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.

Jaysyn , (edited )
@Jaysyn@kbin.social avatar

Done and done, Bernie.

West to accuse him of only backing Biden because he is “fearful of the neo-fascism of Trump.

That quote shows how frankly, stupid, Cornel West is. Game theory & math show that it is impossible for a 3rd party run to succeed with US style FPtP voting in place. Get rid of that & then we can talk, but not to you, shit for brains.

TokenBoomer ,

Does this inform your opinion?

Kalkaline ,
@Kalkaline@programming.dev avatar

Post an archive link or copy and paste the article if it’s behind a paywall. I can’t subscribe to dozens of news outlets because someone posted an article once for a throwaway discussion.

fragmentcity ,

Don’t put this on people posting links.

Use a browser extension if it’s personally important to you, or just paste the link in yourself. Archive sites go offline; they shouldn’t be primary link sources.

Zorque ,

It's personally important to the person sharing it. The reason they're not subscribing is because it isn't personally important.

If you want to share information, you need to take the responsibility of making sure it's readable. You can't just throw shit at the wall and expect everyone else to interpret it correctly. That's a recipe for misunderstanding and divisiveness.

TokenBoomer ,

We’re not all rich like Zorque subscribing to 55 newspapers.

fragmentcity ,

You didn’t really read or engage with any of my points, so I’ll ignore your lecture about misunderstanding.

Zorque ,

Just because I didn't parrot something you personally agree doesn't mean I didn't engage.

But I suppose if you only want to hear what conforms to your viewpoints, that's your prerogative.

fragmentcity ,

You’re winning an argument that no one is having with you, great job 👍

You didn’t respond to the substance of my comment. Links to paywalled articles are trivial to paste into a site like archive.is. Archive sites are taken down all the time, it makes no sense to provide them as the primary source of a link.

norbert ,
@norbert@kbin.social avatar

Not the other commenter but here it is:

https://archive.is/RPmJ5

TokenBoomer ,

Here’s another link that’s not paywalled.

Sharpiemarker ,

Yep Bernie is right, 100%.

btaf45 ,

Yep Bernie is right, 100%.

He always had been. I've never known him to be wrong.

TheAnonymouseJoker , (edited )

Why did he support Yugoslavia’s bombing by NATO?

NovaPrime ,
@NovaPrime@lemmy.ml avatar

He supported Serbia’s bombing. And because it was thr right thing to do. They were engaging in a genocide and openly conducting ethnic cleansings.

TheAnonymouseJoker ,

I did not know there were white fascists out in the open. Seems like socialist left is a lot softer with your ilk.

NovaPrime ,
@NovaPrime@lemmy.ml avatar

Or I’m someone who directly experienced the ethnic cleansing and genocide committed against my people by the the Serbs. I have zero sympathy or tolerance for keyboard warriors and actual fascist apologists when it comes to the subject. Educate yourself first and actually think critically sometime about shit you say (as you claim you do), rather than just repeating the tired, and frankly lazy, “west bad/NATO bad” mantra.

TheAnonymouseJoker ,

Ah yes NATO good Serbia/Yugoslavia bad. You can apply the very advice you give to yourself, since you stan for NATO. NATO is the single biggest evil organisation in human history, and USA the biggest terrorist country.

NovaPrime ,
@NovaPrime@lemmy.ml avatar

In the case of the Yugoslavian wars and Serbian aggression against Bosnia, yes, NATO was good and Serbia was bad. Serbia instigated the first genocide on European soil since the Holocaust (caveat: depending on how you classify Armenia geographically) and refused to stop and back off until they were bombed. It wasnt until the bombs started falling on THEIR people and country that they finally stopped. Also, continuing to refer to Serbia as “Yugoslavia” makes me think that either you’ve no idea about what you’re talking when it comes to the Balkans, or are a Serb apologist.

Sharpiemarker ,

Except that one time he ran against the Democrat and got a wannabe dictator elected President. Aside from that.

Ensign_Crab ,

Clinton earned her loss.

ComradeChairmanKGB ,
@ComradeChairmanKGB@lemmygrad.ml avatar

It was her turn (to lose)

Sorchist ,

I mean, if Trump won and abolished all elections and declared himself dictator for life, then West's chances of being elected president as a third party candidate wouldn't actually change one way or the other.

So maybe being a feckless third party candidate in an authoritarian neofascist dictatorship isn't really that different from being a feckless third party candidate in a constitutional democracy.

Touching_Grass ,

A city in Ontario changed FPTP voting and the following year the provincial government forced them to change back even though the majority favored it.

Zagorath ,
@Zagorath@aussie.zone avatar

Damn, fake London actually did something good? I’m sure it’s not the first time that’s happened, but it is the first time I’ve heard of that happening, as a non-Canadian.

But I believe that’s not the first, and won’t be the last, time Ontario has regressively overruled the democratic will for genuinely beneficial change.

nalyd ,

The party of compromise has been working hard to find middle ground and bipartisan support from people who dog whistle to neo nazis. It doesn’t surprise me to hear someone eyeballing the 3rd party route.

Not that I think you’re wrong about the math and who will ultimately win if it becomes a serious thing, I’m just not surprised people are getting heated and stoking some fires.

Zaktor ,

Or just like, compete in a Democratic primary like Bernie did. Maybe don’t shoot for president on your literal first attempt, but you can if you really want to. Bernie was way more successful in promoting his message running in those Democratic primaries than any of the random Greens have ever been.

VolatileExhaustPipe ,

Who do you think is smarter, a leading intellectual, harvard professor and still relevant figure or a kbin poster?

While I don’t prescribe that smarts matter perspective does and my perspective is that it seems you are missing something. Do you think a person critically looking at our system and having spoken with very learned people for decades knows more than you or maybe talks on a different framework? I sure hope you do reflect on that again.

variaatio ,

a 3rd party run to succeed with US style FPtP voting in place

However as 2016 showed it is also impossible for the FPTP lesser of two evils routine to keep kicking the can down the road for ever, you eventually will land on the “bandit” sector on trying to yeat again run the russian roulette of “surely the fear of the greater evil will again make the lesser evil win”.

Since lesser of two evils too long leads to apathy. People won’t be rebelling by voting for Trump, by voting for even Cornel West, they won’t be even really rebelling at all. Instead they will be so disillusioned by decades of lesser of two evil, they will instead sign up for extra shift of work or decade to sleep in bed to rest for a day instead of going voting.

The great enemy of Democrats is not Trump, it is sleeping peoples party and you don’t win against sleeping peoples party with negative campaigning and fear mongering. It will just make them sleep more. Only thing to make them awake is positive campaigning. Likeable, popular, enthusiasm generating candidates and platforms. The message of “no we can make a change” instead of “please help us keep the status guo alive for 4 more years by kicking the can down the road by preventing greater evil for these four years.”

Ertebolle ,

Yep. It sucks that this is the choice we have to make, but it is, at least until we figure out a way to fix our voting system.

chaogomu ,

STAR voting would fix everything. This website goes into more detail.

The simplified science of it all says that if a voting method forces you to choose between candidates or rank them in a fixed order, then that very ranking will, over time, promote two dominant parties. (Arrow's Theorem)

A cardinal voting system, such as STAR, is immune to Arrow's Theorem. STAR was designed to be the absolute best voting system possible. It's easy to use, easy to count, and gives better results than any other system.

Ertebolle ,

I'm a fan of MMP voting (used in Germany, New Zealand, and the Scottish/Welsh parliaments in the UK), where you vote for a district representative and a party and the parties get extra seats to ensure that the proportions balance out. It's easy for voters to understand - no ranking or rating or whatever - and it simultaneously lets you support third parties (because they'll get some seats even if they don't have a majority in any district), lets you vote for the best candidate in your particular district without regard to their party (if you like your local Republican but you hate national Republicans you can simultaneously vote for your guy + for him to be in the minority), eliminates gerrymandering (since party representation comes from a percentage of the overall vote), and makes every vote count (since even in a deep red district your blue vote still contributes to the national total for your party and therefore its share of legislative seats).

If that proves successful then we can explore other systems for national/presidential votes, but you're never going to get a serious third-party movement in the US if you insist on starting with the White House - reforms to support third-party presidential candidates are the sort of thing you do after you've got 40 or 50 minor party representatives in Congress.

chaogomu ,

The problem with multi-member districts (which are required for proportional voting) is the fact that to get rid of an incumbent, you need a vast majority to actively vote against them. For example, in a 5 member district, you need over 80% of the vote against one bad incumbent to get rid of them.

Proportional voting also explicitly makes political parties part of government. The goal is to not do that.

Ertebolle ,

MMP doesn't require multi-member districts; the extra seats are not tied to a particular district, they draw from a list of names submitted by each party.

Zagorath ,
@Zagorath@aussie.zone avatar

Except for the fact that any cardinal system other that Approval is absolutely trivial to game, automatically devolving into Approval.

chaogomu ,

STAR gets around that by adding the runoff step.

Also, Approval gives better results than any Ordinal system, because Approval is also immune to Arrow's Theorem.

Zagorath ,
@Zagorath@aussie.zone avatar

Every voting system has pros and cons. It’s impossible to create a perfect voting system because there are multiple mutually-exclusive criteria by which a system can be measured.

So it’s important in such discussions to be forthright about which criteria you consider more or less important than others.

In order to avoid the spoiler effect and to discourage trivial tactical voting. To these ends, criteria like the Later-No-Harm criterion and Favourite Betrayal are important, but one need also look at the ways in which systems that fail them do so.

Approval Voting fails LNH trivially. In a genuine three-candidate race (i.e., one where prior to the election, you know all three have a genuine chance of winning) where your honest vote is to approve of Left and Centre and to disapprove of Right, but where you more strongly approve of Left, you are disincentivised from voting honestly because that will hurt the chances of Left winning. Unfortunately in so doing you also increase the chances of Right winning, compared to if you voted honestly. Basically, you’re forced to make a decision between your honest vote which increases the chances of a mediocre result, and a dishonest vote which increases the chances of either a very good or very bad result. It’s LNH because you’re incentivised to not vote for Centre even though you honestly would have.

In IRV you get a similar outcome in theory, but what we’ve seen in practice is that it doesn’t actually play out. The difference comes down to how preferences are distributed and who gets eliminated. If Centre ends up coming last on first preferences, that’s where Favourite Betrayal comes in. In your honest vote, Centre’s preferences distribution is entirely up to those who voted Centre, which could be a mix of Left and Right, which risks Right winning. If you had voted dishonestly and put Centre ahead of Left, you’re increasing the chance that Centre isn’t eliminated first, and instead Left is, with Left votes going to Centre—a better outcome than Right winning.

But the thing is, in practice this doesn’t tend to be the case. I live in a seat where this happened in our election last year, and it turns out that people who vote for one candidate overwhelmingly tend to second preference the same candidate (at least once smaller non-viable candidates are ignored). The Australian Greens (Left) and the Australian Labor Party (Centre) actually preference each other at the same rate. And so it came down to the fact that Labor was eliminated first (after non-viable candidates) by a very narrow margin, giving almost all their next preferences to the Greens, resulting in a Greens win. Not voting strategically, in the real world, actually pays off under IRV. Under Approval, because the ability to actually express your nuanced preference doesn’t exist, tactical voting is more strongly encouraged. In summary, while LNH and Favourite Betrayal are, in a sense, “equally bad”, the former is more of a problem when looking at the real-world preferences of voters, and a system which fails the latter should be preferred over one that fails the former.

chaogomu ,

IRV is a terrible system.

Later-no-harm is sort of a meaningless criterion that was invented by a group called Fairvote to push IRV under the name Ranked Choice.

They invented it to say that Cardinal voting systems don't let you rank preferences. Which is sort of the entire point of cardinal systems. It's not much of an issue in the real world, because if you're happy with A or B, then you put down a vote for A and B. In any large scale election, there will be enough people who have a set preference that they only chose A or B and not both. The point being, a vote for one does nothing to impact a vote for the other, because you count the votes independently of each other.

The problems of IRV are many and varied. It has to be counted in a single centralized location, which leads to problems and security issues. It still has favorite betrayal, and the more viable candidates you have, the worse it gets. This means that you have to have some strategy while voting, but it's much harder for the average voter to know if their strategy will do any good.

Then there's the issue of exhausted ballots. Again, the more viable candidates you have, the worse it gets. Most of my data is from US elections that use the system, but the city of San Francisco sees about 18% of ballots thrown out due to ballot exhaustion. That alone is horrific.


Now, switching to another plot here, STAR is not approval. Star lets you voice your true preferences for candidates in a way that Approval and even IRV do not. Take a look at this graphic again.

First off, the average person sees it and says oh, it's a 5-star review. I know how those work. Then they rate each candidate on the scale of 0-5 stars. That's actually one of the most common ways people fuck up an IRV ballot. They think it's a 5-star review and give multiple candidates the same number.

So the next part of STAR is the automatic runoff. You take the two highest scored candidates and then put them head to head, but you use the preferences on the ballots to do it. If A is rated higher than B on that ballot, then the vote goes to A. If A and B are the same rating, then that ballot is counted as "No Preference". And the number of those ballots is also released at the end.

STAR gives you so much more information about candidates than any other system. You have an instant approval rating in the form of a 5-star average for every candidate.

Zagorath ,
@Zagorath@aussie.zone avatar

IRV is a terrible system.

Later-no-harm is sort of a meaningless criterion that was invented by a group called Fairvote to push IRV

Oh sorry, I thought we were here having a civil conversation about an interesting and complicated subject. If you’re going to start off with that sort of tribalistic bad faith bullshit I’m out.

chaogomu ,

IRV is a terrible system, I know in another comment you said it was your favorite, but it's almost as bad as First Past the Post, and actually worse in a few areas.

And seriously, Later-no-harm is meaningless. It's basically a "did you vote for this person? They might win". It's like, no shit, that's how elections work.

If you want an actual issue with elections, look at the Monotonicity criterion. IRV fails this one. You can actually almost guarantee your most hated candidate wins, by voting for your favorite in the first round.

This brings up the issue of ballot exhaustion again. If your first round pick survives multiple rounds before being eliminated, your ballot suddenly doesn't have any valid candidates on it. This means your ballot might as well have been empty.

If you had not voted for your favorite, your vote could have gone to one of the others and helped them win, instead no, all that information about your preferences is just thrown out because of a stupid, arbitrary rule. If every single voter puts Candidate B as their second choice, Candidate B has 100% approval, and yet, under IRV, Candidate B is the first eliminated.

Another issue. Ranking candidates in order tells us nothing about how you actually feel about them. We know you like number 1, but number 2 could be anything between Jesus and Hitler. There's no information there, just that you like them less than 1.

Zagorath ,
@Zagorath@aussie.zone avatar

it was your favorite

It’s my favourite single-winner, because I’ve looked at all the others and decided the downsides of the others outweigh the downsides of IRV. But I’d still rank any proportional system much higher than IRV. And ironically, STV (which is a multi-winner version of IRV) is among my least favourite, due to its relatively limited almost quasi-proportional nature.

Later-no-harm is meaningless. It’s basically a “did you vote for this person? They might win”

Well, no. It’s that by adding more candidates to your ballot who were not your favourite choice, you could actually decrease the chance your favourite candidate wins. It’s that a tactical dishonest vote can be more optimal than an honest vote. And that’s bad. That’s bad in the real world.

I know IRV fails in a lot of theoretical ways. But when it’s used in the real world that just doesn’t matter. I mean, it could theoretically matter, but with how real people actually vote, it doesn’t. I explained how that happens earlier.

This brings up the issue of ballot exhaustion again

Definitely a problem. And unfortunately I’ve seen it matter, with some candidates dishonestly promoting “just vote 1” in the closest thing Australia has to the type of voter discouragement campaigns that are so rife in America. Federally and in my state, Australia uses compulsory preferential voting. You have to number every candidate. This eliminates the exhausted ballot problem. Our local council elections are where exhaustion becomes a problem. The solution isn’t to move to an inferior voting system, it’s to use the same compulsory preferential system used in other elections.

We know you like number 1, but number 2 could be anything between Jesus and Hitler. There’s no information there, just that you like them less than 1.

This is a feature, not a bug. The fact that you’re thinking about it as a disadvantage says a lot to me about why you like cardinal systems. I fundamentally disagree.

It doesn’t matter if I love one candidate, like another, and hate the third, or like one, dislike another, and hate the third. What matters is who my vote helps elect. And I want the first one to win, or if they can’t, I want the second one to win. And that’s what IRV perfectly represents. In a cardinal system, if I vote 5, 2, 1, as is my honest preference, all that does is help my least favourite candidate win if my favourite doesn’t, compared to if I voted 5,5,1, or 5,4,1. That’s how any cardinal system inevitably devolves into approval. And again with approval, I lose the ability to distinguish preference. You say it’s bad that my second preference could be Jesus or Hitler, but at least with IRV I can clearly say I like Jesus more than Hitler, instead of just saying I “approve” of both because the only remaining option is Pol Pot. At the point where I know Jesus isn’t going to win, it doesn’t matter how much more I prefer Hitler over Pol Pot. I just want to ensure Pol Pot doesn’t win. Ordinal voting better represents how a rational voter thinks about the candidates than cardinal voting does. And that’s why it’s better.

chaogomu ,

Okay, you take two of the worst parts of IRV and pretend they're somehow good. That's mind-boggling.

Ballot exhaustion is not solved by compulsory preferential voting. It only hides the fact that you now have to rank all the candidates. So when your middle preferences are eliminated before your first is, you've now been forced to elect your most hated option.

And again, later-no-harm is still a “did you vote for this person? They might win” criterion. Because if you don't like someone, don't vote for them.

Finally, you still have no clue how STAR works. It's not 1-5. It's 0-5. And the Automatic runoff part is pretty important, that part of it means that your vote goes to the finalist who you rated higher, not to merely the person who got the most points in the first round.

Zagorath ,
@Zagorath@aussie.zone avatar

I think one other important detail though. While IRV is my preferred single-winner system, I fundamentally think that single-winner systems are flawed. Elections should avoid them as much as possible, in favour of proportional multi-winner systems.

PowerCrazy ,

Don’t worry, I won’t be voting for Cornell West nor Biden nor Trump, and no one should. Since voting is absolutely the least someone can do, I’ll be voting for a non-capitalist candidate.

Icalasari ,

Sadly, First Past The Post means your vote will be wasted and essentially count as a non vote

mrnotoriousman ,

Worse, it actively helps push things further right.

ReadFanon ,
@ReadFanon@lemmygrad.ml avatar

Not voting for the furthest right party is the same thing as voting for the furthest right party 🤓🤓

PowerCrazy ,

Totally agree, voting is a waste, but it is the literal least one can do, so no need to support Capitalism at that level.

AnonTwo ,

You can hold your principles high above everyone else as the person you hate the most wins. Least you didn't vote for him, right?

PowerCrazy ,

Agreed. Whatever racist shill the Democrats (who are supposed to be better then that) put up will hopefully not win and since voting is the literally the least one can do, there is no reason to not support a non-capitalist candidate.

AnonTwo ,

That reply...is incredibly weird, not gonna lie.

Like it almost sounds like you're just trying to use buzzwords to make Democrats vote in a way that will help Trump get into office from inaction.

rynzcycle ,

I was always going to vote for Biden, or at least against Trump, but I have to say between the NLRB CEMEX decision and finding out that the train workers did get some paid time off with the Biden admins help, I'm more enthusiastic than I was 6 months ago.

Ultimately, despite constant obstructionism they (Biden admin) are making more progress than they get credit for.

snooggums ,
@snooggums@kbin.social avatar

Republicans lie about the things they do and get attention for it because of how they get the message out.

Democrats need to do a better job of promoting the things they do accomplish. Don't need to lie, just do a better job of getting the press to write stories about the positive things they do. They need to call Republicans who have racist policies racist instead of dancing around it. A few are doing it, but are ignored because they aren't party leadership.

Biden needs to call Trump a racist and a fascist on national TV. Get the public motivated! Taking the higher ground doesn't get people motivated, it just means more of the status quo.

Millie ,

Out here desperately hoping that the fake leftists propping up Trump are mostly Russian trolls or just a pocket of internet children. I think actual real life people on the left in the US largely get how dangerous this could be.

Icalasari ,

Honestly, this whole thing feels eerily similar to the rise of Hitler - Even Trump facing legal troubles matches well enough

sab ,
@sab@kbin.social avatar

The good news is that building your personality cult around an obese man in his late 70s is not very sustainable in the long run.

Zorque ,

The bad news is they have stock of backups a mile long.

sab , (edited )
@sab@kbin.social avatar

For some weird reason he's not that really replaceable. Following the republican primaries now is a good indication of what the party will be after trump - they're all trying to rip a page from his book on populism, and as far as I can tell they're all failing.

American_Communist22 ,
@American_Communist22@lemmygrad.ml avatar

may allah push that removed down the stairs

American_Communist22 ,
@American_Communist22@lemmygrad.ml avatar

nah, he’s the person before the rise, the one who get the dominos to fall further

but honestly, the dominos have been falling since washington

Zaktor ,

Seriously. There were people getting kidnapped in protests because Trump sent in the border guard to “defend” a court house. That’s way beyond “the status quo protects order and property first and foremost”.

American_Communist22 ,
@American_Communist22@lemmygrad.ml avatar

no its really not, the US has been doing this shit since inception

bdonvr ,

fake leftists propping up Trump

Huh?

Millie ,

I’ve been having a number of conversations on Hexchan recently trying to make sense of their politics. The most common instance of their hateful hypocrisy I’ve encountered is this constant assurance that they support trans people while immediately attacking and dog piling and trans people who point out that the situation would be much worse under Trump.

I live in Massachusetts. We are a very blue state and we’re one of the best places in the world to transition. We have informed consent, legal protection of our basic rights, and mandatory insurance coverage of trans health care, which state insurance also covers. Whatever you think of the DNC, the Democrats in Massachusetts are absolutely allies of trans people who’ve worked to actively protect our rights.

Still, I’m well aware of the danger that federal law could potentially pose. I know there may be a time when I have to flee the country if things get bad enough, and that’s a lot more likely under Trump.

But they don’t actually care about my rights, happiness, or safety, or those of any other trans people. They don’t care what happens to us, they just want to use us as a bludgeon to dunk on people.

The hexchanners who aren’t actively Russian trolls seem to be little more than useful idiots for conservatives, minimizing the damage they do to vulnerable populations and engaging in high school level pettiness and hate.

krolden ,
@krolden@lemmy.ml avatar

Can you please link to this hateful hypocrites I am genuinely curious.

Millie , (edited )

Nope. Blocked the community and all the users who replied. Go dig around in their trashcan of an instance if you like. Or just tell them you’re trans and want to make sure Trump doesn’t get into office so you don’t have to flee the country and watch them come out of the woodwork.

krolden , (edited )
@krolden@lemmy.ml avatar

You just said you’re more leftist than everyone and didn’t respond to a single comment with an actual reply

I see no one being hateful or hypocritical

honeynut ,
jackoid ,

Where is the transphobia? It just looks like they hate both trump and Biden?

Millie ,

I do believe I said “immediately attacking and dogpiling trans women who point out that the situation would be much worse under Trump”, not using transphobic slurs or whatever.

Nice astroturfing, though. I see you out here.

jackoid ,

Okay I read your comment wrong. Sorry about that.

But referring to your thread on hexbear, it seems that they are intent on speaking bad about Biden rather than supporting trump. Which is fair since Biden and the Democratic Party have been involved in destruction of millions of lives.

The problem here seems to be American culture where you have to treat one side as the devil and one side as the god. Anyone slightly in between is accused of worshipping the devil.

You’re correct without doubt that under conservatives, bigoted policies may increase. But they are also increasing under the Democrats albeit slowly. They are barely doing anything as rights get taken away and it’s necessary to call them out for it. I can see trans rights getting demolished under any future administration because the political system in the US works against the interests of minorities.

VolatileExhaustPipe ,

Just want to mention a couple things. I work with a group that ensures that people who are trans or gay get asylum in Germany and also get reasonable safe transit. Of course I could do more, but we even brought a trans person from the US who effectively fled what you describe to the right resources so that they could get asylum here (and also into contact with the doctors so that HRT prescriptions don’t have gaps). I am involved in what is now majorly labeled queer politics since the early 90s when the FRG was a place often more restrictive than the GDR in terms of law.

I do regularly read and sometimes post on Hexbear, I read up your comments (which account for quite a bit of your posting history with this account there) and can understand some of the aspects you mention, but don’t get why you conflate the personal slights against you with an assigned bad position for them. The latter includes words like “hexchan”.

You do believe that there are some factions in some states of the USA in which the democratic party acts well and secures some of your rights, this is what you hope to strengthen when you defend the democratic party. Plenty users have not as much faith as you do (often people who do have quite a political history themselves, too) including a not small variety of trans users who answered you. Even some in the US and some of them disagree with your outlook. That is a difference of politics and a difference of mental models.

But they don’t actually care about my rights, happiness, or safety, or those of any other trans people.

Is disingenuous at best and more reasonable slander. I get that you want to be safe - and hexbear users want that, too, for others, for themselves and for you. However they have a wide range of life stories, users from places the US bombed are posting regularly. They were bombed under Obama too, with harsh police procedures and reduction of rights for LGTBQ folk. Some want a USA that isn’t as easy at the trigger of military “intervention”. Being able to experience multiple points of view is part of a global society and internationalism which is in my eyes the only way for us non cis-endo hetero people to survive long term. Shunning a community of up to 20k users cause you have political differences and slandering them is something you can do, but it will count for what liberal privileged trans users do.

Awoo ,
@Awoo@lemmy.ml avatar

I’ve been having a number of conversations on Hexchan recently trying to make sense of their politics.

No you have not. There is absolutely no pro-Trump sentiment among Hexbear users. You are full of shit.

hexbear.net/post/451217?scrollToComments=false

American_Communist22 ,
@American_Communist22@lemmygrad.ml avatar

You ignored all the previous times we grilled you for your ignorance, get a grip, you can read.

mycorrhiza , (edited )
authed ,

I’d vote for Bernie but not Biden

s20 ,

Okay. As a moral standpoint, I understand that. Hell, I support it.

But from a pragmatic standpoint… what good does that do?

ReadFanon ,
@ReadFanon@lemmygrad.ml avatar

From a pragmatic point, what good does voting for Biden do?

s20 ,

Nope. I asked first. Answer or don’t, don’t pull that childish shit.

ReadFanon ,
@ReadFanon@lemmygrad.ml avatar

Not voting for Biden means that Biden is one vote further away from being president.

Now it’s your turn.

s20 ,

Yeah, no, sorry, that’s still not an answer, unless you’re trying to say Trump would be better.

I repeat: how does that help?

ReadFanon , (edited )
@ReadFanon@lemmygrad.ml avatar

It helps because it signals to the DNC that they will not simply automatically win by default with their shittiest, most rightwing nominees because the other option is slightly worse on a couple of fronts.

It shows that people do not see them as a viable alternative to the GOP unless they actually become an alternative to the GOP.

There’s a reason why Trump won last time and it’s this attitude of entitlement that you’ve embodied which is at the core of this.

If you’re so set upon preventing another Trump presidency then recent history is a lesson for you, or at least it should have been, and attempting to browbeat people into voting for detestable DNC nominees is a failed strategy when you should be pushing the DNC for compromise with people further to the left of you rather than demanding that people further to the left of you capitulate simply because you feel that they ought to become you have a false sense of moral righteousness.

You want my vote for the democratic nominee? Then uphold the values of bourgeois electoralism and earn it.

s20 ,

Okay, that’s a much more cohesive answer, thank you! I can follow that, and I can see a line of moral reasoning. From a moral standpoint, not only do I support you, I mostly agree with you. I’m sure we’d disagree on some finer points, but from a big picture standpoint, cool.

Now. All that in mind. How can I use that to keep a fascist rapist who empowers other fascist rapists out of the highest office in the land? If there’s a way, please let me know. As far as I can see, I can take a very reasonable moral stand, or I can help stop orange soda Hitler from being in office, but I can’t do both. Please show me how I’m wrong.

btaf45 ,

I’d vote for Bernie but not Biden

You will do what Putin wants which is the opposite of what Bernie wants. Got it Ivan.

authed ,

Lol… As if Putin as anything to do with it

AllonzeeLV ,

I’ll vote for Biden, just like the people on the Titanic turned on the water pumps. It might buy slightly more time. Maybe.

Lets not pretend though that either of our only 2 parties, Neoliberal and Fascist, are going to improve our worsening situation.

All we’re voting for is the rate of collapse. At the end of the day, the people who bribe both parties need to be checked to do that. And that’s clearly not going to happen. So collapse is inevitable.

asteriskeverything , (edited )

I agree a lot except that anything is inevitable.

For example I see drastically different discussions happening on a much larger scale than ever before, with a lot of new ideas gaining more momentum and becoming a common enough public opinion.

I also have a ton of hope for gen z. They seem the generation with the most educated and socially aware youth. Once they are voting and running I’m really hopeful that’s when progress will start making quicker headway. It’s just survival, treading water until we get there. Maybe I’m naive, I need that hope though.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

geekworking ,

Tl;dr Bernie preaches to the choir.

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