Spyke
lemmy.ml

Slightly OT, but this is also why we absolutely need ranked voting ASAP. How much better would a candidate like Sanders do if people knew that voting for him as first choice and Biden as second was possible?

181
Anticorpreply
lemmy.world

Well he lost the primaries, which is when you vote for the candidate you really want. But he lost the primaries because the DNC aired a never ending stream of bullshit telling the people it was impossible for Sanders to win, and then pointing to the current super delegate polls as evidence. Idk why people are terrified of voting for a losing candidate in the primaries though. Who gives a fuck if your vote loses in the primaries? You should vote for the candidate you want, not the one you think is going to win. It's not a casino bet.

60
lemmy.world

The closed primary system is just so fucked in general, these are private organizations that can do whatever they want, the DNC and the RNC.

I still don't like Debbie Wasserman Schultz. She was literally marched out of the DNC office because of the bias she showed towards Hillary Clinton in leaked emails. Then she gets hired by the Clinton campaign!

Shit was so crazy.

31
Anticorpreply
lemmy.world

Decades ago I changed my voter registration just because I was tired of not being able to vote in the primaries. I think they've changed that since then, but I don't know, since it doesn't impact me anymore.

5

I think some states require that you be registered to the party for primaries and some have open primaries.

2

The thing is, because the final vote for president isn't ranked choice, the spoiler effect is also spoiling the primary. People will vote for the candidate they think can will at the national level, else Trump might win.

If you had ranked choice voting at the actual election, only then would the spoiler effect be fixed.

20
khanniereply
lemmy.world

Now no offence to the US political system but the primaries are a symptom of a two party system.

Without them and with ranked choice voting, y'all would have had Sanders (edit: in 2016) and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Much love. I mean it.

12

No offense taken. Even our first president and founding father, George Washington advised against a bicameral system.

10

They should just pick a dictator for life, would save them a lot of money and the result would be the same.

1
sh.itjust.works

The left-ish party did the exact same thing to Teddy Roosevelt in 1916. They chose to fall on their sword and get a slavery denier in office rather than let the somewhat progressive (for the time) Roosevelt be their candidate (at the time, Roosevelt was allowed to run for a 3rd term). Liberals do not care about making things better, they care about protecting the status quo. Roosevelt would have won if not for liberal interference via their backing of Taft, just like Bernie would have.

10

I remember learning from my college history professor that when Upton Sinclair ran for governor of California, the Democrats teamed up with the Republicans to ensure he did not win. They would rather lose than let a socialist run the state. Even with their meddling he very nearly won the election with 37% of the votes. That is a lesson the American people should really take to heart. The established parties have more in common with each other than they do with their constituency.

12
Wizreply
midwest.social

Liberals do not care about making things better, they care about protecting the status quo.

Thanks for the snort-laugh.

0

Yes, but I remember numerous people being like "Well he could never win against Trump, so I'm voting for Biden."

2
blazerareply
kbin.social

People love ranked choice voting but not whats involved with getting it instituted.

4

Here's an interesting anecdote. The people of Shelby County, TN elected to enact ranked choice voting in the county (it was a ballot option 2 elections ago). It hasn't been signed into law yet.

So at least in this case, I'd say the problem isn't people not voting, it's nefarious agents succeeding in subverting the feeble democratic processes in this country to act against the people's interest.

1

Or passing ballot measures, the city I live in passed a measure last month to have ranked choice

1

Ranked choice isn’t that much better. It is better, but very slightly. We need to implement STAR, which is vastly better even at its worst. Essentially, it’s just a 0-5 vote for candidates, and any empty is a 0. It allows you to rank some at the same and then some as “better than nothing” leading to a well rounded choice that most people approve of.

4

Or, you could support candidates that support racked choice voting (who are mostly liberals). That sort of thing happens locally and at the state level.

6
sh.itjust.works

Israel wasnt openly doing genocide then. Trump wasn't giving weekly press conferences confirming his support for genocide. Trump wasn't repeating blatantly obvious fake news about a genocide (he saved that for things he cared about). And what's more, he got us OUT of the war that Biden and Obama perpetuated for their entire 8 years. Forget all the nonsense, none of that matters in the face of genocide. One guy is actively aiding in it, and the other most likely couldn't give 2 shits about it, due to it not being a potential scam. I choose the guy who isn't openly supporting genocide.

1

Biden is supporting a genocide, Trump wants to go full Foucault's Boomerang and bring the genocide home.

1
Ann Archyreply
lemmy.world

"If you don't give me something better, I'll default to the objectively worse choice and fuck myself over out of spite."

Conservative logic. Except it's a lie, the only way you'd vote for anyone but a corporate fascist is if the other guy was an even bigger corporate fascist. You are 100% fine with the status quo, because you happen to profit from it. Or fear, could be straight up fear.

8
macabrettreply
lemmy.ml

The logic you're using is really dumb coming from someone not in the ruling class.

Your one bit of power is to say, "I'll vote for you if you put forth a candidate I can get behind." The second you accept the terms of "you have to vote for X, because Y is worse" you lose all political power. They can do anything they want. They can lie about anything. They don't have to do anything to fight for your vote.

I'm just sick of this smug bullshit from people practicing "real politik". You don't live in a democracy, you're openly admitting it, and you can't even see it.

5
lemmy.dbzer0.com

Okay but you're living in a fantasy world. In reality, it's a 2 party system and you vote for the guy who will fuck you over least. Project 2025 is the plan. Let's not have Project 2025 come to fruition.

1
PsychedSyreply
sh.itjust.works

And they're always going to offer you a slightly better, but immensely shitty choice. It's not conservative logic on their end, it's battered spouse syndrome on yours.

2
lemmy.dbzer0.com

It's conservative logic to vote for the obviously worse choice out of spite for fake reasons. I"M VOTING FOR TRUMP BECAUSE BIDEN IS 3 YEARS OLDER THAN HIM.

1

I would propose voting for a better choice, but an independent or third party. I vote for president to secure ballot access so third parties can run people easily in local elections.

2
lemmy.dbzer0.com

Fuck off with your astroturfing unproductive non-takes. Biden is perfectly viable. Beholden to the mic? You think that's the biggest issue this election cycle?

2

Biden isn't viable, he's aiding in a genocide as we speak! And he is blatantly disregarding the wishes of the American people to do so.

2
CPMSPreply
midwest.social

Nor do I find it humorous.

But one day I hope I can laugh about it.

11
feddit.de

I am not familiar with the US system. Is it really realistic that a US president can abolish or fundamentally change the rules around the democratic process?

3

Not him specifically, but there are multiple plans and machinations in motion, by other Republicans, to stack every level of government with 10s of thousands of loyalists who will do whatever they want, so that if he tried 2020 again, they'll just roll over and enact it.

24

A lot of our best institutions are based on gentleman's agreements. If our representatives must ignore the processes we've come to expect, because those processes were never actually written down or coded into law... Yeah, the president has an unbelievable amount of uncheckable power to make the government just not run as intended.

The basic hypothesis is that if the president did something treasonous, he could be arrested by the military, who are sworn to protect the Constitution.

He couldnt change the rules, because our legislators do that, and its all written in the Constitution. But he could fail to appoint people, appoint people to multiple cabinet positions, or some other weird ways to get around this.

15

They're similar to the shit he's tried before. If people do their jobs there's no room for him to succeed.

2

No, what you're reading here is over the top fear mongering to try and get people to vote for their side. That why everyone who doesn't toe the line are now "facist." Because if you can get people to become afraid they'll vote against their own interests (and as much as they like to claim they do, the DNC in no way is working in our own interests)

1
endhitsreply
lemmy.world

Politicalhumor both on Reddit and here is for agendaposting. There is no funny to be had.

And before you down vote me, I'm not republican or conservative in any fashion.

2
programming.dev

As a Canadian looking from the outside in, it really does seem to be trending in that direction… any further Republican wins will mean the end of democracy, with America sliding into a ChristoFascist Autocracy.

I fear for my American neighbours, but we have similar problems up here; we just happen to be a decade or so behind you folk.

44
begreply
lemmy.world

can you really call this two party system a democracy

5
Ann Archyreply
lemmy.world

No. Did you know they wanted to send international observers for the last election because of worries that the US no longer adheres to democratic process? They were turned away, of course.

You know, like in third world nations and dictatorships.

4

Who's the "they" that wanted to send observers? And who turned them away?

Because I can find no evidence of what you claimed, so maybe you should double check your own sources, preferably before spreading lies

1
RmDebArc_5reply
lemmy.ml

The democracy in the US is not considered a "real" democracy where I come from

1

In political science terms it's what we call a "flawed democracy," meaning that it has some but not all the features of an actual democracy.

2
lemmy.world

Also Canadian. We are certainly on the same path. It feels like everyone around our part of the country is a "fuck Trudeau" type that just clearly wants the 1950's to return and women where they should be. As a very liberal but not so political person it's kinda scary.

1

If you remember when Trudeau was first elected, they called him the Selfie King or some idiotic shit like that. Like, the fact that he took photos with young people is somehow a reason to hate him. The propaganda and astroturfing has been ongoing for 8 years. It's called "foreign interference".

2
OceanSoapreply
lemmy.ml

A republican win does not mean the end of democracy, just like it didn't last time.

-6

It actually potentially does. I'd suggest looking into Project 2025. If you're not familiar with it, it's a political battle plan being put forward by a bunch of hard-right think tanks with substantial connections which would effectively establish a theocracy in the US. My understanding is that part of the plan hinges on the president basically removing anyone who can stop him and replace them with sycophants (which they're currently populating a list of). The idea is that if they're able to remove enough people, they can do whatever they want. They don't need a majority in the supreme court or house of representatives because they can just ignore them; the sycophants will follow whatever orders they're given regardless of what the house or court says.

To put it another way, they've realized the house and scotus only have power if that power is respected; if they remove anyone in-between the president and the other branches who'd say "no" and replace them with yes-men, then there's no one to stop the president from doing whatever he wants. That said, I'd be willing to bet the moment the president says "no" to the scotus is the moment they'll make a show of how much power they truly have, but it'll get really bloody if that happens.

13
PowerCrazyreply
lemmy.ml

You know Lincoln told the supreme court to fuck off right? Was he "dictator" was it the end of democracy? Were people like you reading bathroom scrawling and screeching about project 1862?

-4

That was a completely different situation ENTIRELY. Lincoln's Republican party resembles nothing of what the GOP is.

2

There was also a civil war under Lincoln. Additionally, last time I checked Lincoln also wasn't trying to overthrow the entire government and replace it with a theocracy. He was trying to abolish slavery. Reducing the country's authoritarianism is kinda the opposite of what Trump & Co. are trying to achieve.

That is such a poor comparison that I'm seriously wondering if you're trolling. If so, 4/10, you got me respond but your comparison is so poor that it left me questioning whether or not it was genuine.

0
Ann Archyreply
lemmy.world

Just like it didn't last time because we managed to avert the attempt? You're right, let's give the same people another go, I'm sure they've given up on that idea by now.

4
OceanSoapreply
lemmy.ml

Avert it how, by voting him out? Which he followed by stepping down?

People say his fighting the results in courts are proof of him trying to overthrow, but it's not, it's proof that he used the system correctly, in the legal ways he could. He may still claim to have won, but his actions are not that of a dictator attempting to overthrow democracy.

That being said, it's still not clear who the republican nominee will end up being.

-3
OceanSoapreply
lemmy.ml

I was in my bedroom studying for my exams. :)

0

You're right, I design substations. :) do you think political science majors are less likely to fall for or spew propaganda? Or be biased?

1

I don't know much about US politics, but is Biden the only choice you have besides voting for Trump? There's zero alternatives? I've seen in the comments that people prefer Biden to other democrat candidates, because he already beat Trump already, so it has better chances to beat him again. But realistically, it seems like everyone hates Trump with a burning passion, so any Democrat that is not batshit insane and totally incompetent would beat him, right? Seems like an easy win.

36
discuss.tchncs.de

This was the same promise in 2020. And yet here we are. Democrats should have done better than beg to save democracy one more time.

32
MrVilliamreply
lemmy.world

Preserving democracy was never going to be a single-step solution process. It takes consistent, persistent work to not only expand, but to just maintain our liberty for all. It's a tower defense strategy game.

At the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, a lady asked Benjamin Franklin “Well Doctor what have we got, a republic or a monarchy.” Franklin replied, “A republic . . . if you can keep it.” This existential threat has always been there and it's something to always be wary of. It's exhausting, but it's worth it. Freedom ain't free.

59
Anticorpreply
lemmy.world

It wasn't really a concern until recently. We didn't have constant threats against democracy from within our own government when I was a kid.

1
Steggetreply
lemmy.world

Until recently? We had a little thing called the Civil War that was a bit of a speed bump, too.

14
Anticorpreply
lemmy.world

That's why I added the part about "when I was a kid". I suppose I should have clarified that I'm talking about within my lifetime. There have definitely been other dark moments in our history.

-1

To be fair "when I was a kid" is a rough estimation that typically can range about a 0-60 year timespan or more.

0
lemmy.world

So, Nixon & Watergate wasn't a threat?

Citizens United wasn't a threat?

And don't forget the constant attempts of voter ID laws in Republican states.

Gerrymandering by incumbent parties.

Poling booth closures and inaccessibility.

As five examples of an endless, constant stream from Republicans.

You just have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

13
Anticorpreply
lemmy.world

That is all bad, but it's not "we're going to cancel voting and stay in power indefinitely" bad, which is what people fear from the Republican party now. It's not "we led a group of fanatics to Capitol Hill in an attempt to overthrow democracy" bad.

2
Anticorpreply
lemmy.world

If it wasn't clear, I wasn't saying it was an unreasonable fear. They attempted a literal coup. It's a legitimate fear.

0

It's cyclical. There was an uncannily similar fascist movement in the US immediately prior to WW2. We had members of Congress on the Nazi payroll, for example. It's happening again; fascism and authoritarianism are on the rise across the globe.

2

You can just tell everyone you are an idiot instead of suggesting you know something they don't.

-1

“You ever notice whenever the republicans do something terrible or prevent something good from happening, it’s always the democrats fault?” -Fucking idiots everywhere.

29

Yeah but we don't have to eat shit to survive do we? So why the fuck are we acting like Biden was our only choice. What kind of stupid analogy is this?

-4

can you really call this two party system a democracy

7

In 2028 a mummified version of Biden will be put forward as candidate until 2032, when a new act in place allow for digital avatars to be president and digital Obama comes back with Yes We Can, Again!

3
sh.itjust.works

The new existence of this fringe took everyone left of Lindsey Graham by surprise in 2016. It's not conspiracies all the way down. These people exist and the sooner we realize the center is not where we imagined it was the sooner we can get on with governing and protecting the whole country and not just the little blue parts that like us.

3
sh.itjust.works

I don't disagree with that, all I'm saying is almost 50% of America really is ready to risk tearing it all down and the truth is only a small number of them would be willing to vote Democrat under any circumstances. For both Democrats and center Republicans, divide and conquer seems the only available strategy. A true third party is the hope of many, but I don't think they could be left of Biden, and the space on the right is a madhouse. They'd have to basically fall from space in a shower of glory to cut through the mud at this point

4

Hell, a Democrat published a book a few years ago about how she did exactly that to win an election. And then she lost to that same nutjob in the very next election!

1
kebabslobreply
lemmy.blahaj.zone

Not only that but what is Biden going to do for climate in the next 4 years? Like really... He sucks

-36
Socsareply
sh.itjust.works

Yes, if you want to make sure a ton of vulnerable people suffer and then we risk ending up with fascists in charge anyway.

6

They're already in charge. We've got two capitalist parties. Republicans back fascists domestically. Democrats back fascists internationally. The people who own the country won't allow us to vote away their power, we need to start talking about effective activism. Every year we wait causes massive suffering across the world.

-4

Difficult does not mean not necessary.

Besides, the US military lost in Afghanistan and Vietnam, they have no hope of winning a domestic counterinsurgency of sufficient scale.

1

Banning gas cars and giving more funds for green energy. Meanwhile orange man wants to increase the usage of fossil fuels. Could be more but could also be less.

19

You realize Biden's signature legislation added massive funding to the development of solar and wind power as well as funding a huge expansion of electric chargers across the country?

11
lemmy.world

I look at this fom a far and i wonder: Why do the democrats not just get a younger more capable person to vote for?

30

Because they're part of the system run by the wealthy and powerful, and younger peeps not only have to claw their way into that microcosm, but are often then bought out / corrupted by that very system.

31

Democrats are a party of capital, which resist the young for two reasons:

  1. They do not hold capital in any capacity that can be compared to older generations

  2. As a result, they are overwhelmingly more anti-capital than previous generations.

10

In practice the Democratic Party establishment simply does not want a younger or more capable person.

Old and/or ineffectual is the perfect candidate for the corporate donor class.

5

Because Biden's flaw isn't his age. That's the propaganda. Biden's flaw is that most of America are mouth-breathing retards that don't understand what political ideology is and vote for the guy who says "it's not your fault, it's that guy's fault!"

3

Like Barack Obama, who was 47 when elected? Or Bill Clinton, who was 46? How about Jimmy Carter: age 52?

Or are you basing all of your assumptions on two elections?

2
Linkerbaanreply
lemmy.world

Because they are as corrupt as the Republicans are. The democratic party will never fix America only a third party can.

-1
lemmy.world

The 'viable' third party candidates in my lifetime so far have been Ross Perot, Ralph Nader and RFK, Jr. None of them had a real chance and all of them were one flavor or another of crazy.

So maybe a third party can fix things, but none of the ones that have ever had a chance within the past 46 years.

4

Ron Paul was viable but ran as a republican and got the establishment treatment despite insane support from the younger generations. His party prevented him from being a 2nd name on the ballot for Republicans. Then many years later, the exact same thing happened to Bernie who was fucked over from a 2nd spot on the ballot by a last second rule change vote at the democratic convention when the nays clearly outweighed the yays. Both times those respective parties lost those elections. Both times they would have won should they have gone with the people that would have brought about change to our political systems. The establishment doesn't care about losing. Only preserving itself.

1

How would that help old fucks like Feinstein (rest in piss), Pelosi, Biden et al make more money or their corporate masters though?

-2
lemmy.world

Joe Biden has the authority to resign. Joe Biden can choose to not run in 2024. If he cared about preserving democracy, he would let someone more electible take his place.

If things go wrong, it's the fault of the people in power.

27
Mnemnosynereply
sh.itjust.works

Joe Biden has already beat Donald Trump in an election. More electable makes no sense in this context.

The only way Biden could lose is if some of the people who voted for him last time, after everything that's happened since Trump lost the election, decide 'ehh, that Trump guy wasn't so bad, let's give him another shot' and decide not to vote against Trump.

35
rDrDrreply
lemmy.world

Biden won an election during Covid lockdown where he wasn’t expected to actually campaign. I don’t think he can win again. It’s sad, but he’s an awful candidate.

-2

But he did campaign. And people showed up to his campaign stops. Where are you getting your information from?

0
lemmy.dbzer0.com

Your opinion is not worthy of debate. Let's talk real numbers, policy, and potential outcomes based on said numbers and policies.

1
lemmy.world

The incumbent president has only lost 10 times in US history (and one of those was Trump). Biden already beat Trump once. Who has a better resume than that?

Seriously. Tell us a name.

18
Ann Archyreply
lemmy.world

Not to mention Biden actually had a great run and got a shitload done, but this is what you get when you have 24/7 banana republic propaganda blaring in people's homes.

4

Also Lemmy itself. This place is a cesspool of mis and disinformation. I come here to waste a little time mindlessly doom-scrolling and shouting into the void, not because I actually think that I'll find informed, intelligent and insightful comments.

0

Why isn't he electable? He was already elected. Are you saying he's old? Trump is 3 years younger. Before Biden, Trump was the oldest president of all time.

-1
lemmy.world

If you agree with something, click 'up vote' and walk away.

Your comments, much like your entire existence, adds nothing of substance or use to the world.

1
Cruxifuxreply
lemmy.world

Came here to say this. If the dems actually cared about winning and preserving any last inkling of democracy the states still has then they would replace Biden with literally any other candidate.

-13
_stranger_reply
lemmy.world

I'm all ears, who would be the better candidate? Because I want that person running for Senate in all the states that might be up for grabs.

The president won't matter if we lose control of the Senate AND the house. Well either be fucked or stuck in a deadlock like we are now

27

That most political action happens outside of voting for president. Ofc having a friendly presidency helps a lot for all the other political action, and rn its a choice between an Establishment Dem and a fascist, but having a friendly presidency alone does little for real change.

1

No, star of The Crow Brandon Lee. He's been dead for 30 years, but I'm pretty sure he'd still do a better job than either of the current options 🤷

7

It's sad how the US spends trillions on defense, when all it takes to seize control over the nation is some bottom tier Dollar Store propaganda that any third world nation could afford.

16

This is the same tired line we have to hear every 4 years. It's been a substitute for concrete policy and it's gotten all of us nowhere.

13

Oh, I'm sure they would still hold elections. But your options would be even more limited. "Sorry, but the other parties just didn't run any candidates for this election. Imagine that."

11
sh.itjust.works

Man the Democratic Party this election cycle has just been working overtime to invite the conversational wedge between 'saving american democracy from fascism' and 'voting against Trump.'

I guess that's what the donor class wants this time: "Do nothing but vote."

9
rDrDrreply
lemmy.world

It’s what they want every time. Obama had to be shoved down their throats.

6
lemmy.world

At first. He campaigned as a progressive the first time, but they soon taught him how to govern like a Clintonesque neoliberal 90%+ of the time while constantly promoting the (at the very most) 10% of what he did as president that benefitted regular people more than the already rich and powerful, their corporations and their hedge funds.

6
Wizreply
midwest.social

That's a pretty unfair analysis of Obama, if you look at Congress during those 8 years.

1

Not really, no. His own uninspired leadership is almost half as big a part of it as the 2010 redistricting plot. Not every bad idea or capitulation was because of Congress.

0

there's a 19yo candidate ? looks like I'm completely out of the loop

7
lemmy.world

There are no next gen democrats. They only think one single election at a time.

5

I don't like him, but that's clearly not true because Gavin Newsom has been running for 2028 for months now. Why do you think he just debated DeSantis and praised Biden?

3

We literally do not live in a democracy according to a bunch of empirical studies, and also according to basic material analysis.

The opinion of the masses is never reflected in our government.

Does your politics begin and end at participating in sham elections? Why aren't you encouraging people to take meaningful political action?

Imagine being Russian and the extent of your political activism is encouraging people to vote Putin out.

That's how ridiculous you are.

4

Not humorous and also not good faith discourse. This is just moralizing even though I agree with the sentiment

3
lemmy.world

It's still a year out why do we have to believe these are our only two options.

3
mycatiskaireply
lemmy.one

Probably because the DNC is cancelling primaries in states like Florida to hand the Democratic party to Biden without even acknowledging that there are other people in the race and he has to compete in a democratic primary before he becomes the democratic candidate.

4

So besides the current facts, and the history of primaries, you are saying there is still a chance? /s

4

It's so hilarious. "Vote democrat or you will lose your right to vote!"
*takes away your right to vote*

4

Or i can always vote my concious and you can suck a fat one for telling me otherwise

-1
lemmy.world

This was the exact shit said in 2020 and for years before that. There is no 'next generation Democrat' because the Dems are just as complicit in this farce as the Republicans. I refuse to vote for the party of "maybe we'll try to slow the rapid descent into christofascist capitalism just a little a bit, as long as it doesn't make the shareholders mad."

-1
SirFafflesreply
lemmy.world

So we're supposed to keep voting for the same center right libs for eternity? The party leaders of the Democrats will never allow things like ranked choice voting because it takes power away from them. I do agree with you that at the local and state levels Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to support RCV, however with the federal Democrats in power nothing will change.

2
hglmanreply
lemmy.ml

Dems have to do something beyond sad attempts at change if they want my vote. Oh what, if i don't fall in line the republicans will win? Wow i guess the democratic party will need to become significantly more progressive.

2

What is the point of voting at all if you're not going to vote for either of the two people who actually has a chance of winning?

No one knows who you vote for. At best, it's a pointless personal moral victory that no one else will be aware of. You can literally stay home and just tell people you voted for someone and they won't be any the wiser.

So why bother? To fractionally increase the vast margin your candidate is still going to lose by?

1
Dlaykneereply
lemmy.world

Without trying to sound contentious, how is voting for one of the two major parties supposed to help break out of the two party system? Have the Democrats ever put forward any kind of legislation supporting things like eliminating first-past-the-post?

To be clear, I don't disagree that the Dems are the lesser of two devils in this election but I don't know if it's fair to waive a banner of hope for either party at this point.

4
PupBirureply
kbin.social

electoral college and first past the post helps republicans and hurts democrats… if you want systemic change, vote for the party that has the most to gain from the systemic change you’d like to see, and then work to make that systemic change happen

-1

Handing power over to proto-fascists would do more to end the two party system. But who actually thinks that's a good idea?

8
UFOreply
programming.dev

Oh? Please cite those statements.

Given your claim they will need to be exact same statements. "exact" your words. Not "close". Not "basically the same". Exact.

So. Go on. Do it. For 2020 and 2016. Since that is your claim.

If you cannot find the "exact" same statement then you failed.

0

Tell you what. I'll even ignore the ecological fallacy you all love.

1

If that's the best argument we have I'm in favor of the bomb.

Edit: I mean a literal bomb honestly. I am so tired of a 5 years of a slow backslide and general apathy while people brag that it hasn't gotten worse for them and then a blind panic of trying to get the masses the upper classes don't care about to vote back for the do nothing government because it didn't do anything to garner support among the "poors" during their stay in power. And now extremism is on the rise and needs to be halted to again and again and again as the only excuse for keeping people around.

I don't want any friends of Besos / Musk / Gates anywhere near power. Id rather it all end in a beautiful blaze that makes you feel powerless for a second rather than a powerless decade again.

-2
lemm.ee

That's where youre wrong. There are more than 2 parties. The 2 party system is atrocious.

-4
WhatTreesreply
lemmy.blahaj.zone

There are only two parties that have a mathematical chance of winning. You can throw your vote away on a third party, hoping to get them 20x their highest ever turn-out in the hopes that they get more money if you want. But know that what you are actually doing is indistinguishable from simply not voting. Work on getting ranked-choice voting in your state first, then vote your conscience. Voting third party now just guarantees another 4+ years of Trump.

4
hglmanreply
lemmy.ml

Get fucked and run a better candidate, Dems. When they don't they will be the only group responsible for the election of trump.

1
WhatTreesreply
lemmy.blahaj.zone

No, it'll also be the fault of idiots like you who think you get the privilege of voting for someone you really like instead of just getting to pick the least bad option. You have the chance to vote to keep trans people safe for another 4 years, to keep abortion legal on the federal level for the next four years, etc. You choosing not to do that in the desperate bid to feel like your hands are clean will directly result in harm to those around you. Your hands will be dirty either way.

3
gunreply
lemmy.ml

Isn't the "privilege of voting for someone you like" called "your right to vote"?
You think my right to vote is a privilege?
But sure, according to this meme voting democrat is the only way to protect voting rights which don't exist and are a privilege
I won't be moralistically scolded into voting for the moderate wing of fascism.

1
WhatTreesreply
lemmy.blahaj.zone

Right, you'll instead be convinced to feel morally superior while supporting (by not voting against) the non-moderate wing of fascism. Won't you just feel so clean and superior while Trump harms the people you want to protect?

It's privileged to think that you have an inherent right to vote for someone who aligns with all your values. You vote for the person who has the best chance of winning who aligns most closely with your values. You vote for the person who has the best chance of stopping the fascist from winning.You have to be strategic with your vote as long as our system is FPTP. Or you can tacitly support the fascists while claiming to be morally superior by not voting.

1
gunreply
lemmy.ml

"It’s privileged to think that you have an inherent right to vote"

There it is again

"You vote for the person who has the best chance of stopping the fascist from winning."

But you are a fascist. You don't support my right to vote. You support Joe Biden, who is continuing to build the wall, has not stopped putting kids in cages in concentration camps, is funding a genocide in Gaza, sat idly by while abortion rights got overturned instead of codifying Roe, and on and on and on. Every metric libs used to call Trump a fascist applies to Joe Biden. It's so boring.

"while supporting (by not voting against)"

Hang on, if I don't vote Trump that means I'm not voting against Biden. By your logic that means I am effectively supporting Joe Biden. So we're good then, I did what you want. Lmao, it never gets old how moronic democrats are. Endless free entertainment.

0

"It’s privileged to think that you have an inherent right to vote" for someone who aligns with all your values

It might be helpful for you to read the entire sentence instead of just cutting it off halfway through to make it sound like a different sentence. You don't have the right to a candidate that agrees with you on everything, or even most things. You have the right to vote for the person of the available options that would do the most good and least harm for the country.

But you are a fascist. You don't support my right to vote.

See, I'd you had finished reading that sentence earlier you would have understood. I'm gonna assume you haven't yet got full brain-damage and recognize that the Democrats, while not as good as they should be, are better in every measurable way than the modern Republicans, which are full-blown fascists. Save me the drivel about "scratch a liberal" and think for a moment about the actual differences. Is Biden going to sign a federal abortion ban or a ban on trans health care? Is Trump going to pass anything to help with climate change?

You can plug your ears and scream "but both sides are exactly the same!" As much as you like, reality shows that's not the case. Lives, especially of minorities, are measurably better under Democratic leadership than Republican leadership.

You support Joe Biden, who is continuing to build the wall, has not stopped putting kids in cages in concentration camps, is funding a genocide in Gaza, sat idly by while abortion rights got overturned instead of codifying Roe, and on and on and on. Every metric libs used to call Trump a fascist applies to Joe Biden. It's so boring.

I support voting for Biden if the options on the table are Biden or Trump. I don't support all or most of what Biden has done, but it would take an idiot to think Trump would do any of it better than Biden.

Biden built a small section of wall after he was forced to by the previous administration. He has not approved or requested any additional funds to build any additional wall not already ear-marked by Trump.

He has stopped separating kids from their parents or families at the border with no documentation as the previous administration did. It's now only kids who cross the border without a parent or guardian. We could do better, but it is an improvement over the intentional damage done by Trump.

His support for Israel sucks, but are you somehow under the impression Trump would do better? The guy who moved the embassy to Jerusalem? The guys who put his son-in-law in charge of a peace proposal which would have given total control of Palestine to Israel in perpetuity?

What exactly did you want Biden to do when Roe was overturned? Use the nonexistent margin in the Senate or the house controlled by Republicans to change the court or force through a federal law? Unfortunately, because idiots like you didn't vote for the Dems in 2016 and allowed Trump to win, he got to set all the pieces in motion to overturn Roe. If idiots like you had voted against Trump we would not be in this situation.

Fascism: a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.

Tell me how exactly Biden does any of those things, especially any of them more than Trump. Obviously I'd prefer someone better than Biden but that isn't the world we live in.

Hang on, if I don't vote Trump that means I'm not voting against Biden. By your logic that means I am effectively supporting Joe Biden. So we're good then, I did what you want. Lmao, it never gets old how moronic democrats are. Endless free entertainment.

This is important, before you continue reading I need you to check that your carbon monoxide alarms are working in your house.

It's really simple, you either vote against the Republicans by voting for the Democrats and as a result things are less bad, or you do something else (vote third party, don't vote) and allow things to get worse.

You have the option to help make things less bad for you and those around you, but instead you feel like you can remain morally superior by throwing your vote away and pretending like you didn't have a hand in allowing the bad to happen. You do and you did. Not voting is still a choice you make, and you'll have to live with the consequences of. The fact of the matter is your selfish desire to feel superior will help the Republicans bring about full fascism, but it'll be worth it so you can tell yourself you're above it all, right? You are the guy standing at the switch of the trolley problem going, "Well at least I didn't pull the switch and kill those two people" while the train runs over 10.

1
lemm.ee

Gaslighting people into thinking there are only 2 viable options is the reason why we're in this mess. Just saying.

0

Are you saying any third party has a mathematical chance of winning? It's not gaslighting when it's the truth.

2
lemmy.world

It's literally a mathematical certainty. Every single Democrat would have to vote against Joe Biden for a third party, or else the vote would be split, and we'd guarantee a Trump win.

1
lemm.ee

I don't know, I'm sure there's plenty of people on the right that don't like either candidate, and would probably vote for 3rd party if people would stop this nonsense that there are only 2 parties.

-2
lemmy.world

Any third-party run that pulls from both parties is gonna end up being an "enlightened centrist" group like No Labels and we'll get more of the exact same.

2

The majority of people do not hold extreme left or extreme right views. While the majority of democratic and republican candidatesaree trying to match up to the extremes of their parties, and you get the same results and nothing done. Why not have common sense take a shot at running things?

-2

unless Biden helped to take your ability to vote away

just leaves older people voting and people who will eat anything they are served

no wonder we only have two parties the ones who are willing to vote third are not able to vote

-4

They said this shit in 2016. Last time I checked Trump isn't president anymore.

This dumb scare rethoric isn't gonna make anyone vote for Genocide Joe anymore. The terror Dems must learn.

-4
lemmy.world

Uh or we can vote for the independent left and not some capitalist who belongs in a retirement home

-5

Or we can do a vote swap. I live in California, I'll vote 3rd party in exchange for someone voting Democrat in a swing state. Any takers?

6

you can, but that’s a wasted vote… you have a 2 party system, vote republic or vote democrat are mathematically your only viable options

if you want different options, you first have to work to change the system

6

That would be nice, but unless you're in a state that's comfortably blue (or red) and is winner-takes-all, that's a bad idea. That's how you get trump back in office.

By voting for someone other than blue, you're reducing the number of votes blue gets. While your intention may be good (trying to get an actual left-winger into office), the result is that it's one less vote for blue, which is one less vote team red has to overcome. Too many of those and you get team red, aka trump, back in office. Despite your good intentions, you will have contributed to the problem.

If we weren't staring down the barrel of a loaded gun, I'd say "go vote 3rd party if you want, knock yourself out." However, we're looking at the end of democracy in the US. This may legitimately be the last election you can vote for any party other than team red.

3

I predict this goes one of three or four ways:

Trump wins the Republican nomination.

 Biden steps down and that Newsome guy runs as a Democrat.

Biden runs for re-election against Trump and there will be a third candidate to split the vote someway.

Newsome actually wins the Republican nomination and changes the Republican party, like a lot.

DeSantis pulls a miracle and wins the Republican nomination and the election becomes a four way with Biden, Trump, DeSantis, and someone else (probably Newsome).

-6

The RNC and DNC will only back Trump and Biden respectively. One of those two barring unfortunate circumstances will be elected because our voting systems punishes split votes and the public knows this.

7
OBG
lemmy.world

Both are too old to run. Honestly, I don't think Joe would make it another 4 years.

-6
EatATacoreply
lemm.ee

Why Joe and not trump? He's older, sure, but going by general healthy he looks better. And this is even with all the work trump puts into his looks. Ffs the guy fusses over his hair so much and paints himself orange. And he still looks like shit

12
OBGreply
lemmy.world

I guess because Biden is President I see him more often on tv and it's clear he is failing. Don't get me wrong, statistically neither will live through the next term. We need some young blood to choose from. That's all I was trying to say.

1

If your point is you want younger blood, then make that point. Don't say ridiculous things like that they will likely both be dead in 4 years, when I'm willing to bet they will both be alive at the end of the next term, presuming nature death.

3

If Trump wanted to get rid of voting, why didn't he do so last time? How about we just get better security at the capitol, and eliminate whatever loophole he was trying to use in the insurrection?

-7

eliminate whatever loophole he was trying to use in the insurrection?

You mean starting a riot? That's already illegal.

15

Lol! Tell me you think Trump would have handled Isreal differently!

He would have. He would have sent twice the funds! Fucking idiots just running around free out here. Don't you remember when Trump unilaterally decide Isreal would be the capital.

1

That's whats the coup attempt was for, as well as the attempts to override or stop polls from counting the votes across the country. Just because he failed this time doesn't mean it won't happen again. Hitler was democratically elected after becoming famous for the book he wrote in jail after being arrested during the Nazi's first failed coup attempt, Mein Kampf. He then consolidated political power into a new position with the support of party members who were elected to key positions, and he then appointed himself to that new position. Same as what has happened in many other countries. A few crazies in the right seats. The Nazi party only made up 13% of the German population at its height. That's all it takes.

5

Hmmm... I think I'll go for the second this time around.

I'd also vote for DeSantis or Ramaswami this election. I refuse to vote for Biden (or whoever is calling the shots behind him), or Harris, or Newsom.

Seriously, how is it possible that my own party can't get their shit together and find an actually likable candidate that can at least convince me they might be doing it for my own interests?

-9

If your point is I'm going to be a dick, then just say I'm going to be a dick, and be that dick. Dick.

-10
lemmy.world

Why do I have vote for the next gen Dem in 2028? Is this post implying Trump will continue running until his death? That the GOP will be unable to shelve his candidacy after another loss--and I have to imagine increasing incoherency?

-10

The person you are replying to is saying that just because you vote for Biden in 24, doesn't mean you have to vote for a Democrat in 28.

6
Travestyreply
lemmy.world

I looked over the wiki page and still don't understand why I have to vote next gen Dem in 2028. I understand Trump's authoritarian proclivities. Why must I assume the GOP is gonna offer up Trump again? Maybe they will nominate a non-batshit candidate?

-4

Maybe they will nominate a non-batshit candidate?

That isn’t going to happen, but I appreciate your optimism more than you can understand.

3

The picture assumes that you're a left-leaning voter who begrudgingly votes for whatever moderate conservative the Democrats roll out as their candidate because while he doesn't generally support any of the things you support, at least he doesn't oppose them like the Republican candidate.

To throw my own opinion into this, I think the Republican party has passed a tipping point. I think your second question is right on the money. If not Trump, then some other crazed bigot. I think moving forward, you'll have conservatives and Republicans, and they won't be the same thing.

They've been moving progressively further towards the extremist end of the spectrum since I started paying attention in middle school (right after 9/11), and according to older folk I've talked to over the years, it's been going on far longer than that, even before Nixon and Reagan. Democrats today hold the same positions on things that Republicans held during the 90s, and are called socialists and communists for it. Democrats have also been quietly funding extremist candidates for years now so that they can get an easy win against them by simply being the lesser evil. On top of that, Republicans have created a core group of zealots who care little for the policies that their candidate supports, so long as they have that R next to their name on the ballot. The kind of people like my boss when I was a teenager who would answer the question of who he was voting for with "I'm a Republican, I vote for the nominee" and an incredulous look like it was stupidest question in the world, exactly like my grandfather would answer my dad when he was younger, in the 60s and 70s. I've seen this backfire on Republicans when left-leaning candidates have gotten onto ballots under the Republican party, like a trans woman in New Hampshire or Vermont who ran for county sheriff on a policy of defunding the police, and was overwhelmingly elected by the pro-police conservative populace because she had run as the Republican candidate and none of them bothered to actually look at what her stance was, only if the D or the R was next to her name. I think this core group has backfired on the Republicans nationally, because they've been co-opted by Trump, who has opened the door for all the bigots to openly spread their hate and give these people a target to blame for the miseries inflicted upon them by the policies of the same people that they voted for. They tell them that it's the minorities fault, and these people gobble it up.

The mask is off and open bigotry is the new face of the Republican party. There's always been undercurrents of it, but it's mostly been kept in line to some extent by the more moderate side of the party. Now that side of the party is labelled as being just as "woke" and full of socialists/communists as the Democrats supposedly are, and it's the bigots like Trump and DeSantis running the show. So while the Republicans could field an actually sane candidate at any time, I don't think it's likely as the sane are being purged from the ranks at an alarming pace.

5

Yeah the maker of the slogan probably didn't realize it implies choosing between a one party system and a no party system. Messaging isn't their strong suit.

1
lemmy.world

If Trump was able to pull off something like this, wouldn't he have done it during his first term?

-12

He tried!!!! And like hitler, he failed the first time. He won’t fail again. Unless we stop him.

11
lemmy.ml

Never voting again sounds good to me, since that way people would realize how pointless it is. Unfortunately neither option will lead to that outcome and people will pat themselves on the back after voting for the Capitalist party.

-15

Ah yes, not participating. The way to change the system is to not participate. All we have to do is let the republicans win, so they can make being gay illegal, abolish no-fault divorce, and re-introduce christian indoctrination in the classroom. Then everyone will finally realize it's all stupid and they'll release all the gay criminals and atheist teachers from jail and say "Sorry! Thanks for not voting, now we realize both parties were the problem!"

13
MisterDreply
lemmy.ca

You would probably still vote but there would only be one party to vote for. Voting might become mandatory too

4
PowerCrazyreply
lemmy.ml

The Capitalist party is who you will be voting for, so materially what is the difference?

-4
MisterDreply
lemmy.ca

We'd be voting for the Nazi party, silly. Any other party would be declared a terrorist organization and all members would be arrested or worse.

5
PowerCrazyreply
lemmy.ml

Oh that sounds terrible. So we should vote for a party who doesn't agree with, doesn't support, and doesn't call those people friends while they hangout at the same fund raising parties right?

-3

Right now the options are limited. Neither are good but one is terrible and dangerous for the U.S. and the world.

2
lemmy.world

Nothing. If you're white, cishet, male and Christian.

Are you all four of those things?

-2
PowerCrazyreply
lemmy.ml

Fortunately The Hand Maiden's tale is Tom Clancy for liberals and also not real. So maybe come back to reality and look at material conditions, like say our ever growing homeless population, and the fact that we have more vacant houses then homeless people. Ask yourself who benefits from that, and then ask yourself why you are voting for those people and telling others to vote for those people.

-2
PowerCrazyreply
lemmy.ml

Hey it's developed by the Heritage foundation, you know the ones who gave us Obama Care, so I don't see what the problem is. Also that is fever dream.

I have a manifesto too, it's called Full Communism now. We will address material conditions.

-2

It's such a fever dream that they're already doing everything they can to implement it when Trump is elected!

But, again, you're probably not a minority, so you have nothing to worry about.

0

Are you saying there are no differences at all between which party is in power? That people's loves aren't objectively better under one party than another?

4
PowerCrazyreply
lemmy.ml

If it ends in guillotining the currently political dynasty's that would be a far better outcome then what we currently have.

-2
lemmy.world

Definitely. A monarchy will definitely be better than what we have now if it means Biden gets his head lopped off. Logic.

-1
PowerCrazyreply
lemmy.ml

Not just Biden. Plus the monarchy won't actually last that long so we can finally have some reform. But really I don't know where you are getting this idea of a monarchy being instituted anyway. That's weird liberal Tom Clancy bullshit.

-2

Plus the monarchy won’t actually last that long

Yes, that sounds like monarchies.

-1
lemmy.world

So you're saying you won't vote for Biden if he becomes the nominee in 2024 because you don't want Trump to win?

-3

I’m only 3rd party if it’s Biden again, not a threat. I just can’t reasonably vote for him or Trump. I won’t do it.

In that case, why bother voting at all? What does it achieve?

You're right. I don't care if people who won't vote for a candidate who has a chance of winning don't vote. Because it has exactly the same effect either way.

-3