• FatCrab@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    At the presidential level, there are in practical reality only two parties right now. Aside from the electoral realities, presidents also need to work with groups in congress, and only two parties are effectively present in congress. It sucks but it’s the reality we’re in. Now, this can change, but it needs to come from the bottom up via RCV and creating and enabling effective third+ parties at lower levels of government. Are you participating in your local and state level elections to enable creation of this necessary base of power and proof, or do you just run around online trying to find excuses to justify not voting? As for the choice we are faced with when it comes to Palestine, if you’ve been aware of this issue for more than the time it’s become a performative meme, then you’re well aware that there is a very real difference in the way the two parties enable Israeli crimes and merely by basic principles of harm reduction (because, at the end of the day, you should care about stopping as many people from being murdered as possible, not about signaling how wonderfully moral you are), it is very clear who is the more dangerous candidate.

    • index@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      3 months ago

      it is very clear who is the more dangerous candidate.

      Indeed it is very clear that both red and blue are supporting this genocide and that third parties would be a better choice. A celebrity with millions of followers supporting a third party would be a good news.