We could have just ran a popular candidate that helped people for four years instead of spending that time what to do about the unpopular candidate not being able to decisively beat the worst president in the history of America.
A random empty suit off the street would easily beat trump.
Probably would be handling genocides better too
Give it a rest.
Who is "we"?
What is a "popular candidate"?
There were actually elections, you know.
Biden isn't exactly my cup of tea but he's more or less reasonable on the national field. And people should understand when you elect a president (despite what Trump would tell you), you are actually electing an administration, a structure of workforce based on certain values. As long as something crazy doesn't happen that puts the speaker up there, for the most part it's those ideas that are winning the elections.
And people should understand when you elect a president (despite what Trump would tell you), you are actually electing an administration, a structure of workforce based on certain values.
A-fuckin-goddamn-men.
This is what I always had a problem with as far as Trump is concerned. Trump only cares about Trump and he also believes he knows everything. He hires "yes men" not people who will inform him, not that he's the type to accept information from others (unless it's a lie meant to disparage his opponents.) That's way more dangerous to us than his stupid Twitter usage and drawing on weather maps.
It's also why, although I don't love Biden, I'm ok with him. I know he's only responsible for putting the rubber stamp on ideas his administration is coming up with. He may issue initial goals, but the administration has the expertise and does the work and they don't exactly seem like a bunch of ghouls in this administration.
The primary is performative, the DNC has been openly admitting they're not interested in fair primaries go like a decade now, even openly saying if they don't get the results they want, they'll ignore results.
You might not have realized it yet, but you personally don't need to understand something for it to be true
You might not have realized it yet, but you personally don't need to understand something for it to be true
Literally one of the shittiest ways to talk to a person and ensure they won't take you seriously.
this is the shitty world we live in for 2024. Unless one of these geezers dies this is what its going to look like.
And no, a random empty suit off the street would not easily beat trump; when the corporate media aparatus is pointed at you things will always be like this because they want the worst guy to win, always.
The amount of downvotes you’re getting for the most common sense solution is really sad.
I have a feeling all those crazy 2016 Clinton supporters were IP banned from most major social media sites.
So now they're on Lemmy.
Theyre just as bad as trump voters. They don't care about issues or what a candidate achieves if they win. They just want their "team" to win an election.
That's their end goal, so if anyone ever says a negative thing about their teams candidate, they take it personal and say the worst thing you can ever do is admit any flaws.
It's blind loyalty to a person. And that shit is fucking dangerous.
I just can't support that shit. I paid attention in history class. If the only two political options are that far gone, there's been other political parties in America before, and there can be again.
You are right, but we're kind of past the point where saying so is useful. But if Biden resigns and hands the reigns to Kamala, no way in hell should anyone accept another sham primary because she is an encombant. I'm so sick of these supposedly pro-democracy Democrats and their entire bullshit primary system.
Just fyi, it’s “incumbent”
Thanks
but we’re kind of past the point where saying so is useful
Bruh, the general hasn't even started....
It's not too late to run someone that can beat trump.
Name one person that can beat Trump, and provide evidence to show it’s possible.
Biden, for whatever reason, is an extremely unlikable president. Undeniably so. These two candidates might literally be the only two candidates that could lose to the other. Sad state of affairs.
Personally I think Bernie would still easily steam roll trump and is far more popular than Biden. Only way he would run tho is if Biden stepped down which he won't.. but that's sorta the problem
Bernie isn’t going to run, regardless of Biden stepping down. So he doesn’t count. Name someone currently in the running- that can beat Trump.
I don't think you can say what Bernie would do if Biden stepped down, he has stated that he will not run precisely because Biden is running again and he doesn't want to make any voters think he was an option, the incumbent is just automatically going to win the primary. He doesn't want to sour any voters that really wanted him to win the primary when there is no chance he will win going up against an incumbent. If Biden stepped down and it was an open DNC primary then I think Bernie would almost certainly run again.
You are being weirdly stubborn in considering actual possibilities. I get that we are likely stuck with Biden but that's because Biden is going to run again, not because there are no other options. Biden is not a good choice though and he should honestly step down, there are way better choices. Newsom would also be better than Biden and you could be sure if there was a primary with no incumbent in it he would be in there.
I think I can say safely- and honestly say that he’s not an option.
Who has a chance to beat Trump THAT IS RUNNING.
You are like a broken record. No democrat is going to run against incumbent it would be pointless, there is no chance they will win a dnc primary with Biden in the race. The incumbent always wins the primary and everyone knows that except apparently you, but that doesn't make Biden the best choice, far from it. Especially with the dnc canceling primaries where progressives might actually win like NH. The Marianne williamson run was just a protest run, she didn't think she would win.
The problem is Biden is running again despite him saying in 2020 that he would be a 1 term president.
I asked a simple question. You’re dancing around the answer by suggesting impossibilities.
It was suggested to run someone that is better than Biden, I asked who could run that could beat Trump.
I’m a broken record because you’re dodging the question and refuse to admin that there isn’t anyone that could right now.
There are people who could right now if Biden steps down which he should, he's a genocide enabler. Sorry you refuse to admin that
Biden isn’t stepping down. This is established. So you’re refusing to answer the question.
We’re done here.
Arnold Schwarzenegger.
He's a proven leader, appeals to many on all sides of the political spectrum, and the supreme court has ruled they can't keep someone off the ballot, and neither can states, so if the Senate Democrats don't stop it then there's nothing that can be done about it.
If the leader of an insurrection can be on the ballot, a foreign born American citizen can.
Hes not running. Also, he’s ineligible- try again.
Yeah, that's kinda my point. He's ineligible, but so is trump. The Supreme Court said that only Congress can keep someone from running, and the current Congress won't do it for trump, and may not do it for someone running as a Democrat, if they could beat trump.
He's not running because he didn't think he could, but the general hasn't started, so he has time.
I asked you to provide a name of someone that can beat Trump in November. Not hypotheticals.
If you have a working strategy to get there, I'm all ears. Despite Biden's lack of popularity, the vast majority of Democratic voters seem to be in the "don't challenge an encombant" camp.
the vast majority of Democratic voters seem to be in the “don’t challenge an encombant” camp.
Why would you think that?
The DNC canceled NH's primary because it's been going progressive. And less than a third of voters would be happy if Biden was president.
Voters didn't get a say, lots of states haven't even held.primaries yet
Still not seeing a plan. My state hasn't voted yet, and I won't be voting for Biden, but I still know he is the nominee. It's not even really possible for him to lose at this point, and everyone else has dropped out. The party could replace him, but I don't see that happening without some kind of major medical episode.
Still not seeing a plan.
No, you just keep ignoring it, I said it a long time ago...
A random empty suit off the street would easily beat trump
We run someone else in the general.
It cost a literal billion dollars for Biden to win his first presidential election. And that was by like 30k votes in a few states. He's less popular now, especially in those states due to his actions in Israel.
Do you legitimately think a random American couldn't be trump with a billion dollars?
Because it's not going to be cheaper for Biden this time.
I wasn't as clear as I thought. Since you and I don't get to choose the nominee, what's the plan to get Biden replaced on the ballot?
The DNC can list whoever they want there, regardless of what happens in any primary
The last three elections they've picked geriatric unpopular candidates and refuse to listen to voter feedback.
Sooner or later you need to realize:
"vote blue no matter who" is fucking you
The DNC needs voters more than voters need the DNC.
Hell, look at what Biden did in NH. He pulled out of the primary because the DNC yanked the delegates, then Biden spent a bunch on a write in campaign and bragged he "won".
But I'm blocking right after I send this. You're just repeating the same shit over and over again, it's like talking to a brikwall.
The DNC can list whoever they want there
Well, yes, but they want Biden there.
The last three elections they've picked geriatric unpopular candidates and refuse to listen to voter feedback.
Those candidates were picked by voters, so this isn't exactly true. They just lead voters by the nose through establishment bias in mainstream media.
The one place where I think this is true is with Kamala Harris. She solidly lost the 2020 primary, yet there is a chance that she will be the one to finish a Biden second term, and they will try to skip her next primary because they will call her an incumbent. That is the eventuality that we should be preparing to fight right now. The battle to replace Biden for 2024 was a worthy one, but we lost.
"vote blue no matter who" is fucking you
Did I say that? The second we have a red candidate that's better than a blue one, I'm voting red. Third party strategies will fuck me worse.
The DNC needs voters more than voters need the DNC.
Meaningless drivel with no practical strategic relevance. It would be awesome if we could form an ideal party and get most Democratic voters to switch, but that's a childish fantasy.
then Biden spent a bunch on a write in campaign and bragged he "won".
Getting the most votes as a write in is pretty impressive honestly. The real scandal is that the DNC put a swing state in jeopardy to favor a deeply red state just to create a harder path for progressives. Hang them with that.
But I'm blocking right after I send this.
Whatever.
So, I'm gonna ask this again, and I'm sure I'm gonna get another non-answer, but I always have to ask anyway...
Why are you guys so scared of Kamala?
I can totally understand why you get non-answers to that non-question. I never said I was scared of Kamala. However, she came in close to dead last in the primary, and could very well end up being a Democratic presidential nominee after having been roundly rejected. I object to having the choice of US President whittled down to right-wing Satan and a tool of the oligarchs before we ever get to vote.
From the beginning of the 2020 primary, Kamala was clearly the establishment's first choice, with all the establishment friendly publications putting out glowing praise daily. Biden was the backup who went from almost last (excepting Harris) to first place overnight when every single establishment friendly candidate suddenly dropped out and endorsed Biden. It was a brilliant strategy by establishment, but was more of a manipulation than a democratic victory.
Elizabeth Warren staying in even long after she had no chance was also extremely sus. She suddenly dove under the radar, but kept her hat in the ring to split the progressive vote until Bernie was done. There is no rational explanation except that she was motivated to sink Bernie by some carrot or stick from the establishment.
So no, after that circus of a primary, I'm not willing to hand over potentially four Presidential terms to the establishment.
Kamala is also a terrible candidate with an abysmal track record and zero charisma. Every word she says sounds like it came from a focus group and was delivered by a robot. Even as a token black woman, she is deeply unpopular with blacks, especially those in the civil rights movement. (I support promoting minorities in government, but If they don't represent their groups with policy in addition to appearance then they are just a token.)
Legitimately just do one thing for people that makes a visible, palpable change in their lives for the better and you'll never lose an election again.
Biden has given a massive boost to unions in multiple ways, restarted enforcement of anti-trust laws, eased enforcement of Marijuana laws / moved towards decriminalization, and has forgiven $138 billion in student debt.
I'm no fan of Biden and we should definitely demand better, but it's ridiculous to claim he hasn't done just one thing to make people's lives better. This list is just off the top of my head, except the figure for student debt. I didn't even include climate issues since there has been some bad to subtract from the good, but he's been far better than any Republican would be.
what is this "move to decriminalization"?
Just appoint a head of the DEA who won't arrest people for pot and pardon everyone in prison for possession/distribution. He chooses to allow the violence of criminalization to continue.
has forgiven $138 billion in student debt.
The overwhelming majority of that was due to a bush-era law.
We saw how much unilateral power the executive has under trump. We see how capable the democrats are of whipping the vote when it's funding to bomb foreigners or lock them in cages. What would it take for you to realize they are not unable to do these things, but unwilling? I struggle to imagine a scenario that would prove that, which hasn't already happened.
what is this "move to decriminalization"?
Just appoint a head of the DEA who won't arrest people for pot and pardon everyone in prison for possession/distribution. He chooses to allow the violence of criminalization to continue.
You know he already pardoned everyone who was in federal prison for simple possession, 2 years ago, right?
And passed a bill for full federal legalization, which the Republicans defeated in the senate?
We saw how much unilateral power the executive has under trump.
Yes, Trump famously got everything he wanted. Ukraine never got their military aid that he tried to block, and the Department of Justice famously bent to his every whim and prosecuted his political opponents when he kept ordering them to. I remember it well.
We see how capable the democrats are of whipping the vote when it's funding to bomb foreigners or lock them in cages.
This is actually the most heinously dishonest of the things you've been saying but I have become discouraged and don't want to spend too much more time researching and illustrating why this is all wrong.
Family separation at the border was already dead when Biden took office; it only ran for about a year in the middle of his presidency. But Biden did start the task force to find the kids' families and reunite them. The flow of immigrant children was quite literally in the exact opposite direction of what you're saying under Biden: From being imprisoned in cages to being back with their families. Look up your own citation for it, I'm getting genuinely irritated that I have to spend time talking about this.
And passed a bill for full federal legalization, which the Republicans defeated in the senate?
The president doesn't pass bills, and this one wasn't passed by those that do pass bills. Tell progressives again that they don't know how government works.
I'm gonna cut to the chase of a longer comment I typed out. The only part that really needs to be said:
"So, since there's no way to argue with it factually, the combatant seizes on a deliberate misunderstanding of what I was saying and tries to reframe the whole conversation around that misunderstanding, in order to create a thing to disagree about which isn't the factually-indefensible original thing to disagree about."
The rest and the context are pretty self-explanatory.
You wanted to give him credit for passing something that didn't pass and that he can't pass. If you don't want people getting on your case for it, don't tell others that they don't know how government works.
He proposed legalizing it. Nothing passed. Proposals and failures are not accomplishments. He doesn't get credit for BBB for the same reason: it failed.
You may be willing to give him credit for failures. I give him credit for his successes, such as selling weapons to Netanyahu for genocide.
You seized on literally the only thing in my long-enough-to-be-tedious list that was an attempt instead of an outcome, and are trying to spin it into me giving him credit only for failures. I'm almost impressed.
The first two items in my list represented the successful outcome of his second attempt at something, after the first attempt was blocked, but those $144 billion and 40% reduction numbers are the outcome (after the initial much bigger attempt). Then comes the attempt at marijuana legalization. Every other item is simply the outcome.
I think you should get some sort of award for how vaguely plausible you make this argument sound, given the yawning gulf between it and what actually happened, and the fact that the evidence for it not happening the way you said is literally just right up there in the comments up above (not buried away somewhere in some government document that there could be legitimate debate about how to interpret.)
You seized on literally the only thing in my long-enough-to-be-tedious list that was an attempt instead of an outcome
Well, if you're going to try to give him credit for shit he hasn't done, I'm gonna call you on it.
and are trying to spin it into me giving him credit only for failures.
Never said that. You're telling on yourself.
Okay, fine. Let me try again.
You seized on literally the only thing in my long-enough-to-be-tedious list that was an attempt instead of an outcome, and are dealing with it as if giving him credit for that attempt was the only thing I'd done, instead of one attempt listed among a big group of demonstrated successes. I'm almost impressed.
The first two items in my list represented the successful outcome of his second attempt at something, after the first attempt was blocked, but those $144 billion and 40% reduction numbers are the outcome (after the initial much bigger attempt). Then comes the attempt at marijuana legalization. Every other item is simply the outcome.
I think you should get some sort of award for how vaguely plausible you make this argument sound, given the yawning gulf between it and what I actually said, and the fact that the evidence for it not happening the way you said is literally just right up there in the comments up above (not buried away somewhere in some government document that there could be legitimate debate about how to interpret.)
Happier with that?
If you don't want me pointing out when you call a failure an accomplishment, all you need to do is not call a failure an accomplishment. If you feel entitled to me addressing every last word of your comment, you should consider that I'm not here to fulfill your unreasonable sense of entitlement.
Okay, fine. Let me try again.
You can't meaningfully respond to the substance, so you're seizing on weird little trivialities -- out of this list of billion- and trillion-dollar scale good things Biden did, one and only one of them was merely a good-faith attempt to do something good, and it didn't succeed! Dude sucks.
That's a very bad argument, and I feel like I've spent entirely too much time at this point explaining why that is. Happier with that?
Any new DEA administrator would have to be approved by the Senate, and an an appointment that was a defacto decriminalization vote would not pass.
The bar that was set in this discussion was that Biden hasn't done anything to improve lives. I have already made a comment elsewhere in this thread indicating that I do not suffer from the delusions you are putting on me. Biden absolutely should be doing more, that just wasn't the bar presented.
I LOVE seeing this nonsense downvoted. It gives me hope that lemmy is not going to turn into an echo chamber for manufactured outrage and misinformation.
Also helps that any instance that gets taken over by MAGA or Russian Trolls can be ejected
Distinguishing between far-left rhetoric and right-wing propaganda is virtually indistinguishable nowadays though. And I think the MAGA trolls want it that way.
Gotta love being called an evil shitlib for suggesting that Joe Biden isn't turbo hitler and the current system, while flawed, can be improved and burning it all down would likely result in far more hardships than reforming what we've got.
Oh, come on. Centrists have been saying that everyone to their left is all the way to their right since before Clinton lost to every centrist's second choice.
lemmy.world mods are also compromised. They're just more subtle about it than lemmygrad et al.
Do you have a source for this? Reddit's mods on big or politically-or-commercially-relevant subs were very clearly compromised, but I hadn't seen any indication of that on lemmy.world and I was kind of hoping that it would be a lot more resistant.
Comments with blatant falsehoods? Cool. Comments calling out those falsehoods? Removed by mod, rule 3
Do you have an example or two? I know the lemmy.ml mods are shit, that is not news to me, but I haven't seen this happen on lemmy.world that I can remember.
I don't actually think so. I mean, I don't agree with removing it as in my view it contributes positively to the discussion, but it's definitely a repost. Removing it doesn't seem obviously malicious to me.
Personally my feeling is that it's probably just because of mods having to deal with a tidal wave of malicious crap on any given day and so developing a short fuse for anything that looks bad-adjacent. To me, the underlying issue is that you have to have mods in this sort of underappreciated volunteer / unelected dictator role, where those two roles don't synergize well with each other, and neither one is really a balanced way of hitting the mark of what's needed.
But it is technically true that my stuff was just a copypasta becoming a low-effort fixture on several posts, and I do think your posts getting personally insulting and specifically accusing some of the probably-shills of being Russian assets when you don't really know, were a little out of line. IDK. Mostly I just think the whole model of "we have to have a person in the background deciding what statements are reasonable to be allowed and not" isn't the right way to go about it.
We could have just ran a popular candidate that helped people for four years instead of spending that time what to do about the unpopular candidate not being able to decisively beat the worst president in the history of America.
A random empty suit off the street would easily beat trump.
Probably would be handling genocides better too
Give it a rest.
Who is "we"?
What is a "popular candidate"?
There were actually elections, you know.
Biden isn't exactly my cup of tea but he's more or less reasonable on the national field. And people should understand when you elect a president (despite what Trump would tell you), you are actually electing an administration, a structure of workforce based on certain values. As long as something crazy doesn't happen that puts the speaker up there, for the most part it's those ideas that are winning the elections.
A-fuckin-goddamn-men.
This is what I always had a problem with as far as Trump is concerned. Trump only cares about Trump and he also believes he knows everything. He hires "yes men" not people who will inform him, not that he's the type to accept information from others (unless it's a lie meant to disparage his opponents.) That's way more dangerous to us than his stupid Twitter usage and drawing on weather maps.
It's also why, although I don't love Biden, I'm ok with him. I know he's only responsible for putting the rubber stamp on ideas his administration is coming up with. He may issue initial goals, but the administration has the expertise and does the work and they don't exactly seem like a bunch of ghouls in this administration.
In less than half the states...
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-primary-elections/calendar
The primary is performative, the DNC has been openly admitting they're not interested in fair primaries go like a decade now, even openly saying if they don't get the results they want, they'll ignore results.
You might not have realized it yet, but you personally don't need to understand something for it to be true
Literally one of the shittiest ways to talk to a person and ensure they won't take you seriously.
this is the shitty world we live in for 2024. Unless one of these geezers dies this is what its going to look like.
And no, a random empty suit off the street would not easily beat trump; when the corporate media aparatus is pointed at you things will always be like this because they want the worst guy to win, always.
The amount of downvotes you’re getting for the most common sense solution is really sad.
I have a feeling all those crazy 2016 Clinton supporters were IP banned from most major social media sites.
So now they're on Lemmy.
Theyre just as bad as trump voters. They don't care about issues or what a candidate achieves if they win. They just want their "team" to win an election.
That's their end goal, so if anyone ever says a negative thing about their teams candidate, they take it personal and say the worst thing you can ever do is admit any flaws.
It's blind loyalty to a person. And that shit is fucking dangerous.
I just can't support that shit. I paid attention in history class. If the only two political options are that far gone, there's been other political parties in America before, and there can be again.
There is nothing as bad as trump voters
You are right, but we're kind of past the point where saying so is useful. But if Biden resigns and hands the reigns to Kamala, no way in hell should anyone accept another sham primary because she is an encombant. I'm so sick of these supposedly pro-democracy Democrats and their entire bullshit primary system.
Just fyi, it’s “incumbent”
Thanks
Bruh, the general hasn't even started....
It's not too late to run someone that can beat trump.
Name one person that can beat Trump, and provide evidence to show it’s possible.
Biden, for whatever reason, is an extremely unlikable president. Undeniably so. These two candidates might literally be the only two candidates that could lose to the other. Sad state of affairs.
Personally I think Bernie would still easily steam roll trump and is far more popular than Biden. Only way he would run tho is if Biden stepped down which he won't.. but that's sorta the problem
Bernie isn’t going to run, regardless of Biden stepping down. So he doesn’t count. Name someone currently in the running- that can beat Trump.
I don't think you can say what Bernie would do if Biden stepped down, he has stated that he will not run precisely because Biden is running again and he doesn't want to make any voters think he was an option, the incumbent is just automatically going to win the primary. He doesn't want to sour any voters that really wanted him to win the primary when there is no chance he will win going up against an incumbent. If Biden stepped down and it was an open DNC primary then I think Bernie would almost certainly run again.
You are being weirdly stubborn in considering actual possibilities. I get that we are likely stuck with Biden but that's because Biden is going to run again, not because there are no other options. Biden is not a good choice though and he should honestly step down, there are way better choices. Newsom would also be better than Biden and you could be sure if there was a primary with no incumbent in it he would be in there.
I think I can say safely- and honestly say that he’s not an option.
Who has a chance to beat Trump THAT IS RUNNING.
You are like a broken record. No democrat is going to run against incumbent it would be pointless, there is no chance they will win a dnc primary with Biden in the race. The incumbent always wins the primary and everyone knows that except apparently you, but that doesn't make Biden the best choice, far from it. Especially with the dnc canceling primaries where progressives might actually win like NH. The Marianne williamson run was just a protest run, she didn't think she would win.
The problem is Biden is running again despite him saying in 2020 that he would be a 1 term president.
I asked a simple question. You’re dancing around the answer by suggesting impossibilities.
It was suggested to run someone that is better than Biden, I asked who could run that could beat Trump.
I’m a broken record because you’re dodging the question and refuse to admin that there isn’t anyone that could right now.
There are people who could right now if Biden steps down which he should, he's a genocide enabler. Sorry you refuse to admin that
Biden isn’t stepping down. This is established. So you’re refusing to answer the question.
We’re done here.
Arnold Schwarzenegger.
He's a proven leader, appeals to many on all sides of the political spectrum, and the supreme court has ruled they can't keep someone off the ballot, and neither can states, so if the Senate Democrats don't stop it then there's nothing that can be done about it.
If the leader of an insurrection can be on the ballot, a foreign born American citizen can.
Hes not running. Also, he’s ineligible- try again.
Yeah, that's kinda my point. He's ineligible, but so is trump. The Supreme Court said that only Congress can keep someone from running, and the current Congress won't do it for trump, and may not do it for someone running as a Democrat, if they could beat trump.
He's not running because he didn't think he could, but the general hasn't started, so he has time.
I asked you to provide a name of someone that can beat Trump in November. Not hypotheticals.
Provide the name.
If you have a working strategy to get there, I'm all ears. Despite Biden's lack of popularity, the vast majority of Democratic voters seem to be in the "don't challenge an encombant" camp.
Why would you think that?
The DNC canceled NH's primary because it's been going progressive. And less than a third of voters would be happy if Biden was president.
Voters didn't get a say, lots of states haven't even held.primaries yet
Still not seeing a plan. My state hasn't voted yet, and I won't be voting for Biden, but I still know he is the nominee. It's not even really possible for him to lose at this point, and everyone else has dropped out. The party could replace him, but I don't see that happening without some kind of major medical episode.
No, you just keep ignoring it, I said it a long time ago...
We run someone else in the general.
It cost a literal billion dollars for Biden to win his first presidential election. And that was by like 30k votes in a few states. He's less popular now, especially in those states due to his actions in Israel.
Do you legitimately think a random American couldn't be trump with a billion dollars?
Because it's not going to be cheaper for Biden this time.
I wasn't as clear as I thought. Since you and I don't get to choose the nominee, what's the plan to get Biden replaced on the ballot?
The DNC can list whoever they want there, regardless of what happens in any primary
The last three elections they've picked geriatric unpopular candidates and refuse to listen to voter feedback.
Sooner or later you need to realize:
"vote blue no matter who" is fucking you
The DNC needs voters more than voters need the DNC.
Hell, look at what Biden did in NH. He pulled out of the primary because the DNC yanked the delegates, then Biden spent a bunch on a write in campaign and bragged he "won".
But I'm blocking right after I send this. You're just repeating the same shit over and over again, it's like talking to a brikwall.
Well, yes, but they want Biden there.
Those candidates were picked by voters, so this isn't exactly true. They just lead voters by the nose through establishment bias in mainstream media.
The one place where I think this is true is with Kamala Harris. She solidly lost the 2020 primary, yet there is a chance that she will be the one to finish a Biden second term, and they will try to skip her next primary because they will call her an incumbent. That is the eventuality that we should be preparing to fight right now. The battle to replace Biden for 2024 was a worthy one, but we lost.
Did I say that? The second we have a red candidate that's better than a blue one, I'm voting red. Third party strategies will fuck me worse.
Meaningless drivel with no practical strategic relevance. It would be awesome if we could form an ideal party and get most Democratic voters to switch, but that's a childish fantasy.
Getting the most votes as a write in is pretty impressive honestly. The real scandal is that the DNC put a swing state in jeopardy to favor a deeply red state just to create a harder path for progressives. Hang them with that.
Whatever.
So, I'm gonna ask this again, and I'm sure I'm gonna get another non-answer, but I always have to ask anyway...
Why are you guys so scared of Kamala?
I can totally understand why you get non-answers to that non-question. I never said I was scared of Kamala. However, she came in close to dead last in the primary, and could very well end up being a Democratic presidential nominee after having been roundly rejected. I object to having the choice of US President whittled down to right-wing Satan and a tool of the oligarchs before we ever get to vote.
From the beginning of the 2020 primary, Kamala was clearly the establishment's first choice, with all the establishment friendly publications putting out glowing praise daily. Biden was the backup who went from almost last (excepting Harris) to first place overnight when every single establishment friendly candidate suddenly dropped out and endorsed Biden. It was a brilliant strategy by establishment, but was more of a manipulation than a democratic victory.
Elizabeth Warren staying in even long after she had no chance was also extremely sus. She suddenly dove under the radar, but kept her hat in the ring to split the progressive vote until Bernie was done. There is no rational explanation except that she was motivated to sink Bernie by some carrot or stick from the establishment.
So no, after that circus of a primary, I'm not willing to hand over potentially four Presidential terms to the establishment.
Kamala is also a terrible candidate with an abysmal track record and zero charisma. Every word she says sounds like it came from a focus group and was delivered by a robot. Even as a token black woman, she is deeply unpopular with blacks, especially those in the civil rights movement. (I support promoting minorities in government, but If they don't represent their groups with policy in addition to appearance then they are just a token.)
bUtTrUmPiSwOrSe!
Legitimately just do one thing for people that makes a visible, palpable change in their lives for the better and you'll never lose an election again.
Biden has given a massive boost to unions in multiple ways, restarted enforcement of anti-trust laws, eased enforcement of Marijuana laws / moved towards decriminalization, and has forgiven $138 billion in student debt.
I'm no fan of Biden and we should definitely demand better, but it's ridiculous to claim he hasn't done just one thing to make people's lives better. This list is just off the top of my head, except the figure for student debt. I didn't even include climate issues since there has been some bad to subtract from the good, but he's been far better than any Republican would be.
what is this "move to decriminalization"?
Just appoint a head of the DEA who won't arrest people for pot and pardon everyone in prison for possession/distribution. He chooses to allow the violence of criminalization to continue.
The overwhelming majority of that was due to a bush-era law.
We saw how much unilateral power the executive has under trump. We see how capable the democrats are of whipping the vote when it's funding to bomb foreigners or lock them in cages. What would it take for you to realize they are not unable to do these things, but unwilling? I struggle to imagine a scenario that would prove that, which hasn't already happened.
You know he already pardoned everyone who was in federal prison for simple possession, 2 years ago, right?
And told the DEA to reschedule it
And passed a bill for full federal legalization, which the Republicans defeated in the senate?
Yes, Trump famously got everything he wanted. Ukraine never got their military aid that he tried to block, and the Department of Justice famously bent to his every whim and prosecuted his political opponents when he kept ordering them to. I remember it well.
This is actually the most heinously dishonest of the things you've been saying but I have become discouraged and don't want to spend too much more time researching and illustrating why this is all wrong.
Family separation at the border was already dead when Biden took office; it only ran for about a year in the middle of his presidency. But Biden did start the task force to find the kids' families and reunite them. The flow of immigrant children was quite literally in the exact opposite direction of what you're saying under Biden: From being imprisoned in cages to being back with their families. Look up your own citation for it, I'm getting genuinely irritated that I have to spend time talking about this.
The president doesn't pass bills, and this one wasn't passed by those that do pass bills. Tell progressives again that they don't know how government works.
I'm gonna cut to the chase of a longer comment I typed out. The only part that really needs to be said:
"So, since there's no way to argue with it factually, the combatant seizes on a deliberate misunderstanding of what I was saying and tries to reframe the whole conversation around that misunderstanding, in order to create a thing to disagree about which isn't the factually-indefensible original thing to disagree about."
The rest and the context are pretty self-explanatory.
You wanted to give him credit for passing something that didn't pass and that he can't pass. If you don't want people getting on your case for it, don't tell others that they don't know how government works.
He proposed legalizing it. Nothing passed. Proposals and failures are not accomplishments. He doesn't get credit for BBB for the same reason: it failed.
You may be willing to give him credit for failures. I give him credit for his successes, such as selling weapons to Netanyahu for genocide.
You seized on literally the only thing in my long-enough-to-be-tedious list that was an attempt instead of an outcome, and are trying to spin it into me giving him credit only for failures. I'm almost impressed.
The first two items in my list represented the successful outcome of his second attempt at something, after the first attempt was blocked, but those $144 billion and 40% reduction numbers are the outcome (after the initial much bigger attempt). Then comes the attempt at marijuana legalization. Every other item is simply the outcome.
I think you should get some sort of award for how vaguely plausible you make this argument sound, given the yawning gulf between it and what actually happened, and the fact that the evidence for it not happening the way you said is literally just right up there in the comments up above (not buried away somewhere in some government document that there could be legitimate debate about how to interpret.)
Well, if you're going to try to give him credit for shit he hasn't done, I'm gonna call you on it.
Never said that. You're telling on yourself.
Okay, fine. Let me try again.
You seized on literally the only thing in my long-enough-to-be-tedious list that was an attempt instead of an outcome, and are dealing with it as if giving him credit for that attempt was the only thing I'd done, instead of one attempt listed among a big group of demonstrated successes. I'm almost impressed.
The first two items in my list represented the successful outcome of his second attempt at something, after the first attempt was blocked, but those $144 billion and 40% reduction numbers are the outcome (after the initial much bigger attempt). Then comes the attempt at marijuana legalization. Every other item is simply the outcome.
I think you should get some sort of award for how vaguely plausible you make this argument sound, given the yawning gulf between it and what I actually said, and the fact that the evidence for it not happening the way you said is literally just right up there in the comments up above (not buried away somewhere in some government document that there could be legitimate debate about how to interpret.)
Happier with that?
If you don't want me pointing out when you call a failure an accomplishment, all you need to do is not call a failure an accomplishment. If you feel entitled to me addressing every last word of your comment, you should consider that I'm not here to fulfill your unreasonable sense of entitlement.
Okay, fine. Let me try again.
You can't meaningfully respond to the substance, so you're seizing on weird little trivialities -- out of this list of billion- and trillion-dollar scale good things Biden did, one and only one of them was merely a good-faith attempt to do something good, and it didn't succeed! Dude sucks.
That's a very bad argument, and I feel like I've spent entirely too much time at this point explaining why that is. Happier with that?
Do you believe Biden should pardon everyone in prison for Marijuana-related crimes?
Just skip to the bit where you can't defend your position and call me a Russian. It's all you'll ever know.
Answer the question.
Go upstairs and ask your parents what it's like to live with disappointment, because I'm not going to participate on your terms.
Just skipping to the bit where you can't defend your position?
Any new DEA administrator would have to be approved by the Senate, and an an appointment that was a defacto decriminalization vote would not pass.
The bar that was set in this discussion was that Biden hasn't done anything to improve lives. I have already made a comment elsewhere in this thread indicating that I do not suffer from the delusions you are putting on me. Biden absolutely should be doing more, that just wasn't the bar presented.
Or you could just deny reality like some do
I LOVE seeing this nonsense downvoted. It gives me hope that lemmy is not going to turn into an echo chamber for manufactured outrage and misinformation.
Also helps that any instance that gets taken over by MAGA or Russian Trolls can be ejected
Distinguishing between far-left rhetoric and right-wing propaganda is virtually indistinguishable nowadays though. And I think the MAGA trolls want it that way.
Gotta love being called an evil shitlib for suggesting that Joe Biden isn't turbo hitler and the current system, while flawed, can be improved and burning it all down would likely result in far more hardships than reforming what we've got.
Oh, come on. Centrists have been saying that everyone to their left is all the way to their right since before Clinton lost to every centrist's second choice.
Quite a few instances block lemmy.world because it's so overrun by shouty accounts with bad opinions as to be a significant problem.
lemmy.world mods are also compromised. They're just more subtle about it than lemmygrad et al.
Do you have a source for this? Reddit's mods on big or politically-or-commercially-relevant subs were very clearly compromised, but I hadn't seen any indication of that on lemmy.world and I was kind of hoping that it would be a lot more resistant.
Comments with blatant falsehoods? Cool. Comments calling out those falsehoods? Removed by mod, rule 3
Do you have an example or two? I know the lemmy.ml mods are shit, that is not news to me, but I haven't seen this happen on lemmy.world that I can remember.
https://lemmy.world/comment/8677755
Or hey, even one of your own: https://lemmy.world/comment/8405221
What the heck man
Why they removin my copypasta
Blyat
Lol the mods are russians now?
I don't actually think so. I mean, I don't agree with removing it as in my view it contributes positively to the discussion, but it's definitely a repost. Removing it doesn't seem obviously malicious to me.
Personally my feeling is that it's probably just because of mods having to deal with a tidal wave of malicious crap on any given day and so developing a short fuse for anything that looks bad-adjacent. To me, the underlying issue is that you have to have mods in this sort of underappreciated volunteer / unelected dictator role, where those two roles don't synergize well with each other, and neither one is really a balanced way of hitting the mark of what's needed.
But it is technically true that my stuff was just a copypasta becoming a low-effort fixture on several posts, and I do think your posts getting personally insulting and specifically accusing some of the probably-shills of being Russian assets when you don't really know, were a little out of line. IDK. Mostly I just think the whole model of "we have to have a person in the background deciding what statements are reasonable to be allowed and not" isn't the right way to go about it.