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.

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.

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

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 )
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.

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.

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.

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.”

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