As a foreigner I never understood the novote sentiment in the US. You aren’t voting for either candidate because you dislike them, so who would you actually vote for? AOC? RFK Jr? Bernie? Does your ideal candidate even exist in reality yet? All a no vote does is take away your own rights in your country, while the rest of the world moves on without you.
For what it’s worth, both parties can be trash but one party actually can be shamed to doing the right thing once in a while.
Non voters are either children or morons.
Rational adults realise that this is the system and you have to operate inside of it despite the compromises.
Now, you want to start changing the system, start a grassroots campaign, get into politics to change the system, more power to you!
But sitting on your ass crying about both sides while doing nothing, you are simply an immature moron.
I cannot blame people for feeling jaded or disillusioned. Would we vote for Bernie? We certainly would’ve if the DNC didn’t provably sabotage his campaign. And I cannot ignore that Biden is old and deeply unpopular among leftists, yet our party refuses to offer up a better choice because they’re counting on “the devil you know” to carry him through. Who could feel enthusiastic about that? I think the hope is that the DNC will learn some kind of lesson if he loses, though I know they won’t. The trend of “reduce harm now, actually improve things later” has been going on for a long time. When is “later”? What up and coming voice on the democratic side do we have to look forward to?
I have to vote, because my number one priority is trans rights and there’s only one party that will do anything to protect that, but I don’t do it happily. I understand too that the “vote blue no matter who” crowd has similar pressing concerns that require harm reduction. But I dislike the characterization of anyone who feels apathetic about the upcoming election as idiots or Russian bots. When you’re only voting against a candidate, it’s hard to feel motivated.
Yeah I see your point. Personally I think voting rights are important, especially in world history, and seeing people throw that away - to risk the country’s future on making a statement - irks me a little. The most irresponsible way to make yourself heard, with the worst possible consequences. People in China and Russia don’t even get a choice ffs. Plus it feels like Americans have had a four year reminder to learn this lesson already.
But I see how this feels shitty all around. I just hope people talk to one another and vote with their fellow countrymen in mind.
I’m with you. I love everything George Carlin did, except for his anti vote bits. Somehow voting is supposed to make you compliant in the current going on in government, is the argument.
The only way to change things is too consistently vote until the baby boomers are thinned out of their electoral advantage.
Carlin isn’t wrong on the crucial parts.
The system is broken and cannot be fixed by voting. It must be dismantled and replaced.
But while we get started on the dismantling and replacing, maybe vote so that the current system doesn’t deteriorate, break down and gets replaced by something worse before you have the chance to bring about meaningful and positive change.
The system is broken and cannot be fixed by voting.
Carlin is fundamentally wrong here, because he starts with the premise that national politics spring out of nothingness. That’s simply not true. In almost all cases, people that are successful at national politics start at a local level. So when you want to change things, you must start locally. That means getting good candidates elected to local offices, and them moving them up to state office, and eventually to national.
Okay, yes, I see what you mean and can agree. Still I believe that this can only bring about meaningful change if it’s part of an activist push for election reform.
The local level is important and easier to manage, because the power brokers, the keys to power are not that much more powerful than you are. But at a certain point the keys to power become way too influential. To reach the top in any party, you have to play by the parties rules and neither one will let you lessen their individual members influence. You would need wide ranging political agreement and cooperation (and good luck with that) or you have to change the game by redistributing power away from big players and back to the people. And that can imho. not be achieved in a highly partisan two-party system.
Or, maybe it can be, but the odds are incredibly stacked against you.
And that can imho. not be achieved in a highly partisan two-party system.
That’s still tied to the grass-roots level. The party largely can’t get candidates for higher office without them coming up through the system in some way. That means that the people at a local level can greatly influence state-level politics, which in turn influences national politics. But the problem you’ll run into is that there are a lot of competing interests within a state, and as a single person starts to represent the views of more and more people, they need to reflect the average of those views–or be an exceptionally charismatic leader that can pull people along in their wake. It’s not that the party isn’t “letting” you play if you don’t do things their way, it’s that you simply won’t have the votes.
Yes, there’s a lot of money involved, and it’s true that you either need to have a really strong grass-roots funding game, or else you’re gonna end up owing rich people and corporations favors. So your issue is that you need to get enough people to give a shit locally, and when you do, they end up playing by your rules. Or, more correctly, the rules of the people you represent.
This is precisely how Trump won, BTW, and how he’s come to own the Republican party. That’s how populism works. He gave a voice–a hateful voice–to about 1/6 of the American population (about 1/3 of the Republican party), and despite traditional Republican interests being heavily stacked against him, he managed to entirely take over the party.
The problem being that a fledgling political organization has to then expend the energy to endorse a candidate outside their party and vote in support of one enemy over another enemy.
Any fledgling political organization that participates in the system in a traditional way is either
a) stupid or b) delusional or c) sacrificing vulnerable peoples actual needs in favor of ideology or d) a false-flag operation designed to weaken the side they are ostensibly closer to
Any meaningful change can only occur outside the standardized channels. Inside the existing structure the math simply demands a two-party-system that will always favor the side that can both form the biggest coalition and dissuade the opposed voters from voting. Both parties have had problems with the coalition forming for a long time, so they try everything to dissuade opposed voters.
If you want meaningful change in the US, find a way to invest your activism not into who people vote for, but into changing how voting works.
First: The “National Popular Vote Interstate Compact” is a band-aid that might help with warding against the worst excesses of far-right ideology, with it in place, it should be easier to ward against the white nationalist power grab and protect vulnerable people.
Second: Electoral reform in favor of ranked choice voting. With this in place, your goal to create viable alternative candidates will be basically met. Suddenly you don’t HAVE to vote for the lesser evil. The math suddenly doesn’t favor a two-party-system anymore.
Third: Implementing the Fair Representation Act to bring about ranked choice voting in then multi member districts. This counteracts gerrymandering and will make the representation much closer match the voters. No more taxation without representation for the plurality of citizens.
Fourth: Some form of true proportional representation. Open or closed list proportional representation would both help with SO many problems the US faces right now, it’s absolutely bonkers.
P.S.: But in the meantime… all these goals are may be more or less opposed by most democrats, but they will never be implemented when the republicans further erode american democracy. So vote democrat if you want to have any chance of bettering circumstances, at all.
Any meaningful change can only occur outside the standardized channels.
So vote democrat if you want to have any chance of bettering circumstances, at all.
🤔
What’s hard to understand? Maintain the current level of badness to not reach worse levels before meaningful change can be achieved.
“I want to change the way voting works” only brings positive change in a future where voting is still a thing.
I don’t see how you expect to get democrats to support voting reform when it goes against their interests and you support them whether they do it or not. That’s the fundamental problem with what you’re saying, you recognize that the current system is dysfunctional, but you’re expecting that system to function well enough to enact the changes necessary to make it functional.
You’re saying you want the people in charge to give up the systems they depend on to maintain their own power, to act in a way that very directly goes against their own interests, and I don’t see what your plan is exactly to force them to do that, beyond asking nicely while giving them full unconditional support.
For what it’s worth, both parties can be trash but one party actually can be shamed to doing the right thing once in a while.
People need to dig a hole and put their expectations of government in that hole for them to be low enough. Once they do that they’ll be less disillusioned and won’t think voting is a waste.
Voting is only a waste in authoritarian countries like China, Russia and North Korea.
Yes, but if you tell folks that they’re gonna get a puppy if they vote and they get a sticker with a dog on it they’ll be like “Well that was a lie.”
Governments move slow, and make stupid decisions all the time. The line between voting for something and getting that thing is convoluted, steep, and fraught with peril. It’s not going to happen overnight. Hell, it won’t happen in a decade, assuming it even happens at all.
If people knew that it takes over 30 years to maybe get something that the vast majority of people want they won’t give up on voting after a couple times, and will do what I do: Vote regularly and expect nothing.
Who I would vote for would be, for example, the third-party candidate I’m actually voting for.
The democrats can’t be “shamed” into doing the right thing. They might be able to be pressured into doing it, and establishing a credible threat that you’ll withhold your vote if they do something unconcionable is one way of exerting that pressure. They have exactly zero interest in the concerns of people whose votes are guaranteed.
And if they are completely unresponsive regardless, then the only hope of having our concerns listened to is to unseat them, by means of a third party. No matter how unlikely or how long it takes, it’s still more likely than the possibility that Biden randomly starts caring about Palestinians out of the kindness of his heart.
And why do you think dems would be pressured by 3rd party voters instead of just shifting their policies to the right to attract moderates? The third party voters seek a humanitarian leader who doesn’t exist and couldn’t possibly thrive in the current American politcal system. Seriously give me a name for this potential candidate.
Why would the dems concern with people seeking a politician they could never provide? Shifting right has already won them an election with Biden, against the most charismatic Republican politician of the last decade. Either the dems win and nothing happens, or the republicans win and the dems shift right to attract moderates.
the most charismatic Republican politician of the last decade.
Funny how Trump has become “The most charismatic Republican candidate of the last decade.” He was literally supported by Hillary in the “pied piper” strategy because he was supposed to be so easy to beat. I recall the conventional wisdom in 2015 was that the Republicans would have to shift to the center to appeal to Latino voters or they’d be finished because of demographics. Right up to election day, every major media outlet said he had no chance of winning, before he barely squeeked out a win, while losing the popular vote, of course. He’s at negative 12% in terms of net favorability. I guess he still counts as “most charismatic Republican candidate of the last decade” but only because that’s an incredibly low bar.
Either the dems win and nothing happens, or the republicans win and the dems shift right to attract moderates.
Well, the question is how far can they keep shifting right before they start bleeding more voters from the left than they’re attracting from the center? The democrats are right wing and would much rather shift to the center, but just because they managed to barely win against a historically unpopular president in the middle of a botched pandemic doesn’t mean it’s a reliable strategy.
But if they think they can win without the left then they’re welcome to try. I’d just better not hear anybody blaming the left afterwards if they lose.
Cool, so you’re voting for tRump, got it.
Trump is a third-party candidate? Fascinating perspective.
Majority of the politicians are slaves of AIPAC, probably from blackmail material. So none of them are worthy of voting for, much less, holding any political power in any part of the U.S.
Blackmail, or overt threats of harm to their family.
But even if they’re beholden to Israel on one issue, there are still a lot of other issues at stake domestically. So this nonsense about none of them worth voting for is just bullshit propaganda.
Ain’t none of these politicians giving a fk about domestic issues unless it’s to make more laws, taking away rights one crumb at a time.
If you want to give up your voting rights, go ahead. The rest of us will stay in reality where changes to domestic issues happen almost every single day.
Are you going to make me ask you to provide at least three changes to domestic issues in the past week just to prove a point? This isn’t cartoon network… this is reality. Politicians don’t give a chit unless it benefits them and or their handlers.
You can if you want to.
The ones from 2021 - 2023 are better documented though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_executive_actions_by_Joe_Biden
It is about 1 every 3-4 days.
My dude. Why do you think that laws are written, exactly? Do you think people pull them out of their ass for no reason at all? Or are they just maybe intended to deal with changing issues, whether or not you approve of the law?
Have you ever looked up something along the lines of, “stupid laws in the U.S.” or “stupid laws state by state”?
You’ll be surprised.
Stupid laws almost always had a reason at one time. The reason might not have been good, but it still existed.
I’m aware of one place out in the middle of fucking nowhere, South Carolina, that has a noise ordinance after 11pm. It has a noise ordinance because there’s a very large gun range–several hundred acres–that has occasional night matches. Well, someone that was politically connected moved close to the range, and got pissed that about once a month there was shooting all night. So they got their buddies on the county commissioners to pass an ordinance that said no noise after 11pm. Now those night matches shut down at 11pm on the dot, because the cops are ready and waiting to issue citations to the range owner. In 100 years–if humans are still in existence as a species–no one is going to remember why there’s a dumb law on the books about noise after dark in ass-fuck SC.
-
Leftists are abandoning Joe Biden and this will ensure Donald Trump’s victory
-
Actually, Joe Biden is very popular and he’s going to win in a landslide. Anyone who says otherwise is a Russian shill.
Rolling these two ideas in my brain like a pair of baoding balls
Where have you heard the second one? I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone say that.
This opinion is all over cable news in the US.
Even the Biden campaign claims that “polling is wrong” and he will win comfortably. The hubris is astounding.
However, to those who would post memes like this, pointing out these types of delusion is tantamount to supporting Trump. It’s an incredibly unhealthy alternative universe to exist in, and the only outcome of doing so will be a crushing Dem defeat come November. I’m not even talking about swing states here - even in New York Biden is only up by 9% now because of his unwavering support of genocide and refusal to improve the path for immigration, among many other shortcomings.
It’s kind of implied by memes like this one. If you suspect any criticism of Biden is coming from Russian disinfo mills, it follows that there is little/no organic/genuine criticism of Biden.
I don’t get that at all.
Those of us trying to get those saying the things in the meme know we need all the votes we can get.
If we knew Biden would win in a landslide, why waste keystrokes?
But you’re stifling Democrats who are criticizing Biden by claiming that they’re all actually Russian bots
Which, actually, is exactly what a Russian bot would do - convince lefty Dems that mainstream Dems are out of touch elitists who don’t care about their concerns and will dismiss any criticism of Biden as foreign interference rather than disagreement with policy choices like genocide support. Which, of course, will cause those lefty dems to resent the Democratic Party and decrease the likelihood they vote for Biden
So you’re doing Russia’s work for them by continuing this line of attack. You need the votes of young people/zoomers/lefties. You lose parts of that vote by acting like their criticisms are foreign disinformation. Which helps Putin.
If a meme like this makes someone who claims to be “left” not vote for the (unfortunate) only person on the ballot that will keep whatever little semblance of democracy we have in tact, then I don’t think they are as “left” as they claim to be.
Then why bother rebutting the type of posts contained in the OP image?
I just personally wouldn’t waste my time. I get that there’s a lot going on, and a lot of it very bad, but at the end of the day, the bigger picture is crystal clear to those of us who actively lived through Trump’s awful years in office.
If a meme is what gets you to vote against yourself, then you were going to do that anyway, just with extra fluff.
But you’re stifling Democrats who are criticizing Biden by claiming that they’re all actually Russian bots
I haven’t personally accused anyone of being a Russian agent and will continue that way.
I’ve simply concentrated on the illogical nature of the arguments seen in the meme. While I continue to be surprised at how hard it is for some to understand first past the post voting systems, I just think those people aren’t bright. Not Russian, necessarily.
Ironically, during the “basket of deplorables” snafu, the left on Reddit were saying things like “if an insult made you vote for Trump, you were probably never voting for Hillary anyway”. And I think that holds true.
Because if you know how FPTP works and you believe one of the two people who are going to win this race is better than the other - you have your vote figured out already.
But if you know you need all the votes you can get, then your strategy should be to acknowledge and assuage the concerns of your base. Your strategy should not be to tell your base to shut up, to call them Russian agents, and to stop publicly talking about how the United States is arming and funding a genocide, for example
Biden has significant weaknesses that need to be acknowledged and addressed. Ideally through policy changes. But if not that, then through significantly better rhetoric than his admin/team/PR agencies are currently using.
Insulting your critics is the worst possible move, especially when their criticisms are real and valid. We’re not talking about people who believe Hunter Biden was the mastermind behind Pizzagate - We’re talking about the majority of registered Democrats who believe that Israel is committing a genocide with American money and bombs. And we’re also talking about the median American family who can no longer afford to keep up with the increases to the cost of living - let alone buy a house for the first time without parental support. These are real concerns and Biden deserves criticism for them - and, ideally, he needs to deliver policy that addresses these concerns
and to stop publicly talking about how the United States is arming and funding a genocide, for example
This right here is why I don’t see value in arguing those facts and just concentrating on the fact that we have 2 real choices and one is clearly better.
There is absolutely nothing I can say to you that will convince you that what’s going on in Gaza isn’t a genocide. It’s literally not worth trying. I’ve seen people say shit like, “You know what we mean, even if we don’t mean literally genocide”. People either just like using the word to mean “murder” or “killing” or actually think there’s a literal genocide happening right now.
Either way, I’d rather just try to get people to see the simple, straightforward logic:
- Either the Dem or Rep nominee will in.
- Thanks to the voting system we’re subject to, if you vote for a 3rd party which better aligns with your ideals, you run a real risk of allowing the worse of #1 to be elected. This is a worse outcome for you and me.
- Given 1 and 2, you’re better off throwing weight behind the better of #1.
No matter what you or anyone else says next, 1 and 2 are true. That should lead you to 3, if you’re a logical person. If it doesn’t lead you there, you either still don’t understand the logic or you’re not all that concerned with his dictatorial comments, what that might mean for women, minorities, atheists, him getting MORE SCOTUS appointments, Ukraine/Russia, etc.
We’re talking about the majority of registered Democrats who believe that Israel is committing a genocide with American money and bombs.
Again, nothing I or anyone else say is going to disabuse those people of that notion. We’ll just be called genocide deniers. Why try?
Is it really the criticism of Biden that gets the cries of disinformation, or is it the conclusion that you shouldn’t vote for him that does it?
Those are very different things, and they keep getting mixed together.
I mean, either way? How is it disinformation if I say I’m not going to vote for Biden? If you think everyone who says they aren’t voting for Biden is doing disinfo you are deluding yourself. You don’t have to like it and you are certainly free to argue with people, but don’t pretend that real people haven’t come to their own positions honestly.
Seems like a bit of a straw man, because I wasn’t talking about you or others sharing who they plan to vote for.
I’m talking about all the rhetoric about not voting for Biden because X, but which doesn’t mention that the alternative to Biden’s X is X^2 from the other side. There often isn’t any compare and contrast of the actual choices, just FUD about the one choice while leaving out how much worse the other choice is on the exact same issue.
This whole discussion is about people criticizing Biden. It isn’t “rhetoric” to criticize a sitting president who is actively supporting a genocide. I understand your anxiety about Trump, but I think it is blinding you to the current reality. I know what a piece of shit Trump is, but he isn’t the guy that right now can do something to end this genocide. When I say “fuck Biden for this genocide” and you say “Trump would be worse!” I feel like you’re missing my point completely. I feel like you are just accepting an ongoing genocide because you don’t want to hurt Biden’s electoral chances. He’s the politician, let him figure out how to get elected. He’s got 5 months.
Current politicians can and should be criticized, all of them. Biden most of all, being the President. When American weapons are used to kill innocents, even moreso.
My criticism is how on much of Lemmy this has been extended to “vote for Biden = personally and enthusiastically approve genocide.” You even managed to reach this conclusion in your reply. And that’s how it tends to come up in discussions. People reaching pragmatic conclusions about how best to direct this country with our little meager votes, including reducing genocide and other harm, get met with cries of genocide support. It’s not productive and it shuts down reasonable discussion. And it’s always cries of genocide, not genocide mixed in with another hundred issues. I hope you can see how that makes it seem like a disingenuous talking point. It reminds me of “think of the children” how it uses a very obvious moral stance (genocide bad, or children good) to steamroll any nuance or complexity in the situation.
I agree with the rest of your points though. Like I said, of course he should be criticized. He’s probably the most criticized person on earth, and that’s what he signed up for.
Because the stakes of this election are so very, very high. Trump genuinely and explicitly wants to create a fascist state; it’s borderline incomprehensible that somebody would choose to sit out and let that happen just because they don’t like Biden.
What you and I find incomprehensible are different things.
Just to be entirely clear–are you taking the position that given the choice between (a) the world where you don’t vote and Trump wins and (b) the world where you vote Biden and Trump loses, you would take (a)?
deleted by creator
not really external propaganda and delusional nonvoters go hand in hand
It’s legitimately possible the left abandons him and he picks up enough conservatives to win anyways.
Assuming we ignore his polling, sure.
Neither of them are popular candidates. But they are in a statistical tie in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Although it’s going to be really awkward when Arizona sends a democratic senator while voting for Trump. (And Gallego is not a conservative.)
Neither of them are popular candidates
They’ve each got a hard base of unshakable supporters who are incredibly annoying and deliberately obtuse about the most obvious shit.
Although it’s going to be really awkward when Arizona sends a democratic senator while voting for Trump.
One thing Democrats have managed to do in hotly contested Senate races is to find people who aren’t hateful assholes.
Shame they couldn’t have run Mark Kelly for president.
Yeah. That they do. I don’t think Mark Kelly is interested in the presidency though. And until Arizona Democrats get a replacement lined up we need him where he is.
Meaning what? I’ve consciously stayed away from election/polling news
It’s not as bad as he is saying. Right now AZ is a write off but PA, MI, and WI are in play and are enough to get him to 270.
Meaning bad news for Biden fans.
There is not evidence that conservatives will support him
Trump has the support of party officials but actual conservative voter support is still soft. They really do prefer a Romney type. But they’ll vote Trump over Bernie. A “moderate” like Biden can pull a bunch.
actual conservative voter support is still soft.
That is really not true at all. He is beloved by the base and is exactly what they want
Well yes, that’s the definition of a base group in politics. Ideology and party do not equal base though. For some reason it’s rare to find polling like this connected to candidates. Usually it’s issues polling or party loyalty polling.
So what you’re looking for in this case is the “leans right” category. That’s soft support for conservatives and the Republican party. The actual base is going to be aligned with the next group over. Which is typically around 33 percent. Translating that into likely voters is hard because those 33 percent are going to show up if they can. The leans groups are the ones that might not show up or could be convinced to vote the other way. Assuming of course they’re between the two parties and not on the far ends.
We can see also how strong his support is in the primaries. His biggest Challenger was DeSantis at 20 percent. That’s not great news. But Haley ran a specifically anti Trump campaign and gathered 6 percent at her highest. That’s good news. That says there’s 6 percent of conservatives, people who normally vote Republican who could be lured away or kept home with the right marketing.
It doesn’t seem like much but have a look at how close our elections have been recently. 6 percent in the right states could swing the election. And that’s not counting the independents and lean left groups. Now we look at the 3 states the democrats need, PA, MI, and WI. Nikki Haley actually had 12-26 percent in those 3 primary contests. So those are also vulnerable voters the Democrats can go after in the three states they actually need.
Disclaimer I haven’t had my coffee yet today so if anything is confusing just please ask questions!
They’re called Benoit balls
Sorry, I can’t even say it without adding “balls”. Physically impossible.
David Benoit’s Balls
Never seen anyone but the “Biden needs to earn my getting off my couch on election night” leftists say the second one
-
The situation is actually quite simple.
If you want Palestine to survive, your best bet is to vote Biden.
Literally every other option will only lower their chances. You can’t have everything you want, welcome to life.
“Genocide Joe” doesn’t matter when the other option is Turbo Genocide Donny.
So if there is anyone who tries to convince you to not vote Biden, they either want Palestine to die, or want to cause chaos in your country. Which is most likely a Russian bot.
They actually don’t give a shit about Palestine because they’re Right-wingers posing as leftists.
This conspiracy theory is even less plausible than the, “Everyone who disagrees with me is a secret agent” one.
I’ve seen right-wingers pretending to be leftists before and if you can’t get them to drop the act and start screaming racial slurs within 5 minutes, that’s on you.
Hi I’m your local Russian bot, if genocide is gonna occur either way and biden hasn’t done anything about it past some political posturing then you might as well punish biden with the possibility of setting a precedence moving forward that supporting genocide won’t get you re elected.
Doesn’t matter if you make this the last election we ever have now does it
this is the wildest lie I have ever seen.
deleted by creator
You’re voting Genocide Joe. Gotcha. You support genocide. Gotcha. Just admit you want genocide already!
As a real American of color red blood born into the Ohio oblast of the American Union, I agree!
Having standards is a bad thing, just vote for your team even if you’d hate what they do.
Republicans did that decades ago, and now have trump.
The only thing stupider than them doing it, is all the “moderates” saying it’s easier to convince millions of people to follow them off the cliff than convince the DNC to start running candidates that Dem voters want to vote for…
The fact that trump has won 50% of his elections and looks to be 2/3 in a few months should make everyone reconsider the quality of candidates we’re running against him.
Not getting mad at the people honest about the situation while there’s still time to do literally anything to prevent trump.
The fact that trump has won 50% of his elections and looks to be 2/3 in a few months should make everyone reconsider the quality of candidates we’re running against him.
After the Dems last lost an election, you got Biden as your next candidate. Why are you expecting this approach to suddenly produce a candidate you would like?
I don’t, that’s my point.
“Blue no matter who” always ends up with candidates more conservative than we want.
So even like in 2020 where we all and together and get a Dem president, House, and Senate, nothing gets done.
Because too many Dem incumbents just don’t agree with the party platform.
The only time the party pushes is when progressives try to have standards.
The only result is the party keeps getting more and more conservative. It’s not a valid long term strategy
I think you’ve misunderstood me. Last time the Democrats lost an election, you got Joe Biden as the next candidate. Why would making the Dems lose this election produce a more progressive candidate?
You are describing a ratcheting system.
There seems to be no voter action that can produce a more progressive candidate.
Sure there is, but too many progressive voters just seem to be unwilling to act to get them. It takes long term planning.
Let’s look at Barack Obama, a man whose political career to President was considered to be extremely fast, and who was considered to be very inexperienced and a shockingly fast rise.
He was elected President of the Harvard Law Review in 1990, 18 years before he would become President of the USA. In 1992 he directed a voter registration project/drive in Chicago that was successful enough to be big news. In 1996 he was elected to the Illinois State Senate, and in 2000 he lost the primary for a US Representative position.
But here’s a very important part: in 2003 he became chairman of a state committee when Democrats regained a majority. This allowed him to have some legislative successes, specifically in the field of racial profiling. Hmm, that ain’t gonna be important in Illinois ever again, is it?
With that legislative success, he was able to win the primary for Senate, but even then, this essentially required the incumbent in that slot to be gone. Then he was a Senator for merely four years before becoming President. And also notably for those who act like the DNC simply anoints candidates, he beat Hillary in the primary, despite her being favored by most of the entrenched elite of the party.
And the important thing to remember is this was a startlingly fast political career, considered by everyone to be a meteoric rise, an outlier. He was in politics for only 12 years before becoming President, though he did politics adjacent things even earlier. A more expected career would probably go for 20 to 30 years before becoming President.
So you want voter action for more progressive candidates? It starts a quarter century ago, in state-level offices like the Illinois Senate. It starts by getting those candidates elected over goddamn decades.
Politics is like farming, you can’t show up in harvest season, look around, and go ‘where are all the crops?’ and then be pissy that there’s gonna be a famine this winter. You gotta show up in the planting season, plant those crops, take care of them, keep them healthy and watered and fertilized as they grow, so you can finally get your food when harvest time comes.
So you want to complain about the lack of candidates, well here’s my question: where the fuck were you all in planting season a quarter of a century ago? Cause these crops take a goddamn while to grow.
Obama is a neoliberal. I don’t want more elected politicians with his views
If I did want Obama 2.0 then I’d vote for Buttigieg. And I hate Buttigieg
Way to miss the point.
The point is his career took twelve years and it was considered a meteoric rise, incredibly fast. You want better candidates, start working for it and help them make their way through the system.
Who’s your representative in your state house? Who was their primary opponent? Did you vote in that primary to try and get a more progressive candidate? Have you worked to get your local community to support more progressive candidates in small offices, so they can eventually become high level candidates?
There’s a chance you can answer those questions and have done what you can, but the vast, vast majority of progressives seem to just complain that no perfect candidate has been delivered to them despite no effort on their part.
I’ve been “planting” for 24 years and the “crops” have only gotten worse.
You are not limited to just your vote on the day of presidential elections in terms of your political engagement
There seems to be no voter action that can produce a more progressive candidate.
It’s almost like they don’t want you to have one.
Because, they’re saying, WINNING sure didn’t do progressives any favors.
FWIW, we ran Hillary Clinton as a moderate candidate and lost.
If neither winning nor losing does progressives any favours, then there’s no issue with trying to make the least bad realistic option win
Only if you never think more than an election ahead.
If you don’t, and always blindly vote D just because it’s not R…
How is that different than what lead the Republican party to trump?
Why do you think it’ll be different this time?
Only if you never think more than an election ahead.
So how many elections are you expecting that the Dems must lose in order to start fielding candidates you like, or for another party that does so to take their place? It doesn’t matter how many they lose if it never moves the needle your way, so you’ll have to be quite persuasive that this will achieve something that’s worth capitulating to the American right for a decade or longer.
How is that different than what lead the Republican party to trump?
Because of the actual outcomes during the four years between each election and the fact that you can protest and write and whatever else you want for improvement during that time. Your vote does have to be your entire political engagement.
Does this suck? Yes. Does the Republicans winning do literally anything to fix any of it? No. For that you need the Overton window to shift so far that the Republican party dies and the new two-party system has the Dems on the right, or you need a new electoral system. Neither of these is accomplished by the Dems losing.
Why do you think it’ll be different this time?
I don’t think it’ll be different this time because the candidates have already been picked. We already both know what the options are. Unfortunately, “no different” is a lot better than the other option. That’s why I’m advocating voting for damage control on the day. Vote against the worst option, because that’s how FPTP works.
So you’re saying both sides are the same? Just wanted to clarify.
I’m gonna say (as someone that was sucked into the psychological torture machine that was the conservative media loop in 2016) that Hillary didn’t lose for being a moderate. Trump was by far at his strongest in 2016; his insanity was a basically unknown factor and he did a legitimately great job seeming to flip the bird at ‘the system’, and the conservative propaganda machine had a LOT of points to attack Hillary with that had nothing to do with her moderate politics. Trump promised the world and had all the charisma to sell the world too, and Hillary… I honestly can’t remember anything about her platform at all.
In my personal opinion, Hillary could absolutely have won that election if the Democrats hadn’t been complacent about it. Maybe not a landslide victory, but I think it would have been a very solid win.
Hillary had a weird double-whammy of underestimating the appeal of Trump for many that led to losing control of the monster she helped make, along with having a long list of insults ready for anyone who didn’t want her to be the Democratic candidate that didn’t endear her to the voters who could have made her presidency for her. Whether it was calling them deplorables, broadly dismissing any criticism of her within the party as rooted in misogyny, or accusing them of being unrealistic idealists with pie in the sky goals and unelectable candidates, she really had a knack for taking these people and firmly putting them in the camp of “Screw her, I’m not voting for someone who treats me like that.” rather than engaging in a serious attempt to understand these voters and address their concerns.
Democrats today have certainly learned that Trump could be a serious threat, not to be dismissed out of hand. To his credit, Biden has notably not fallen into the sort of self-destructive antagonism of the electorate that is not already firmly committed. He might pay only lip service to their concerns, but I’m not aware of him blanket writing off, say, pro-Palestinian protestors en masse as antisemites that were never going to vote for him and are beyond redeem, even if he does frequently trot out manufactured claims of widespread antisemitism.
People online trying to drum up support for him don’t seem to have gotten the message that this didn’t work out so well for Hillary, and are going at it, calling people who haven’t vocally committed to Biden anything from idiots to Russian shills to Republican trolls, and claiming they hate minorities and LGBTQ+ people or whatever else occurs to them to rile up people. I don’t see that working out to their advantage, and predict it will alienate people who might have potentially been won over.
FWIW, we ran Hillary Clinton as a moderate candidate and lost.
You call that Kissinger/Thatcher mashup monstrosity “moderate?”
She is a moderate in the Democratic Party at this point, unfortunately. Hell, I think Reagan would be a moderate in today’s Democratic Party. All the more reason we should be running more progressive candidates.
Hillary was a moderate?
In 2016 the pre election polls showed a rock paper scissors ordering.
-
Trump beats Hillary
-
Hillary beats Bernie
-
Bernie beats Trump
The last occurred because Bernie was a different enough candidate to attract a certain subset of Republicans.
-
I just assumed you didn’t think a single voter could influence an election…
For my vote to matter for president, we need a charismatic progressive, it’s the only thing that can flip my state from red.
Even if Biden pull it out and wins, there is literally zero chance Biden wins my state.
That’s just reality.
You don’t flip red states by being diet republican. Everyone that wants that is already voting R, and they’ll never vote D.
You’re not addressing his question at all.
That is bot like behaviour.
So come this November what are you suggesting? I’m so sick of these naive pie-in-the-sky dreaming, or just complain without any solution posts. Come out and say it plainly. Are you saying not to vote for Biden come November?
You’re literally one of the guys in the meme above.
Why are you so eager to get people to telegraph their vote when the act of threatening to withhold a vote (even if they plan on voting for biden in November) gives infinitely more leverage than pledging fealty months ahead of schedule so the campaign strategists solidify their stances on everything to keep voters around? Come on, if your goal is to vote strategically, telegraph strategically too so you are voting for a better biden than exists today.
Why are you so eager to get people to telegraph their vote
Because we want to determine if you are a Russian bot or just badly informed.
So, no response to the rest of my comment explaining why someone would claim they won’t be voting for biden? You’d rather call people bots instead of assume people are acting strategically and in good faith to help Palestinians?
I’m not saying to telegraph your vote, but I am tired of these not-so-subtle attempts at either “bOtH SiDeS” arguments or somehow pushing for people to not vote (or throw away their vote on a third party).
This disinformation push has truly infested Lemmy across the board and I view it as extremely dangerous.
Realistically it’s too late in the election cycle to impact change on either incumbent nominee. All k see is efforts to disenfranchise people into somehow not voting for Biden.
It’s honestly a pretty safe bet to think that both liberals and leftist’s positions are being amplified and twisted by propagandists. I’m a queer leftist. I know how much damage another trump presidency would be for my community, but at the same time, I know how harmful a current Biden presidency is to Palestinians. My life isn’t more important than theirs, so I refuse to look at this like I’m some outsider looking in since I’m biased towards my own comfort. Since trump isn’t an option and since relying on 3rd parties to be our saviors is unrealistic, more strategic actions must be made (like lying about abstaining your vote for instance). Hell, a ton of leftists aren’t even in states where it would even matter who they vote for, so all they have is their voice to try to change current policy rather than change to a different president (3rd party) with different policy.
Poisoning online discourse of Biden’s specific policies until his campaign team determines that he needs to change things to win the election is about the only thing likely to move the needle for leftists living in deep red or deep blue states. So far, Biden’s team has shifted to being vocally against Israel’s actions in public but still sending funds and weapons sales regardless of the harsh words. But harsh words aren’t making a difference since Netanyahu had no issues invading Rafah. So more pressure has to be placed on Biden (through electoral leverage) until he acts in such a way that it makes a real difference. There’s still time for Biden to reverse course, to stop threatening the ICC, to stop vetoing UN resolutions, to stop shipping weapons regardless of our trade deals with Israel. That’s the leverage he has and electoral strategy is our leverage. Assuming everyone is acting in bad faith denies discussion about what actually should be done in the meantime while we see what kind of Biden is on the ballot this November.
And yes, some leftists are so livid over our role in horrors around the world and want to burn things to the ground since more people would be happier in the world without the US policing them, instigating coups, exploiting the global south and prisoners for slave labor in this country, as well as countless other reasons this “democracy” probably isn’t worth saving. And while I also think America (as well as pretty much every global superpower out there) are genuinely evil, tearing down this system right now probably wouldn’t really help out Palestinians in the short term (short term being important because there’s half a million people starving to death who could be helped).
The real issue here is that AIPAC is known to heavily support candidates against anyone who isn’t staunchly pro-israel (they spent $4.5 Million on Katie Porter’s rival in California and helped get Maxine Dexter seated in Oregon with the help of republican donors). They would likely push anti-biden or pro-trump just to maintain their singular goal. AIPAC is also currently trying to unseat Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) from the House and replace him with someone who is pro-israel. If AIPAC has enough power to control the sway of elections, they definitely have more sway than leftists online ever will. Though, if Biden reverses course (initiating actions from AIPAC) then loses the election, leftists will be blamed while AIPAC will be largely ignored.
There are five more months until the election. That is only not enough time if you are unwilling to even make an attempt to change your candidates position. Thats the crux of this. Moderates keep shouting like the election is happening tomorrow when its months away. You know whats happening tomorrow? More Palestinian deaths while you wring your hands about how its impossible to get Biden to do anything decent. I can’t imagine why leftists are so disappointed in moderates all the time.
There are plenty of solutions. Just not any that I’m allowed to post here.
Republicans did that decades ago, and now have trump.
I might argue that Republicans didn’t do that decades ago, and that’s how they got two Bushes, a McCain, and a Romney. It wasn’t until they abandoned the “electable” moderate Republican and embraced their ideological id that they got to their political messiah.
The fact that trump has won 50% of his elections and looks to be 2/3 in a few months should make everyone reconsider the quality of candidates we’re running against him.
I gotta say, I noticed the folks running in the GOP field and they all sucked hard. Trump was the raw meat candidate, but he wasn’t even the most fascist asshole on the ballot. DeSantis was the guy who got off waterboarding people at Gitmo for a living. Hailey couldn’t name a country she didn’t want to bomb. Hutchinson’s fundie base would have him rounding up the cast of RuPaul’s Drag Race and marching them to the gas chambers. Only Ramaswamy is the kind of sociopath business conservative more fixated on looting the country than mutilating its residents.
Trump’s given them license to go full mask-off, but he’s not uniquely bad. He’s emblematic of a party that’s also frothed with bigotry, and just found a PC way of displaying it right up until a black man got into the White House.
Not getting mad at the people honest about the situation while there’s still time to do literally anything to prevent trump.
Biden won 2020 by 40,000 votes across three major swing states. He’s losing all three - PA, GA, and AZ - by two to three times that under current polling. The theory that we can just Tinkerbell him back into a second term is simple cope. Biden’s goose was cooked as soon as he fumbled the bag in his first 100 days.
Blaming 20-something tech savvy voters on Lemmy for hating the man over his genocidal support of Israel won’t shift any of the critical swing-state 40-something blue collar voters angry at him over sun-setting all the COVID era public spending measures.
It’s the economy, stupid
…and for most Americans the economy isn’t that great. Sure we ducked the recession that should have come, but while “line goes up” is great for Wall Street and the economy as a whole, the delayed impact means that improvement does little for the suburban and rural working class voters whose only exposure to the stock market is their 401(k). That’s decades away from paying anything out, while right now they’re feeling the pinch of stagnant wages and corporate driven inflation
I’m not sure how it works in the US but join the democratic party and vote for the presidential candidate you want to see. If it doesn’t work out and you don’t like the democratic candidate but said candidate is still better than the Republican, still vote Democrat.
I’m not sure how it works in the US
Yeah. If you think primaries matter, you don’t know how it works here…
But one DNC lawyer’s argument actually tries to justify the party’s right to be biased on behalf of one primary candidate over another, according to an article from The Young Turks. In other words, they could have chosen their nominee over cigars in a backroom.
Their legal defense for interfering with the 2016 primary was literally:
Who cares? A primary isn’t a real election and doesn’t matter, we don’t have to listen to results.
Maybe the primaries system is fucked up, but protest votes in the presidential elections won’t change the system for the better either. Neither party wants to introduce a democratic, proportional voting system because both parties would lose power. I don’t know how to fix it, i just know that getting Trump elected won’t.
Maybe
Maybe?
It is fucked.
We have no say in who either of the two general candidates are, and they take billions from the same people/industries.
That’s not an exaggeration, 2020 Biden spent a billion, and 2024 they’re predicting two billion.
We have an illusion of choice and the same people win no matter which party wins the oval office.
I don’t know how to fix it, i just know that getting Trump elected won’t.
Neither will voting Biden, it doesn’t solve the problem, just kicks the can down the road and 4 years from now it’ll be the same thing. Either with trump again or someone even worse.
Better kick the can down the road than slip and fall and fucking die.
than slip and fall and fucking die.
You forgot “risk” and leaving out that in this analogy “kicking the can” is surviving a little.longer by extending suffering.
But it’s depressing how many people want to spend time convincing people to vote for an unrepent genocide supporter than trying to get the US president and upcoming candidate to stop supporting a genocide…
This is like when people claimed to support civil rights and MLK. But spent all their time complaining about protests and saying if we all just shut up and accepted it life would be easier for you.
I’m glad Biden won’t fundamentally change your life, and that your life is currently good enough for that to be acceptable.
But you’re in the minority these days.
So keep yelling at people who will suffer under either party to vote for someone that hates them and will actively work against them…
If you want to prevent republicans from holding higher office tho, I suggest you join the adults and demand the DNC be better than just “not a Republican”.
You get to prevent trump and help the needy!
The fact that trump has won 50% of his elections
That would mean Biden has won 100% of his elections.
General presidential?
Yes…
That’s what numbers mean.
If you include primaries tho, his first try at president was 1988, 36 years ago. And he never stopped trying, just never was a good enough candidate till the only standard became “not trump”.
Jokes on you. I’m trying to vote for the big dawg.
I know I have no way of convincing anyone of this, but I am not a Russian bot (living in the UK and not being able to vote in the US election).
But these are exactly the points of view I have been expressing over here about the Tory and Labour parties. Maybe not so much the “not voting at all” one but the other three? Yeah – that sounds a lot like me right now.
(I think you should vote for someone you believe in, rather than voting for someone who is not someone else, if that makes sense)
But definitely not a Russian bot :)
I think you should vote for someone you believe in, rather than voting for someone who is not someone else
This would be the ideal situation, but for so long as we have first-past-the-post it’s a fundamentally ineffective way to vote. Thanks to Duverger’s law, unless one of the two big parties just so happens to coincide with your views then the best you can do is to vote against whichever of the big two you dislike most. “Big two” here depends on your constituency - it may not be Labour and the Conservatives locally, but it is true that virtually every constituency has at most two realistic options. Labour may not be very good, but if they’re in power it’s probably at minimum going to make this a better place for asylum seekers and trans people (or whoever the Tories would go after next), and Labour’s voting record on the environment really is far better than the Conservatives’ too.
Your opinion is that it’s the best you can do. I disagree, because that ignores the medium run.
It might be a good idea, but it’s not definitely “the best” because reality is more complicated. Politics doesn’t happen exactly once on one day.
I agree, but I unfortunately think that’s actually the perspective of anyone who chooses not to vote. Politics doesn’t happen once on one day. But if you haven’t done anything in 4 years the most impactful you’ll be is voting for the lesser of two evils once on election day.
It’s the best you can with with your vote on voting day. It doesn’t stop you doing anything else on any other day.
Removed by mod
The UK is having a general election in a little over a month, and we have a similar electoral system and a similarly miserable political landscape. It’s fairly applicable here too.
Well the part about “not voting will support the least democratic party” would work, if there is any significant support for those parties (which there is), but the choices are far from being as clear as in the US, especially because they’ve had several presidents who lost the popular vote but still got elected. Meaning that the smaller tje discrepancy, the easier it is for the corrupt electoral college to go against the popular vote.
Refraining from voting can be used to reform a system, but if people don’t honestly see that voting Biden is the only reasonable action to take against Trump, then we’re frighteningly close to pretty literally repeating history. Hell, even if Trump loses and even if he goes to prison, the US pretty much on track to repeat the exact history of Germany 100 years ago.
Did you reply to the comment that you intended to here? I’m not sure I understand why you’ve said what you said. If that’s just me being thick then please clarify for me, I’m lost
The point is that not-voting can be a tool for reform, and can be a reasonable choice. CAN be. But it definitely is NOT in the US presidential election, where not voting is pretty much direct support for Trump, one of the most psychotic world leaders in the last decades.
Without significant cooperation and a very specific situation though, refraining from voting should not be practiced, and currently a vast majority of the people advocating for it are Russian trolls trying to help Putler’s bitch Trump win the election.
Right, but I agree with you about that. I’m just saying the meme also applies well to the upcoming UK election.
Insofar that apathy is the greatest tool of oppressor, yes, I would have to agree.
The UK’s electoral system doesn’t seem at all similar to the US’s, imo
Both are first past the post, which is creates a two-party system. There are a lot of other differences, yes, but for the purposes of the post it’s close enough where it counts
Your submission in “SSDE” was removed for: Attacking other users is against the rules here, too…
Removed by mod
Try @[email protected] - I think that’s the user they are talking about.
Thanks for the tag.
Removed by mod
Must’ve been a typo, I’m still around. AMA.
Can we have Evan Gershkovich back?
Oh hey yeah there you are, good to see the AMA - hard to vet claims online so glad to see people open to at least sharing their perspectives :) (only searched for your name, haven’t looked at anything so don’t have any questions myself)
Yes, definitely a Russian bot, and not someone who works from home and is active during normal waking hours in Minnesota.
I don’t advocate anyone getting banned but i think it’s a bit naive to accuse someone who you disagree with as being a foreign agent.
Go ahead and look through my comments, I’ll happily own up to any comment where I said ‘don’t vote for biden’. I think liberals who obsess over the lesser evil binary 6 months out from an election instead of pushing their candidate to be less shit are themselves just looking for an excuse not to critique their own willingness to accept genocidal complicity.
Shout out to unruffled for tagging me. Glad to know I’m at least memorable.
Removed by mod
Jesus bud, take a sec to breathe.
So… where do you live?
Minnesota is as specific as i’m willing to be with you, sorry if that’s disappointing. But even if I picked a town like ‘Osseo’ arbitrarily, how’d that satisfy this incessant nagging suspicion of yours more than ‘Minnesota’? That’s why I told you it was ‘unfalsifiable’. So go nuts, pick a standard you’d be willing to accept as satisfactory proof that i’m American. Before you ask me to provide it, though, ask yourself if you’d be willing to provide the same personal details to strangers on the internet - i’m willing to bet there is no proof I could provide you that most people would be willing to offer themselves.
Weird how you do literally nothing but post “don’t vote biden”, isn’t it?
Like I said, feel free to find any example of me saying that. The most i’ve said is that I understand not wanting to vote for him over his defense of Israel. Admittedly I got sent by the incessant ‘i’m still voting for him’ apologia i kept seeing in that community, so that’s basically all I did on here for a few days. You should know that your continued reaction over it is scratching something of an itch.
It’s more likely you just think someone with that negative a view of Biden cannot possibly be real, and if that’s what you need to believe in order to ground yourself back to reality i’m happy to play pretend for you.
Removed by mod
Hope you have a good one, truly.
Yes, avoid and deny.
You were so willing to discuss these things the other day, what happened?
I mean, it’s not like you literally ever talk about anything else so…
You asked me to link a post or comment by you. I did. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
TBH, I just noticed the typo in your name. If I’d thought for more than 5 seconds about it, I’d have kept it to myself instead of correcting it though. Apologies.
No worries.
For what it’s worth, I ended up getting the boot for calling someone a ‘l!b’, though if I’m being honest I expected it sooner for cooking a little too hard
Well as long as you have your pride as the world burns down around you :)
It’s already burning, and you’re actively participating in one, if you haven’t noticed. But hey, my teams going to keep it under controI, the people dying are not even white, so it’s cool.
It’s optimal for US to come out as fascist and remove all doubts, so that rest of the world can move away from appeasing a military complex disguised as a country. The civilized world will deal with it.
People actually believe that country that actively supports current and harbors past war criminals is the one that’s keeping the world from burning. No, you’re just like Russia and China with good PR.
But you can’t make any more arguments without moving to hypothetical bullshit, deflection, personal attacks and whataboutism from brainwashing, so I won’t fault you.
-Signed, Pick your flavor of bots (Russian/Chinese/NK/Iran/Cuba/Aliens) you like and feel better about yourself
If you vote for the green party then its less likely to burn down around you :)
well that’s because labor did become much more similar to the tories with that cunt blair when thatcher was in office, didn’t it? the difference isn’t as small in the us, however disappointing it might be.
democrats are center right but not straight up fascist as the republican party is today.
at the very least they’re trailing behind the population when it comes to social justice. the republicans are completely against anyone except straight cis white males having any rights.
they talk about trans people a lot but they already started taking women’s rights away. who’s safe? gays? black people? leftists? you can say both parties are disappointing but it’s a joke to say they are “the same.”
also AOC talking about the election last time had a good argument for Biden despite her differences: forget who you support. but who do you think will be more responsive to arguments and protests? if it’s Biden, you might or might not pressure him to do some things. if it’s the other guy, you know he will not listen.
the exception seems to be genocide unfortunately, but it won’t be better under the guy who triggered and facilitated all of this while he was in the office in the first place.
and I’m sorry but you can’t expect the democrats to come to their senses on their own. if you think not voting for them will suddenly make them think they should appeal more to the left, historically you’ve been wrong; the only lesson they learn is that they should appeal more to the right because the right is winning despite being a minority. that’s how their deteriorating minds work.
It’s easier for them to call you/anyone a bot than admit any of the viable options have many many issues
Edit: people here don’t seem to like pointing out this fact
I did voter drives in 2016 and 2020 The people I met say the same things. I am in now way saying that voter interference is not a thing. Encouraging voter apathy is a easy way to influence American elections.
Can’t believe it took this long for me to see this meme. Plenty of photos of internet soldiers, but haven’t seen it memes till now.
When you don’t vote, how can anyone reflect on why they did not get your vote? At the very least write in a name like “Sanders” so the caucus can say, “well, it seems we didn’t get this vote because we were not progressive enough.”
Obviously, it doesn’t mean the parties will change but maybe they will think “We almost had this state. If we change slightly maybe we can grab 25% of these independents in the next Senate race.”
When we are all headed to gas chambers because Trump won, I hope leftist “no voters” and “3rd party voters” can take solace in the fact that they personally didn’t dirty their morals by voting for Biden. Because the last hours of our lives, I will be brutally taking the piss out of you all and loving every moment of it.
I get paid by the US government to shitpost
What if I have a nihilistic interest in politics, and pray every day that I could ignore it like most people?
You can ignore it, but politics aren’t going to ignore you.
I know and I hate it. I feel like I’d be so much happier if I just whacked myself in the forehead with a hammer a couple times.
All Hail the Whacked Forehead Party!
To be honest, our membership is down
When Martin Luther King Jr said the white moderate was the biggest stumbling block of progressive politics he meant shit like this That favors order over Justice.
When it said that you cut a liberal in a fascist bleeds they mean you.
I’m an American that lives in a very blue state. I will be voting third party this election because my state and my vote will end up going to the blue team anyway. What I know is that if a third party gets 5% of the vote they get funding in the next round. I don’t know about all you guys, but I am tired of constantly picking the lesser evil and having every election I participate in be the most important election of our lifetime (so far
But sure Just say I’m a Russian bot. I’m sure that won’t distance people even further away from your politics.
Donate and campaign for your local ranked choice voting groups https://fairvote.org/ - if you aren’t engaged in changing the system, you should be.
Until we have change like this, I’m still voting for the person who sucks the least, because I know only one of the two mainstream candidates will win.
That’s because you have the privilege of living in a blue state and our votes going towards an electoral college rather than popular vote in most cases. I voted Green Party before seeing her in the Russian op photo. National doesn’t matter as much as local votes do
Exactly if you live in a non-swing state like me that is either solid red or blue and does not change then vote third party. If you live in a swing state then vote for the lesser of two evils.
It’s really simple
You should open with this
If you live in a red state vote blue so that there’s that tiny 1%chance that enough people are pissed off that blue wins by a few votes
I mean you could, but even if you’re successful, you end up in the same situation we are in now where we’re deciding between the lesser of two evils every election.
If you follow my plan instead, over time, third parties will gain more support allowing us to pick something other than the lesser of two evils.
Do you get what I’m saying?
Genuine question. If you lived in a swing state for this election, who would you vote for?
Just want to say this is the only sane take. I am donating and supporting the Green party in hopes of 5%, then we’ll see the Dems actually get off their ass and give some scraps to the struggling working class of this country.
Are you voting for Bobby Jr, Cornel or Jill?
Because Bobby’s the only one who might get 5%. Would that be saying you are okay with his policies?
What are you going to do in the next election cycle to make sure the nominees align closer to your values?
For me, it’ll probably come down to Dr. Cornel West or Claudia de lacruz. I would vote for Jill Stein if those two aren’t viable at time of voting. All three of these candidates are closer to my values than any of the party nominees I’ve seen in my lifetime.
Rfk seems to have more in common with Republicans than anyone else and they’re my least favorite. I just generally find him kind of gross and grifty
If the nominee doesn’t align with my values in the next election, I will continue to do the what I am now. pushing people to vote for third party politicians that do align with their values in non-swing State situations.
Dr. Cornel West or Claudia de lacruz. I would vote for Jill Stein
Are any of those polling over 1%?
That’s a silly question.
That’s like if you were talking about building a dog house and I asked you “How much of it’s done already?” And when you said not that much I could say. Well it’s never going to get done then. See how that’s silly?
No, I asked if any of them are polling over 5%.
It’s a question with an answer, just maybe not an answer you would like.
So do you want to answer the question or do you want to deflect from the answer?
Actually, you didn’t ask that you asked if any of them are polling over 1%.
Re-read your own comment.
I’m not going to waste my time with you anymore ✌🏾
I obviously hit the wrong number but you still can’t answer the question.
Welcome comrade bot. We are not quite legion but if we can get these Liberal airbags to stop voting for genocide politicians maybe we can actual have change. Lol remember Obama and “Change”.
…you realize MLK was talking about people like you that would rather throw your hands up and do nothing than help, right?
If Trump wins, minorities and LGBT folks are in danger. That’s on you. In the same way that white moderates are critiqued for sitting around and doing nothing in the civil rights era, people who are sitting around and doing nothing against the rise of fascism in that way because they don’t want to take the time to focus on who’s in danger are to blame. You are the modern white moderate.
Lol, this is new. Olgino trolls in uniform.
I can imagine their daily checklist
- Paint grass green
- Paint dirt black
- Write comments about not voting
for Navalny
Nothing to do with rigged elections or propaganda. People are realizing that neither party represents the people. It’s a fact.
Neither party representing the people is very very different then saying both parties are equally damaging.
That’s pretty misleading because it depends on what you mean by “the people”. And the more complicated, less-emotionally satisfying reality is that both candidates were essentially chosen by different groups of “the people” in contested primary elections in 2016 and 2020. The system is inefficient and in fact designed to uphold the status quo, but still allows people to change it. And trying to change it by voting is a far more effective strategy than not participating and hoping the extremely status-quo biased corporate media somehow gives you attention and takes your side as a result.
It’s actually quite simple.
67% of the US public want the government to call for a ceasefire.
That’s it. Neither party will do it, therefore neither represents the people. Talk all you want about primaries or whatever, but the reality is that neither party represents the people on this.
It’s not up for debate.
This is true for just about every issue, too. The US government’s actions and the desires of the American people have basically zero correlation with one another - and we have the gall to call other countries sham democracies!
That’s it. Neither party will do it, therefore neither represents the people.
Except that’s not actually true. There’s one party that’s unanimously against a ceasefire, and one party that’s split. If more people voted for the party that’s partly for a ceasefire, maybe the pro-ceasefire side would get a majority in government. Problem is, of the people that want a ceasefire, very few vote or they protest vote instead of picking people who can actually move the needle.
This is what the meme is about, people. This is the enemy.
Absolutely, this is a huge opportunity for the Green party to grow
Would you like to put out the house fire while on fire yourself, or not?
Dainbramage in the wild, folks.
Or, you can call out both parties for being shit, while still voting for the one that’s slightly less shit. Crazy, I know.
Sure, but these comments are trying to get people to not vote at all.
If Lemmy comments convince you not to vote, you weren’t going to vote to begin with.
Slightly??? Come on man.
Both parties are shit. I’m a progressive 🤷
My question still stands, if you’ll take the effort to re-read.
E: the downvotes! Ahhhh so many downvotes! Whatever shall I do 😂
It depends. If it’s my house, and I live alone? I’ll put myself out first. If my wife and cats are still in the house? I’m going to work on putting the house fire out first.
I’m a middle aged, white, het-, cis-male. I like guns–I like guns a lot–and I know the bible far, far better than almost all evangelicals. If Trump wins, I’ll be fine. I can keep my mouth shut for four years–or however long he’s alive, or his dynasty is in power–and at least get by. My friends that are LGBTQ+, non-white, are women of child-bearing age, or cant’s reasonably pass as christian? They’ll be fucked. So I’m not voting for me, I’m voting for them.
I appreciate your answer, just pointing out that it’s hard to help others if you yourself are experiencing calamity, even potentially.
You may pass for the time being, but there will be a point where you need to say something or so something to protect one of those friends, and the facade falls.
Am I happy with Biden? Nope. But I’m definitely not voting for the cheatin’ Cheeto, or anyone even tangentially related.
but there will be a point where you need to say something or so something to protect one of those friends, and the facade falls.
Hopefully; I sincerely hope that I can act when it’s time, rather than being paralyzed by fear. But a lot of people are really good at not directly confronting abuse in a system, aren’t they? How many people acted directly to prevent the murder of George Floyd, versus filming and yelling?
