Biden aimed a lot closer to the yellow line than he got; the fact he was able to achieve legislation for the blue line in our current corporate-whore government is a goddamned miracle
And yet somehow, instead of being mad at the elements of our government that blocked the yellow line, or asking who in government we can promote who’s further left than Biden and how we can realistically get those people into a position to win power, some people are purely angry at Biden about it
I wonder why
My thoughts exactly. 4 years of a democratic president (and Joe Manchin + Kyrsten Sinema being sticks in the mud) got the blue line to where it is now. That doesn’t mean it stays there forever. Another 4 years of a democratic executive and legislative branch will get us much closer to that yellow line.
We have to keep pushing forward and prevent the country from doing significant environmental backsliding like it did in 2016-2020.
Fucking Krysten Sinema. FFS.
POS sold all her values at the first whiff of oil cash. Fucking soulless ghoul
be sure to also be mad at Hillary Clinton that also is relevant and a move towards progress
Nobody cares more about Hillary Clinton than the white twitter leftist who’s still mad that their protest vote for stein didn’t do shit to hold anyone accountable and just kick-started the new era of American backsliding.
* white Twitter person-pretending-to-be-a-leftist
Unfortunately, there are stupid leftists. Denying it doesn’t help, I’ve tried.
That’s my secret, spujb, I’m always mad at everyone
shits pants, rips off shirt, and punches a lobster in the face
weirdchamp but ok
Super relevant yes
Like everyone I know on the left, I make sure to follow her Twitter and care about what she posts
Same reason people are pissed at Biden for every handling of <insert problem here> that 100% falls within the domain of another governmental branch. Currently the executive branch is sorta Atlasing our entire government which requires them to severely overreach their powers opening them up to checks and balances by the other highly sabotaged branches that both seemingly wish to force our entire government to accomplish nothing. The most publicized example of this is three student loan forgiveness package that Biden’s administration tried to pass that got blocked, though there are lots of other examples.
The reality is that the executive branch as a whole has very little long term reach and we need to be pressuring Congress to do literally anything at all. The only time I’m going to look at Biden and say “this is his fault” is when I see Congress pass a bill doing something like sending an aid package to Gaza and/or Ukraine, only to have him refuse to sign. Which I suspect he’d actually just sign something like that through. We’ll never know for sure because two of our federal branches are too busy playing something vaguely resembling a game of football where the ball is a 50 lb boulder and everyone’s screaming that they keep subbing their toes on on it.
You mean like the senate, which biden was part of, and who helped create many of the problems we have now while he was in the senate?
The bottom line is that people need to vote at every level
Pretty consistently the stopping point in achieving a lot of good has been the margin at which one singular person is able to halt everything.
Republicans barely have to do anything to backslide our democracy and meanwhile the democrats apparently have to end up spectacular in every conceivable way to achieve keeping the fucking lights on and some woefully under-publicized gains.
There needs to be some serious talk about reshaping the republic as all these octogenarians begin to finally drop, because it’s quite obvious that the current federal model has aged out of what clarity the founding fathers may have seen in it. We need leaders on this movement, and we need solid objectives that are clear to the movement.
it’s quite obvious that the current federal model has aged out of what clarity the founding fathers may have seen in it
iirc a decent number of them expected it to be revised regularly, so we’re actually overdue compared to their expectations
He asked exactly as you say - “how to vote for the yellow line”
Removed by mod
Biden’s literally a yellow line candidate he just doesn’t have a yellow line congress.
Removed by mod
Is that why Biden forced federal workers back into the office? Republicans made him do it?
I wonder why
Rhetorical, I know, but fascists and their useful idiots.
We’re mad as hell at all politicians. The lesser of two evils is still evil.
Who’s “we”? I’m certainly not mad as hell at all politicians.
I’m not mad, I’m just disappointed
Bro looks at a candle and goes “nah, there’s no difference” as he jumps into a volcano instead
Are you saying being slowly burned to death by a candle is better than a quick death? Your analogy is flawed on multiple levels.
Literally yeah. If you have any sort of control over it. We do. I’d take slow over quick any day unless I was suicidal. So there’s a rather large hole in your ideology right there.
That’s assuming it’s just a candle. Again, the analogy is flawed on multiple levels. Downplaying the harm that democrats do when they still primarily cater to the rich is disingenuous.
No one is down playing that. You’re simply denying that they’re the best option we currently have afforded to us.
And the fact that we have an argument being made. Of which you would rather die to a candle or lava. Perfectly encapsulates the inanity of the whole argument. It’s like saying which would you rather fight a kitten or a tiger. And then claiming you’d rather fight the tiger because it would kill you faster. And I’m like dude you can kill the kitten really easy. It’s self-defeating. Or at least you’re trying to get people to defeat themselves with such a weak argument.
We’re not going to sabotage ourselves to enable the status quo. We’re going to come for their seats. It may take years. But better to work with what we have to achieve the best we can do. Then to lay down and die because we can’t have the perfect thing.
The “best option” is not good enough and will not lead to the outcome you think it will. That’s why downplaying it as just a candle is ridiculous. It’s like when people say “if you put in the hard work then you will be rewarded”. That’s up to the whims of the system. Of course we should keep voting for democrats every time, but we should be realistic on how far that approach will actually take us.
Erm ackshually your obvious hyperbole was hyperbolic
Also no. A candle can simply be put out if it’s burning you.
How can we “put out” the harm that democrats cause when they cater to their rich donors? Come up with a better analogy. Handwaving it as hyperbole doesn’t make it any less of a terrible analogy.
It’s not my fault you misunderstood a pretty simple analogy, but fine, I’ll do it without the analogy. There are two choices. One is bad. One is worse. Neither are good, but they are not the same.
Your stupid analogy is very easy to understand, it’s just wrong in terms of scale.
Step 1: Vote for Biden now. Step 2: Vote for every Democrat. Do this until the Republican party is a smoking crater. Step 3:Then primary the fuck out of the AIPAC and oil-backed Democrats once you get past Step 2.
It’s important to let the Democratic Party think they’ve got the levers of power, then shift the sands beneath them.
And of it doesn’t work, at least you didn’t get Trump, because no matter how bad the Democrats are, Trump and the Republican Party are so much worse.
Keep pushing it left until it’s Democrats vs Democratic Socialists in the general election.
This is how you move the Overton window.
It’s certainly taking a page from the conservatives who moved it their way
They’ve been at it for the last 70 years and have been very successful, completely catching the left (the actual left) in the U.S. off guard. I don’t expect the left to be able to drag the conversation back to the left in any less time.
I’m so happy to see someone saying these words. Please say more, I hope you’re heard!
To play devil’s advocate, this has been the strategy for decades and yet America has been moving to the right economically. Why would this time be any different? Would it not make sense that people with money would still be the ones the prevailing parties curtail to, not the public?
I’ve been doing this strategy for 24 years and I’m still waiting for it to start working.
IMHO it’s because Step 2 (Blue No Matter Who) tolerates corruption, which loses moderates. There’s a stable equilibrium between steps 2 and 3.
Nope it’s because step 2. Vote in non presidential elections as well. Isn’t being followed. As well as not following step 3. Stop whining about the Democrats we have, run as one of the Democrats we need. There are a ton of state and local offices Republicans win unopposed. I bet if we started consistently running and funding solid left candidates to run against the Republicans as Democrats. Take advantage of the Democrat parties resources. We could accidentally start winning. Even primarying neoliberals. The DSA is doing it in some places.
Wow! What a false, disingenuous argument. So standard operating procedure.
To start with. The slogan “Blue no matter who” isn’t 1 decade old. Let alone decades old. You wouldn’t make that argument if you’d payed attention to what’s actually been going on. Or more importantly were being genuine.
Solidarity has been a major issue for Democrats for decades. And the actual left for a century. And this sort of shit is why.
Vote blue no matter who is absolutely part of the answer. And it’s far overdue. But it’s only a part. The other is voting in every election. Every single one. Not just presidential. Voting for president is honesty one of the least important votes a person can cast. Still important. But so many things are more impactful. No presidents agenda will be implemented good or bad without support in Congress. They make the laws, sign the bills, allocate the funds.
And the last part. Get off your whiny ass and run for office. I vote in every election. And I leave a ton of offices blank. Because it’s a Republican running unopposed. I’d jump at the chance to vote for a DSA running as a democrat against a Republican. Or just about any other actual leftist for that matter. And I’m not alone. Hell I would even vote for an ml if you all could help yourselves. You know stop acting like capitalist. Trying to centralize power and jailing / killing everyone that disagrees with you.
To play devil’s advocate,
Funny, because everywhere else I see you, you aren’t playing devil’s advocate, but being sincere in peddling this.
But surely someone who craves fascism would NEVER be disingenuous!
I absolutely do not crave fascism, that’s completely unfounded and highly offensive. I have openly admitted my intention to vote for Biden, who I also harshly criticize. Unless, of course, you think voting for Biden makes you a fascist.
Rather, is it truly impossible to believe that a Leftist is tired of playing the same electoral game, and instead believes grassroots pressure is required from outside the electoral sector to enact change?
Entirely fuck off with that bullshit libel, that’s extremely offensive and just a way for you to slander, rather than actually address the concerns I raised.
Finally someone gets it!
This is what I’ve been saying for years, but far less succinctly.
Some people have a hard time believing that the Democratic Party is not one whole monolith that always votes on party lines even when they disagree (that’s the other one)
It’s crazy the people think like that when there are people like Ocasio Cortez Sanders Sinema and Manchin all in the same party. The Democratic party has been for at minimum the last 50 years a coalition party of everyone who was not an abject bigot or racist.
That terrorist Reagan had such a massive win with the aid of a foreign government back in the eighties. That it terrified everyone else. The Democratic party struggled for that whole decade trying to find a new formula to winning against that fascistic terrorist. And in their flailing the neoliberals were the first ones to regain control. And shortly solidified it leading to a lot of the dysfunction we’re still facing to this day. But the party has never been a neoliberal monolith.
We don’t need to erase Republicans to change how we vote. That is controlled at the state level. Should be really easy to do in blue states where Republicans have less influence.
Perhaps to late to change this coming elections voting system, but we can right now start making the organizations we need to push for it ASAP.
Imagine feeling free to vote for who best represents you, sure in the knowledge that if your preference didn’t win, your vote would still count against the Republicans.
This 3 step plan is more like:
Step 1: vote biden now Step 2: vote for every democrat Step 3: ??? Step 4: the republican party is a smoking crater Step 5: ??? Step 6: primary the fuck out of AIPAC and oil democrats Step 7: profit
You seem to think that voting will magically make things better, and that is why we are up shit creek right now. I don’t expect you to know exactly what happens in between, but I don’t get the blind optimism and the desire for inaction.
We didn’t get trump because people didn’t vote for clinton hard enough, she won the popular vote. We got him because all people did was vote. If our only tool to move left is voting, we’ll continue ratcheting right.
Step 1: Vote for Biden now. Step 2: Vote for every Democrat. Do this until the Republican party is a smoking crater.
I remember this strategy when it started with “Vote for Gore now.” I’ve got the Kucinich for President bumper sticker to prove it. I do not believe this strategy will ever work, mostly because America isn’t nearly as progressive as you think it is.
Us weirdos need to get used to being unhappy about the government because it will never be what we want because it’s a giant group project and those always suck ass.
I remember this strategy when it started with “Vote for Gore now.”
That would have more weight except people voting for Nader gave us 8 years of Bush by not understanding how a FPTP system works, so I don’t know that Gore is really an argument against this so much as for it.
It’s not an argument for or against voting blue no matter who. It’s an argument against our shitty system that gives us such shitty choices.
In summary, destroy your enemies then start destroying the least pure of your allies. Continue until you’ve made a better world.
— Hitler
— Stalin
— Mao
— This guy ⬆️There’s a bit of a difference between wanting representatives who aren’t in the pockets of Big Oil and voting that way, and a Night of the Long Knives.
Yes, but not within the strategy that I described.
We need to become a one party state.
Edit: you want to give representation to people who would deny you representation if given the opportunity. How can you not see how stupid that is?
I checked this person’s comments to see if there was any interpretation that wasn’t an extremely creepy and authoritarian.
The most recent few are not promising.
Why? I commented something you didn’t like for some reason so I must be a “creepy authoritarian?” What is the person I responded to advocating for if not a one party state. There are two major political parties in the US, that person wants the Republican party to be reduced to a “smoking crater.” Two parties minus one party equals one party. That’s about as simple as arithmetic gets.
Yeah, that’s a fundamental misunderstanding of how things function. Did we end up with one party when the Whigs party went away? No. We had the Republican party become the other major player.
We need more than two parties, not fewer. We just need those parties to ideally be further left, where the majority of Americans are. One party systems you end up without any dissenting voice to speak up when something wrong is being done, so they are allowed to do whatever they want and end up dominating the people. A better system of voting allows voting based on what people actually want, not strategy, so there are a larger variety of voices more closely representing the people.
I think you fundamentally misunderstand how things function. If the Republican party is destroyed, Republican voters will fracture into multiple parties, dividing conservative voters and making it impossible for any one of the new parties to compete with the Democrats in our winner-take-all, first-past-the-post electoral system. The federal government would become a defacto single party system, with the Democrats being that party. Conservatives likely would coalesce around a new single party and join efforts to try and take on the Democrats, but that party would exist to do nothing but obstruct, like the Republican party today. So we would once again be in a situation where there is one party trying to represent a plurality of Americans and an opposition party trying to obstruct everything that party wants to do.
If we want a system of plurality and proportional representation, it would require changing not only the US constitution, but 50 state constitutions as well. How do you propose accomplishing that with two parties competing for control, when one of those parties wants only to obstruct?
become a defacto single party system
Sure, over a short enough time frame, that’s true. However, the power vaccum would quickly be filled by another party, and thus most people wouldn’t consider the US to have a single-party system. It’s the same way how you don’t breathe in the time between every exhale and inhale, but people don’t consider you to have “stopped breathing” because that’s not a very useful conceptualization.
Sure, over a short enough time frame, that’s true. However, the power vaccum would quickly be filled by another party
Which I acknowledged. Or did you stop reading after “defacto single party system?”
There’s something simple here all right, but it’s not the math.
By all means, enlighten me. What am I missing?
Getting rid of one party in a First Past The Post system would result in another party taking its place. Barring any mention of reforming how elections are held in America, it is not reasonable to assume someone advocating for dissolving one party wants the remaining party to be the only party.
Getting rid of one party in a First Past The Post system would result in another party taking its place.
Exactly. Get rid of the Republicans and another obstructionist party would eventually take their place, putting us right back where we are right now. You want to replace the first-past-the-post electoral system with one of proportional representation and political plurality? Fine, but how do you plan on accomplishing that with the Republicans, or some other obstructionist fighting you at every turn?
Here’s an example for you: in my country, we don’t have a republican party. We barely have a pure conservative party any more. But what we do have are 3 or more (depending on your riding) parties that you can vote for and not feel like you’re wasting your ballot.
And there are sometimes even some good choices in there, because politicians are actually competing over sane policy rather than existential issues like whether we should or should not eradicate trans people. Which is just trying to legalize hate; it’s not how a functioning democracy should be operating.
Oh yeah, this shit like this comment here is why the working class must never disarm.
“how do I vote for the yellow line”
By voting towards the yellow line…
Nah man, got to go with the red line, maybe then the blue line will learn its lesson and will be closer to the yellow line /s
Meanwhile, all candidates:
If only we could get again the guy who moved us from the red line to the blue
Shop at Target to support their goal apparently.
Just write in Brian Cornell
No, write me! I’ll go even lower.
You mean like the blue line that clearly levels off far away from the yellow line?
Yes, that’s what ‘towards’ means.
Also check the years on the X-axis and notice the dotted vertical line at 2030. What do you think that vertical line indicates?
What does any of that have to do with the blue line clearly leveling off at the 2050 target line far above the 0 goal?
Do you really not know what the vertical line indicates?
Do you know you could just write what it means instead of asking? Then you can explain how that invalidates any of what I said. I guess you prefer dragging things out, like how democrats prefer dragging out solutions because “other guy”.
I could, but what fun would that be? It’s way more entertaining to watch someone make statements about a simple graph they don’t even understand.
Can you even take a guess at what that line indicates?
You obviously don’t know, because you have failed to explain why it matters for what I have said. Keep pleasuring yourself over your smug non-helpfulness like your democrat idols.
It’s no wonder she lost to Trump.
No self-awareness whatsoever.
Imagine you live in a world where major voices of a political party is clearly expressing that their current guy will run down the world and thinks that it is a w, because the other guy is worse.
Thanks Dems, you fail the USA and the world at large! Literally ruining the only accessable livable planet. But w for not being trump!
Failure by design, not by accident.
I don’t really understand this stance… I mean, yes I get what you are saying and that is exceedingly shitty you have to choose between bad and worse; but is there really “no difference”?
I mean, if you have to choose between leaving your loving family vs having your loving family killed… is it really the “same” choice?
“the other guy is worse”
— actual quote of GP
I am not saying it makes no difference. I am saying how could she think it is a win for them. This is literally going to your gf and telling her that you fucked a girl raw, nutted inside of her, don’t intend to stop but hey you didn’t get her pregnant. Like yeah, the last part matters but wtf are you proud for? Shame on you. And how could you possibly think that your girlfriend ignores everything else, just because you didn’t get the woman pregnant?
If you think this is the same as “no difference”, you are mistaken. I would vote for bad over worse, it makes a difference. But don’t be proud of it. Don’t post it as a win. Be ashamed. Do better. And at least, intend to stop.
I am saying how could she think it is a win for them.
Where does it say it’s a “win” for Dems?.. that is all in your head… it simply shows less carbon emissions, that’s it, that’s all
If you think this is the same as “no difference”, you are mistaken. I would vote for bad over worse, it makes a difference. But don’t be proud of it. Don’t post it as a win. Be ashamed. Do better. And at least, intend to stop.
Again, you are fighting demons in your head bud… I never even insinuated to be proud or celebrating… and honestly, neither did Hillary (as bad as she totally is) in her Xhitter message… simply implied Trump would be worse
If the “target” matters in a real way, then this graph shows a situation of no difference.
This graph is made to show the difference. It isn’t the difference we want but it is still a difference.
And it is an actual difference… not the “make the difference, recycle that plastic container that will end up in the same landfill but we are pretending it’s helping”
Of course it matters, climate change and global warming are not binary… It’s not like if we go past x it’s game over and the Earth will stop spinning, it’s more like if we past x we can now expect shittier and shittier conditions and outcomes
Therefore, if we pass x by a bit, it’ll be shitty but we may make it… If we pass x by a mile and keep going, then all hope is lost
My friend and I have you locked in a basement. We both have decided your skin will be flayed off. I’m meek, so I’ll be using a foot file, whereas my friend is crazier: he’s going to be using a belt sander.
It’s understandable that you don’t want to get flayed whatsoever, but our basement is soundproofed. As mentioned, I’m meek, so my friend will take over the task if you scream after someone to save you.
Either way, you’re going to suffer and eventually die, but wouldn’t you rather take the chance that something else happens before the deeper parts of your dermis is reached? But nah, the choice is the same because the end result is the same?
Kinda disingenuous to blame the democrats when the system has been flawed for decades and should’ve been fixed a long time ago. Democrats are to blame, republicans are to blame and Americans in general are to blame for their shitty political system.
Capitalism is to blame, not the American people. The Political Parties ultimately gain influence and power by courting the ruling class to secure funding, thus it is unreasonable to expect either the Democrats or the Republicans to actually represent the will of the people.
Except European countries don’t have the exact same problem that the US has, which mean that specific issue isn’t caused by capitalism.
They have similar problems, resulting from Capitalism, but of course having a different electoral structure results in different issues. That doesn’t mean their issues don’t also stem from Capitalism, it’s Capitalism with a different structure.
At the end of the day, a wildfire in a forest and a wildfire in a prairie face different issues still caused by wildfire.
So in a socialist country this could never happen?
Socialist countries face different issues that are not the result of Capitalism.
States ultimately serve the class in power, if the class in power is the Proletariat, then the majority is in power. If the class in power is the Bourgeoisie, then the minority is in power.
In any system where a small group of people control the vast majority of wealth, resources, and Capital, the dominant political parties will court these people and represent their interests over the people that do not control the majority of wealth, resources, and Capital.
We have historical example of the USSR where despite being a “socialist” country it was a one party system that did not represent everyone.
You can do socialism and still get the politics wrong. That means capitalism or socialism is not the cause of every political problem. The same problem with the US can still happen even if the US was a socialist country. Similarly you can be a capitalist country and not have the problem US has, because the problem in the US is how the political system is built up not how capitalists use the system to their benefit.
Democrats and republicans are the system and the system is working as they intend it. The system will not change while the duopoly exists.
Voters are a part of that system. Who decides who comes into power? The voters. If literally nobody votes for democrats or republicans neither could come into power. The people have kept the system in place as much as the two parties.
If literally nobody votes for democrats or republicans neither could come into power.
C’mon guys, let’s do this. I believe in us.
We’ve done it before. You don’t see the Whig party on the ballot anymore. It may be a two-party system, but that doesn’t mean a party or both can’t be replaced from time to time.
We just need to have a civil war to do it.
Not really. The Whig party collapsed in the mid 1850s and the Civil War was in the 60s. People just need to vote for who they truly want, even if it’s a third party.
Though I agree with you, no one will vote third party, because they are convinced a third party can’t win, making it a self fulfilling prophecy. If you don’t vote for them, of course they can’t win. While I acknowledge that the system is broken here in the US, and that ranked voting is a much better system, I’d like to remind people that its still important to vote for who you like, and not against who you don’t like. I don’t like either of the main candidates for President, so I’m voting third party. Will my person win? Who knows, probably not, but I won’t vote for either of the main candidates because I dislike them both for different reasons, and think they’re both awful. Is one worse than the other? Yep, sure is, but I’d still rather vote for someone I like. If people weren’t so obsessed with only voting for the major parties, third party candidates could win. It’s happened in the past. No one ran for president as a Republican until 1856, and they didn’t get their first Republican president until Lincoln in 1860, which means that even though they are a major party now, they were a third party back then. Third parties CAN win, but not with the current mindset of the average American voter today. If people who say they want a change, actually want a change, then they need to do something different to get the change. If you keep doing the same thing, nothing will change. If you’re sick of the major parties, and hate the candidates they’re putting forth, show them how bad they are by voting third party. Change is hard, but possible. To see change, you need to be change.
And who convinced them?
The Democrats and Republicans. Because they want to keep the power between themselves.
That doesn’t change the fact that one candidate is clearly worse than the other.
If your choices are limited to the two party duopoly then you don’t really have a choice. Technically you can vote for another party, but that’s just throwing your vote away. If you don’t vote then there are millions of others who vote anyway (voting with your wallet when buying products doesn’t work for similar reasons).
The people had the system forced on them and are extremely limited in what they can do in it. Let’s say by some miracle that another party emerges victorious, that’ll just become the new target for
briberylobbyists who will bend the party to their will anyway.If your choices are limited to the two party duopoly then you don’t really have a choice
It’s just slower than you want. If you consistently vote for “one side”, every election, the center will move toward that side as the candidates differentiate themselves (but not too much). Isn’t this the entire problem? Too many people have been voting Conservative for too many years, digging themselves a hole that will take a similar number of years to dig out of?
Currently the “middle” is way to the right. Are you voting to move that middle line yet farther right or are you voting to start moving it back toward the left?
I’ve voted for the democratic party straight down the ballot every election for as long as I can vote. A major part of the problem is that the two party system guarantees that at some point republicans will get power and when they do, they drag the window to the right rapidly. When democrats get power, they’re comfortable with leaving the window where it is for the most part, insisting that we “work with republicans” while republicans never do the same. Compare eight years of Obama with four years of Trump.
Your options are limited because the overall system is shit. You won’t get more options until the entire political system is reformed and that’s why I’m saying everyone is to blame, because the signs have been there for a long time.
Right now blaming the democrats does nothing because you still have to vote democrat, the alternative is a fascist who will try to completely break down the democratic apparatus. After the election Americans should start constantly demanding a reformation of the system because it no longer serves the people.
Let’s say by some miracle that another party emerges victorious, that’ll just become the new target for bribery lobbyists who will bend the party to their will anyway.
This is why reforming capitalism is a waste of time. Reforms only delay end stage, not prevent it entirely. The solution (IMO) is to diffuse the wealth and the power that comes with it into the population through worker co-ops.
Maybe that isn’t the solution, who the fuck cares if I’m right or not? But we won’t ever work towards that better way of life if we let the status quo lord over us all our whole lives?
I’m sure people thought feudalism was going to be forever to back in the day, much like capitalism now. Capitalism isn’t thousands of years old like feudalism was. (Still is in select parts of the world)
Voters decide which evil comes into power, usually by selecting the lesser evil out of 2 options. The ruling class picks which options voters can pick between, because parties secure funding and influence by courting the ruling class.
It is in this manner that change is extremely difficult electorally.
More people didn’t vote at all than voted for Trump. It’s possible it was also more than voted for Biden as well (both on around 81 million, exact figures for none voters don’t seem to be available).
Yet the system continues anyway.
They both like it if you don’t vote. It means they have to spend less money influencing people.
Who decides who comes into power? Strictly speaking, the party officials in charge of primaries in the US.
I mean I can agree with the idea that if Americans did a Gaddafi on Republicans and Democrats then things would be different, hell, things would change tomorrow if Americans really wanted it, these people have names and addresses. Where I disagree is that calls for violence is bad but only because we’re supposed to say violence is the wrong approach. Maybe elections played by their rules will work in our favor someday (lol).
The political establishment has been killing and robbing the people for centuries, it shouldn’t be controversial to say we need to fight back more fiercely.
Violence is too neutral a term. According to the graph above, it’s valid self-defense.
yeah but they’re bludgeoning us with it and claiming to be the good guys, when there are no good guys here (that would be the yellow line)
so it needs pointing out. abd repetition, because fucking biden cultists are the most annoying shit I fucking swear.
Let me give you a hypothetical. First of all “good guys” is entirely subjective, but since you’re unhappy with democrats and republicans let’s say any party on the left side of the right-left political spectrum are the “good guys”. Now, let’s imagine democrats are left/center-left party and republicans are a far-left party. Since all parties on the left are good guys your choices are now all good guys. But in the context of the system one party is still more of a good guy then the other, one is more left than the other.
That means in the context of the system the good guys are designated by the options given within the system. When the options are corporate bootlickers vs batshit insane corporate bootlickers one of them is clearly better than the other. It doesn’t matter that in the wider picture both are bad because those are the options the system presents.
okay but genocide is genocide. theres a moral event horizon issue here. and on the other side, everyone needs to die, and arguing how badly they need to die is pointless. the harm is inexcusable, and I will not legitimize it.
me being killed is me being killed-the biden government won’t stop it, and if he’s in power; his supporters will not step in to help; they’ll beg daddy-daddy doesn’t care, and if he did all he’d do is send cops, who will already be there hooded and ready if he’s not, maybe we’ll get resistance libs, and they at least won’t snich if they find me in their attic.
and the climate apocalypse; they both stand in the way. I guess biden is less in the way? dead is still dead. trumps a little faster, but I like my gallows humor, so it about breaks even in my book.
and then theres the fact of legitimizing it. I live in California; my vote does not count for decision making. it will bestatistically fucked into oblivion. I don’t want to look like I legitimized a system that does that, that enforces abortion bans anf private insurance and illegal plants and all the other shit that upwards of 60% of Americans, a statistically shocking majority would rather it not, then calls it democracy. I don’t want things nobody wanted and nobody voted for shoved down my throat and told its my voice, and if you want me to participate in that, you’d better be offering something I fucking want.
My problem lies within the fact that she posts that proudly.
Dems might aren’t to blame for the system and might aren’t to blame for the climate issues… But that they think this is a win??? Crazy! Who is posting the “win”? A dem.
That’s just Hillary being unable to read the room, it shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone.
Of course that is the issue which should give everyone a pause. This is a impressive level of illiteracy. “If you look at this graph, at the current rate, we murder millions and destroy the chance of the survival of the human race, so we are planning to do it a little slower. Aren’t we amazing?”
Dear Hillary, at least use some propaganda skills when you want to sell us the slowing down of the baby grinder as a win. At least, tell us that with the currently planned action this is the projection but you are working hard to find additional ways to improve the situation and that decisive measures need to be well planned and executed which is unfortunately a timely process.
This is just poor politics.
I have a prediction: Now that the USA people are waking up, the voting ratio on this comment (which wound up at currently a surprising-to-me 43:9 while most of them were asleep) will start to shift in the direction of many more downvotes, although it will continue to attract a trickle of upvotes.
Why is that, I wonder?
(I could try to disagree with the logic of saying “well now that we changed firefighters the amount of fire in the building is going down, BUT IT’S NOT OUT YET WTF ISN’T THAT CONVENIENT WHY DID WE EVEN BRING THESE GUYS INSTEAD OF THE GUYS WHO JUST START MORE FIRES,” but I think looking into why this has such an unnatural pattern of voting is a little more interesting.)
My controversial comments tend to follow this pattern as well. Initial upvotes, followed by a flood of downvotes and a trickle of upvotes.
This is why it’s important to use a lemmy client that shows both ups and downs, not just the total.
When a comment goes deep into the negative in total score, it can seem like nobody got reached.
Why do more than you need to occupy the seat that gives you the power to assign taxpayer money to people and projects you prefer?
Just being marginally better than the other scum isn’t going to cut it anymore, as evidenced by all the local and state governments that are making moves regardless of what the feds are doing.
To be fair it’s not like this administration has done nothing of value, but many of the processes that have begun have yet to bear fruit like the discussions around Right to Repair, unionization, and breaking up the monopolies and oligopolies. Actually follow through with some of that, get a few wins, and then you can claim to be the virtuous ones.
We can always go back to hollow earth and live as Kaiju food or something if the surface gets destroyed
I mean, at least she’s not lying about it.
The “they’re all the same” crowd isn’t listening to this. Can’t feel smug and superior when a politician speaks the truth.
Removed by mod
bro i see you paste this same comment in every vaguely partisan thread. this is me calling you out for it. stop spamming this and write original comments. annoying as fuck.
IMHO it’s fair to paste a very well said reply to a very common misconception.
yuck. no. it accuses their opponent right out the gate with “blue conservative”; something that is both intentionally heavily acerbic and an untenable attack without deep and rigorous investigation.
my problem isn’t the comment or its content. it’s the spam and the utter unwillingness to engage with peers as humans with diversity of opinion.
The content matters more than the tone; the person to whom they replied didn’t say anything new.
This is calling out the actively BS fence sitting.
There is a clear difference between one side who is actively banning books, going against women’s rights, and demonizing non-christians.
What a vague comment
Nah not vague at all.
So many people would rather go, “What do you mean that politician sucks? Everyone sucks.”
Saying everyone sucks adds nothing to the conversation and it’s a form of fence sitting. Call out bullshit - period.
As per moderator request, a unique comment for you. Enjoy.
Typically, when I encounter the statement “both sides are the same,” it’s often voiced by a Democratic-leaning conservative like yourself, aiming to discredit critics of the Democratic Party. While acknowledging similarities in capitalism and conservatism, there are notable distinctions. Wouldn’t it be preferable to foster more diversity of perspectives? If we truly want to address dissenting voices, we should invite them to actively participate and offer solutions rather than merely criticizing from the sidelines. Transitioning from first-past-the-post voting allows for more accurate representation and mitigates the spoiler effect. Electoral reform can be pursued at the state level without waiting for federal action, as demonstrated by Maine and Alaska. However, Republicans are working to restrict alternative electoral systems. Why adopt the same voting methods preferred by Republicans? Embracing multiple political parties ensures broader representation and engagement, benefiting both citizens and the Democratic Party. Increased voter participation leads to more democratic outcomes. So, what’s holding back Democratic-led states from prioritizing electoral reform? Let’s take action and advocate for change within our own states to ensure better representation and competition among candidates. We deserve genuine representation, not excuses.
conservative astroturfing. love it!
“why would she tweet that?”
because it’s important.
this post is so embarrassing and so is that response tweet. how did you want her to present this information? or did you just want her to shut up about the very topics which you self admittedly find to be critical?
reactionary posturing. not even a meme. for the love of everything you care for don’t let this shit affect your vote.
Honestly, she deserves credit for even showing the yellow line.
And to also show the whole right side of the graph.
She really could have cropped the picture differently to give it a spin, but she’s being honest.
Like it or not, right or wrong, Hillary is a pariah. They are asking why a person that knows they are polarizing figure in their own party would step up onto a podium when that party is trying to scrape together every vote it can.
Even tho she’s right, there’s more democrats likely to be put off by the delivery than there is on the fence voters being swayed.
Homegirl needs a pen name.
lovely. and by boosting this message, reposting it across social media sites, her divisive-pariah message is getting a greater traction than if OP left it alone.
i don’t follow her on twitter do you? why are we cool with dredging up shit we know is going to be divisive?
honestly thanks for this insight, i’m embarrassed even more by this post now.
She’s still salty that she lost. Meanwhile Bernie, cheated by her and her squad of idiots, is still in Congress so in his actual job. What’s Hilary doing these days? Shilling?
Dems will vote for Biden because he’ll only drink the blood of one baby while Trump drinks the blood of two.
I get the harm reduction argument but jesus fuck we have 300 million+ people in this country are those two really the best we have to offer?
Good lord why is this so hard.
Y’all want closer or further from target? Make your choice.
I would like Biden to move to the yellow line please. I’m voting for him anyways but yeah
The more people vote for progressives, the more progressive their policies will become.
Awww shucks, most of the progressives got rat fucked by the party!
Guess we get more “centrism” in a desperate appeal to people who actually don’t mind fascism that much, now that they think about it
That’s just the nature of democracy mate.
With two parties they will always align themselves just to the left and right of whatever “center” happens to be.
you’re not talking about democracy, you’re talking about the specific system used in the US
most countries in europe do not have a 2-party system, here in sweden we have one party (the social democrats) with 33% of votes and then like 7 other parties with decreasing numbers of votes, that have to come together with a majority of the votes to form a government.
Yes, but all 8 parties will strategically position themselves around the overton window to gather as many votes as possible.
If you have 2 parties as in the US then obviously it’s one party either side.
I’m Australian BTW. 3 major parties, many small ones.
“…”
Yes, same here on both points.
I’m aware, and I’ve spoken up to defend Biden on this. In general I’ve been positively surprised by Biden’s voting record. I think a lot of people may not have went into the Biden presidency with the expectations I did. I expected fucking nothing. I voted for “not a fascist” in 2020. I was pissed he won the primaries, especially after how clear it was that he was the “fine whatever” candidate with a cop running mate.
But also as a country we’re headed in the right direction on climate but we need to increase our acceleration. Biden keeps doing that and I’m glad, and I know the house is a deadlocked mess and the legislature is as important as the president this year. But, we need to decarbonize and we need to do it 20 years ago, or now at the latest. None of this natural gas bullshit. It’s gonna suck. Of fucking course it’s going to suck. We put it off for 50 years.
Yes, that is the blue line. We want the yellow one, thanks.
With our current voting system, this is all we can do. Vote Democrat and hope for gradual change. Sadly, our planet is more than “gradually” fucked.
Until the voting system changes (hah), we can push the Democrats to do better, and they’ll surely listen… I’m voting Biden, but I’m sure as hell bitter about the situation.
Agreed on all points.
My target is the dissolving of national borders, the elimination of nation-states, the breakdown of the petro-dollar, and collective ownership of all resources.
Who gets me closer to that?
Does adding carbon emissions help you in this or any endeavor?
Yes, yes, harm reduction. Very good. Here is a cookie: 🍪
I’ve been doing that since ska was cool. It would be fun to do something different maybe?
Idk. Increasing harm isn’t really my thing.
Yeah. Eliminating the causes of harm is totally off the table. No use thinking outside a dichotomy.
No one but the Dem or Rep nominee will win.
If you believe differently I would very much like to bet you money.
No one but the Dem or Rep nominee will win.
yes that is the problem
In the last couple weeks, I’ve noticed a sudden and dramatic shift in tone with how Biden is talked about on Lemmy as well as other corners of the internet I lurk on(e.g. this comment section). Before, it seemed like the general opinion was “he’s nowhere close to my 1st choice, but the alternative is Trump.” And now I feel like people are a lot quicker to jump to his defense and treat him like one of the better presidents of our lifetime.
I’m gonna admit that I’m a lot less up to date and informed about politics than I should be, but where did this recent pivot on Biden come from?
Election date is getting closer, methinks. People are slowly transitioning from voicing their complaints to reminding everyone of their two options, or even to appreciating all that Biden has accomplished.
Trollfarms got new orders
Yeah, they did. Like “do everything you can to dissuade voters from voting for the only viable alternative to Trump.”
I haven’t seen things saying he’s good. I have seen it said, and said, that he’s better than expected. It’s just that the bar is too low. He might possibly be one of the better president, though not inspiring, just because there aren’t many good ones. FDR is good from what I know of him, though I’m sure there’s still plenty to complain about. Other than that, we haven’t really had any leftist president’s in the US. The fact that Biden has mostly been friendly towards unions is a nice change from standard US practice.
Basically, he’s not great. He’s what we’ve got. He’s also better than it would seem like he would be if you paid attention to his political past.
He’s not been perfect by any means, and is seriously bungling the Gaza situation to put it mildly, but he’s absolutely been the best and most successful president in my lifetime so far, especially when it comes to making progressive steps.
Note that that doesn’t mean he’s great, but yeah, the bar is just absurdly low
As a non-American, I think Obama was a bit better, but the difference is definitely pretty marginal
As a non-American who was in Finance before, during and after the 2008 Crash, lets just say that by the things he chose to do after the Crash, the way he chose to do them and even more importantly the people he chose to manage those things, even though he sings like a songbird, the quality of his actions definitelly didn’t match the beauty of his songs.
Incredible orator.
Also dishonest as fuck.
Obama was more charismatic and better at messaging, but I think actually worse on policy.
I would have liked to see Obama without being chained by the amount of Republicans voting against him that he had, but I wonder if it would have made any difference.
I haven’t seen things saying he’s good. I have seen it said, and said, that he’s better than expected. It’s just that the bar is too low.
He only needs to be marginally better than the alternative, so that’s all the DNC will ever give us. Because giving us much better than the GOP might disrupt the donor money train.
All fair points, it was just jarring to see the consensus shift from “both options suck shit” to “Biden will do I guess”
Outside of maga and Gaza activists, where are you hearing that Biden sucks?
And speaking of Gaza, didn’t Trump say that he wants Israel to finish there as fast as possible?
which is honestly one of the three options
and the same one biden seems to be encouraging, he’s just not dumb enough to say it.
Given that neither Trump nor Biden are Prime Minister of Israel, I think it’s the most realistic option. Given that the rest of the world wants to jump in with embargoes and resolutions and even actions, it may also be more realistic to maintain any influence.
no the good options both involve bombing the kapo trash, then bombing the kapo trash, then bombing the kapo trash some more. you do not have influence over ‘Israel’, its a mad dog that needs to be put the fuck down.
Even with FDR, we had the whole concentration camps things. The bad with the good.
I tend to point out to people that those complaining about Biden tend to be unable to accurately back up the vast majority of their complaints. They also go oddly silent when someone comes back with a reasoned argument.
there isn’t really a reasoned pro biden argument, is the thing. not unless you keep it real shallow.
I’d say it is reasonable to say Biden has been the most progressive president since Johnson signed the civil rights bill. It surprised the hell out of me.
again, that’s not pro biden. that’s a brutal indictment of everyone else, and a suggestion that our votes don’t matter.
Our votes literally brought Biden into the Presidency. ANY progress that has been made is specifically because our votes mattered. They have always mattered. The brutal truth is a combination of apathy, disenfranchisement, deconstructing the public school system, and a sprinkle of brainwashing has caused too many people to not vote. Apathy at the top for a reason.
Moreover, Biden has rolled over when our voices become loud enough on a handful of issues. He has also completed several of the promises he made and is in progress on several more.
Literally, all because we came together and voted him into the position. Is he perfect? Nope. He could be better. Yet I am inclined to give him at least a partial pass due to the division of the entire nation caused in large part due to Trump’s Republican Party. Say what you will, Biden has NOT had it easy.
have you ever talked to a trump cultist?
has he rolled over? has he managed half his campaign promises? the ones people wanted? even just the ones that could be executive orders?
(no he fucking hasn’t)
I don’t give a shit how hard he’s got it. if he’s that tired, he should’ve stepped the fuckdownamd let someone competent, who could easily beat trump, have a shot.
the only reason anyone votes for biden is Donald trump. if either party ran someone competent, or ecen just someone who wasnt an octogenarian fascist (crypto or balls slapping against a swastika as he screams ‘work will make you freeeeee!’) they would wipe the god damn floor with either of these fucking clowns. they won’t though. and that’s why I’m not voting.
also, I’m in California. my vote literally did not matter, and, due to statistical fuckery, literally isn’t counted except in the ‘popular vote’ which does not matter.
and you still haven’t said anything good about him or his policies. you people are exactly like trump cultists; its really sad.
He’s also better than it would seem like he would be if you paid attention to his political past.
This is what makes me think he’s just the voice for someone else. His history is far too shit for even the mild amount of good that has happened in this admin.
Typically how this goes is that a centrist liberal Democrat will get the nomination, and then push the left and progressives to support them because this centrist liberal can be transacted with. Once in office, they’ll stomp all over the left and progressives, do literally less than the bare minimum needed to support the idea that they are in fact trying to get support from progressives and leftists, and then demand more votes four years later so progressives and the left can all get taken for another ride by some rich asshole who has more in common with Elon Musk than they do with most Americans.
Clinton more or less promised this type of governance to the left, and only tried, all too tardily, to come around after it became clear that people might actually not show up for someone who openly hates them and literally does not share their politics, and that raw identity politics alone was not going to be enough to get her into government.
Biden, surprisingly, has out of nowhere done a variety of progressive things. He allowed himself to be pushed on student loans. Like actually though. He banned non-competes, which won’t fix capitalism, but if you’re a capitalist liberal who believes in transacting with the left and in properly managing markets through policy, then that was a 100% necessary move. And he did it, without even that much fanfare.
While he’ll never be pro-labor in the way I would want to see in order to be a supporter, the fact that he is actually willing to engage in transactional politics with progressives/the left really does count for something to me. He’s still a strikebreaker and I won’t give him credit for being a pro-labor candidate, but being willing to cut deals on things here and there does mean he has something to offer.
Just want to say I appreciate the quality comment.
money!
I kid, they haven’t paid me yet. badum-tiss
People coming to terms with being held hostage by First Past The Post voting.
Stockholm syndrome with your captors.
The record just needed to be corrected.
I’ve always been on the side of “better than he gets credit for” and “as good as anyone can do in an impossible situation of dysfunctional politics”. I do believe he wants to be at least a bit closer to that yellow line
That’s not the same as thinking he’s one of the better in my lifetime, and most of my reaction is give credit where it’s sure, but also face reality. For all we criticize republicans about hiding from reality (such as global warming), why are we hiding from realities like dysfunctional politics and the limits of what one person can do?
I’m a member of a political party (not in the US, thank the Gods) and was also in one in a different country I lived in and to me it looks a lot like the Democrat Party has started activelly campaigning, so party members are out and about in, amongst other places, social media, spreading the word about their tribe, maybe with some professional help.
This also explains the increase in articles posted in forums here like World and News consistently pushing a “vote Biden or get apocalypse” message, as well as the swarming nature of downvotes for even the most well thought comment that pick holes in that political propaganda strategy (such comments are swamped by downvotes, but the ones at the top or near of threads will over time slowly get more upvotes until they’re more than the downvotes).
It looks a lot like the kind of shit I saw in social media and newspaper forums in Britain during the Leave Referendum and that stuff later was discovered to have had massive manipulation from US-based interests via Cambridge Analytica and from Russia.
This really got to the heart of what I was trying to ask. Fantastic explanation, thank you!
The bots stoking the hexbear genocide Joe thing were retasked I guess.
Nobody does opinion farming better than Israel. Not even the Russian and Chinese governments can operate at their level.
… Why the hell would Isreal want Biden over Trump? Netanyahu would love a Trump presidency.
You’ll notice they come from the big 4 most propagandized instances. Almost certainly a mix of willing idiots and active manipulation
To clarify, you’re saying it’s folks from the popular instances trying to rebrand the conversation as “Biden is cool as fuck actually” as well as folks willing to just roll with that? Or am I misinterpreting?
(I gotta stop making comments on lemmy when I’m stoned and only have 2 brain cells)TBH I misread as well, I was talking about the comparisons between Biden and Hitler. I’ve been seeing a lot more of “people” saying they’re not going to vote at all and encouraging others to do so, which will just result in a trump presidency.
Gotcha, so maybe the sudden positive feeling about Biden is more of a reaction to that mindset to try and sway folks back to voting? That’d certainly make sense to me.
Certainly could be. Biden should absolutely be criticized for his shortcomings, as any president should. But there’s no better option right now so it’s really about damage control more than anything
bots and paid shills, I expect. thats the impression I got trying g to talk to them. or just straight up cultists.
probably a reaction to him so enthusiastically backing a fucking genocide.
This is anecdotal evidence and should be disregarded.
I’m sorry sir but that’s just an opinion, you’ll need a citation for that.
Founding fathers: you will eat cheese or pepperoni pizza for the rest of your life.
Conservatives: so wise
Any rational person: there’s better toppings out there.
Non americans: you guys eat pizza? Every night? Every single night??
It’s almost as if we could have voted for someone else in 2016. Someone interested in helping solve this problem.
2000*
2016 Hillary wouldn’t have been much better/different. She would’ve lost even with 3rd party candidates not being a thing.
Hillary Clinton might as well be one of the final bosses of neoliberalism. Not sure how much better things could be other than not having a full-blown rightoid Supreme Court (though RBG deserves a healthy amount of that blame for her hubris)
And yet she had a personal stake in things like universal healthcare. The worst case scenario if she won would have been the “center” not moving as far right, no fundamentalist supremes, and universal healthcare.
Are you serious about this being the same?
hillary? that lying, murdering removed? stand in the sand graves of 30000 libyans and ask if americans deserve anything good, their silence would be your answer
I assumed they meant Bernie
lol that’s exactly what I meant.
Sanders. First names are for kids and dudes next door. Bernie Sanders deserves the respect of an adult.
Dems do this to themselves with this first name crap. Notice how zero republicans refer to Trump as “Donald”.
Whoever convinced the democrats to start doing this was probably working for the republicans.
Wow I’m just starting to realise how offended the free speech warriors of lemmy get when you choose to censor a curse word.
Only Americans get this hurt by that word.
The really bad part is that carbonbriefs analysis is that the Biden line is only the laws Biden has passed or is about to pass, before the election not being revoked by Trump. So if Biden actually gets elected he can and probably will do more, bringing the actual results much closer to the Target line. However being able to create a graph, seems to hard for a modern PR team.
