The Communist Party USA – like the bulk of the broad democratic, labor, peace, and people’s movements in the country – has prioritized the defeat of MAGA fascism and Republicans’ Project 2025 agenda as the primary task of its participation in the 2024 election

I get the knee jerk reaction to think any and all third parties exist solely to be a spoiler for Dems and thusly get Trump elected. But I wonder if the people down voting this noticed that the Communist Party USA isn’t pushing a candidate, and is instead saying people should vote for Kamala to defeat fascism.

The article linked just talks about various progressive goals and how said Party hopes to achieve them.

Their website even has a recent article talking about how all a progressive candidate can do in this presidential election is break up the vote and usher in fascism under Trump. And how instead pushing for a united front is the way to go.

Tim stop! I already voted for you, I can’t vote any harder!!!

Do Jet Grind Radio next and I’ll steal the election for you!

You think he ever gets tired of being right all the time?

So we should start telling our family and friends good stories about being able to change your mind based on evidence and facts

For half a second there, I was like “yeah, so glad Lemmy is more rational than that site”.

Few comments later, folks be talking about “Ukranian Nazis”…

Big words for a small man on the internet. Do you have receipts from your actions? I’d love to see them.

Pot calling the kettle black a bit ain’t ya.

I hope you do walk the walk to go along with your big talk, but take responsibility for your words too. Statements like yours gives people a reason to feel “good enough” about “slightly less genocide”. And if we all keep repeating the mantra “slightly less genocide”, we can feel “good enough” all the way to complete genocide.

Then we can all wear a big frown so everyone knows how upset we are about it.

People Who Say It Cannot Be Done Should Not Interrupt Those Who Are Doing It

Of course you could always shove your head deeper in that hole if you like. Perhaps going “lalalalala” while doing so.

Pot calling the kettle black a bit aren’t ya?

And no, you didn’t commit a classical literal strawman, but then again neither was the argument you threw the same accusations at. More accurately, they were begging the question, with the assumed conclusion being we all agree genocide is bad and therefore should be stopped. And that if Kamala does not commit to stopping (or at least mitigating) the genocide before the election, she is very unlikely to do it after. A point you are constantly avoiding to maintain your false dichotomy that the only two options are full support for the genocide, or Trump in the Whitehouse.

And since you were misusing the strawman fallacy, I didn’t think you would be a stickler for its definition.

Regardless, it was just so unbelievably hypocritical of you to (incorrectly) accuse them of strawmanning your argument and in the same comment attempt to reduced the value of their argument to “supporting Trump” just to strengthen your unsupported conclusion. I just couldn’t resist pointing it out. Next time I’ll be sure to assume you can’t read between the lines and spell everything out for you.

Now, you are free to go back to shoving your head up your hole and going “lalalala” when ever anyone mentions the United State’s role in the ongoing genocide. Just remember to have a big frown on your face when it’s brought up so everyone knows it wasn’t your fault.

I wouldn’t call Kamala a radical, but I guess I could see why you think that.

No, of course not, it’s just saying their argument is something that it isn’t. I swear there is a term for that.

To be fair, I get it. Because I can’t hear your arguments as anything other than “I support genocide”.

I can’t hear these arguments as anything other than “I support Trump.”

Strawman much?

Republicans hate this one simple trick!

Lol, okay, I’ll give you that. I’m not well.

Maybe, but since you don’t know who my personal nutjobs are, maybe your assumptions are fundamentally flawed? Maybe they have run for lower office? Maybe they have won elections? Maybe they aren’t grifters, but concerned citizens who truly want to make a difference in the best way they know how? Maybe assuming someone is falling for grifters is a bit unfair?

Or maybe I was taken in by a grifter all along and would still benefit from Ranked Choice Voting so I don’t throw away my vote and let Trump back in the Whitehouse? Either way it’s an improvement.

Fwiw, my personal nutjob is Bernie, and even if he didn’t win, I consider the shift he made in American politics to have value in its own right.

Perhaps, but I’d feel a lot better knowing I was able to vote for my fringe nutjob without handing their fringe nutjob the Whitehouse. And if my fringe nutjob lost, then I could still keep voting for who I truly believe is best. And by the time all my fringe nutjobs were eliminated, and I had to vote for a Democrat again, I’d at least know that we truly and democratically came to that answer. I don’t have to be “right” about the best candidate, but I hate casting a damage control vote that feels like a lie.

So as it stands, I hate voting, I hate having to vote for Democrats, and I just suck it up and do it anyway because we don’t have the time to collectively push for a better option.

Plus, if everyone could vote for their fringe nutjob without fear of giving the election to the worst possible option, we might find out that more people support ideas outside of the two party system. Maybe even shifting the Overton window and opening the door for a more representative electorate.

Okay, maybe it’s not so black and white… But she definitely contributed.

A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.

And now we find ourselves at the beginning of the meme.

Also, I find “people are greedy” to be an uncompelling reason to support a system that incentivizes greed and exploitation. If people bending a system to benefit themselves is a problem, then the system should be designed to be resistant to this, in a way that incentivizes promoting the common good. Or at the very least shouldn’t encourage these problems.

Capitalism encourages these problems.

But it’s also not like the person who runs the whatevers has to be beholden to shareholders and profits. They could instead be incentivized to prioritize the collective well being of the workers.

And for that matter, politicians and the bureaucracy also live in a system that incentivizes (to the tune of millions in bribes) them to prioritize the interests of businesses owners, and thusly shareholders and profits, at the cost of the common good. Which is a major reason they can’t be trusted.

!