this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2025
980 points (96.1% liked)
Microblog Memes
9575 readers
2258 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I would only support Gavin Newsom's candidacy if he became homeless for a few years and demonstrated personal growth and a capacity for empathy from the experience.
spoiler
I'm exaggerating, but it'd take a lot for me to become convinced he is a suitable candidate in our dire situation.Best he can do is Starting from Zero and becoming a millionaire in a year to show you anyone can do it (as long as they have a clean bill of health and a college education and connections from their time in office and...)
"See!? It's easy, the American Dream™ is alive and well!"
As I recall, the one guy that tried to do that used personal connections he had made before "giving up all his wealth", and he still couldn't make it a year because it was affecting his health or something.
I’d settle for him not being a major shareholder for the power utility that he’s supposed to be protecting his citizens from. In completely unrelated news, we pay the highest energy prices on planet earth. What a coincidence.
Who else is running?
Gavin Newsom is free to earn my vote? I don't see how your question is relevant - the election is years out.
"If those people wanted food to eat they should have earned it, otherwise it's not my problem"
That makes about as much sense as shifting the conversation into terms of some politician having to "earn your vote" and otherwise it's not your problem what happens.
If Gavin Newsom is running against Hitler, it's kind of important to vote for Newsom, whether or not he has "earned your vote."
If you want to know the non-toxic way of executing this approach, Ralph Nader has written an excellent book about how to put pressure on people in power and what he believes is the way forward out of the horror we find in our current political system (even predating the current horror). Basically, you pressure them to adopt specific policies by forming up into a bloc with other voters and refusing to vote unless some specific policy change you want to see happens. The advantages this has over staying home and saying "they haven't earned it" include:
There are a lot of other things in addition obviously, but if you're going to "protest vote," that is the way I would recommend to do it.
From my perspective (and without reading the book), what Ralph Nader is advocating for isn't enough in the present day.
Clearly, the change we need in America is systemic - getting an establishment neoliberal (who is likely to run as a moderate) to budge on specific policy changes is insufficient action to change our trajectory as a country.
I believe that it is in the spirit of democracy to encourage others to vote however they want to - that includes forming voting blocs and doing exactly what you are shedding light to.
I feel that in a democracy, it is desirable for candidates to actively be making attempts to appeal to potential voters and actively attempting to represent their interests; instead of running on effectively maintaining the broken status quo - with minor changes.
His group basically created the Freedom of Information Act, Clean Water Act, OSHA, Whistleblower Protection Act, among other things.
Is that enough? Fuck no, you're right about that. But I feel like if we had a few hundred people doing that level of change, we would actually be able to do some of these things like getting money out of politics that are actually what's needed.
Okay. I mean, I completely agree with that statement, sure. Is refusing to vote for that same neoliberal sufficient action to change our trajectory as a country? Seems like that is even more ineffectual, if that's the metric.
Which are all unfortunately not quite as effective in practice as they were intended to be, but you make a valid point regardless. These things are obviously desirable developments and are effectual - hence my edit to the part you quoted before I saw your response (ineffectual -> what Ralph Nader is advocating for isn’t enough in the present day).
I'd like to see that happen and I would appreciate the strategy and organization of such grassroots initiatives.
I think it's desirable that candidates be pressured to really dig deep to be the leader we need and run on that - especially years out from an election.
I feel that lesser evil rhetoric is undesirable, unnecessary, and is part of the reason why we have the gun to our heads. Vote for the status quo or something very close to it - or get Hitler. It doesn't feel like democracy to me.
As the other commenter suggested, state-level electoral reform in blue states (such as California) could be enacted so voters are free to vote for whoever they want without spoiling. It'd be a massive step in the right direction and it'd likely get more people to turn out to the voting booths.
Yes. That's why I specifically proposed a way of doing it that might be effective. No idea why you are lecturing me about how important it is.
I feel that "lesser evil isn't a valid argument" rhetoric is part of how we got ourselves in the current screaming disaster, honestly.
How someone could be living in the year of our lord 2025 and still be out here going "OH LET'S NOT HEAR THAT TIRED OLD CHESTNUT OF 'LESSER EVIL'" is beyond me...
In 2020, we elected the lesser evil, a self-proclaimed Zionist, who ended up aiding in the genocide of an occupied people.
If the lesser evil is aiding in modern atrocities that you and I absolutely cannot fathom living through, what the fuck are we doing as a society?
Not enough, apparently.
I'm just saying that "HOW DARE YOU VOTE" is taking us backwards, not forwards. Read back my original message. I'm actually giving my take on how it is that you might be able to better force the politicians in power to better represent the will of the people by threatening them to lose elections if they don't.
It didn't matter. You still gave me the whole script about how I was blah blah blah for suggesting that we have to vote for blah blah blah.
Whatever man
And I'm not saying that at all. Everybody is free to vote or not vote however they wish as far as I'm concerned.
And I agreed with your suggestion for voting blocs and said I'd appreciate that sort of action. I disagreed with your advocacy for lesser evil rhetoric, unless I'm misunderstanding your position. I believe that it kills discourse and makes unpopular candidates run on status quo policy confidently.
There was no script. I appreciate you engaging. You are free to disagree with my perspective and see things however you wish.
You were the one who started using particular rhetoric of a variety that I consider to be not the most accurate or relevant way to look at it. The Hitler example indicates why. I certainly wasn't the one who brought up "lesser evil" way of looking at it. "Earn my vote" is another of those little encapsulated phrases for a way of looking at it that is just bonkers to me. These politicians are not your friends, and voting for them is not doing them a favor. They mostly make money either way. They'll be fine. Getting the policies of the country and the governance more sensible and human is the goal.
I think I explained what I do advocate for already, and what I would consider as a more productive way of looking at it that isn't quite as subject to being hijacked by people who just don't want left-wing people to vote.
The US is a representative democracy. Elections are held for candidates to represent potential voters in an attempt to win the election.
I was the first to mention "lesser evil", but it was in direct response to you using that rhetoric specifically in 2025 - unless my reading comprehension is lacking (which it may be).
I'm not being disingenuous. I'm supporting people's choice to vote however they wish and encouraging politicians to flexibly respond (i.e. represent Americans). I feel that these two things are fundamental to a healthy democracy.
My country treats progressives and anybody to the left of the Democrats as terrorists - they refuse to negotiate.
Progressives and leftists are willing to negotiate, but discourse is killed, public opinion is actively shaped to smear opposing voices and to delegitimize them, literally any meaningful change is seen as unrealistic or radical, and so forth.
It is. You said that coherently advocating for politicians to adhere to better policies, with credible threats of electoral consequences if they don't, was "insufficient action to change our trajectory as a country." I mean, that is true, definitely. I pointed out that just not voting is definitely also insufficient action to change our trajectory as a country. Which is also true (even more so).
Then you started talking about "lesser evil." For what reason, I don't know, it had literally nothing at all to do with what I actually said. Actually, what I was saying at that point was pretty much the opposite of "lesser evil."
That's why I talked about "the whole script." You guys seem to have a particular thing you like to say, and a particular way you like to respond when someone disagrees with you, even if it doesn't make sense. Good luck with it I guess, but please find someone else to do it at in the future.
I live in the US. I was born here. My opinions and views are my own and they evolve every single day.
I don't feel like it's fair for you to stereotype me as being part of a particular group of people.
If I was a candidate running for election and somebody says they won't vote at all because they are completely disenfranchised - that would blow my mind. I'd rethink everything and get to the heart of understanding why they feel that way and ask myself if there are other people who feel similarly. 33% of Americans don't vote in the presidential election, Democrats could be looking at non-voters or politically-active people who refuse to vote without representation and win every election that they face.
For example, Kamala Harris was free to respond to the concerns of the Uncommitted National Movement and Abandon Biden/Abandon Harris movements and represent them instead of gaslighting everybody about tirelessly working for a temporary ceasefire (which is a far cry to the permanent ceasefire that these groups advocated for).
The end result is your advocacy for the lesser evil, or more accurately, giving the lesser evil the knowledge that people will vote for them anyway. You see it as more effective than having Hitler as the president, and I'm not disagreeing with you completely - I'm disagreeing with your strategy.
I'm just pointing out that in recent history, Democrats generally refuse to negotiate and fight people to the left of them with greater strength than they fight people to the right of them.
Initially, you responded to me.
I'm going to need you to search in these comments for "forming up into a bloc" and explain to me what you find.
You:
Here is where you are specifically arguing the validity of lesser evil rhetoric. If I'm understanding correctly, you believe the pushback against such rhetoric is "how we got ourselves in the current screaming disaster". I explained why lesser evil rhetoric is strategically invalid and why it is harmful (to discourse or otherwise).
Kamala was too busy to respond to anybody besides imaginary centrists and disenfranchised conservatives to realize that people really weren't going to vote for her due to her refusal to properly address their serious concerns.
Hopefully, the next neoliberal that is shoved down our throats (in the primary or otherwise) learns to respond to the writing on the wall (large protest movements that demand a specific policy change) and clear widespread and public disapproval of our involvement in said atrocities.
You:
You are indeed arguing for voting blocs and are seemingly criticizing people for independently refusing to vote for a neoliberal outside of those groups - by saying that voting blocs are more effectual. I'm agreeing with you, and I hope that people learn from the mistakes of the 2024 election and organize e.g. into more visible voting blocs. I don't feel that it is totally necessary if candidates are truly representing us or are attempting to appeal to Americans, however.
And if I recall correctly, you loosely said that my principle of voting for politicians who "earn my vote" (or represent my interests) was disingenuous, but I'd like to clarify that it isn't an impossibly high standard.
Regardless, if I'm still fucking up and misrepresenting you and your perspective - that's on me and I apologize. I'll amend one of my earlier, more visible comments and shed light to any developments that are buried down here.
Because it's clear that "lesser evil" has hit a wall. It's not an effective strategy and hasn't been for the past three election cycles. Biden only got in by a hair, and that took promising a bunch of stuff he never had any intention of actually doing.
Obviously a better candidate would be better, but by the time the general election arrives you only get three choices.
Right now is absolutely the time to try to push forward the better candidate. Uplift the better option than the neoliberal, get active in the primary campaign, be heard now, because if you wait until the general election it's too late. Our goal should be to replace the neoliberal on the big ticket. I do not like Gavin Newsome, I do not want him to be president. He has shown his true colors more than a few times. If it comes down to it, though, I'll vote for whoever isn't part of the MAGA-Nazi authoritarian regime, because if you don't pick the lesser evil, you get the greater evil, and they sure as shit won't be better than the one that just wasn't good enough.
I'm sure there are a lot of people right now holding their heads up in pride about how they voted for whatever third party option would have been better than Harris, but their pride and conviction to their ideals doesn't help the people being rounded up by the secret police and sent to the camps. We can't always fix everything all at once, but that's no excuse to allow the most egregious evil to run rampant until the perfect solution comes along.
I'm not blaming voters for having a red line on genocide in the 2024 election. Kamala Harris was free to respond to those concerns. I don't think anybody besides MAGA was happy about what happened during and after the 2024 election.
In our current system, we need to hold candidates and our elected officials accountable for not pushing electoral reform - even on the state-level. How many more decades before it's on the table? I believe we need a voting system that does not have spoilers.
The blame game that arises every time Democrats lose after not trying to win the election has gotten stale. Voters are not solely responsible for candidates not representing them and choosing to represent corporations over everyone else.
I'd literaly rather vote for Hitler than Trump.
At least Hitler cared about the environment, right? Even if he thought it should only be preserved for Aryans to enjoy.
Your country would vote for Hitler, if he said the right things. That's what he did to gain power in Germany.
This "we're desperate, just vote for my candidate, nothing matters, it's the only option we got" is how they do politics in authoritarian countries. And the candidate turns out to be a controlled opposition, destined to lose.
People need do more than the NPC in a RPG saying "just vote" and be done with their responsibility.
Also, spare us the sanctimonious bullcrap. This isn't reddit.
"Just vote" is kind of an election day strategy.
The whole part where the actual work happens to put a decent person on the ballot instead of corporate drone n+1 is right now!
If you feel the need to disagree or lecture against the idea of voting against Hitler in an election, I'm not sure what to tell you lol
If you feel the need to run an uninspiring candidate against a fascist that inspires his base, you're not giving your all against fascism. Bring in someone who can inspire voters, rather than "second worst by as narrow a margin as we think we can get away with."
Or admit that you would prefer second worst even if it means losing to hitler.
Yeah, true that. I don't even like Gavin Newsom, that's why I was offering a more credible way to pressure him to be better on particular issues if we do wind up in that awful situation where it's Newsom vs. JD Vance or some stupid decision like that.
I like how a particular type of commenter likes to make up total nonsense that no one is saying, and then throws down a challenge to "admit that" instead of... IDK, more or less any other way of engaging lol.
We saw how such pressure worked out with harris. Anyone who said that democrats had no business supporting genocide was assumed to be a tankie/russian/chinese/child/shill/republican/trumper/bot or whatever category was convenient for genocide supporting centrists use to dismiss people they hate for being to the left of netanyahu.
I don't know what I expected, replying to that comment lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmVkJvieaOA
I say genocide is bad, and you call me alt-right for saying it. Thank you for the absolutely perfect illustration of exactly what I was talking about.
I didn't call you alt-right. I was highlighting that you responded to a fair counterpoint (that I obviously agree about running better candidates in addition to pressuring the existing ones to be better) by just totally ignoring it and pivoting to another accusation unrelated to what we had been talking about.
Similar to this flow of conversation. See if it rings true:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmVkJvieaOA&t=21s
Yeah, that totally wasn't your intent.
Another pivot, not addressing the substance of what I said! Fun stuff lol
I have no idea whether you are alt-right, I don't think it is particularly likely. All I am doing is calling out the type of bad faith argument you're employing.
That’s funny. My friend threw his vote away on Nader in 2000. Not that Scalia would have finished counting them.
Yeah. It was a different time. I think I traded votes with someone in a red state, so that I voted for Gore where it mattered and he got to vote for Nader to build up the total for Nader which was important to me.
It was a more innocent time TBH
I suppose, although watching the Lemmy youth piss away their votes makes me think we were just stupid and high. Of course we didn’t think the SCOTUS would stop democracy back then, or that everyone would let them.
I don't think this country has the structural elements in its society to maintain democracy, honestly.
It is sad. I don't know what to do.
Yeah I'm not convinced of Newsom either. Don't think he's really shown that he's free of corporate interests and will fight for the working class.
So unless there is a perfect Democrat candidate you prefer letting Trump have his third term?
At this point in time, I feel it'd be healthy for us to be expressing what policies we'd like to see a candidate supporting instead of giving a moderate (with effectively no vision for a more desirable future) our support by default.
It isn't a "purity test" to ask for better policies. But don't worry, I'm sure most Americans will pick the candidate that is chosen for them.