Yeah, but sometimes that really is enough
Not enough for voters who are undecided about whether to vote or not.
Democrats win when turnout is high. It’s not enough to be better than the opponent, to win they must beat apathy.
The two current candidates are so far apart the people who claim to be undecided are ignorant or stupid, willingly or otherwise. I’d understand riding the fence between Biden and Bernie, even if I’ve made my choice between them, but between Trump and Biden?
That’s the kind of person who is undecided if they want to drive to work or walk down the middle of i-95
I think you are perhaps uninformed about the economic state of the poor and working class. Biden hasn’t done a whole lot about people’s grocery bills doubling and tripling, or the soaring increases in rent while the housing supply has remained artificially low, but he’s made sure that blank checks for war appear out of thin air at every turn.
Can’t expect to win an election like this when people can’t afford to miss a day of work.
Yeahhhh, no.
Like the original commenter said, you are either ignorant or stupid.
Anyone who actively lived during Trump’s awful years in office has all the info we need to NOT vote for that fucking orange idiot, and instead CLAMBER to anyone with ANY semblance of sanity.
If you honestly think that Biden losing will help anyone in any way whatsoever (besides Trump and his little rich bastards who are as evil as he is), you, and anyone else who feels that way, are a lost cause.
Anyone who is eligible to vote actively lived through the trump years. And a third of those voters disagree with you. Calling them stupid is not an effective way to help them change their minds or voting decisions.
Day to day economic realities matter to the average voter.
I don’t give a flying fuck about changing anyones mind any more. If you actively lived through the awful Trump years, you don’t need your fucking mind changed. Most of those “third of voters” are a lost cause, so I do not give a fuck about trying to get them to maybe open their eyes just a little bit.
Also, yes, I’m sure the “economic realities” really matter to those voters when this is who they will allow back into office.
Like the original commenter said, you are either ignorant or stupid.
It’s okay if projecting makes you feel better.
Let’s just cut to the chase–is your argument that both sides are the same? Or that voting for Biden is just as bad as voting for Trump, or not voting? Or are you just arguing to stir things up? Trying to figure out where your willful ignorance lies.
I’m sure Trump will get right on that.
“My candidate is just as shitty as the other guy” isn’t quite the profound defense you think it is.
That is probably the lamest possible misinterpretation you could make, but I’m sure that’s intentional. Nobody is “both sides”-ing them but you.
I think that should say “my candidate is far less shitty than the other guy” which is a different situation.
Tell me what you think he could have done without Congress.
Let’s hear it.
Give me the actual steps that you believe Biden could have done but did not do.
Well I hope that goes the right way for you over there.
then they should be doing something to make voters want to turn out.
The only Democrat with the power to do anything at the moment is Biden, and his power is limited.
But he’s been doing a lot within that limited power.
And I genuinely don’t care whatever some asshole from hexbear with their Lemmy World alt is about to pop in here and reply with, because the fundamental issue is not Biden, it is Congress and the Supreme Court. Congress is absolutely fucked, and that is not Biden’s fault, it’s the Constitution’s fault, and the fault of Red State conservatives that have completely gerrymandered their states to hell, and the Supreme Court that did not stop them. It is not biden’s fault at the Supreme Court is now stacked with corrupt conservative justices that will strike down anything he does that they think they can make a case against.
It is very, very convenient to forget that the other two branches exist when you’re intent is to make Biden look like he hasn’t done anything or committed to his campaign promises.
i think you are heavily subestimating the power of money here.
What’s your position?
“Not a fascist dictator that openly wants to kill democracy.”
Honestly, no. In Turkey the opposition used that strategy since 2002 and lost every single vote, except the last local elections where they finally decided to do things a little differently (+ the financial crisis). If your only selling point is “not being the other guy” then your whole election campaign is basically an advertising for the other guy.
In Canada at the federal level the Conservatives are on their way to have a majority using this exact tactic, they’re voting against anything the government tries to do (even stuff they asked for in the past) and they’re promising to make everything better once elected, no one knows how, not even them.
Exactly this. It just boils down to manufacturing consent for the other guy’s terrible policies, and results in hopelessness leading to voter apathy. Braindead strategy with 0 concept of leadership.
I think it depends on the context and the details.
If your sell is “I’m not Mitt Romney,” that is pretty weak, even if you don’t like Romney.
If your sell is “I’m not Donald Trump,” that is a much more compelling thing to consider. I mean the fucker is on trial for and got impeached for some things that are truly heinous to see from a random schmuck, never mind the freaking President of the US.
It’s a losing strategy politically because people are too fucking dumb to vote against someone holding a gun to their head unless someone else is promising them a unicorn, but as a potential voter, it’s an exceptionally good reason to get off your ass and actually vote for a candidate who can win.
It’s really not if you’re a wage earner in 2/3 of US states, where it’s still perfectly legal to pay you $7 an hour. Since Idaho got away with criminalizing abortion, 2/3 of the states will soon follow.
Hell, homelessness jumped 12% in 2023 alone. I’m guessing, for those people, “I’m not Trump” isn’t going to be as persuasive an argument as you might think.
What about “the economy is actually doing great Jack!” ?
It blows my mind how often people try to argue that someone should be elected on the strength of the economy when said economy isn’t doing jack shit for the poor and working class.
Unfortunately I don’t think we collectively vote to help the poor and working class in the first place.
Wish we had a party who gave a shit in order to vote for this, and that it were a much bigger plank of their platform. It’s a disgrace that anyone is unhoused in the richest nation on Earth.
I can’t even begin to describe how much more I would prefer we do this, than to continue fattening the wallets of boomers who own multiple homes and only live in one of them. We literally don’t invest in building new housing in order to maintain this status quo, and it’s absurd.
It’s really hard to vote if you don’t have a home address, so those unhoused people don’t matter in our system.
It’s really hard to vote if you don’t have a home address,
And you’d think after 2016 the Democrats might have realized that they need those votes, but they’re too busy getting wealthier to care.
This. I’ve never voted for ‘not the other guy’, but I will this time. Honestly, the democrats could run Vinny the Wino and I’d vote for him over Trump.
The entire premise is BS because Biden has a list of accomplishments from infrastructure to debt forgiveness, progressive drug guidance, progress in gender/race equality, departments like the ftc and irs being competently run again with actual resources, to judge appointments. Hmm I wonder to who’s benefit it is to ignore all that and label him “not Trump”?
He certainly did give a ton of handouts to corporations with nice sounding names, yeah.
And he offered the GOP every fascist policy they want on border with literally no strings attached. Twice. What a great totally-different-from-republicans guy.
Really knows how to reach across the aisle and be bi-partisan by…-checks notes-…giving the GOP everything they want with no conditions.
If less people like you voted for trump, he wouldn’t have to negotiate with those assholes
I really despise that liars like this exist
Well, horses and dogs both have four legs, so clearly they’re identical
So he makes no concessions, nothing gets done, and then we’d be sitting here saying he’s not doing enough.
I’d rather he do nothing than do actively bad things.
Biden bragged about cutting social security, has no desire to reform healthcare, and doesn’t care about income inequality or labour rights. He looks at America’s race-to-the-bottom economy and he’s like “yeah. Everything is working just fine here”
Also, many of the things you listed here are basically just “not Trump/not Republicans” in their own way. You really think “appointed competent people to run government departments” is a positive and not just a non-negative point (as compared to what his opponents would do)?
Also, Biden is obviously fucking senile and I’m tired of people pretending he’s not just because they’re afraid it will give Trump power. It’s totally fine to vote for Biden because he was the lesser evil, but let’s not pretend he was ever a good option. When you ignore reality because it makes it harder to like your preferred candidate, you are doing the exact same thing the MAGA idiots do.
Before you accuse me of anything, you should know I’m Canadian and have absolutely no dog in this fight. This is my unbiased outsider perspective. I could give a shit who wins the next election in the US, but I’m tired of people lying to themselves about either of the candidates not being a steaming pile of shit.
Also, many of the things you listed here are basically just “not Trump/not Republicans” in their own way.
-
substitutes everything the candidate runs on to “I’m not the other guy”, because the other guy doesn’t run on those things
-
accuses candidate of running on “I’m not the other guy”
My point was “he appointed competent people to run some departments and gives them enough resources to do their jobs” isn’t a point in his favour. It’s only a neutral point. It’s the baseline that should be expected from someone in his office. You’re saying “Biden doesn’t actively strip the government for parts”. It only makes sense as a point in his favour if you assume that the alternative is “starve the beast” tactics (which TBF it definitely is). It can only be considered a positive as compared to his opponent.
I disagree with you first statement. It is definitely a point in his favor because the election doesn’t happen in a vacuum, you must take into account who the alternatives are.
Seriously. An election is a single event where people decide between some options they are presented with. It is not some kind of wide-reaching manifesto or affirmation of faith/loyalty.
The point is that you should hold the Democrats and Biden accountable for being evil and not doing good things that make people’s lives better (which they absolutely have the power to do). They sit back and watch the world burn, then when election time comes they say “at least we didn’t start any of these fires” (they just don’t bother extinguishing them)
Again I disagree. They are not doing enough maybe, but they are doing something. Rescheduling pot, insulin prices, student debt cancelation… (I’m over in Europe so I only know about some things, I’m sure there’s more that I don’t know).
not doing good things that make people’s lives better
They sit back and watch the world burn
They spent billions to upgrade drinking water infrastructure across the country, as well as roads and bridges. They protected and strengthened the Affordable Care Act by allowing states to extend postpartum coverage up to 12 months, by disallowing several state-level work requirements for Medicaid, by fixing the “family glitch”, by dropping the number of uninsured by 3.5%, by allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, by capping the price of insulin, and by banning surprise billing for out-of-network care. They raised the minimum wage for federal workers. They forgave billions in student loans. They expanded VA health care and benefits for veterans exposed to burn pits, Agent Orange, and other toxic substances. They rescheduled marijuana. They established decade-long tax credits for everything from electric vehicles to direct air capture and sequestration of carbon dioxide. They ratified the international Kigali Amendment on reducing HFCs. They implemented drinking water standards for PFAS. I could go on, but I’m bored.
Get your fingers out of your fucking ears, open your eyes, and stop repeating baseless propaganda. I’ll also echo what the commenter above suggested:
kindly shut the fuck up. I’m an American, I’ve ACTUALLY had to live in this country with Trump and Biden as president, and it’s no contest for me.
edit: Downvoting incontrovertible facts. Again. This community never ceases to amaze me.
LMAO yup
-
I’m Canadian and have absolutely no dog in this fight.
Then kindly shut the fuck up. I’m an American, I’ve ACTUALLY had to live in this country with Trump and Biden as president, and it’s no contest for me. I’d take Biden at his worst over Trump any day. That doesn’t mean Biden is good, it means Trump is just that fucking bad.
I’d take Biden at his worst over Trump any day. That doesn’t mean Biden is good, it means Trump is just that fucking bad.
Yeah I 100% agree. That’s exactly my point. The conversation here is whether Biden can stand on his own merits or whether the only thing he has going for him is that he’s not Trump.
You’re never going to get these people to acknowledge any of this stuff.
They’ll still be defending whatever Biden 2.0 clone is in office a few cycles from now because “He only sent half the number of people to the gas chamber compared to [Identical GOP Incumbent]!”
That is the thing, the GOP isn’t identical. It is pretty much worse every single time.
The technical distinction are becoming less and less compelling. The whole “Things will get better if you just vote for our chosen establishment democrat one more time.” starts to wear thin after decades of 0 substantial results and, more often than not, straight up complicity in the worst crimes of the far-right.
Establishment democrats support the corporate aristocracy and banks just the same, they barely fight for really basic stuff like civil rights and only enough so they have something to point to, not to actually fundamentally change anything in a way that the right can’t just reverse. That’s why we are where we are right now, the Conservative Democrats’ greed and lack of spine has allowed the far-right to capture the courts and undermine our institutions, unopposed over the course of 40-ish years.
The Democratic party is the only one with potential to change, but that’s never going to happen if they can just keep doing the pied piper shit and getting re-elected. For all intents and purposes they are identical.
Here’s the problem, people don’t vote down ticket, and they only vote every 4 years instead of every 2 years.
The president is more of a cheerleader than a person of substantial power. That’s not to say the office of the president isn’t individually powerful, but you need strong margins in the house and the senate to actually get stuff done.
We kind of had that for 2 years when Obama and we got the affordable care act… Even then the margins weren’t that great; I don’t think Obama was the problem so much as they couldn’t find the support to do something bigger in Congress.
Even with those thin margins Democrats come across the aisle regularly to actually get governance done (e.g. fund fixing infrastructure). They’re not even close, we’ve got one party that actually governs, and another that prints money for the rich, attacks people based on their bedroom preferences, and doesn’t give a shit about the environment.
Here’s the problem, people don’t vote down ticket, and they only vote every 4 years instead of every 2 years.
In no small part due to DNC suppression and interference. This is why people say the neoliberals need to be allowed to fail until they have no option but to tlstop suppression tactics (or leave and go to the GOP where they belong)
The base cannot reform the DNC they can only starve the power structure until it’s desperate enough to stop sniping progressives. It worked after Clinton’s failure, we got a ton of progressives in office after that.
The president is more of a cheerleader than a person of substantial power.
You’re literally using tactics developed by fascists in your argument here. Somehow, the president is little more than a “powerless cheerleader” if we’re talking about Dems but “the end of democracy” if talking about Trump/Republicans. Both can’t be true.
We kind of had that for 2 years when Obama and we got the affordable care act… Even then, the margins weren’t that great; I don’t think Obama was the problem so much as they couldn’t find the support to do something bigger in Congress.
Even with those thin margins Democrats come across the aisle regularly to actually get governance done
The ACA was a plan written by Republicans. Obama and the Dems chose this over any sane single-payer option to allegedly “appease Republicans” and yet none of them voted for it (and then spent years trying to repeal it). This means we could have had single-payer all along instead of further cementing the private healthcare market that continues to bankrupt Americans to this day.
In another attempt to appease Republicans, they allowed them to steal Obamas SCOTUS appointment while also allowing Trump to steal what should have been Biden’s SCOTUS appointment, stacking the Supreme Court with a 6-3 conservative majority which lead to the end of abortion rights in the country and who knows what else in the coming decades.
Neither party is interested in fixing the absolute train wreck that this country has become. Both serve the rich. One party is just better about messaging and branding. There are many good Dem politicians but the party leadership and party as a whole is just as rotten as the other. That’s why we’re here with Trump having a 50% chance of being president for the third time in a row and why we’ll continue to have candidates like him in the future.
You’re literally using tactics developed by fascists in your argument here.
[citation needed]
Somehow, the president is little more than a “powerless cheerleader” if we’re talking about Dems but “the end of democracy” if talking about Trump/Republicans. Both can’t be true.
They’re over simplifying the problem. Trump is a cheerleader for fascism inside of the United States, a vote for Trump is a vote for every Republican in congress to be emboldened to do Trump like things (and even if they don’t agree with them, fear their own removal).
There’s certainly a different aspect for international issues and relations as well. However, ultimately, congress has all the power in this country. If Democrats had solid super majorities in the house and senate, or there was a super majority that was willing to side with Democrats to protect from Trump, there would be very little reason to worry.
In fact, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion because congress would have held Trump accountable and convicted him during the impeachment hearings preventing him from holding office.
Obama and the Dems chose this over any sane single-payer option to allegedly “appease Republicans”
[Citation needed] see the majorities at the time, they could not get single payer past the majority of the Democrats in congress let alone Republicans. There was not a sufficiently progressive majority.
In another attempt to appease Republicans, they allowed them to steal Obamas SCOTUS appointment while also allowing Trump to steal what should have been Biden’s SCOTUS appointment
They “allowed” that to happen? What could they have done?
They didn’t have control of congress.
I’d go on but I don’t have time to say “they didn’t have control of congress” all day. If you want something done in this country, you need congress (either via super majority) or via a slim majority and an aligned president (and even then in the latter case, results may very due to personal votes/perspectives of representatives).
You speak as if the democrats cooperating with republicans is a flaw on their part. They don’t exist in a vacuum — they have to deal with the American public. And when half this fucking country is voting for the disgusting shit the republicans are all about, the democrats aren’t going to stay in office if they always do the right thing. Politics sucks.
And just to clarify: I’m not saying they’re innocent. They do protect a lot of the same institutions that drive inequality, etc.
Also I don’t really hear "Things will get better if you just vote for our chosen establishment democrat one more time” much lately. It’s more like stopping the bleeding or putting down the gun against your head before you can start making improvements. Trumpism is just that bad.
You speak as if the democrats cooperating with republicans is a flaw on their part. They don’t exist in a vacuum — they have to deal with the American public.
The majority of Americans are for basically all progressive policies, particularly when asked directly about a policy rather than a party or politician.
The issue is not the American people (of who MAGA chuds are 30% at best) the issue is that Democrats and Republicans work in concert to rig the system and deny the people access to politicians who are actually willing to implement popular policy.
This corporate circle jerk game (fueled not inconsiderably by Citizens United) is why the fascist roght is able to keep pushing our institutions further t9 the right. Establushment Democrats and Republicans are so busy gorging on lobby payouts and shoving AIPAC money ip their asses that they literally put up no resustance except when it comes to changing the status quo. Which is when they turn and will snarl and bite at anyone who tries to interrupt them.
So no, it is not “dealing with the American people” it’s deliberately side stepping and suppressing them to loot our nation’s legacy.
Yeah, and the media is complicit in all of it.
But I still feel comfortable putting a chunk of the blame on the voters. You’re absolutely right about progressive policies being popular on their own, but the fact that people don’t vote accordingly is the fault of both the communicators and the public. The public who just rolls with the team sport of politics and don’t care to look into actual policies and their effects on people.
I don’t think the public carries most of the blame though, because being ignorant is not nearly as bad as all the intentional bad faith bullshit done by those more involved in the system.
I wouldn’t dream of suggesting otherwise. My point above is simply that voting for the lesser of two evils doesn’t mean you shouldn’t hold your candidate accountable for being… evil.
No one is pretending that Biden is any good. Lots of people are pretending that he’s no better than Trump.
No one is pretending that Biden is any good
My initial comment in this thread was responding to someone claiming Biden is great and can stand on his own merits.
Also, you can see from that comment getting downvoted to oblivion within microseconds of it being posted that lots of people think any kind of criticism of Biden is bad.
Yeah, no.
It’s not that people think ANY kind of criticism of Biden is bad, no. Most of us are probably on the same page.
Where we start rolling our eyes and downvoting, is when it basically sums up to “Genocide bad = Biden bad = Both sides are bad = Vote for third party = Trump gets into office”
Let me tell you something, friend. When Trump was in office, it was some of the most miserable times of my fucking life. I truly did not see any hope if he got elected for another four god damn years. I’d rather kill myself than allow some little whiny ass, dictator wannabe bitch get back in office.
BoTh SiDeS
In terms of establishment conservative Democrats and Republicans? Yes, they represent the same path to fascism. So it’s not both sides, more like same side.
Progressives would be the only non-fascist side.
Hereby invalidating all your future comments
It’s pretty rare for anyone to praise Biden on his own merits, especially on Lemmy. So maybe don’t get so irate because in comparison to trump, people praise him
And yes you have every dog in this fight, the US is kinda fuckin important for global stability
The guys who fund terrorists and dictatorships all over the world are important to global stability, but not in the way you think.
You can try to pretend trump was good for the world because US bAd but he wasn’t.
Who said Trump was good? Nobody in this thread, that’s for damn sure
They’re simping for him. They don’t need to state the obvious directly for me to notice it
Pointing out the facts about Biden is not “simping” for that pile of shit Trump. It’s like when someone criticizes Biden, we’re required to also provide a list of why Trump is bad.
Have you seen the guy? He’s completely open about his quid pro quo corruption. He hired his entire family to positions of power because why not. He shared top secret documents like it was nothing, while hiding them at his shitty golf resort. He’s painfully fucking blatant and obvious about how shitty he is. We don’t need to supply a list of why he sucks because the dude is a cartoon supervillain. Trust me, when I talk about how shitty Genocide Joe is, I’m definitely not pushing for another 4 years of that asshole Trump.
The reason we have to point things out about Biden is because a ton of otherwise smart people have fallen for this nonsense that he’s somehow good, when he’s nothing but a covert shill for corporations and war, just like every candidate has to be when they become the president of the United States. People like me are tired of the kindergarten-level “if you’re not voting for Biden, you’re voting for Trump” logic that we have to hear on repeat on a daily basis. Why can’t they both be shit? Why can’t it simply be a conversation of why democracy in the US is dead and the fact that we need some sort of political revolution or a goddamn miracle at this point?
Making the assumption that we like A because we criticized B and vice versa is just stupid and dismissive. The world is not that black and white and everyone knows that. This kind of attitude is absolutely counterproductive to unhooking ourselves from these Groundhog Day elections every 4 years where we’re forced to pick from a right-winger or a right-winger.
Wtf? The guy who blew up the general who beat ISIS while he was on a peace mission in a third country? The guy who escalated the drone warfare across Iraq and Syria? Who escalated the trade war with China?
No, America did not stop being an evil empire or start being good for global stability under Trump.
What the hell are you talking about? Nothing I said resembled trump support
You were implying Trump was good because the US is bad, but Trump’s foreign policy was as destructive as every other presidents.
The US is currently the world’s dominant Imperialist power, if “global stability” means extracting vast amounts of wealth from the global south then perhaps your idea of “global stability” needs to be reevaluated.
This is the laziest shit ever. It’s very convenient to say that things are as simple as that but they obviously aren’t.
I didn’t say things were simple. I said the US is the largest Imperialist power in the world, which is true, and suggested reevaluating your world view.
The US is not holding onto hegemonic power for “stability,” nations can govern themselves just fine. The US is holding onto hegemonic power for profit.
No, it’s absolutely not simple, but it is glaringly obvious that pretending the US is important on the global stage for “stability” is purely a western viewpoint that ignores the US’ contributions as a supporter of terrorism around the world whenever its profits are threatened.
Tankie gon’ tank
What have I said makes me a tankie? Saying that the US is bad for the world, actually? That’s all forms of Leftism, whether they be Anarchist, Marxist, or so forth.
If you’re just going to resort to Ad Hominem instead of defending your claims or addressing my counters to them, why even reply?
There are no good options. Right now it seems they either support Israel or don’t support Ukraine. No one is on the right side(imo) on both options. Sanders is the closest but even he wants strings attached to Ukraine aid.
IMO there should always be strings attached to military aid, lest the military industrial complex have too much of an incentive to pull strings and keep conflicts going longer than necessary.
Ok…too many strings then.
Are you stupid or do you just watch Fox
cough supporting a genocide cough
Until then he was doing great yeah. Bit of a big one though.
And before you hit me with the usual I know Trump would be worse for Gaza but it doesn’t change what Biden has done
1 he always supported it, so if you say “until” you just didn’t care until it went hot, 2 I don’t think it changes it that his opponent supports it harder, but it does speak to your options.
He always supported Israel… I think the ‘until’ is in reference to Israel’s more recent and more blatant attack on Gaza - prior to that, Biden’s support for Israel wasn’t nearly as flagrant as it is now.
Like, no one would bat an eye if I told them I support my wife’s decisions, but if she started breaking into the local NICUs and stomping on people’s babies, my continued support for her decisions would be a tad sus. …especially if I regularly said “honey could you tone the baby-stomping down a bit?” as I handed her a new pair of baby-stomping boots.
I’m not a both-sides’er (unless I’m talking to a trumpanzee in an attempt to steer votes away from Agent Orange). My vote is going to Biden and I encourage anyone reading this to do the same, but our complicity in the genocide on Gaza is genuinely upsetting, partly because it’s complicity in a fucking genocide, and partly because this WILL cause voter disengagement and could hand that other dipshit the presidency on a silver platter.
Thank you for putting this so well.
Biden’s support for Israel wasn’t nearly as flagrant as it is now
You’re saying that about a guy who has been saying shit like “I am a zionist” every year while sucking Israel’s dick. LOL.
You’re just showing that you have 0 idea what you’re talking about and that your opinion is only based on your fantasies, reality does not seem to be of interest to you.
The genocide started way, way before October 6th. October 6th was a reaction to increased aggression from Israeli settlers who had massively increased the amount of land they were stealing. The difference is that it was more subtle, so nobody cared, but if you forcibly remove everyone from their homeland it’s still genocide.
Obviously I’m glad Americans are waking up to the realization that Israel is an apartheid state, but it’s been true for decades. The fact that Biden has always been a Zionist was a huge red flag, but he was “the only person who could beat Trump” and now we’re stuck here.
you just didn’t care until it went hot
Exactly this. It’s astonishing how many people would destroy everything based on an extremely old holy war because the US didn’t suddenly reverse their long established policy when the conflict heats up again.
The Trumpists are ecstatic how easy it was to flip these morons.
It’s almost as if many of these people are just virtue signaling or falling for the propoganda. I don’t see any of these same commenters so vocally opposed to any of the other handful atrocities happening around the world, and yet they fail to think the next thought of what will the situation be like if Trump wins?
Yeah, I think a lot of them are just bad actors, faking left leanings. Paid or otherwise. This one guy posts several times every single day about the war and often lays it all at Biden’s feet. If he’s paid, Putin or whoever it is truly does get their money’s worth with so many posts and comments essentially indirectly supporting trump.
And if you dare to disagree with their bullshit of course the means you love genocide. Literally have had several commenters use those exact words.
This one guy posts several times every single day about the war and often lays it all at Biden’s feet. If he’s paid, Putin or whoever it is truly does get their money’s worth with so many posts and comments essentially indirectly supporting trump.
Are you talking about me? Do you seriously think someone pays me to post rather than me just being a person who is horrified about what’s happening?
Given that your last post was about Bob Dylan and it was 3 weeks ago, I’m kind of struggling to see where you got the idea I was referring to you. Makes me wonder why you thought that…
The Trumpists are ecstatic how easy it was to flip these morons.
I would never vote Trump. “Morons” for having criticism of a president supplying weapons that have killed over 10k children?
These centrist democrats are ecstatic how a substantial number of their voters have no standards whatsoever and will defend anything as long as it keeps Trump out.
Downvote all you want. If you can’t criticise Biden for this you’re a piece of shit
I don’t need to “criticize Biden”. That isn’t what’s happening anyhow. What’s happening is that people are pretending Biden is the one doing this and threatening to destroy the United States if he doesn’t stop the thing which he is not doing. Sending Israel money is a fuck of a lot older than his presidency.
Just because it’s been happening for a while doesn’t make it right.
Why was Rafah a red line until all of a sudden it wasn’t? Because he knows it’s morally wrong and will lead to a lot of death but is too much of a coward to stand up for what he believes.
Just because it’s been happening for a while doesn’t make it right.
Just because you care about it now doesn’t suddenly make it more important than every concern, including preventing it from getting far worse.
So if you are against genocide, you don’t get a candidate that can represent you. And americans would rather drag their dick through miles of broken glass than to vote 3rd party.
I don’t need to torture my penis to know it would have a bad outcome to do so, kind of like giving my vote to trump with an extra step while pretending to be a martyr
Only voting for Trump is giving him your vote.
Except for the fact that we know how the system works and third party candidates have no chance
So should people who are not going to vote for a Trump or Biden actively cast their vote for Trump then? It’s the same thing, after all, right?
Is not casting a vote for Trump actually a vote for Biden?
Russian troll either being intentionally obtuse or a fool.
Voting 3rd party in a primary is throwing your vote away, plain and simple. If we want better candidates, handily defeat the GOP so that it has no choice other than to ditch the completely fascist support, or collapse. That’s the only chance we have of getting more progressive candidates to vote for. Start in local elections, move to state, then get some of these people into higher office.
Hoping that suddenly the incumbent Democrat candidate will become a super progressive person at the 11th hour is just a fantasy.
My point exactly with “crawling through miles of glass before voting third party”. A nation of defeatists.
Stop the disinformation. Voting 3rd party in this general election is just going to help Trump and the fascists. You’re either a naive fool, or a disinformation agent.
Again, my point exactly. You are almost combative about voting for anyone who doesn’t support the genocide. Good job.
Obviously it wasn’t as big an issue until October 7th. I did care, just not as much was happening
Until then he was doing meh. After that he was also doing meh, because that has been the official policy of the US for at least the last 50 years.
So you have either “meh” or “let’s do turbo genocide and have oil companies write environmental policy” (not even going into all the criminality). I find “meh” to be the clearly superior option, even if it doesn’t align with my politics.
But if someone criticises the “meh,” this is somehow an issue with the person and not the “meh”?
You picked a funny time to start criticizing.
When the genocide started? Gosh yeah you’re right what a mystery
I mean idk if it’s that funny of a time. Even if they were criticizing 5-6 months ago, and who’s to say they weren’t, it’s a much more engaged in conversation right now, so it’s not a fuckin shocker that people are gonna start talking about it.
He was doing pretty bad up to that point, thus why his approval rating was dogshit. Gaza simply made him unelectable by those who might’ve been able to hold their nose to avoid Trump.
Care to offer an actual list? Every time someone tries to offer an actual list it turns out to be meaningless victory laps. With the possible exception of the NLRB Cemex decision. But that’s getting it’s stress test right now so it’s a bit early to celebrate.
Here you go:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_executive_actions_by_Joe_Biden
All of it is pretty decently documented.
I mean usually people try to curate it to stuff with physical outcomes. Otherwise 90% of that list is performative crap like this one. And if you don’t think that was performative have a look at what red states are doing in schools.
You do understand he can only do so much, right? You’re calling it performative, but he can’t do most of the major things without Congress.
If you’re only complaint is “it’s not enough he should do more” then how about you tell me what your definition of “more” is, and then we can take a look at the actual laws and see if it’s something he can do without Congress.
On that action he could withhold funding. Any police officers enforcing bathroom laws can be arrested and charged. He can federalize the Texas National Guard so Abbott can’t use them on the border. He could direct Darpa to research battery technology and make any resulting patents free and open for anyone to produce.
That’s 3 ideas in his power in less than 5 minutes. The laws are already on the books. He refuses to use them and keeps running this “woe is me, congress is out of control” narrative and I’m tired of nobody calling him on it.
Care to offer an actual list?
They gave you a list. You go find the links if you’re so hell bent on handwaving them away.
If you check my post history you’ll see I do go through the entire list when it’s reasonable. I’m not trawling through a thousand EOs and NSMs for an internet stranger though. That’s dangerously close to trying to prove a negative and will take multiple months. If they want to prove a point they need to support that point. Not do the source version of waving vaguely in the direction of the White House.
Stop thinking that you vote “for” someone in a FPTP system. You don’t. You vote against the guy you don’t like.
It sucks, and I hate it, but don’t delude yourself into thinking otherwise. We’re playing a badly-designed game with a shitty controller and we’re only allowed to press a button once a year at best.
Think Twitch Plays Pokemon, but with a lot more trolls and no moderation. There will be a constant stream of people voting to do something stupid and destructive, so you spend all of your time voting against them.
Oh, and their votes count for more, so they can win even if there’s fewer of them. All we can ever hope to do is try to stop them and hope they don’t fuck everything up and give themselves even more power before the next time we’re allowed to pick a move.
Yay America. Greatest democracy in the world right there.
Both Democrats and Republicans have a vested interest in keeping the system as it is. They won’t change it unless citizens make them change it.
Honestly I’m kind of losing hope that it’s even possible at this point.
Positive change in the American system usually comes from the bottom up. If you’re interested in fixing the system, the first step is to switch your local elections to Approval Voting, probably through a referendum. There’s a whole bunch of reasons, and lots of second and third steps, but that’s the first one.
Whenever people come up with these solutions I’m reminded that it took Jon Stewart over a decade to get money for 9/11 first responders.
If it takes that long to do something so universally desired, it’s going to take a thousand years to change our voting system.
But it’s nice to dream.
If it takes that long to do something so universally desired, it’s going to take a thousand years to change our voting system.
Things never seem to change, until they do. And then you’re amazed they were ever the old way at all. As someone who remembers walking through an airport pre-9/11, in a state that put Ann Richards in the governor’s office, its funny to think about what was “normal” 30 years ago. Hell, its funny to think about what was normal 20 years ago, under Bush. Or 10 years ago, under Obama.
I’m old enough to remember when a black President was telling the country he could settle race tensions between a Harvard Professor and a city cop by having a beer with them.
Flying planes into buildings probably won’t help change our voting system.
Historically speaking, I have to disagree. One of the most transformative moments of our history since Pearl Harbor. It gave birth to wave after wave of right-wing election wins and a subsequent hard-right shift in voting rights, election policy, and court composition.
Right: It would make things even worse.
Maybe I’m just cynical. I still vote every chance I get, even for local stuff. I’m a big supporter of approval voting, but I’m not hopeful that it’ll become the norm in the US.
I mean, you can’t just hope it’ll happen, you have to decide to be the person that switches your local elections. I would have done mine already but I’m too disabled to do work, so this is one of the ways that I try to help instead.
I’m still mad that the ballot initiative to move away from FPTP failed in Massachusetts 😢
It is impossible. Most people don’t see a problem with this. Especially the trolls who have more power than they should.
The only time things have even marginally changed in the US there’s been violence. Civil rights, suffrage, the labor movement, ending slavery: All of them required thugs cracking skulls before they could happen.
So unless we have about 10% of the population willing to put themselves in harm’s way we’re stuck like this.
They won’t change it unless citizens make them change it.
They’ll send a fucking SWAT team to the house of any citizen tries to change it.
Honestly I’m kind of losing hope that it’s even possible at this point.
At some point, “we just need to vote for the most right-wing Democrat and then blame the leftists any time we lose” is not a productive long term strategy.
Do you really believe that nothing has changed over the decades? That seems like a very privileged stance.
Well yeah, plenty has changed. I’m talking about fixing our voting system. That would give lasting change, where we don’t have to worry so much about losing all that progress that people before us fought so hard for.
In regards to America’s voting system, nothing has changed for nearly a century. We’re just now starting to see support for ranked choice, but it will take a few decades of people pushing it constantly for it to go anywhere, and all of that time will have to be under a Democrat.
You need to study the two parties closely, from honest and reliable news resources. The parties are worlds apart. You will find corruption in any system unfortunately.
No you really don’t. It’s pretty fucking obvious that Republicans are awful. They’ll come right out and say it.
The problem is that Democrats also get me further from my political goals, and will continue all of the bullshit that I hate because they either don’t see a problem with it or they’re hamstrung by the structure of government.
There isn’t an option to vote for better. Only less worse.
Better almost always routes through less worse.
Well Better should hurry the fuck up because it’s been getting more or less worse my entire life.
Voting is for harm reduction, action is for positive change. You need both.
That’s exactly my philosophy: You don’t vote for better. You vote for less worse.
If you want better you gotta work for it. And probably get your skull cracked in.
Except, as far as I can tell, the system is designed such that citizens can’t make them change it-- what are you going to do, vote for nobody and force the government to fix it’s shit before electing a new president? I mean, you could revolt but I think we all know how quickly the government would act to squash any meaningful attempt to. And if Project 2025 is allowed to play out, then military can be dispatched to handle simple protests instead of the police, so good luck pressuring the government to do anything at that point.
They already put snipers on rooftops at every University for the Palestine protests. Supposedly this was for public safety as there was intel that things would turn violent, but who really knows the truthfulness of such intel or where the order came down from? When the military becomes your police, this act would pale in comparison.
Remember this when you go to the polls, or when you are considering not to.
Need to stop looking at the big picture first. There’s more than just the presidential or senatorial or even Congressional elections. There are local elections that have a much bigger impact on how your life goes than you realize. Do you know who your mayor is? Do you know who your state senator or alderman is? Most people know who their governor is but do you know who your lieutenant Governor is? Who is your state’s attorney general? Generally speaking the Secretary of State administers your electoral process in your state, do you know who your secretary of state is? Did you vote for your secretary of state? Did you bother to find out who was running against them in the primary election?
These are the questions most people don’t ask don’t even think to ask, and these are the questions that have the largest impact on how our country is actually run. In the long run the presidential election doesn’t matter as much as these because these are what determine how the president ends up actually getting elected. I almost lament the 17th amendment changing the way senators are chosen. Because when senators were chosen by the legislatures in the state people had to pay more attention to what their state legislature looked like.
The military, among both officers and enlisted, is actually pretty split politically, and a good number can and will refuse to obey an order they perceive to be unconstitutional, or outright commit mutiny. For all that the military warns about insider threats, it is also woefully unprepared to deal with them as well. Military servicemembers are also significantly stricter with the use of deadly force than police from my experience, although that may simply be due to my having served in the SSBN force.
Sort of. On one side, they already benefit when the system is more fair, while the other side does everything in their power to rig the system in their favor, trying to lock their opponents out of ever having a chance.
Look at what Texas is trying to do. They’re trying to lock statewide office behind the barrier of number of counties voting for them instead of population. That way Democrats will never again have a statewide office as all the tiny counties with almost no population are Republican-leaning.
So while one side is happy with the status quo, the other side is fighting tooth and nail to make the rules less fair.
Sure. I agree it won’t change unless citizens push for a change. But choosing to not participate is not pushing for a change. That’s just capitulation. Choosing to not vote is not a signal of protest. It’s a signal of someone who doesn’t care what the outcome is.
Voting is the first and most basic step in pushing for change. Doing more is good, but you definitely can’t skip that step.
We live in a society…. yaaawn…… zzzz
there are a few l33t moves like voting in primaries and local elections and judicial. It does not make it great but every little bit counts. Its sucks. Your not voting on if you are sodomized or not but if there is going to be lube or not. Not voting means no lube.
I’ve been voting consistently in every election since I turned 18 in the year 2000.
There isn’t any lube if you lose. And you lose constantly. Depending where you are you lose literally every time. I never voted for Scott Perry but that asshole is still my rep.
And even if you win some court somewhere, or a couple hundred idiots in another state, or lobbyists can decide you don’t get lube.
Don’t expect lube.
It reminds me a lot (the voting situation) with articles on how people don’t like obamacare. Yeah people are not wild about it but they really don’t like the situation before it. Its half a loaf and I don’t want to go back to no loaf but yes indeed I would like a universal health care full loaf.
You vote against the guy you don’t like.
What if I don’t like any of them?
There will be a constant stream of people voting to do something stupid and destructive, so you spend all of your time voting against them.
I would simply not participate in a system that sounds this miserable and tedious. I would play a game that’s more productive and enjoyable.
Oh, and their votes count for more, so they can win even if there’s fewer of them.
But it doesn’t matter, because casting a vote for Ralph Nader from my bright red state of Texas is still the reason Al Gore lost Florida in a 5-4 SCOTUS decision.
i think it’s the opposite. in FPTP system the largest minority (of voters) wins. if you vote against one candidate, it will (probably) create/be another minority. to make sure the candidate loses, the largest minority have to agree for another candidate, just voting any other candidate won’t do. related cgp grey’s video - https://yewtu.be/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo.
edited to clarify. lets assume the election results as:
- candidate A - 20%
- candidate B - 35%
- candidate C - 15%
- candidate D - 25%
- candidate E - 05%
candidate B won with only 35% voting for it while 65% voted against candidate B. clealy the majority of people voted against candidate B, but that doesn’t matter as in FPTP, not majority but largest minority (35% that voted for candidate B) wins.
thus, i think you vote for not against in FPTP voting system.
That’s an early-stage FPTP system. After a bunch of people with minority support start winning you end up with two options, and you vote against the one you hate least because there’s not really a choice anymore.
Doesn’t against and for mean the same thing with only two choices?!
If I’m given the choice between chocolate and vanilla, choosing vanilla doesn’t make it my favorite. It’s just the least bad option because caramel isn’t available. I’m not for vanilla, I’m against chocolate.
isn’t that effectively wordplay? say, i like chocolate but vanilla more. then i choose vanilla but i’m not against chocolate. it doesn’t matter when two given choices.
but that’s doesn’t account for non-late-stage FPTP. given more than two choices i’d have to vote for a candidate. voting against other candidate may not work because largest minority wins.
you can’t prove this.
With no offense intended, I feel this could be worded a little better. It could also just be my tired brain, though.
If you want a great democracy you must devote time and money to develop good candidate from the ground up, and who besides the rich oligarchs who can hire surrogates has the time or money?
Technically we get to press the button twice because there’s primaries (and, to a lesser degree, caucuses), but people need to be engaged in the process a lot earlier than the September/October/November period in which most people actually are paying attention.
Wrong. You vote for the person you want your states delegates to go to.
To win a person has to get to 270Logically this means you really only have 2 choices if you want to pick a winner. In a dichotomy you’re voting for someone just as much as against someone, really.
“Well, that’s not a very enticing platform! Who is your opponent?”
“Donald Trump.”
“You have my vote.”
Pretty fucking relevant in this thread it seems.
You know the US does this too, right?
But unironically also vote for Biden. I wish there was more acknowledgement that there has to be some way to pressure a candidate to earn votes, being much less bad isn’t going to get the 50k low info swing voters that decide the election
You know the US does this too, right?
I’m not disagreeing.
Yes, but when we do it it’s for the greater good. Not the same.
Impossible to determine if sarcasm or troll without tag
glad they posted it twice so we can all play both sides, upvote one in case it’s sarcasm, downvote the other in case of troll.
Sarcasm actually
Also apologies for posting it twice, it wasn’t that funny
deleted by creator
“Everyone who disagrees with me is a secret agent”
No, not everyone that disagrees with me is a secret agent. A good chunk of them are. The rest are the idiots that believe and agree with them.
I’m still waiting for a good argument about how no voting or voting 3rd party gets better outcomes.
Maybe I’m the idiot for thinking there might be a good argument for it. Who knows?
The rest are the idiots that believe and agree with them.
Like any good conspiracy, it accounts for any possible contrary evidence one might encounter. If you find someone you disagree with irl, or someone online who doesn’t seems like a secret agent, then it’s simple - they’re just people who have been manipulated by secret agents! The secret agents are still surrounding you and influencing every aspect of your life, regardless of silly things like “evidence” or “falsifiability.” It’s completely indistinguishable from a schizophrenic convinced they’re surrounded by lizard people.
I’m still waiting for a good argument about how no voting or voting 3rd party gets better outcomes.
It’s pretty simple. In a negotiation, having a credible threat of not cooperating gives you more bargaining power than if you show up like, “I will accept any deal you give me, I need this!” Voting is a negotiation. If politicians know that you’ll vote for them no matter what you do, then they have no reason to listen to your concerns, whereas if you say, “I’ll only vote for you if you do this, otherwise I’ll vote third party” then they have an incentive to do the thing in order to earn your vote.
This means you know that your actions will have a greater chance of getting Trump elected, which means you value [whatever policy change you’re looking for] more than [the difference between Biden and Trump]
That’s correct. When the policy change in question is “stopping genocide,” I consider that a completely valid position, tyvm.
Even if it means the break down of democracy in your own country so you will never be able to use voting as negotiation in the future?
-
The US doesn’t have a democracy and never has.
-
Trump was already president once and we didn’t have “a complete breakdown of democracy.”
-
You aren’t actually stopping it though, you’re continuing it and making things worse for everyone else
I’m not doing any of that. The people who are doing it are.
“I’ll only vote for you if you do this, otherwise I’ll vote third party” then they have an incentive to do the thing in order to earn your vote.
Don’t they only have an incentive to do the thing if the third party you vote for instead has a chance to beat them? Which will never be the case unless we see voting reform.
No. If a third party gets, say 5%, it tells the candidate that they could potentially pick up that 5% by moving closer to that party’s positions.
Voting reform is great. It also goes directly against the self-interest of both major parties so they will only ever support it if they believe they have to in order to win.
That seems like an over-simplified or even naive example. Like, a candidate moving their platform has just as much chance to lose 5% of their base as it does picking up those third party votes.
Also, realistically, there isn’t one singular thing that people vote third party for - there’s lots of little “one things” that particular individuals vote third party over, so it’s a more difficult matter than simply “moving closer to those party’s positions” - it’s going out and figuring out what exact positions those votes left you for and trying to incorporate them piecemeal into your platform, all in a way that maintains your current base, or at least gains you more votes than you lose…
IDK man, I don’t see the draw there. Surely it’s much easier to find that 5% in centrists or undecided voters, rather than the very principled people that decide to vote third party.
Ok then, if they believe they can win without me and people like me, then they can go right ahead. But I’d better not hear anyone blame the left when the democrats move right and lose.
Getting 5% is also important because it qualifies the party to get millions of dollars in federal grant money.
Voting is a negotiation? Since when? Voting is a privilege that the ruling class can take away from us at any time if they think they can get away with it. Something kind of like what Trump did after the last election. I remember Jan 6th.
It’s always been a choice between a shit cupcake and a poop cookie. The best thing you can do is minimize damages so you can keep trying to organize for 4 more years or at the very least, stay out of the camps.
Also, if you don’t vote or vote 3rd party, they don’t have to think or care about you anymore. Your not a vote they need to get, because your throwing your vote away. Its basic first past the post voting strategy. I don’t like first past the post for this reason.
If you are bot, “foreign spy”, or whatever, your post was good at muddying the water, keep it up, your master will be pleased. If your not, this argument was bad and unconvincing try again. Not even conservative voters are dumb enough to vote 3rd party.
Also, if you don’t vote or vote 3rd party, they don’t have to think or care about you anymore. Your not a vote they need to get, because your throwing your vote away.
And if you always vote for them no matter what they do, then they don’t have to think or care about you anymore, because they know you’ll vote for them regardless.
If you are bot, “foreign spy”, or whatever, your post was good at muddying the water, keep it up, your master will be pleased.
Oh thank you, I actually am a foreign spy. Do you think you could rate me 5 stars? I really need this job.
Ugh it’s really tiresome to keep coming up with bits to make fun of this conspiracy theory. Can’t y’all get into like flat earth stuff instead, so I can have some new material to work with? It’s all the same crap.
And if you always vote for them no matter what they do, then they don’t have to think or care about you anymore, because they know you’ll vote for them regardless.
You got it! That is the shit system in the US.
Oh thank you, I actually am a foreign spy. Do you think you could rate me 5 stars? I really need this job.
Lol, good sense of humor.
I sympathize, it gets depressing. That is why, I don’t blame anyone from no voting or 3rd party voting. I just wish people would do that without justifying it. Not make it out to be this big brained strategy. There are a lot of good meaning ignorant people who will read that stuff and think they are materially improving things by no voting or 3rd party voting. The progressive fight is super hard and a pain in the butt. If you need a rest King/Queen, take it.
The only real way to get change to happen is getting enough people educated and organized to turn the democrat or republican candidate into a 3rd party candidate by numbers, that is the only way they suffer. Until then we have to play their stupid game.
The only real way to get change to happen is getting enough people educated and organized to turn the democrat or republican candidate into a 3rd party candidate by numbers, that is the only way they suffer.
And how exactly do you envision that happening without anyone ever making the case for it or trying to justify that position?
I want to see who upvoted this comment so I can block them.
Yeah, while it’s possible to explain away contrary perspectives and any contrary evidence, it’s better to block them out altogether so that you never hear anything that could challenge your conspiracy theory in the first place.
It’s not a “conspiracy theory” when there’s an actual well-documented conspiracy.
It’s well documented that everyone who disagrees with you is a secret agent?
No one said that. More bad faith here with the straw man logical fallacy. This guy checks all the bad faith boxes.
Block, but not because this person disagrees, rather they can’t debate in good faith and are just trolling.
You can do it through the instance API.
Admins at lemmy.ml used vote tracking against me to retaliate by deciding what communities to ban me from after I spoke out against disinformation. They felt that censorship wasn’t enough, they felt the need to be malicious in order to make a point. Sucks to be them though, they forgot the part about keeping your cards close to the chest.
You actually can see that, somehow.
I don’t even get it honestly.
“I’m unable to grasp nuance” There’s one of you in every thread.
This is the definition of bad faith, kids.
I think it’s interesting folks take this as talking about Biden.
Biden has a platform, Biden and the Democrats have accomplishments … what does Trump and the last decade of Republican congressional dominance have?
“DEMOCRATS ARE DESTROYING THIS COUNTRY!!” “HEALTHCARE IS A MESS!! I’VE GOT A BRILLIANT PLAN I DIDN’T PASS OR EVEN PROPOSE IN CONGRESS LAST TIME. WE’RE GOING TO GET IT DONE THIS TIME. IT WILL BE SO MUCH BETTER THAN WHAT THE DEMOCRATS CAME UP WITH. NO I’M NOT SHARING IT NOW, YOU MUST BE SURPRISED.” “I MADE MY RICH FRIENDS MONEY!!”
They have Project 2025 and it’s horrifying.
When the opponent is Trump, isn’t that exactly the right thing to do?
FYI: Most of those braindead “am I not allowed to criticize Biden???” comments and posts on social media are a concerted effort by right-wingers from /pol and other such sewers, trying to get people to not vote against Trump. Don’t fall for it. These aren’t “lefties” or “tankies”. Just downvote, report, and ignore.
If his platform is “not demolishing democracy” then take my vote
You’ve got yourself a deal. Whether or not we have democracy will not change whatsoever during his term.
deleted by creator
Might want to edit your comment to mention Trump by name, because “he” was Biden in the last two comments.
I thought he was saying Deal… as in deal with it. But it was Deal… as in ok I’m in.
Edit: From the downvotes I’m thinking a lot made the same mistake?
Edited for clarity
No, both sides are not the same.
Well, when you make your name into a brand, then mark your followers with the same, and your brand is a plague on the world… yeah, that kinda is enough. I’d vote for an off-cut of shit-smeared shag carpet if it meant I could rest easy knowing that the next wave of vomit being spewed on Twitter wasn’t directed at some of the most vulnerable and under represented peoples on the planet. And if you are wondering if I’m purposefully being ambiguous about to whom I refer, let me sate your curiosity and call former President Trump the cunt he is. Trump is a cunt.
This year, that is exactly enough for me to vote for “not his opponent.”
I’m hearing this a lot lately too. Not from the Biden campaign, mind you. Just as a straw man in memes and comments in spaces like this.
All this effort into trying to convince us not to vote, or throw our vote away. Dozens of threads, and hundreds of posts every day. And this is just on Lemmy… Lemmy has less total users than some subs on that shitty site we all used to use.
If nothing else tells you how much your vote matters this vote, then that insane effort should make it clear.If my shitposts on a barely-used social network can swing an election then we’re in even worse shape than I thought.
One of our 2 choices for president has committed treason multiple times, been impeached twice, claims he wants to be a dictator, and has been found guilty of 34 cases of fraud related to an election cover up, and he is still going to be nominated as the candidate for the party that styles itself as the “law and order” party.
I’m not really sure what kind of shape you think we are in.
I bet you’re the kind of person who actually believes Biden has a “ReD LiNe”
And I bet you’re the kind of person who thinks “bOtH sIdEs ArE tHe SaMe”
No he’s right. The campaign itself sells fear of Trump but stops short of calling us Trump supporters. Nancy Pelosi on the other hand accused us all of being Russian bots.
No, but it’s telling that you’re so small-minded that you figure this is a good assumption.
In a system where all the non-winning votes are lost in a step and not counted at the end, like the USA form of weak democracy, this becomes a valid tactic.
It’s not only the presidential vote that’s like this, but ALL fucking votes. It’s astonishing how weak the US system is.
And still some see the US constitution as this pinnacle of democracy when it’s vastly outdated by now
Even the founding fathers anticipated a lot of reforms and for the whole thing to become obsolete quite soon but yet here we are with people worshipping them as this infallible being and weighting their words on a scale as if it’s impossible for them to be wrong
Eh, the founders more or less ensured that a wealthy land-owning aristocracy would be able to overrule the will of the people if need be. That’s more or less what the SCOTUS is there for, to ensure things don’t get too democratic.
The US was an early modern democracy, but has never been a particularly good one.
Even the founding fathers anticipated a lot of reforms and for the whole thing to become obsolete quite soon
…which is why they built a mechanism into it to make alterations. But the people upset about things like the electoral college don’t have the support necessary to use that mechanism.
The problem is that even a Constitutional Convention gives more power to land than people. If one actually happened it would probably end with amendments forbidding divorce, abortion, and interracial marriage.
The problem is that even a Constitutional Convention gives more power to land than people.
Specifically in the case of a Constitutional Convention 2/3 of states have to agree to have one and 3/4 of states have to agree to any changes.
You’d have an easier time convincing the federal government to condense a few states - we don’t really need TWO Dakotas, and Montoming seems like a good idea. Maybe also split California into a few pieces. The whole “land over people” thing is only really a problem because a couple of states blow the curve - House apportionment is done in a fashion that mathematically minimizes the average difference in people/representative between states while having a fixed number of representatives, but California blows the curve by being so utterly massive compared to any other state and there just not being enough representatives to go around. So all but a few states are pretty close in terms of people/representative, a couple are sitting at the 1 representative minimum while being tiny, and California blows the curve on the other side.
Either increase the House size, merge some of the smallest states, split California up or all of the above - and all of those can be done without passing an amendment.
Of course, then Texas will invoke the clause in the Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas to the United States and split itself into five states, each of which gets its own Senators and whatever number of Representatives the math would work out to.
It’s a shame they made it so hard to modify. Both the 2/3 of both houses or 3/4 of states routes are quite unfeasable when there are only two quite polarised parties… :-/
The whole 2 parties thing isn’t even in the constitution tho, is it? I’m not American so I might not be as familiar with the details
The voting system makes it so the system will always tend toward two parties. Parties aren’t in the constitution at all. That’s where you get occasional independent candidates
No, parties and primaries (which are just parties borrowing election infrastructure to choose who they support) aren’t in the Constitution at all. But first past the post voting always trends towards two party systems as a stable equilibrium.
It’s not. We’ve had third parties before, and we do still occasionally have independents take seats in congress(we have 3 currently)
They’ll never be even close to majority though, and they will never take the presidency.
I mean… I usually agree with the sentiment the comic is trying to convey, but OTOH the “My Opponent” in this case is Trump.
So to be honest the #1 reason I’m voting Biden by far is that he’s not Trump. But if you want another reason, how about that he finally stuck it to TurboTax and created a free federal tax filing system?
if YOu’RE Not VOtInG FoR Not MY OppoNENt TheN YOu’rE VoTIng FOr oPPonENt!!!
Yeah, the “You’re with us or you’re with the terrorists” rhetoric has been pretty strong.
It seems both sides know that their brain-dead, geriatric candidates are pretty shit.
No matter how much you think both candidates are shit, you must be able to realize that one is far and beyond worse than the other.
If you chose to eat shit now, you’ll keep on getting served only shit.
This vote is not just a vote on the next president, it’s also a vote for what kind of candidate the DNC will chose for future Presidential Elections.
This is very much a scenario from Game Theory were there are two sides, one side which decides how to approportion something between both (in this case, the DNC choses how much the Democrat candidate represents lefties) whilst the other side can only “accept” or “reject” (i.e. lefties voting of not for a Democrat candidate, leading to a Democrat victory or defeat) and if the second side rejects nobody gets anything (i.e. a Republican President gets elected and the DNC don’t get a guy who mainly represents their interests and the lefties don’t get a guy who represents their interests a tiny bit).
What Game Theory shows us in this kind of scenario is that if it’s a multiple round scenario (in this case, each round is an election, with each time the DNC de facto chosing upfront how much the Democrat candidate represents lefties and lefties chosing to vote or not for him, which often decides the election) if the second side keeps “accepting” no matter how little they get, then the first side will never improve their proposal, and sometimes it will even be worse.
This is actually what you see happen in American politics: only when the lefties refuse to vote Democrat does the DNC, in the subsequent election, chose a slightly more leftie candidate.
The whole idea that lefties should always vote for “better a tiny bit representativeness now than none at all now” and completelly ignore the implications of that for future rounds is an incredibly short-sighted (or maybe self-serving, depending on the real interest of those pushing that idea) ultra-simplification.
Note that this doesn’t mean lefties must “reject” now, it means that they should be considering not just the current round but also subsequent rounds for their accept-vs-reject decision since a “reject” now does mean getting nothing this round (instead of a tiny bit which some will see as too little but others will not) in order to induce the other side to improve their proposals in subsequent rounds, which is a risk.
Let me restate your point to make sure I understand it, as I haven’t seen your point expressed elsewhere.
Scenario 1:
- Democratic candidate for president is Biden.
- Progressives want a more progressive candidate for the next election, so they refuse to vote for Biden.
- As a result, Trump wins the election.
- In the 2028 DNC primaries, the democratic candidate for president is more progressive than Biden was.
- Progressives vote for the dem candidate, who wins.
- The democratic party is permanently shifted leftwards.
In this scenario, having a more progressive president in 2028 (and beyond) outweighs the damage caused by a Trump presidency.
Scenario 2:
- Democratic candidate for president is Biden.
- Progressives decide to vote for Biden, despite their distaste.
- As a result, Biden wins reelection.
- In the 2028 DNC primaries, the democratic candidate for president is similar to Biden.
- The democratic party stays centrist, to the distaste of progressives.
In this scenario, avoiding a Trump presidency is worth giving up the opportunity to move the democratic party permanently more leftwards.
Do I have this right? If not, please, I’m truly curious, as I find your game theory points compelling.
Assuming I do have your position correct, I think you’re making a couple of inaccurate assumptions:
- While the DNC clearly tips the scales in favor of its preferred candidate, the DNC is not the sole decision maker. (For example, in the 2008 primaries, the voters chose Obama despite the clear preference of the DNC for Clinton.)
- A Trump presidency would be singularly bad for the nation, both in the short term (e.g., immediate repeal of executive actions on gun control, clean energy, and LGBTQ+ rights; increased support of Israel’s genocide in Gaza) and long term (e.g., more MAGA judges and justices, further emboldening the GOP to be more MAGA). It’s also possible that a Trump presidency effectively ends proper democracy in the US, meaning any potential gains of a future progressive president would be irrelevant.
I agree that the more we push the party leftward, the better for all. But I believe the time to do this is in presidential primaries, state/county/local elections, local and national organizing, and even personal outreach to individuals (admittedly, this last one is very small scale, but it’s also the only way to truly change people’s minds and positions).
Yeah those are basically the Scenarios with two big corrections in scenario #2:
- The next will probably be worse than Biden since the DNC, upon seeing that lefties will even vote for a candidate that supports a quasi-Nazi regime activelly commiting a Genocide will likely conclude that they will not rebel not matter what, so expect an even further shift to the right of the Democrat party.
- The Democratic Party is not centrist, not even close: it’s pro-Oligarchy, which is an anti-Democratic hard-right position (anti-Democratic because it places Money above The State, which is the Power that voters supposedly control hence gives primacy to Money and those who have most of it, hard-right because defending that those who have most Money get the most Power and choices is in direct opposition to Equality, even just that of Opportunities).
As for the DNC not being able to stop a left of center candidate, just look at what they did against Sanders, even before counting the super-candidates which were going to vote against him anyway and override the popular vote. The idea that Obama is in any way, form or shape left of Obama is hilarious for anybody who, like me, was in Finance at the time of the 2008 Crash and had a front row seat to see how exactly Obama unconditionally saved the wealthiest people and made everybody else pay the price - just because the guy is a true political songbird who makes amazing speeches doesn’t mean “the greatest good for the greatest number” - the core principle of the Left - is even in the tinyiest of ways part of his principles. The Clinton-vs-Obama primary was a fight between two kinds of neoliberals that put in opposition two factions within the American Elites, not a fight between somebody representing the average American and somebody representing the Elites.
We don’t know really how bad a Trump presidency will be, though we know for sure just how far to the right are Biden’s principles, but yeah, you are right that a Trump presidency might (it’s all speculation until it actually happens) be incredibly destructive, which is why I pointed out in my comment (last paragraph) that it’s definitelly a risk and people should consider all things in their voting decision.
Personally I think either of them will lead to the death for good of Democracy in America, though doing it via Biden will probably mean it will happen with more steps, but that’s just my opinion based on the trend so far (and, that I expect that a guy who supports what are basically the modern Nazis whilst they mass murder civilians because of being from another etnicity is either a sociopath or an extreme racist and that means he will just as happilly fuck up the lives of Americans - though, no doubt, unlike Trump he will be telling them that’s not what he’s doing - just as as he is right now happilly helping out murdering en mass Palestinians: good people don’t knowingly help others commit mass murder).
I might be wrong on all of this and even if I’m not, not being American or living in America I’m way more isolated and have no real stake on that choice, so I openly admit that I have the priviledge of being able to hold a Thinking Person’s highly intellectual position on this because either way it impacts me very little personally, so I can just analyse the whole situation and point out the broader implications of the voting decision for a leftie and the profound hypocrisy of the Propaganda which tries to deceive people with the idea that it’s a simple consequences free choice, with no real additional risk either way for my own future.
Part of the issue is the balance between the stakes of the current election vs the value of the potential change for future elections. It’s possible for someone to be willing to stay home or choose a different candidate as a protest vote during one election, and then view those same strategies as monstrously irresponsible in a different election.
And to add another layer of complexity, keep in mind that both parties are fluid and can change radically over time as factions within them rise and fall.
For example, in some alternate timeline where Clinton got the nomination in 2008, a protest vote against Clinton would have risked a McCain presidency, which would have likely been the most moderate Republican president in modern history. This would have been short term loss for Democrats but likely would have been a long term win for progressives. The Democrats would likely have shifted to the left as they sought more candidates that appeal to their base, and the Republicans would have had their more moderate wing exerting greater influence and filling their leadership positions.
The situation we have today involves very high stakes, in that Trump and pals are threatening serious damage to the basic principles of democracy and rule of law, in addition to all of their horrifying policies. And the message that the Republican party will get from the next election is especially critical. Trump won in 2016, but they performed poorly in 2018, 2020, and 2022. Their shift to the right and the purging of anyone not 100% loyal to Trump has lead to a significant brain drain and a shrinking of the party.
A Trump victory would help the worst people keep a stranglehold on the party, while another defeat would send the message that their current path is a dead end. There’s a sizable portion of the Republican party that isn’t particularly happy with the MAGA crowd, but who are willing to go along with them if it means winning, and others who are just trying to keep their heads down because dissent is punished harshly. The power struggle that would occur after another Trump loss would very likely push the party to move back towards something resembling sanity and competence.
Hell, just being rid of the 800 pound orangutan in the room would make it easier for both sides to work together on the things that shouldn’t be partisan. We didn’t have a problem getting Ukraine aid passed until Trump started exerting pressure, which only got worse when he vetoed a speaker candidate that supported Ukraine aid in favor of the current one who is more than willing to open his ass cheeks for Trump’s puppeteering hand.
Yes, that’s why it’s a hard choice rather than a simple choice: there is a significant and genuine “now might be the worst time to do this” factor at play, though if you notice there is a “might” in there because that’s still all in the realm of possibility and there are chains of consequence that might mean that the Trump-vs-Biden now will look like the “good old days” in the next election since it it’s a valid scenario that after the lefties vote for a quasi-Nazis-supporter, the next candidate pushed by the DNC will be even worse and the candidate put forward by the Republicans after a Trump defeat is a competent version of Donald Trump - a full-on highly intelligent sociopath that uses the same tools as Trump rather than an incompetent Narcissist which at times is his own worst enemy - an even worse choice than Biden-vs-Trump.
Also the frequent repetition over the years by the Democrats of that same “now is not the time” argument, almost always followed by next time being even worse, makes people suspicious of all the assumptions put forward to support that argument by thos people, and that they’re complete total bollocks just like the last 4 or 5 times those same people made that same argument.
Further, there are multiple paths to “Stop Trump” and the one where Biden shifts leftwards (especially by stopping unwavering support for quasi-Nazis mass murdering children) seems like a far simpler way to achieve that objective than expecting million of people to swallow their “though shall not kill chidren or support those who do it” principles to vote for a guy who keeps on supporting the mass murder of children.
This is not perfectly that Game Theory scenario: the approportioning of representativeness can be changed by the candidate himself after the candidate selection is done, so Fear of losing the election might be enough to achieve some leftwards shift and still guarante that both the DNC and lefties end up winners. In fact, IMHO, that would be the outcome that maximizes the upside for both as a group and possibly the idea scenario give the few real choices than can still be made: the DNC gets his man elected even if he acts a little bit more leftie and the lefties get a little bit more representation.
Everybody going “You have to vote Biden to stop Trump” is making that ideal scenario less likely because they’re decreasing Biden’s (and the DNC’s, who can pressure Biden) Fear of defeat, whilst it’s the people saying “I won’t vote Biden until he starts supporting the unnacceptable” that are making the ideal scenario more likelly.
This comment should be voted way higher
Them: it’s really tiring how everyone keeps pulling that "if you’re not with us, you’re against us stuff.
You: yeah well those other guys are even worse about it
No, because that’s fucking stupid to say.
Bunch of smug dipshits in this thread
No you’re supposed to be easy to make fun of so we can feel good about ourselves
I don’t understand the irony here
Person is pointing out how annoying something is, then someone replies doing the exact same thing.
Pretty simple concept
But they’re different things
Huh
Except that doesn’t seem to bear out in the polling numbers or past elections. For some reason, party leaders only seem to want to back candidates that completely struggle against a guy who’s been known as a conman and the butt of jokes since the 1980s.
In what way, exactly?
If you’re a wage earner, your life is the same no matter who we elect. In 2/3 of the US it’s still legal to pay someone $7 for an hour of work, and that will barely purchase a cup of coffee. No matter where you live in the US, health care and education are cost-prohibitive, and your rent and groceries have doubled or tripled within the last few years.
The problem with this election is that yes, while Trump is a fascist, it’s not going to matter because too many are in extreme poverty while Biden’s holding the reins. It really sucks that Democratic voters didn’t have the moral conviction to vote for Williamson instead.
What about if you live in Florida or Texas where bring openly transgender counts as a sex offense and sex offenders get the death penalty?
Those are actual Republican proposals with a good chance of passing.
Sure, life might be the same for you. But you’re not just voting for your president, are you?
Worrying about normal economic issues almost seems quaint and old fashioned compared with the batshit insane crap that Trump has dragged into our political discourse.
Ah the brilliant “technically what you’re saying isn’t literally accurate, nevermind that the point is valid” argument
