I think most Dems, especially those who are highly politically engaged and closely follow election news, are going to vote blue no matter who. So, I think Bernie is preaching to the choir here. I think the Dems who are worried about Biden are worried he doesn't have enough support among independents, and they feel independents are much less likely to just vote for the Democrat, no matter who it is.
Now, could just any candidate replace Biden and automatically win back any of the independents he is believed to have lost? I don't know. A lot of Dems seem to think that just about any other candidate would do better than Biden among independents right now, but I'm not so sure.
Remember, Bernie Sanders did FORTY TWO events for Hillary after she was the chosen Dem candidate. More events than even she did for her own campaign!
Hillary, much like Trump, is a symptom of what is wrong with the Democrats. "It was her turn" spat in the face of people who were excited about a progressive candidate and made the whole primary a sham.
She was a terrible candidate. She was a bitter pill that many independents said "enough is enough" and voted third party or not voted at all.
I am deeply concerned that as the Republicans move more toward fascism, the left are not going to have great candidates. We're going to get established, wealthy-class friendly candidates who are willing to throw crumbs at the working class. They'll bitch and moan about how they are losing voters, never looking at themselves, never realizing that we are literally voting to just survive.
This election will be just like 2020. We aren't voting for Biden. We're voting against fascism.
And I'm personally getting fucking tired of Democrats seeing that as a win.
I am deeply concerned that as the Republicans move more toward fascism, the left are not going to have great candidates
Well, the Republicans Democrats will have an option of being "less fascist party" by then. I feel like the future is not too bright, somehow
Edit: mixed the opposites somehow š«
What an ungrateful cunt. I don't want to be in hell with that removed.
Calling her a cunt is unfair: she lacks both the warmth and the depth
Hear hear
I donāt want to be in hell with that removed.
Dying to know which word got removed when ācuntā was perfectly acceptable.
B I T C H but even then I could be referencing a female dog.
So, weāre allowed to say cunt but not The B Wordā¢ļø?
That appears to be the case
š«”
Lmao...I guess lemmy.ml didn't want to be unfair to Australians!
Progressives need to learn this lesson: liberals will always shift the blame.
Correct
Oh, now I understand. She's like, a real housewife of DC.
Hillary "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman" Clinton. Yeah. Keep on satisfying those poor, misguided progressives.
"Dont like the choices? Get over yourselves"
Hillary like 6 months ago
I think the other concern is voter turnout/enthusiasm. The last presidential election had extremely high turnout. Even if voters (in swing states) don't switch candidates but opt to stay home instead that could translate into a significant electoral problem too.
You do have a point that turn out Is important, but a potential replacement candidate isn't guaranteed to increase turn out, they could be worse.
And they would only have 4 months to try to fix things, which isn't a lot of time.
Turnout is literally everything. It is literally more turnout = Democrat win literally every single election in america. Low turnout in 2016 still resulted in trump losing the popular vote. America's voting system is messed up, but then so is UK's parliamentary first past the post system and Belgium's 6 governments.
I think you might be missing the point though.
Those highly politically engaged Dem voters who will vote blue no matter who are bickering about whether Biden is the right choice, and the swing voters are paying attention.
To an undecided voter, it doesn't inspire much confident to see that Biden's own supporters don't think he can do the job.
The bickering amongst those who will vote blue anyway is costing the votes from the undecideds that Biden so desperately needs.
This Bernie guy seems pretty energetic and popular... why not put him on the ballot?
I'd definitely do a double take. A good political decision? In the USA?
Let's see, just to name a few: openly against civil gun ownership, openly against expensive private healthcare, openly against zionism and Israel's occupation of Gaza. This pisses off a lot of very powerful people, so probably not gonna happen
Or stop bickering and replace him ASAP.
But really, I don't think this is bickering. I think it's an intentionally slow drip of news to get people more receptive to the idea of replacing him with Kamala, so that it's not a bomb dropping all of a sudden, which would likely freak out a bunch of voters and cause them to lose votes. Boil the frog slowly and there's less of a splash.
Well honestly itās going to be a splash either way and the sooner they replace him, the better. Kamala is going to need more time to cook with and the sooner she can get out there, the sooner she can challenge Trump to a debate and flip this country around.
I think this is the exact idea that Bernie is warning against.
Wishful thinking from Bernie. For fucks sake:
politics is showmanship, not an intellectual endeavor.
I fucking hate that, but it is the immutable truth.
You NEED a charismatic leader to win. Biden needs to fuck off.
I will ALWAYS cast my vote to most effectively suppress the republican traitor filth. But Bidenās a goner.
Exactly. I cannot fucking believe he can say with a straight face that it's not an entertainment contest. It's the biggest American Idol contest there is and sure as shit isn't a job interview.
It seems like the establishment is hell bent on making the choice Biden or Harris and Harris might be the only person less likely to win.
I will ALWAYS cast my vote to most effectively suppress the republican traitor filth.
And so you're going to vote for Biden, yes?
Yes. I think he should fuck off, but Iāll vote for him. I think heād lose. I hope to be wrong.
I will ALWAYS cast my vote to most effectively suppress the republican traitor filth. But Bidenās a goner.
If by goner, you mean youāre not voting for him- then this is contradictory.
I will vote D no matter what.
Thatās good to see. Thank you! Hopefully we can have some good things happen by next election and get someone better by then.
That is terrifying to hear.
I canāt consider voting for traitors. So repubs are off the table. I will always vote against them. Theyāre worthless filth.
Right but it wasnāt that long ago that D was the hardcore racist party.
To blindly support a party no matter what is not something anyone should ever do or proclaim.
I think itās pretty obvious that if the Democratic Party changed that drastically, the person you replied to would change their opinion. They are saying that because, at present, Republicans are far, far more dangerous.
Also, Democrats have been championing civil rights since JFK. Saying 1960 was not that long ago is silly. Suffering that 1866, which is when the poster you posted was made, is not that long ago when it comes to American politics is not even rational.
So why donāt people say that instead of such extremist language like āno matter whatā?
Words matter. Blindly supporting or pretending you will blindly support a shit party because the other is worse is in no way shape or form a good thing.
Clearly just to upset you personally. No one else seems to have this issue.
Well because this community is pretty overwhelmingly blue maga Iām not really surprised.
Lots of people have issues with it, you just constantly ignore the voices and wonder āWhy is Biden struggling to get voters?ā
āBlue MAGAā is not a thing and there is not a chance youāll turn it into one.
I donāt invent it, and itās already out there in public usage and has been for months.
You are the reason conservatives win elections, because you tell Democrats not to vote for Gore because he's boring or Hillary because she's ill, or Biden because he's old.
None of these irrelevant insults are stopping these people from doing their job.
Fuck off. I voted Gore and Hillary. Youāre not helping the situation by burying your head in the sand.
Don't worry. They're obviously gaslighting you. You undermined their entire argument and yet, they persist. How odd.
It's what they do.
Loudly proclaiming a specific, unpopular fact is the opposite of burying my head in the sand.
You're upset because you've been called out for burying your head in the sand.
The bandwagon is easy and comfortable and wrong here.
Bernie is right.
Regardless of whether or not Bernie is right, you're very wrong and helping no one.
Bernie is right, saying the same thing I've been saying for months.
I'm glad you focused on me helping people, that's exactly what's happening here.
Bullying works on a lot of people, but it sure slides off my back.
Vote Biden, a surprisingly progressive president that's enacted great policies that have helped hundreds of millions of people.
Don't worry about these conservative trolls, they're afraid of their dwindling power.
Thanks, you accurate username you, I appreciate it!
Oh, haha, first time trying to unify the left, huh?
He's just done with our shenanigans
Italians:
Drumpf is a living survivor martyr. Nothing is now gonna hold anything back. Every thing is now going to hit the fan.
Honestly second thing I thought of when I saw it. First was that it was staged.
We saw mass media and the Dems pull the same thing in 2004. Decide a candidate is unelectable, before the election, and then make it happen. What happened to letting the voters decide? What happened to democracy? Meh.
It was sick then, and it is sick now. If the man is too old, OK, but we all knew his age a year ago. To pretend to be surprised and concerned now is laughable.
What happened to letting the voters decide?
"Everyone needs to get out and vote!"
voters start bickering over who to vote for
"NOT LIKE THAT!"
If the man is too old, OK, but we all knew his age a year ago.
Which is why its crazy he didn't have any kind of primary contender. Hell, its crazy he didn't just wrap this at one term and pass the torch to any of a number of popular and highly competent governors.
I totally agree with you. My speculation is that people in power in the DNC didn't want to push for a younger candidate because then that candidate would immediately seize a lot of power. Perhaps they were disagreeing on who would be the best person, and they figured that some old man is low risk because he's going to retire soon enough anyway. But that's all blind speculation. A lot of what the DNC does happens behind closed doors.
Rare case of disagreeing with you, Bernie.
I have an unpopular opinion. Swapping candidates a couple months from election will look really disorganized and even weaker than keeping him. Especially to swing voters. And itāll be rushed. I doubt the replacement will be well known, so you expect me to get to know, learn who they are and develop a platform in a couple months? I think theyād lose too.
Itās too late. The spineless centrists controlling the party waffled too long and I bet they cost the election again. Just like in 2016. Iām really disappointed in the Democratic Party and how itās condensed itās power more towards the top and quite frankly, am tired of their muted response to things like project 2025 until months before the election. Itās been around since. Before trump was elected, but without a catchy name. I passed around the leaked documents on it in 2017.
Iām just reminded of āBaby Iām an Anarchistā by Against me! Lately. Iām not an Anarchist, but I feel the lyrics about the my fellow spineless liberals
Swapping candidates would look really, really bad.... unless he comes up and says "I had a talk with my doctor, he says I've developed a chronic condition that I didn't know about past year. I can't do it anymore, but here, vote for my VP, who you all already voted for once anyway, and would take over anyway if this thing kills me".
He can leave out that the chronic condition is just notgonnawinatall, and his doctor is also his pollster.
They are disorganized and always will be because they are not a hegemon like the Republicans.
I think that's why they're floating it now. They're getting people primed to accept someone as the replacement that they already recognize. (My money is on Kamala Harris.)
Other countries have their entire election cycles in a few months. It's a joke to think it's too late for Biden to drop out.
He understands the two party system we're left with. If we don't back the democratic candidate we will be fucked by the 30% of the population that wants Cheeto Messiah in the white house.
Yep. But let's explore this further under the hood.
Nobody of the progressive caucus can break ranks lest that be used against the party as a wedge-drive issue by operatives later, whether Biden stays in or not.
Bernie was essentially promised a high level committee position if he traded falling in line with Biden. This his returning of the favor.
Calls for Biden to step down will be completely ineffective from the progressive coalition anyway. Biden is a centrist and doesn't hold much respect for them. The people who matter are the likes of Clyburn and Pelosi.
A thought I havenāt seen offered much, but could give Biden an ego-soothing role instead of being put out to political pasture - a Harris:Biden ticket.
She gets to be the energetic go-getter at the front (that the Maga hate-oil salesmen are shrieking about atm) while Biden can play the āelder statesmanā role of advice and experience to Kamala instead of running himself. You defuse a lot of the competency/decline arguments against Biden, and gird against one of Harrisās biggest threats - her lack of international experience.
Kamala is not a political unknown, but Biden is losing/equal right now to Trump with the DNC money & publicity machine working for him the last eight years. Iād argue Harris has a better shot if those efforts are swung her way. I donāt like Harris, but neednāt convince me to vote team blue - itās the ~9% undecided we need to convince.
I mean, this isn't an awful idea...
The real world logistics probably make this more complicated than implied, but I don't mind the intent.
It's not a good idea because Kamala is pretty unpopular.
She comes off as out of touch and condescending, just like another certain candidate that lost to Trump in 2016.
I agree, she's not the candidate I'd want leading the demsāfar from it. But people are used to voting between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich as their president. Biden is something different, more agreeable than some other candidates the Dems have run. But people are seriously concerned about voting for a man who's mental acuity is declining rapidly towards senility and very possibly will not live through 2028.
Plus, I haven't read too far into it but I've heard that only Kamala would be able to use the Biden/Harris campaign war-chest. It's sad as hell that that is so important, but it is nonetheless.
I'm with him 100% on the first bit - at this point, the single most important thing the Dems have to do is stop bickering.
As for the rest, at this point I don't even much care. I can see arguments both for and against in both directions - either choice is going to involve some risk but either choice can be made to succeed.
So the important thing, and really the ONLY important thing, is to pick one and run with it. Stop with the dilly-dallying and the second-guessing and the bitching and moaning and hand-wringing and make a choice and stick with it, so we can focus ALL of our attention on pounding those fucking fascist traitors' dicks into the dirt.
Bernie or bust!
I agree. The asked. Biden responded. Move on. The ticket has a vp. Its fine.
Right his whole life, correct here too.
He also told supporters to vote for Hillary in 2016 and Biden in 2020. But... he does tell voters to make up their own decision
I agree with all three sentiments.
And he was right both times.
Fucking thank you, Bernie. Glad someone with a spine said it.
Kamala - Bernie. Let it happen you fucks!
No, biden then bernie. Its the only way bernie would be president
Satisfying to hear Democrats throw yet again another election?
Not a big history guy, are you?
Itās nice to see the majority of the democrats are reasonable people and will continue backing Biden.
tbh, I donāt think reasonable people would think an 80yr old is the best fit to run a country. Edit: Especially after publicly shitting the bed on multiple occasions
These are reasonable people who at this point are faced with a choice between that 80 year old and Trump.
The Democrats could have run someone else, should have run someone else, didn't run someone else. So those are now the two options.
The convention is a month away and plenty of time to retire the Rocinante for a better horse
He already has enough delegates to win the convention, as is my understanding of the odd way the Democratic party makes this decision.
Biden can announce that he is not seeking re-election. Release the delegates and it can be decided at the convention, as it officially is done. The DNC refusing to allow proper primaries makes this much messing now, but it is the only viable path forward without trump. Itās the policies and platform that are important and anyone who would vote D knows that. The left doesnāt want a king, but someone who can champion their ideals.
Isnāt he 81?
Idk it just looks like one candle at this point
Jeez, Iāve had smaller bonfires.
Yes, he's 81. He'll be 82 November 20th. 86 at the end of his second term if he's re-elected.
When heās re-elected.
It's looking a little scary chief...
But a 78 year old is?
Thatās not the question at hand. Trump should die in a fire, but thatās not what this is about.
That is what this is about. Because if everyone that is wanting people to not vote for the 81 year old get their way- then weāre getting the 78 year old.
THESE ARE OUR CHOICES. itās too late in the game to call an audible.
It's not too late for Biden to do an official act to mar-a-lago
It is ABSOLUTELY too late.
No, it's not too late. Biden is not even officially the democratic nominee yet, the convention hasn't even happened yet. The rest of the world has an entire election cycle that lasts like two months. The election is still almost four months away.
The US has an election cycle that runs much longer than most other places in the world.
I'm seeing a lot of people downvoting comments that are making simple statements of fact about how the American election system works. It may not be the way people want it to work, but that's what they've got. Downvoting such comments doesn't change it.
Thank you!
The US does not need to, is my point. Four months is more than enough time to introduce a new candidate.
I know it doesn't need to.
It does anyway.
There are a lot of things the US probably should be doing differently about its political system, but they aren't, and that's the world we live in.
Well I for one am not afraid of demanding better, so you go ahead and accept it's "too late" and I'll keep insisting it very much is not.
You keep steering wildly toward the cliff edge, I'll keep suggesting that maybe this isn't the best time for that.
Haha, no. Many other problems with that cesspool.
All the socialistās heads just exploded.
No, we left this lib behind a long time ago.
We're all China-stans now.
Aaaaaand thatās why no one takes your seriously.
Oh no, libs don't take me seriously! š
Ahhh yes. This reminds me SO much of my edgy high school years. It was our little grassroots movement vs the world! And we had EVERYTHING figured out. No one could tell us that weāre wrong in any way and we had Pat Benetar to back that up!
We knew it all!
Then we grew up and realized we didnāt know shit. We found out that the world doesnāt work the way we want it to and it never will, because we arenāt the only ones that live here. Looking back, it was incredibly stupid and naive to think that life in politics were that simple.
āJust do this thing we want! Itās that easy!ā
andā¦
āWe reject your reality and replaced it with our own!ā
The problem is: the rest of the world didnāt work with the reality we created for ourselves.
Manā¦ I miss those days, but living in reality has its merits as well. One of them is being taken seriously by people regardless of whether or not I share a core political values.
I hope you get the same chances I did. But times are VERY different. You may not be afforded the luxury to have the freedoms I had come January.
Now, go on- say something edgy so everyone knows you didnāt just get wrecked.
What the fuck are you talking about? I'm siding with China. You know, the worlds second largest economy? A billion people?
Hardly a little grassroots movement. I live in the reality where China is the only serious challenge to the US. What about you?
Soā¦ youāre a non-Chinese citizen- ā¦ siding with China. Thatās about as grass roots as it gets.
Do you think zero people outside of China look up to their accomplishments?
I think very few do. China is an antagonist to MANY countries. You think America is bad, china is doing exactly what you accuse America of, they just are FAR more subtle about it.
What makes me laugh about tankies, is that you support an ideology that stands in defiance of the freedoms you have. Including the freedom you have to chose who to support.
Fucking hilarious.
What makes me laugh about tankies, is that you support an ideology that stands in defiance of the freedoms you have. Including the freedom you have to chose who to support.
Well said.
I understand and respect looking up to the achievements of smaller communist states that actually care about their own citizens wellbeing and lack the desire to exploit foreign nations, but China, Russia, and North Korea aren't in that list. Being a powerless citizen of the United States or other (non-EU) Western countries sucks, but it usually doesn't suck as badly as being a powerless citizen of those three.
I think the US is worse. Even if you think China is a subtle imperial power (how is that supposed to work, exactly?) then you have to acknowledge they're the lesser of two evils. Unless you think you're going to dream up an idealist third option to replace them both?
The US is worse?
Tiananmen Square. Ring a bell? Would you like to discuss it?
21 people were arrested for organizing the Tiananman Square protests.
14,000+ were arrested for involvement in the George Floyd Uprisings.
š¤
The US might be a capitalist, colonialist country sprinkled with panderings of faux-socialism and heading towards fascism, but I would hardly call that an improvement over another capitalist-in-all-but-name, fascist, colonialist country with eroded communist foundations.
Whatever atrocities you believe the US is committing in terms of subjugating and exploiting poorer countries and its own working class, China is doing the same thing but only with a bit more subtlety.
When was the last time China invaded an oil-rich country, overthrew their government, and killed a million people?
If you want to dream up Chinese imperialism whenever China builds roads in another country, you still have to grapple with the fact that they don't build those roads on the graves of martyrs that died trying to defend their homeland.
Considering China is allied with Russia and buys nearly half of their crude oil exports, they haven't needed to invade other countries for oil. I'll give you that, but at the same time, they're also indirectly assisting and allied with a country that is happily trying to extinguish the entirety of Ukraine.
Roads and ports. With abusive conditions that all but make it impossible for the poorer countries to satisfy their terms, ultimately leading to China being free to claim the infrastructure they built on foreign soil as their own. They might not be as obvious about it as the United States, but they are still a captialist, colonialist country antithetical to communist goals.
Every global superpower does their fair share of this shit. The countries we should actually be looking up to are the socialist/communist ones that rapidly accelerated their growth and citizens' quality of life before being destabilized by an existing global superpower (usually, the United States).
theyāre also indirectly assisting and allied with a country that is happily trying to extinguish the entirety of Ukraine.
Hyperbole does not help your case.
A war to extinguish a nation looks more like what Israel is doing in Gaza. Compare the number of children, medical staff, UN aid workers, and other noncombatants that have been murdered. Compare the total eradication of all homes, businesses, universities, hospitals, religious institutions, historic sites. Russia, by contrast, is waging a war of conquest and assimilation.
All China is doing is trading with them, and not even trading weapons or munitions! It's just normal commerce. Let's compare again with Israel and how the US is providing it unlimited bombs and heavy equipment and fucking jets it needs to do its genocide.
When you compare the two the stark contrast makes your hyperbolic claims into a joke.
With abusive conditions that all but make it impossible for the poorer countries to satisfy their terms,
They forgive the loans they give to those poorer countries when they can't repay and are always willing to refinance.
Compare that to the IMF which sells off public assets to private interests and imposes austerity measures onto the people, letting the US infiltrate the government and set up counter-terror operations and win exclusive trade deals to superexploit the people.
Again, compare and contrast. The US isn't merely worse, it has different objectives. One is imperialist, one is internationalist.
Every global superpower does their fair share of this shit. The countries we should actually be looking up to are the socialist/communist ones that rapidly accelerated their growth and citizensā quality of life before being destabilized by an existing global superpower (namely, the United States).
This is why China is the way it is. China has to ally itself with Russia and it has to wield state capitalism, or else it would end up the same as every other socialist experiment the US destroyed. If China cut off every country that US says is evil then it will lose all its allies, and then the US will just turn around and declare that the world needs to stop doing business with China.
Instead, China saw right through that, and with BRICs the dedollerization of the global economy is inevitable. The Communist Party of China has done more to destroy US imperialism than any communist party in every other country combined.
Grow up.
When was the last time the US tried to erase a people's culture? And when was the last time China tried that? When was the second to last time China tried that? What about the third to last time?
Both countries are imperialistic in different ways. One does most of its atrocities to the citizens of other countries and one does most of its atrocities to its own citizens. Neither should be looked up to.
When was the last time the US committed cultural genocide?
When it caused one million deaths in Iraq through direct and indirect warfare for no reason. It currently has a direct hand in the genocide happening in Gaza right now.
Or how about when ICE was caught sterilizing migrant women in detention centers? They were doing that as recently as 2020, and there's a long history of forced sterilization in the US.
Compare and contrast. Look at Gaza, look at Xinjiang province, try to spot the difference! Can you do it?
Neither should be looked up to.
There's no other choice. You can't just think up an idealistic imaginary third option. The US or China. Choose
Thereās no other choice. You canāt just think up an idealistic imaginary third option. The US or China. Choose
There are other choices. There is no forced binary. There are around 200 countries currently in existence that you can look up to and many more past countries that no longer exist that you can look up to too. Or, like me, you can not look up to any country. The perfect system doesn't have to be already invented and in practice. Karl Marx did not look up to any countries when creating his system.
I believe that every country currently in existence has flaws and do not look up to any of them.
Killing civilians in Iraq is evil. Killing civilians in Gaza is evil. Sterilizing people is evil. The USSR and US proxy wars were evil. Installing dictators in South America is evil. None of these, however, are an attempt to erase a culture. There is a thriving hispanic culture in the US and the US government isn't erasing it. There are thriving sub cultures for every out-group in the US.
Not that erasing a culture is more or less evil than these things. I do not engage in the ranking of atrocities. Atrocities are atrocities and I hate them all.
Erasing the culture of the Uyghurs is also evil. Sterilizing Uyghurs is evil. Invading and erasing the culture of Tibet is evil. Erasing the culture of all of China with the cultural revolution is evil. One child policy is evil.
Removing citizens' rights to talk freely about the government and society and protest what they dislike about them is evil. Censorship is evil. I'm in the US and I said all that about the US being evil and am not going to face any consequences and my comment will not be taken down.
Not recognizing same sex marriage is evil. Someone who claims to be queer ought to recognize that and not look up to countries which don't recognize it.
There are other choices. There is no forced binary. There are around 200 countries currently in existence that you can look up to and many more past countries that no longer exist that you can look up to too.
Thank you! Exactly! It's not just the US or China/Russia/NK. There are a couple hundred options, many of which are happy to coexist and aren't vying to become the one true empire of the planet.
I think most Dems, especially those who are highly politically engaged and closely follow election news, are going to vote blue no matter who. So, I think Bernie is preaching to the choir here. I think the Dems who are worried about Biden are worried he doesn't have enough support among independents, and they feel independents are much less likely to just vote for the Democrat, no matter who it is.
Now, could just any candidate replace Biden and automatically win back any of the independents he is believed to have lost? I don't know. A lot of Dems seem to think that just about any other candidate would do better than Biden among independents right now, but I'm not so sure.
Remember, Bernie Sanders did FORTY TWO events for Hillary after she was the chosen Dem candidate. More events than even she did for her own campaign!
Then she had this to say about Bernie in her Hulu doc: https://x.com/bobby/status/1236349383890931713
Hillary, much like Trump, is a symptom of what is wrong with the Democrats. "It was her turn" spat in the face of people who were excited about a progressive candidate and made the whole primary a sham.
She was a terrible candidate. She was a bitter pill that many independents said "enough is enough" and voted third party or not voted at all.
I am deeply concerned that as the Republicans move more toward fascism, the left are not going to have great candidates. We're going to get established, wealthy-class friendly candidates who are willing to throw crumbs at the working class. They'll bitch and moan about how they are losing voters, never looking at themselves, never realizing that we are literally voting to just survive.
This election will be just like 2020. We aren't voting for Biden. We're voting against fascism.
And I'm personally getting fucking tired of Democrats seeing that as a win.
Well, the
RepublicansDemocrats will have an option of being "less fascist party" by then. I feel like the future is not too bright, somehowEdit: mixed the opposites somehow š«
What an ungrateful cunt. I don't want to be in hell with that removed.
Calling her a cunt is unfair: she lacks both the warmth and the depth
Hear hear
Dying to know which word got removed when ācuntā was perfectly acceptable.
B I T C H but even then I could be referencing a female dog.
So, weāre allowed to say cunt but not The B Wordā¢ļø?
That appears to be the case
š«”
Lmao...I guess lemmy.ml didn't want to be unfair to Australians!
Progressives need to learn this lesson: liberals will always shift the blame.
Correct
Oh, now I understand. She's like, a real housewife of DC.
Hillary "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman" Clinton. Yeah. Keep on satisfying those poor, misguided progressives.
"Dont like the choices? Get over yourselves"
I think the other concern is voter turnout/enthusiasm. The last presidential election had extremely high turnout. Even if voters (in swing states) don't switch candidates but opt to stay home instead that could translate into a significant electoral problem too.
You do have a point that turn out Is important, but a potential replacement candidate isn't guaranteed to increase turn out, they could be worse. And they would only have 4 months to try to fix things, which isn't a lot of time.
Turnout is literally everything. It is literally more turnout = Democrat win literally every single election in america. Low turnout in 2016 still resulted in trump losing the popular vote. America's voting system is messed up, but then so is UK's parliamentary first past the post system and Belgium's 6 governments.
I think you might be missing the point though.
Those highly politically engaged Dem voters who will vote blue no matter who are bickering about whether Biden is the right choice, and the swing voters are paying attention.
To an undecided voter, it doesn't inspire much confident to see that Biden's own supporters don't think he can do the job.
The bickering amongst those who will vote blue anyway is costing the votes from the undecideds that Biden so desperately needs.
This Bernie guy seems pretty energetic and popular... why not put him on the ballot?
I'd definitely do a double take. A good political decision? In the USA?
Let's see, just to name a few: openly against civil gun ownership, openly against expensive private healthcare, openly against zionism and Israel's occupation of Gaza. This pisses off a lot of very powerful people, so probably not gonna happen
Or stop bickering and replace him ASAP.
But really, I don't think this is bickering. I think it's an intentionally slow drip of news to get people more receptive to the idea of replacing him with Kamala, so that it's not a bomb dropping all of a sudden, which would likely freak out a bunch of voters and cause them to lose votes. Boil the frog slowly and there's less of a splash.
Well honestly itās going to be a splash either way and the sooner they replace him, the better. Kamala is going to need more time to cook with and the sooner she can get out there, the sooner she can challenge Trump to a debate and flip this country around.
I think this is the exact idea that Bernie is warning against.
Wishful thinking from Bernie. For fucks sake:
politics is showmanship, not an intellectual endeavor.
I fucking hate that, but it is the immutable truth.
You NEED a charismatic leader to win. Biden needs to fuck off.
I will ALWAYS cast my vote to most effectively suppress the republican traitor filth. But Bidenās a goner.
Exactly. I cannot fucking believe he can say with a straight face that it's not an entertainment contest. It's the biggest American Idol contest there is and sure as shit isn't a job interview.
It seems like the establishment is hell bent on making the choice Biden or Harris and Harris might be the only person less likely to win.
And so you're going to vote for Biden, yes?
Yes. I think he should fuck off, but Iāll vote for him. I think heād lose. I hope to be wrong.
If by goner, you mean youāre not voting for him- then this is contradictory.
I will vote D no matter what.
Thatās good to see. Thank you! Hopefully we can have some good things happen by next election and get someone better by then.
That is terrifying to hear.
I canāt consider voting for traitors. So repubs are off the table. I will always vote against them. Theyāre worthless filth.
Right but it wasnāt that long ago that D was the hardcore racist party.
To blindly support a party no matter what is not something anyone should ever do or proclaim.
I think itās pretty obvious that if the Democratic Party changed that drastically, the person you replied to would change their opinion. They are saying that because, at present, Republicans are far, far more dangerous.
Also, Democrats have been championing civil rights since JFK. Saying 1960 was not that long ago is silly. Suffering that 1866, which is when the poster you posted was made, is not that long ago when it comes to American politics is not even rational.
So why donāt people say that instead of such extremist language like āno matter whatā?
Words matter. Blindly supporting or pretending you will blindly support a shit party because the other is worse is in no way shape or form a good thing.
Clearly just to upset you personally. No one else seems to have this issue.
Well because this community is pretty overwhelmingly blue maga Iām not really surprised.
Lots of people have issues with it, you just constantly ignore the voices and wonder āWhy is Biden struggling to get voters?ā
āBlue MAGAā is not a thing and there is not a chance youāll turn it into one.
I donāt invent it, and itās already out there in public usage and has been for months.
I interpreted what they said as "in this election".
And even then, I also knew (from context) that they wouldn't continue to vote Democrat if the party changed so drastically.
Words matter, but so do context and inferences/implications
Unless they have eyes ears and a brain
Are you making the ludicrous suggestion that the Democratic Party of 1866 is the same as the one today?
No, Iām making the suggestion that D can and has changed in the past and that supporting them blindly forever is not wise.
Biden was fighting for segregation at the end of the day. This isnāt 1866 history, the Southern Strategy happened in the 1960s
Who said forever?
The person who said nothing will change their mind?
Do you take everything everyone says absolutely literally? That must make things very hard for you.
Flyingsquid, thereās a lot that can be said about you. Letās not devolve into personal attacks here.
You literally just called me a bigot in another thread.
You and I both know I never once āliterallyā called you a bigot.
There is no need to outright make up shit.
They never said forever.
Imagine digging back 158 years to find an example of a Democrat being racist, and thinking you have a point.
Incorrect.
You are the reason conservatives win elections, because you tell Democrats not to vote for Gore because he's boring or Hillary because she's ill, or Biden because he's old.
None of these irrelevant insults are stopping these people from doing their job.
Fuck off. I voted Gore and Hillary. Youāre not helping the situation by burying your head in the sand.
Don't worry. They're obviously gaslighting you. You undermined their entire argument and yet, they persist. How odd.
It's what they do.
Loudly proclaiming a specific, unpopular fact is the opposite of burying my head in the sand.
You're upset because you've been called out for burying your head in the sand.
The bandwagon is easy and comfortable and wrong here.
Bernie is right.
Regardless of whether or not Bernie is right, you're very wrong and helping no one.
Bernie is right, saying the same thing I've been saying for months.
I'm glad you focused on me helping people, that's exactly what's happening here.
Bullying works on a lot of people, but it sure slides off my back.
Vote Biden, a surprisingly progressive president that's enacted great policies that have helped hundreds of millions of people.
Don't worry about these conservative trolls, they're afraid of their dwindling power.
Thanks, you accurate username you, I appreciate it!
Oh, haha, first time trying to unify the left, huh?
He's just done with our shenanigans
Italians:
Drumpf is a living survivor martyr. Nothing is now gonna hold anything back. Every thing is now going to hit the fan.
Honestly second thing I thought of when I saw it. First was that it was staged.
We saw mass media and the Dems pull the same thing in 2004. Decide a candidate is unelectable, before the election, and then make it happen. What happened to letting the voters decide? What happened to democracy? Meh.
It was sick then, and it is sick now. If the man is too old, OK, but we all knew his age a year ago. To pretend to be surprised and concerned now is laughable.
"Everyone needs to get out and vote!"
voters start bickering over who to vote for
"NOT LIKE THAT!"
Which is why its crazy he didn't have any kind of primary contender. Hell, its crazy he didn't just wrap this at one term and pass the torch to any of a number of popular and highly competent governors.
I totally agree with you. My speculation is that people in power in the DNC didn't want to push for a younger candidate because then that candidate would immediately seize a lot of power. Perhaps they were disagreeing on who would be the best person, and they figured that some old man is low risk because he's going to retire soon enough anyway. But that's all blind speculation. A lot of what the DNC does happens behind closed doors.
Rare case of disagreeing with you, Bernie.
I have an unpopular opinion. Swapping candidates a couple months from election will look really disorganized and even weaker than keeping him. Especially to swing voters. And itāll be rushed. I doubt the replacement will be well known, so you expect me to get to know, learn who they are and develop a platform in a couple months? I think theyād lose too.
Itās too late. The spineless centrists controlling the party waffled too long and I bet they cost the election again. Just like in 2016. Iām really disappointed in the Democratic Party and how itās condensed itās power more towards the top and quite frankly, am tired of their muted response to things like project 2025 until months before the election. Itās been around since. Before trump was elected, but without a catchy name. I passed around the leaked documents on it in 2017.
Iām just reminded of āBaby Iām an Anarchistā by Against me! Lately. Iām not an Anarchist, but I feel the lyrics about the my fellow spineless liberals
Swapping candidates would look really, really bad.... unless he comes up and says "I had a talk with my doctor, he says I've developed a chronic condition that I didn't know about past year. I can't do it anymore, but here, vote for my VP, who you all already voted for once anyway, and would take over anyway if this thing kills me".
He can leave out that the chronic condition is just notgonnawinatall, and his doctor is also his pollster.
They are disorganized and always will be because they are not a hegemon like the Republicans.
I think that's why they're floating it now. They're getting people primed to accept someone as the replacement that they already recognize. (My money is on Kamala Harris.)
Other countries have their entire election cycles in a few months. It's a joke to think it's too late for Biden to drop out.
He understands the two party system we're left with. If we don't back the democratic candidate we will be fucked by the 30% of the population that wants Cheeto Messiah in the white house.
Yep. But let's explore this further under the hood.
Nobody of the progressive caucus can break ranks lest that be used against the party as a wedge-drive issue by operatives later, whether Biden stays in or not.
Bernie was essentially promised a high level committee position if he traded falling in line with Biden. This his returning of the favor.
Calls for Biden to step down will be completely ineffective from the progressive coalition anyway. Biden is a centrist and doesn't hold much respect for them. The people who matter are the likes of Clyburn and Pelosi.
A thought I havenāt seen offered much, but could give Biden an ego-soothing role instead of being put out to political pasture - a Harris:Biden ticket.
She gets to be the energetic go-getter at the front (that the Maga hate-oil salesmen are shrieking about atm) while Biden can play the āelder statesmanā role of advice and experience to Kamala instead of running himself. You defuse a lot of the competency/decline arguments against Biden, and gird against one of Harrisās biggest threats - her lack of international experience.
Kamala is not a political unknown, but Biden is losing/equal right now to Trump with the DNC money & publicity machine working for him the last eight years. Iād argue Harris has a better shot if those efforts are swung her way. I donāt like Harris, but neednāt convince me to vote team blue - itās the ~9% undecided we need to convince.
I mean, this isn't an awful idea...
The real world logistics probably make this more complicated than implied, but I don't mind the intent.
It's not a good idea because Kamala is pretty unpopular.
She comes off as out of touch and condescending, just like another certain candidate that lost to Trump in 2016.
I agree, she's not the candidate I'd want leading the demsāfar from it. But people are used to voting between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich as their president. Biden is something different, more agreeable than some other candidates the Dems have run. But people are seriously concerned about voting for a man who's mental acuity is declining rapidly towards senility and very possibly will not live through 2028.
Plus, I haven't read too far into it but I've heard that only Kamala would be able to use the Biden/Harris campaign war-chest. It's sad as hell that that is so important, but it is nonetheless.
I'm with him 100% on the first bit - at this point, the single most important thing the Dems have to do is stop bickering.
As for the rest, at this point I don't even much care. I can see arguments both for and against in both directions - either choice is going to involve some risk but either choice can be made to succeed.
So the important thing, and really the ONLY important thing, is to pick one and run with it. Stop with the dilly-dallying and the second-guessing and the bitching and moaning and hand-wringing and make a choice and stick with it, so we can focus ALL of our attention on pounding those fucking fascist traitors' dicks into the dirt.
Bernie or bust!
I agree. The asked. Biden responded. Move on. The ticket has a vp. Its fine.
Right his whole life, correct here too.
He also told supporters to vote for Hillary in 2016 and Biden in 2020. But... he does tell voters to make up their own decision
I agree with all three sentiments.
And he was right both times.
Fucking thank you, Bernie. Glad someone with a spine said it.
Kamala - Bernie. Let it happen you fucks!
No, biden then bernie. Its the only way bernie would be president
The opinion piece: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/13/opinion/joe-biden-president.html
Does Bernie want to lose?
Yesss, that's satisfying.
Satisfying to hear Democrats throw yet again another election?
Not a big history guy, are you?
Itās nice to see the majority of the democrats are reasonable people and will continue backing Biden.
tbh, I donāt think reasonable people would think an 80yr old is the best fit to run a country. Edit: Especially after publicly shitting the bed on multiple occasions
These are reasonable people who at this point are faced with a choice between that 80 year old and Trump.
The Democrats could have run someone else, should have run someone else, didn't run someone else. So those are now the two options.
The convention is a month away and plenty of time to retire the Rocinante for a better horse
He already has enough delegates to win the convention, as is my understanding of the odd way the Democratic party makes this decision.
Biden can announce that he is not seeking re-election. Release the delegates and it can be decided at the convention, as it officially is done. The DNC refusing to allow proper primaries makes this much messing now, but it is the only viable path forward without trump. Itās the policies and platform that are important and anyone who would vote D knows that. The left doesnāt want a king, but someone who can champion their ideals.
Isnāt he 81?
Idk it just looks like one candle at this point
Jeez, Iāve had smaller bonfires.
Yes, he's 81. He'll be 82 November 20th. 86 at the end of his second term if he's re-elected.
When heās re-elected.
It's looking a little scary chief...
But a 78 year old is?
Thatās not the question at hand. Trump should die in a fire, but thatās not what this is about.
That is what this is about. Because if everyone that is wanting people to not vote for the 81 year old get their way- then weāre getting the 78 year old.
THESE ARE OUR CHOICES. itās too late in the game to call an audible.
It's not too late for Biden to do an official act to mar-a-lago
It is ABSOLUTELY too late.
No, it's not too late. Biden is not even officially the democratic nominee yet, the convention hasn't even happened yet. The rest of the world has an entire election cycle that lasts like two months. The election is still almost four months away.
The US has an election cycle that runs much longer than most other places in the world.
I'm seeing a lot of people downvoting comments that are making simple statements of fact about how the American election system works. It may not be the way people want it to work, but that's what they've got. Downvoting such comments doesn't change it.
Thank you!
The US does not need to, is my point. Four months is more than enough time to introduce a new candidate.
I know it doesn't need to.
It does anyway.
There are a lot of things the US probably should be doing differently about its political system, but they aren't, and that's the world we live in.
Well I for one am not afraid of demanding better, so you go ahead and accept it's "too late" and I'll keep insisting it very much is not.
You keep steering wildly toward the cliff edge, I'll keep suggesting that maybe this isn't the best time for that.
Haha, no. Many other problems with that cesspool.
All the socialistās heads just exploded.
No, we left this lib behind a long time ago.
We're all China-stans now.
Aaaaaand thatās why no one takes your seriously.
Oh no, libs don't take me seriously! š
Ahhh yes. This reminds me SO much of my edgy high school years. It was our little grassroots movement vs the world! And we had EVERYTHING figured out. No one could tell us that weāre wrong in any way and we had Pat Benetar to back that up!
We knew it all!
Then we grew up and realized we didnāt know shit. We found out that the world doesnāt work the way we want it to and it never will, because we arenāt the only ones that live here. Looking back, it was incredibly stupid and naive to think that life in politics were that simple.
āJust do this thing we want! Itās that easy!ā
andā¦
āWe reject your reality and replaced it with our own!ā
The problem is: the rest of the world didnāt work with the reality we created for ourselves.
Manā¦ I miss those days, but living in reality has its merits as well. One of them is being taken seriously by people regardless of whether or not I share a core political values.
I hope you get the same chances I did. But times are VERY different. You may not be afforded the luxury to have the freedoms I had come January.
Now, go on- say something edgy so everyone knows you didnāt just get wrecked.
What the fuck are you talking about? I'm siding with China. You know, the worlds second largest economy? A billion people?
Hardly a little grassroots movement. I live in the reality where China is the only serious challenge to the US. What about you?
Soā¦ youāre a non-Chinese citizen- ā¦ siding with China. Thatās about as grass roots as it gets.
Do you think zero people outside of China look up to their accomplishments?
I think very few do. China is an antagonist to MANY countries. You think America is bad, china is doing exactly what you accuse America of, they just are FAR more subtle about it.
What makes me laugh about tankies, is that you support an ideology that stands in defiance of the freedoms you have. Including the freedom you have to chose who to support.
Fucking hilarious.
Well said.
I understand and respect looking up to the achievements of smaller communist states that actually care about their own citizens wellbeing and lack the desire to exploit foreign nations, but China, Russia, and North Korea aren't in that list. Being a powerless citizen of the United States or other (non-EU) Western countries sucks, but it usually doesn't suck as badly as being a powerless citizen of those three.
I think the US is worse. Even if you think China is a subtle imperial power (how is that supposed to work, exactly?) then you have to acknowledge they're the lesser of two evils. Unless you think you're going to dream up an idealist third option to replace them both?
The US is worse?
Tiananmen Square. Ring a bell? Would you like to discuss it?
21 people were arrested for organizing the Tiananman Square protests.
14,000+ were arrested for involvement in the George Floyd Uprisings.
š¤
The US might be a capitalist, colonialist country sprinkled with panderings of faux-socialism and heading towards fascism, but I would hardly call that an improvement over another capitalist-in-all-but-name, fascist, colonialist country with eroded communist foundations.
Whatever atrocities you believe the US is committing in terms of subjugating and exploiting poorer countries and its own working class, China is doing the same thing but only with a bit more subtlety.
When was the last time China invaded an oil-rich country, overthrew their government, and killed a million people?
If you want to dream up Chinese imperialism whenever China builds roads in another country, you still have to grapple with the fact that they don't build those roads on the graves of martyrs that died trying to defend their homeland.
Considering China is allied with Russia and buys nearly half of their crude oil exports, they haven't needed to invade other countries for oil. I'll give you that, but at the same time, they're also indirectly assisting and allied with a country that is happily trying to extinguish the entirety of Ukraine.
Roads and ports. With abusive conditions that all but make it impossible for the poorer countries to satisfy their terms, ultimately leading to China being free to claim the infrastructure they built on foreign soil as their own. They might not be as obvious about it as the United States, but they are still a captialist, colonialist country antithetical to communist goals.
Every global superpower does their fair share of this shit. The countries we should actually be looking up to are the socialist/communist ones that rapidly accelerated their growth and citizens' quality of life before being destabilized by an existing global superpower (usually, the United States).
Hyperbole does not help your case.
A war to extinguish a nation looks more like what Israel is doing in Gaza. Compare the number of children, medical staff, UN aid workers, and other noncombatants that have been murdered. Compare the total eradication of all homes, businesses, universities, hospitals, religious institutions, historic sites. Russia, by contrast, is waging a war of conquest and assimilation.
All China is doing is trading with them, and not even trading weapons or munitions! It's just normal commerce. Let's compare again with Israel and how the US is providing it unlimited bombs and heavy equipment and fucking jets it needs to do its genocide.
When you compare the two the stark contrast makes your hyperbolic claims into a joke.
They forgive the loans they give to those poorer countries when they can't repay and are always willing to refinance.
Compare that to the IMF which sells off public assets to private interests and imposes austerity measures onto the people, letting the US infiltrate the government and set up counter-terror operations and win exclusive trade deals to superexploit the people.
Again, compare and contrast. The US isn't merely worse, it has different objectives. One is imperialist, one is internationalist.
This is why China is the way it is. China has to ally itself with Russia and it has to wield state capitalism, or else it would end up the same as every other socialist experiment the US destroyed. If China cut off every country that US says is evil then it will lose all its allies, and then the US will just turn around and declare that the world needs to stop doing business with China.
Instead, China saw right through that, and with BRICs the dedollerization of the global economy is inevitable. The Communist Party of China has done more to destroy US imperialism than any communist party in every other country combined.
Grow up.
When was the last time the US tried to erase a people's culture? And when was the last time China tried that? When was the second to last time China tried that? What about the third to last time?
Both countries are imperialistic in different ways. One does most of its atrocities to the citizens of other countries and one does most of its atrocities to its own citizens. Neither should be looked up to.
When it caused one million deaths in Iraq through direct and indirect warfare for no reason. It currently has a direct hand in the genocide happening in Gaza right now.
Or how about when ICE was caught sterilizing migrant women in detention centers? They were doing that as recently as 2020, and there's a long history of forced sterilization in the US.
Compare and contrast. Look at Gaza, look at Xinjiang province, try to spot the difference! Can you do it?
There's no other choice. You can't just think up an idealistic imaginary third option. The US or China. Choose
There are other choices. There is no forced binary. There are around 200 countries currently in existence that you can look up to and many more past countries that no longer exist that you can look up to too. Or, like me, you can not look up to any country. The perfect system doesn't have to be already invented and in practice. Karl Marx did not look up to any countries when creating his system.
I believe that every country currently in existence has flaws and do not look up to any of them.
Killing civilians in Iraq is evil. Killing civilians in Gaza is evil. Sterilizing people is evil. The USSR and US proxy wars were evil. Installing dictators in South America is evil. None of these, however, are an attempt to erase a culture. There is a thriving hispanic culture in the US and the US government isn't erasing it. There are thriving sub cultures for every out-group in the US.
Not that erasing a culture is more or less evil than these things. I do not engage in the ranking of atrocities. Atrocities are atrocities and I hate them all.
Erasing the culture of the Uyghurs is also evil. Sterilizing Uyghurs is evil. Invading and erasing the culture of Tibet is evil. Erasing the culture of all of China with the cultural revolution is evil. One child policy is evil.
Removing citizens' rights to talk freely about the government and society and protest what they dislike about them is evil. Censorship is evil. I'm in the US and I said all that about the US being evil and am not going to face any consequences and my comment will not be taken down.
Not recognizing same sex marriage is evil. Someone who claims to be queer ought to recognize that and not look up to countries which don't recognize it.
Thank you! Exactly! It's not just the US or China/Russia/NK. There are a couple hundred options, many of which are happy to coexist and aren't vying to become the one true empire of the planet.