If you claim the campaign is saying something, but openly admit the campaign is not reaching you, then you are doing exactly what I said: not looking for yourself and just parroting what you were told the are saying.
This isn't difficult. The Biden campaign is not saying what the OP is claiming they "see a lot of," he has provided plenty of platform and has seemingly gone out of his way to me minimize mentioning trump (although I expect that the change). The claim that it's happening a lot is just mindlessly parroting a talking points being fed to them.
Does my comment have to fall in line with your point to be useful? I wasn't aware I was in the presence of the sole person reaponsible for determining the course of the discussion, it's an honor to meet you.
It doesn't have to fall in line to be useful. But I suggest that if you are jumping in to challenge a point you make it clear that your point has nothing to do with the point being made. Most people are going to respond to things considering the context.
Yes-- campaigns that involve influencing people's opinions with covert guerrilla campaigns across social media with no accountability. Among the other shady tactics in their playbooks.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 would play a game that’s more productive and enjoyable.
That's not possible. We voted on what game we're playing and we glued the cartridge into the console. Much to my disappointment we don't get to change the game, or not play, or even ignore it.
It's a stupid world and we all live in it.
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.
Exactly: The system is built to let them win as much as possible. You're not going to ever beat it. It's like Getting Over It with Bennett Foddy except even more frustrating and without the pleasant voiceovers.
That's very possible. It's just not what Americans are used to doing.
We voted on what game we’re playing
That's a naive perspective, as it misses the historical, financial, and sociological roots of the game. You can't play a game of basketball if the other team picks up the ball and walks off the court.
This is Lockean Theory 101, and its the entire basis of democracy. We use democratic tools to divine popular intent. But when the democracy is subverted and political leadership is divorced from public sentiment, the institutions fail. But if institutions aren't failing because people are too afraid to withdraw their support from them, the system is implicitly endorsed and corrupt officials get to continue abusing their social mandates.
It’s a stupid world and we all live in it.
Its only as stupid as we make it. Atm, we've got a country that's invested an enormous amount of time, energy, and labor hours in infesting our senior population with brain worms. That needs to change and simply voting isn't going to be the thing that does it.
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.
Stop focusing so much on the president. There are other positions in the party, ones who influence how our elections are handled, who are actually more important in the long run.
My point is that nothing's perfect. You often have to settle for what's real.
Why can't the DNC run a better candidate?
Sure vote for the 81 year old husk but why defend him? If trump wins its his fault for running such a miserable option for the "not trump" side
If trump is really so bad that we cannot let him get elected, why not just run an easy win with a competent nobody candidate with Brandon's moderate nothing platform
What other candidate has won a presidency already?
And why can't the GOP run a better candidate? One who's younger and isn't a convicted felon?
Sure vote for the 81 year old husk but why defend him?
There's a difference between defending him and disputing you. If he was anyone else and you were still saying the same argument, I'd still be disputing your point.
If trump wins its his fault for running such a miserable option for the "not trump" side
No, this is equivalent to victim blaming. If Trump wins, it's because of Trump and the people who voted for him.
If trump is really so bad that we cannot let him get elected, why not just run an easy win with a competent nobody candidate with Brandon's moderate nothing platform
And this is the part that lets me know you're acting in bad faith. I wouldn't expect another reply from me if I were you. Have fun under that bridge.
Wrong. You vote for the person you want your states delegates to go to.
To win a person has to get to 270
Logically 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.
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!!"
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
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.
"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.
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 not really true. Pretty much every system needs some buy-in from the masses. Even a king can be swayed by the threat of a peasant uprising.
Also, saying it's not a democracy isn't the same as saying that votes have no affect on the outcome. The Holy Roman Emperor was elected, but that doesn't mean the empire was a democracy.
You're allowing it to happen by choosing it, which is close to the same thing. To follow Godwin's law, nobody cares that people who voted for Nazis did not physically commit atrocities, for example.
And don't think that not voting is a solution. One of the two options will be chosen. I'm aware that the democrats are wrong about Israel, but is it really worth also being wrong about Ukraine and our own country?
I have no power to stop it and am using what little power I have to try to exert pressure to stop it.
I'm not the one firing the guns. I'm not the one giving the guns to the people firing the guns. I'm not the one giving votes to the person giving guns to the people firing the guns.
You are not going to convince me to vote for someone supporting genocide by trying to shift the blame onto me. I know full well that I'm not responsible and that you're only saying that to try to get your preferred pro-genocide candidate elected.
you’re only saying that to try to get your preferred pro-genocide candidate elected
I mean, yeah, because despite him being pro-genocide I still believe he's somehow the best option we have by a surprisingly large margin. We'd have a slightly less enthusiastic genocide, one less invasion, and a much more stable nation.
I have no interest in supporting a "less bad" pro-genocide person. I would sooner die, and there is nothing that anyone can say that would cause me to change that position.
Unlike Biden, when I draw a red line, I actually mean it. If that means we go to hell together, so be it. Genocide is fundamentally unacceptable.
I have no interest in supporting a “less bad” pro-genocide person. I would sooner die, and there is nothing that anyone can say that would cause me to change that position.
Unlike Biden, when I draw a red line, I actually mean it. If that means we go to hell together, so be it. Genocide is fundamentally unacceptable.
I agree with this 100% and I would go farther. The genocide of Palestinians is a test by the ruling global western order to see how far they can push things before their citizens will revolt.
If we vote for Biden anyway despite this horrific genocide, because Trump!, we are sending a clear message to Biden and the rest of the world that liberal and centrist governments can keep moving forward in a direction of murdering citizens in cities on mass so long as they have a complimentary openly fascist rightwing opposition party to set the Overton window and lend them legitimacy as the only adult choice for voting against the fascists.
Gaza is a prototype make no mistake, we have to reject it existentially NOW. There is nothing to fight for if we don’t because the degree of violence coupled with the degree of willful blindness US media and politicians are engaging in points directly at mass scale violence that is about to come home from the colonies to the colonial powers and world order (there is a good chance if you live in the US that your cities police department trained with the IDF, if that doesn’t terrify you, you are a fool).
Look at the Herero genocide in Africa among other colonial genocides (Belgium should have been leveled to the ground for what it did in the Congo as well) and WW1 suddenly becomes quite clearly an inveitable slingshot of massive amounts of colonial violence turning inwards back towards Europe.
If Biden can successfully win without having to acquiesce to progressives and normal humans with empathy and stop the genocide of Palestinians… the resounding message it sends is that this is a new world paradigm where that is ok and it is open season for everything up to and including genocide being committed in broad daylight in the western world.
We aren’t necessarily on the precipice of WW3, but rather on the precipice of a period of increasing genocidal violence from state and pseudo-state actors (see the rightwing Gaza zionist colonialists for an example) applied to citizens, not only in manufactured events of mass murder but also in complete abandonment of the state’s duty to mitigate environmental crisis (example A being Hurricane Katrina and the US’s lack of giving a shit about the mass suffering in both Louisiana and the Caribbean).
At that point, the magnitudes of violence that are going to continue to unfold in rapid fire will make this question of Trump vs Biden pretty meaningless though Trump is of course an out in the open fascist wannabe dictator and is worse than Biden.
I will happily vote for Biden if he picks up the phone with Netanyahu and tells him it is over full stop. It isn’t even a long phone call if Biden isn’t too much of a coward to lay things out in crystal clear non-negotiable terms.
As it stands, Biden along with the rest centrist democrats are aiding and abetting conservative violent movements in the construction of an alternate reality where the genocide of 50,000 + innocent starving people can be written off with a simple phrase like “but what about the Hamas tunnels!”.
I too would rather die than live in that world and I don’t say that lightly, so yes this is where I put my chips on the table. Others can join us or not join us shrugs but this isn’t a time to live to fight another day, this is a time to escalate what was a minor tactical fight (from Biden’s perspective) into an existential one where Biden has to either give up his close ties with Israel or lose the election.
I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
^some internet commenter probably? not sure where the quote came from
Explain that to a diabetic child when Trump gets rid of the insulin price cap that enables their parents to afford it.
Explain that to a trans person who, if the republicans gets their way, will be considered a sexual predator and imprisoned(at best...) for simply existing in public.
Explain that to a woman forced to carry her rapists baby to term when, if Trump gets his way, abortion is federally criminalized. Scratch that, explain that to a child forced to die from their ectopic pregnancy.
Explain that to Ukraine when we stop supporting them against Russia... hell, explain that to Ukraine when we end up supporting Russia against Ukraine.
Explain that to EVERYONE when Trump's "I'll be a dictator, but only on day 1" comment becomes a reality and doesn't stop after day 1.
I could go on.
By all means, continue to delude yourself into believing you are making the just and moral decision. It won't stop anyone else from seeing that your morals are entirely performative.
Explain that to a trans person who, if the republicans gets their way, will be considered a sexual predator and imprisoned(at best…) for simply existing in public.
Don't have to do that one. I am a trans person and I have more skin in this than most of you do. I understand the risks very clearly, but the difference is I actually have a spine.
I'd rather explain why I'm not voting for Biden to any of them than explain to a Palestinian child who has only ever known war and hunger why I'm supporting the people sending the bombs.
My sense of solidarity will not allow me to sell out Palestinians for my own safety or the safety of my loved ones. An injury against one is an injury against all. And what you people say about Palestinians today is what you'll say about trans people tomorrow. If the Democrats decide to nominate someone who wants to exterminate us next time, we'll be just as much as an acceptable sacrifice.
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?
What do you mean? A lot of people are doing that. It's not like we get one progressive action every 4 years. Why do you think people organize and run for local government? Why do you think I am trying to spread leftist ideas on the internet? Even people who run as a 3rd party candidate are helping by spreading ideas. Bernie didn't make it to the finish line, but in trying he did a lot of good work spreading ideas and making people think.
If we wake up enough people, the gears in the machine will start turning and we won't need to vote 3rd party because we won't be 3rd party by definition anymore.
I mean voting 3rd part or no-voting. If you want to do that, it is your right. The outcome of doing that is going against your interests. So, you don't really have a political strategy argument for doing it.
I have found a few people that just didn't want to feel bad about voting 3rd party. And that is fine, you don't have feel bad. You can vote how you want. But they felt like they need to create a reason for why they are voting 3rd party or no voting. This is what I think is harming the community. Creating the reason or justifying it when there was no rationality backing it and spreading it like it is a good reason is what irks me. It's spreading misinformation.
Ok, I think I understand the confusion. Running for a 3rd party and voting 3rd party are two different things.
I think that running for a 3rd party has good outcomes, it generates news and discussion and gets your ideas out in front of a lot of people. Maybe, when the time is right, you won't be a 3rd party anymore and become one of the mainstream parties.
I think that voting for a 3rd party has bad outcomes. As our previous discussions, thanks to the dumb first past the post. Only the two most popular candidates matter. So you should vote for the lesser evil even if they suck (and they will).
When a 3rd party candidate becomes popular enough they edge out one of the standard party candidates and the voting strategy changes in our favor.
But that doesn't make any sense. Running as a third party candidate means doing a political project in which you're trying to attract supporters to vote for you. If that political project is good, then it's good to vote for, if it's bad, then it's bad to start it in the first place.
If no one voted for a third party, that party would lose relevance and wouldn't be able to accomplish the goal of spreading ideas like you mentioned earlier.
Also, you suggest that once a sort of critical mass of voters prefer a third party candidate, the voting strategy changes and they should vote third party. But it doesn't work that way. How can we tell when we've reached that point, if everyone follows your advice and votes for the less-bad major party? By all appearances, it would seem that the third party has no meaningful support, even if the majority supported it, because they're voting for who they expect to win rather than who they most prefer. For all we know, that could be the situation right now. People can't just all spontaneously decide together to switch, unless you have some means of coordinating it. Enough people have to switch for it to start to seem plausible that it could actually work, and that means those first people would have to act contrary to your rationale.
Running as a third party candidate means doing a political project in which you’re trying to attract supporters to vote for you.
This has always been a stretch goal of any 3rd party candidate, because it almost never ever happens. You run 3rd party to tank the votes of one of the primary candidates, for a book deal, or to spread information and awareness.
If no one voted for a third party, that party would lose relevance and wouldn’t be able to accomplish the goal of spreading ideas like you mentioned earlier.
The strategy is to gracefully step down after you have spread information and before any of the voting happens. You can support a 3rd party candidate and plan to not vote for them unless they get popular.
How can we tell when we’ve reached that point
We won't be able to tell the instant it happens, because it's impossible to track all the voters, but signs will start showing up.
You know we are past the point when the democrat or republican candidate starts getting ignored like 3rd party candidates currently do. Remember how Bernie's run looked? Before the Dems did an op and kicked him out, it was looking very interesting.
For all we know, that could be the situation right now.
Maybe, keep your eye on the polls. If your 3rd party candidate has comparable polling to Biden or Trump then we can start talking about the possibility of that happening. We have to overcome the normies.
By all appearances, it would seem that the third party has no meaningful support, even if the majority supported it,
Disagree, like I said, you can support a 3rd party candidate without planning on voting for them. Everyone knows you have to eat shit on voting day, but before then, you can point out all the good things about a particular candidate, even if you know they are not going to win.
People can’t just all spontaneously decide together to switch, unless you have some means of coordinating it.
Yes, this is why it may happen an election or two after we get critical mass. It's a limitation of the tools we have.
Remember if the 3rd party candidate has the support, they are no longer a 3rd party. People can say they are 3rd party, but they would be wrong or coping.
Yes, this is why it may happen an election or two after we get critical mass.
This is fundamentally not how things work. It won't just spontaneously happen, just like that, it isn't a trivial issue. Even if every single Democratic voter would prefer the Green Party (for instance), each of them individually would think, "Well, I may want to switch, but nobody else is going to, so it would be a wasted vote." There's no reason this wouldn't continue indefinitely.
This also ignores the fact that certain vote thresholds are necessary to be recognized as a major party and receive things like federal campaign funding and a spot in televised debates. Collecting votes doesn't only help in terms of perceived relevancy, but it also directly helps in spreading the message.
I'd also like to point out that we're not at election day and yet you don't seem to be advocating for a third party, instead criticizing me for doing so. If your position is that you should support a third party up until it comes time to vote, then where is that support?
There’s no reason this wouldn’t continue indefinitely.
Wait, what? Why would it continue indefinitely? Lets say we had a Green Party with polling showing 90% of the population interested in that party. In what reason would you not vote for the Green Party (Assuming they are aligned with your goals)? Even if the polls are off we still have an extremely good chance of winning.
vote thresholds are necessary to be recognized as a major party and receive things like federal campaign funding and a spot in televised debates.
You don't technically need money to win an election, it helps, but all that matters is the votes. If you don't debate a popular candidate, your opponent can call you a coward. No one wants to debate anyone, it's just better optics to engage.
If your position is that you should support a third party up until it comes time to vote, then where is that support?
Ohhh, maybe you got me, I haven't been paying much attention to the 3rd party polling. Any progressive 3rd party candidates coming close to Biden or Trump? If they are, then you win, and let me know.
Also, let me just say, if it is not too late, that I support all candidates that agree with me. Have any candidates in particular you want me to verify?
Wait, what? Why would it continue indefinitely? Lets say we had a Green Party with polling showing 90% of the population interested in that party. In what reason would you not vote for the Green Party (Assuming they are aligned with your goals)? Even if the polls are off we still have an extremely good chance of winning.
The Green Party would not be polling at 90%. When polls ask people who they intend to vote for, they would tell them that they intend to vote for the Democrats, because they consider the Greens nonviable.
You know, like you said you're doing when I asked why you're not supporting them now.
I guess you're expecting people to lie to pollsters or something? Most people aren't going to do that.
You don’t technically need money to win an election, it helps, but all that matters is the votes. If you don’t debate a popular candidate, your opponent can call you a coward. No one wants to debate anyone, it’s just better optics to engage.
This is so absurdly naive that it's hardly worth answering. Money lets you spread your message. Being in a debate lets you spread your message. These are massive advantages that it's virtually impossible to win without. People aren't voting completely divorced from anything campaigns do.
Seriously, this is completely ridiculous and I won't entertain the notion further.
When polls ask people who they intend to vote for, they would tell them that they intend to vote for the Democrats, because they consider the Greens nonviable.
This is so absurdly naive that it’s hardly worth answering.
I think you misread my statement that you quoted. I didn't say money wasn't helpful. And I never said we don't need to debate. I said the debates will come to us if we are popular (You won't have to doge bullets Neo).
Seriously, this is completely ridiculous and I won’t entertain the notion further.
Your call if you want to end on some bad arguments.
Well then, seeing as that poll shows 63%, I assume you're voting third party with everyone else then, right? Because that's apparently how you think the world works.
Stop giving me this nonsense and come back down to reality.
Is that 63% specific candidate? Or is that 63% in general?
Because of its 63% for a specific candidate we can talk. Looks like it's just in general. Which makes sense because the two candidates are particularly bad this upcoming election.
Oh man, looks like you have no good arguments to counter mine, otherwise you would have used them. Looks like I'll have to put you back into the idiot category. Sorry.
The poll would have to be about a specific candidate. Not voting third party in general.
Third party in general just means that most people are sick of the two candidates in top. This could mean that we are splitting The 60% between five third-party candidates. This means the Democratic and Republican candidates are still on top?
Now if 60% of the people were interested in voting for the green candidate specifically. Then I'm very interested and a big funny is about to happen to the Republican or Democratic candidate.
When polls ask people who they intend to vote for, they would tell them that they intend to vote for the Democrats, because they consider the Greens nonviable.
But I now that I am re-reading it I see that I had misinterpreted it. I thought you were implying that polls only ask questions about voting and not option. This was my bad. Sorry.
It's an important point, because you presented it as a form of evidence that could be used to show when "it's time" for everyone to switch to a third party, and then completely rejected it for that purpose right after. Which leaves us back at square one, which is that there is no means of coordinating a sudden switch or recognizing when such a switch would be viable. And without that, your whole position collapses.
Your argument boils down to "We would need a thing that easily could exist and maybe currently doesn't exist and that's why this is an unsolvable problem."
So, in your mind, if someone did this favorability poll you want, and it showed, say, 60% favorability for the Green Party, you would vote for them, and you imagine that the majority of Democratic voters would all spontaneous switch their votes over together?
Go ahead and ask that to people you know, irl or people online: "If there was a poll showing a third party with 60% (or higher!) favorability, would that cause you to switch your vote? Would you expect it to cause others to switch their votes?" I can already tell you the answer you'll get.
I hate to say this, but the fact that you think this is such a trivial problem tells me that you must be young, and there are no words I can say that are a substitute for experience. I recognize your mindset because I've had it myself, you want to drive a rational answer and the world can simply bend around to what you come up with. You want an answer that's simply correct, because you don't want to face a difficult decision, you don't want to deal with the fact that both courses of action have some validity to them and either one comes with potential negative repercussions.
Let me give you a piece of advice - there are two types of ideas, ones that are molded around reality, and ones that are molded around psychological needs. The ones molded around psychological needs are always more appealing (assuming you have the needs it's designed for), but they're also not real. The ones molded around reality are often less smooth and neat, and less appealing - because they're not designed for you, they're designed to represent reality. The task of anyone seeking truth is to learn how to recognize what both types of ideas look like, what they're "shaped" like, what they feel like. Your idea that you can get all the benefits of supporting a third party while also getting the benefits of voting Democrat - it's shaped around what you want to be true. Essentially, it's motivated reasoning convincing you that there must be some way for it to work, in order to avoid facing a difficult decision.
Seek truth from facts. Put aside how you think the world ought to operate and look at how it does. You can't make a map before you've seen the territory. When you do that, you'll see that this sudden spontaneous shift as the result of some random poll is never going to happen.
That's all I have to say to you about this topic. I'm sorry if that comes off as condescending, but it's genuinely from the heart. I can't force you to see something you're dead-set on not seeing. I don't see anything productive coming from continuing this.
So, in your mind, if someone did this favorability poll you want, and it showed, say, 60% favorability for the Green Party, you would vote for them, and you imagine that the majority of Democratic voters would all spontaneous switch their votes over together?
Not Democratic voters (assuming you mean the party). Just voters.
If you're a Democrat and you feel like the Green Party has a candidate polling at a majority that represents your interests more than the Democratic candidate, why would you vote for the Democratic candidate instead? It goes against your interests. I know some Democrats are brain damaged, but I think that is only a small percentage (1 - 3 %).
This is like saying the majority of the population is leftist and has a chance at a bloodless revolution, but they decide to not take it because of shits and giggles.
If you’re a Democrat and you feel like the Green Party has a candidate polling at a majority
Polling as in "intends to vote for" or polling as in "has a favorable opinion of?"
If favorability: Multiple candidates can have positive favorability, so in that case most Democrats would stick with Democrat candidates because they don't expect the third party to win.
If voting intention: The only way for a third party to be polling at a majority in terms of voting intention would be if people really did intend to vote for them (which would require some people to intend to vote for them before it was clear they had a real chance), or if people lied to pollsters about their intentions.
You're not going to find some clever solution that allows you to bypass the problem of coordinating a mass switch, it is fundamental. This is tiresome.
Polling as in “intends to vote for” or polling as in “has a favorable opinion of?”
We could try "has most favorable opinion of?" or "most ideologically aligned with?"
I feel like you are hinting at the possibility of not only a leftist majority but a majority interest in a specific candidate and we would be too dumb to figure that out. Is that your position?
You’re not going to find some clever solution that allows you to bypass the problem of coordinating a mass switch, that problem is fundamental.
Hey, ancient wisdom person, you need to be able to explain why the problem is fundamental and not solvable. I don't see it. And all that ancient wisdom does you no good politically if you can't impart it.
This is tiresome.
I agree, please stop making bad arguments so we can stop this thread or maybe I can learn something.
I feel like you are hinting at the possibility of not only a leftist majority but a majority interest in a specific candidate and we would be too dumb to figure that out. Is that your position?
No. If you'd listened to a single thing I said, you'd understand that it has nothing to do with being "too dumb to figure it out." It's a problem of coordinating a mass switch. It's a collective action problem. Intelligence has nothing to do with it, people acting rationally on an individual level are not necessarily going to arrive at the best collective outcome. Read, like, anything about game theory, I am begging you.
Hey, ancient wisdom person, you need to be able to explain why the problem is fundamental and not solvable. I don’t see it. And all that ancient wisdom does you no good politically if you can’t impart it.
I agree, please stop making bad arguments so we can stop this thread or maybe I can learn something.
I have shot down half-assed argument after half-assed argument of yours, and you just keep spewing them out without putting any actual consideration into them.
First it was that polls showing the popularity of third party candidates in general could provide the mechanism for coordinating a switch. I disproved that.
Then it was that favorability polls would provide the mechanism for coordinating a switch. I disproved that.
Now it's that polls you just dreamed up that nobody is asking that are supposed to provide the mechanism for coordinating a switch. I suppose this one could go on forever, with each question I prove wouldn't work being replaced by an equally inane question that you spent 5 seconds coming up with. Just over and over again forever.
You might as well be trying to prove Bigfoot exists by asking one by one about every location you can think of, and each time I check one you simply produce a new location to check.
So I'll tell you what - I will address one, final attempt to produce a mechanism for coordinating a switch. Right now you've offered a suggestion, "We could try “has most favorable opinion of?” or “most ideologically aligned with?”" Before I do: are you confident enough in that attempt that you're ok with it being your very last one? Have you actually thought it through and tried on your own to think of reasons why it might not work? If I'm able to address this one, will you finally admit that you are unable to provide any mechanism for solving the collective action problem, and that you cannot defend your position?
Ok, so I don't want to use up my one question, so I will just assume your position is that if we had one fascist leader and everyone else was a leftist who agreed on which candidate they would want to lead them, then the leftists wouldn't be able to do whatever to figure that out and the one and only fascists leader would stay in charge forever. Got it.
You really should vote for the lesser evil, because your opinion of the people you agree with is very low. By your own logic, you're are already screwed.
Now it’s that polls you just dreamed up that nobody is asking that are supposed to provide the mechanism for coordinating a switch.
Hey, if you have a general argument for why polling wont work, why didn't you use that instead of just asserting that it wouldn't without explaining (rhetorical question does not count)? That is why I am trying to figure out why you think that. The only way I know how to do that is by trying to figure out what wording is causing you issues.
Before I do: are you confident enough in that attempt that you’re ok with it being your very last one?
Yes, stop edging me. Any question I ask you, you will probably provide another evasive answer to. Anyone reading this thread will see that plainly. Please add more weight to my arguments.
I want to hear your response to this: Why would polls worded like “has most favorable opinion of?” or “most ideologically aligned with?" not work to detect a consensus of a single leftist candidate and why wouldn't people then vote for that candidate?
You really should vote for the lesser evil, because your opinion of the people you agree with is very low.
Again, as I already told you, the problem has nothing to do with intelligence. It isn't some kind of personal failing to be in a collective action problem, that's why it's called "a collective action problem." Again, you're out of your depth here, it's very clear that you don't understand how collective action problems work, and you need to stop asserting your ignorance and learn about them. Go skim the Wikipedia article on Collective Action Problems, particularly the part relating to game theory and maybe something will stick. The concept here is important to understand in general, with plenty of use-cases completely unrelated to politics.
I want to hear your response to this: Why would polls worded like “has most favorable opinion of?” or “most ideologically aligned with?" not work to detect a consensus of a single leftist candidate and why wouldn’t people then vote for that candidate?
Ok, great. So you're all in on this one and once I've addressed it, you will not propose any other solutions.
First off, let's note that these polls do not currently exist. Therefore, regardless of whether they would work or not, at the very least until they do, my position is justified. No mechanism currently exists to coordinate the switch and, not owning a trusted polling company myself, I don't have the means to bring these or any other polls into existence. So, while they don't exist, I don't need to incorporate them into my decision making calculus.
Second, if these polls did exist, their implications would not be immediately apparent. If these polls showed that a third party candidate was most favored, but every other metric, from polls about intended voting to political endorsements to campaign finance and so on, metrics that have more established track records and that people are used to relying on to predict outcomes, then it would be much more likely that people would see your polls as a statistical anomaly. And if people saw it that way and did not switch, then the next election cycle, they would say, "see, we were right, it was a statistical anomaly, that question is not a reliable predictor of who would win."
Third, which candidates people like and dislike is influenced by the exposure they have to that candidate. A candidate with a lot of funding and air time can more effectively pitch themselves to a wider audience, even if they aren't as good of a candidate or aren't as aligned with their views. Furthermore, the perception that this happens means that even if an ad isn't convincing to you, it will factor into your calculations about who is more likely to win.
Is that enough? Despite your baseless accusations that I'm being "evasive" I have given three crystal clear responses to your latest proposed solution (just as I clearly answered all your prior solutions). I could probably find more, if you like (I didn't even get into the specific questions themselves yet). But at that point you're probably better off reading the Wikipedia article so you can understand the underlying concept.
I could explain it to you myself, going over the Prisoners' Dilemma and all that, but since you're regarding everything I saw in debate-mode, convinced that I'm saying something ridiculous, I think you'd learn more by getting the information from a different source.
Oh, nice link (not sarcastic), I didn't realize these issues had a name. Thanks!
But it doesn't apply to the hypothetical. The first line is "A collective action problem or social dilemma is a situation in which all individuals would be better off cooperating but fail to do so because of conflicting interests between individuals that discourage joint action." The hypothetical was that the majority of people already agree on a specific candidate. So there are no conflicting interests that matter.
First off, let’s note that these polls do not currently exist.
I don't understand the point of this paragraph. Do you think the current green candidate has a majority interest? If so, then we should start making polls. Conservatives make polls every day like "Bad Black Man Bad?". I am pretty sure this not a difficult task, especially if we have a majority.
Second, if these polls did exist, their implications would not be immediately apparent.
Yes, I agree with this. I understand why this isn't ideal, but humans are messy. Like I said is might be 4 - 8 years before we are able to act on our majority.
I think "immediately" also points out some emotional energy. I think you are weighing the horrors of the current situation (and they are very bad) and are willing to take extreme risk to stop those horrors. An admirable goal, but taking those extremes risks has consequences and not just for you. The risk you are currently taking is trying to convince as many people as possible to vote in such a way to throw a wrench in the system. This can work if you can get a large enough amount of people, but that is like a 1 - 5 percent chance. That leaves a 95% percent chance that the outcomes will be the worst possible. On top of this, as you have said, you currently have no metrics. So you don't know how likely you are to succeed. It's a bad gamble and I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary.
And if people saw it that way and did not switch, then the next election cycle, they would say, “see, we were right, it was a statistical anomaly, that question is not a reliable predictor of who would win.”
Ok, so we miss once and stop trying? Why is the left so weak in your mind? Why not just keep trying until we get the candidate that everyone wants elected elected?
Third, which candidates people like and dislike is influenced by the exposure they have to that candidate.
Where did this come from? I will assume this is a closing argument and not an answer to my question. As I have stated before. Money is very helpful, but not necessary. You can do things like fundraise. Berne proved that it was possible. And the bigger the majority you have, the more of a source you have.
Is that enough?
You linked me to an interesting wiki article that didn't apply. You wrote a paragraph about how we currently don't have polls, then claimed victory. You talked about how my idea wouldn't work right away, then assumed people would just give up. Then you talked about how money was necessary, which was not part of the question.
So your answer boils down to leftist will just give up even if they have the majority, because organizing is hard and not perfect.
I will accept this. I asked a question, you answered to the best of your ability. You and I are both tired of this conversation. I am good with ending it here. I will not be replying to this conversation after this.
I will have to find someone else to convince me that no-voting or 3rd party voting is a good idea, because we are not communicating well.
I wish you well. No hard feelings, have a nice life.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It is fptp (thanks, Justin), and seemingly getting worse, but Canada's two major parties don't have near the stranglehold on the electorate/people that they do in the u.s.
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.
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.
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.
It's almost like there is a shitload of political conversations lately. I have no idea why lmao
The biggest cause for Israel's overreaction and the continuing genocide of palestinians was the actions of Hamas on October 7th. Blame folks on the other side of the planet all you want, but actions cause reactions. It's always been this way.
I blame the IDF and Hamas for escalating. Religious fuckwits pulling us back a century or two should carry the blame for their blind hatred leading the world into this conflict.
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"?
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.
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
Obviously if you refuse to support the non-fascist then you're failing to prevent fascism and it's functionally the same as supporting it. You people love to pretend to not understand this but that doesn't erase it
If we know that third party candidates can never win, and we absolutely know that, then what options are left? Watching the fascist take office or voting against that.
I'm sure you have some really amazing, totally good faith arguments against this.
Curious how you are focused on something that makes no difference or sense but completely averse to talking about the reality I just laid out. I am shocked!
This situation is more like seeing two people murdering others and getting told you're supporting the one who has killed eight people instead of seven because I'm not helping either of them kill people.
I think since the scales are tipped in republicans' favour (e.g. losing popular vote but winning presidency always goes one way - Trump, Bush), not voting likely benefits them over the dems. Depending on your state of course.
Well, at least that's a cogent basis for an argument, thank you.
Though I still think this is something Democratic strategists should understand at this point -- ultimately it's Biden's responsibility to drive out voters, not play chicken with his base in defense of unrepentant war criminals.
I don't think voters can be blamed for being unable to support the politics of the party moving so far to the right, especially when Biden's presidency itself is already representative of a massive compromise by progressive voters. If Biden loses, the blame and pressure needs to be put onto the DNC and Biden for failing to do what it takes to keep their base fed, not on the voters, or we are going to end up in this same cycle forever.
A lot of our most prominent progressive representatives came into office after 2016, as a result of Clinton's failure. The party strategists understand when they lose, they do post-mortems even if they're not public about them. So I still hold that it's a valid strategy to allow democrats to fail when they end up going to far to the right, especially in such an egregious case as what we see with Gaza. Democratic support for the genocide can't continue, it's beyond the pale.
Agree 100%. I don't think the people you were arguing with really want to engage on these points, their entire position only applies in the voting booth. They're right, in pure Biden vs Trump there is only one reasonable choice. I just wouldn't gamble so hard on the population being reasonable, otherwise Trump would have never won in 2016 either.
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.
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.
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.
Honestly as someone who isn't American, this is more important to me than economic policy or whatever. I want Biden to win, Trump winning would be awful for everyone, basically worldwide. But most of all I want the kids to stop dying. I really don't think this is so unreasonable.
Trump won't be convinced. Biden might be. And this "less important" issue could still cost him swing states. I think maybe not supporting a genocide could be a vote winner.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
That’s reductive and defeatist as fuck. Third party candidates and parties exist. They don’t suddenly cease to exist simply because the 2 right-wing parties we’ve had forced upon us have gone out of their way to prevent them from participating. I don’t suddenly like Trump because I hate Biden and vice versa. I hate them both, just like I hate the fact that democracy in the US died years ago. Having to vote for 2 shades of fascism is not an actual valid choice and giving it merit is the equivalent of validating it as acceptable.
When is the last time a third party got anywhere close to victory in a presidential election? I don't think they've broken 7% of votes in decades and decades. There is zero indication that would change so what are you talking about?
You ever stop and ask yourself why no other party or candidate stands a chance? It could perhaps be the decades of mental conditioning that has locked the working class into an infinite loop of “vote blue no matter who” and “let’s go Brandon” dipshittery, coupled with every propped up candidate being a corporate warmongering shill. It’s pay to play or piss off. It’s just wild to me that some people refuse to see it from their comfortable neolib and conservative bubbles.
I don't have to wonder about the concept of inertia. We can see it everywhere. I also don't wonder about whether or not I can defy it just by thinking happy thoughts and pissing my vote into the wind
I don’t care how people vote. It’s their choice and I’m not going to tell them otherwise. But I’m also going to be realistic about who these people truly are, and acknowledge the facts. The US isn’t a democracy.
You assumed things based on what I said and none of them were true. So it’s abundantly clear you don’t want to have a conversation because it’s easier to make disingenuous claims. I’m pro-working class first and foremost. Always have been because I was raised that way.
Encouraging people to make informed, conscious decisions doesn’t equate to telling them to vote for fascism. This is that 2-dimensional shit I’m talking about. I don’t care who anyone votes for. If anything, I hope Trump’s conviction keeps him off the ballot altogether.
The way presidential elections have gone for many decades inform us that any vote not for Biden is essentially against him. Not 2 dimensional to acknowledge that basic fact.
We can agree on that last point but it doesn't seem at all likely. He very much might win
yes this is the lie so many of us hate and the same lie that will elect trump who is fucking infinitely worse. I won't argue back with any more smooth brains who say shit like this, I called you out on your lies and that's enough.
a modern nation state with a mechanized military is absolutely indistinguishable from fascism.
they will do whatever it takes to maintain the power of the state to field that military, so they will do whatever it takes to maintain the power of the state. everything else, the trappings of law and order, the facade of democratic control, the illusion of economic freedom, they will only exist so far as they are necessary to maintain state power.
under pax americana, our mutual defense treaties have relieved many states of the necessity of fielding their own military to the extent necessary to defend their state, but the mutual defense treaties make them absolutely complicit in the fascism of the states capable of defending them. in particular, the usa, but any other military power as well.
opposing the creep of outspoken politically fascist movements to seize the reigns of these technocratically fascist states is secondary, in my consideration, to the dismantling of the technocratic fascist states.
it seems that you are content to tolerate the fascist state so long as someone you can’t identify as politically fascist controls it. i am not.
This describes nearly every country that has ever existed, so how does the term have any meaning if you're right about this definition of fascism?
it seems that you are content to tolerate the fascist state so long as someone you can’t identify as politically fascist controls it. i am not.
... this is a conversation about policy difference. Somehow by saying "actually there's a large difference" when there obviously is, means I have no issue with fascism? Nevermind that that would be an entirely separate topic that we only touched on because you brought it up apropos of nothing. I mean, that's just brain dead. Your official position:
"closing all the borders and eliminating all healthcare programs is literally the exact same as mostly maintaining the status quo then slowly adding improvements here and there. just like how boiling water is identical to lukewarm water."
I often wonder like what deluded thought process gets you from just going around saying smoothbrain bullshit like this and the perfect communist utopia you imagine? Are you actively eating lead every day or something? I don't even know how I'd turn my brain off like that if I wanted to.
Lol nope. The word human exists because other lifeforms do and you need a way to differentiate. Democracy is a word that exists because other governments exist. This is hilarious.
Third party candidates and parties exist. They don’t suddenly cease to exist simply because the 2 right-wing parties we’ve had forced upon us have gone out of their way to prevent them from participating.
Ah yes, the great and amazing third parties of the US. In this corner we've got the Libertarians, aka the "republicans that like weed and dislike age of consent laws" party, and in the other corner we have the Green Party, aka the "pops up every election year to complain how both sides are bad, before promptly returning to the ether upon the elections conclusion" party.
Such good options, I truly don't know why anyone wouldn't want to vote for one of those two. /s
I don’t care about who thinks what about them. It’s the fact that they are pushed out. It’s a system that has been hijacked to benefit the wealthy and no one else. If dumb people want to interpret that as “oh you want Trump to win,” I’ve got nothing for them. I’d put that fuck in the guillotine just as fast as I’d put Biden, Obama, Bush, and Hillary.
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.
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.
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?
What agenda do I have when you made the incredibly evil claim that the US is important for "global stability?" If you just walk through life making knee-jerk reactions every time someone points out something you said is wrong, rather than engaging with the points brought up, what do you hope to accomplish?
Lol no I don't waste time making arguments to most trolls, you've continued to demonstrate a complete lack of openness so yeah I won't get sucked into your manifesto
"It's incredibly evil to suggest the Middle East is not something we want to fuck around with, for the world's sake" lmao
I'm sure this means to you that I supported all the US involvements there but you can save it. Literally nothing a tankie says matters
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]!"
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.
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.
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.
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.
"Genocide bad = Biden bad = Both sides are bad = Vote for third party = Trump gets into office"
Woah calm down there with that slippery slope argument. I literally never said any of that. I said I have no horse in this race. I don't care who people vote for. If Biden gets in, that's bad. If Trump gets in, that's worse. If I was in the US, I'd probably vote for Biden. But then I'd be out in the streets protesting him for being an evil, senile, scumbag.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
