Bernie Sanders urges left to back Biden to stop ‘very dangerous’ Trump ( www.theguardian.com )

Leftwing senator advises ‘unification of progressive people in general’ because threat from Republican ex-president is too great

Progressive US voters must unite behind Joe Biden rather than consider any of his Democratic primary challengers because the threat of another Donald Trump presidency is too great, Bernie Sanders has said.

“We’re taking on the … former president, who, in fact, does not believe in democracy – he is an authoritarian, and a very, very dangerous person,” the senator and Vermont independent, who caucuses with Democrats, said on NBC’s Meet the Press. “I think at this moment there has to be unification of progressive people in general in all of this country.”

Sanders’ remarks came as Trump continued grappling with more than 90 criminal charges across four separate indictments filed against him for his efforts to forcibly nullify his defeat to Biden in the 2020 presidential race, his illicit retention of classified documents, and hush-money payments to porn actor Stormy Daniels.

Despite the unprecedented legal peril confronting him, Trump enjoys a commanding lead over his competitors in the Republican presidential primary, polls show.

And though polling for now shows Biden generally is ahead of Trump, that has not stopped Robert F Kennedy Jr and Marianne Williamson from mounting long-shot Democratic primary challenges – or third-party progressive candidate Cornel West from running.

Sanders himself was the runner-up for the Democratic nomination in the 2016 White House race won by Trump and in 2020, with West among his supporters. But Sanders this time quickly endorsed Biden’s re-election campaign, a decision which prompted West to accuse him of only backing Biden because he is “fearful of the neo-fascism of Trump”.

The senator responded to that criticism on Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union, saying, “Where I disagree with my good friend Cornel West is – I think, in these really very difficult times, there is a real question whether democracy is going to remain in the United States of America.

“You know, Donald Trump is not somebody who believes in democracy, whether women are going to be able to continue to control their own bodies, whether we have social justice in America, [whether] we end bigotry.”

Sanders didn’t elaborate, but his remarks seemed to be an allusion to the Trump White House’s creation of the US supreme court supermajority, which last year struck down the federal abortion rights that the Roe v Wade decision had established decades earlier.

That court also struck down race-conscious admissions in higher education as well as a Colorado law that required entities to afford same-sex couples equal treatment, among other decisions lamented by progressives.

“Around that, I think we have got to bring the entire progressive community to defeat Trump – or whoever the Republican nominee will be – [and] support Biden,” Sanders added on State of the Union.

Sanders nonetheless said he planned to push Biden to tackle “corporate greed and the massive levels of income and wealth inequality” across the US. On Meet the Press, he suggested he would urge Biden to “take on the billionaire class”.

Those comments came about four months after Sanders called on the US government to confiscate 100% of any money that Americans make above $999m, saying people with that much wealth “can survive just fine” without becoming billionaires.

Blackmist ,

If your whole selling point is “Yeah, things are still gonna be shit for you, but at least we’re not Nazis!” then at some point you’re going to lose again.

Yeah, life is going to be no better under the Republicans either, but some people’s lives will be significantly worse, and for some voters, that’s enough.

“He’s not hurting the people he needs to be hurting.” That’s an actual quote from an actual Trump voter. That’s what you’re dealing with. For some, happiness is a zero sum game. They’ll quite happily suck down a spoonful of warm shit if some other sucker has to suck down two.

cabron_offsets ,

The problem is corollary to your point (which doesn’t diminish your point in the least). Most people are rational actors. They won’t eat shit. That’s why the republican traitor filth will never win the popular vote. The problem is the fucking bullshit electoral college. The shit eaters have an undue advantage. The electoral college is tyranny.

Blackmist ,

That may be so, but isn’t the result always a little bit closer to 50/50 than most of us are comfortable with?

The fate of the most powerful country on Earth hangs on the whims of a tiny percentage of voters in swing states. If you live somewhere like Houston your vote does not matter. That state is going red and always will. It’s batshit insane that a state can be 48/52 and that just counts exactly as if it was 0/100.

sentient_loom ,
@sentient_loom@sh.itjust.works avatar

The real problem is that they’re all traitorous filth. Trump is objectively worse, but he also doesn’t hide it, and that appeals to people.

Sanders was the only legit alternative in literally decades but now he has to be subservient to Biden.

There is no solution on the horizon. I agree that people should vote Biden… but in truth Biden should be replaced with an actual leader. That won’t happen. And while the Democrats remain almost as evil as the Republicans it’s gonna be a hard sell.

Sean ,
@Sean@liberal.city avatar

@sentient_loom @cabron_offsets Sanders has been put into a trance of feeling "heard" by Biden while being neutered in any chance of delivering real material benefit to the people. His career as being a truth-speaker from outside the elite, he's shot his shot to do some real good and will probably retire next year.

killa44 ,

I mean, he is old af too.

davi ,

and still more progressive than democrats have ever been and will ever be.

Noughmad ,

Most people are rational actors

Have you met any people?

Syrc ,

If your whole selling point is “Yeah, things are still gonna be shit for you, but at least we’re not Nazis!” then at some point you’re going to lose again.

Exactly what happened in Italy. Why is the left all over the world unable to present an actually competent and charismatic candidate?

fadingembers ,
@fadingembers@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

Because the capitalist class still controls them, curtailing any candidates that would be a threat to their power.

t_jpeg ,

Literally. When the capitalist class are the ones funding the majority if political parties in your country, you are left with either voting for a really right wing candidate or a slightly less right wing candidate.

Blackmist ,

“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.”

hangonasecond ,

What’s this from?

wanderingmagus ,

Ultimate Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams

gibmiser ,

Sounds like one of Douglas Adams’ Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy books

the_post_of_tom_joad , (edited )

I’m sure you’ve heard this before but it bears repeating that what we call the left is actually the left section of the right wing. There are no left wing parties with a majority anywhere in the world

AngryCommieKender ,

Then run yourself. Be your own Goldie Wilson. I am, though that is because my neighbors keep telling me to run for city council.

iByteABit ,

It’s sad for Bernie and other leftist parties that they can mathematically never get into power, but this is the smartest thing he can do given the system. Use his publicity to promote the closest party to his own so that the fascists don’t get into power.

Dagwood222 ,

This is what the extreme Right did. The Moral Majority would show up at every local GOP meeting. If the local club usually had twenty people at the meeting, the MMs would show up with fifty. Picking the candidate for dog catcher or justice of the peace? The MM were there and they made sure they got their candidate in.

Nixon did something similar. After he failed to win the Senate seat he hit the road and campaigned hard for every GOP he could find. By 1968 he had dozens of delegates to the national convention in his pocket.

iByteABit ,

A faulty system is bound to be worked around and taken advantage of by everyone that is able to. The US is very far from a democracy because of it, and it won’t change because the most powerful people will do anything to keep it in place.

Grant_M ,
@Grant_M@lemmy.ca avatar

Bernie has it right again.

clutchmatic ,

I like Bernie but he should retire and coach the next generation of Dem leaders

dQw4w9WgXcQ ,

Both Bernie and Biden seem like great people, but I’d much rather see them consulting a younger generation than having either of them at the top.

Omniraptor ,

Being called a “great person” imo should take a history of fighting for equality and dignity for everyone, and for most of his long career Biden has been doing the opposite of that.

davi ,

Both Bernie and Biden seem like great people

a 30 second google search and the plentiful articles and videos it’ll show you of biden being racist, homophobic and classicist during his entire career and defending those racist, homophobic and classicist decisions during his campaign in 2020 proves that you’re either patsy or a shill.

dQw4w9WgXcQ ,

Sure, I haven’t done my research, and the politics of the last few years is basically all I’ve got to go by. And that’s mainly through Norwegian media, which maybe doesn’t dive too deep into the history of the people.

With that said… Chill dude.

meyotch ,

He has been mentoring for years. He is a better mentor while still in office where he can work side by side with freshpersons.

Grant_M ,
@Grant_M@lemmy.ca avatar

He’s coaching now.

Dubious_Fart ,

I’m really sick of thhe fact that avoiding Americas descent into full blown 4th Reich fascism is dependent on idiots in the voting booth.

giantofthenorth ,

Damn. Maybe he should run again so we can at least get a good old man in office

IDontHavePantsOn ,

The DNC would never allow it. They have actively worked against him twice and at least once they took bribes. Ahem. Sorry. Contingency based donations.

Him telling anyone to back Biden shows they have a political gun to his back, but God do we need him in office. Too bad the rich are for some reason opposed to taxing the the rich 🤷

Grant_M ,
@Grant_M@lemmy.ca avatar

Bernie is telling everyone Joe Biden is a good guy and his friend.

DragonTypeWyvern ,

Bernie should tell his good friend to conditionally veto KOSA because he got played like some kind of sucker that doesn’t read the bills he supports.

cabron_offsets ,

Fuck no. And that’s coming from a guy who voted for Bernie in the 2016 primary. We can’t risk such dumbfuckery.

MoonRaven ,
@MoonRaven@feddit.nl avatar

This is why the 2 party system is fucking bad. In the Netherlands we have a wide range of parties we can vote for, no need for strategic votes like this.

ezterry ,

It’s a symptom of the winner takes all election system… Its most stable with one or two major parties. The hope for more parties is one reason some of us push for instant runoff elections, but it “confuses” people so its not had the traction I’d like.

Tak ,
@Tak@lemmy.ml avatar

The US can’t support more than two parties with how the elections are run. Instead the primaries have to filter down the varied candidates into compromises

Pipoca ,

Britain uses the same system and has some successful third parties like the Scottish National Party.

Regional third parties tend to dramatically outperform national ones. Because FPTP does best with 2 candidate elections, but those 2 candidates don’t have to be in the same party across every district.

For presidential elections - yeah. You run a third party candidate like Nader, you get Bush. You run Perot, you get Clinton.

Tak ,
@Tak@lemmy.ml avatar

How is it the same system?

Sean ,
@Sean@liberal.city avatar

@Tak @Pipoca both the US and the UK have fptp single member districts for national legislature, so the expectation would be that in the UK parliament they'd only have Labour and Tories, no 3rd parties representing regional issues, just wings of the duopoply serving that purpose. But the difference isn't derived in that both have FPTP, but that the US has a media environment that propagates binary choices, BBC still strives for viewership but not the extent that US MSM does via oversimplification

Tak ,
@Tak@lemmy.ml avatar

Doesn’t that not include basically anything else but that factor and then labeled as the same thing for the sake of argument? How does that relate to funding, regulation, power structures, and much more nuanced factors?

The US has always been a two party system from the start back before there was a BBC. Are we going to say Fox news created the original contention of federalists and antifederalists?

SkyeStarfall ,

It seriously gives some really bad incentives.

Yes, voting for Biden is better… But it also very much allows the Democrats to abuse the situation and put whoever they want on there. Because the alternative will always be worse. And so you’re destined to always having an acceptable president, but never a great one that people really want.

We have a parliament here and, yeah, it’s so much better in basically every way. I can actually vote for what I want and not have to worry that it’s not strategic. Because I’m the end it will just empower the party and thus give them more negotiating power.

fushuan ,

We also have more than 2 parties in Spain, however the way votes are counted it’s better to vote for the big parties than the local ones. Literally, voting your local party and them supporting the big “left” party will amount less seats than just voting the big party. Usually people vote locally but since we have the looming danger of the extreme right party, people have been focusing on the big left, just to ensure that we don’t get Vox.

Still having more than 2 parties promotes discussion and makes it really difficult for a party to go rogue.

Aceticon , (edited )

The Netherlands has proportional vote, that’s why.

With electoral circles instead of PV, mathematically the two largest parties get way more representatives than the percentage of the public votes they get, and the bigger the electoral circles and fewer the representatives the worse it gets.

(Further, voters own behaviour changes to one of “useful vote” rather than “choosing those who better represents them”, plus tribalism becomes way more extreme when there is only a black & white choice - so lots of votes are driven by team loyalty - all of which makes it even worse)

(Also smaller parties dissapear, both because they can’t secure funding and because their members lose hope of ever making a difference. The closest you get to “small parties” in the US are independents, running for a very specific electoral circle only and whose voice is a drop in the ocean in a place like the US Congress)

The US has single representative very large electoral circles for Congress and double representative State-sized electoral circles for the Senate, so their system is rigged to pretty much the max it can and the result is a power duopoly.

I lived in The Netherlands and now I live in a country where the system is somewhat less so (smaller electoral circles, multiple representatives per circle) and even here you see the two largest parties getting and extra 10-20% each representatives in parliament compared to the popular vote (the governing party has 56% of parliamentary seats on 42% of votes cast) whilst the smaller parties have half as many representatives as their popular vote (in other words, every vote for a smaller party counts less than half as much as a vote for a large party, which is hardly democratic).

Most so-called “democratic” nations have this kind of rigged system, but places like the US and Britain take it to the extreme, so it’s unsurprising that when the economic supercycle is at the point where the many start hurting, in the absence of true choice you get instead the internal takeover of the rightmost of the party dupoly by the Trumps and Boris Johnsons of this world offering an ultra-nationalist far-right populist mix of othering, scapegoating and simple “solutions”.

(Funilly enough if you compare The Netherlands with Britain, whilst even now the far-right is stuck at maybe 20% in the former, in the latter it took over the Tory Party from the inside - which is far easier than convince half the population to vote for them - and hence has been in power for almost a decade with an absolute majority).

Lols ,

in theory, in practice strategic votes still matter for the actual government because parties can just decide not to work with someone and the biggest party gets first picks for the coalition

meaning that in practice, having the biggest party still matters massively, and in a mostly right wing country, the right gets to vote for who best represents them, while the left still has to vote strategically if they want to take actual administrative positions

tryptaminev ,
@tryptaminev@feddit.de avatar

I’d like to disagree. strategic voting means you shift your vote to what you suppose to be more majority carrying, which usually tends to go for centrists with quite some neoliberal positions. And they usually manage to put through the same shit as the right on economic issues, or implementing authoritarian attacks on civil rights, like mass surveilance.

It is the same thing in the US. There is the far right extremist republicans and the right wing democrats (by european standards) because they try to cover the supposed center, and everyone left of that still votes for them. So in the end they still get no health care, no social security, lots of warmongering, bad schools and institutionalized racism…

In Germany we get the same bs with people voting social democrats “strategically”, that end up pushing for neoliberal economic policies and authoritarian social policies.

Lols ,

im not sure what youre disagreeing with

SpaceCowboy ,
@SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca avatar

A lot of people have been taught to have an idealized concept about Democracy.

The reality is democracy is the worst system… except for all the others.

In an ideal world you’d be able to vote for a candidate that is a perfect match for your political positions. But we’re pretty fucking far from an ideal world.

The reality of democracy is that isn’t about getting exactly what you want. It really only gives you a way to remove terrible people from power. And keep terrible people from gaining power.

Yeah that sucks, but it’s better than living in an authoritarian system where you have to use violence to remove terrible people from power. And likely fail and die while attempting to do so.

If Trump wins, that’s what it’ll be, an authoritarian system where you can’t remove the terrible person from power by voting.

If Biden wins, it’ll be more bullshit, but you’ll be able to vote again in the next election after that.

Gargantu8 ,

Do you really think you can reduce democracy down to being able to remove the worst people? I don’t necessarily disagree just find that interesting. What about if we also had ranked choice?

PersnickityPenguin ,

There best form of government is an enlightened despot, it so I’ve read. However if the wind of the king are law, then when things go bad, they really go bad. And the transition of power gets ugly.

SkyeStarfall ,

This is a bit of an odd take considering other countries already have better versions of democratic systems. Just take a page out of their books.

Comment105 ,

The problem with democracy is that humans are actually stupid fucking apes and they fear math, so they simplify the math to the point of undermining the whole system.

This problem also shows up in some welfare systems with a simple rather than gradual cutoff if you start working more. Stay below 60% employment or lose all help immediately.

geekworking ,

Tl;dr Bernie preaches to the choir.

notannpc ,

It would be cool if we had another candidate that didn’t suck instead of relying, once again, on voting for anyone but Trump.

Because I don’t think most people are voting FOR Biden, as much as they are voting AGAINST Trump.

Poggervania ,
@Poggervania@kbin.social avatar

It was the same in the 2016 Elections too. Most left-leaning people I talked to did not want Hillary in office, but they wanted Trump not in office more than Hillary - so a vote for Hillary it was.

Honestly, both parties fucking suck, and it sucks even more that our options are literally “right-leaning centrists” and “fascism”.

doctordevice ,

Neoliberals need to get this through their head: a sizeable minority of us do not like the Democratic Party and don’t believe we are represented by them, regardless of whatever empty rhetoric they spew. Sizeable enough that you can lose elections without us. We are not a long-term reliable voting bloc and you need to learn tactics other than bullying and fear-mongering to get your way.

To abuse a metaphor, Hillary Clinton and her primary shenanigans were the straw that broke my back. Donald Trump and what he represented was bad enough that I managed to muster enough energy to vote for Hillary in 2016 and Biden in 2020. But I’m tired, and if I’m able to muster the energy for 2024 it’ll be the last time. I’m done voting for people that I do not want to be my president. It doesn’t have to be a progressive, but give me someone I can stomach or you can leave me out of your election math.

And the tired refrain of “Biden is the most progressive president ever” isn’t a consolation prize, it’s salt in the wound.

Uranium3006 ,
@Uranium3006@kbin.social avatar

once the republican party dies, the democratic party is in big trouble for exactly this reason.

burntbutterbiscuits ,

He isn’t though. By a long shot. Biden is right of center

doctordevice ,

I agree, that’s why that phrase is salt in the wound. It’s said by neoliberals who themselves are right of center but don’t realize it. They seem to think it’s supposed to make progressives feel better.

affiliate ,

it’s interesting to think about the damage trump has done to the progressive movement simply by “commandeering” 3 election cycles in that way. because the consequences of him winning are so catastrophic, we’ll end up with 12 years of presidents that were either trump or centrists hailed as the best way to beat him. just to clarify, i’m not trying to downplay the damage he’s done in other ways, nor how terrible it would be if he were elected

i wonder how much easier it would have been to elect a progressive if the past 3 republican nominees had been evil in a more mild and traditional way.

abraxas ,

You say that, but Biden dominated the Primary in 2020. I wanted Warren. I’d have been ok with Bernie. But I have to admit, Biden just had so many more votes.

The US is filled with conservatives. Most Democratic voters are simply sane conservatives. Biden is their idea of a good candidate. An economic neoliberal that believes in modest safety nets and personal freedom when not at the expense of others. More importantly, he believes in compromise (something Democrats need because their constituents are not single-issue voters, and often have different opinions on the issues)

It would be cool if more people were more progressive in the US. But the media doesn’t really want to make that possible.

VolatileExhaustPipe ,

Even if you take the parliamentarian, electoralist position about the primary in 2020 then you have to look at the structures and power bases before you can (potentially rightful) stretch the result to opinions.

Party internal politics mean that there will often be votes being cast strategically influenced by functionaries, mandated people and the old guard.

SpaceCowboy ,
@SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca avatar

That’s all democracy ever is. A check to keep the worst people from being in power. Non-democracies don’t have this, you have to use violence to remove bad people from power. And most likely die trying to do it.

They really should tech in schools how voting really works. Figure out who the worst one is, and vote for the one that is most likely to beat the worst one. You never get everything you want in one election cycle, you have to keep on voting again and again and over a few decades you get some progress. It sucks but it’s better than the alternatives.

That’s why voting is a duty, it sucks, but you have to do it.

Zagorath ,
@Zagorath@aussie.zone avatar

Are you aware that voting systems other than First Past the Post exist?

emergencyfood ,

Are you confusing democracy with first-past-the-post voting? Democracy is rule by, or at least for, the people. First-past-the-post is a very old, simple and rather primitive way of choosing representatives that, as you said, is just a ‘check to keep the worst people from being in power’. Newer, more representative systems such as proportional representation and approval voting are better at choosing actually good parties / candidates.

Ensign_Crab ,

That’s all democracy ever is. A check to keep the worst people from being in power.

I think ours might be broken.

grayman ,

They should run Obama. Not that one. The other one. But Hillary would probably have her murdered.

norbert ,
@norbert@kbin.social avatar

At least she'd lose a few voters by doing it, not like some other clowns eh?

grayman ,

The whole thing is a circus. All clowns.

MisterFrog ,
@MisterFrog@lemmy.world avatar

There’s a lot of things to march on the street for, but too be honest as an outsider, national voting reform to bring in a truly democratic system (not first past the post…) needs to be at the top of the list.

So many things broken in your political system flows from it.

VolatileExhaustPipe ,

You know I’ve been here the whole time, you could leverage the same critique in 1998 and yet wouldn’t have gotten a proper voting reform. The point is for that you need a lot of power and that power you don’t get currently.

Your idea is: Lets create the system so that we get more power, to do that we need enough power to change the system. You see how that is a reverse order?

If that isn’t the way forward as strategic goal (since it was tried for decades and there was no success in changing it), what specific goals can you personally do to create power? Power that can benefit your community and possibly the world (just so that no nationalistic takes are posed as solutions).

Veraxus ,
@Veraxus@kbin.social avatar

Yes, Bernie, we know. We will because we have no other choice. Because of how absolutely broken and corrupt our entire political system is, we can vote for a ideologically repugnant lame-duck conservative or a literal fascist.

No matter how much we hate Biden and the DNC's corrupt, self-serving conservatism, we still have two brain cells to rub together and do, in fact, understand that "both sides" are most definitely NOT the same.

HobbitFoot ,

Yeah, both sides aren’t the same. How do you deal with the 20% of the country that want a fascist government and the 30% who are ok with it as long as it keeps taxes low and punish the “right people”?

I’m just venting in my reply to your comment; this isn’t a criticism of what you said.

themeatbridge ,

How do you deal with them? With patience and honesty. You talk politics, make it OK to discuss things without demonizing people who disagree with you. If it’s impolite to discuss politics, then only the impolite will share their political opinions. And you know who benefits? The fascist. They want the opposition silenced by propriety. They want the extremes to be the loudest voices, because it paints the picture that both sides are unreasonable.

Don’t avoid the subject. Dive headfirst into it, and be prepared to resist the urge to roll your eyes or get emotional. Be calm, be rational, and be direct. Conservativism is a fungus that grows in the darkness. In the conservative mind, they are the heroes, and everyone else is evil. You won’t win that debate with logic. You have to use the gray rock method, and prove to them that you both disagree with them, and you are not their enemy.

HobbitFoot ,

The only decent tactic I found is to focus on having the government being the arbitor of who is a good person.

You also have to argue against the programming that relying on any unearned government assistance is bad. So, the best way to respond is asking if there should be a qualification that anyone working shouldn’t get the same benefits of someone who is broke.

It isn’t perfect, though. There is also a lot of tribalism.

abraxas ,

Unfortunately, there’s a reason cult deprogrammers are heavily trained. If you’re not an expert, the above behavior can have the opposite effect, helping reiterate to them that their crazy positions are actually reasonable and acceptable. The worst thing you can do to a cult member is acknowledge their beliefs respectfully. The second worst thing you can do is insult them. See the problem?

You have to use the gray rock method, and prove to them that you both disagree with them, and you are not their enemy.

This is the problem. When someone holds a belief that is not ok, telling them that is “ok” doesn’t work. You’ll be “one of the good ones”, but it’ll end there.

themeatbridge ,

I didn’t say that you should tell them it’s OK. You can tell someone their ideas are outrageous without getting emotional or argumentative.

SkyeStarfall ,

I’ve tried basically everything under the sun with ly parents and family. Including variations of this.

It doesn’t work.

If someone is as set in their ways and conspiracies and worldview. There’s no getting them out if it, if they don’t already want to. They just come up with whatever counterargument or idea that makes sense to them or supports them. Real or imagined. Facts and reality literally don’t matter.

About the only thing left I’m gonna end up trying to do is to effectively give them a form of ideological shock, which may end up just shattering their worldview. Not exactly intentional, mind you, but just by living my own life. Maybe having their child be something they’re supposed to hate will shake up their foundational beliefs enough to question things.

…or it may not. Probably the more likely answer.

themeatbridge ,

Yes, and I’m very sorry you’re dealing with that. You’re right, you’re not going to fix a conservative mind. The strategies I mentioned are recommended to protect and preserve your own mental health, not to fix theirs. Set boundaries, identify gaslighting, disengage emotionally from their outbursts, and protect your self esteem from their whims. It might help them recognize their issues and improve their relationship with you, but there are no guarantees.

Agent_of_Kayos ,

This is the same reason I talk about how much I am paid with my coworkers

Sure it makes sense that someone here longer than me will get more, but of two people are hired at the same time and one is making $3,000 more (My own experience) then it’s bs

Psythik ,

Yeah try telling that to Hexbear and see how well that goes for you lol

Millie ,

Good thing hexchan’s take is totally irrelevant!

VolatileExhaustPipe ,

You really seem to hold a grudge. Is it a grudge aimed at the right persons and is it a grudge to hold at all?

Psythik ,

If you spent 5 minutes on Hexbear you’d understand.

VolatileExhaustPipe ,

I think you and OP really need to get some tools to deal with your emotions. I spend 50 hours there (and in actually vile places) and yet I do focus on stuff where I can have impact on.

Awoo ,
@Awoo@lemmy.ml avatar

This user is completely making shit up about Hexbear.

hexbear.net/post/451217?scrollToComments=false

Psythik , (edited )

Good point lol

variaatio ,

However recognise also… nothing is solved by voting biden in instead of Trump. Since the issue isn’t Trump the person, but the wider politican movement. There will be next trump after this trump and next trump after that trump. Names change, the situation doesn’t.

It’s just kicking the can down the road for another 4 years. Nothing more, nothing less. US voters and system really need to do some hard long term thinking and planning to come up with a plan to actually solve the issue. Instead of keeping kicking the can down the road for 4 years at a time. Since again (as with Trump in 2016) the can doesn’t get kicked along for yeat another 4 years. Instead when USA goes to kick the can, it is actually this time a glass bottled molotov, that bursts in flames upon being tried to be kicked yeat again.

Wooki ,

You throw corrupt around like it has meaning when it’s nothing more than compromise. It’s compromise in order for the party to get into power, not corruption… conflating the two is ignorant to the fact DNC wouldn’t not get into power ever without it.

Welcome to the democratic process.

Amaltheamannen ,

This will always be the choice for people on the left, at some point you have to bite the bullet and stop supporting right wingers like Biden just because Trump is worse.

Veraxus ,
@Veraxus@kbin.social avatar

We need to forcefully reform the US political system... doing everything in our power to bust the current party system. There should never be a scenario where one party controls anything even remotely resembling power.

The first step is national RCV on all matters. Until we can get that, there is no other peaceful path forward.

Edit: The second step is aggressive campaign finance reform. The third is limiting all representative groups to day-to-day operations only, while guaranteeing that all legislative matters anywhere in the country are vetted ONLY by a public vote.

AnonTwo ,

Ok, so trump is worse. Good to see we acknowledge that.

But if we were to assume for a moment that the other choice could literally be trump in the upcoming election, then nows not the freaken time for this shit.

Nows not the time to "bite the bullet" when it's going to be the literal reason we aren't biting the bullet.

rayyyy ,

At some point people on the left have to bite the bullet and run candidates from the ground up in order to get someone who has ANY chance to actually change anything. In the meantime the sane people must hold the ground against fascist authoritarians by not allowing them to get into power at all costs - this means voting for the lesser evils until someone with a chance of a snowball in hell moves into position. That is how the crazies got their man into power. Schoolboards, county officials, mayors, even dog catchers must be pushed up the ladder of power. Anything less is just blowing smoke.

Amaltheamannen ,

Has there been any meaningful change the past 100 years achieved through voting? Every achievement I can think of in the US was won by riots and popular movements.

AnonTwo ,

I took my 3rd option 7 years ago. I'm not really feeling it again until the trump and court situations are dealt with.

DessertStorms ,
@DessertStorms@kbin.social avatar
s20 ,

Okay, cool. Won’t disagree. How does voting for someone else, or not at all, help?

Like, okay, the system’s broke. But we’re stuck in the broke system (for now). Is it somehow wrong to want to lessen the harm the disease does while the cure is being made? Even if that difference is marginal?

karmiclychee ,

It’s funny, I had to reread op’s comment a couple times before I realized (I think) that they aren’t making the usual argument against voting - I’m so conditioned to expect it because the usual centrist/progressive discourse is black and whited to “vote” vs “don’t vote.” We get it from the media, bad actors, wishy-washy liberal-liberals, and… (Sigh) leftists who don’t know any better.

“Vote, and” should be the message - vote and organize, vote and run for office, whatever. To your point, we need to at least keep a thumb on the gushing artery if we plan to survive.

DougHolland ,
@DougHolland@lemmy.ml avatar

Everywhere I go I’m usually the oldest person in the room, and I’ve been hearing that line since long before I’d ever heard of Donald Trump.

Always, the left has to support whatever bland middle-of-the-road candidate the Democrats put forward, candidates who seem idea-free and utterly without passion, because the Republicans have a terrifying candidate. Gotta take boring over terrifying.

And Bernie’s right. I ain’t arguing.

Sure is a bucket of swill we’re always forced to drink from, though.

sab ,
@sab@kbin.social avatar

I guess the important thing is that one should do other things in addition to voting for the bland somewhat shitty candidate that's at least better than the other guy.

Unionising and getting involved on the local level are two good starting points. Encouraging others to unionise and to get involved locally is also good.

Oh, and reading up on alternative election systems and teaching people about it would be good, but maybe too ambitious. Who wants to listen to anyone ramble on about ranked choice or whatever.

Rbon ,
@Rbon@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

This is the correct answer that so few of us realize. We as a people are able to do more than one thing at once. Yes, we should still vote for the lesser of 2 evils, AND we should also make progress to improve the system itself.

sik0fewl ,

I think yours are better points, but also: voting in the primaries. I'm sure Bernie would support a more progressive candidate as well!

Nihilore ,
@Nihilore@lemmy.world avatar

Just show them the CGP Grey videos, they’d short and entertaining way to introduce people to alternative voting systems

asteriskeverything ,

Just to clarify that this is something that happened often for primaries? That’s new to me, even the primaries for 2020 election it didn’t seem to have that outright pressure and just politicians and people in public eye endorsing one or the other.

The talk of even if you don’t like then vote for them cuz other is worse I only heard really leading up to presidential election.

For what it is worth though I do not watch the news or talking heads and never have, I always prefer reading articles, so maybe I’m just out of the loop on that part of our culture.

SkyezOpen ,

This is why I, at the time, was sort of happy that trump won. I hoped that dems losing what they thought was a sure win to an assclown like trump would make them shape up and put forward some actual candidates that the people could truly get behind. Instead they doubled down with milquetoast shitlibs. We’re never going to get out of this rut of voting for the lesser evil without ranked choice voting.

btaf45 ,

You don't understand how politics works if you thought that Convicted Sex Offender Treason Trump winning in 2016 would result in anything other than Biden winning the nomination in 2020. The first thing literally guaranteed the 2nd thing.

abraxas , (edited )

I know this is the wrong server to say it, but there were some things I liked about Hillary. I am still convinced that her gender played far more of a role in people’s hatred of her than they will ever be able to accept.

Yes, she’s still a neo-liberal, but she’s further left than most of the Democrats, and we consistently see that the supermajority of non-Republican voters are simply not as progressive as most of us are. Hillary had a well-conceived labor plan and respected unions. She liked the idea of single-payer, if not enough to spend too much political capital on it. She was left of Obama and of Biden, if still to the right of her “progressive” so-called roots.

Here’s my non-opinionated counterpoint. Trump bested Hillary on Labor when his plan was “kick out immigrants and deregulate coal so you get your dangerous job back”, and she had a 100 page labor plan that involved things like subsidized retraining of coal workers. The Democrats have learned that you will not win Labor by favoring them. A bad lesson.

VolatileExhaustPipe ,

and respected unions.

X: [Doubt]

Nonameuser678 ,
@Nonameuser678@aussie.zone avatar

Y’all really need to reform your voting system. We have a preferential system over here in Australia. It’s not perfect but it feels like our democracy is a lot more robust and diverse because of it.

Marketsupreme ,

Man wouldn’t that be great. Half the country wants ranked choice voting but the ones in power don’t actually represent us they represent who is paying them.

scroll_responsibly ,
@scroll_responsibly@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

the ones in power

If the “ones in power” represent those who are paying them… maybe the ones in power are the ones doing the paying?

Marketsupreme ,

That is exactly correct.

Enkrod ,

When you have two parties in power that would both lose from a more representative system, how do you go about getting better representation?

Jaysyn ,
@Jaysyn@kbin.social avatar

The Democrats passed RCV in Maine. The banned it in Florida.

These two things are not the same.

Enkrod ,

Oh I absolutely agree, one party wants a capitalist dystopia while the other pushes for a genocidal fascist hellscape with an out of control climate and the return of Jim Crow or worse.

Democrats are by far the better alternative, but can the Democratic National Convention be trusted to implement a voting system that would see them face competition from the left? Don’t rely on them, people need to push it hard in addition to voting.

AngryCommieKender , (edited )

Then be your own Goldie Wilson. Run yourself. Enough of my neighbors have told me that I should run, that I am even though I don’t believe I am qualified.

I’m running for city council, but if I win in 2026, the fascist that currently holds the chair, and constantly complains about it, won’t be attempting to actively harm the community the way they currently are.

Also if I win, and continue winning the 2 terms of city council, 2 terms of mayor, then I’m done, because I’ll be 60 at that point and served 16 years in government. At most they could get another term or two out of me as a state level senator or representative. I’m not sticking around past my 60s. Got too much to do.

feminalpanda ,
@feminalpanda@lemmings.world avatar

I think a big part is that progress is slow, I want it faster but as the old generation dies off we will get further left politicians but also right so hopefully with internet and general empathy we can overcome conservatives.

burntbutterbiscuits ,

I’ve stopped voting for the worst of two evils. I leave it blank.

blazera ,
@blazera@kbin.social avatar

he's had a whole term and shown he's not planning on stopping Trump. He's still walking free after all the treason and assaults on democracy.

s20 ,

I mean, yeah! Trump’s facing 91 felony charges at my last count, and been indicted at least 4 times, but sure. Ain’t nobody doin’ nothin’.

blazera ,
@blazera@kbin.social avatar

None of these are actual consequences. Like i said, he is still walking free.

Ertebolle ,

So you'd prefer it if Biden just, like, did a little fascism and sent a bunch of goons to drag Trump off to Guantanamo or wherever?

blazera ,
@blazera@kbin.social avatar

Prosecute him sooner than the entire length of watergate to nixons resignation. God the trials dont even start until next year.

sab ,
@sab@kbin.social avatar

...because Nixon resigned and was pardoned, dodging the entire legal process?

What's your point here?

gamermanh ,
@gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

So should we just skip due process?

Trump’s a shit and probably deserves that treatment, but that’s still not what we do here

blazera ,
@blazera@kbin.social avatar

Due process for anyone else is a hell of a lot faster. I was mad after the first month of Bidens term with no prosecution announcement. We're just now beginning the process that will continue to be long and drawn out.

gamermanh ,
@gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

It’s almost like these are a large amount of major crimes with a shitton of information to sift through

Oh, and it’s a former president, so the work is likely being checked over exhaustively to ensure there isn’t something wrong with it

blazera ,
@blazera@kbin.social avatar

You are describing a trial to me. The trial is going to be long winded as youve described. The trial doesnt start for another year. Just to game an election year.

legion02 ,

You clearly don’t know how the court system works. The current time table is actually pretty aggressive.

blazera ,
@blazera@kbin.social avatar

In no way is 4 years after a crime aggressive

s20 ,

So… The current administration should, what, put a hit out on him?

donuts ,
@donuts@kbin.social avatar

Maybe the last few years of Trump's fascist authoritarian rhetoric have confused you, but the President does not, and never should, prosecute crimes. Despite its obvious flaws, we have a legal system for a reason.

snooggums ,
@snooggums@kbin.social avatar

The prosecutors at the Department of Justice arr members of the Executive Branch under the President.

The President should not be unilaterally deciding who to prosecute for political reasons, but he is overseeing the prosecution of crimes as the head of the Executive Branch.

blazera ,
@blazera@kbin.social avatar

Maybe you werent paying attention during trumps terms to know the president has control of the attorney general and department of justice. Its how trump avoided consequences for the shit with russia and extorting ukraine. The executive branch does prosecute crimes, they just dont oversee the trial. And bidens DoJ have not been prosecuting crimes.

spaceghoti ,

No he doesn’t. He’s not supposed to, and that’s what the careerists were trying to stop. The DOJ and Attorney General are part of the Executive cabinet but they answer to Congress, not the President. The President has his own White House counsel, the AG does not serve as his personal lawyer.

blazera ,
@blazera@kbin.social avatar

This just is not true, the president chooses the AG and has authority to terminate them. They are part of the presidential cabinet and are legal advisors to the president. They are wholly under the executive branch.

spaceghoti ,

www.justice.gov/ag

The Judiciary Act of 1789 created the Office of the Attorney General which evolved over the years into the head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government. The Attorney General represents the United States in legal matters generally and gives advice and opinions to the President and to the heads of the executive departments of the Government when so requested.

That doesn’t mean the AG is the President’s personal lawyer. That’s the Office of Counsel to the President.

federalregister.gov/…/counsel-to-the-president

The Counsel’s Office also helps define the line between official and political activities, oversees executive appointments and judicial selection, handles Presidential pardons, reviews legislation and Presidential statements, and handles lawsuits against the President in his role as President, as well as serving as the White House Contact for the Department of Justice.

blazera ,
@blazera@kbin.social avatar

I havent said anything about him being Biden's lawyer, Biden's not on trial. Im talking about their jobs as public servants. I wanna give a clear example of what I mean but it's hard to come up with a better example than what Trump's done, of a crime being committed and knowing who did it. I dunno say some crazy guy kidnaps the vice president or something, they get caught...and then nothing happens because the AG refuses to prosecute them. That's just plain dereliction of duty. But the checks and balance for the AG is the president that appoints and can terminate them. If that AG is terminated, then it was just all on the AG for being bad. But if the AG is still around, then the president has to partake in that blame, and the check is you dont reelect them.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • random
  • [email protected]
  • All magazines