Yeah, I’m voting for Biden because I’m not insane, but you can’t make me like it.
I still have my Bernie sticker on my laptop. Big RIP to the future that could have been.
2016 taught me that 3rd party and no voters tilt the scale in the favor of Republicans. I’m getting flashbacks with all the comments on Lemmy here saying as much.
Funnily enough it worked in the opposite direction in 1992. But in 2000 yeah, it happened then, too. And 2016.
Bill Clinton was in many ways a blue Republican, and he fed the “both sides are the same” brain worm that still haunts american politics.
Okay.
I still legitimately have flashbacks to election night in 2016. Fuck. It’s insane that it’s almost a decade ago. I can remember it like it just happened.
Long before Bernie there was Al Gore in 2000 who lost because of a supreme court decision saying the majority vote did not matter in the US (not really, but it did decide the election and stop the Florida recounts). Not only changed the narrative on climate change for the future, but also about what matters for federal elections.
I wrote in Bernie in the Democratic primary. IDK if that even gets counted; I don’t know how it works, but fuck man, someone reads it I know, even if from there it goes straight into the “N/A” column.
With you, my bro.
Nobody wants to make you like it. It’s a duty.
Hehe… “Duty.”
Biden hasn’t been the worst president, but he’s far from what we’d like and streets ahead of Trump. It sucks knowing our government is completely bought by the rich.
Splintering of the establishment left (SDP) versus the actual left (KPD) in the 1932 German elections was a big part of what allowed Hitler’s rise to power. Even while both were literally gun-battling in the streets with the paramilitary force that later became the SS, the KPD was calling the SDP “the main enemy” and “social fascists.” The SDP saw what was coming and allied with their conservative opponents to promote Hindenburg in the 1932 election, so that Hitler wouldn’t win, while the KPD ran their own candidate who siphoned off 13% of the vote.
Hindenburg still barely squeaked into power, but Hitler was the only candidate with a strong unified front behind him, and on Hindenburg’s death Hitler assumed power and immediately starting killing the KPD members en masse. The SDP and KPD blamed each other, for not compromising and thus allowing Hitler to gain so much ground instead of facing a unified opposition, but at that point it didn’t really matter who was or wasn’t at fault, and the KPD were the first grouping explicitly singled out for death once he took over.
You can read all about it in here.
I had someone on Lemmy tell me not that long ago that the lesson of this was that the KPD was right, and the SDP were the real enemy for compromising with the conservatives, and if they’d just been more left and earned the support of the real left people then the whole thing wouldn’t have happened. I do wonder what attitude in hindsight of one of the KPD people in the camps would have been to this “it’s not my job to vote for you, it’s your job to earn my support” electoral philosophy, but it’s impossible to know, because of course they all were put to death.
I had someone on Lemmy tell me not that long ago that the lesson of this was that the KPD was right, and the SDP were the real enemy for compromising with the conservatives, and if they’d just been more left and earned the support of the real left people then the whole thing wouldn’t have happened.
Yeah, that sounds like my experience on here.
The SPD ordering the execution of Luxemburg and Liebknecht kinda was an irreparable schism I think.
Ah yes, remember the part where the Spartacists had a literal armed uprising because they didn’t like the prospect of participation in a democratic government? Something Luxemburg herself voted against?
Oh, what am I saying, what I meant is “The Weimar Government should have put the gun barrel to their head and begged the Spartacists to pull the trigger on them”
She was still killed in spite of that, which was my point: establishing that the political bridge was burned; the division was not healed in time to form a united front against the Nazis.
There is no disagreement here the SPD fought the KPD and won.
They mainly used Freikorps to do it, and those Freikorps were nothing close to left wing or even democratic. They were imperialists and monarchists who formed the basis for other more infamous paramilitary groups. Interwar history is wild.
There is no disagreement here the SPD fought the KPD and won.
“How dare you fight back when I try to armed-uprising you, that is very unfair and my feelings are hurt now and so I can’t support you.”
I love the left dearly but this sounds exactly like left person logic, yes. 🙂
the division was not healed in time to form a united front against the Nazis
And again, it’s relevant that the SDP was willing to heal divisions with (at least some of) their enemies to fight the Nazis, and the KPD (from what you’re saying) were not (at least where the SDP was concerned).
I have no particular dog in this fight; I’m out of my depth now in terms of what happened and who was at fault. My point is, those bitter divisions and arguments and the justifications for them that you’re talking about – however you want to allocate blame for them between the SDP and KPD – didn’t do either of them a lick of good when the NSDAP started kicking down doors and shooting them both in the back of the head, and that’s relevant to the upcoming US election.
Why is it always a fake made up quote to respond to? It will sound however you want since you came up with it.
I really was just trying to point out that the division between the SPD and KPD didn’t start in the 30s and went back further and involved some pretty complex shit regarding World War 1 and its aftermath.
But I may have been too partizan bringing up the Freikorps: whom the SPD allied with in 1919 and some of which formed the Sturmabteilung, the Nazi paramilitary organization: in 1921. Maybe that context is too inappropriate.
I wasn’t trying to put words in their mouth; just saying how it sounded to me if they were upset that when they took up arms against the SDP in 1919, what came back to them was violent and unfair. There’s also the issue (which is maybe why I’m so unsympathetic in general) that it’s silly to still be upset in 1932 about something that happened in 1919, when the way to stay alive and keep alive a whole bunch of people who had nothing to do with either SDP or KPD, would have been for both of them to let it go and start fighting the bigger enemy.
But yeah, maybe I picked an unkind / unfair way to make the point, you’re right. And like I say, we’re into the detail points that I really don’t know about, so I am learning also from you about all of this for the first time.
I won’t launch into the end of WW1 or the civil wars and revolutions replacing monarchies and empires overnight, so I’ll just give a contextual thought.
1932 and 1919 are thirteen years apart.
Donald Trump was elected eight years ago.
It isn’t too crazy of a timeline, politically speaking. And for the germans their leadership was summarily executed by paramilitary groups sent by the government.
I have no particular dog in this fight; I’m out of my depth now in terms of what happened and who was at fault. My point is, those bitter divisions and arguments and the justifications for them that you’re talking about – however you want to allocate blame for them between the SDP and KPD – didn’t do either of them a lick of good when the NSDAP started kicking down doors and shooting them both in the back of the head, and that’s relevant to the upcoming US election.
No, it didn’t. Which is why I’m all-in on making sure that the NSDAP doesn’t win this election.
She was still killed in spite of that, which was my point: establishing that the political bridge was burned; the division was not healed in time to form a united front against the Nazis.
And you think the division between the SPD and KPD in 1933 was due to… the actions in the chaotic post-war environment of 1919, despite periods of participation in a common united front before that and the fact that the KPD’s final break with SPD cooperation came at the behest of the Stalinist USSR, which made demands the KPD, like most interwar Communist Parties, cheerfully danced to without question?
There is no disagreement here the SPD fought the KPD and won.
More precisely, “There is no disagreement that the democratic government, which included the SPD, fought the armed uprising against the democratic government, supported solely by the KPD, and won”.
I am am clearly stating the political schism between the KPD and SPD from post war Germany wasn’t mended by the time of the Nazis. More examples of that division worsening isn’t really counter to that notion.
Ignoring the extended period of a united front breaking apart because the leader of the KPD was a Soviet puppet isn’t exactly “an issue in 1919 wasn’t mended 😔”
Their deaths easily left a power vacuum that was filled by soviet leaning german communists, most especially after 1922 when the civil war ended and the soviets emerged victorious. While some of the prominent german communists that werent russian soviets… were dead.
The Nazis had formed by 1920 and the S.A. formed from some Freikorps by 1921. It isn’t like there was an expansive amount of time there.
Lmao that was me again
KPD was responding to the same economic distress as the NSDAP, they were right to believe the national populist movement would continue growing if they didn’t deliver on real material relief to the German people.
That the SPD eventually fell to the NSDAP (with hindenburg placing Hitler as chancellor, allowing him to assume power after his death) certainly doesn’t exonerate their responsibility in allowing the rise of the nazis.
That was a banger conversation, if I wasn’t on mobile I’d go back and find it.
I think I got irritated and just abandoned the conversation, but we can continue.
What you just said actually made a lot of sense and as far as I know the history, I agree with it more or less completely (and would allocate blame for Trump at most of the Bill Clinton / Nancy Pelosi type Democrats in exactly the same way for exactly the same reason)
So if it sounded like I was exonerating them I was not. My point was, once Hitler comes around it doesn’t matter; if you’re still running a 13% spoiler candidate to weaken the alternative to Hitler, and then blaming the ones who won the election because they didn’t do a good enough job of compromising with you… I mean, you may have a case, but you’ll still be dead if Hitler wins. Surely that is relevant?
They sure didn’t get the real material relief to the German people by not supporting Hindenburg; definitely not until 1945 and even then it came with some caveats.
Plenty of area of agreement I think.
I just don’t think the NSDAP would have been defeated even if the SPD and KPD somehow fully united (I probably have as much knowledge of the history as you do, or less). Fascism doesn’t work like that, it would have just continued to boil under their thin coalition until eventually they would have to put it down forcefully. Just like I don’t think beating trump in a single election will defeat the fascist movement he represents. Whoever it is that’s leading the opposition has to take (likely un-democratic) action against them if they really want to put it down, and honestly I don’t know if it’s a good thing or a bad thing that Biden wont cross that line.
Revolutionary movements generally don’t fully resolve until the conditions that seeded them change, one way or the other. That’s why it’s important that whatever coalition that forms the opposition is serious about addressing them, and in my mind simply having the coalition isn’t enough.
Just like I don’t think beating trump in a single election will defeat the fascist movement he represents
I don’t think anybody is under the illusion that stopping Trump from winning would end republican fascism.
But at the very least, delaying it is preferable. Because in that delay time we can weaken their movement, help get trans people to safety, and so on.
Then Biden should be doing what he can to make that happen, and from where I’m standing there’s at least one thing he’s doing that his base is irate about
If the one thing he needs to do to kick the can is be popular then woah is he not the right candidate
he not the right candidate
He’s the less wrong candidate. Sorry reality is this hard for you but them’s the breaks.
The leftists I know voted for Biden in 2020. Real well read, organized leftists, not online strawmen. They didn’t like it but they did it.
Of course. If I was American I wouldn’t spend a second campaigning for Biden or telling people “you need to vote!!” online, because I’d rather spend that time unionising my workplace, doing mutual aid, building up communities. Things that build real structural change no matter who’s in power. But on the day I’d still go vote for the lesser evil candidate. It takes a small amount of time. Then I’d go straight back to real work. I think most leftists do the same.
Legitimately yes, that is the actual point most leftists tired of liberals punching left are making.
Actual organization outside the bourgeois state apparatus is far more important, plain and simple. I’ll probably be voting for Biden, but I am not going to pretend it’s “fighting fascism,” that happens on the ground.
I don’t think that you and people sharing your thoughts are the target of the meme. There is an exceptional amount of accelerationist and/or anti-electoralist (they are indistinguishable in outcomes) posting going on. People are trying to discourage voting for Biden AND voting altogether.
ThIs MeAnS yOu LoVe GeNoCiDe
-actual thing that gets said regularly by morons
You’re own post history is a pretty clear example of liberals hating leftists more than fascists
They don’t even seem to be liberal, they’ve made posts criticising the dems for exactly the same reasons other leftists are.
It just seems like a leftist arguing with leftier leftists because the right wing doesn’t appear to have any major presence on lemmy
You’re mostly correct. PugJesus has stated that they are a leftist, but reject Dialectical Materialism, so they aren’t a Marxist. Claims to adore Marx but seems to decry every single movement to put his ideas into practice, no matter the circumstance.
PugJesus has denounced pretty much every existing Leftist movement, such as the Black Panther Party, along Ultra-pure terms, but only treats liberalism with nuanced critique, so it’s difficult to believe them to be a genuine leftist and not just a progressive liberal.
You know, generally speaking: a person being consistently and demonstrably anti-leftist just means they are anti-leftist. Until there’s evidence to the contrary further analysis is a waste of time and energy.
Yep, I agree, just wanted to point out that they identify as a Leftist, even if they don’t practice it.
Yeah fair enough. In layman’s terms, I would say they were a leftist. Maybe not as educated as they should be, but the heart seems to be in the right place.
I totally get why they don’t fit a more strict definition than mine though.
Thank you for the more in-depth research and information too
All that
OR
Horseshoe theory.
Horseshoe theory is a thought terminating cliche.
There are basically no right wingers on Lemmy.
Liberals are right wingers. There are basically no republicans on Lemmy though.
You know what I mean.
My point is, complaining about conservatives or fascists on Lemmy is 100% preaching to the crowd.
Sure, I also think left-punching on a mostly Liberal instance like Lemmy.world is also mostly preaching to the crowd.
One liberal so far that didn’t like a member of an internet community not playing America’s dumb “liberals are our left wing!!!” game.
This is Lemmy.world, on a PugJesus thread no less. Of course there are going to be liberals thinking they are leftists.
“You are own post history…”
Sigh
Some people are not native speakers
Some people are dyslexic or have other difficulties with writing that they can’t help
Sometimes people just make mistakes, like you did two comments before this one where you wrote “its” instead of “it’s”
You’re not better and this isn’t helpful or kind
I am better. Its/it’s is the only one that flips the norm and is therefore wrong too.
Great response thank you for the insight
Big bridal shower at a gay bar energy these fake leftists be bringing to the defense of America’s most vulnerable when it involves them doing something other than just showing up at the grammable protests and marches.
One of them told me any amount of collateral damage to vulnerable groups is acceptable as long as massive numbers of white moderates are executed, which will teach them a lesson. Except it will be the leftists who are executed? IDGI. It’s like they love any sort of authoritarianism far more than they love leftist economics.
Surely what will emerge from the ashes will be a stateless, classless egalitarian society and not a fascist wasteland!
And then everyone clapped.
Maybe he didn’t mean it. There’s plenty of overlap with edgy teens and the useful idiot authoritarianism fans.
It’s astounding. My only comfort is that online communities rarely reflect the makeup of the real world.
Making up a guy to get mad at and owning him super hard on
redditlemmy, the pugjesus classicI’m not on Lemmy much and have I talked to like five of these guys.
I’ll take Things That Don’t Happen for 300, Alex
Oh, cool, I was hoping my experiences on Lemmy were just a series of elaborate hallucinations.
Me too bud
deleted by creator
Who is that gray person supposed to represent?
They’re supposed to be an NPC, a “Non-Player Character.” The term comes from video games, but in this meme format, it refers to a person who doesn’t think for themselves, thoughtlessly repeating talking points, without engaging in good-faith discussion. Sort of like how a character in a video game just repeats predetermined lines of dialogue.
In this specific case, it’s representing a particular sect of leftists, who criticize Liberals for being uncooperative with them (or will cooperate with people furthermore to their right, such as conservatives, reactionaries, or fascists, instead of with said leftists), who also won’t vote for Joe Biden in the upcoming Presidential general election.
This is neither an endorsement nor rejection of the message, but they’re saying (this sect of) leftists are hypocrites, thoughtlessly bashing Liberals instead of working together.
I hope that answered your question :-)
Big thanks! It did answer my question and I also learned something new about this meme type.
The kind of people who say “Liberals hate leftists more than fascists” and then proceed to oppose liberal coalition candidates in situations where a leftist coalition candidate is nonviable, even though fascism is the only realistic alternative outcome to the liberal coalition candidate winning.
Removed by mod
Unfortunately my country is filled with right wingers
democrats fund fascists: https://www.vox.com/23274469/democrats-extremist-republicans-mastriano-cox-bailey
and boosted trump into the presidency: https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/
Democrats promote fascists so they can pretend that they’re heroes for running against them. Vote for biden, but don’t fool yourself into thinking that you’re not voting for a fascist, because democrats are absolutely allies of fascists if not outright fascists themselves. They would rather lose an election to a fascist than let a leftist win, 2016 is a prime example of this. As the saying goes, scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds.
Define fascism
STFU
I am once again posting that I will never vote for Joe Biden again and you don’t have to either.
This November I’m planning to mark my ballot for the party for socialism and liberation and you can too. There are lots of parties you might be able to align with if psl isn’t your thing.
There are no votes against candidates, only for them. Choosing to vote for Biden isn’t a vote against trump, it’s a vote for Biden and the genocide he just recently denied the existence of.
There are no votes against candidates, only for them.
Sure there is. The boomers/evangelical show up in force every single election. They’re gonna do so again this november, and if Trump isn’t stopped we may see an end to what little democracy we have. To prevent that (or in other words go against it or vote against it), we need to get more electoral votes for a different candidate. Third parties are not viable for that.
So it’s either going to end up being Biden or Trump. And I don’t want to see trans people killed, so I’m begrudgingly voting Biden. Have fun with the blood of minorities on your hands because you placed your own need for a clear conscience over the lives of minorities.
There is no way to vote against a candidate. You can’t mark the bubble “anybody but trump”, or “I wish the democrats had run anyone else”.
You can only vote for candidates.
That’s not some metaphor, it’s how the system works.
A vote for Biden is a vote in support of Biden, not a vote against trump. That’s how it’ll be counted.
Support for Biden incorporates support for the genocide he supplies and denies the existence of.
I tried to figure out a polite way to say this and here’s the best I came up with:
You probably don’t want to invoke the imagery of blood on one’s hands when you’re advocating for Biden.
There is no way to vote against a candidate. You can’t mark the bubble “anybody but trump”, or “I wish the democrats had run anyone else”.
Sure you can. I just explained how.
A vote for Biden is a vote in support of Biden, not a vote against trump. That’s how it’ll be counted.
This is just semantics.
Support for Biden incorporates support for the genocide he supplies and denies the existence of.
And lack of support for Biden incorporates support for genocide that Trump will continue and excelerate, in addition to the death and other harm that will come to minorities in the U.S., as well as the potential end of what little democracy we have.
It’s a catch 22, and you’re choosing the worst option.
You probably don’t want to invoke the imagery of blood on one’s hands when you’re advocating for Biden.
Blood is on the hands of every taxpayer. I’m strategically voting to reduce that amount of blood. You’re doing nothing to reduce it, and potentially increasing it.
There’s some really flawed reasoning going into your ideas here. I’m gonna go way out on some limbs and try to enumerate the different stuff that seems to underpin your ideas, but if I get something wrong feel free to lay it out.
If you’re considering any vote that isn’t for trump to be against trump than my psl ballot is against trump too and voting “against” trump is a meaningless distinction.
If only a vote for a candidate that has a chance at beating trump counts as a vote against him then unless the polls change somehow your Biden vote isn’t a vote “against” trump.
If you’re suggesting that only a vote for the candidate who has the best chance to beat trump counts as a vote against trump, you’re discounting the fact that Biden doesn’t have to be that candidate. He could still step down or not be selected at the convention.
It is not semantics to be clear about how the electoral system works. Votes are for candidates, not against them. It’s important to recognize that because parties will look at vote totals to see what is acceptable political action, messaging, etc.
That’s not semantics, it’s how the system works. It’s not a semantic distinction because opposition to one candidate does not mean support for another, but voting for a candidate indicates support for them and their actions and platform.
The reason that’s important is because a person has to both pick one of the understandings of voting for Biden in opposition to trump that I laid out above (or some different one that I missed!) and accept that their vote for Biden is literally a vote in support of his aid and denial of a genocide that we see disgusting images of everyday.
The problem with waiving your hands about what trump is gonna do is that almost every American made it through trumps term. They saw how he operated and what he did. You have a hard time convincing a person that the president who didn’t do a genocide is gonna be worse than the one who is at this very moment supplying one and denying its existence at the same time.
I don’t say that to defend trump, but to illustrate how that line of thinking opens you up to some pretty straightforward critiques from a person who actually is considering voting for trump.
That’s who you wanna convince, right? The undecided voter? How do you expect to convince someone who can remember no genocide when they compare it with the presence of a genocide?
It’s not an enviable position.
I think you have a deeply flawed and warped worldview if you would say the blood of Palestinians is on the hands of every taxpayer. Americans should be angry that a genocide is being committed in our names, but we bear no responsibility for it because despite a majority in favor of ending arms shipments and immediate ceasefire, Biden continues on.
And you would have me vote for the man who will aid and deny a genocide despite it being universally unpopular? Because the other guy is worse? The other guy who was already president just four short years ago and didn’t do what Biden is doing?
No.
We are given a chance to record our political will this November and mine won’t be in favor of Bidens genocide.
Hey bloodfart, the only reason I can still have a job and access healthcare in a lot of places is because of Biden working to reverse Trump’s anti-trans stuff. I get that you feel all high and mighty telling people that folks like me don’t matter enough but this shit is kinda important to some of us.
Theres a story I like called the ones who walk away from omelas. It’s pretty good.
If you’re considering any vote that isn’t for trump to be against trump than my psl ballot is against trump too and voting “against” trump is a meaningless distinction.
The only currently available candidate that stands a chance is Biden. I know you cover that in your next sentence so:
If only a vote for a candidate that has a chance at beating trump counts as a vote against him then unless the polls change somehow your Biden vote isn’t a vote “against” trump.
Biden has still has a chance of beating Trump. The polls are horseshit.
If you’re suggesting that only a vote for the candidate who has the best chance to beat trump counts as a vote against trump, you’re discounting the fact that Biden doesn’t have to be that candidate. He could still step down or not be selected at the convention.
If that were to happen I would be elated.
It is not semantics to be clear about how the electoral system works. Votes are for candidates, not against them. It’s important to recognize that because parties will look at vote totals to see what is acceptable political action, messaging, etc.
You can say what you like, but this is still just semantics. I understand what you’re saying is technically correct, but you’re missing the point of what is being said when somebody says they are voting against something.
You’re ignoring the intended meaning and focusing on the technical mechanics.
and accept that their vote for Biden is literally a vote in support of his aid and denial of a genocide that we see disgusting images of everyday.
A vote for a candidate is not a blanket support for all policies and actions they make.
from a person who actually is considering voting for trump.
Then you’re an even bigger fool than you initially let on.
That’s who you wanna convince, right? The undecided voter? How do you expect to convince someone who can remember no genocide when they compare it with the presence of a genocide?
This isn’t my job. And you’re not who I’m here to convince.
I think you have a deeply flawed and warped worldview if you would say the blood of Palestinians is on the hands of every taxpayer.
Every single tax payer is ultimately sending their money to the federal government, who then uses that money to bomb and kill Palestinians. Most states gave police training ops with the IDF.
That’s not a warped view, those are the facts, and it means blood is on all of our hands.
despite a majority in favor of ending arms shipments and immediate ceasefire, Biden continues on.
And yet we pay our taxes, which kills Palestinians. You bear responsibility just as I. You can’t avoid that anymore than you can avoid a Trump/Biden winning.
If you’d be elated that Biden stepped down or that the convention put someone else up, join me in telling everyone that they don’t have to vote for Biden. That’s how you get the thing you want. You commit to not voting for Biden.
A vote can only ever be interpreted as blanket support for the candidate’s policies and actions. You don’t get to say “i like Biden but not his border detentions”, you get to say “Biden”. Consent to the candidates program is part of casting a vote for them and if you can’t stomach going on a permanent record as saying “I support Bidens genocide” then don’t vote for him.
I am not considering voting for trump. I decided sixteen years ago that I wouldn’t vote for Biden again and am planning on marking my ballot psl this year. As I wrote, I invoked a person considering voting for trump over Biden to illustrate how difficult it is to portray trump as a clear danger more important than an ongoing genocide.
I asked if that was who you were trying to convince because it’s either undecideds, nonvoters or me and you will never convince me to vote for Biden. You said you’re not here to convince me, so who is it, undecideds, non voters or some third group?
If you really believed that the blood of innocent people was on the hands of every American due to Biden actions you wouldn’t be in here telling people to vote for him.
If you believed that you were made a genocidare by his disgusting rhetoric and material support you’d be opposed to him. You’d be in the streets protesting or campaigning to end support to israel or any other number of other actions but instead you’re on the internet trying to advocate against doing the bare minimum to stop Biden policy that you say taints us all. Media can say all kinds of things about protest movements and the White House can deploy its press secretary to dodge questions about crackdown on antiwar actions but neither can deny a vote cast and counted.
Make your voice heard to them with the only device given you that can’t be manipulated or deepfaked or covered up. Vote third party this November.
deleted by creator
join me in telling everyone that they don’t have to vote for Biden. That’s how you get the thing you want. You commit to not voting for Biden.
The error in this is that you are relying on boomer who’s supporting genocide to do the right thing. Be a gambler all you like, I’m not going to gamble with fascism. It’s shortsighted and will get overall more people killed.
Every fucking day Biden’s campaign team sends me emails asking for donations, and they send me like 8 every day. And every time I respond with imagery of dead fucking bodies in Palestine. And do you know how they’ve responded? They fucking haven’t. They know they’re losing votes because of this. They know they’re losing ground because of this, because every other email from them is them complaining that they are getting out fundraised by Trump.
But they don’t even give enough of a shit to have one of their lower level lackeys from their campaign team respond. They truly do not give a shit. And you’re gonna trust them to do the right thing and step down? You’re gonna trust genocide supporters to do the right thing?
A vote can only ever be interpreted as blanket support for the candidate’s policies
Not so. A vote can be interpreted a million different ways. It’s a number, not an essay of love. It is a statement saying “of all of these choices, X is my preference”. Trying to decipher any more meaning of that requires more data which isn’t captured in an election.
How do you tell the difference between a voter who chose a candidate at random versus one who chose them because they were best friends? You can’t.
You don’t get to say “i like Biden but not his border detentions”, you get to say “Biden”.
Sure you can, you just did. You’re comparing a fully articulated thought to a vote, of course they aren’t going to match.
As I wrote, I invoked a person considering voting for trump over Biden to illustrate how difficult it is to portray trump as a clear danger more important than an ongoing genocide.
It isn’t difficult to illustrate how much larger of a danger Trump is:
You said you’re not here to convince me, so who is it, undecideds, non voters or some third group?
Anybody fence sitting.
If you really believed that the blood of innocent people was on the hands of every American due to Biden actions you wouldn’t be in here telling people to vote for him.
Why not? And it isn’t just Biden’s actions, it’s pretty much every major political action the U.S. has ever taken since it’s inception. And word of advice, if you’re trying to convince people, starting from a position of “you don’t ACTUALLY believe X because you said Y” is just silly, and a waste of everyone’s time.
If you believed that you were made a genocidare by his disgusting rhetoric and material support you’d be opposed to him
I’ve already explain that’s not how this works. It’s a two party system.
You’d be in the streets protesting or campaigning to end support to israel or any other number of other actions
I’m trying not to get shot by our police state and widowing my disabled wife. So yeah, fuck me I guess.
Make your voice heard to them with the only device given you that can’t be manipulated or deepfaked or covered up. Vote third party this November.
I will not be handing Trump another victory, no thank you. It was a disaster the first time we decided to botch it in 2016, it’s going to be even worse this time.
Jokes on you, I’m not voting for the sense of smug superiority. No lives matter, etc. /S
Votesocialist2024.com !! 🫡🫡🫡
From a European perspective, this debate is saddening, because it results in people alienating voters if they didn’t pick the “right” option, where “right” is whatever moral position you want them to have, on the basis of putting onto them a direct responsibility of an unwanted result, from their indirect action. It is your responsibility to campaign for your own party, and this is not a way to convince people to vote, nor join your side. Your two-party political system is ruining any possibility of political debate for smaller parties, and you end up silencing the voices of minorities that aren’t represented by your two monoliths, all thanks to your holier-than-thou attitude. The people voting for Trump are the ones who will get Trump elected, not the people voting for whoever supports their political affiliations, not participating in your dirty voting shenanigans. The only thing you’re achieving is guilt tripping someone you could otherwise convince to vote for another party, and pushing them away, making sure they will not vote in your favour next time.
We had the same thing happen in France, where voters were consistently asked to vote against a party for the presidential elections, rather than for the party that represents their ideals. In 2022, upon being elected Emmanuel Macron declared “I also know that many compatriots voted for me, to block the ideas of the extreme right. I want to thank them and tell them that I am aware that this vote binds me for years to come. I am the guardian of their attachment to the Republic”, and then proceeded over the next few years to apply a political program that would make Le Pen proud. [1] [2] [3] [4]
Here are some articles on the subject of “useful vote”, translate at your convenience :
- https://theconversation.com/le-vote-utile-est-il-un-probleme-178185
- https://www.sudradio.fr/politique/presidentielle-le-vote-utile-est-une-arnaque-affirme-ian-brossat
- https://www.nouvelobs.com/election-presidentielle-2022/20220329.OBS56369/l-appel-au-vote-utile-peut-il-faire-retrouver-aux-abstentionnistes-le-chemin-des-urnes.html
- https://www.ina.fr/ina-eclaire-actu/le-vote-utile-un-terme-utilise-a-chaque-presidentielle
- https://www.la-croix.com/France/Politique/Le-vote-utile-vraiment-utile-2017-04-21-1200841288
And a quote from a random internet user, roughly translated :
No need to be from Saint-Cyr to understand that induction does not only concern cooking in the kitchen, even if it is electoral. The concept of a useful vote naturally leads to that of a… useless vote! Indeed, it may seem legitimate to think that to “have influence” on an election, it would be better to do like the others by voting for those whom the polling institutes place at the top of voting intentions. This is how for a long time, elections have been scrutinized through surveys in which respondents tell you “the trend”. The useful vote is a concept, the reason for the survey which creates the opinion of the respondents. Isn’t the real usefulness of voting to choose according to one’s own convictions and to grant a useful vote to the candidate whose program best defends our values, our interests determining airtime which has determined, finally, did his sound sound in the polls? Not recognizing this means admitting that “uselessness” leads to abstaining from voting. This is unfortunately a real trend today.
This is the only time I’ll interact on the subject, because I know how abrasive it is, but I felt some are in dire need of a reality check. You may disagree because your political culture, landscape, education… are quite different from the ones I experienced so far, but please engage in respectful discussions about it, provide sensible arguments, and don’t downvote just because you read something that doesn’t validate your feelings. If there’s someone you need to blame for Biden’s potential failure to get elected, it’s him for not running a better campaign to get enough votes, and yourself for vilifying other voters for not sheepily following your orders. These scare tactics are no better than dictatorial behaviours.
Edit : here’s a book that will better explain what I’m trying to say https://www.editionsdivergences.com/livre/comment-soccuper-un-dimanche-delection
These scare tactics are no better than dictatorial behaviours.
Ah, yes, the REAL fascism is when you tell people voting for fascism is bad. Great.
I accept to believe that you skipped the entire comment to only react to the last sentence, and I will not partake in discussing with you. Good day.
I accept to believe that you skipped the entire comment to only react to the last sentence
No, I read everything except the links. It’s the normal “Democracy isn’t real because democracy involves strategic decisions on the part of voters” spiel from people who don’t take their civic duty seriously, and instead think of voting as a kind of virtue masturbation for their own gratification instead of being involved in making political choices of the polity, which necessarily involves compromise and deeply imperfect choices.
I will not partake in discussing with you. Good day.
Always comes off as pathetic ‘last-wording’ when someone takes the time to reply “I’m not going to talk to you.” when you could have just stopped talking to them.
Maybe because I took the time to write a lenghty comment contributing to the discussion, which they purposefully decided to ignore with a snarky remark? I am open to debating on the subject, but not with an intellectually dishonest or dismissive attitude.
Welcome to politcal memes! These are our rules: Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
Truly amazing you completely missed the very simple point I was making.
I’m sorry- did my comment ‘disturb’ you- lol. You need thicker skin but feel free to report me.
Please enlighten me on said point ? I’m trying to contribute to the discussion. Why would I interact with not only their, but now your dismissive comments on such a complex topic ?
And blocked them. I mean, these kinds of threads are a sort of gold mine. (In general, I mean, not in this specific instance)
@[email protected] is actively working to separate the left from the Democrats and has acknowledged as much. You have no obligation to engage with them in good faith. Their approach to rhetoric and dismissiveness of legitimate reasons why someone might find it impossible or deeply immoral to vote for a candidate that promotes genocide is fundamental to why we see such a fractured caucus today. @[email protected] isn’t interested in fixing it or addressing the concerns of people who find Biden problematic, but rather, in trotting out recycled tropes from another failed cause, the 2016 Clinton campaign.
Its a basic lesson of history in American politics that you can’t beat likely Democratic voters into voting for you. @[email protected] 's approach to this is identical to that of the 2016 Clinton campaign: You owe them your vote; Vote Democrat or else. But this approach to rhetoric is a demonstrated failure. You actually do have to meet them where they are at and address their concerns if you want to convince people of something, anything. Its what the Biden campaign should be doing, and if @[email protected] really cared about Biden’s chances in November, they too would be doing as much.
@[email protected] isn’t interested in that, and is not arguing or participating in good faith. They are working to further divide the coalition that got Biden elected, and are actively working to diminish the chances of a second Democratic term. I think they are doing so out of ignorant naivety and I do not attribute malice, but honestly, why you do things is ultimately secondary to what you are doing,
Perhaps you should tag me again, just to really emphasize that I’m being far too mean to people who only want to usher in fascism, and what I REALLY should be doing is patting them on the head and telling them how valid it is that they’re sending people to death camps to feel good about themselves. :)
Thank you and no worries on the tagging, I’ll make sure to tag you again in the future.
I appreciate you being a foil so that we can put you and your rhetoric on display. Its reflective of the broader paradigm we see playing out and is useful for people to understand.
In doing so, I think we are moving the needle by demonstrating to people that this approach (your approach; the Hillary 2016 approach) of abusing people into voting is truly costing us this election.
So thank you. I really do appreciate your willingness to just remove the mask and make it clear that you are not interested in defeating Trump this election cycle.
Since its come up a few times now and is the currently underlying the theme of this discussion, I’d be interested to get your take on AOC’s interpretation of electoralism. In context, how do you argue you motivate a base for a candidate like Joe Biden where the candidates policies are such an extreme departure from that of the voters?
In doing so, I think we are moving the needle by demonstrating to people that this approach (your approach; the Hillary 2016 approach) of abusing people into voting is truly costing us this election.
Oh, these third party voters would come back and vote for Biden, if only Biden supporters were nice to them? Is that it? How curious.
and make it clear that you are not interested in defeating Trump this election cycle.
That’s curious, considering my position is that defeating Trump is what actually matters, rather than getting fuzzies because you oh-so-nobly voted third party and let fascism win and murder huge swathes of your fellow Americans.
In context, how do you argue you motivate a base for a candidate like Joe Biden where the candidates policies are such an extreme departure from that of the voters?
Jesus. Do you really think Biden’s policies are an ‘extreme departure’ from that of the voters? I’d like to hear you lay that argument out, just for laughs.
EDIT: And, of course you couldn’t articulate the ‘extreme departure’ or even attempt to. Because that would involve examining the American electorate, which is much further right than you’d like. Predictable.
considering my position is that defeating Trump is what actually matters
I mean, you know that’s not true. We all know that’s not true, you’ve even said so yourself, and your even doing so in this response.
You don’t want to grow the base of voters for against Trump. You just want to punch on leftists because they are sticking to their morals while you can-not.
In doing so, you are costing Biden any shot he has. You could be trying to build a bridge, instead, you’ve focused on burning them down. You’ve said as much yourself. Your approach to rhetoric is directly supporting Trump, and are clearly aware of that.
Which further highlights my question. Go watch the clip. Its only 3 minutes. What do you think of what AOC has to say on electoral-ism, and how do you expect your intentional divisiveness/ fragmentation approach to rhetoric to play into that? Like, if Biden can’t get elected without leftists, and you are working to separate leftists from the Democrats, what exactly is your plan to get Biden elected?
Heres Charlemagne the God explaining this on The View, from earlier today.
As another European it is difficult to see the Americans constantly fight over voting. The two party system is definitely the issue here.
Either way well said.
Technically, the Two Party system isn’t actually a thing. It is instead simply the work of Market Forces. Multiple competitors in any market, shall result in that market being split between two competitors and an also ran. Then Market Power, if abused, shall prevent any actual competition to the duopoly. Something truly disruptive is required to change that. ATM the US has a pair of more or less captured political parties market. They are in no way an official part of the Government. Nothing in the Constitution empowers them. They should have no power at all. No say in who runs nor any influence beyond whatever PR for issues they advocate. However, they worked out how to make getting elected very profitable, and thus very expensive. Rather quickly money called all the shots. Then the manipulated monster these very wealthy and connected folks created to get elected, lost their minds because a “them” got elected President, and the “useful idiot” they brought in to pacify things with some good Fascism, turned out to be in multiple pockets and beholden to no one but himself. There is your US Political History tldr;
Technically, the Two Party system isn’t actually a thing.
Nothing in the Constitution empowers them.
This part is kind of inaccurate. Because of the constitution, we use first past the post voting, which naturally devolves into a two party system. It’s like trying to build a sky scraper out of just wood. The blueprints don’t explicitly call for it to collapse, but because of the chosen materials, it is bound to happen.
While the rest of what you said is true though.
we use first past the post voting, which naturally devolves into a two party system.
this is not causal
first past the post voting, which naturally devolves into a two party system
This is a myth. L’ook at the legislatures of other countries that use FPTP, and count the parties that get more than 5 seats. The UK has 6, Canada 4, Russia 5 and India, my country, 11. You certainly can have more than two parties.
This is a myth.
No it isn’t. It happens through a well known phenomenon called the spoiler effect.
L’ook at the legislatures of other countries that use FPTP, and count the parties that get more than 5 seats
The data you’ve just quoted doesn’t support your position, and this bit about 5 seats is arbitrary.
Each of those countries has 1-2 dominant parties, with the rest being involved in name only. And as another user already pointed out to you, these countries dont use pure FPTP voting. You’ve also ignored prime minister/presidential positions, because those elections especially prove that it isn’t a myth.
Local/smaller seat positions are significantly easier to win, as there is less competition, and therefore more opportunity for 3rd parties to win. But it isn’t enough, because they still get sidelined.
The spoiler effect requires voters to vote strategically, which means no third party viability.
I never knew basic math could upset so many people.
It’s truly frightening.
your fiction, helpfully pointed out by the star wars characters, is based on a non-falsifiable theory. it’s not science, it’s storytelling.
It’s a graphic that shows how the spoiler effect works. Relax
also, biden isn’t depicted in your analogy at all. he’s more like the emporer: more experienced as a statesman, older, but even more evil.
That’s kind of unavoidable when comparing politicians to what ultimately equate to super heroes and super villans.
The point of that graphic is to show how the spoiler effect works, not to say that Biden is good.
Biden is old and evil, but preferable to Trump.
this bit about 5 seats is arbitrary.
Fair. I had to put a cut-off somewhere.
Each of those countries has 1-2 dominant parties, with the rest being involved in name only.
In the UK, the Lib Dems have decided which of the ‘big’ parties sits in government and which in opposition. The Bloc Quebecois is one of the major parties in Quebec. In India, the two biggest parties get 50-60% of the total votes polled, and most governments are composed of multi-party coalitions. Also about a third of states have governments led by a third party.
And as another user already pointed out to you, these countries dont use pure FPTP voting.
And as I pointed out, they were wrong. The UK, Canada and India use pure FPTP, and Russia has three big parties even if you only consider the FPTP seats.
The spoiler effect requires voters to vote strategically, which means no third party viability.
Third parties cannot win only when everyone thinks they can’t win. Labour went from a small third party to forming the government in about a generation. The BJP did the same in India. At the state level, there have been many cases of a third party coming from a single-digit percentage of the vote and winning the election.
In the UK, the Lib Dems have decided which of the ‘big’ parties sits in government and which in opposition. The Bloc Quebecois is one of the major parties in Quebec. In India, the two biggest parties get 50-60% of the total votes polled, and most governments are composed of multi-party coalitions. Also about a third of states have governments led by a third party.
I am aware. But that doesn’t really change what I’ve said. You’re comparing smaller elections for seats with a big election like the U.S. president. Those elections still have 1-2 dominant parties, etc.
Third parties cannot win only when everyone thinks they can’t win.
You can’t just wish away the spoiler effect.
Technically, the Two Party system isn’t actually a thing. It is instead simply the work of Market Forces.
It’s also Article 2 of the Constitution. To wit:
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President
That last part being the main reason there’s an Either / Or in elections, e.g. two parties. Getting to First-Past-The-Post whether via electors or total popular vote turns out to be difficult for some reason. And to your point, yes, money is a major, as they say, bitch.
Small clarification:
It’s also Amendment 2 of the Constitution.
*Article 2.
Yeek. Fixed, thanks.
Which would indeed be why it is technically, not a thing. See the natural outcome of a thing is not necessarily the intent of the thing. The two party system is as you say. But that isn’t the design of the Constitutional language. It is the design of humans themselves.
Um, no. Opposition to a Fascist Kleptocracy beholden to Theocratic Fascists is not open to negotiation. My allegiance is to the Republic, to democracy!
“I also know that many compatriots voted for me, to block the ideas of the extreme right. I want to thank them and tell them that I am aware that this vote binds me for years to come. I am the guardian of their attachment to the Republic”
I think this is the key. If Biden could acknowledge his imperfections (and more broadly, the Democrats writ large), the situation would be entirely different. I don’t think people are looking for a perfect candidate, or a perfect anything, but want to see the spirit of “towards a more perfect Union” expressed in their candidates, which is something I think Macron, in that quote, does so with flourish.
All Biden would need to do is acknowledge the genocide, make the point that while still our ally, Israel has some deep issues to work on, and then point to something like the temporary pier as them “trying”. Its all kind-of a layup politically. Israel is deeply unpopular. All Biden needs to do is dribble down court and put it in. The issue with Biden seems to be deeper, that he is personally a Zionist, and has to support this genocidal cause. Its not even clear that Trump would be less extreme in this regard. Biden is as bad as he needs to be on this issue, so it becomes a non-sequiter to make the standard “But Trump” comparison here.
It really is a failure of leadership on the part of Biden, and more broadly, on progressives not splitting the ticket and having Bernie run third party in 2016. If Biden can’t move his position significantly on this issue, he can’t win. And no amount of conservative democrats punching on leftists because they find it problematic that Biden won’t back off a genocide can fix that. As one has to meet people where they are at in order to convince them of something, anything, one also needs to meet the electorate where they are at in terms of what rhetorical approaches work, and what doesn’t. The Democrats can’t abuse the left into supporting them in November.
Here’s what a french author has to say in a book on the subject, food for thought, roughly translated :
spoiler
30 minutes. 26 exactly. That is to say six times less than it takes to go from Republic to Nation during a protest. Ten times less than it takes to run a stand on animal abuse at a punk rock concert. Fifty times less than it takes to find emergency accommodation for a family of haggard Eritreans picked up on the side of a railway track near Ventimille. A hundred times less than it takes to find the articles of the Labor Code capable of solidifying the defense of an employee suspended for supposedly serious misconduct. Two hundred times less than it takes to obtain a negotiation with management in the context of a social conflict at the Gueugnon call center. Ten thousand times less than is needed to make an eco-hamlet viable. Infinite times less than it takes to ban the commercialization of digital data. Voting offers an unrivaled time-reward ratio. In less than an hour, I accomplished my sacred duty. It doesn’t cost much, as Sarkozy said of his position against gay marriage intended to flirt with the Catholic branch. It doesn’t eat bread, my grandmother would have said, who voted as scrupulously all her life as she served dinner to her husband. […]
In the election itself, the expression doubles in volume. The ballot can contain 10 letters, sometimes 15, or even 20 in the frequent case where the candidate’s surname has particles. But this surname says nothing, nor the support given to it. There are fifty shades of support for Dumoulin, candidate for the municipal elections in Brie-en-Gueugnon. Someone adheres to her charisma, someone to her promise to take control of the Water Authority, someone to her commitment to doubling the subsidy to the badminton club that she runs, someone to her ch’tis origins, someone to her husban, professor of applied mathematics, one in her project to pedestrianize the Halles district, one in her desire to rename the Poivre d’Arvor college, another in her name because he likes mills. The bulletin can mean all that and therefore says nothing. This silence leaves the elected official an infinite margin of interpretation as to what is expected of him, a margin of deafness to the voices expressed in his favor.
In 2002, myriads of naive people hoped that during his mandate Chirac would take into account those who, among his voters in the second round, had only wanted to block the path to Le Pen. But nothing forced him to. The leader of the right was constitutionally free to interpret the ballots in his favor as he wished. Nothing distinguishes a Chirac bulletin approving his liberal-authoritarian program from an anti-racist Chirac bulletin. It was open to the new elected official to decide that 100% of the 80% obtained had wanted, not a better reception of foreign workers, but the increase in the retirement age that the National Assembly under orders would soon implement.
He is free to believe that 82% of voters declared their love for him. Dedicated to his party, the UMP. Validated his new glasses. No one could have assured him, based on the vote, that he was wrong. Seeing his five-year term heading to the right, the naive people were even more naive to feel cheated. How could the president betray an expectation that had not been expressed? As such, all the ballots could be declared invalid, even the immaculate ones, even those that no ill-mannered person has soiled with an Amy Taylor president, as a friend did at the 2021 European elections. A bulletin says nothing. The election reduces citizenship to expression, and this expression says nothing.
This has happened before, this is happening right now with Macron. His words meant nothing because his actions show he did not follow up on his statement. I think something very important voters have to consider and ask themselves : What is the plan when Biden will disrespect the votes of people who did not vote for him, but voted against Trump. Who will be considered responsible for keeping him in power, when he will enact policies that were defended by the Trump side?
https://www.editionsdivergences.com/livre/comment-soccuper-un-dimanche-delection
Last time I met a French person was on the selection process for jury duty. The dude was rightfully shocked at the entire process. Americans do not have real political education.
Out of curiosity, was this in a Red State?
No, wealthy liberal county in a blue state. It could have been that other prospective jurors were also displeased with the process but were less vocal about it, I know that was me. Trying to keep my head down so I get picked (serving on a jury while being aware of juror’s rights is one of the best direct actions you can take. use knowledge of juror nullification.)
Liberals: “We’re on the brink of fascism!”
Also liberals: “Black rifle scary, and should be limited to only law enforcement, politicians, and the wealthy”
*liberals big mad cause they’re gonna defeat christofascism by voting republican light.
