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.

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.

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.

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.

cannot ,

Rich old white man endorses rich old white man over rich old white man

LongPigFlavor ,

Young voter here, I’ll be “ridin with Biden”.

DessertStorms ,
@DessertStorms@kbin.social avatar

Sure, vote for Biden, but if all you do is rely on a vote for the other capitalist puppet you're not actually dong anything to stop fascism, or even achieve any significant change in how things are run, it's literally just a band aid on a cancer at this point, a band aid that serves to lull you in to a false sense of complacency as you enable the machine to keep chugging on:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/08/22/american-democracy-was-never-designed-to-be-democratic-eric-holder-our-unfinished-march-nick-seabrook-one-person-one-vote-jacob-grumbach-laboratories-against-democracy

https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/10/14/liberalism-and-fascism-partners-in-crime/

https://blacklikemao.medium.com/how-liberalism-helps-fascism-d4dbdcb199d9

https://truthout.org/articles/fascism-is-possible-not-in-spite-of-liberal-capitalism-but-because-of-it/

https://nyanarchist.wordpress.com/2019/01/23/scratch-a-liberal-a-fascist-bleeds-how-the-so-called-middle-class-has-enabled-oppression-for-centuries/

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.

oldbaldgrumpy ,

I don’t feel like Biden or Trump should be our next President.

cybermass ,

I would love to see AOC run but I’m not even American so I’m just watching the dumpster fire from a distance

oldbaldgrumpy ,

I can’t see AOC as president. I feel like she’s the face of the far left. She will probably better serve her party there.

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 ,

link to the hexbear thread she participated in

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 )

propping up Trump

Millie, you yourself posted in the huge thread on hexbear where the entire site agreed that they hate trump.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

OprahsedCreature ,

image

randon31415 ,

The left people want won’t win the presidency until they at least win a governorship or a senate seat. The last time we had a radical departure from those that came before them in the white house (politically speaking, not skin color) we had a 4 year long Civil War backlash.

AS004 ,

The last time we had a radical departure from those that came before them in the white house (politically speaking, not skin color) we had a 4 year long Civil War backlash.

Are we ignoring the New Deal Dems or what, now? They were a major departure from everybody else before and Roosevelt even threatened to pack the Court when they tried to rule some of his policies unconstitutional.

randon31415 ,

Well, there was a war involved with that as well, but I would argue that the New Deal was a compromise moderate position to the alternative of complete communist revolt, which was starting to sweep the globe at the time.

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