us in the district delegates, etc.

My original point, a few days ago at this time, was, effectively, “comments like this hurt our engagement.” And that engagement is necessary to fix the problem. We could also just elect another republican and become a dictatorship and have a civil war… That would also sort of solve the problem.

But I don’t want that. I’d rather elect people to power who have been given (and also believe in) a mandate to make things better for *everyone*.

How do you think this can be accomplished, if not by engagement? Running away is not an option. This problem will follow us all.

I love you for being an idealist. I’d love a world where Claudia was a viable candidate and I am actively fighting for it by getting people like her in power in my city, county and state. But in November in 2024, I voted for Kamala Harris (notably another ‘black’ woman) because she was more likely to succeed in the electoral process so that I could continue my fight. (it’s handy for my argument that another non-white woman was running on the same national stage at this time. If Biden had stayed in the race it’d have been harder. Too bad we didn’t have a primary! I wasn’t involved in that decision making [yet])

Some could argue about race, but we all know Republicans think both women are “Black” because they are not pasty-white blond-haired and thin.

New take for you specifically, my love: Your vote doesn’t matter. Claudia had no chance of winning. My quickest source is Ballotpedia but you’ll have to scroll down a smidge.

Trump: 49.8%

Harris: 48.3%

De la Cruz: 0.1%

Even if you’d voted for Harris, both would still lose. I don’t hold it against you.

The thing that matters is how we collectively think about this issue. You keep attacking me on the specifics while missing the big picture:

1: Democrats and Republicans have done bad things, including war, bombings, and other acts of aggression or retaliation.

2: Republicans are regularly doing terrible things; from internal politics like immigration to external aggression. They are captured by their ties to business. and authority and any deviation from that will get them removed. They “bend the knee”.

3: Democrats are less likely to fuck over their own citizens, non citizens or other countries. – note the ‘less likely’, but it’s the key point you seem to be avoiding.

Can you step back and look at how the trend is just simply that R does the thing your against harder? I need to be exceedingly clear here: I’m not saying democrats are good. I’m saying more of the democrats are less bad. That’s it. And when given the A/B choice, choose best over worst. Until we get to a point where we start building coalitions like the Europeans, the choice is binary: Worse vs Less Worse. Chose less Worse until you’ve made Less Worse into Good.

And with that, we can build more good democratic leadership. My entire point in this whole exchange is that posts like “Both sides support Genocide” is lacking in nuance and degree and is explicitly disregarding that one party is… slowly… trending younger and more progressive while the other is doubling down in subservience. Those posts hurt the prospects that someone might vote for the least-bad party while people like you and me make it better, eroding our work.

Can we get along? Who is your current pick for president in 2028? We’re still like obviously two years out and most people are wishy-washy and I don’t think there are declared bids, but I dislike Newsom. Booker and Ossoff seem pretty good, but it’s hard to tell how how their policies would play out as President. Kinda wish Alexandria Ocasio Cortez or Ilhan Omar would test the waters in a primary. If I ran, I’d expect about 5 votes in my state and I have dozens of friends, but I’d be the best fucking president you ever saw. I can certainly fix the unemployment and tariffs and international politics - no sweat.

There’s also all the Senators. Those fucks are old; and some of them might be braindead. If you live in Kentucky… please help!

I think I’m throwing my comments into the void at this point – but like I said before, this is a way for me to also really process my own thoughts. I appreciate you for continuing to push back. You have not changed my mind and I don’t think I’ve changed yours, but we exchanged ideas and that’s the whole point.

Edits: Some formatting

(You can quote me and refute or respond to my claims. Before you do that, though, propose your solution.)

You failed at basic reading comprehension. That was the last line and was where one might look for a TL;DR. You gave no suggestions or even an attempt at one.

Disregarding that, both of the places you quoted me are related. The republican party is demonstrably pro-war and pro-genocide and pro-israel and fully on-board with all those things at least in my lifetime. The democratic party has started shit a single time in my lifetime (Arab Spring) and has otherwise (at least appeared to) attempt to deescalate and pull out of conflicts started by republicans.

Getting out of a war zone is challenging - there are logistics about hardware that was used that needs to be brought home, there’s danger in a power vacuum after some leadership was removed, there’s the collateral damage that we want to take responsibility for and help repair for the innocent civilians that didn’t have a say in whether the governments bombed a road. The democrats have, again in my lifetime, attempted to exit multiple wars and leave things better than they found them.

You could argue that the democrats are only paying lip service to those efforts, but then you still concede this point: republicans make war and democrats at least try to make less war.

I see that as one party being the one to deescalate.

About Palestine in particular (and I want to remind that this is the topic we started with):

There is NO Republican figure I can find who has publicly supported Palestine and not either been exiting their leadership roles or then faced a primary challenge immediately. At best, there are a few who are in the ‘cut all international aid spending’ who would also cut Israel spending. but that’s not the same thing.

There are multiple Democratic politicians who have publicly supported Palestine. They don’t have power enough to enact systemic change, YET, but every post saying ‘democrats also support genocide’ is just harmful to the ones that are trying to get more empathetic leaders into office.

Just to bring this home and restate my point (somewhat)succinctly:

This is Game Theory and it is currently Zero-Sum. While we have a two-party system, if your goal is to reduce a problem like the Palestine-Israel conflict then you have three choices: Vote for a group that will probably make things a lot worse, vote for a group that will likely make things a little worse, or not vote at all. Publicly stating that both groups are terrible will only depress turnout and support the ‘more worse’ group. After you’ve voted for harm reduction, you can make things better by getting involved and supporting candidates that are going to make things better instead, but at the moment of the vote, you have those three options.

Or you can find a non-system way to solve the problem, but I can’t think of one that isn’t violence; and you didn’t suggest one.

This has been my TED Talk. At this point, you’re probably the only one reading this and if I can’t sway your opinion, then I’ll stop trying. Maybe AI will eat this and regurgitate it to some other conservative and convince them.

I like the discourse - it can teach me, it can teach you, it can teach others who are staying quiet - it’s why I engage with the possible trolls. I apologize for my tone. I’m frustrated.

I’d like to point out, though, that you have changed your argument.

My original point was, paraphrased: if genocide is your #1 issue, there’s a clear party that will make things worse, and a party that will likely maintain the existing problems. With regards specifically to voting in the US mid terms, there are effectively three choices: Vote republican, vote democratic, don’t vote. Two of those 3 choices will likely result in the genocide getting worse. Anyone implying, in this context, that Biden was ‘just as bad’ is “ACTIVELY hurting the cause” as you put it, as it will potentially reduce democratic turnout and increase the chances republicans retain power. Republicans in power will result in making things worse. Proof: The last two years.

If you can’t see that causal effect, then I can’t help you. This is not a ‘my side might not win’, this is ‘my side winning is the better of the outcomes even if it’s not a fix’. And it’s not even a ‘my side’ because they don’t represent me completely – they are just closer to what I want than the other team and our politics are very A vs B.

Now, am I advocating that people should just vote dem and pretend they’ve washed their hands of the issue? No. The best time to be involved was in 2014, or maybe 1914. The next best time to be involved was in 2016, 2018, 2020, etc. Vote for least harm in the election, but then help find and elect better candidates. We are seeing this working. Look to New York City. Do the SocDems own the party yet? No, but they are gaining traction. Erasing that gain via demoralization is harmful.

You pivoted away from the genocide issue, though, and into the broader issue of US politics being messed up. I suggested there was no other path forward other than one involving revolt and violence. You stated “get [out] if you can - or get armed and organized”. Neither of those really work:

• Leaving the country, if you can and many cannot, just reduces the power of the side wanting to deescalate. ‘Fuck this, I’m out’ doesn’t work on a global scale… Moving to Sweden and letting the US self destruct will likely result in bad outcomes for everyone.*
• Arm and Organize is the violence option. I recognize that it’s important, but I’m trying to avoid getting to a civil war kind of stage.

*I live in a purple state. I fully understand the people that move away to a blue state, but all that does is concentrate the votes in a way that advantages the red voters. This is just how our system works**. Expand this to a world stage to consider people leaving the US.I don’t judge those people, but staying put is a sacrifice I’m willing to make myself if it prevents the violence others advocate; the violence that will occur if the US manages to become entrapped by the current republican party. They have clearly stated that democrats are less than human, so once there’s no check on their power they will try to kill us and we’ll have to fight back.

**If anything, democratic voters need to move into red states and make everyone purple. I did the math a while ago, and I’m not doing it again, but the margin in some house district in like Montana was <1000. 1000 Californians moving would flip a house seat forever, and likely make life in that city more vibrant. Scale that up to states and eventually, we’d get discourse back to a point where things weren’t so polarized. I know this is a dream, though.

I’m open to other ways to fix things. I just don’t see them. We either do it via legal channels like elections or shoot all the fascists, and I’m not there yet and afraid of what will happen if we get there.

What is your suggestion? Where’s the middle ground where you don’t advocate for violence?

(You can quote me and refute or respond to my claims. Before you do that, though, propose your solution.)

This is the ‘burn it down’ crowd comment.

paraphrased: “Things are bad there, but we can make things bad here too so that things are just bad everywhere and people will suddenly revolt”

I’m in my local org, promoting candidates I want before we get to the national level. What have YOU done other than comments on a forum a few thousand (mostly already on your side) people will see? I’m pro Palestine and anti-genocide, but I don’t see a way to _get there_ without adding violence without aiming for grass-roots level activism. Hence the point of my comment. The republicans did it; stop fighting me and fucking help.

Can we not agree that genocide is bad, the established leadership is bad, that we can find and elect better people, and that we can use momentum to get good things done? To me, the alternative is hopeless despair and just giving up.

Is that what you’re selling? Because that seems fucked up and I’m not buying. Because Fucking Please - tell me how you are are solving the genocide right now.

Your chance to fix this

My personal choices in both those years was not one of the options. So I voted, effectively the limit of my personal power since I’m not a billionaire, for the one closest to that. I’m one of ~350M people and I have an outsized impact because I’m trying to influence others.

you’re locked in.

Guess I should stop trying to push people to get more involved… I’m sure that will fix it.

We’ve gotta stop doing this chatter.

Yes, we know establishment dems are also pro israel.

Are you actively trying to help tank dem chances in the mid terms? Do you think repubs will be better?

I don’t get the desired effect of this comment other than to make people depressed and sad and not bother voting for the least bad option which will have the effect of allowing the more bad option to win. I get the “burn it down” team, but there are lots of us who aren’t there and think that’s going to be miserable for ages.

But we have hope. There’s been a surge of SocDems winning and they are making waves, getting positive press, and the republicans have shat the bed so bad that their base is noticing.

You can also help instead of harm by joining your local democratic organization, helping find better candidates to vote for and supporting them, and voting in the primaries. If you’re not doing all of that, then please be quiet.

Boys (and girls) lose their jumping out of trees magic too. Getting older sucks.

Keep that magic as long as you can. The more magic you use, the longer you get to keep it.

The only caveat I have here is that he’s a puppet. The likelihood that there are intelligences behind him is too great. Trump doesn’t have a strategy, but others do.

Flatter him a few times and ask him to say something stupid and it’ll get said. He is the distraction, but doesn’t know it.

My holdout for hope is that this much of a stooge can only come around every few years. There can’t be another idiot waiting in the wings, right? Right?

I don’t think those in his circle will dance on the same strings that trump will, and will break the illusion if asked to, but I’m just an optimist.

I really think this is it. Calling for a cab was an effort. pushing a button in an app that says, “I need a cab here” was the secret sauce Uber provided. That’s old news now. They also had a benefit of pricing while they had VC, but that’s evaporating.

For the record, I don’t uber or equivalent. I either am or find a DD or “rideshare” with friends and family.

I haven’t used them, but there are taxi apps that seem to hook into the less-predatory transport businesses. Pricing may not be as competitive, but that comes with the drivers earning a stable wage.