Spyke
lemmy.world

Ranked Choice Voting! Find your local RCV group and find ways to help get RCV implemented in your city! It’s something that sees opposition from republicans and democrats so you know it’s good.

180
chetradleyreply
lemmy.world

I'm a fan of STAR voting myself, but anything is better than the first past the post system we have now.

32

If Star has traction in your city I say go for it! RCV just seems to have the most momentum.

16
neidu2reply
feddit.nl

Could you give a quick primer on what STAR voting is? I got a star from my teacher some 30 years ago, but somehow I doubt the system is based on those..

3

STAR, or Score Then Automatic Runoff, differs from RCV in that instead of ranking the candidates in order of preference, you can assign a rating to each, out of five stars. All of the stars are added for each candidate (score), and the ones with the fewest stars are eliminated (automatic runoff), then the scores are added again, another runoff, etc.

So say you love candidate C, you dislike candidate B, and you hate candidate A.

  • In an RCV system, you'd rank C,B,A, and if C is eliminated, your full support goes behind B, but in the initial scoring round, only your top ranked candidate gets your full vote.
  • In a STAR system, you'd maybe give C five stars, B two stars, and A zero stars. You're still giving some support to B for the initial scoring round, but most of your support goes to C.

So the biggest difference is that in the initial scoring round, your preference for candidates other than your first choice are considered. Check out this video, which gives a good breakdown of voting systems and how they account for spoilage: https://youtu.be/oFqV2OtJOOg?si=8sLYiYpA7EnOt94i

5
SeaJreply
lemm.ee

It would be nice if they did that for the Democratic primaries.

14
lemmy.world

It’d also be nice if they couldn’t just override the primary election results because it’s not a “real election”

Yes, I’m still a bit bitter about how the DNC treated Bernie in the 2016 election

33
midwest.social

As you should be as this is part of the reason why Ttump got elected in the first place.

14

As you should be as this is part of the reason why Ttump got elected in the first place.

Yep the same Kremlin propaganda operation that elected Convicted Felon and Sex Offender Treason Trump also "supported" Bernie to help get Treason Trump elected.

-5
SeaJreply
lemm.ee

They did not override that one. Sanders did not even win the non superdelegates. That's not to say the 2016 Democratic primary was not fucked. Party officials clearly had a preference and were obviously pushing Clinton. Showing the super delegates planned counts before they actually voted made it seem like Sanders had no chance. They need to minimize the number of super delegates so that they can only decide really close primaries.

2

Eh, fair enough. Undermined, cheated, manipulated, schemed, swindled, deceived, duped, defrauded, etc might have been a better description.

6

It’d also be nice if they couldn’t just override the primary election results because it’s not a “real election”

That is some Trumpian level of bullshit. They cannot do that because it is against the Charter since the 1950's. And yes legally the DNC could change their own charter but so can the RNC. Changing party charters to nullify primaries would spell certain doom for that party.

Yes, I’m still a bit bitter about how the DNC treated Bernie in the 2016 election

You and the Kremlin are bitter about how the Dem primary voters treated us Bernie supporters in the 2016 election. Got it.

-5
EatATacoreply
lemm.ee

Sanders was crushed by Clinton in the 2016 primary elections. It was clear pretty much from the start that she was going to win. You take away all the super delegates, she still demolishes him. Did they show some favoritism towards her? Sure. Did they call him some bad names in private emails? Yes. Did she get a few questions before a debate? Yes. Is there any evidence that the election was rigged and stolen from Sanders? No, none at all.

This insistence that the Sanders was somehow robbed of the 2016 nomination (or 2020 nomination at that) is equivalent to Trump's claim that he was robbed in 2020.

-5
lemmy.world

The DNC heavily undermined and consistently sabotaged Bernie's campaign the point that the DNC chair stepped down and the DNC then apologized "for the inexcusable remarks made over email" that did not reflect the DNC's "steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process." (From the wikipedia link below).

From the 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak: In the emails, DNC staffers derided the Sanders campaign. The Washington Post reported: "Many of the most damaging emails suggest the committee was actively trying to undermine Bernie Sanders's presidential campaign."

Bernie was absolutely robbed of a fair primary election.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak

13
EatATacoreply
lemm.ee

The DNC heavily undermined and consistently sabotaged Bernie’s campaign the point that the DNC chair stepped down and the DNC then apologized “for the inexcusable remarks made over email” that did not reflect the DNC’s “steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process.”

We all know and agree that they said bad things about him, but do you really think making "inexcusable remarks" in private actually supports the claim that he was "heavily undermined and consistently sabotaged"?

Bernie was absolutely robbed of a fair primary election.

The only "concrete" thing you cite is that "they said nasty things about him in private." No actual evidence of them doing anything to undermine his chances. The worst concrete thing that came out is that Clinton got some debate questions early, but do we really think that is going to lead to a 12 point swing? No way.

-3
lemmy.world

Convenient you skip over the undermine his campaign portion of my previous comment. But the fact that the Chair of the DNC resigned over it shows it was more than just saying "nasty things about him in private".

It should also be noted that their actions "caused significant harm to the Clinton campaign, and have been cited as a potential contributing factor to her loss in the general election". It is not as inconsequential as you present it.

1

Convenient you skip over the undermine

Because it offered nothing concrete. It just says the emails "suggest" this, but doesn't actually offer up anything of substance as to how it was done.

But the fact that the Chair of the DNC resigned over it shows it was more than just saying “nasty things about him in private”.

And yet, all you can point to is them saying nasty things in private.

It should also be noted that their actions “caused significant harm to the Clinton campaign, and have been cited as a potential contributing factor to her loss in the general election”. It is not as inconsequential as you present it.

I'm challenging the belief that Sanders had some chance in the 2016 primary against Clinton, and that there is good reason to believe it was stolen from him. I understand that the leaked emails were massively consequential.

0

From the 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak:

From the Kremlin hacking operation that passed both true and false info to Assange who said in a memo that they wanted Treason Trump to win which was documented in the Mueller report.

Why did Putin NOT leak RNC memos? Because he has been blackmailing the Republican Party ever since.

-5

America is not a progressive country and if you are progressive you will be eternally disappointed with it.

Read more history if you disagree.

4
lemmy.zip

Can we please not continue to relitigate this until the end of time? We will be in line at the republican death camps and people will still be arguing that sanders won in 2016. It serves no purpose other than supporting the idiots who would rather a republican win than a democrat who isn't Sanders.

When they start screaming stop the count or restart the count or whatever: Smile, nod, and ignore.

-1
EatATacoreply
lemm.ee

I don't really think I'm going to convince that poster. I know, like Trump supporters, they are probably long gone and no amount of pointing out that they have no evidence is going to convince them that the DNC not screwed him, Sanders would have won. I just watch young people shifting towards the right, and it's probably partially because of these dopes spreading this lie about the democrats, so I'm speaking to anyone who might come after them.

-2

When you actually offer up something other than "they said nasty things about him!" then we can talk. So far tho, nothing.

0
lemmy.zip

I doubt being grumpy about Sanders is going to shift folk to be right-wing. A lot of them probably HAVE become tankies but... the Sanders campaign was already very heavily buoyed by tankies online. Because it would have been shooting fish in a barrel for the candidate most known for "fun nicknames" to be up against a guy who used to be a meme about how c-span was boring and actively refused to even say "While I think the socioeconomic model had a lot of benefits, I oppose the fascist communist regimes of olde".

But also? I know a few of the dumbest "Bernie or bust" morons you will ever see who focused that anger toward working with the Democrats to get considerably less shitty downballot candidates. And that is what the lesson should have been.

1

I doubt being grumpy about Sanders is going to shift folk to be right-wing.

It certainly turns them off of the Democrats. So maybe not a shift to the right, but certainly conditions where it increases the chance that the right is going to win. If Bernie bros had just accepted the outcome and then coalesced around Clinton, she likely would have won and we wouldn't be in the same mess we're in now.

-1
lemmy.world

Hey look, more liberals blatantly lying about how shit and corrupt their party is!

-6
EatATacoreply
lemm.ee

And you've provided. . .oh look! Nothing!

2

And to prove these lies you've provided ...oh look! Nothing!

4

Providing nothing is better than providing blatant lies :3

A blatant lie was all you provided.

3

I was curious about this. Since political parties run their own primaries, then they can decide to use whatever voting system they want. I suspect that RCV primaries would produce a candidate that is more competitive in the general election (though I don't know enough about electoral math or demographics to be sure). I'm certain that RCV has a tendency to discourage scorched earth campaign tactics, so party candidates would be less prone to trying to destroy one another.

1
robocallreply
lemmy.world

My city does ranked choice voting, and it's great! I would love to see it at the state level.

3
venusaurreply
lemmy.world

That’s awesome! What city? What was the process for getting it on the ballot and what helped getting it passed?

1
robocallreply
lemmy.world

San Francisco has had ranked choice voting since 2004. IIRC they called it "instant run-off voting" and it would save from having a run off election for the mayor and other elected officials.

2
lemmy.zip

Ranked choice doesn't really help here. Generally right-wing/conservative/wannabe-gilead voters aggregate around the republican candidate. Libertarians get stupid but there are very few of them and they start off stupid.

On the left? We have a LOT more infighting but the only viable candidates at the Presidential level (and most, but not all, states) are the Democrat.

So what does ranked choice get us? Okay, everyone picks their favorite third party first. They all get eliminated. So who voted for the Democrat and who voted for the republican?

It also becomes a question of what variation of ranked choice voting is used. Because, depending on the elimination model, you are just normalizing spoiler candidates.

And... there is the very good argument that we already have ranked choice voting in a sense. Primaries. it happens less when there is an incumbent but everyone picks their absolute favorite candidate who most closely represents them. The majority of that then becomes the candidate we vote for come November.

Nah, I think the real answer is to just get rid of the electorcal college at the presidential level and just do popular votes. We have the technology.


I'll also add on that there is a lot of theory (and even demonstrable-ish evidence) that you tend to consolidate around two-ish candidates even in the models that are fairly amenable to third parties. There are a LOT of question marks because this isn't the kind of study you can really isolate, but even the third party heavy models (most parliamentary governments, for example) tend to have two dominating parties with a third or fourth that are "just strong enough to get concessions".

-17

Of course it helps. Sure, the first election wouldn’t see much change, but RCV emboldens third parties to exist and would give them a viable path towards displacing the establishment. Right now there is NO path.

30
venusaurreply
lemmy.world

Reforming the electoral college is definitely needed as well, but a much longer runway since it likely requires a constitutional amendment. You can implement RCV without forgoing electoral college reform or abolition. No single change will fix it all, but RCV is beneficial in moving towards democracy and has a lot of momentum already.

I think after people learn and get used to RCV (and when older generations die), their voting styles will change. No more voting solely out of fear. It also requires the major (wealthy) candidates to align more to the smaller (less wealthy) candidates. There's really no reason to be against it. In some states they offer both styles of ballots so you can just vote for one person if you'd like. The only downside is that it can be confusing to new people.

7
lemmy.zip

None of that addresses the points I made outside of a nebulous "wouldn't it be great if all the boomers died" which... no arguments.

Again, it all depends on what criteria are used to handle the rankings. Because a LOT of models will inherently favor the "side" that can rally behind a single candidate. Which is what we see under a lot of parliamentary models.

I am ALL for election reform. But "it can't hurt" is not a reason to enact a heavy change. Especially when... it CAN hurt and discriminate against different demographics.

As for "the only downside is that it can be confusing to new people": You should HANG with my buddy CHAD. Still hurting from that debacle.

-4
venusaurreply
lemmy.world

Wasn’t trying to address your points because they’re just speculation. We’ve never had RCV nationwide for federal elections so can’t say how it would affect the way people vote. I don’t think the 2 party ruling system goes away with RCV, but it’s a step towards making politics more equitable. There are only benefits to giving voters more options. It’s not that “it can’t hurt”. It’s that it will benefit voters.

How does RCV discriminate? Which demographics?

Any voting system is prone to errors and any change will have growing pains. Doesn’t mean you don’t move forward. People need a way to vote for who they want, not who they don’t want. RCV is one solution. Doesn’t impede on any others.

3
lemmy.zip

If we "can't say how it would affect the way people vote" then what is the point? There are a lot of different voting systems and if you are going to put the effort in to cause a mass upheaval... you need to have a reason. Like I said, I very much favor just getting rid of the electoral college as a good solution because it is the same procedure we currently have but now it means EVERY vote matters at every level (rather than just at every level except POTUS...)

And, again, we can just look at the current election. Basically every republican is fine with trumpian politics and refuse to even acknowledge they would vote against the orange fuckstain when they are "condemning" his behavior. Whereas the left? We can't stop shitting on Biden. That translates to third party spoilers. Which is kind of the underlying issue of why we see right wing fascism on the rise globally. Because it is a lot easier to rally behind "We all hate this demographic" rather than "Well, I want UBI" "No, I want health care" "Fuck you all, the biggest issue we have is foreign policy".

Any voting system is prone to errors and any change will have growing pains. Doesn’t mean you don’t move forward. People need a way to vote for who they want, not who they don’t want. RCV is one solution. Doesn’t impede on any others.

Moving forward is something you do with thought. Rather than "Well, I'm bored. Let's redo everything because it might be better".

-1
venusaurreply
lemmy.world

To assume that all of the progress people are making towards RCV is without thought is incredibly ignorant. Lots of resources you can research to understand the benefits, how it works, and case studies for where it’s working now.

https://fairvote.org/our-reforms/ranked-choice-voting-information/#the-impacts-of-rcv

https://fairvote.org/news-and-analysis/#blog

If you don’t support RCV for some reason, just say that. You have to criticize those who are working towards something that’s actually benefiting voters.

You can sit around and wait for electoral reform, but change happens in baby steps. You don’t just jump to a constitutional amendment if nobody can get behind something like RCV.

3

Yeah. This happens with basically every "political movement". You have some people who actually have put the thought in. And then you have hordes of people who can't even explain simple things like "how does this not just embolden spoilers" or how does this meaningfully solve the two party problem" (a problem which, again, is prevalent even in more praised election systems).

Let alone "Oh, the only problem is people might get a bit confused"

People just see "oh, it is different so it must be better" and ignore all other aspects of it. It is what led to the rise of libertarianism in the 90s and tankie dumbasses in the 10s.

-2

We all know you only want far right neolibs to be president, you don't have to try to be sly about your conservatism :3

-1
lemmy.world

I think ranked choice voting would give us RFK as president

Edit: that was assuming we had these same candidates only as ranked choice obviously we would have more candidates

-18
chatokunreply
lemmy.dbzer0.com

Honestly my knowledge of ranked choice voting is that it works better for reps other than the president, and that our basically one guy wins it all form for presidential elections feels like ranked choice would work less. I'm willing to be wrong. I'm not sure if I actually like systems where the majority party picks the head of state, but it does feel like ra ked choice voting makes it matter more there.

1

Yeah. Nobody wants to acknowledge it because they watched a youtube and define themselves by "ranked choice" (and most don't even know the specifics of the criteria they are supporting...)

Ranked Choice makes a LOT of sense at the county and state level. Because that is where third party candidates already have good odds if they actually represent the will of the people.

At the presidential? And with electoral college nonsense? The amount of money required to run a campaign and the tendency for certain chuddy demographics to rally behind one shitstain mean that you only really have two viable parties and ranked choice, at best, is a noop. At worst it enables spoilers.

Which... is also why a lot of parliament based governments still tend to have two major parties. They just have more splitting but... we already do when you realize that AOC and Hakeem Jeffries are in the same party.

-2

You gotta consider how many viable candidates aren't throwing the hat in the ring because there is no chance for them to get even close thanks to the current system, plus they'd be labeled as spoilers.

-1
lemmy.world

It's stunning that each party managed to find a candidate that could lose against the other.

125
lemmy.world

Its not that stunning. In fact, its more common than you'd guess.

Only Ford could lose to Carter. Only Dukakis could lose to Bush. Only Hillary could lose to Trump. Hindsight 20/20. Foresight blind as a fucking bat.

21

Ford did himself in. Apparently in 1976, American's didn't like the fact that the President could commit crimes while in office and get off with a pardon from his former VP. Crimes he was never charged with or convicted of.

Today, a scandal is like a badge of "honor" and being a convicted criminal and morally bankrupt sleezeball is basically a requirement for the Presidency. At least it is if you're a Republican.

8
lemmy.world

If the election was today, Biden would lose. Imagine if Trump wasn't the nominee for November, the GOP would win the presidency.

Edit: it's just reality according to the current polling.

-52

according to the current polling

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the polls are likely skewed towards the GOP, and it's thought that this is because of random text/calls, which boomers are more likely to respond to.

29

Is a non-genocidal candidate capable of beating the criminal traitor Trump too much to ask for?

-11
lemmy.world

If he would lose the election today, YES, Biden is bad. Where's the disconnect?

-19
someguy3reply
lemmy.world

There it is again.

The disconnect that exists is that people don't see the good things he does. You know, green energy, chips act, unions, drug price controls, student debt relief, telling them to look at marijuana rescheduling, infrastructure building. It just goes on and on. You're doing mental gymnastics to say B-B-Biden bad! Ciao.

25

r2o admitted that he only posts the negative stuff. It's why he got banned from politics.

11

That could be a point, but the person I was responding to is on the war path of trying to make/change the point of "B B BIden bad".

9
lemmy.world

I never said Biden is bad. He's doing the bare minimum. Expect more from our politicians.

-2
lemmy.ml

I would say that the bare minimum would actually include not actively supporting a genocide, but maybe I'm just out of touch.

7
someguy3reply
lemmy.world

Lol you all caps shouted "YES" agreeing to what I said and literally said "Biden is bad".

Bare minimum huh? Back to your mental gymnastics. Biden's doing fucking great.

You want more? He doesn't even have control of the house of representatives. If you want more give him and Dems consistent and resounding victories.

I think this is where I inform you that Dems have had control of all three (house, Senate, and presidency) for a whooping 4 years of the last 24 years. If you include Bill Clinton, then it's 6 of the last 32 years. You want more progress? Give Dems consistent and resounding victories. Not a measly half term every second president.

7

Lol you all caps shouted “YES” agreeing to what I said and literally said “Biden is bad”.

My apologies, I post anything critical of Biden and the centrist rage comes out of the woodwork to defend him. I got my comments mixed up.

What should Biden do differently to run away with the change of winning re-election?

-8
lemmy.world

Expanding the oil industry and shutting down strikes then giving them a pittance isn't good. Liberals keep lying ig, maybe if you lie hard enough biden will stop being a piece of shit

/s nothing and no one will stop him from being a piece of shit, telling blatant lies isn't gonna get people to like him

-12

Whether we like it or not, gas prices play an outsized role. Have to do that while we get some rail infrastructure up, gas milage up, EVs up and the green energy to go with that. And guess who wants to kill all that?

On unions: https://youtu.be/EM6jMtG_MB8

And way to ignore all the other points.

3
nexguyreply
lemmy.world

If you think polling relates to reality then look into polling and how it doesn't.

5
nexguyreply
lemmy.world

"Polls have “called” elections correctly 78 percent of the time" according to that article. Just because they are more accurate than in another time frame does not mean they are accurate overall. This is an incredibly poor rate in the larger picture. Independent groups are notoriously hard to poll and they are the ones that decide elections. If it's a landslide then of course the poll will be correct. Completely unreliable in close elections. However they make excellent time filters for news networks.

4
EatATacoreply
lemm.ee

“Polls have “called” elections correctly 78 percent of the time” according to that article. Just

Maybe you should just read their argument as to why this is a garbage metric. Especially if you are arguing they don't even "relate to reality."

If always predicting who will win is the requirement for polls, the problem isn't the polling itself, but your understanding of what a poll means and how statistics work.

1
nexguyreply
lemmy.world

Polls only predict well in places where you don't need polls... hence their 78% success rate. What is their rate in closer elections? Likely right at 50%...useless.

3

The article talks about this and why it's a bad metric. If you're going to ignore their descriptive argument, you'll just ignore my less than descriptive argument here.

But rest assured that at least part of the problem here is that you don't understand statistics and probability.

0
candybriereply
lemmy.world

This is a thread where someone made the statement "Trump would win if the election was today." based on polls. You said yourself, that's not what polls are for. Take it up with the person who is misusing the poll to make definitive statements like that rather than the person saying you can't trust the polls for that.

2

Both that poster and this one can be wrong.

The difference is that the other poster is just conflating will with favored and it's kind of pedantic to argue with that.

This poster is claiming that they are no relationship with reality, which is just blatantly wrong.

1
lemmy.world

You really think Biden would win the election if it was held today? Have you not been paying attention at the work he still needs to do to win?

-15
infosec.pub

The existence of Project 2025 makes all of the "which candidate is better?" discussion completely irrelevant. If you support the people that support Project 2025 then you're a bootlicker who wants to end popular representation in the government and replace it with authoritarianism. If you are vocally against the people who oppose Project 2025 then you are collaborating with the enemy.

Any other option is better.

79
jorpreply
lemmy.world

Meanwhile Project 2025 on the Democrat side is the codename for the medical advances being pursued to keep Biden functioning through to 2025.

(I kid of course, you're absolutely right, as depressing as that is)

3

You kid, but we all know this walking corpse is on the best amphetamines our top medical scientists can whip up in the lab.

-8
lemmy.world

The existence of Project 2025

Republicans have a shitty pre-election plan in the run up to every election. This isn't any different than every other election cycle, from the perspective of "Bad Republicans promise to do bad things".

Any other option is better.

The illusion of electoral choice is choking the life out of any actual democracy in this country. Time and time again, we're told which party is The Worst and that Anyone Else Would Be Better. That's how Trump won in 2016 ffs. Republicans doomed themselves to a decade of this manic fascist bumblefuckery by whipping themselves into an "Anyone but Hillary!" feeding frenzy.

If you are vocally against the people who oppose Project 2025 then you are collaborating with the enemy.

You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists!

-7

Republicans have a shitty pre-election plan in the run up to every election.

This understatement is right up there with the 'Tis but a scratch scene from Monty Python

13

I mean yes, the people who are pushing 2025 are literally using threats, violence, and the threat of violence (legal and extra-legal), so you are correct.

6
rsurireply
lemmy.world

The illusion of electoral choice is choking the life out of any actual democracy in this country.

Ok so what's your plan to fix it? Because I have one: vote for people that want to improve the electoral system and against those that want to prevent it from improving. As much as Democrats are "part of the problem", they've also been open to runoff voting, switching to a national popular vote, easier voting mechanisms, and other changes that would allow for third parties and better representation. Republicans, meanwhile, have been trying to prevent those changes, as they've done in 5 states now where they banned ranked choice voting.

To be fair though, Trump is more open to changing the electoral process. The only problem is, he wants to get rid of voting entirely and remove any option we have to prevent rule by wealthy oligarchs like himself.

6
lemmy.world

Not wanting biden to commit genocide isn't collaborating with the enemy, that's what you're doing by shutting down discussion of that. Republicans want more Palestinians dead, and you're helping to give them what they want. What's so cool about genocide that you think people should shut up and just take it? What a cool smart moral guy you are, calling people bootlickers if they don't quietly accept genocide

-22
glimsereply
lemmy.world

Your comment would carry a whole lot more weight if we didn't have this shitty FPTP system...but we do.

In this system, it's a vote for a shitty Democrat or a vote for authoritarianism.

21
lemmy.world

That doesn't mean we shouldn't pressure biden to not support genocide ffs. How are you all so on board for sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending thousands of civilians aren't being slaughtered by weapons provided by our president? I'll probably still vote for him, but you can go fuck yourself if you're telling me I should stay silent about ethnic cleansing

-13

Please quote where anyone in this conversation said not to pressure Biden about Gaza. The comment you replied to is talking about Project 2025.

Nobody is saying we should ignore it. You invented that strawman and you're perpetuating it with this comment.

17
lemmy.ca

Look at you, inventing imaginary positions that imaginary people in this thread hold so you can get mad at the imaginary people.

10
lemmy.world

You know what op was saying, them not specifically mentioning Israeli genocide doesn't change that it's clearly a response to that, telling people to shut up and stop complaining. Pretending to be sly about it doesn't make it any less reprehensible

-10
lemmy.ca

Your argument would be completely sound, if not for the fact that anyone who gives a shit about preventing genocide is trying to help Biden win the election. You, on the other hand, want to complain about genocide and use the awfulness of the genocide as an excuse to go ahead and make the genocide even worse. If you get Trump elected, he's going to go after the West Bank too.

8

Very cool and convenient how you ignore me saying we should vote for biden bc otherwise it doesn't fit your narrative of apathetic leftists not voting to own the libs. If you have nothing to say in good faith then fuck off, genocidal cunts like you are a waste of time to talk to

-8
midwest.social

What's your tone going to be if talk like this is what gets tRump the win and speeds up the genocide? Since he's the one calling for it and will do nothing to prevent it.

4
lemmy.world

"What if opposing genocide gets trump elected" says a lot more about you and other liberals than it does about me

-12

Why don't you answer the question then comrade?

Your comment says I all I need to know about you. Answer this one too, you a bot or a troll?

7

Still waiting for your answer. I'll go out on a limb and guess you won't answer, you'll come back with some whataboutism or some other insult further proving you're just a troll.

2
lemmy.world

Biden isn’t “committing genocide” and saying he is amounts to simple propaganda.

The conservatives want to take aid away from Ukraine to deliver it to Israel. If Trump wins, far more weapons will be going to Israel than they are now. Repeating propaganda like this is not helpful for the Palestinian people.

Lastly, Israel is an important ally from a strategic perspective. Not only are they our closest ally in the Middle East, but they have a number of important resources like intel semiconductor facilities. Cutting ties with Israel would be bad for America, and the role of the US government is to put America first. It’s more complex than simply supporting one side or the other and Biden is attempting to balance aid for Palestine with preserving our relationship with Israel. That’s exactly what a good president should be doing.

8
Saurokreply
lemm.ee

Biden is complicit in genocide, so much so that he should be tried in court with the rest of the people in the Israeli state. You can't get much more complicit than sending weapons and aid to an apartheid state that is carrying out a genocide, without which they would not be able to carry out said genocide as effectively. A good president would divest and sanction Israel, not write a blank check for their crimes against humanity.

0
lemmy.world

The claims of genocide are colored by propaganda and misinformation. Academic researchers are split on the issue, at best. The fact of the matter is that Israel could swiftly end all life in Gaza through overwhelming military force if that was their goal, and this has not happened.

I’d agree that Israel’s actions in Gaza are unethical but there is a stark difference between acting without regard for civilian casualties and outright ethnic cleansing. The evidence doesn’t seem to support the latter.

A good president would divest and sanction Israel

A good president would prioritize what’s best for America, which means preserving the favorable relationship America has with Israel. Meanwhile, a good president would provide humanitarian aid for Palestine and help negotiate for peace.

That’s exactly what Biden is doing and refusing to vote for him harms almost every party involved, including Palestine. Really, the only groups who would benefit are the far right and Russia… makes you wonder where comments like this come from, doesn’t it?

0
Saurokreply
lemm.ee

The claims aren't colored by propaganda and misinformation... You can literally read the genocidal intent of Israeli government members and Knesset members. Some of them tweet it and say it out loud for the world to witness.

Just because they're capable of doing genocide "better" doesn't mean they aren't doing it. That's not an argument to say the thing we're literally watching them do isn't happening.

I think that your priorities are fucked if you care more about preserving this country's relationship with an apartheid state than stopping a genocide by said apartheid state.

Also, quit implying that my comments are right wing or Russian just because they have opinions that don't align with yours. That's such a tired trope. I could imply the same of you, but I'm choosing to engage in good faith.

1
lemmy.world

The claims aren't colored by propaganda and misinformation

They sure are. A great example would be the videos making the rounds recently about the Israeli drones supposedly making “crying baby noises” to lure people out. This is a classic propaganda technique, the videos are literally just a black screen with some background sound, the Israeli government could kill those people far more easily without such tactics, and anyone who has spent time around drones regularly knows it’s extremely implausible at best.

It’s a blatantly obvious piece of propaganda that was widely accepted because people can’t pause for five seconds to apply a bit of critical thinking to their conclusions.

Just because they're capable of doing genocide "better" doesn't mean they aren't doing it.

It means exactly this. “Genocide” implies a certain intent and this is a very strong argument of the absence of the requisite intent.

Also, quit implying that my comments are right wing or Russian just because they have opinions that don't align with yours. That's such a tired trope. I could imply the same of you, but I'm choosing to engage in good faith.

Well maybe you shouldn’t be pushing an agenda that benefits the Russians and far-right at the expense of the Palestinian people?

Honestly, you’re either a badly intentioned troll, lacking in some basic critical thinking skill, or simply willing to see far more Palestinians die for your ideals while you sit back in safety and watch it happen.

1

I'm done responding to you if you're going to keep insulting me. Have fun continuing to deny genocide.

Edit: I am going to leave this here though for anyone who happens to come across these replies. This outlines some of the genocidal intent evidence from Israeli officials and soldiers. https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-south-africa-genocide-hate-speech-97a9e4a84a3a6bebeddfb80f8a030724

And here's a summary of the conclusions of a recent UN report regarding war crimes committed by both Israel and Hamas. https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/06/1150946

0
lemmy.ca

Biden doesn't want to do anything about gaza, but Trump wants to bomb the west bank too. That means I support less genocide and you support not doing anything to prevent more genocide. That makes you a racist traitor.

7
lemmy.world

I support voting for biden (barely) and I support telling him to stop supporting genocide. All you wanna do is pretend there is no genocide. That makes you a genocidal reactionary, and whatever I am it's a fuck of a lot better than that :3

-12
lemmy.ca

Wow, look at you lying about what I said while it's still clearly visible on the screen.

5
lemmy.world

So you do oppose genocide? I thought you wanted people to shut up about it until after the election? If genocide is so bad you should try protesting it instead of telling people to be quiet about it

-10
lemmy.ca

I am protesting it. I attended a rally last week, went to a meeting to schedule future actions yesterday, and have generally been very proactive about creating pressure on organisations to divest from Israel. I've been putting time and energy into actual solutions. You know what's not an actual solution? Trying to make Trump lose by a narrower margin. There are no solutions in electoral politics, there is only choosing the lesser evil. Then you go out on the streets and you fight the lesser evil, and thank your lucky stars you don't have to fight the greater evil.

9

I think Trump retiring and the Republicans replacing him with a charismatic, young, intelligent christofascist would be devastating for the Democrats (and humanity) right now and I don't know why they don't do it.

For that matter I don't see why Democrats don't replace Biden with a charismatic, young, intelligent social democrat which would be equally devastating for republicans. So who knows with these people.

69

This is the current state of US politics - it's more about who you're against than who you're for, and I firmly believe this is the reason why no scandals seem to matter anymore.

On the conservative side, they get a steady stream of content telling them how horrible Biden and the Democrats are, so anyone with a heartbeat and an (R) next to their name is fine. It's probably how Trump of all people became the party leader.

63

I’m against all these assholes taking bribes from whoever they can and above all else ignoring the needs of their constituents. Recall them all!

3
lemmy.world

On the progressive side, they get a steady stream of content telling them how horrible Trump and the Republicans are, so anyone with a heartbeat and an D next to their name is fine. It’s probably how Biden of all people became the party leader.

2
djsoren19reply
yiffit.net

Sure, if you ignore all the progressives who hate Biden and protest his handling of Palestine constantly, you can pretend that both sides are lockstep behind dear leader.

15
midwest.social

Read through the comments here. People who don't act like Blue MAGA sycophants are treated like heretics.

1

No, I see actual leftists criticise Biden all the time and get upvoted and praised. It's only the marxist-liberals who get in trouble for criticising Biden, and it's because they do it in the most counterproductive liberal way possible.

0

Time will tell if those people will still vote for Biden or if their hatred will be reflected in how they vote.

-1
lemmy.ca

Nope, you'll never catch a marxist-liberalist actually doing anything productive. They believe in order to be a good leftist you have to do nothing. Because if you do something, and it's not perfect, you're a bad person.

2
ceenotereply
lemmy.world

You've clearly never asked a progressive how they feel about the Democrat party.

9

the Democrat party.

This is how an archconservative refers to the Democratic Party

0
lemmy.world

Its "Democratic Party".

We dont call the opponents "Republic Party"

Republicans started saying this to disassociate the party from the word "democracy"

-3
bhmnscmmreply
lemmy.world

Actions speak louder than words. Who do these progressives keep voting for?

-12
ceenotereply
lemmy.world

The only non-fascists who have a chance at winning. Progressives didn't pick our first past the post election formula.

11
bhmnscmmreply
lemmy.world

My comment and this thread has nothing to do with rightly or wrongly voting for anyone. Nor does it have anything to do with how anyone should justify their vote.

I only reinforced the claim that anyone with a "D" next to their name is "fine enough" for progressives to vote for. A claim that you initially disagreed with, but are now proving to be true.

-10

I am unsure as to why a progressive would ever vote Republican. Progressives cannot politically exist on their own in this two-party system. They have to adopt one party or the other. Since the Republican party is completely and absolutely opposed to anything a progressive would believe in, they adopted the one party that has a minor shot at enacting policies they adhere to. There is no doubt they would likely vote D all the way down the ballot in every election. It's the only opportunity at policy progression they have. It has been this way for a while so this claim isn't some new prediction or revelation.

6

If Biden was full of bravado around breaking the government so we wouldn't have more elections like Trump I wouldn't vote for him either. It's not about the D or the R. It's about the choice that most likely to lead to a peaceful transfer of power in the next election. There are no good options but I choose the one that's going to allow future, hopefully better, choices.

4

I only reinforced the claim that anyone with a “D” next to their name is “fine enough” for progressives to vote for.

Maybe listen to Bernie when he said that any Dem is "200x" better than any Republican candidate for president. I have never known Bernie to be wrong about anything.

4

One of the biggest factors that makes Republicans fascish is the way they use any power they're given to entrench their positions, something democrats also do a little, but much less than Republicans. Voting for a party you're less than happy with to keep the much worse party from permanent power is a much more practical and thought-out position than "blue no matter who" would have you believe. It's disingenuous to liken that to the largely false fear-mongering the right wing media bubble does to convince their voters that the conservative Democrat Joe Biden wants to turn America communist.

3

Exactly. I was just using the conservative side as my example because the post topic was already covering the progressive side.

4

boTh SIdes aRe The sAMe!!!

Yep. The GOP is waging a War on Democracy and Dems have been using the wrong brand of mustard.

1

It’s probably how Biden of all people became the party leader.

That and getting the most primary votes.

0

"People voting for watching paint dry instead of poking sticks in their eyes appear to be mostly motivated by avoiding sticks...in their eyes."

43
lemmy.world

I have never whole heartedly supported the Democratic candidate (because I'm far more left than any of them have ever been), but I've always voted for them, because they're far better than the other option. This time they're just so far better than the other option, not because they are any better, but because the other option is so astoundingly worse. So, I guess, welcome to the club.

But I will say, Biden has been more progressive than any other candidate in my lifetime. Again, that's not saying much, but hey, it's better than nothing. He's just killing himself by supporting Israel.

33

This is sanest take I've seen on the matter. Good to see nuance is not dead!

9

But I will say, Biden has been more progressive than any other candidate in my lifetime.

I agree and I can remember every president since Nixon. Not one single president in the past 50 years has been better than Biden.

8

I supported them wholeheartedly for like a day when I moved from libertarianish something in my teens and early twenties to slightly progressive. I feel exactly the same.

3

Isn't this the general sad state of democracy? Specially in America and it's 2 party system?

Rarely people get to vote for whom they want, they vote against the one they dislike/fear the most

32

“It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."

"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"

"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."

"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."

"I did," said Ford. "It is."

"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't people get rid of the lizards?"

"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."

"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"

"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."

"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"

"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in."

29

Biden has not been as bad as I expected him to be, but he is out of touch with the average American. Politicians need mandatory retirements. We need someone under the age of 65. But I'll take him over the convicted felon.

29

Anyone who who is capable of getting themselves made president should on no account be allowed to do the job.

ETA: Anyone downvoting this is not a hoopy frood

21

Any man who can hitch the length and breadth of the Galaxy, rough it, slum it, struggle against terrible odds, win through and still know where his towel is, is clearly a man to be reckoned with.

6

This is needlessly nihilistic, man.

There are tons of politicians who are doing the job for the right reasons. Sure, there's assholes, but there are assholes in every single profession on the planet.

0

Ahhh yes, mind obliterating cynicism with no wisdom or practical solutions, just the bliss of never having to admit your own civic responsibility to do anything.

Fuck this shit.

-5
btaf45reply
lemmy.world

I would absolutely vote for Biden over any Republican. And most Dems, with the notable exception of Sanders.

22
lemmus.org

Obama was a good president hampered by his will to try and get everyone to work together. I'd say his one weakness was prenegotiating with the republicans and trying to bring them to the table constantly. It was obvious they never would work with him.

He also bungled the Russian election interference by not letting the public know what was going on.

13

The only reason I'm voting for him is that he's not trump.

I'm not voting for Biden, I'm voting against trump

19

I thought this was an Onion article at first. Of course most people voting Biden are only doing so because the only other option is convicted felon Donald Trump.

Biden is a loser president in a loser system. But if the option is him or Insurrectionist/Felon/Rapist Donald Trump, it is the option people will vote for.

17

There's never been more evidence that we need to change voting systems in the US. We'll continue to pick the lesser of two evils until that happens.

And it won't, because both parties collectively have a stranglehold on the realisticness of such a change.

12

Sometimes I wish my competitors were as stupid and unsympathetic as Trump.

11

Man who closed the deal with 43k votes out of 5.7M across three pivotal states happy to report he has well over 80% of his original voter base behind him.

7

Yeah it sucks I have to vote for Biden because that conservative doctrine sounds scary as all hell, and Trump is a felon. I'm looking for a president that at the very least pretends to care about the environment, and that is not Trump who is an oil company stooge.

6

No shit! That's our fucking election system. After the primaries, we wind up withtwo candidates that most people don't like, and we vote against the one we think is worse. It's been this way for a very long time. Case in point:

https://youtu.be/riDypP1KfOU?si=xwlInd1CS9p7rYcT

Acting like this is shocking news is disingenuous bullshit.

6

I'm not American but the list of things I would support over Trump is not small.

5
lemmy.world

I get the feeling Trumpers would have trouble comprehending this. Trumpers are in a straight up cult and I'm guessing it kindof doesn't compute that the majority of Biden voters kinda hate him and vote for Biden in spite of that.

4

One of the most common refrain from Trump supporters as to why it was impossible that he lost in 2024 was effectively "we treat Trump like our cult leader and follow him everywhere. . . but democrats don't do this with Biden! No way he could beat Trump."

4

While reading this headline I began thinking to myself "Duh, of course they did. -Why even bother publishing a story like this. It doesn't even serve any valuab... ohhhh, right."

3

"Popular men, tey must create strange monsters, and then quell 'hem ; to make their artes seeme something. "

3

If Biden loses, which i think he will, i hope the Dems take it as a reflection opportunity and actually field someone who people like in 2028.

if there is an election in 2028

Edit: if you're going to downvote, at least reply explaining why

-3

I think they's probably sincere. They talks with enough nuance that they's clearly putting in effort, and I don't think they're a tankie either though I could be wrong on that point. They do have a bad position on this one issue, though, so I understand the animosity.

-1
lemmy.world

Biden won 2020 in spite of being Joe Biden, it's why it took almost 40 years for him to win his first presidential primary, people just don't ot want him as president.

Now that we've had him for four years, and he was worse than we expected...

I really don't think he can pull out another razor thin win like in 2020.

We're risking trump so we can have a Dem president that's more conservative than Dem voters want.

There's no logic behind it, except the donor class would rather have trump than a progressive. And just like AIPAC, they decided it's easiest to just buy both parties in the primary.

This is the third election and a row, it's not going to be different in 2028. If voters only requirement is "blue" then nothing is stopping either party from getting more and more conservative every election

-17
TWeaKreply
lemm.ee

How was Biden worse than expected?

23

Doesn't matter, all parent commenter needs to do is say it, and it's true!

8
Zehzinreply
lemmy.world

I think he'd be worse if you expected him to not support Israel do a genocide, but if you expected that you should have read up on his positions and, frankly, the last 70 years of United States foreign policy.

5
Zehzinreply
lemmy.world

Totally. But this is about wether he's below or above expectations. If your expectations were low then it stands to reason the bad things could match your expectations.

3
blazerareply
lemmy.world

-Union strike busting

-Climate acceleration, more highways, more trucks and SUV's, banning affordable EVs

-Increased defense spending

-Higher deportations and now executive order asylum closing

-Renewed oil and gas leasing on federal lands, and weird restriction on leasing federal lands for renewable energy that more oil and gas leasing has to happen first

-The longest stretch of no minimum wage increase ever.

-rampant inflation

-lack of prosecution for a ton of crimes from Trump and other republicans

-no effort against Americas problem of gun violence

-campaigned on fixing a gap in subsidy coverage for health insurance for the lowest earning Americans, with no mention since

Not even mentioning the biggest problem people have with them, plenty of people have told you already.

3
Dojanreply
lemmy.world

Roe v. Wade was overturned under his mandate period as well. Sure it’s a Supreme Court decision, and the SC is mostly republican but it’s not like Biden couldn’t have pushed harder. He could, but then he wouldn’t be able to campaign on it.

“Vote for me and I’ll return some rights to people, maybe.”

-8
AbidanYrereply
lemmy.world

Yes, it's all the Democrats' fault that six Republican appointed justices overturned Roe.

Bullshit.

11
Zehzinreply
lemmy.world

It is absolutely their fault there are more Republicans in the Supreme Court. Justices aren't naturally occurring by unpredictable Acts of God.

It is also RBG's fault, while we're at it.

-1
GBU_28reply
lemm.ee

Your RGB point is the first one of merit. Sure should have left at an advantageous time.

The judges were appointed by a majority Republican Congress with a republican president. In what way could democrats stop it?

9

Scalia died almost a full year before Obama left office. That was his appointment, but the Dems didn't bother putting up a fight because they were convinced Clinton would be the next president and wanted to focus on the election. Then in freaking late October 2020, days before the election, they once again allowed another Trump appointment without putting up any sort of fight or stall tactic because they didn't want to rock the boat before the election.

1

The majority republican congress and the republican president are also their fault. They're pretty much the only ones running against them.

-1

"Worse than expected," depends largely on the individual and what they were expecting. It comes down to expecting one thing and being disappointed in the outcome.

People who expected him to be an ally of immigrants are disappointed in his border policies.
People who expected him to fix Trumps "easy" trade wars are disappointed in his trade policies.
People who expected him to support labor are disappointed in his ban of the railroad workers strike.
People who expected him to champion human rights are disappointed in his support of the IDF.

He may have met your expectations and the expectations of the majority of Democrats. Biden's 2020 victory depended on several groups who only showed up because they hoped that he would address their specific concerns.

3
RampageDonreply
lemmy.world

People got confused when he ran on a platform that was "nothing will fundamentally change" and thought that meant he would push all the progressive ideas they wanted /s

1

And people up above are literally commenting that Biden is "the most progressive leader" we've had in several decades.

2
btaf45reply
lemmy.world

Because he’s further right than Reagan and Bush Jr.

Those 2 both gave gigantic tax cuts to the rich. Biden raised corporate tax rates. I can remember every president since Nixon and Biden has been the most progressive in my lifetime.

3
midwest.social

While the new taxes are “generally not positive for stocks,” the 15% corporate minimum tax won’t be “material,” Wells Fargo analysts wrote in an Aug. 9 research note that called the new taxes “modest.”

Just over 170 companies in the S&P 500 paid less than 15% in taxes last year, according to a new analysis by Credit Suisse. Of those corporations, less than half would likely see a tax hike for 2023 since the legislation allows companies to use adjusted earnings, which can be massaged in a number of ways, the analysis found.

So a very modest increase for roughly 80 companies. Really groundbreaking stuff here.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/16/bidens-new-corporate-tax-hike-wont-be-material-to-most-us-companies.html

In passing the bill, they also stripped out universal child care and tax cuts for the middle class. Business as usual it seems. Lots of money for energy companies and health insurance companies and nothing for the working person.

1

So a very modest increase for roughly 80 companies. Really groundbreaking stuff here.

Enough to significantly reduce the deficits and pays for some social spending and climate change efforts.

1
someguy3reply
lemmy.world

Some people think the entire world and everything in it can be changed on a dime. I have to constantly tell people things take time.

-2
lemmy.world

A lot of the problems we're facing are not something we can wait on. Climate change is already going to effectively change our life to an unrecognizable extent, even with a Democrat is charge.

Perhaps too many people have grown comforted by the inevitable. I'm still a little panicked, and it doesn't seem like anyone's doing anything to stop it.

2

A lot of the problems we’re facing are not something we can wait on. Climate change is already going to effectively change our life to an unrecognizable extent,

Then it is a good thing Biden rules and Convicted Felon Treason Trump drools in his diaper.

1
someguy3reply
lemmy.world

Did I say we can wait on them? No. I said change takes time. And it does. Can we go out and ask everyone on the planet/US to change out their car for an EV tomorrow? No we can't. Things take time. Sounds like you should have beef with the people that protested voted against Jimmy Carter, against Gore, and against Hillary. We should have moved the needle a long time ago.

And there are still other items to be worked on that people demand, like student debt, the economy, unions, chips act, ukraine, etc. Things take time.

-1
blazerareply
lemmy.world

Why are you talking about things taking time as if we're slowly progressing in the right direction? Hell no, we've been moving in the direction of more gas powered truck and SUV sales, more gas production, more highways, all of it promoted by democrats.

2
someguy3reply
lemmy.world

First the entire context was "How was Biden worse than expected?" to which I answered that some people think everything can happen on a dime, which they can't because they take time.

Second, we are moving in the right direction. Unprecedented green energy policies, EV incentives, charging infrastructure, pretty sure there was stuff for train building, quick googling says $20.5 Billion for transit funding https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/biden-harris-administration-provide-205-billion-federal-funding-support-transit. Congrats, you showed you are the exact person that thinks the world can all change on a dime.

-1

And some 20 times more than that is going to highways

Two-thirds ($432 billion) of that $643 billion is flowing to conventional highway programs. https://t4america.org/iija/

Meanwhile, gas guzzling SUV sales have skyrocketed recently https://www.theautopian.com/heres-the-exact-year-suv-sales-overtook-sedan-sales-in-america/

As for EV incentives, China has been dominating with EV adoption lately with affordable options. Theyve got a damn 11k brand new EV that is so enticing, the US and EU are banning it from import because it would be too successful here.

3
midwest.social

So which is it? Other people are saying that if Trump gets reelected, democracy will end instantly.

Seems like "things take time" only when neoliberal Democrats get criticized for their shitty policy.

1
someguy3reply
lemmy.world

Progress takes time, effort, and hard work.

Stagnation (or regression) takes fuck all. It takes fuck all effort to block things. The GOP can do that with control of only one of the 3 (house, senate, presidency). Which they've had for 20 of the last 24 years.

3
midwest.social

It takes fuck all effort to block things. The GOP can do that with control of only one of the 3 (house, senate, presidency). Which they've had for 20 of the last 24 years.

That goes both ways, and yet we've seen Republicans pass all kinds of vile legislation in that time. If "it takes fuck all effort to block things" then why aren't Democrats doing that too?

0

What the GOP wants is lack of progress. They want to hit the giant pause button on society. They want to block progress from happening. That's why the GOP benefits more from blocking things. What the Dems want is actual progress - new bills, new laws, new measures. That requires legislation to actually pass. So no, it doesn't work both ways.

The most the GOP wants to do is repeal what was already passed, and give tax breaks. It takes fuck all effort to do that. They get one house and they can demand tax breaks or they shut down the government. Or they try to repeal the ACA. They didn't write a well thought out replacement lol, all they want to do is repeal.

To actually write and pass progressive legislation takes a ton of actual work, effort, support, and time. And all 3 houses to pass it.

2
lemmy.world
  1. The genocide he's not just supporting, but now actively involving US military in.

  2. Making trump border policies permanent law.

  3. Not fulfilling campaign promises

But like, please don't do that thing where because I didn't list every little thing, that I'm saying the only issues with Biden are the ones I listed.

-9

I didn’t list every little thing

You listed 3 false things.

3
FaceDeerreply
fedia.io

Frankly, all of that should have been expected.

0
lemmy.world

If you expected #1 and still voted for him...

I dunno, but at least now people can't act like they don't understand how people voted for hitler.

I expected this shit from republicans, but way too many people who call themselves Dems are just ok with genocide.

Apparently all it took to get Dems to support genocide, is only give them the option of more genocide?

And republicans are all about genocide, so now neither party can be counted on to be consistently against genocide?

What I still don't understand, is why so many of you are just ok with it.

-5
kbin.earth

That’s the sound of the Overton window ratcheting to the right, and the democrats locking it in place

1

The one and only way to move the Overton window to the left is for the GOP to keep losing elections over and over and over.

1
lemm.ee

What I don’t understand is knowing this… you still do your best to rally people to either not vote, or vote third party. Look, it’s a shit system. No one here is cheerleading for it. But because so few people chose to be activists in the off years between elections…

This is what we get when no one cares about politics when it actually matters. No. What we get are single-issue SJWs every election year shouting at everything trying to keep democrat alive while the rest of you whine about… whatever bothers you at the moment. And let’s not even mention the right-wing trolls among you that pretend to support your causes, but are only fanning the flames to prop up their boy.

And after all this… when the smoke clears in November, when the decision is made- ALL of you will disappear and reroll as victims of whatever that decision is.

-1

I don’t understand is knowing this… you still do your best to rally people to either not vote, or vote third party.

And what I don't understand is whether this is to help War Criminal Putin or Convicted Felon and Sex Offender Treason Trump.

I guess it doesn't matter it all benefits the same Axis Powers.

The Axis of Evil

Treason Trump - War Criminal Putin - Comrade Xi - Monster King Kim Jong Un

1

It’s not SJWs that oppose genocide. News flash bud…

Everyone opposes genocide.

You’re not going to get away with your false equivalency here. Just because someone opposes the ignorance required to think that NOT voting will somehow move the needle in a chosen direction- does not mean they support genocide. So stop with this nonsense.

Now, either discuss this like a mature adult without insults, or walk away.

1
lemmy.world

What I don’t understand is knowing this… you still do your best to rally people to either not vote, or vote third party

You put that on voters (of which there are millions) but nothing for the DNC or Biden? Maybe 20 people who could give voters what they want?

Why?

What we get are single-issue SJWs

Even while typing this, I know people would still do it...

But like, please don’t do that thing where because I didn’t list every little thing, that I’m saying the only issues with Biden are the ones I listed.

Single issue voters are not a really thing.

But when enough people unify under a common cause, progress can be made. Which is while everytime the common people band together, there's a couple telling them unity is bad, and they should always break apart and only worry about themselves.

MLK had some choice words about people that did that. Malcolm had more than words.

-3
ccunningreply
lemmy.world

Now that we've had him for four years, and he was worse than we expected...

He far exceeded my expectations.

17

Everyone has different standards and expectations.

Hell, look at how many people say that about trump.

-11
ccunningreply
lemmy.world
  • Massive infrastructure bill
  • Student loan forgiveness
  • Marijuana rescheduling

There’s plenty more, but my expectation was for him to not be Trump which he has thoroughly succeeded at. The rest is icing.

The biggest things he’s disappointed on, Trump disappoints on too…:

  • Palestine
  • Being too fucking old

…so it’s easy to see how that on balance he has exceeded expectations…

16

Massive infrastructure bill that just funnels money to companies like Comcast and Spectrum and othet corporations who'll squander like they have every other time they've been given money

Student loan forgiveness that does nothing to change the insane and continually rising cost of attending college.

Marijuana rescheduling that does nothing to address the fact that 40 states have already legalized it for medical use and 25 states who've legalized it for recreational use.

This is little more than a bunch of empty gestures and lip service to make it seem like they're improving things when in reality, very little is changing (and to give people like you hollow talking points to list as accomplisments). This is why so many people don't even bother to vote anymore because the whole system is stacked against us.

0
ccunningreply
lemmy.world

Yes. Being better than Trump is a low bar.

Are you confused about what’s happening here?

9
lemmy.world

It would be nice if we actually had policies we could champion instead of just "not Trump".

-8
Dojanreply
lemmy.world

It’s silly to downvote you for wanting the leaders and representatives of a country and its people to be held to a certain standard.

2
lemmy.world

I mean, politicians work for us. We're their boss. They should be working their asses off for the people.

-5
TWeaKreply

Frankly we should be sacking the whole lot of them for gross misconduct.

2

Now that we’ve had him for four years, and he was worse than we expected

Biden's much better than I expected, after being disappointed in Obama and his poor negotiating skills.

3
lemmy.world

same reason people blindly follow Trump

four years we still have low wages and higher costs, women lost rights held for over half a century, police are still running amuck, environmental concerns abound, genocide, antiimmigration policies

and Trump's resume does not look any better

and the same people will scream and pitch a fit if anyone suggest a third party because it means a vote for that other guy

football politics

-21
Ledivinreply
lemmy.world

If you think these two candidates are the same, you haven't put literally any effort into paying attention at all, get out of here with your enlightened centrist bullshit.

Yeah, Biden is mediocre at best, and you're usually right about the Dem vs GOP race... but this isn't that, anymore. MAGA is a different beast.

24
Melkathreply
kbin.earth

Blue MAGA at its finest.

"Ya, Biden got us into a genocide, BuT tRuMp WoUlD bE sO mUcH wOrSe!!@@!@"

"Ya, Biden was the one who dropped 35 billion dollars for the militarization of police, BuT tRuMp WoUlD bE sO mUcH wOrSe!!@@!@"

"Ya, Biden was the one who silenced and admonished peaceful protesters while commanding order, BuT tRuMp WoUlD bE sO mUcH wOrSe!!@@!@"

The current conversation is "Trump would be so much worse", but its like all of you forgot that he is going for a second term, and in his first term, while he was bad, he was not as bad as Biden. And you have no idea how much it fucking destroys me to say that about the leader of the party I used to so vehemently supported. But its just the case. All the bad things Trump did, Biden has continued, and Biden has come out with a host of things that are MUCH worse than anything that Trump ever did.

We must reject the 2 party system.

-25
lemm.ee

“Ya, but don’t ask me who could win against Trump if not Biden, bEcAuSe aLL i kNoW iS biDeN bAd!!@@!@“

“Ya, you can keep telling me how trump will be worse, and prove it, but aLL i kNoW iS bIDeN bad!@!@@!!”

Ya, I couldn’t have even pointed to Palestine on a map a year ago, bUt aLL’s i kNoW iS, BiDeN BAAAAAD!!@!!@“

You honestly think Trump wasn’t as bad as Biden? Really? I think we can all see why you’re here now.

12
btaf45reply
lemmy.world

You honestly think Trump wasn’t as bad as Biden? Really?

It's very hard to understand America from St. Petersburg.

5
lemm.ee

I’m confused with the comparison… No one is talking about St. Petersburg here.

2

The implication is that the person you replied to is an actor paid for by Russia, trying to destabilize the country.

4
lemm.ee

Did you seriously just suggest that democrats, or as you ignorantly like to call them: “blue MAGA” should die?

And…

Polls…. ROFL! This is one of the reasons why I can’t take you seriously. The other is that you didn’t give a shit about Palestine before October of last year.

And news flash kiddo. EVERYONE opposed genocide. We still have an election to consider. So for all your pretending to know what you’re talking about- which MANY have disproven by the way-

You’re going to get genocide no matter the results.

But again, you already know that. You just seem to want better genocide.

3
Melkathreply
kbin.earth

Fascists. I said fascists should die.

If this is your response, you are agreeing that modern democrats are fascists.

-4

No, you said specifically… that blue MAGA should die. And everyone knows it’s the ignorant little pet name you people have for liberals.

1

in his first term, while he was bad, he was not as bad as Biden

If you ignore the 4 years of constant chaos, mismanaged pandemic that ended up killing millions of Americans, damage done to our reputation on the world stage, the record setting amount of graft, and ten thousand other things... This is absolute lunacy.

11

and in his first term, while he was bad, he was not as bad as Biden.

Convicted Felon and Sex Offender Treason Trump was 1,000,000x worse than Biden. Nice try Ivan.

4

I know health care is expensive, but you should get your head checked

2
Aurenkinreply
sh.itjust.works

If you're not voting for one of the big two in most cases you might as well save yourself the bother and stay home. Not saying it's right, it shouldn't be that way but the US voting system is extremely flawed so you need to make a frustrating decision. That's just the shitty reality of it from what I can tell from the outside at least.

12
kbin.run

Nah. Trump is dangerous. You skip this vote, you might never vote again

28
midwest.social

This is such BS. Trump is a piece of shit but there's no way he can just declare himself a dictator and remove our right to vote. Remember "the president doesn't really have that much power" or at least that's what I hear anytime Biden gets criticized for doing so little to help the lower and middle class in this country. Voting for Biden isn't going to make the GOP go away or rethink their strategies. We'll continue our downward slide regardless of which one of these old windbags gets elected.

-3
kbin.run

Remember 1/6? Just give them a second go, they already tried to subvert democracy, they’ve already damaged many of our institutions by more than they’ve been able to recover in the last 4, building is more fruitful than destruction, but it takes longer and is harder. Give these fucks 4 more years and they’ll get it right, handmaids tale here we go

5
midwest.social

Yes, I remember it along with every other American alive. There is zero chance they'll allow that to be repeated again just like a 9/11 will never happen again because people no longer think a hijacking means being flown to some other country for ransom.

Our institutions are being damaged by the leadership from both these parties. I'm so sick of hearing excuses for why things can't improve meanwhile Republicans seem to face little opposition in passing their shitty agenda while also not holding a majority.

-2

The zero chance is only if you don’t give that power back. The judiciary is already captured for at least another decade. If they get the executive and legislature back, and 4 more years, the zero chance is gone. You need to stop being cute, there will be consequences

4

Right the issue isn't voting for another person, the issue is that in first past the post voting, voting for a third party is essentially not voting. So you can protest vote because you dislike the main person your party puts forward, but if you think the other parties candidate is worse you are doing yourself a disservice voting third party. It's not the people it is the system.

12

It makes perfect sense why we only have two parties while many countries in Europe have lots of parties. It’s not magic and it’s not because our parties are just so good at stopping third parties.

The reason we are like this is because our voting system punishes similar candidates who run against each other. This results in parties that are more like coalitions, each made up of various factions that would be separate parties in a better system, who run a primary to pick one candidate to send forth, so that they don’t cannibalize each other in the general election.

The bad part is that even the primaries generally have the same flawed first-past-the-post voting scheme, so similar candidates often have to strategically drop out or not run at all.

This voting system desperately needs to be fixed. But you can’t fix it by simply acting like we just have to decide to have more parties, nor can you fix it by voting third party and screwing over one of the parties. I think this idea of voting third party in this election is appealing to some because it makes you feel like you’re doing something to fix it. You’re not.

In my view the best hope of fixing this is pushing for election reform locally and winning over communities to the idea. There are some parts of the country with better voting systems in place. We should build on that.

9
lemmy.ml

"The other guy is worse than me" is not such a winning strategy, but I guess it works for the #VoteBlueNoMatterGenocide crowd.

We have to support the genocide OVER THERE so we don't have genocide OVER HERE!

-30

That argument only works if the republicans aren't also pro-genocide.

Would a republican win be any better for the people of Palestine than a democrat? If so, how?

21

Or you can vote R

I live in a red state, and it ain't going blue for Biden. This is 'democracy'.

-4

When voting red will turn Ukraine into Palestine and make the situation in Palestine twice as bad, yes, it does work.

15
discuss.tchncs.de

Well, that's the dilemma of a 2-party voting system.

If it makes you happy, look at Europe and their election yesterday. So many parties to choose from, a handful of them not bad, a lot of them passable, but the idiots voted for the bottom of the barrel (at least in Germany). So, idk if that is better.

8

I've been trying to make that point that the two party system isn't entirely to blame. It's the appeal of fascists to a generation that feels far removed from the fascists' historical peak.

4