“They have to do that stuff first to earn my vote! I don’t care if they never had the power to do so!”
-Morons
“They’ve had 4 years to do something!”
Ughh… Learn how it works people. We had 2 conservative “Democrat” (golly gee look how Manchild is not a Democrat anymore literally…) senators deny everything from 2020-2022, then we lost the house to Republicans who’s idea of bipartisanship is to give Democrats the finger all the time from 2022-2024… Sooo what exactly could we do?
Then there’s the extra special people who want to “balance” by voting D president and R representatives… Ffs… That shit died when Gingrich started his “my way or go fuck yourself” brand of politics…
Removed by mod
I mean, where you sign up says something about you, right?
Yarr.
You’re not wrong.
You are literally the outside foreign influences.
And who the fuck are you?
Discussing American politics online isn’t being a foreign influence. I’m not American, but sure as fuck their politics affects me.
Unfortunately whatever shit goes down in your country affects the rest of the world.
Nobody would’ve given a fuck about USA if it was as relevant as Romania or Denmark.
Lol I can understand the confusion, but I really am an American in America. I came over from the reddit exodus last year and lemmy.world couldn’t handle all the new people for a time so I swapped over to a smaller instance that happens to be from the Netherlands.
I hope you don’t mind me squatting here feddit.nl :P
We welcome all. You can get your standard issue clogs and bitterballen at check in ;)
Hell yeah! Thanks for the welcome!
Removed by mod
If you didn’t believe me before what would it matter if I told you I’m from NY and specifically long island? I could tell you I hate the L.I.E with every fiber of my being, that housing prices for glorified shacks that look like they burned down twice are going for 300k, and that the ocean parkway is a decent way to get around shit traffic on sunrise highway. I don’t know how a random person on the Internet is supposed to prove that is true though.
You could also just check my comment history, I’ve mentioned where I’m from a number of times. It’s one of the reasons I don’t delete my history, so if anyone questions “who I am” they can just check it. Just be warned, there’s a bunch of stupid comments, exasperation, and self loathing there lol
Not that it matters, but at least I didn’t downvote you. I understand the skepticism
Bah, the only way to suss out a true New Yorker is to check their preferred Pizza joint.
My kitchen! Lol
My grandma taught me how to make a fried pizza years ago and now that’s all I want to make when I want pizza lol
You not from NY, you think anything other a parking spot going for 300, like stop playing
Why are you like this
I can’t help anymore than I already have. I’m not posting personal information to prove anything. I really don’t know why you’re so dead set on being convinced I’m not from the US.
If I was trying to influence people by being deceptive don’t you think I’d avoid having a foreign instance? I’d have like America.Patriot.Eagle or some nonsense lol
I’m from Suffolk county so…:
Edit: I had to come back to this because it just hit me, if you were able to tell that most prices really are wayyyyy higher than 300k are you from NY too? That would be absolutely wild out of all the people on here we’d end up having this discussion as “neighbors!” Small world and all that shit lol
Where’s your proof? This is the dumbest shit posted here today.
Why you even speaking up? Where you from?
You came into a comment chain which didn’t involve you and offered no proof of your own. Stop being like you are.
i’m just here for the yOuUuUuU sUpPoRt GeNoCiDe!!! chuds to get triggered and provide entertainment
inb4 “Genocide Joe” and “Blue MAGA” comments
Except I keep voting and they still don’t care what I think because I’m on the left.
Vote in the primaries.
The only reason I’m a registered Democrat is so I can vote in the primaries in my state. And I do so as often as possible.
Good! You’re pulling things to the left!
So politics means “when you do things right it will feel like you’ve done nothing at all?”
No, it just means there’s more people pulling things to the right. Next you gotta convince people to pull with you.
The absolute top tier play for Leftists now is to show up in DROVES this election, hand Kamala a landslide. And then put up a ton of candidates in the next primary. Show the DNC that you are a force which can win elections, and then put the fear of being primaried in them. That’s dragging things to the left.
Considering every election makes me feel more like an outsider in my own country I think it will be less frustrating just to feel like I lose every election.
Unless you have some tips on breaking Americans of their patriotism.
Decisions are made by those who show up, it’s as simple as that.
You may hate it, but the Republicans are definitely better at getting people in line, both literally and figuratively. They turn up and vote even if they don’t like the candidate because… that’s their party. And it’s the only one that they feel represents them.
Meanwhile a lot of Democrats stay home because the candidate isn’t the one they wanted, doesn’t support everything they want, is too old/young, etc. There’s this attitude of ‘if I can’t have my perfect candidate, I’m staying home out of protest.’
I get it. Every voter wants a perfect candidate. But perfect is the enemy of good, as the saying goes.
I always look at it like this: if I vote, I might not always get the outcome that I want, but at the very least I’m nullifying the vote of a person on the other side.
If the other guy shows up and you don’t? That’s how you lose rights.
Be someone who shows the fuck up.
I show up every time and it feels like people still make decisions for me.
What keeps me voting is realizing that real life is disappointing and I’ll never be happy.
I know it’s tough, but try not to give in to pessimism. A better life is possible. It seems far and out of reach now, but it can be done. When people get too pessimistic, that’s when they don’t do anything.
I disagree. Voting with no expectation of it doing anything stops me from being disappointed when it doesn’t do anything. Back when I thought it would help I considered giving up because it wasn’t doing anything.
Then again, I have doubts that I’m actually a human so maybe for real humans it doesn’t work that way.
Every voter wants a perfect candidate.
I’m so tired of this line, as if progressives don’t like the Democratic Party because of a 5% difference in policy opinions.
Our options for President for the past 30-40 years have been fascist capitalist or capitalist willing to compromise with fascists. To those who actually care about worker’s rights or the environment of the planet we live on, it’s a difference between a candidate who agrees with you on 0%, or one who agrees with you on 2%, but only the policies that don’t hurt capitalism.
It’s not a case of letting perfect be the enemy of the good, it’s a case of the lesser evil IS STILL FUCKING EVIL. Fascism now and fascism in 4-8 years still results in fascism; how are we supposed to be excited to vote when those are the only options we are ever allowed to pick between?
Jesus Christ. Do you know how the Republicans have turned America into a right-wing hellscape?
Incrementally.
They inched the Overton Window right every time they won. Every time some egg said “If nobody’s offering universal healthcare I’m not voting” they get to set the terms.
They’ve been doing it for decades now.
Time to start inching it back.
The Democrats have helped incrementally, too, by not winding back their policies and generally giving in to their rhetoric. It’s insane that there’s no way to vote against genocide in this election, that they just removed the death penalty from their platform, that she is no longer for the Green New Deal or M4A, that they signed the crime bill, etc. The Democrats have been complicit in this ratchet effect as well.
I get it; the entire system sucks. Even here in the Netherlands with a dozen political parties, you rarely get the government you want. But there’s still things you can do even if you really don’t want to vote in this particular election.
You can support groups that promote voting reform, like ranked choice voting. You can and should vote in all local elections. You can even RUN in many local elections, since candidates frequently run unopposed. You can help inform others about the voting process and get poorly represented groups to vote. If all else fails, there’s always the option of shooting your least favorite politician or doing an Oklahoma City. But try those other things first, OK?
Hyperbole at its finest. Don’t vote or vote for Trump and see how things turn out.
Republicans are definitely better at getting people in line
That’s also really really strongly due to their efforts at voter suppression for the dems. It’s so much easier to show up to vote if you can just hop over to the local polling station, go right in, stand in line for like 5 minutes and leave while many urban voters in blue or especially black areas have to stand in line for hours and might still get turned away because their names have recently been purged from the voter rolls.
Yes, let’s reward the Cheney DNC so we can see how far right they’ll go and how many war crimes they can do! Remember, they can’t take away your rights if there’s a (D) next to the name!
Don’t believe the naysayers. No matter which state you are in, your vote is important. Extreme Conservatives have been taking over school boards and imposing their agenda on kids.
Offices like Sheriff, Coroner, Secretary of State, Lt Governor, State Representatives, City and County Councils etc. are all important.
Every Vote Counts!!!
Edit: Many important local races will be decided by less votes than updoots I received for this comment.
Offices like Sheriff, Coroner, Secretary of State, Lt Governor, State Representatives, City and County Councils etc. are all important.
Not only are they important, it’s exactly how the freaks running the GOP took control of the party. They’ve been grinding 2 things consistently for decades: down ballot races and the judiciary. It’s been wildly successful for them. We are going to have to match if not duplicate that effort.
The shittiest part though is how many of those crazies are running unopposed.
force fed the bible.
Dude…I was talking to my 5yo today. They’ve learned the pledge of allegiance in kindergarten.
He recited it, perfectly, verbatim.
I cringed slightly at the “under God” part, as I’m a devout atheist (though we’ve barely mentioned religion at all to the kids).
Once he was done I asked him if he knows what any of it means.
“No. But I can say the whole thing!”
Smh.
I cringed at the part “pledge of allegiance” and then again at “kindergarten”.
Americans don’t realise how north Korea style that is.
Couple of years back i stumbled over this video, which i as a german think is absolutely fucked up: https://youtu.be/DjX7zoFrd7g?si=6BtMIxqTxtdAYHvi
Quote from the Wiki about the “Young Marines”
The creed that every Young Marine lives by is:
- Obey my parents and all others in charge of me whether young or old.
- Keep myself neat at all times without other people telling me to.
- Keep myself clean in mind by attending the church of my faith.
- Keep my mind alert to learn in school, at home, or at play.
- Remember that having self-discipline will enable me to control my body and mind in case of an emergency.
Its absolute insane what they do to this kids: https://www.instagram.com/means_tv/reel/C7T93trOtg3/
Fellow german here, if you want even worse ick, look for “Jesus Camp” on YouTube.
Oh we do. We often recognize it while still in school. But you learn quickly you are not allowed to question it. If you don’t follow orders, you will be disciplined.
Land of the free, eh?
Two “patriots” mad at fact so far.
I was, um, gently informed by a teacher once that you can say the pledge without “under God” and it sounds natural as it was originally intended. This blew my mind as a young atheist and made me realize how pervasive religion is.
Or you could just not talk to multicolored cloth
Is this a reference?
I would consider the daily fascist flag ritual the pervasive thing here. If someone wants to swear by his faith that seems much smaller of an issue to me.
Incidently it seems fascist nationalism and other totalitarian political ideologies to have been at odds with religion in their times and places. See Hitler and Stalins regimes as examples.
Reminds me of when I had to have a meeting with the school about some additional speech therapy for my daughter. It was in the morning and cut to the Canadian Anthem playing. Everyone stopped what they were doing and stood up for the anthem. Fucking weirded the shit out of me. I’m 47 and born and raised Canadian. Standing or reciting anything blindly as a group is fucking weird.
Meanwhile my 3yo stepdaughter in kindergarten spends the day painting with watercolors, singing, dancing, playing with others and apparently learning common courtesy (The other day she told me that in kindergarten they’re supposed to say “please” when asking for something).
Much as I’ve wanted to move to the US for the significantly higher salary ceiling as a software engineer, I don’t think I could do it to her.
Well, the much higher salary ceiling might look nice on paper, but let me tell you from experience that it is eaten up quickly by higher cost of living. I have been fortunate enough to work for short (one to three year) stints in the US, most of that in the SF bay area. A few years after returning (more or less for good) to my EU home country where I now have a government job (which does not pay as well as industry jobs), one of my former SF bosses asked how much he’d need to pay me in order for me to come work for him long term. It was quite tempting, and I did the math back and forth and in the end arrived at 2.5x of what I’m making now, and that is on the low end. I have a few colleagues and friends in similar situations, and the 2x-3x figure is what we generally agree on. Between health insurance, child care, retirement savings and housing, your cost will be dramatically higher than in most EU countries, and this does not factor in differences in Labor rights and potential visa issues.
The SF bay area of course is extreme, but a low six figure salary puts you just above the poverty line there (so people say). Working remotely living in some low COL state might be an option, but then again you will live in East armpit nowhere Kansas…
Low six figures is easily 3x what I make in my home country. FAANG salaries would be nearly 10x and I don’t even mean senior positions.
Kids do all that in us schools, too. It’s not a monolith, but all those things are pretty standard.
Freedom and democracy my ass.
Drag thinks you should explain that children shouldn’t say things they don’t understand.
I like it when drag talks about themself in the third person.
Thank you, but drag actually has person independent pronouns. Drag is talking about dragself in the first person. And drag’s pronouns work the same way when someone else is talking about drag, no matter if it’s second or third person.
Drag is even cooler than I thought.
Every time the Dems lose, they go to the center to find voters. Want them to stop going to the center? Then give them overwhelming and consistent victories.
If you think you can change their platform by not voting or voting 3rd party, you’re dead wrong. They will just go to the center voter even more. This is not a Mexican standoff that you can win, because they have an out which is worth double (a center voter is both a vote for them and vote taken away from the other party).
How are we supposed to change their platform? Because rewarding them with victories when all they do is go to the center hasn’t been working.
You change their policy by giving them consistent and overwhelming victories.
Rewarding them with victories? They never have victories. They have had control of all 3 of presidency, House of Reps, and Senate for 4 of the last 24 years. Or 6 of the last 32 years. Or 6 of the last 44 fucking years. They need all 3 to do much of anything and they basically never have it. So they go to the center to find voters. So try something new and give them actual victories.
Every time any politician gets into office is a victory for them. That’s all they care about.
Like way to move the goalpost. That’s not what’s going on and you know it. I already said it, Dems need all 3: Presidency, House of representatives, and Senate.
If a centre vote is worth double, then it doesn’t make any difference if the left are mobilised to vote or not.
With a mobilised left it’s left-vote=1 centre-vote=2
With an apathetic left it’s left-vote=0 centre-vote=2
Either way the centre vote is worth more so the party moves to the centre.
But if this is wrong, and the left vote is indeed worth more, then why change policies to court the centre, why not have openly leftist policies to attract this game-changing leftist vote?
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim that the democrats have to hide their leftist agenda to gain votes and also claim that the leftist voting block is the make or break of electoral success.
You have this all twisted around in who knows what. They move to the center when they lose. They don’t move just because.
Right now the left never shows up. Occasionally the Dems run on a left platform and they lose. Think Gore, think Hilary saying she’ll have a map room. After they lose they go to the center to find voters. Now imagine they don’t lose every time they run on a left policy? Because the left never shows up.
Occasionally the Dems enact a left policy. Think of Obama’s ACA. Thank Biden green energy. Their thanks for this is Obama lost the House of Reps, then lost the house of reps again, then lost both the house of reps and the Senate. Biden lost the house of reps, and polls shows Biden was going to lose. Now imagine they won after enacting left policy. They’re probably enact more. But the left never shows up.
If the left wants things to change They. Have. To. Show. Up.
Hide their agenda? They adopt what the
peoplevoters (the ones that show up) vote for. If the left voters show up, then guess what? More left policies will be adopted. C’mon this is civics for kindergartners. You have this so twisted around to justify not voting.Oh. And whilst I’ve got such a golden opportunity to have “kindergarten” level civics so patiently explained to me…
How do the Democrats find out the political leanings of the voters who won them the vote in order to reward? them next time with policies they like? Is there some magic poll they can access, but only after an election? Because any poll which they could access before an election would obviously tell them in advance what a willing and committed set of voters they’d have if only they put in some more left wing policies.
You’re suggesting polling subtle enough to determine policy preferences among different demographics, but somehow incapable of determining voting commitment/apathy. Apparently an actual election is the only way anyone can find that information out. But once done they magically know exactly why everyone voted the way they did.
Oh. And whilst I’ve got such a golden opportunity to have “kindergarten” level civics so patiently explained to me…
Taking that attitude you’re showing you’re not here in good faith. And skimming through yeah you’re rife with attitude and twisting,so these will be my final responses.
How do the Democrats find out the political leanings of the voters who won them the vote in order to reward? them next time with policies they like? Is there some magic poll they can access, but only after an election?
This is not nearly so complicated that you make it out to be. I’m seeing a pattern, you did this before too: You construct a twisted, narrow interpretation so that you can walk out on it and say look at this very narrow interpretation, explain this narrow interpretation.
This is so much simpler. Do they lose? Do they win? A brief history may help you, and I’ve had this conversation (slightly different context, but it still works):
Ok let’s go through this chronologically.
Bill Clinton: After successive Dem losses Bill figured out “it’s the economy stupid”. Plus when you run against an incumbent (Bush senior) you generally run from the center. So that’s what he did. And he won.
Gore: After the population hopefully warmed up with Bill Clinton, he stuck his head out left with climate change. And bam he lost the election. Thanks 3rd party protest voters! Aka: The left never shows up.
Obama: So guess what Obama learned? Don’t stick your head out. He ran on vague “hope”, hoping the ambiguity would be enough considering Bush’s disastrous wars. And he won.
More on Obama: so he enacted the ACA. That’s great, right? The thanks Obama got for that was to lose the House of Representatives for year 3 and 4. And lose the House of reps again for years 5 and 6. And then lose both the House of reps and the Senate for years 7 and 8. He enacted left policy and: The left never shows up.
Hillary Clinton: So what did Hillary learn from the last 6 years of Obama? She learned that the left never shows up. So she ran a mostly center platform to get voters, BUT with a big position to left on the map room to climate change. She basically declared war on climate change. You know that big existential issue that all the leftists care about, right? The big important issue that the left says they will show up for, right? And guess what happened? Bam she lost. Thanks protest non-voters! Aka: The left never shows up.
Biden: Just like Obama learned from Gore, Biden learned from Hillary that you don’t stick your head out left on anything. Not one thing. And he was running against an incumbent, so once again when you do that you run center. And he won.
More on Biden: So Biden did green energy, EVs, drug price control, etc. And what were the results? Lost the House of Representatives. Polls showed him losing to Trump. He enacted left policy and: The left didn’t show up and was likely to not show up.
Harris: So guess what Harris is doing? She’s adopting Obama’s tactic to run on vague “get ahead” and having energy. From what I know she’s not announced anything left, other than vague tax the billionaires. She has no reason to think the left will ever show up.
Look at the history and this becomes pretty simple. They don’t get elected on left platforms despite running them. They get elected when they go center or simply stfu. And when they enact left things, they pay for it the next election.
So what would happen if the left actually shows up? Yeah, they’d win when they run on left platform. They’d win after they enacted left policy. The pathway is consistent and overwhelming victories. Show them it’s safe to take policy chances. Because when they lose, like they’ve lost 20 years out of the last 24 years, they will go to the center to find votes. They won’t need to go right to the center voter if they won elections if the left actually showed up.
This is about the left (that doesn’t show up) wringing their hands about how to get left things (when they don’t show up), and thinking how could they possibly influence things (when they don’t show up). And the answer is pretty obvious: SHOW UP. They wouldn’t need the center double vote if the left, oh I don’t know, had showed up and the Dems won. It’s when they lose that they are forced to go to the center to find voters (who show up). Imagine if the left had showed up.
You’re suggesting polling subtle
Yeah there’s the narrow interpretation again. This is not nearly so subtle as you suggest. Do they lose? Yes? Then they will go to the center to find voters. Do they consistently win? Hasn’t happened in 44 years. But they still do some left policy (ACA, IRA) despite that the ACA cost them the next elections and despite the IRA showing that it was going to cost them.
Now what would happen if they won consistently and overwhelmingly? They’d move left. They could do left things, without losing the next election. This is pretty simple.
But you have to construct an incredibly narrow pathway of interpretation to play whatever weird game of poll this or poll that. So with that, I think that’s my last message.
*Typos in my previous message fixed.
While I don’t necessarily disagree with your gist here, I don’t think it is accurate to characterize the ACA as “of the left”. It was just Romneycare expanded to the Federal level, the “left” couldn’t even get the “public option” included in the final bill. The whole thing was successful in that it got health insurance to a whole lot of people who didn’t have it before, an outcome supported by many or even most on the left, but the actual ACA isn’t really something leftists wanted or genuinely support as anything more than a stopgap on the path to actual reform. If the ACA actually did things to drive rent seeking behavior out of the health care industry and guarantee universal access it would be a great example of the phenomenon you are describing. The actual ACA is a much better example of the Republicans (and the the health care industry) running circles around the Dems during that era than of the Dems implementing leftist policy,
Want more? Then vote so that Manchin types can’t water it down. Nevermind that the ACA wouldn’t have passed without a super majority.
Taking that attitude you’re showing you’re not here in good faith.
If you want good faith arguments perhaps don’t start with condescending comments about “kindergarten” level civics and have enough charity to at least start from the premise that it might actually be you who’s wrong rather than just assuming that any argument you don’t agree with must be the result of your interlocutor being kindergarten level dumb.
You construct a twisted, narrow interpretation so that you can walk out on it and say look at this very narrow interpretation, explain this narrow interpretation.
Followed by…
Do they lose? Do they win?
Broad and wide-ranging narrative … anyone?
And then you go on to tell a story about what each president ‘would have done’ which, I presume you must have gained from direct personal conversations with them, unless… Oh, you’re not just believing things they tell the newspapers… You sweet summer child…
what would happen if they won consistently and overwhelmingly? They’d move left. They could do left things, without losing the next election. This is pretty simple.
It might seem simple to you. But it contains two hidden premises and two logical flaws.
The first hidden premise is that they actually want to move left (and so would take an opportunity to do so). You’ve not yet made a case that they do. A scattering of slightly-left-of-neocon policies is not very convincing.
The second premise is that each event is a response to the last and not to any of the hundred other factors in American politics at the time. Again, just showing one thing followed another does not prove it was caused by it.
The first logical flaw is that you’ve still not provided a mechanism by which successive democratic campaign teams know somehow why they lost, that it was their slightly leftist policies and not, again one of the other hundred factors in politics at the time.
The second logical flaw is that you’ve still not explained why democrats need an actual election to find out that lots of leftists will vote for them. Why can’t they just poll, like everyone else does? They presumably rely on polls to tell them what policies these non-voters want, so why do they need an actual election victory to learn that in four year’s time these people will likely vote for them. Why can’t they just ask? That’s the normal way all other political strategies are worked out - focus groups, polls, town meetings… You’re singling out willingness to vote as a fact about potential voters which is somehow inaccessible to the democrat strategists without the proof of an actual election win, but assuming other facts, like the policies they’d like, can be ascertained. Why?
Great breakdown. Polls show people want progressive policies. However that goes against Capital interests which are the main concern of neoliberalism.
Indeed.
Four step process to uncontested neoliberal corporate bliss…
- Set up a folk-devil who must be stopped at all costs.
- Promote the idea that anyone even vaguely progressive must vote for you even if they disagree with you, in order to keep the folk-devil out.
- Promise to support literal genocide, and watch as your scheme has self-identified leftists falling over themselves spending the majority of their energy in-fighting with other leftists to ensure you have the power to make good on that promise.
- Enjoy your retirement on million dollar public speaking engagements and corporate executive positions.
this is basically just a long ass history of saying that even when they give the left policy, the left never shows up, so it wouldn’t make any sense basically ever in the future for them to implement any leftist policy at any future point. we have to assume that they’re rational actors rather than idiots, and that they’re going to keep doing the thing that, according to you, makes them succeed. there’s no amount of local grassroots “just vote harder” -ing that is suddenly going to get those left wing voters to suddenly pop up if there isn’t any left wing policy proposals. so the democrats don’t go left because they won’t win, and the left wing voters don’t show up because there’s no left wing policy.
I also like the idea that actual populist, left wing policy implementations only ever cost them, only ever make them lose votes. also, this idea that they’d move left suddenly if they started winning, just, basically for no reason they’d start moving left, is awesome. very cool. by what mechanism would they move left? why? by what mechanism would the left actually have any leverage over them, in that circumstance? sure, they’d lose the votes, but then they’d actually have to implement left wing policy, which means they would totally be fucking over their much more important corporate and media sponsorships, and they’d also be basically eviscerating their own political power. you can see this in the very simple example of “no democrat will ever change the fptp system”, because then they would stop getting elected, because they benefit from that being the voting system. this is basically the same principle by which they won’t, say, do massive amounts of housing ownership reform.
also, what’s your opinion on serious housing reform? what do you think about that, what do you think about, say, eliminating massive rental companies, or nationalizing them, constructing a large amount of housing, and then providing it for free to people, thus making them less dependent on their job and more secure in order to take risks on, say, doing actual forms of political activism? what do you think about the same being done for healthcare? employment? can you see any reason why the people who are currently in power might not want any of that to actually occur? can you think of any possible reason why those people which are currently in power might not want that shit to exist precisely because they have been selected by those systems as a product of their reinforcement of those systems? to break it down more, perhaps, why do you think CEOs tend to be incompetent assholes? is it just because of some like, cosmic trick, or is there perhaps a system there that’s going to reward incompetent assholes over people who actually have beliefs?
also, I find it funny how you’re accusing the guy you’re talking to of having a narrow interpretation of history, that they’re construing everything to work around, but then you’re also turning around and saying “it’s just so simple: the left never shows up, so the democrats will never go to the left!”, and then retroactively giving an incredibly simplified and narrow retelling of history in order to support your point. any mention of the absolute slew of right wing legislation, that any of these people have pushed, which might be a reason why the left might not be showing up for them?
we have to assume that they’re rational actors rather than idiots
They will do what
peoplevoters want. Sorry but have you lost sight of the foundations of the government so much that you forget that it’s the voters? Because you talk like that. Right now what the voters want is the Dems only in control of all 3 (presidency, house of reps, and senate) for 4 years every 24 fucking years. The voters are voting for brutally slow progress. Want faster progress? Then be the voters that vote for faster progress by giving Dems consistent and overwhelming victories.In addition to that, I really think Dems want left policy. They do it when they can despite it costing them elections. According to your logic they would never have done the ACA, or green energy, or EVs, or union empowerment (inb4), or student debt forgiveness, or Chips act, or Pact act, etc, etc. But they did, and it cost them.
left wing voters to suddenly pop up if there isn’t any left wing policy proposals
That’s the point of this discussion. I’m saying if left non-voters want to actually be effective, they have to show up first. Because when they don’t, the Dems well just go to the center voters. Why do I feel like I have to emphasize voters again. Left wing non voters can’t play mexican standoff. They will lose because the Dems have an out: the center voter.
they’d move left suddenly
It won’t be sudden, it will be slow. But it will be a ton faster than current progress when they only have 4 years of control (of all 3, house of reps, senate, and presidency) every 24 fucking years.
what mechanism would they move left? why?
Yeah you’ve lost sight of the very mechanism of government. Already said: Sorry but have you lost sight of the foundations of the government so much that you forget that it’s the voters? Because you talk like that. Right now what the voters want is the Dems only in control of all 3 (presidency, house of reps, and senate) for 4 years every 24 fucking years. The voters are voting for brutally slow progress. Want faster progress? Then be the voters that vote for faster progress by giving Dems consistent and overwhelming victories.
also, what’s your opinion on serious housing reform
What you’re doing here with endless questions is what I call fishing. You’re fishing for something that you disagree with me on so that you can comfortably ignore everything I say. Part of a reverse gish gallop (I’m not saying you’re alt right, I’m saying it’s the same strategy.)
also, I find it funny how you’re accusing the guy you’re talking to of having a narrow interpretation of history, that they’re construing everything to work around, but then you’re also turning around and saying “it’s just so simple: the left never shows up,
There is a difference between a narrow interpretation of an issue (I did not say history) constructed so that, well I already said: so that you can walk out on it and say look at this very narrow interpretation, explain this narrow interpretation. He demands an explanation of that very narrow interpretation, and only that narrow interpretation. So that other things can not be brought in. It pulls away from the big picture and goes into this narrow path, and demands an explanation and rebuttal on only that very narrow path.
That is different than what I did which is explaining things, simply.
Honestly you’re pretty much doing the exact same thing. So this will be my only reply. Peace.
They will do what people voters want.
https://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/idr.pdf
In addition to that, I really think Dems want left policy.
ACA, or green energy, or EVs, or union empowerment (inb4), or student debt forgiveness, or Chips act, or Pact act, etc, etc
Romneycare, a 5% token movements towards a correct approach, and also private industry funding, a good single issue, a post-covid handout, and more private industry funding mechanisms.
Yeah, see, that’s why I asked you those questions about what your actual political affiliations are. What is your definition of “left policy”? Economic stimulation by approving more contracts for private industry is not “left policy”, neither are means tested, highly qualified welfare programs. What do you think about the democrats moving to the right on the border, and doing absolutely nothing to combat the insane slew of lies that the republicans have been spouting for, say, the last 30 years? And they are lies, indeed. All this bluster over 3.3%, or maybe 14%, of the population, which is according to every study on the planet pretty much better behaved and provides more in to the system than your average citizen. I have basically never seen a democratic candidate actually give out any statistics to counter that narrative. They have only shifted further rightward.
Yeah you’ve lost sight of the very mechanism of government.
No. I fully understand that outside of a couple gerrymandered swing states that vote for electoral college members which then go on to maybe vote for who they have been told to vote for by the public, votes do not matter. I understand that this is something which is by design.
What you’re doing here with endless questions is what I call fishing. You’re fishing for something that you disagree with me on so that you can comfortably ignore everything I say.
Yes. “This does not help your cause” -Guy who hates your cause
If you don’t agree with the core positions, then we probably need to be talking about those core positions more than we need to be talking about who to vote for.
Honestly you’re pretty much doing the exact same thing. So this will be my only reply. Peace.
Why even engage in the conversation in the first place, then?
If the left voters show up, then guess what? More left policies will be adopted.
Why? A left vote is worth 1 (because they wouldn’t have otherwise voted right), a centre vote is worth 2 (because it’s also a vote away from the other party). So it doesn’t matter how many on the left “show up” their votes simply aren’t worth as much as centre voters.
That’s the argument given. Centre votes are worth double. The corollary is that they’ll always be the target demographic.
Yeah same thing as the other message. You’re constructing a narrow path of interpretation when it’s really quite simple. Do they win? Do they lose? Anyway, it was explained in my other reply.
They win the last election and they are still moving to the center. They only aim for the center because they know the left has nowhere else to go.
Biden won, enacted some decent legislation. And what was his thanks for those policies? Lost the house in the midterm election, and polls showed that he was going to lose the election.
Harris saw that, saw the polls, and rightfully won’t run on anything left. Won’t say anything. What she actually thinks and wants? Who knows. But she correctly stfu.
The administration in power always loses the midterms. The fact that they didn’t lose as badly as people thought was considered a Democratic victory. He was going to lose the election for other reasons, namely being super old and having it be obvious, and being all-in on supporting a genocidal apartheid state doesn’t help, but I’m sure it’s more the old thing, since Kamala doesn’t seem to be facing that same backlash to the same degree.
He still lost it, and without all 3 of presidency, house of reps, and senate, Dems can’t do much. They need all 3 to pass anything. Old? Sure, and I think he should have never tried for a second term. But he still passed decent legislation and the left wasn’t going to show up, despite his successes. You even saw Jill Biden say that one debate performance doesn’t undo his successes in office, but the voting left didn’t seem to care. So what did Kamala learn? You don’t get elected on left platforms, and you don’t get thanks for left legislation. She won’t say a single word because it will cost her the election.
The reality is the majority of the USA is in the center. It’s why we usually don’t have run away elections.
I would argue that most Americans are apathetic and easily swayed by rhetoric calling reasonable progressive policies “extreme”. That’s not exactly the same as being in the center, although it does lead to pretty much the same outcomes.
This is the answer. Us weirdos on a weird social network made by literal communists are not the majority and should stop acting like we are.
Every time I see a campaign ad for Harris I feel like I’m worthless to her because it’s all “yay America” and I know too much history to feel that way.
It’s bad that I want her to win… because she’s not trump and she’s not going to hand Ukraine over to putin…
I want her to win, but barely, maybe after losing Michigan, so she feels some sort of pressure to end the genocide and stop supporting Israel. That’s my ideal scenario. It would be cool if she picked up a reddish purple state, like Florida, but I would also hate if that encouraged her to keep running to the center.
God, I hate fighting people just to get them to vote in a way that makes mathematic and strategic sense.
I have a really hard time staying cool and collected when I discuss politics with people who hold right-wing positions. As a result, I never do volunteer work for political campaigns, because it seems like the only positions available are phone-banking and door-knocking. It’s frustrating; I want to help, but I feel strongly that I’d do more harm than good, doing either of those things.
To be fair, you’re looking at either getting shot at, going to jail for assault of a nazi, or at best, suffer a heart attack from the sheer blood pressure one gets dealing with those insufferable people. I think not volunteering is probably for the best, haha.
How about putting up signs?
I remember when dems had the presidency and both houses and did nothing stated here.
Manchin and Sinema don’t count. Fuck them.
I think they mean Obama’s first 2 years
That’s more complicated than a simple meme. If you have a party with 1/4 far left, 1/2 moderately left, and 1/4 basically moderate conservatives, it doesn’t matter that you have a majority, those moderate conservatives will still hold up any progress, but that’s not the fault of the other 3/4 of the party.
So what are people voting blue for exactly?
So they can feel like they’ve done their civic duty without actually effecting any meaningful change.
To negate the DINO’s
They need all 3 for more than 4 out of every 24 fucking years.
I’m voting Democrat like I always do. I remember being the only non-right wing senior citizen looking person at my polling place for Hilary Clinton when no one showed up. Not with any hope, just so I can say I voted against gleeful hatred.
I’m just pissed that I will never, ever get a vote against market capitalism, as it controls both parties on economic policy and we only get a vote on how to manage the social issue symptoms it causes.
If you keep the left in power your can steer them left, if the right gets in power you reset your progress to 0
Could you walk me through steering them left when they’re in power? Over the years the democrats seem to only get more right wing. The thing is, I always thought that you steer politicians through your vote, and if I guarantee my vote to you regardless of what you have done in the past or are currently doing, what incentive do you have to change course in a way that I like?
The actual incentive that they have should ideally be actual political activism that exercises some real and material form of leverage against their power. Seeing as these movements have all been totally deconstructed, mostly by the federal government, instead, you’ll find that the way you’re supposed to change the party is just by voting harder for them, and then just kind of hoping that they somehow naturally decide to swing left, after you’ve already handed them the keys to the kingdom. It’s pure cope, basically.
It works the same way the Republicans have been steered further right while not in power. When Democrats have to worry about moderates, they move to the right. If they only have to worry about liberals, they can support and back more progressive positions. If they don’t, they are more likely to be primaried.
See also: the Tea Party takeover of the GOP which pushed them further down the path to the current fascism.
The criticism of the democrats is that they think they are on the left but they aren’t. They do represent a lot of Americans, but they don’t represent the true left very well at all.
You’re absolutely right about the current Democratic Party, but that party’s been pulled to the right by moderates and former moderate republicans. If the country really is more liberal than our representation would indicate, as put forth by the meme, then a more progressive voting populace will eventually result in more progressive liberal party. Right now everything is skewed to the right because of the oversized influence of moderates and moderate conservatives who don’t want to vote for fascism.
I think its the social shaming from democrats and republicans to third party voters. It reminds me of some of the stuff church cults do to prevent people leaving the group. Let people vote how they want to, or at the very least attempt to win them over with discussions and policy rather than throwing them under a bus.
There’s a lot of this assumption that democrats get more votes by going for moderates. Meanwhile they’ve alienated the entire left, and (I know, not a representative sample) but my Lemmy feed is jam packed with arguments about “you have to vote blue to stop fascism” vs “I really don’t don’t want to vote in favor of genocide”. No one seems to actually like the democrats, they’re whole appeal is basically “not fascist”.
Bernie Sanders got people excited, and while not exactly a leftist, he did represent a move toward the left. But they couldn’t let Bernie happen, he was too radical, apparently. You’ve heard the term “Bernie bro”, but where are the Biden bros? They aren’t, because Joe is boring.
So I don’t think they “have to worry about moderates”. The post here claims that if they could motivate people to go vote, they’d win. So offer something fresh. Present a real alternative to the inexorable right wing decline of all of US politics. Do you not think that would work? Why are they 0% willing to consider it?
You’re not at all wrong, except democrats absolutely do have to worry about moderates at the moment. A large portion of the GOP base is retired people who definitely will vote. After that are Trump diehards who also definitely will vote. Look at the last election. Biden is about as centrist as they come, and Trump still racked up record breaking support at the polls!
You’re right that Bernie whipped up a lot of excitement, but he also lost that primary. And others who have tried to do something similar (like Beto) have also come up short.
I think someone else said this, or maybe it was a comment on another post, but republicans took over 40-years to shift the country right and overturn Roe. Countering that won’t happen overnight, and probably has the best chance at succeeding if it’s done within the current political landscape.
Adding that both things need to happen for the country to reverse the rightward shift. More liberals need to vote, AND the party needs to recognize, or be shown in primary elections, that they can publicly embrace more liberal stances. On or the other and we wind up with the status quo.
the party needs to recognize, or be shown in primary elections, that they can publicly embrace more liberal stances
Not “can”. Need. Or else we, the voters, are at the whims of their donors. They “can” move left now. There is policy on the left that polls very well with the general populace, much better even than what they’re running with now. It’s just a matter of framing and defending good policy instead of limply letting the republicans run the show. Biden did it just a couple days ago “I never heard of getting lead out of the drinking water being a bad thing” (paraphrasing). That is what needs to happen, more broadly.
The only election that matters as to whether they as a party get to hold power or not is the general, thus it is the only election that can show them they need to do any particular thing to get a base of support large enough to get them elected.
They don’t want a majority, or they would have it. Easily. They’re playing the same game as Republicans, 50 + 1 to win. No less. No more.
The liberals will vote, and the left will too. If you motivate them with policy that actually stands up to criticism and makes voters more optimistic than cynical about a Democrat win.
The thing is, I always thought that you steer politicians through your vote
To some extent, yes. However the amount of steering you can do this way is rather limited, since a vote only indicates a preference of one candidate over the other.
For example, if you decide to vote Republican out of protest, Democrats might conclude that you like republican policies, and to win your vote back, they need to move even further right. If you decide to stay home and not vote, you don’t really give any information to democrats what they actually need to do. They may decide that you are an unlikely voter in any case, and focus towards those folks most likely to turn out (that’s generally older white conservative folks).
One option is to vote for some leftist third party. This sends a pretty clear message about what policies you like. The problem is that, apart from the messaging, your vote is almost certainly wasted. You are in effect helping your enemy win in the short term.
The other option is to engage politically outside of just voting. Most people have been convinced by establishment politicians that your only influence is your vote. This is not true. Protests, activism, grassroots movements, local politics are all effective ways to steer your preferred party in your preferred direction. This does require substantially more effort.
Why are we so preoccupied with ensuring the party we hate most loses, rather than focusing on the party you want most winning.
I’d rather everyone vote closest to their actual morals and values, and give no consideration to who loses.
If we keep fighting over who’s the biggest loser, how can we possibly expect things to improve?
What you’re talking about is idealism. In a perfect world you would be correct. In a perfect world the US could have affordable and efficient mass transit within a few years. In a perfect world we could end climate change in just a few years. When your argument is based on a state of the world that doesn’t exist the point of the argument is immediately useless.
This is the problem with the anti-work movement, the anti-car movement, and people who are anti-single family homes. The arguments they make are theoretically possible, but getting enough people to move in tandem to that is just never going to happen so belaboring the point over and over is just not helpful.
We live in a world where the US has 2 political parties, if one wins we get a beige moderate government, if the other wins we get Project 2025. If your idealism makes it so hard for you to determine which outcome you want then literally nothing can be done for you. If you have the idea that letting the republicans win so that then a true progressive party can exist then you need to look at history because right wing dictators historically kill the idealistic liberals and progressives right behind the Jews, POC, and homosexuals.
Well I disagree that my view isnt possible. It very much is, and is likely the only way to break the two party system to begin with.
Other than that we would have to convince politicians to give away power, which is very unlikely.
And I already voted for Kamala but she wasnt the best choice for me by much, and I’m not saying trump was second. But that has more to do with the state I’m in than anything. If I was a county over I would have voted for a third party.
Well I disagree that my view isnt possible.
Your disagreement has about as much weight and value as a flat earther disagreeing that the world is round.
Other than that we would have to convince politicians to give away power, which is very unlikely.
Which is why your disagreement doesn’t matter.
And I already voted for Kamala but she wasnt the best choice for me by much, and I’m not saying trump was second. But that has more to do with the state I’m in than anything. If I was a county over I would have voted for a third party.
Hey that’s totally fair, I’m not saying she should be everyone’s preferred choice, but people are going around in circles saying that they won’t vote for Kamala like they don’t understand the ramifications of that. We have a two party system, those parties aren’t vague ideas but private corporate entities with tax benefits and assets. After Bernie lost in 2016 there was a lawsuit that alleged that the DNC had committed fraud by making certain efforts to ensure Hillary won the primary. The result of the case was that they found the proof and the DNC chair persons admitted it in court. The result was that the case was dismissed, nothing illegal was done, donating to the party or voting in the primaries makes no promise that a candidate you pick will win the primary. The judge basically said that the parties private entities that are allowed to conduct their party business the way they want.
The system that exists is built to keep it two parties and benefits those two parties.
If you’re in a county or state where your vote won’t matter than do what you want. My state lets you vote in either primary so I voted in the Republican Primary because we will go Republican and I at least wanted to have a say on who would be getting state positions.
When the Republicans win, the Democrats hear “move right”. It’s as simple as that.
And also when the democrats win, if you look at the way policy has evolved during the clinton years, during the obama years, and also now during the biden years.
The Dems need all 3 of presidency, house of reps, and Senate to do anything. And they’ve only had that for 4 of the last 24 years. Or 6 of the last 32 years. Or 6 of the last 44 years. That’s why they keep going to the center to find voters, because they need all 3 and basically never get it. So how do you get them to go left? By giving them consistent and overwhelming victories.
You realize this all happened with Gore and Bush, and then Obama and Hilary and so on. The story has been the same every time. End of a democracy, republicans will destroy the country, blah blah blah.
You know what else happens? The democrats talk a huge game before the election, and do fuck all with it while in office. Even if you take something like obamacare, it wouldnt have gotten passed if there wasnt money in it for the wealthy.
And just the non stop war crimes and global terrorism. You know its literally been my whole life that this country has done this and its never mattered who was in office. Military expansion in this day and age is absurd, and its harder and harder to hide the truth that most of our wealth is stolen.
Its like a mafia family that can’t hide that their protection racket is actually what’s causing the danger in the first place. Apparently we don’t need a godfather sequel because its here in real life on a national scale.
The Dems seek out the people who actually vote.
If the Left stays home every election, the Dems have no reason to listen to them.
Clearly they’ll just voter shame and we’ll end up exactly where we are. I’d argue the reason we are where we are is exactly that reason.
I think all the third party voter shaming is actually for the democrat population. Its a warning of how you will be treated if you defect. Churches and cults do stuff like this in some cases, also to preempt members leaving.
I was never his biggest fan, but New York Mayor Ed Koch did say something I liked.
“If you agree with me 51% then you should vote for me. If you agree with me 100% you should see a psychiatrist.”
Resetting to 0 is a best case scenario for Republicans regaining control
0 what? 0 A.D.?
This thread is a shitshow.
American democracy ends in a month if things go poorly. It’s done, over, gone. A Mein Kampf reader will no longer have any restraints, no adults at the table to say “no, that’s wrong” if he wins again.
DEMOCRACY. WILL. BE. OVER.
Bitch, whine, fuck you bringing this up in thread last 30 days, I live here. So do my fucking friends and family. I don’t want to see them or I put in camps to be “deported” for having the wrong skin color, lover, gender, or religion/lack thereof.
Fuck you, vote.
Okay but voting is a group project and everyone I’m partnered with is ignorant and short-sighted.
School really did prepare us for real life in the end
Thems sure done did
None were left behind.
Time is a flat circle, except the cycle comes back around again every second. The same conversations over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. Had at such frequency, with such vitriol, it is totally indistinguishable from pure noise. It’s like a root canal for your brain.
Someone brings up wanting to not vote, on some principle. Could be Gaza, could be them not so slowly capitulating to the right on every issue since FDR got out of office, to the point that we’re now running george dubya 2 as president. Then someone says, ah, well, you should vote democrat anyways, because they’re better than republicans. Then we get one of two answers, we either get, ah, well, no they aren’t, or, they aren’t better on this one particular issue that I care about, so fuck it, right. Which is not a super convincing counterargument. Or, we get the real argument, we get the deeper dive into the actual political process, which we all collectively understand to be completely fucked as to basically be unrecoverable, and yet still, somehow, this is a source of constant disagreement. Usually because people who don’t know any alternative have deluded themselves into cynically caping for the same broken system as some form of what is basically escapism.
Ah, not in a swing state? You live in a population center? Seems like your vote doesn’t matter, better luck next time. Ahh, you don’t live in one of like, twelve counties in those swing states? Ahh, well, seems like your vote doesn’t matter, either, because of gerrymandering, so, sucks to suck for you. Ahh, well, guess the electorate decided to pick someone different than what you voted for, so, better luck next time. The democrats lost? Ahh, well, if only the left had turned up to vote. You just gotta vote, and then we’ll be granted such an overwhelming victory that we will be able to implement all of the milquetoast reforms you’ve ever wanted! The democrats win? Ahh, well, time to pull to the right twelve more degrees, since we’ve won the race, and now whatever the voters care about doesn’t fucking matter at all. The democrats win, but then the supreme court decides to veto the recount because the voting system in a single state was so totally and completely fucked? Ahh, well, looks like we gotta go kill a million fucking people in iraq for oil money, champ, sorry about that.
It’s especially fucking insane because the idea of voting for them in the first place is an acknowledgement that we live in a FPTP system where you cynically have to vote for the lesser evil. Every other qualification and quality that the system has, which makes it worse? That shit doesn’t exist. We’re taking the most simplified, common idiot stance, here. It is so insane that I struggle to think that it’s not just bad faith drudgery. Out of the 350 million, only like 5% of that are people who even approach mattering, and, as we also know, it’s kind of dubious even then. So, if those are the only people whose votes matter, and we all FUCKING know that, then why the hell am I inundated with constant removed and moaning and whining about how I just simple NEED to vote democrat or else nooo nooo we’re going to be plunged into literally a hitlerian dystopia like handmaid’s tail? Look around you, look at what is currently happening.
Oh no! Another democratic senator has decided to stand in opposition to this bill, narrowly swinging the votes around and keeping us deadlocked into an eternal hell where nothing except bipartisan things like border spending, foreign policy, spending on the military industrial complex, banning shit like tiktok, and the basic foundational elements of neoliberal economic policy ever get done. Whatever shall we do? Guess the answer is just to vote harder!
If the democrats did actually get an overwhelming victory, you wouldn’t get FDR again. They’ve been very clear about exactly what their policies are, and they’ve calculated that position as a way to push the buck as far in favor of their corporate sponsors and themselves as they can get away with, while both winning, and also presenting a constant war to the public where it’s a struggle to get anything done. The narrowest margin of victory is actually a boon, in that circumstance. It means they can both run on unpopular policy and they can make it look as though they’re trying to get things done and oops whoops they’re just narrowly failing. If they somehow got a massive win on that platform, probably through some absolutely massive unforced error by republicans. I don’t even know what that would look like, at this point. They would probably all have to collectively catch a disease and die simultaneously, and I think that would probably also spell chaos for the nation. You wouldn’t see the dems suddenly run to the left, after that, because the left would have basically no leverage over them, no bargaining power, no hand in their win. You especially wouldn’t see them drift to the left because THAT’S NOT WHAT THEY’RE FUCKING CAMPAIGNING ON. SO THAT CAN’T BE WHY THEY GOT ELECTED. The only way they would get that majority in the first place is basically through them moving to the left to begin with, which as previously described, they will never do, or, worse off, and what they are currently trying to happen, is if like, 40 - 50% of the population suddenly drifted super rightward and became neocons.
No democratic party politician is some secret communist that, ah, once they get an 80% majority, after enough election engineering, enough rightward drift, enough calculations that they can get into power unilaterally, then, suddenly then they’ll become a communist. The most you might see is that republicans, after losing so badly, might make a better run at implementation of actually populist policies, but then that’s kind of obviously a nonstarter for them because they’re ALSO owned by corporate entities and they’re ALSO doing this same exact gambit. The idea of getting a huge win somehow also relies on the utter delusion that you can outflank the republican party from the right, or, outflank them with your competence at right-wing policy. You could maybe outflank them in competence, but that’s both not a good thing, obviously, and it also wouldn’t matter to their core base of delusional evangelical suburban whites that have an outsized amount of voting power and oil money.
The reason some people think this, if they even do, and aren’t just assuming whatever cynical position they have to in order to push things around, is because they’re idealistic and totally delusional about the incentives the system naturally produces. How people in power go through many filters that all but guarantee they’ll be acting in their own self-interest by the time they reach the top. There’s no secret leftist that is going to reach a presidential level of power and then suddenly come down and save us all. I’d love to be proven wrong there, but it’s not fucking happening.
And you know what’s the worst about all this shit? Every election cycle, every single time, at the one time when there is the most political interest flaring up in the population, we are met with this fucking insanely dumb conversation that we have over and over and over and over and over again. It eats up space that could otherwise be reserved for actual serious conversations about strategic voting, how to look into local policies and politicians and how to vote for them, where those resources are, how to organize, how to gain political leverage, how to unionize your workplace, how to stage a protest, participate in a protest, when a protest should even be done and what amount of political leverage such an act might buy you. None of that ever gets talked about. Instead we need like a year out of every four where the only political conversations anyone is capable of having is this repetitive overly simplified bullshit. This ideological poison which totally stymies any serious dialogue. And then turn around and wonder why nobody except the dumbest and most aggressive sacks of shit on the planet, that are obviously just taking out their anger issues actually want to talk to you about this shit, sacks of shit like me. It’s insane. I don’t understand how we keep falling down the stairs. I don’t understand how this keeps happening.
“I’m not going to vote because democrats aren’t communist which makes them basically republicans” - average Lemmy.ml user
Jk it’s actually something more like “I’m not going to vote because I’m European”
For me it’s the genocide.
So you’re gonna do nothing about it. Cool.
Both sides support Israel, one side has advocated and has vocal members who advocate against the genocide. The other side is for the genocide and thinks they should go further.
But you’re right, both sides, etc etc, Sit out.
Who says I’m doing nothing about it? All you know about it is that I refuse to vote in favor of genocidal regimes. Besides, refusing to vote for someone who’s actively committing a genocide is doing something. It’s exercising your right to vote in a meaningful way by showing that there are lines you do not cross. I wouldn’t vote for Hitler when that was an option, and I won’t vote for Harris (or Trump) now.
Make sure to pat yourself on the back for doing something when the christofascists take over, applaud Israels “tough” stance on “terrorism”, and kill or chase out every Palestinian that doesn’t lick IDF boots and ask for seconds.
And you are so sure thats not happening now? How exactly could trump accelerate any of that. Israel literally does what it wants. It doesnt give two shits.
At least bring up the right ally we would be screwing over which is Ukraine, but oh look the democrats are fucking them over too. Interesting that.
While it may be said that Trump is not necessarily the most Israel friendly president, he is undoubtedly the most Netanyahu friendly president (the leader of the Israeli regime perpetuating the genocide in Gaza and the West Bank).
Trump brags he gave Israel the Golan Heights, part of Syria that Israel has been occupying for decades, by formally recognizing Israeli sovereignty over it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_recognition_of_the_Golan_Heights_as_part_of_Israel
Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital is Israel and moved its embassy there from Tel Aviv. The status of Jerusalem is considered a key part of Israel-Palestine negotiations.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_recognition_of_Jerusalem_as_capital_of_Israel
Trump’s son in law, Jared Kushner, mentions that Israel should remove the civilian population in Gaza and clean it up, stating it would be valuable waterfront property.
Trump killed the “Iran Nuclear Deal”, which was vehemently opposed by Netanyahu. When Netanyahu spoke in front of congress opposing the deal in 2015 he was invited by a Republican and Democrats walked out of his speech in protest.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_the_Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action
Politicians that criticise Israel, or even want conditions on their “military aid”, risk being targeted by the pro-Israel groups. Jamal Bowman had his position more or less publically butchered to set an example and warn others not to oppose Israel. While some others survived massive spending against them by the pro-Israel lobby, AIPAC and other groups are effective in making sure most politicians avoid thr topic of Israel, at least publicly.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/20/nyregion/aipac-bowman-latimer.html
Netanyahu was clearly displeased with his meeting with Harris. His repeated escalation of violence is increasing tensions in the Middle East and angering a large subset of the US Democratic base. More and more people are under the impression that he is trying to harm the Democratic ticket and/or lock the US in conflict so that, of Democrats still win the presidency, they will have no choice but to continue to back Israel and Netanyahu’s regime.
But you haven’t considered the fact that the people you’re talking to are arguing in bad faith
All of these things are happening or heading towards happening now, under Democrat leadership.
Explain to me how either the republicans would make it worse, or the democrats would make it better.
This was a funny read. Thanks.
• Democrats are VERY reluctantly adhering to a trade agreement and trying to negotiate and end to their hostilities.
• Trump said they need to “finish the job.”
bOtH siDeS!
Do you not think genocide is a good reason to not vote for someone else? As far as red lines go, that’s a pretty good one.
it is more like genocide vs genocide + whole bunch of other human rights violations.
if you are not planning to overthrow the government by revolution then there is no way to go from these two options to an “ideologically perfect” (whatever that means) government in just one election cycle, needs to be done in smaller steps.
Withholding your vote until genocide is taken off the table pressures her to give in to their demands, though. There’s no universal constant saying we need to have a genocide. Either she loves genocide, or she’s supporting it because she’s worried she won’t get the votes without it. If it’s the second one, and I hope it is, then the Uncommitted movement is simply doing the same thing to establish their own power, and for a better reason: to save the lives of their friends, family, aid workers, doctors, and journalists.
Nah, holding your vote appears to be you just being another unmotivated democratic voter without regard to why. No one gets polled on why they didn’t vote 4 years prior. At best Harris barely wins and at worst Trump takes office and you get 4 years of genocide + Ukrainian subjugation + subjugation of women, minorities, and immigrants at home.
Kind of a no-brainer that you should vote for Harris here.
No, if it was a no-brainer, the no-brained idiot you’re responding to would already understand this.
Okay thats all nice and such but you don’t vote for who you want to lose you vote for who matches your values. If people are so anti-genocide, should be very easy for a third party who is anti-war to win, if people voted for their values.
Its true it won’t happen in one election, I think even if the democrats win this year that they had a lot more pressure from groups they hadn’t before, and they were loud and clear and well represented.
I’m still concerned there will just be trump 2.0 next election and the democrats will continue moving towards the right as they go, and just continue this lose lose schoolyard fighting nonsense.
Not if it’s withheld as part of a wider movement or given to a third party. That’s why it’s being paired with protests and other campaigns letting them know what they have to do to get their vote back.
Harris barely winning but losing something like Michigan to spook her into actually doing something material to stop supporting Israel is probably my preferred scenario right now, but she already said no arms embargo is on the table and after an election she’s not really beholden to voters anymore, so doubt that will help, either.
“barely winning” is a dangerous game to play when the consequences of losing is getting much much much further away from your stated goals. if anything it is impossible to push Trump to an anti weapon sale stance (since his core supporters don’t care and Trump is where money and strongest lobbies will be) than Kamala whose core supporters actually care but are turning the other way for now due to the fear of losing to Trump.
Supporting a genocide is a dangerous game as well, not only politically but physically, to at this point hundreds of thousands of people. Millions have been displaced from their homes. Not everyone can just ignore it so easily.
so late into the elections it will only increase chances of Trump winning and will not convince her to change stance.
the risk of this is that you move even further away from your goals, practically to a place where it is impossible to do anything about genocide (since core supporters of Trump wont give a shit about and Trump himself for sure will be where money and strongest lobbies are).
this plan only makes sense if your perspective is “by diverting votes we let Trump win, everything goes to hell and then there is some sort of reform/revolution after he fucks up everything”. But given that maybe %30 of the country is still big time Trump supporters, we are likely looking at a civil war in that case.
You’re never going to be able to convince a lot of people to accept a genocide of their own people. It’s just not possible for some and I don’t blame them. A lot of Americans have never been attacked at home so they don’t understand. It’s a gamble the Administration is doing to keep up their rabid cheerleading of the Nazi-like side. Hopefully it doesn’t blow back on them.
what if realistically speaking the only current choice is between even a worse situation in middle east vs maybe slightly better than the status quo? I know it sucks but without changing how the elections in US works, you are not going to go from democrats vs republicans to a progressive major party in one election. In one election your only chance is to get slightly closer to it or quite further away.
It doesn’t have to be a progressive party. Not doing a genocide isn’t progressive. Lots of extremely conservative people over the world manage to do that. Right now, the resistance in the Middle East has fucking Iran in it and Turkey put out a heartfelt video about the long-term ramifications of not doing anything when the moment calls for it. These aren’t bastions of poly blue haired progressives.
How do you guys think we live in a democracy when you are so scared to demand even the most base human morals from your politicians? People are frozen in fear to even ask their politicians to not enable an ethnic cleansing, in case it makes them seem like Trump supporter, and so they offer up the lives of even innocent fellow Americans as sacrifice, exactly like a Trump supporter. It’s ridiculous, and yet you all shrug and accept it, because you’ve been trained into complacency as the country slowly keeps ceding more and more territory to save a democracy that doesn’t even let its citizens vote on whether to eliminate an ethnic group or not, only whether to do it gleefully or with a frown face. This is all very… Weimar Republic.
Here’s a question. When Trump is gone, will we not be able to fight because of Project 2028? Or 2032? We’ll have to defend ourselves from the fascist overtones of of Presidential Candidate Ron De Santis, so we’re going to have to round up the trans people and kill off the Jews in the hopes of getting more Republican voters to our side, to save our republic again? And again? And we’ll have to shut up about that, too? If the line isn’t drawn at genocide, then there is no line. Unless it’s just at white people, which is starting to feel like the case…
Eastern European specifically.
Even more specific?
As east as you can get in Europe :)
But I thought Russians were voting in us elections? 🤔
it’s actually something more like “I’m not going to vote because I’m European”
That or they’re not of legal age.
Early voted today in AZ. Straight blue! I was the first person in line in my county in one of the 3 precincts opening early today. 💪
The real MVP right here! You’re the best!
Big Sausage Energy fr
Thanks BigFatNips
Thanks. It is everyone’s responsibility.
Which is why Reps are the ones constantly vying for various “voter security” measures (voter suppression).
Vote like your life depends on it. Because it does.
kids are force fed the bible
Well that can’t be true
Republicans are strongly against feeding children after allBuy our new Trump Bible Mk.39! This new edition features pages made out of pork rinds so your constituents can taste the word of our lord!
