I'm somewhat baffled by him stepping down from running, but remaining president for the entire year. It seems like whoever is running for president, Kamala should have already taken over. It also feels weird having her just get inserted at the end of the process like that's a normal thing, but I can't really complain as I voted no preference anyways.
Your “baffling” has nothing to do with Biden and everything to do with you…
Once it's the Harris regime responsible for airstriking refugee tents are you going to at least have fun at brunch?
Once you recognize the last century of US foreign policy will you get something else to talk about?
Is this suddenly a new topic for you? Any reason? Why is it that I never heard you during Reagan or gwb’s term? Any reason why this shit was quiet during obama’s two terms and what were you doing during trump’s admin?
You want to make this of all things a make or break for Harris why?
We all know why.
I'm glad people are interested in what's happening in Gaza. Fucking finally. But I'd prefer actual empathy to this false bullshit being pushed by nefarious (sometimes state) actors to sow doubt among Democratic voters with the clear goal of electing the guy who will let Netanyahu turn it to dust and start WW3.
bruh i'm talking about shit going on right now, and I was out in the streets getting gassed by cops in 2020 what the fuck are you talking about?
There were insane protests against the Iraq war, if you're really that ignorant of them you were probably just doing what you are now, then.
I’m aware of and participated in those protests. The difference was that no one called democrats genocidal when republicans lied their way into a war.
Yet now the democrats are being called genocidal for basically being in power after decades of policy and foreign relations were already set. Very different from lying about yellow cake. It’s almost like there’s a nuance being lost in your bullshit rhetoric.
Yet now the democrats are being called genocidal for basically being in power after decades of policy and foreign relations were already set.
If you get in power with genocidal policies in place, and do nothing to change them, after running as the people to 'change' things, for 3+ presidential terms, you're going to get tarred with the same brush.
The lying about yellow cake required democrats going along with it. Biden (and many others) voted for the Iraq war on the basis of those lies- I don't think he was swindled, it was a convenient lie to believe if you're a foreign policy hawk.
It takes a lot of time to steer the ship. You’re blaming one party for not instantly correcting the other party’s decade of policy. Maybe blame the voters?
You mention a handful of democrats believing the lies coming from a GOP led White House. That doesn’t impugn the whole party, and you conveniently ignore the source of those lies to attack democrats.
It’s hilarious that the same folks that keep attacking a 2 party system still use it as the basis of their ignorance. As I said before there’s a nuance that gets lost when you spew bullshit.
It's a two party system where both parties have the same genocidal policies around the world, and one of the parties goes "aw shucks, we're so sorry" while the other foams at the mouth.
They're both bad for different reasons, the mad dog is obviously just that, but the person going along with it the whole time pretending to be the reasonable one? That's why they get scorn.
People refuse to even hear criticism of them because 'look how bad the other ones are'
You mention a handful of democrats believing the lies coming from a GOP led White House. That doesn’t impugn the whole party, and you conveniently ignore the source of those lies to attack democrats.
The president/ vice president for the last 12/16 years, is somehow not a fair metric for the party he represents.
He stepped down because he saw that America took his gaffes at the debate more seriously than he thought they should, not because he feels he's not up to the job. Honestly, our way of selecting Presidents sucks. An objective look at this admin versus the last admin would make that decision easy -- Biden has set himself up for success by hiring competent underlings rather than yes-men, and he managed to reverse killer inflation and handle a global pandemic, while fighting against one tyrant. He's not perfect. Nobody is. He is open to criticism over his handling of Palestine and Israel and we sure can criticise his unwillingness to hold Netanyahu as accountable as he wants to handle Putin. But the other guy set up Biden for the last 4 years of bullshit with his utter mismanagement of the country, and plans on making things ten times worse. Biden looked at the polling, at the bullshit settling down on his administration and on him personally, and said he'd step back so Harris could run.
As for why Harris got the nod? There was less than a month until the General Election, virtually all of the Primaries had already been had, and despite all the bullshit being peddled about him, he won the Primary. Harris was on his ticket. They wanted to transition easily into the General without a bajillion crazy little questions about the Biden/Harris campaign, its warchest, and avoid a bloodbath between various Democratic Party factions all screaming for their guy/gal just in time for Trump to trounce the weakened candidate in the general, they leveraged the same process that would have happened had that nutbar that shot at Trump taken a shot at Biden and didn't miss -- the VP becomes POTUS. And this allows Harris to not have to jump through hoops for ballot access nor start from scratch with campaign finances, which unfortunately are STILL important for getting into the White House.
Sadly, the bullshit shifted to Harris and we're back where we were before. Does the hard-left WANT Trump in office, because it sure fucking looks like they do.
Maybe he also realized he was too close to it. All his speeches were in contrast to the other party’s candidate, and I still support that he’s much fitter to lead than the other party’s candidate. But if you step back from just the one on one contest, it’s a completely different story …..
Got proof of this? I mean, only once in my lifetime has a third party cracked 10% of the vote share. Easily 90% of the votes given have gone to a guy or gal with an -R or -D after their name for President.
I didn’t say anything about third party, but you’re right that maybe my attempt at not degenerating into political name calling made it unclear.
To be more blunt:
Biden is clearly more fit to be president than Trump and likely will be until the day he dies, and several weeks later
for myself, I focused on this. In the competition between the two, Biden is clearly the better choice and the most fit to be president.
Historically, sitting presidents have had a strong advantage in an election. Biden is not only a sitting president but has been elected over Trump
This makes Biden a clear choice …. But all the noise about his age did make me sit back and reconsider whether that was true in general or in the context of this competition. If there was not so much on the line and not so much recent toxic history, I would agree that I prefer someone else, someone younger and more energetic. I thought Biden was perfect in the centrist position attempt to bring this country back together, and he did as much as anyone could.
But Harris came out swinging, showing energy, youth, life, and even strayed toward progressive (I don’t know if that’s still true). If I can step back from the competition between two old men, take a larger picture, ignore all the toxic blather, I can see that she is indeed a candidate I would prefer.
The guy’s not dumb, maybe he sees it too. It must have been the toughest part of his term, always battling for reality over toxic stunts, blatant lies so it’s all too easy staying in the trenches, focusing on slugging it out, when he’s the only sane person in the room. Maybe Biden stepped back and said, yeah, I’m tired of this and there actually are other choices.
Fair point. I did misread 'one on one' to mean Democrat vs Republican with 'stepping back' to mean viewing Third Parties.
I totally agree with your reasoning, as it was my reasoning. The guy is old, not a debate. He's a gaffe machine, too. Some people pushed the meme he was losing a step, but while I saw him as old, I didn't see him as washed up or senile. The guy just doesn't know how to NOT put his foot in his mouth (I share a lot in common with him on that regard!!!), and there were an awful lot of bad-faith actors saying that he wasn't just old, but senile as well. They're still around, saying he's too old and senile to run the show now, and he should resign.
I think how Harris is being treated by various people on and offline should be a key indicator that Biden's resignation wasn't the end of the bullshit factories. They each have their own desires for their choice of President, and they can't even agree with each other who that choice is. Some will scream for Sanders. Others will scream for Stein. Some particularly pigeon-holed ones will argue for Fruit, despite her being mathematically eliminated from 270 before the first vote is cast. And lets get real. There are all to many of them who will tell you "IMMA FOR JILL" or some other tiny Third Party candidate while actually wanting Trump. Some think that a Trump presidency will lead them to the Progressive Promised Land. Others...are here to ensure we're so busy infighting that we can't put a unified resistance up, so they can get the Handmaiden's Tale they desparately want.
If Biden gave up because America is dumb, I don't blame him. In 2016, I tried hard to get out and get to Canada or New Zealand. But now Canada and New Zealand are overrun or about to be overrun by dumb people too. :|
No, the hard left doesn't want Trump. Drag is hard left and wants Kamala in office. lemmy.ml users aren't hard left, they're leninists, which is moderate left. About the same amount of left as social democrats.
Calling Leninism "moderate left" is like calling Project 2025 "moderate right".
Drag apologises. Drag will follow your advice and call Leninism far right.
Leninists are not hard left wing. And fascist / project 2025 are not hard right wing. The thing to understand with authoritarians. Is that they are only hard authoritarian. Nothing more nothing less. Anything outside of that can be changed at a snap of the fingers.
Need proof? Look at any government based around the concepts of marxist Leninism. Brutally socially oppressive. Creating heavily stratified classes and an inescapable Nation. Things pretty much counter to every actual left-wing ideology. Or look at any Western capitalist nation. Every single one currently fending off populist fascists. Who want to oppress minority groups and use the government to rigidly stratify Society under the boot of an inescapable nation. Pretty much counter to all the talk of Liberty and freedom of right wing ideologies . All because their actual hard right liberal governments refuse to compromise and Budge left in any fashion to address the needs of the people.
Fascism is the dictionary definition of far-right politics. You'd be hard pressed to name a similarly prominent political ideology that is even father to the right than fascism. Likewise, Leninism's revolutionary ideals place the ideology in the far left, despite its implementations not achieving those ideals. An ideology being authoritarian doesn't make it moderate on the left-right scale. Instead, the more authoritarian governments tend to be hard left/right instead of moderate left/right.
I have to disagree about right-wing ideology being about "liberty and freedom". That's the realm of libertarianism, not right-wing politics. Libertarians in the U.S. tend to be right-wing, but libertarianism and right-wing politics are distinct ideologies. Right-wing politics emphasize traditional values, nationalism, and hierarchial social structures.
And? Wikipedia isn't a source. Even the Nazis implemented the sorts of policies many socialists. Myself included support. They just excluded everyone that wasn't part of their ubermensch. Which leftist/socialists wouldn't. The sorts of things plenty of far right economic-liberals are actively trying to dismantle completely in the US.
Before we go any further, let's attempt to not talk past each other. If you are using a political spectrum with a single axis. I am not. Honestly, I'm not even sure 2 axis can accurately represented the political spectrum. But it is far better than kindergarten terms of left and right. But let's assume a basic two axis plot. That's very common all over the internet. Where left is socialism right as capitalism is authoritarian and down is libertarian. The more authoritarian you are. The less Concepts like left and right matter to you. You are focused only on power. Thus the further authoritarian you go live More Everything converges to a single point. Where policy is whatever it takes for you to hold power. Which is why I point out to you that they aren't significantly left or right. They are authoritarian.
I think the other issue is that you are taking people at their word. But not paying attention to what they do. The words of a politician are worthless. The words of a shyster grifter trying to push a dogmatic ideological framework on you are somehow worth less. If you take Trump at his word. He's the best guy you'll ever meet. A real stand-up guy. I think you and I both know you would be a fool to do that. Just like capitalism talks about all this Pie in the Sky bullshit that doesn't happen. Leninism does the exact same. To a worse extent even.
And finally everyone claims their ideology is about freedom and liberty. The catch is it's only for their in-group. For those on the right it's freedom and liberty for those with the resources to engage with the economy. On the left it's freedom and liberty for society. The catch is where they fall along the authoritarian libertarian Spectrum. Anarchists, libertarians, and communists being extremely left and explicitly including absolutely everyone. Big L Libertarians/economics liberals are extreme right wing crazy capitalist. Pushing capitalism into places it just doesn't even make sense. Because it's what they do. Liberal Democrats are much more libertarian than conservative republicans. Big L Libertarians are somewhere in between the two of them. But they are all far right. And have a much narrower inclusion for "society". If you dare criticize or insult the Vanguard party or fascist leadership. They will outright kill you or in prison you. Kicking you clear out of society.
Need I remind you this year China sentenced someone to a year imprisonment for wearing a mother fucking shirt. Not going to lie economic liberals like Republicans and Democrats are pretty fucked up. But you don't see people being jailed for wearing let's go Brandon t-shirts. And there's no equivalent on the Democrat side to even cite. Though I'm sure Republicans who Trend fascist would love to jail someone for wearing anything that insulted Republicans or Trump. Thank God they don't have the power to yet.
You're calling fascists "moderate right" and liberal democrats "far-right" because Nazis did some things that you agree with? What exactly did the Nazis do that makes you think fascism is more moderate on the left-right axis than liberal democracy? It looks like you're either completely ignoring the social policies of fascism, or your understanding of the terms "moderate right" and "far-right" is way out of line with how most people understand them.
I'll take Wikipedia over a Lemmy comment with no sources that is arguing that fascism is more moderate than it actually is. The Wikipedia articles I linked to are cited, and the citations look very credible to me.
(I'm fully aware of the two-axis political model you mentioned, which is why I distinguished libertarianism from right-wing politics even though libertarians in the U.S. tend to be right-wing.)
No. Ideologically authoritarians aren't left or right in any meaningful sense. Let alone moderate. it's got nothing to do with me. Everything to do with basic facts and their actions. You're thinking of someone else who implied they were "moderate"
Down votes from buthurt Leninists and politically naive westerners isn't anything to value. But anyhow I tried sincerely to engage with you and have an honest discussion. And you just weren't having it. So you have fun believing stuff just because it's popular or that it's what someone told you. Don't bother thinking for yourself it's too much trouble.
Obviously, I am thinking for myself by rejecting your argument that fascism is "not hard right wing". And you still haven't provided any sources for your argument. It's clear to me that fascism is both far-right and authoritarian, and being authoritarian doesn't prevent fascism from being far-right.
Relative to what, Maoists? Ultraleftists? Leftcoms?
Anarchists.
Is Anarchism when one supports the US government?
No. Anarchism is when you try to prevent the US government from getting even worse. Leninism is when you stick your head in the sand and pretend you can ignore the flaws in the electoral system and the sacrifices demanded of us.
I'm not sure drag knows what anarchy is...
By enthusiastically supporting neoliberal genocidaires in bourgeois elections.
Leninism does not ignore the flaws of bourgeois electoralism. Lenin wrote a whole book called "Left Communism: an Infantile Disorder" which is precisely about people refusing to participate in the existing political system.
It is with the utmost contempt—and the utmost levity—that the German “Left” Communists reply to this question in the negative. Their arguments? In the passage quoted above we read:
“. . . All reversion to parliamentary forms of struggle, which have become historically and politically obsolete, must be emphatically rejected. . . .”
This is said with ridiculous pretentiousness, and is patently wrong. “Reversion” to parliamentarianism, forsooth! Perhaps there is already a Soviet republic in Germany? It does not look like it! How, then, can one speak of “reversion”? Is this not an empty phrase?
Parliamentarianism has become “historically obsolete”. That is true in the propaganda sense. However, everybody knows that this is still a far cry from overcoming it in practice. Capitalism could have been declared—and with full justice—to be “historically obsolete” many decades ago, but that does not at all remove the need for a very long and very persistent struggle on the basis of capitalism. Parliamentarianism is “historically obsolete” from the standpoint of world history, i.e., the era of bourgeois parliamentarianism is over, and the era of the proletarian dictatorship has begun. That is incontestable. But world history is counted in decades. Ten or twenty years earlier or later makes no difference when measured with the yardstick of world history; from the standpoint of world history it is a trifle that cannot be considered even approximately. But for that very reason, it is a glaring theoretical error to apply the yardstick of world history to practical politics.
:::
However, what he argued for was not entryism into liberal parties, but rather using the elections to build a Marxist party that could control it's message and use the opportunity to organize and build power outside of the electoral structure.
Lenin didn't live in America. If you try to use Russian electoral tactics in America, you'll fail. It's like trying to send the fleet to broadside Houston. Adapt your strategies to the terrain. You can't just pretend that the USA is Russia.
Does drag think that Russia under the Tsar was more democratic than the US today?
In any case, my position on voting third party is not because of what Lenin wrote, I merely wanted to clarify that Lenin's stance was not consistent with how drag characterized Leninism. I'm voting third party based on my own assessment of the situation, and I was a third party voter before ever encountering Lenin.
Drag thinks the precise opposite. That the parties Lenin discussed weren't electoral parties. The meaning of the word party back then isn't the same as now. Nowadays parties compete in electoralism. Organisations like Extinction Rebellion or the Proud Boys, which operate outside the electoral system, are not what we would call parties today. And yet Lenin's "parties" are more similar to XR than to the Greens. Drag thinks you've been misled by a bad translation from the English of a century ago to the English of today.
Drag 100% agrees with the strategy of creating socialist organisations outside of the government. Creating socialist organisations inside the government is more complicated. It's good in most places, but not in America. And it isn't what Lenin told you to do.
We Bolsheviks participated in the most counterrevolutionary parliaments, and experience has shown that this participation was not only useful but indispensable to the party of the revolutionary proletariat, after the first bourgeois revolution in Russia (1905), so as to pave the way for the second bourgeois revolution (February 1917), and then for the socialist revolution (October 1917).
:::spoiler More
Third, the “Left” Communists have a great deal to say in praise of us Bolsheviks. One sometimes feels like telling them to praise us less and to try to get a better knowledge of the Bolsheviks’ tactics. We took part in the elections to the Constituent Assembly, the Russian bourgeois parliament in September–November 1917. Were our tactics correct or not? If not, then this should be clearly stated and proved, for it is necessary in evolving the correct tactics for international communism. If they were correct, then certain conclusions must be drawn. Of course, there can be no question of placing conditions in Russia on a par with conditions in Western Europe. But as regards the particular question of the meaning of the concept that “parliamentarianism has become politically obsolete”, due account should be taken of our experience, for unless concrete experience is taken into account such concepts very easily turn into empty phrases. In September–November 1917, did we, the Russian Bolsheviks, not have more right than any Western Communists to consider that parliamentarianism was politically obsolete in Russia? Of course we did, for the point is not whether bourgeois parliaments have existed for a long time or a short time, but how far the masses of the working people are prepared (ideologically, politically and practically) to accept the Soviet system and to dissolve the bourgeois-democratic parliament (or allow it to be dissolved). It is an absolutely incontestable and fully established historical fact that, in September–November 1917, the urban working class and the soldiers and peasants of Russia were, because of a number of special conditions, exceptionally well prepared to accept the Soviet system and to disband the most democratic of bourgeois parliaments. Nevertheless, the Bolsheviks did not boycott the Constituent Assembly, but took part in the elections both before and after the proletariat conquered political power. That these elections yielded exceedingly valuable (and to the proletariat, highly useful) political results has, I make bold to hope, been proved by me in the above-mentioned article, which analyses in detail the returns of the elections to the Constituent Assembly in Russia.
The conclusion which follows from this is absolutely incontrovertible: it has been proved that, far from causing harm to the revolutionary proletariat, participation in a bourgeois-democratic parliament, even a few weeks before the victory of a Soviet republic and even after such a victory, actually helps that proletariat to prove to the backward masses why such parliaments deserve to be done away with; it facilitates their successful dissolution, and helps to make bourgeois parliamentarianism “politically obsolete”. To ignore this experience, while at the same time claiming affiliation to the Communist International, which must work out its tactics internationally (not as narrow or exclusively national tactics, but as international tactics), means committing a gross error and actually abandoning internationalism in deed, while recognising it in word.
:::
Does drag have any basis for what drag just claimed, that the parties Lenin discussed were not parties that participated in electoral processes? Or did drag just make it up, in direct contradiction to what Lenin actually said, which I already cited to drag?
Drag Googled "politics in tsarist Russia", went to Wikipedia and read it was a monarchy. Drag read about one of the socialist parties and saw no mention of votes or seats.
Drag didn't see any blue on your comment. You hid it inside a spoiler. Drag didn't notice the drop down and thought it was a heading. Don't hide things you want drag to read.
Drag thinks he's still got the same legislation skills as always, it's just the campaigning skills that went because his speech disorder from childhood came back. So they picked someone without dementia to do the campaigning, and he'll be out of office before the dementia hits his prefrontal cortex like it has with Trump. It's a sensible decision.
You seem to have a better window inside Biden than I do
I'm somewhat baffled by him stepping down from running, but remaining president for the entire year. It seems like whoever is running for president, Kamala should have already taken over. It also feels weird having her just get inserted at the end of the process like that's a normal thing, but I can't really complain as I voted no preference anyways.
Your “baffling” has nothing to do with Biden and everything to do with you…
Once it's the Harris regime responsible for airstriking refugee tents are you going to at least have fun at brunch?
Once you recognize the last century of US foreign policy will you get something else to talk about?
Is this suddenly a new topic for you? Any reason? Why is it that I never heard you during Reagan or gwb’s term? Any reason why this shit was quiet during obama’s two terms and what were you doing during trump’s admin?
You want to make this of all things a make or break for Harris why?
We all know why.
I'm glad people are interested in what's happening in Gaza. Fucking finally. But I'd prefer actual empathy to this false bullshit being pushed by nefarious (sometimes state) actors to sow doubt among Democratic voters with the clear goal of electing the guy who will let Netanyahu turn it to dust and start WW3.
bruh i'm talking about shit going on right now, and I was out in the streets getting gassed by cops in 2020 what the fuck are you talking about?
There were insane protests against the Iraq war, if you're really that ignorant of them you were probably just doing what you are now, then.
I’m aware of and participated in those protests. The difference was that no one called democrats genocidal when republicans lied their way into a war.
Yet now the democrats are being called genocidal for basically being in power after decades of policy and foreign relations were already set. Very different from lying about yellow cake. It’s almost like there’s a nuance being lost in your bullshit rhetoric.
If you get in power with genocidal policies in place, and do nothing to change them, after running as the people to 'change' things, for 3+ presidential terms, you're going to get tarred with the same brush.
The lying about yellow cake required democrats going along with it. Biden (and many others) voted for the Iraq war on the basis of those lies- I don't think he was swindled, it was a convenient lie to believe if you're a foreign policy hawk.
It takes a lot of time to steer the ship. You’re blaming one party for not instantly correcting the other party’s decade of policy. Maybe blame the voters?
You mention a handful of democrats believing the lies coming from a GOP led White House. That doesn’t impugn the whole party, and you conveniently ignore the source of those lies to attack democrats.
It’s hilarious that the same folks that keep attacking a 2 party system still use it as the basis of their ignorance. As I said before there’s a nuance that gets lost when you spew bullshit.
It's a two party system where both parties have the same genocidal policies around the world, and one of the parties goes "aw shucks, we're so sorry" while the other foams at the mouth.
They're both bad for different reasons, the mad dog is obviously just that, but the person going along with it the whole time pretending to be the reasonable one? That's why they get scorn.
People refuse to even hear criticism of them because 'look how bad the other ones are'
The president/ vice president for the last 12/16 years, is somehow not a fair metric for the party he represents.
He stepped down because he saw that America took his gaffes at the debate more seriously than he thought they should, not because he feels he's not up to the job. Honestly, our way of selecting Presidents sucks. An objective look at this admin versus the last admin would make that decision easy -- Biden has set himself up for success by hiring competent underlings rather than yes-men, and he managed to reverse killer inflation and handle a global pandemic, while fighting against one tyrant. He's not perfect. Nobody is. He is open to criticism over his handling of Palestine and Israel and we sure can criticise his unwillingness to hold Netanyahu as accountable as he wants to handle Putin. But the other guy set up Biden for the last 4 years of bullshit with his utter mismanagement of the country, and plans on making things ten times worse. Biden looked at the polling, at the bullshit settling down on his administration and on him personally, and said he'd step back so Harris could run.
As for why Harris got the nod? There was less than a month until the General Election, virtually all of the Primaries had already been had, and despite all the bullshit being peddled about him, he won the Primary. Harris was on his ticket. They wanted to transition easily into the General without a bajillion crazy little questions about the Biden/Harris campaign, its warchest, and avoid a bloodbath between various Democratic Party factions all screaming for their guy/gal just in time for Trump to trounce the weakened candidate in the general, they leveraged the same process that would have happened had that nutbar that shot at Trump taken a shot at Biden and didn't miss -- the VP becomes POTUS. And this allows Harris to not have to jump through hoops for ballot access nor start from scratch with campaign finances, which unfortunately are STILL important for getting into the White House.
Sadly, the bullshit shifted to Harris and we're back where we were before. Does the hard-left WANT Trump in office, because it sure fucking looks like they do.
Maybe he also realized he was too close to it. All his speeches were in contrast to the other party’s candidate, and I still support that he’s much fitter to lead than the other party’s candidate. But if you step back from just the one on one contest, it’s a completely different story …..
Got proof of this? I mean, only once in my lifetime has a third party cracked 10% of the vote share. Easily 90% of the votes given have gone to a guy or gal with an -R or -D after their name for President.
I didn’t say anything about third party, but you’re right that maybe my attempt at not degenerating into political name calling made it unclear.
To be more blunt:
This makes Biden a clear choice …. But all the noise about his age did make me sit back and reconsider whether that was true in general or in the context of this competition. If there was not so much on the line and not so much recent toxic history, I would agree that I prefer someone else, someone younger and more energetic. I thought Biden was perfect in the centrist position attempt to bring this country back together, and he did as much as anyone could.
But Harris came out swinging, showing energy, youth, life, and even strayed toward progressive (I don’t know if that’s still true). If I can step back from the competition between two old men, take a larger picture, ignore all the toxic blather, I can see that she is indeed a candidate I would prefer.
The guy’s not dumb, maybe he sees it too. It must have been the toughest part of his term, always battling for reality over toxic stunts, blatant lies so it’s all too easy staying in the trenches, focusing on slugging it out, when he’s the only sane person in the room. Maybe Biden stepped back and said, yeah, I’m tired of this and there actually are other choices.
Fair point. I did misread 'one on one' to mean Democrat vs Republican with 'stepping back' to mean viewing Third Parties.
I totally agree with your reasoning, as it was my reasoning. The guy is old, not a debate. He's a gaffe machine, too. Some people pushed the meme he was losing a step, but while I saw him as old, I didn't see him as washed up or senile. The guy just doesn't know how to NOT put his foot in his mouth (I share a lot in common with him on that regard!!!), and there were an awful lot of bad-faith actors saying that he wasn't just old, but senile as well. They're still around, saying he's too old and senile to run the show now, and he should resign.
I think how Harris is being treated by various people on and offline should be a key indicator that Biden's resignation wasn't the end of the bullshit factories. They each have their own desires for their choice of President, and they can't even agree with each other who that choice is. Some will scream for Sanders. Others will scream for Stein. Some particularly pigeon-holed ones will argue for Fruit, despite her being mathematically eliminated from 270 before the first vote is cast. And lets get real. There are all to many of them who will tell you "IMMA FOR JILL" or some other tiny Third Party candidate while actually wanting Trump. Some think that a Trump presidency will lead them to the Progressive Promised Land. Others...are here to ensure we're so busy infighting that we can't put a unified resistance up, so they can get the Handmaiden's Tale they desparately want.
If Biden gave up because America is dumb, I don't blame him. In 2016, I tried hard to get out and get to Canada or New Zealand. But now Canada and New Zealand are overrun or about to be overrun by dumb people too. :|
No, the hard left doesn't want Trump. Drag is hard left and wants Kamala in office. lemmy.ml users aren't hard left, they're leninists, which is moderate left. About the same amount of left as social democrats.
Calling Leninism "moderate left" is like calling Project 2025 "moderate right".
Drag apologises. Drag will follow your advice and call Leninism far right.
Leninists are not hard left wing. And fascist / project 2025 are not hard right wing. The thing to understand with authoritarians. Is that they are only hard authoritarian. Nothing more nothing less. Anything outside of that can be changed at a snap of the fingers.
Need proof? Look at any government based around the concepts of marxist Leninism. Brutally socially oppressive. Creating heavily stratified classes and an inescapable Nation. Things pretty much counter to every actual left-wing ideology. Or look at any Western capitalist nation. Every single one currently fending off populist fascists. Who want to oppress minority groups and use the government to rigidly stratify Society under the boot of an inescapable nation. Pretty much counter to all the talk of Liberty and freedom of right wing ideologies . All because their actual hard right liberal governments refuse to compromise and Budge left in any fashion to address the needs of the people.
Fascism is the dictionary definition of far-right politics. You'd be hard pressed to name a similarly prominent political ideology that is even father to the right than fascism. Likewise, Leninism's revolutionary ideals place the ideology in the far left, despite its implementations not achieving those ideals. An ideology being authoritarian doesn't make it moderate on the left-right scale. Instead, the more authoritarian governments tend to be hard left/right instead of moderate left/right.
I have to disagree about right-wing ideology being about "liberty and freedom". That's the realm of libertarianism, not right-wing politics. Libertarians in the U.S. tend to be right-wing, but libertarianism and right-wing politics are distinct ideologies. Right-wing politics emphasize traditional values, nationalism, and hierarchial social structures.
And? Wikipedia isn't a source. Even the Nazis implemented the sorts of policies many socialists. Myself included support. They just excluded everyone that wasn't part of their ubermensch. Which leftist/socialists wouldn't. The sorts of things plenty of far right economic-liberals are actively trying to dismantle completely in the US.
Before we go any further, let's attempt to not talk past each other. If you are using a political spectrum with a single axis. I am not. Honestly, I'm not even sure 2 axis can accurately represented the political spectrum. But it is far better than kindergarten terms of left and right. But let's assume a basic two axis plot. That's very common all over the internet. Where left is socialism right as capitalism is authoritarian and down is libertarian. The more authoritarian you are. The less Concepts like left and right matter to you. You are focused only on power. Thus the further authoritarian you go live More Everything converges to a single point. Where policy is whatever it takes for you to hold power. Which is why I point out to you that they aren't significantly left or right. They are authoritarian.
I think the other issue is that you are taking people at their word. But not paying attention to what they do. The words of a politician are worthless. The words of a shyster grifter trying to push a dogmatic ideological framework on you are somehow worth less. If you take Trump at his word. He's the best guy you'll ever meet. A real stand-up guy. I think you and I both know you would be a fool to do that. Just like capitalism talks about all this Pie in the Sky bullshit that doesn't happen. Leninism does the exact same. To a worse extent even.
And finally everyone claims their ideology is about freedom and liberty. The catch is it's only for their in-group. For those on the right it's freedom and liberty for those with the resources to engage with the economy. On the left it's freedom and liberty for society. The catch is where they fall along the authoritarian libertarian Spectrum. Anarchists, libertarians, and communists being extremely left and explicitly including absolutely everyone. Big L Libertarians/economics liberals are extreme right wing crazy capitalist. Pushing capitalism into places it just doesn't even make sense. Because it's what they do. Liberal Democrats are much more libertarian than conservative republicans. Big L Libertarians are somewhere in between the two of them. But they are all far right. And have a much narrower inclusion for "society". If you dare criticize or insult the Vanguard party or fascist leadership. They will outright kill you or in prison you. Kicking you clear out of society.
Need I remind you this year China sentenced someone to a year imprisonment for wearing a mother fucking shirt. Not going to lie economic liberals like Republicans and Democrats are pretty fucked up. But you don't see people being jailed for wearing let's go Brandon t-shirts. And there's no equivalent on the Democrat side to even cite. Though I'm sure Republicans who Trend fascist would love to jail someone for wearing anything that insulted Republicans or Trump. Thank God they don't have the power to yet.
You're calling fascists "moderate right" and liberal democrats "far-right" because Nazis did some things that you agree with? What exactly did the Nazis do that makes you think fascism is more moderate on the left-right axis than liberal democracy? It looks like you're either completely ignoring the social policies of fascism, or your understanding of the terms "moderate right" and "far-right" is way out of line with how most people understand them.
I'll take Wikipedia over a Lemmy comment with no sources that is arguing that fascism is more moderate than it actually is. The Wikipedia articles I linked to are cited, and the citations look very credible to me.
(I'm fully aware of the two-axis political model you mentioned, which is why I distinguished libertarianism from right-wing politics even though libertarians in the U.S. tend to be right-wing.)
No. Ideologically authoritarians aren't left or right in any meaningful sense. Let alone moderate. it's got nothing to do with me. Everything to do with basic facts and their actions. You're thinking of someone else who implied they were "moderate"
Down votes from buthurt Leninists and politically naive westerners isn't anything to value. But anyhow I tried sincerely to engage with you and have an honest discussion. And you just weren't having it. So you have fun believing stuff just because it's popular or that it's what someone told you. Don't bother thinking for yourself it's too much trouble.
Obviously, I am thinking for myself by rejecting your argument that fascism is "not hard right wing". And you still haven't provided any sources for your argument. It's clear to me that fascism is both far-right and authoritarian, and being authoritarian doesn't prevent fascism from being far-right.
Relative to what, Maoists? Ultraleftists? Leftcoms?
Anarchists.
Is Anarchism when one supports the US government?
No. Anarchism is when you try to prevent the US government from getting even worse. Leninism is when you stick your head in the sand and pretend you can ignore the flaws in the electoral system and the sacrifices demanded of us.
I'm not sure drag knows what anarchy is...
By enthusiastically supporting neoliberal genocidaires in bourgeois elections.
Leninism does not ignore the flaws of bourgeois electoralism. Lenin wrote a whole book called "Left Communism: an Infantile Disorder" which is precisely about people refusing to participate in the existing political system.
:::spoiler Theory
Should We Participate in Bourgeois Parliaments?
It is with the utmost contempt—and the utmost levity—that the German “Left” Communists reply to this question in the negative. Their arguments? In the passage quoted above we read:
This is said with ridiculous pretentiousness, and is patently wrong. “Reversion” to parliamentarianism, forsooth! Perhaps there is already a Soviet republic in Germany? It does not look like it! How, then, can one speak of “reversion”? Is this not an empty phrase?
Parliamentarianism has become “historically obsolete”. That is true in the propaganda sense. However, everybody knows that this is still a far cry from overcoming it in practice. Capitalism could have been declared—and with full justice—to be “historically obsolete” many decades ago, but that does not at all remove the need for a very long and very persistent struggle on the basis of capitalism. Parliamentarianism is “historically obsolete” from the standpoint of world history, i.e., the era of bourgeois parliamentarianism is over, and the era of the proletarian dictatorship has begun. That is incontestable. But world history is counted in decades. Ten or twenty years earlier or later makes no difference when measured with the yardstick of world history; from the standpoint of world history it is a trifle that cannot be considered even approximately. But for that very reason, it is a glaring theoretical error to apply the yardstick of world history to practical politics.
:::
However, what he argued for was not entryism into liberal parties, but rather using the elections to build a Marxist party that could control it's message and use the opportunity to organize and build power outside of the electoral structure.
Lenin didn't live in America. If you try to use Russian electoral tactics in America, you'll fail. It's like trying to send the fleet to broadside Houston. Adapt your strategies to the terrain. You can't just pretend that the USA is Russia.
Does drag think that Russia under the Tsar was more democratic than the US today?
In any case, my position on voting third party is not because of what Lenin wrote, I merely wanted to clarify that Lenin's stance was not consistent with how drag characterized Leninism. I'm voting third party based on my own assessment of the situation, and I was a third party voter before ever encountering Lenin.
Drag thinks the precise opposite. That the parties Lenin discussed weren't electoral parties. The meaning of the word party back then isn't the same as now. Nowadays parties compete in electoralism. Organisations like Extinction Rebellion or the Proud Boys, which operate outside the electoral system, are not what we would call parties today. And yet Lenin's "parties" are more similar to XR than to the Greens. Drag thinks you've been misled by a bad translation from the English of a century ago to the English of today.
Drag 100% agrees with the strategy of creating socialist organisations outside of the government. Creating socialist organisations inside the government is more complicated. It's good in most places, but not in America. And it isn't what Lenin told you to do.
I don't think drag read what I cited, so I will link it again. Literally the title says, "Should We Participate in Bourgeois Parliaments?" which he answers in the affirmative.
:::spoiler More
:::
Does drag have any basis for what drag just claimed, that the parties Lenin discussed were not parties that participated in electoral processes? Or did drag just make it up, in direct contradiction to what Lenin actually said, which I already cited to drag?
Drag Googled "politics in tsarist Russia", went to Wikipedia and read it was a monarchy. Drag read about one of the socialist parties and saw no mention of votes or seats.
Drag didn't see any blue on your comment. You hid it inside a spoiler. Drag didn't notice the drop down and thought it was a heading. Don't hide things you want drag to read.
Drag thinks he's still got the same legislation skills as always, it's just the campaigning skills that went because his speech disorder from childhood came back. So they picked someone without dementia to do the campaigning, and he'll be out of office before the dementia hits his prefrontal cortex like it has with Trump. It's a sensible decision.
You seem to have a better window inside Biden than I do