this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2026
217 points (72.2% liked)

Memes

57140 readers
717 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

if Harris were to involve the US militarily, she would at least provide some forms of aid to try to mitigate the regime’s massacaring people and restore communication between people stuck their and the worldwide Iranian diaspora

Would she? Biden's sanctions on Afghanistan created a humanitarian crisis, people were starving to death. Getting humanitarian aid would be dependent on them overthrowing the government. This is the whole argument behind economic sanctions, in every country they they subject to them - if the people are suffering, they'll blame their own government and revolt.

This is, in many cases, delusional, or more about wanting to "do something" to look strong to voters. Because the Democratic party is assumed to be more progressive, they sometimes go even further in order to prove that they're not soft and weak. This was the same logic behind mass incarceration under Clinton.

Congress, which if it is ®-controlled would keep a short leash within the War Powers Act.

Did the Republican-controlled Congress ever do anything to stop Obama from continuing the war in Afghanistan? Those people fucking love war. Every one of them is in bed with the military-industrial complex, as long as bombs are dropping, they're thrilled.


So overall, I will still push back on the argument that always springs up around American election-time that Harris/Dems will be equally bad therefore don’t vote

To be precise, my position is not that they're equally bad, but that they're both fundamentally unacceptable. I cannot envision a future either of them would lead us to where we are not completely and totally fucked.

Four years of Biden brought declining economic conditions, record military spending, countless dead in Palestine, and four years closer to ecological collapse. When the average American sees that, they're going to be dissatisfied and want change, which is why Trump won. What would four years of Harris get us? According to her, she wouldn't do anything differently and refused to distinguish herself from him in any way. So, it's reasonable to assume that things would continue in that direction, the same way they have for decades, across both Democratic and Republican administrations. Even if they somehow squeaked out a win in 2024, they would lose in 2028.

This whole mentality of lesser evilism is based on accepting the choices we're presented with and trying to make the best of it. But my approach is to start at what actually needs to happen, and then try to work out how to get there. The crises we're facing (climate change, for example) are part of the physical world, governed by the laws of physics. What a political system is capable of doing is only governed by human laws, by human norms and customs. If there is a disconnect between what a human system says it can do, and what a physical system says needs to happen, then the human system will bend and break. Either the rules of what our political system treats as possible will bend now, or they will break later, when, for example, cities are flooded and millions of climate refugees are starving at the border.

There is a giant boulder headed straight towards us, and one party denies it exists at all while the other acknowledges that there's a boulder, but says that saying we should step out of the way is unrealistic, unamerican, and probably somehow antisemitic.

From a physical perspective, what needs to happen are drastic fundamental, changes to the system, because none of this shit is sustainable. If the political system does not give us that option, if we are only offered options that completely refuse to bend to what is physically necessary, then the political system is simply broken and destined to fail, and all we can do is prepare for that.

And the best way I can see to prepare for that is to call out it's inevitable failure and to distance myself from the people responsible. Because as the system is failing, the far-right are the only ones positioning themselves as an "alternative" (even though, as the Iran War demonstrates, they're just more of the same), and if that's the only alternative then that's where people will turn. There needs to be a left-wing movement that can plausibly distance itself from the establishment's failure and can be ready to step in and pick up the pieces, or else the far-right will be the only game in town.

Tl;dr: When shit hits the fan (and it's going to) people are going to find their ideas of what's "politically possible" changing very rapidly. We need to be presenting a real alternative and not be associating ourselves with the people actively launching shit towards the fan.

[–] BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 week ago

Would she? Biden’s sanctions on Afghanistan created a humanitarian crisis, people were starving to death. Getting humanitarian aid would be dependent on them overthrowing the government.

Not to mention the democratic party was infuriated at Biden for pulling out of Afghanistan and immediately began agitising for a return.

This is the whole argument behind economic sanctions, in every country they they subject to them - if the people are suffering, they’ll blame their own government and revolt.

Another example would be the starving of Venezuela or Cuba. Another argument would be the colour revolutions fomented - particularly under Obamas "Arab Spring"