Summary
In an emotional monologue, John Oliver urged undecided and reluctant voters to support Kamala Harris, emphasizing her policies on Medicare, reproductive rights, and poverty reduction.
Addressing frustrations over the Biden administration’s Gaza policy, he acknowledged the struggle for many voters yet cited voices like Georgia State Rep. Ruwa Romman, who supports Harris despite reservations.
Oliver warned of the lasting consequences of a second Trump term, including potential Supreme Court shifts.
Oliver said voting for Harris would mean the world could laugh at this past week’s photo of an orange, gaping-mouthed Trump in a fluorescent vest and allow Americans to carry on with life without worrying about what he might do next.
Imperfection should not make the undecided voters give up on democracy, how can we have progressive policy when the people who want it don’t vote?
Exactly.
We cannot afford to fall victim to the Nirvana fallacy.
We must work within the system to change the system or we risk being excluded entirely.
Nirvana fallacy, also know as “perfect solution fallacy” is suggesting that no solution is better than an imperfect solution. If I can’t have nirvana, I don’t want anything.
I see it all the time in online arguments. “Oh, you advocate for housing the homeless? Well then why do you have empty rooms in your house? Just fill it with homeless people.” this is an example of the fallacy. It suggests that my solution, “house the homeless” should be discarded because it is not a perfect solution, which would be filling my house up with strangers. The goal is to make me say, “oh, I’m not willing to do that, so we should do nothing instead.”
I don’t think that’s an example. People housing others in their own homes isn’t an example of the perfect solution to homelessness. I don’t know if we have a name for that fallacy but it’s kind of a “put your money where your mouth is” fallacy. If you aren’t willing to give up a lot for the solution, you must not really believe it is a problem/solution.
People being against the ACA because it isn’t single payer health care is an example of the perfect solution fallacy. Or people being against a $15 minimum wage because it really should be $25 now.
It suggests that my solution, “house the homeless” should be discarded because it is not a perfect solution, which would be filling my house up with strangers. The goal is to make me say, “oh, I’m not willing to do that, so we should do nothing instead.”
This may be a mixture of a bunch of different arguments. There is the anti-Nimby argument which calls out Nimbys who want an end to homelessness but vote against the construction of housing for them in their neighbourhoods. “Why don’t you house homeless people in your house?” is a much more extreme, unreasonable, and therefore less efficacious version of that idea.
There is also the more general argument (from the right) that government shouldn’t be in the business of housing the homeless. The above line then proceeds by saying that your unwillingness to invite homeless people into your house is an indication that your solution to the problem is to get other people to solve the problem for you. This may also incorporate the anti-Nimby line by further claiming that what you really want is an “out of sight, out of mind” solution to homelessness.
In the paraphrased words of an old white dude
Don’t judge her against the Almighty, judge her against the alternative.
By moderating our online discussion boards to better weed out posts, comments, replies, etc. from foreign interference and domestic Astroturfing that present themselves as far-left in order to convince people that perfect should be the enemy of better. I swear, nobody comes to the conclusion “Esteemed prosecutor Kamala Harris isn’t as bad as convicted felon Donald Trump, but she still has flaws and isn’t worthy of my vote in a competition for the most influential job in the world that will certainly come down to one of the two of them” on their own. That idea has to be planted by someone arguing in bad faith, and repeated in many forms for someone to begin to believe it.
Some of us are old enough to have heard the lies decade after decades about preserving democracy while watching it get tossed out the door. Talking about progressive policy is all they’ve ever done then blame someone else when they end up doing nothing.
The delusion that you have to work within the system to change the system is pure fantasy because the system is operating as designed. And those in power will do everything they can to ensure it continues this way.
The delusion that you have to work within the system to change the system is pure fantasy because the system is operating as designed.
I find this point amusing because the people who don’t vote out of protest usually don’t do anything else either. They just sit back and let whatever happens, happen.
Not voting is an act of renouncing your voice and your rights. It’s not a protest. It’s at best complicity with the status quo, and at worst going to support a candidate that will be far far worse for the issues you are “protesting”. You don’t get to complain when you don’t vote. All you get to do is sit down, shut up, and continue your inaction.
Individual politicians and political parties routinely use count a vote as approval. In that way, if no other, voting does serve to support the existing system.
But, even if you believe there must be revolution and the current system CANNOT be reformed, voting is still harm reduction, unless revolution will happen before the results of the election can influence the system.
Individual politicians and political parties routinely use count a vote as approval. In that way, if no other, voting does serve to support the existing system.
I don’t think that tracks.
The highest turnout in any US election since 1908 was 62% in 2020, and at no point has a party won an election and been like ‘look at all the people who didn’t vote, I guess we don’t have a mandate to govern’
Parties win elections and govern in power with less than 50% of voters backing them all the time, it’s literally the standard. A low turnout will not change the way any party acts once in power.
I saw an anecdote here the other day on why it is important to vote for Harris even if you disagree with Harris politically.
I’m pretty sure the anecdote is fake but the general story goes:
In 2000, someone attended a rally for Al Gore in Florida. They ended up deciding that the democrats didn’t represent their voice. They felt (correctly) that the environment was an important issue and that Gore wasn’t going to do enough to save the environment, so they voted green party instead as a way to punish the Dems and make them see the light.
We all know what happened after, but think of what might have been if just a few thousand Floridians voted for Gore instead of… well, anyone else.
You can “what if” and project this election forever, but I think its important to remember that if shockingly few people voted for Al Gore instead of a third-party candidate, or protest voting, the global war on terror probably would never have happened. Maybe the 2008 housing crisis too. We would likely be reaping the benefits of decades of green energy research, instead of just getting started.
Why would that anecdote be fake? Nothing about that is hard to believe, there were likely thousands of Floridians in 2000 that had that exact experience. It’s literally why Bush “won.”
Just found this post, seems likely to be the same thing: https://lemmy.world/post/21602581
So then why did we get further environmental destruction and more war on terror under Obama? Why was Hillary Clinton, a notorious war hawk set to succeed Obama instead of someone with genuinely progressive positions?
The US has a fascist far right and a far right with gay rights party up for election. And the far right with gay rights party has become more reactionary on issues like immigration and also in many places violently cracked down on peaceful anti-racist protests. It is currently violently cracking down on anti-genocide protests. Maybe there is a chance to reform that party. But this requires a mass uprising against the entrenched party elite. The party elite that has used the fascist far right as a boogeyman threat to not question their power. A threat that they rather accept bringing into power than to provide non-genocide, non-racist, non-exploitative policies.
In that way, if no other, voting does serve to support the existing system.
The amount and percentage of non-voter signals to most politicians that people tacitly approve of the entire system. After all, if they disapproved of something about it, they would’ve at least bothered to show up and vote, right?
There’s no better “the status quo is fine” indicator than not even giving enough of a shit to show up at the polls (or in some cases return a slip of paper through the mail).
In what world is refusing to participate in a system you see as irreparably broken considered condoning its existence?
For the record, I voted for the lesser fascist because a complete redo of our system will be slightly harder under the rule of greater fascists.
I thought it was touching where he discussed his worries about using his last opportunity to speak before the election, and that he could be left wondering if there was something else that he could have said to change the outcome if it ends up going bad. I imagine there has to be a good bit of pressure when you have such a large platform.
For a show that points out so many wrongs with our country, it’s easy to look at things negatively. But for now, at least, we are able to point out those wrongs and still have a hope we can do something about them. Not even 5 years a citizen, I imagine it could be scary as well that if a re-elected Trump goes for a type of “media reform,” Oliver is likely going to be high on the list of people to be looked at.
I hope tomorrow goes well for America. I’ve been disappointed the last few elections that the comedians have been more critical than the mainstream journalists, but right now, I’m glad we’ve had them if nothing else, motivating us to still be our best.
Ukraine went and elected one of those TV comedians, and, while imperfect, he’s been a pretty inspiring leader over the past few years.
I had him in my mind writing my original comment. I don’t know much about him before the war, but he seems to be doing admirable if anyone had concerns at his election.
It’s fun to turn back the clock and read old news:
“I will never let you down,” Mr Zelensky told celebrating supporters.
Russia says it wants him to show “sound judgement”, “honesty” and “pragmatism” so that relations can improve. Russia backs separatists in eastern Ukraine.
Mr Poroshenko, who admitted defeat after the first exit polls were published, has said he will not be leaving politics.
He told voters that Mr Zelensky, 41, was too inexperienced to stand up to Russia effectively.
Mr Zelensky starred in the long-running satirical drama Servant of the People in which his character accidentally becomes Ukraine’s president.
He plays a teacher who is elected after his expletive-laden rant about corruption goes viral on social media.
He ran under a political party with the same name as his show.
With no previous political experience, Mr Zelensky’s campaign focused on his difference to the other candidates rather than on any concrete policy ideas.
NPR: Comedian Wins Ukrainian Presidency In Landslide 22 APR 2019
“What’s amazing is that despite Zelenskiy being a household name, people don’t really know what he stands for,” NPR’s Moscow correspondent Lucian Kim told Morning Edition. “During the election campaign, he was very vague about his positions, and in that way he really became a blank slate for people to project whatever they wanted on him.” The fact that voters chose Zelenskiy shows how desperate people are, Kim said.
But Ukraine’s outgoing president cautioned that the Kremlin is celebrating the election of an inexperienced candidate. Russia believes that “Ukraine could be quickly returned to Russia’s orbit of influence,” Poroshenko said on Twitter.
According to The New York Times, many voters said they had supported Zelenskiy “not so much because they thought he was a good candidate but because they wanted to punish Mr. Poroshenko for deflating the hopes raised by Ukraine’s 2014 revolution and for doing little to combat corruption.”
The Washington Post notes that Zelenskiy is just the latest comedian to win public office in elections around the world. In Guatemala, the former comic actor Jimmy Morales won the presidency on an anti-corruption platform with the slogan, “Not corrupt, not a thief.” In Iceland, comedian Jón Gnarr ran for mayor as a joke candidate and won, serving one term before he stepped down in 2014. And in the U.S., Saturday Night Live comedian Al Franken became a senator from Minnesota.
Maybe laughter and self-reflection is what the world needs right now. The comedians seem to be picking things up when everyone else is dropping the ball.
Living in the US as a person who grew up in Western Europe must be most masochistic way of life possible.
The best way to live in the US is to work at an European company and be send out long term to the US branch, you get European paychecks with the European taxing system and have European health insurance. You can receive your pay to a bank that allows global withdrawal with a miniscule currency transfer fee, for everything else you can use a Visa or MasterCard. Sure, this only works for a couple of months to a couple of years max, but you don’t have to deal with so much US bullshit and when shit is about to hit the fan, the company is going to pull you out anyway.
you get European paychecks with the European taxing system
You lost me there, sorry. That’s the worst way to live in the US.
Software engineers in the US make like 5x what they do in most of Europe. For that money you can get pretty good health insurance too.
If you’re working for an European salary in the US, what’s the point even.
Not really. A lot of people have this personal accountability mentality which supposes we all need to man up and deal with our own problems or suffer in silence. Which is all hypocritical and hardly ever do you find the people who espouse these views live up to them. Be it the self made millionaire trust fund baby who got a job at dad’s dealership after dropping out when he burned through all his college funds. The drowning in debt college grad who doesn’t work in the field they majored in because there wasn’t any attractive jobs. The self made man who came up from nothing but now is completely burnt out or swindling people to amass a fortune.
You show me an American who claims they don’t take hand outs and work harder then any one else could manage; and I’ll show you a self centered prick that got lucky once and sits on their ass the rest of the day consuming conservative media.
That’s my major point, though. By and large Americans are lazy self serving jerks who couldn’t stop consuming if they were only selling turds. They like to binge after they binge and no amount of alcohol or weed is enough to make them contented.
No we aren’t masochists. We are children who want loud orange man to make it so we can have more F150’s and we get to play beer pong every single day.
Wtf is this even? How does this address what the other commenter said? Did you just reply to a top comment for visibility?
At the end of that word salad he says something regarding masochism, so I think he actually meant to reply, but his reading comprehension left him hanging so he didn’t catch OP was talking about John Oliver (being the Western European living in the US).
(That, or they are just the fevered ramblings of a syphilitic brain. either way, your ‘wtf is this even’ applies)
Frederick Douglas on voting at a time when both Parties had shafted Reconstruction.
