Be as upset as you want with Obama or Biden. But remember, neither of them are on the table for this next election cycle.
Wow, The comments here are an absolute shitshow.
Look at the guy who submitted the article. It was 100% a call to arms for tankies, accelerationists, and other bad actors.
But NPR is the one who actually wrote the article. So wouldn't the blame be on them? OP didn't write it, he just posted it.
Now you're using this line for posts that aren't even yours? This is one tired line.
What I said was accurate. Thanks!
Fortunately their hand-picked successor is on the ballot!
You Lemmy.ml people asked Biden to step down because he's old. What did you expect? He stepped down because he's old just like you wanted, and even endorsed a candidate who doesn't have any dementia at all. Who did you expect him to endorse, Mao's zombie?
His age was a known issue 4 years ago, it would have been extra democratic if he had stepped down before the primaries so we could really vote on a candidate.
No, my entire point is that it is not hindsight, as we knew it 4 years ago.
Democrats def tried to hide his dementia from the public. One of my biggest problems with them. It was only after the debates, when they found out everyone was onto them, that they finally decided to switch him out.
What did you expect?
They expected daddy Putin to not send them to the front lines. They were never going to go "oh cool we got what we wanted we'll shut up now" because it was never about Biden's age at all, it's about hurting Democrats. Same thing with Gaza. They don't give a fuck about Palestinians. They just want to hurt Democrats.
They don’t give a fuck about Palestinians. They just want to hurt Democrats.
Where did you get that fantasy take from? Got anything at all to back that up?
I can tell you how I see it. I have never, and would never vote for any republican. They are not serious people and they are to be countered, ostracized, not associated with, ridiculed. But bad dems threaten everything as well, and also might lead us to being locked in the current bad voting selections pattern we keep being fed by monied interests in our party. The dumbing down and dilluting of the party platform under milktoast idiot centrists like Biden and Harris may also effectively disolve our party. Thats worth fighting. And its worth withholding support as well, if only to try to shake the party back on some sort of track. If you dont see the logic in that, its fine. I dont need your permisison on how I will vote, or what I beleive in. No one does. Do your own thing, but maybe dont namecall people who are probably your allies and just going about it in a different way than you. Theres nothing down that road but an even worse off party than the shitshow we have going right now because of centrist incompetence.
Great post, friend! Glad there are more people standing up to people who try to bully others about how they vote. Stay strong!
Your last 19 posts are about Trump vs Harris, and you are going to say people are bullying people in the comments? You are clearly encouraging it and trying to get people to see things the way you want them to.. bullying others about how they vote one might say?
I don't write the articles, I just post articles I find interesting. I believe people should vote for who they want to vote for. I'm not influencing anyone's vote. The articles I post are readily available on news sites.
That's like saying news channels don't influence anyone's vote by broadcasting what information they choose. It is all influence.
Except the difference is that they produce the pieces. I don't.
In fact, I don't even literally post "the article," I just post a link to the article. It's up to the reader to decide if they want to read it or not.
And of course like I mentioned before, I strongly believe in and support people's right to vote for who they want to.
Thank you!
You're right, the bar was set so low that only James Cameron could find it, but the Dems did clear the bar. And that's why the lesser fascist will be getting my vote this November.
But we also want the party to be better. Real policies that might just make a difference in our lifetimes, not compromising with the party of greater fascism, and a minor token gesture towards not using taxpayer money to fund genocide, as a treat.
Instead of “incumbent endorses someone new”, some were hoping for more of a “primary process to select a candidate” type deal, in the American tradition.
Only been a tradition for 50 years. Relatively young compared to the age of many political dealmakers.
You Lemmy.ml people asked Biden to step down because he’s old.
I asked him to step down because for the last 50 years he's been an incredily bad democrat and never did deserve any of our support. His support of the far right murderous fascist zionist splinter group. His consistent racist "gaffes". His lack of support for reproductive rights that he blamed on his catholicism. His stupid lawmaking about the drug wars, 3 strikes, and civil asset forfeiture. His 3 attempts to cut social security. His fascist-light policing viewpoints. His willingness to wade into peoples lives about gay rights when he should have just left everyone the hell alone and shut his piehole. His support and backing of a grifter lobbyist son. His lack of support for ending the filibuster, which just enables the GOP to hold the government hostage every few months. His lack of support for expanding the supreme court. His tired embrace of the worst of the GOP members. His outrageous increasing of police funding in response to Defund&Reallocate. His backstabbing Obama on negotiations he should have kept out of. His consistent lack of support for health care reform and a public option. His utter shafting of Anita Hill in the Clarence Thomas confirmation trials, which should have been a layup for anyone competent, which gave us one of the worst Supreme court justices in our countrys history. In the last 50 years look at every wrong turn this country has taken, and You'll find Bidens ugly mug leading the charge. The man is always wrong about nearly everything, and he never misses a chance to make a bad deal or sell out his party. He's an idiot's idiot and he never deserved any of our support and breaks everything he touches, including our party and now the entire western world order.
"Never underestimate Joe Biden's ability to fuck everything up".
--Barack Obama
Obama also urged Biden in 2016 and again in 2020 not to run.
This is the guy we're getting all sentimental about? You really think Joe Biden is the best the dems had to offer? That just tells me that many people dont actually read the news, miss their deceased grandpa and will vote for a huckster on personality vibes alone. Biden was about to lose to Donald Trump. Think about that for a minute. How bad do you have to lose the faith and support of your own party's voters to lose to a man like that. Biden could only have possibly competed against someone as bad as Trump, and Trump could only have competed with someone as bad as Biden.
Drag didn't care how bad Biden is as long as he's not Trump. Drag is glad Kamala is running instead, because she's better than him. But drag would have been happy to elect Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man as president.
You're alright Drag.
:-). And thank you for letting me vent so excessively and not calling me on it. I needed that. I'm a lifelong Dem straight ticket voter who cant stand Biden. Or Harris.
And I hate how we are trapped in both parties fielding bad candidates with no end in site anytime soon. Harris will try to run twice and after that they are queuing up bloody-hands mealy-mouthed Blinken.
Drag is trying to avoid venting about Harris until after the election. Preventing the fourth reich is more important than all of drag's concerns about the Harris campaign. Drag doesn't like it, but drag doesn't like protesting under the hot sun or arguing with transphobes either, and drag does those. This is one more sacrifice for the cause.
Drag thinks if Trump loses badly enough, the GOP could collapse. It could schism and maybe neither side will be able to stand up to the Democrats. When the GOP isn't a threat anymore, we can either vote Greens or split the Democrats in two to make a left party. We can pass electoral college reform and ranked choice voting. We can make a democracy. And we can gather weapons and organise all the while and try to achieve a revolution. But all of that requires Trump to be gone.
We need to help Harris so we can move beyond her. She's a stepping stone on the path to the future. We're gonna stomp on her head and get one step closer to having someone like AOC in the white house.
I wanted him to step down primarily because of his support for genocide. Biden was obviously unfit and unacceptable for a ton of reasons, just because his successor doesn't share one of those problems doesn't make her automatically acceptable. Its arguable that it would better if the president is mentally unfit, if they're pursuing an agenda that is fundamentally wrong.
Do you believe there is a candidate for president who will end the genocide in Palestine? And also end the genocide of Ukrainians in Crimea?
There are third party candidates who support ending the Palestinian genocide by stopping arms shipments, but neither major candidate does.
I have no knowledge regarding a genocide in Crimea or how it could be best addressed, and I believe questioning or examining evidence for any claim of genocide is against .world rules, so I suppose I'll have to give you the benefit of the doubt, but said claim doesn't really factor into my calculations.
I don't consider either question all that relevant.
Anytime someone claims to be American but mentions third party candidate when voting, I highly doubt their citizenship or whether they are fit to vote at all.
A third party candidate hasn’t won the presidency EVER. A vote for 3rd party is not only a wasted vote, but more often than not it siphons enough votes from the majority candidate to allow the minority candidate to win.
A third party candidate hasn’t won the presidency EVER. A vote for 3rd party is not only a wasted vote, but more often than not it siphons enough votes from the majority candidate to allow the minority candidate to win.
Lincoln. Lincoln wasn't on the ballot across the South and won.
Anytime someone claims to be American but mentions third party candidate when voting, I highly doubt their citizenship or whether they are fit to vote at all.
"Anytime someone doesn't vote how I want, they shouldn't be able to vote." Damn we're really busting out the "If you don't vote for who I want, you're a communist!" playbook from Fox News?
It doesn't "siphon" votes from the "majority" candidate. You're assuming that the 3rd party voters would vote for the Dem candidate if the 3rd party candidate didn't exist but most likely those people just wouldn't vote at all if that was the case.
I am not fit to vote and neither are you but it doesn't matter because there is no voter fitness test and instituting one would be anti-democratic what are you a republican?
My vote is wasted regardless because I don't live in a swing state. There's a better chance that my vote will help get a third party on the map next time than than that it will affect the outcome. Unless you forsee an outcome where Illinois goes red and that's the pivotal state. That fantasy is far more disconnected from reality than anything I believe or aim to achieve.
You can question my citizenship all you want. I regard the US government with hostility and distrust, and I didn't chose to be born here. I'd rather aim to be a citizen of the world. I watched both parties gleefully participate in the mass slaughter of hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan while most people didn't give a shit because it was out of sight and out of mind, and it was "ok" because the Democrats were slaughtering people "the right way." I remember when they promised to protect whistleblowers and end mass surveillance and then continued it and they hunted Snowden to the ends of the earth for revealing their crimes. I realized back then that the ideology of lesser evilism was complete bullshit and would keep us trapped with the same policies forever.
I regard the US government with hostility and distrust
Leave then.
no you
I have no knowledge regarding a genocide in Crimea [...] said claim doesn’t really factor into my calculations.
Fucking quiet part out loud rofl
It's relevant because those third party candidates are literally, mathematically incapable of reaching 270 electoral votes.
If you vote for one of them, you are not voting. Those two actions will be equivalent this election. And if you don't vote, and Donald Trump wins, you're gonna find out real quick what genocide can look like.
I already know what genocide looks like. Are you denying that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians right now?
As I said in another comment, my vote has no influence over the outcome anyway because I don't live in a swing state, so your argument is moot. Unless you're trying to tell me that Illinois will be the pivotal state that decides the election.
I have no expectations whatsoever that a third party is going to win this election, obviously. But the idea that it's impossible for a third party to win is a self-fulfilling prophesy. Given the absolute necessity of unseating the genocidal bourgeois parties, and the fact that nothing is lost by doing it, I can see no reason whatsoever why I wouldn't vote for a third party over the Democrats.
Oh look at me pretending not to understand when people explain the same shit to me over and over again
Why do I even engage. Have fun.
I'm not "pretending not to understand" anything. I understand your position completely, I just disagree with it, and you don't seem capable of comprehending that.
I'm still proudly voting third party though. I'm not going to fall for the Duopoly pressure. People are finally getting sick of both parties. Now they are starting to do something about it.
Who? The few thousand protest voters? They will never win in our electoral college, it's quite literally impossible unless a third party completely takes over one of the two major parties (which is not happening this election, so all these protest voters will just elect Trump by default). It's not pressure, it's common sense.
Even tho most of Lemmy hates third parties, I love your comment. I'm a third party supporter! Thank you!
Fair point!
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.
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.
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 mean, downvote all you want but they're right. No one picked Harris except for Joe Biden. The primary was half assed at best, and there was no democratic process to select the Democratic party nominee. You're insane if you don't think that Biden's dementia wouldn't have surface during an actual primary process. We could have easily avoided this Trump apocalypse if the Democratic establishment let us have a real primary.
They’re not and you’re lying.
The dnc occurred, the reps voted en masse for Kamala.
The reps were nominated by the same process that has happened for over a century. The timeline was different but the process still occurred and you’re lying about it.
The reps that voted for Kamala were nominated in the same fashion as every US election you’ve ever been alive for. It was a televised event where everyone in the party voted and agreed. Stop this bullshit.
Can you help me find kamala on my primary ballot from this year? ( I voted no preference)
Kamala Harris is Joe Biden's running mate.
Were Biden to have been incapacitated, Kamala Harris would step in for him. We made this choice back in November 2020, and it'll hold true until January 2025.
Do you expect the Dems to have a contested Primary with less than one month to go until the General? How nice. Everyone will be tearing themselves apart in order to appeal to the various different factions that make up the Democratic Party, weakening each other until the final canidate emerges with a depleted warchest and a whole bunch of bitter people whose favoured candidate DIDN'T win? And assuming Harris, the VP and assumed successor for Biden, doesn't win this contested primary, has to return the warchest Biden built up?
And Trump will be waiting in the wings, with a building warchest and backers setting up GOTV. Again. Does the far-left WANT Trump to win, because man, that's what it looks like to me!
Kamala Harris is Joe Biden’s running mate.
Yes I know.
Hand picked successor. Why is everyone so mad that I'm calling it what it is?
Because your phrasing is disingenuous. You imply nefariousness where none exists. He ran thinking he was the best choice, until he flubbed the debate, and ... get this...he got the majority of delegates. 14 million people voted for him. And he won the Primary. Are you saying you and your ilk are more important than the 14.5 million people who cast their ballots for him (you couldn't manage 2 million votes between your three alternatives to Biden...), and the 3.9k delegates he won? That their expressions of preference should be thrown out so you can have a bruising 4 week primary in August while Trump just uses your various attacks against each of the candidates and racks up hundreds of millions of campaign contributions that he doesn't have to spend until September? And at best, we just use up Biden's campaign warchest trying to fend your candidates off, and at worst, we have to start over with some relative unknown with a depleted warchest, and no access to the Biden/Harris warchest? And go through the whole rigamarole of qualifying for state ballots so close to election day? Not to mention the extra costs of running a second set of primaries because you couldn't accept the fact that you lost?
We had a primary. Biden won that primary. There's no nefarious plan to install Harris. And the only reason that Harris has to run at all is because you lot showed up here and shat all over Biden over and over and over and over and *four hours later * over again. You lot being sore loser hard-leftists, Greenies pissed that they don't have more of a say in government, paid actors and disinformation peddlers hired by Republicans and Russians to fragment the Left coalition like has happened time and time again (stupid 'fall in love' party), and of course those same Russians and Republicans who directly inject BS into our political discussion. And just to be clear, I'm not speculating on which you are, just pointing out that's what your coalition is, and that's why we're here where we are right now.
Biden quit the race because he had no path to victory. He was 100% going to lose. The betting odds have shifted against Harris and now Trump has a 55% chance of winning. Why? Because she comes across as a cop. Because she supports a genocide. Because she cant give a beleiveable speech that makes her seem relatable. Because she stupidly brags about owning a gun. Because she has drifted right and probably will continue to, looking to get votes that dont exist while she loses the left. This is another case of the dem establishment shitting the bed, same as they always do, and losing to a clear nutcase. Why is the Democratic party engaged in supporting a far right wing war? Its for some $$$, right? So hows that truning out? Not good? THEN WHY DID SHE TAKE THE MONEY? Why is our party so stupid.
You imply nefariousness where none exists.
I'm just using the language our press uses for enemy nations, like calling it the Biden regime, because it's what I do when warmongers are president, it's what I did for Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump and here we are now.
casual xenophobia
I’m not speculating on which you are, just pointing out that’s what your coalition is, and that’s why we’re here where we are right now
Like I'll cop to being Russian but you need to understand it's getting really insulting how often liberals go on about 'the Russians' like we're some hive mind
You know the cold war is over, you guys won, plenty of Russians left when the economy went to shit and in the end Putin is the result of your foreign policy goals. I have a deep hatred for both, because of how they have impacted me personally, and it really makes me resent when people act like anyone naysaying the current regime is just doing it because they're Russian and hypnotized by Putin.
(pssst, the downvotes mean the community largely disagrees with you. If we were discussing anything lighter than politics you could just scoff and disagree and claim someone is correct, but that doesn't stand up to the scrutiny of the people you share the world with. Sorry to tell you, you're wrong and your childish political stance and the subsequent tantrum your ilk throws when called out on it isn't helping you gain comrades or appear to be any less lost in the sauce. Get better.)
It's the same thing that brought on the first Trump presidency! The DNC tells you who you will vote for and you will like it!!
DNC supporters have Stockholm syndrome!
Man I'd hate to jump to conclusions but that's a lot of divisive comments from a 24 day old account.
It's especially dumb because democratic primary votes overwhelmingly chose Clinton. It was never really a race at all, pretty much from start to finish she crushed Sanders. So this idea that the dnc picked her and everyone was forced to vote for her is just hogwash.
I could quibble about Clinton overwhelmingly defeating Sanders, but I really don't have to. The actual numbers were 55.2% Hillary Clinton, 43.1% Bernie Sanders. Clinton won a straight majority of votes -- not a plurality, a majority. And I say this as a Bernie Sanders voter who caucused (not voted in a primary, caucused, as in went to a school and stood in a classroom to be counted) for Bernie Sanders. Sanders came in second place because more Democratic Primary voters picked Clinton than Sanders. It wasn't stolen. Clinton won that fair and square. Contrary to all the various little voices that crept out of the woodwork, and I say this, again, as a voter who caucused for Sanders, more Americans wanted a moderate candidate than risk a Progressive that could honestly be tarred as a Socialist.
That said, I would have LOVED to see Crony Capitalism vs. Euro-Socialism as an election in the USA. Too bad, it was Fascism vs. Crony Capitalism....
Welcome to Lemmy! How has your first few weeks been?
It's great! I can speak my mind and vent my frustrations without getting banned by snowflake mods for not sharing the ideas of the hive-mind!
The majority of white women always vote Republican and that's just fine. 12% of Black men lean Republican and we get article after article about what's wrong with us.
The majority of white women always vote Republican
Not sure when that was true but it is not true now
You're kidding, right? LMAO
White women are not a swing voting bloc. In the past 18 presidential elections, they have repeatedly voted for the Republican candidate, breaking only for Lyndon B. Johnson and for Bill Clinton’s second term. As political scientist Jane Junn wrote in 2016, “The elephant in the room is white and female, and she has been standing there since 1952.”
Downvoting me for being correct gets tiresome. But this is precisely how racist this country is. Even if there has been some small shift towards Dems, ya'll would be way better off figuring out how to convert your sisters rather than worrying about a tiny number of Black Republicans.
White Democrats just prefer to blame us, like you always do. ✌🏾
Do you have a source? That's an opinion without a single source for their claims.
When I look for sources, they all dispute your claim.
None of those articles show white women voting blue. The first link shows them voting for Trump, the second one is for all women so the statistic is irrelevant, and the third article still says more white women voted for trump than Clinton...
More white woman voting for trump doesn't prove that the majority always votes for republicans, which I further disproved down below.
47% isn't the majority of woman, and that's the most extreme example I could find.
Sure, I could've picked a year with better numbers, but that seemed disingenuous, and why would I need to do that if even the spell of trump doesn't support the claim he made.
8% didn't answer and were excluded, why would you automatically assumehalf of them voted for trump?
I'm sorry are you asking about white women voting for Republicans? Did you look at your first link? I suspect you're conflating "women" with "white women".
That conflation is really what I'm talking about when I mention the racism of this country. It honestly was not meant to be pointed directly at the people here, I mean that stories abound about how "women" are solidly Democratic as a way to hide that the majority of white women are Republicans.
Edit: But if you're quibbling that 47% is not a majority when 42% voted for Democrats, you're just wasting time. If only white women voted, Republicans would win.
I suppose the whole white supremacy thing shouldn't surprise me, but still, I did not know this. Thanks for being such a firebrand about it here, I guess, haha.
I don't think you actually read those articles
According to a later analysis that experts consider more reliable, a study published in August by the Pew Research Center, the percentage of white women who voted for Trump was actually 47%, compared to 45% for Clinton. That’s still a plurality, and still makes white women more Trump-positive than the overall electorate
I read those, and they made me confident enough to refute this statement:
The majority of white women always vote Republican and that's just fine. 12% of Black men lean Republican and we get article after article about what's wrong with us.
I picked the most extreme case in his favour on purpose, quite the opposite of you that picked the worst of my three sources for my case..
LOL! Did you even read that link? Good God, man, you should be ashamed of yourself.
Meanwhile, white women seem to have maintained or slightly increased their level of support for Trump compared to 2016, with some 55 percent of them voting for Trump this election cycle and 43 percent voting for Biden according to early exit polls.
That's Support for trump and reflecting on 2 years. Again, can you provide a source for your claim that they always vote in favour of republicans?
Just do the math yourself for the historic data. Just a hint, black woman shift the results about 3% towards Democrats, generously calculated. And that's ignoring the higher voter turn out for white woman.
To match your goal post shifting, why do you claim 12% black man vote for trump, when it's 17% that say they're going to vote for him?
You can't even say "Nonwhite women exist."
Goal shifting? You post 4 articles that agree with me and then claim I'm goal shifting. You should be ashamed of yourself. Learn to read and then come back and talk. 🤡
None of the articles agree with your statement. It only shows that even for the tightest race that has been trump, you are still wrong by saying "the majority of white woman always vote Republican".
That you're constantly trying to insult me says everything about you that I need to know.
Why do you keep lying? I thought it was an accident, but you've got your head stuck in the ground.
You understand that nonwhite women exist, right?
Your article is precisely what I'm talking about: taking great pains NOT to say how the majority of white women voted Republican.
While Biden made gains among college-educated, white women voters who supported him in greater numbers than they did Hillary Clinton four years ago, Black women voters carried him over the finish line.
I provided you sources that refute your claim that a white woman MAJORITY ALWAYS votes for Republicans.
Now it's your time to back up your claims before calling me a lier.
What is the percentage of black woman that vote, 10% (Edit: it was 6.5% in 2016) in comparison to all voters?
Even if they all voted dem it wouldn't shift my numbers over the edge for your claim of always, actually still far from it.
Your articles are calling you a liar. Not me. (Edit: Well, I am too, come to think of it.)
The first Pew research graph clearly says that 47% of white women voted for Republicans and 45 for Democrats.
The second makes no mention of race. If you choose to reply, repeat after me: "Nonwhite women exist." Maybe you just forgot about Hispanic women. And Asian. And everyone else.
The third just dismisses exit polling without presenting any data to dispute it.
Edit: My bad, I should have looked at your whole article. It also agrees with me. Sit your lying ass down.
The 52% statistic appears to be one of those myths. According to a later analysis that experts consider more reliable, a study published in August by the Pew Research Center, the percentage of white women who voted for Trump was actually 47%, compared to 45% for Clinton. T
By my count, we have the Post and Pew Research (And the Times) supporting me, and you have yet to support your claim at all.
Yes everything is zero sum. if I dispute you, I'm racist. Great way to have a fucking conversation. What I disputed had nothing to do with your race in any fucking way. Bye.
FYI I went back and actually downvoted you just because you are intent on being like this instead of just correcting me if I'm wrong.
Obviously I'm the problem for pointing out WHY you're so incorrect. There really is no way to sugarcoat it enough for you to do any sort of introspection. Once you cool down a bit from how mean I am, maybe you should think about why you thought White women voted for Democrats.
However, this is one of the only articles I've seen on it, I don't think there's a LOT of focus on it, vs. all the many many posts/articles calling out white MAGAts. It's still possible to discuss both things.
Saying that this means everyone downvoting you is racist and all the white democrats are blaming blacks for everything "like always" is beyond disingenuous.
You're right. Left out one piece though. This commenter is actually saying here that Obama is a huge racist too.
Nah, don't twist my words. Obama's a war criminal, not a racist.
I'm not twisting anything. This article is about a thing Obama said, which you're declaring as racist. You told me I was racist for agreeing with the article, which by the way I literally never did. I just disputed your separate claim. Not every issue is a binary choice between two positions and this is a perfect example of that fallacy.
You’re very funny!
And of course if you haven't seen other articles that means they don't exist.
One might note that I said this country is racist. I called the people down voting me tiresome. The first is an obvious fact. The second is an understandable opinion.
I don't suppose you remember California Prop 8. But feel free to get your feelings hurt because I mentioned racism rather than actually trying to understand what I said.
OK, are you claiming that there are more articles blaming and calling out black republicans than those calling out white MAGAts?
No, I'm pointing out the difference and quantity of articles blaming and calling out Black men than one's exploring why so many white women, specifically, vote for Republicans. Especially considering how much larger their vote is than ours.
Your experience must be much different than mine. Ive seen way, way more articles/posts/comments focusing on the latter than the former. I don't know of a source that says how many of either exist, though. But it hasn't seemed even close.
In both cases, they tend to get called out as people who are "largely voting against their own interests".
Everyone gets their own internet. But consider that I might have been paying more attention to this specific topic than you have?
Do you remember Proposition 8?
And the Post revisits — yet again — the blaming of black churchgoers for the passage of California's Proposition 8 during the 2008 election cycle. Indeed, even before that November vote, prominent white members of the LGBT community vilified religious African Americans for supposedly voting with a stridently anti-LGBT agenda. Indeed, church attendance has been called the main cause of black voters' support for Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage.
https://www.npr.org/2011/03/04/134257733/the-root-the-misjudged-black-vote-on-gay-marriage
There was SO much vitriol from white Democrats, especially some members of the LGBT community....when it turned out that even if every Black person voted for gay marriage, it still wouldn't have overturned the white votes against it. In 2020, there were endless articles about the increasing number of Black men voting Republican for a 3% increase.
I'm not saying I've done a scientific study on who is writing articles about what. That's my take and reasonable people may disagree. But it is wild how many people are just straight up lying in this thread to pretend that white women don't vote for Republicans though.
Anybody with a good grasp of history should understand how quickly and often Black people become the scapegoats for anything that goes wrong.
First it was "if you don't vote for me you're not Black", which is incredibly racist.
Now, "it's shut up and vote for the person we tell you to vote for".
Amazing.
Would they do this with women or would they offer something by way of policy promises?
That's a shit take on the fact that he was speaking about misogyny and you interpreted it as marching orders and even confused who said what is hilarious here.
Do better.
Dismissing the issue at hand as simply misogyny is outright lazy or incredibly disingenuous. The messaging from the Democratic party towards Black males has been woeful for many years, including (somewhat ironically) during the Obama era - "a rising tide lifts all boats", orly?
Other groups are offered policy change. Black men are told to "shut up and vote", or else.
I suggest you follow your own advice and "do better", your response gives the impression of one without a clue.
Or else what? Obama going to drone strike them?
What? There have been significantly more policy and bill proposals from the Democratic party targeting, among others, black men than from the Republican party (at least, in a positive way). This is kind of a wild assertion. Most of the street interviews and the like I've seen have basically boiled down to misogyny.
Lazy analysis to dismiss the mild shift to the GOP as 'misogyny', during the Obama era the Dems lost some Black male support. Many of the issues that caused such have not bee addressed. The street interviews are not the whole picture. Yours is the view of one who is not Black or does not engage with Black men on any meaningful level. Sadly, this is the norm for most non-Blacks in NA and why it is so easy to fill the gaps of ignorance that 'others' have about Black people with absolute nonsense or hateful conjecture. It
Maybe you should direct your comment to the political party in question.
Poke the bear, get bit
Remember when this guy drank the water at Flint, too bad you can't drone strike lead pipes
I remember that your comments always focus on criticizing Democrats and Democrats alone.
What do you mean? I just don't comment on Republicans because threats of violence get removed
Also there was more aggressive pro-democrat posters, so it usually escalates when I do stuff like pointing out that Obama is a warmonger just like every other US politician.
Sounds like you understand that one side is worse than the other. Now act like it.
It's okay to criticize Democrats
It is NOT okay to exclusively criticize Democrats and then claim you're not a Republican. That's called lying, and lying is bad.
It's not lying, our two party system means you focus on the one that is closer to you. Why would I waste my breath trying to tell Republicans that bigotry is wrong, when I can instead pressure Democrats to do more about bigotry?
Abuser ideology. "I only attack you because I want to make you better!"
You're fucked in the head if you think everyone that disagrees with you is an abuser. Democrats can do better, and putting that energy into the world is a good thing.
You're a partisan hack that cares more about winning points than helping people.
I don't think you understand the nature of my critique. Republicans suck ass, and it enrages me that democrats will only pretend to oppose wars when it's Republicans in power
To stop this citizen's united, the electoral college, FPtP, and winner takes all need to go. But getting your average American to talk about civics and constitutional law is like teaching a raccoon to type.
And never mind if it's an election year
Must not have a very good grasp of your opinions if you can't talk about the opposition without threats of violence. Or you're not playing in good faith and just trying to rile up people by pointing out the warmongering nature of the US instead of having a real point.
I talk about Democrats all the time without threats of violence, what are you talking about?
What do you mean? I just don't comment on Republicans because threats of violence get removed
Must not have a very good grasp of your opinions if you can't talk about the opposition without threats of violence.
I talk about Democrats all the time without threats of violence, what are you talking about?
I love it when people accidentally tell on themselves.
Yes, I'm an anarchist, I'm opposed to democrats. You figured it out lmao
An anarchist who can only talk intelligently against Democrats and only speaks in 'threats of violence' to republicans, meaning you can't talk about them and only attack democrats and sees the Democrats as opposition and not republicans.
Seems legit.
Edit: just saw you're on .ml, so yeah, you're 'an anarchist' and hate democrats, no wonder you can't speak against republicans LOL.
Like what do you want me to say about republicans? they're pretty much always car brained, incapable of having a nuanced understanding of the world around them, misogynist, transphobic, jingoistic.
Many of these can also be said of some Democrats, but it's far more the rule for republicans.
I get annoyed at democrats for their failure, because they pretend to be better.
lol how old are you? I'm going to guess like 19? have you had any Democrat president besides Obama or Joe?
Why is it always about age with you guys? part of the reason I'm like this is because I've seen so many disappointing democrats in my life, starting with Clinton. If anything I was more of a liberal as a kid and grew out of it once I learned how the world worked.
So we have people that are complacent in their beliefs and are inundated with hate from their media feeds. People of the past arent equipped for the disinformation age; its not that surprising. What stands out to me is that the hateful narrative exists, and is so successful at dividing people.
So what do we do? Is there any particular gain by seething over a general population of people? They arent inherently bad... people at large reduce meaning and memeify things so the mental load is lighter. Its a problem on lemmy and its a problem for the majority of people living. They want to care about the right things but they are missing guidance. There used to be a more cohesive narrative that people trusted which is now gone now.
So what do we do? Is there any particular gain by seething over a general population of people? They arent inherently bad… people at large reduce meaning and memeify things so the mental load is lighter. Its a problem on lemmy and its a problem for the majority of people living. They want to care about the right things but they are missing guidance. There used to be a more cohesive narrative that people trusted which is now gone now.
I cut ties with pretty much everyone in my life who was not willing to gender me correctly. That's not seething, it's me protecting myself from having to deal with their bullshit. I'm here in a lib online space as a leftist not because I "like" conservatives, but because I dislike when liberals act like conservatives.
It's really a grand irony to be getting accused of being a republican because I have left-wing critiques of democrats and express disappointment in them.
What does your answer have to do with tee9000's question?
Americans make it a past time to hate on other Americans, and don't think this is limited to Left vs. Right. I like meat. Not going to lie -- I can be convinced to eat more plants and less meat, but I'll fight you if you try to take my meat away. For that, I get called vile things by fanatic vegans who can't seem to accept that I have my own life and make my own choices, despite the fact that I agree with them on a variety of other things, including having a lighter touch on the planet, being responsible stewards of our resources, treating animals with respect and kindness, and of course things like civil rights. Watch this; I expect them to be along shortly to prove my point.
My father and I can't be further apart on politics. He's a Goldwater Republican, old-school hard-core conservative that doesn't like Trump the man, but loves Trump the politician. He runs his big truck on Earth Day just to spite the Environmentalists. Tee9000's question speaks to my dad's and my relationship. If I follow your pattern, I cut him out of my life and leave him high and dry. And trust me: there have been times when I wanted to do exactly that. But what would it accomplish? I'd be disowned by my dad, he'd die old and alone (mom died 5 years ago, I'm his only child), and we'd just hate each other. And I'd never have learned that he swapped out all his incandescent bulbs, which he swore the government would have to pry out of his cold, dead hands, for LED lighting, because...*gasp*...environmentalists listened to the criticisms of CFLs and replaced them with something that matched the quality of lighting from his favourite lights.
You can accomplish far more by listening and cooperating than you do by vilifying and hating on people. That's Tee9000's point.
Now, I'm not saying that you should put up with people misgendering you. Far from it. Stand up for your rights. But maybe instead of cutting people out of your life, you should make inclusion in your life contingent on respect. "You used masculine pronouns to refer to me despite knowing that I prefer feminine pronouns. Unless and until you respect me, I will not interact with you any more." works far better than "fuck you, good bye." It makes it clear on them that they have to respect you, and maybe, just maybe, you'll actually change a few minds. I think that's what Tee9000 is trying to say here.
Agreed its really annoying when people categorize you based on nearly zero info like the other dumbass who replied to this comment.
I dare say try not protect yourself. Ignore the memers (real life or lemmy users alike), and discuss openly with the non memers who are actually trying to understand the world. Not exactly my business but maybe you are over-politicizing and feeding division.
President Barack Obama declared a federal state of emergency, authorizing additional help from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Department of Homeland Security.[13]
I'm mostly poking fun at the devil's milkshake photo op he did- as a platform to jab at the foreign policy elephant in the room. it was theatrics of that whole thing which just came off as Obama showing up to tell people to shut up
Yeah lets vote Trump, right.
\s
Smh
thought terminating cliche
unnecessary sarcasm tag
liberals process any criticism from the left challenge: impossible
Wow, The comments here are an absolute shitshow.
Be as upset as you want with Obama or Biden. But remember, neither of them are on the table for this next election cycle.
Look at the guy who submitted the article. It was 100% a call to arms for tankies, accelerationists, and other bad actors.
But NPR is the one who actually wrote the article. So wouldn't the blame be on them? OP didn't write it, he just posted it.
Now you're using this line for posts that aren't even yours? This is one tired line.
What I said was accurate. Thanks!
Fortunately their hand-picked successor is on the ballot!
You Lemmy.ml people asked Biden to step down because he's old. What did you expect? He stepped down because he's old just like you wanted, and even endorsed a candidate who doesn't have any dementia at all. Who did you expect him to endorse, Mao's zombie?
His age was a known issue 4 years ago, it would have been extra democratic if he had stepped down before the primaries so we could really vote on a candidate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u585Lq47Gmg
No, my entire point is that it is not hindsight, as we knew it 4 years ago.
Democrats def tried to hide his dementia from the public. One of my biggest problems with them. It was only after the debates, when they found out everyone was onto them, that they finally decided to switch him out.
They expected daddy Putin to not send them to the front lines. They were never going to go "oh cool we got what we wanted we'll shut up now" because it was never about Biden's age at all, it's about hurting Democrats. Same thing with Gaza. They don't give a fuck about Palestinians. They just want to hurt Democrats.
Where did you get that fantasy take from? Got anything at all to back that up?
I can tell you how I see it. I have never, and would never vote for any republican. They are not serious people and they are to be countered, ostracized, not associated with, ridiculed. But bad dems threaten everything as well, and also might lead us to being locked in the current bad voting selections pattern we keep being fed by monied interests in our party. The dumbing down and dilluting of the party platform under milktoast idiot centrists like Biden and Harris may also effectively disolve our party. Thats worth fighting. And its worth withholding support as well, if only to try to shake the party back on some sort of track. If you dont see the logic in that, its fine. I dont need your permisison on how I will vote, or what I beleive in. No one does. Do your own thing, but maybe dont namecall people who are probably your allies and just going about it in a different way than you. Theres nothing down that road but an even worse off party than the shitshow we have going right now because of centrist incompetence.
Great post, friend! Glad there are more people standing up to people who try to bully others about how they vote. Stay strong!
Your last 19 posts are about Trump vs Harris, and you are going to say people are bullying people in the comments? You are clearly encouraging it and trying to get people to see things the way you want them to.. bullying others about how they vote one might say?
I don't write the articles, I just post articles I find interesting. I believe people should vote for who they want to vote for. I'm not influencing anyone's vote. The articles I post are readily available on news sites.
That's like saying news channels don't influence anyone's vote by broadcasting what information they choose. It is all influence.
Except the difference is that they produce the pieces. I don't.
In fact, I don't even literally post "the article," I just post a link to the article. It's up to the reader to decide if they want to read it or not.
And of course like I mentioned before, I strongly believe in and support people's right to vote for who they want to.
Thank you!
You're right, the bar was set so low that only James Cameron could find it, but the Dems did clear the bar. And that's why the lesser fascist will be getting my vote this November.
But we also want the party to be better. Real policies that might just make a difference in our lifetimes, not compromising with the party of greater fascism, and a minor token gesture towards not using taxpayer money to fund genocide, as a treat.
Instead of “incumbent endorses someone new”, some were hoping for more of a “primary process to select a candidate” type deal, in the American tradition.
Only been a tradition for 50 years. Relatively young compared to the age of many political dealmakers.
I asked him to step down because for the last 50 years he's been an incredily bad democrat and never did deserve any of our support. His support of the far right murderous fascist zionist splinter group. His consistent racist "gaffes". His lack of support for reproductive rights that he blamed on his catholicism. His stupid lawmaking about the drug wars, 3 strikes, and civil asset forfeiture. His 3 attempts to cut social security. His fascist-light policing viewpoints. His willingness to wade into peoples lives about gay rights when he should have just left everyone the hell alone and shut his piehole. His support and backing of a grifter lobbyist son. His lack of support for ending the filibuster, which just enables the GOP to hold the government hostage every few months. His lack of support for expanding the supreme court. His tired embrace of the worst of the GOP members. His outrageous increasing of police funding in response to Defund&Reallocate. His backstabbing Obama on negotiations he should have kept out of. His consistent lack of support for health care reform and a public option. His utter shafting of Anita Hill in the Clarence Thomas confirmation trials, which should have been a layup for anyone competent, which gave us one of the worst Supreme court justices in our countrys history. In the last 50 years look at every wrong turn this country has taken, and You'll find Bidens ugly mug leading the charge. The man is always wrong about nearly everything, and he never misses a chance to make a bad deal or sell out his party. He's an idiot's idiot and he never deserved any of our support and breaks everything he touches, including our party and now the entire western world order.
"Never underestimate Joe Biden's ability to fuck everything up". --Barack Obama
Obama also urged Biden in 2016 and again in 2020 not to run.
Anyone remember this BS from our lord and savior Joe Biden?
https://theintercept.com/2023/05/23/biden-debt-ceiling-harry-reid-mitch-mcconnell/
This is the guy we're getting all sentimental about? You really think Joe Biden is the best the dems had to offer? That just tells me that many people dont actually read the news, miss their deceased grandpa and will vote for a huckster on personality vibes alone. Biden was about to lose to Donald Trump. Think about that for a minute. How bad do you have to lose the faith and support of your own party's voters to lose to a man like that. Biden could only have possibly competed against someone as bad as Trump, and Trump could only have competed with someone as bad as Biden.
Drag didn't care how bad Biden is as long as he's not Trump. Drag is glad Kamala is running instead, because she's better than him. But drag would have been happy to elect Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man as president.
You're alright Drag. :-). And thank you for letting me vent so excessively and not calling me on it. I needed that. I'm a lifelong Dem straight ticket voter who cant stand Biden. Or Harris.
And I hate how we are trapped in both parties fielding bad candidates with no end in site anytime soon. Harris will try to run twice and after that they are queuing up bloody-hands mealy-mouthed Blinken.
Drag is trying to avoid venting about Harris until after the election. Preventing the fourth reich is more important than all of drag's concerns about the Harris campaign. Drag doesn't like it, but drag doesn't like protesting under the hot sun or arguing with transphobes either, and drag does those. This is one more sacrifice for the cause.
Drag thinks if Trump loses badly enough, the GOP could collapse. It could schism and maybe neither side will be able to stand up to the Democrats. When the GOP isn't a threat anymore, we can either vote Greens or split the Democrats in two to make a left party. We can pass electoral college reform and ranked choice voting. We can make a democracy. And we can gather weapons and organise all the while and try to achieve a revolution. But all of that requires Trump to be gone.
We need to help Harris so we can move beyond her. She's a stepping stone on the path to the future. We're gonna stomp on her head and get one step closer to having someone like AOC in the white house.
I wanted him to step down primarily because of his support for genocide. Biden was obviously unfit and unacceptable for a ton of reasons, just because his successor doesn't share one of those problems doesn't make her automatically acceptable. Its arguable that it would better if the president is mentally unfit, if they're pursuing an agenda that is fundamentally wrong.
Do you believe there is a candidate for president who will end the genocide in Palestine? And also end the genocide of Ukrainians in Crimea?
There are third party candidates who support ending the Palestinian genocide by stopping arms shipments, but neither major candidate does.
I have no knowledge regarding a genocide in Crimea or how it could be best addressed, and I believe questioning or examining evidence for any claim of genocide is against .world rules, so I suppose I'll have to give you the benefit of the doubt, but said claim doesn't really factor into my calculations.
I don't consider either question all that relevant.
Anytime someone claims to be American but mentions third party candidate when voting, I highly doubt their citizenship or whether they are fit to vote at all.
A third party candidate hasn’t won the presidency EVER. A vote for 3rd party is not only a wasted vote, but more often than not it siphons enough votes from the majority candidate to allow the minority candidate to win.
Lincoln. Lincoln wasn't on the ballot across the South and won.
"Anytime someone doesn't vote how I want, they shouldn't be able to vote." Damn we're really busting out the "If you don't vote for who I want, you're a communist!" playbook from Fox News?
It doesn't "siphon" votes from the "majority" candidate. You're assuming that the 3rd party voters would vote for the Dem candidate if the 3rd party candidate didn't exist but most likely those people just wouldn't vote at all if that was the case.
I am not fit to vote and neither are you but it doesn't matter because there is no voter fitness test and instituting one would be anti-democratic what are you a republican?
My vote is wasted regardless because I don't live in a swing state. There's a better chance that my vote will help get a third party on the map next time than than that it will affect the outcome. Unless you forsee an outcome where Illinois goes red and that's the pivotal state. That fantasy is far more disconnected from reality than anything I believe or aim to achieve.
You can question my citizenship all you want. I regard the US government with hostility and distrust, and I didn't chose to be born here. I'd rather aim to be a citizen of the world. I watched both parties gleefully participate in the mass slaughter of hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan while most people didn't give a shit because it was out of sight and out of mind, and it was "ok" because the Democrats were slaughtering people "the right way." I remember when they promised to protect whistleblowers and end mass surveillance and then continued it and they hunted Snowden to the ends of the earth for revealing their crimes. I realized back then that the ideology of lesser evilism was complete bullshit and would keep us trapped with the same policies forever.
Leave then.
no you
Fucking quiet part out loud rofl
It's relevant because those third party candidates are literally, mathematically incapable of reaching 270 electoral votes.
If you vote for one of them, you are not voting. Those two actions will be equivalent this election. And if you don't vote, and Donald Trump wins, you're gonna find out real quick what genocide can look like.
I already know what genocide looks like. Are you denying that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians right now?
As I said in another comment, my vote has no influence over the outcome anyway because I don't live in a swing state, so your argument is moot. Unless you're trying to tell me that Illinois will be the pivotal state that decides the election.
I have no expectations whatsoever that a third party is going to win this election, obviously. But the idea that it's impossible for a third party to win is a self-fulfilling prophesy. Given the absolute necessity of unseating the genocidal bourgeois parties, and the fact that nothing is lost by doing it, I can see no reason whatsoever why I wouldn't vote for a third party over the Democrats.
Why do I even engage. Have fun.
I'm not "pretending not to understand" anything. I understand your position completely, I just disagree with it, and you don't seem capable of comprehending that.
I'm still proudly voting third party though. I'm not going to fall for the Duopoly pressure. People are finally getting sick of both parties. Now they are starting to do something about it.
Who? The few thousand protest voters? They will never win in our electoral college, it's quite literally impossible unless a third party completely takes over one of the two major parties (which is not happening this election, so all these protest voters will just elect Trump by default). It's not pressure, it's common sense.
Even tho most of Lemmy hates third parties, I love your comment. I'm a third party supporter! Thank you!
Fair point!
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.
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.
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 mean, downvote all you want but they're right. No one picked Harris except for Joe Biden. The primary was half assed at best, and there was no democratic process to select the Democratic party nominee. You're insane if you don't think that Biden's dementia wouldn't have surface during an actual primary process. We could have easily avoided this Trump apocalypse if the Democratic establishment let us have a real primary.
They’re not and you’re lying.
The dnc occurred, the reps voted en masse for Kamala.
The reps were nominated by the same process that has happened for over a century. The timeline was different but the process still occurred and you’re lying about it.
The reps that voted for Kamala were nominated in the same fashion as every US election you’ve ever been alive for. It was a televised event where everyone in the party voted and agreed. Stop this bullshit.
Can you help me find kamala on my primary ballot from this year? ( I voted no preference)
Kamala Harris is Joe Biden's running mate.
Were Biden to have been incapacitated, Kamala Harris would step in for him. We made this choice back in November 2020, and it'll hold true until January 2025.
Do you expect the Dems to have a contested Primary with less than one month to go until the General? How nice. Everyone will be tearing themselves apart in order to appeal to the various different factions that make up the Democratic Party, weakening each other until the final canidate emerges with a depleted warchest and a whole bunch of bitter people whose favoured candidate DIDN'T win? And assuming Harris, the VP and assumed successor for Biden, doesn't win this contested primary, has to return the warchest Biden built up?
And Trump will be waiting in the wings, with a building warchest and backers setting up GOTV. Again. Does the far-left WANT Trump to win, because man, that's what it looks like to me!
Yes I know.
Hand picked successor. Why is everyone so mad that I'm calling it what it is?
Because your phrasing is disingenuous. You imply nefariousness where none exists. He ran thinking he was the best choice, until he flubbed the debate, and ... get this...he got the majority of delegates. 14 million people voted for him. And he won the Primary. Are you saying you and your ilk are more important than the 14.5 million people who cast their ballots for him (you couldn't manage 2 million votes between your three alternatives to Biden...), and the 3.9k delegates he won? That their expressions of preference should be thrown out so you can have a bruising 4 week primary in August while Trump just uses your various attacks against each of the candidates and racks up hundreds of millions of campaign contributions that he doesn't have to spend until September? And at best, we just use up Biden's campaign warchest trying to fend your candidates off, and at worst, we have to start over with some relative unknown with a depleted warchest, and no access to the Biden/Harris warchest? And go through the whole rigamarole of qualifying for state ballots so close to election day? Not to mention the extra costs of running a second set of primaries because you couldn't accept the fact that you lost?
We had a primary. Biden won that primary. There's no nefarious plan to install Harris. And the only reason that Harris has to run at all is because you lot showed up here and shat all over Biden over and over and over and over and *four hours later * over again. You lot being sore loser hard-leftists, Greenies pissed that they don't have more of a say in government, paid actors and disinformation peddlers hired by Republicans and Russians to fragment the Left coalition like has happened time and time again (stupid 'fall in love' party), and of course those same Russians and Republicans who directly inject BS into our political discussion. And just to be clear, I'm not speculating on which you are, just pointing out that's what your coalition is, and that's why we're here where we are right now.
Biden quit the race because he had no path to victory. He was 100% going to lose. The betting odds have shifted against Harris and now Trump has a 55% chance of winning. Why? Because she comes across as a cop. Because she supports a genocide. Because she cant give a beleiveable speech that makes her seem relatable. Because she stupidly brags about owning a gun. Because she has drifted right and probably will continue to, looking to get votes that dont exist while she loses the left. This is another case of the dem establishment shitting the bed, same as they always do, and losing to a clear nutcase. Why is the Democratic party engaged in supporting a far right wing war? Its for some $$$, right? So hows that truning out? Not good? THEN WHY DID SHE TAKE THE MONEY? Why is our party so stupid.
I'm just using the language our press uses for enemy nations, like calling it the Biden regime, because it's what I do when warmongers are president, it's what I did for Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump and here we are now.
Like I'll cop to being Russian but you need to understand it's getting really insulting how often liberals go on about 'the Russians' like we're some hive mind
You know the cold war is over, you guys won, plenty of Russians left when the economy went to shit and in the end Putin is the result of your foreign policy goals. I have a deep hatred for both, because of how they have impacted me personally, and it really makes me resent when people act like anyone naysaying the current regime is just doing it because they're Russian and hypnotized by Putin.
If you're so uninformed you didn't know who Biden's running mate was when you voted, that's your own damn fault.
Good for you! Pointing out inconsistencies as if they were national truths!
You almost look like you’re pointing out a conspiracy BUT oh I’m so sorry, there is none!
Point to the dnc! Not a png!
Edit: to mention you didn’t vote you just now complained in a way to convince others to not vote. Thats scummy.
What? I voted
Kamala is Bidens hand-picked successor. How is that untrue?
Simple she was nominated by the DNC. She was not coronated and Biden didn’t step out and say “Kamala” magically creating the bullshit you describe.
Votes were cast by a variety of reps nominated by the same process that has existed throughout your whole lifetime.
What part of that confounds your brain?
(pssst, the downvotes mean the community largely disagrees with you. If we were discussing anything lighter than politics you could just scoff and disagree and claim someone is correct, but that doesn't stand up to the scrutiny of the people you share the world with. Sorry to tell you, you're wrong and your childish political stance and the subsequent tantrum your ilk throws when called out on it isn't helping you gain comrades or appear to be any less lost in the sauce. Get better.)
It's the same thing that brought on the first Trump presidency! The DNC tells you who you will vote for and you will like it!!
DNC supporters have Stockholm syndrome!
Man I'd hate to jump to conclusions but that's a lot of divisive comments from a 24 day old account.
It's especially dumb because democratic primary votes overwhelmingly chose Clinton. It was never really a race at all, pretty much from start to finish she crushed Sanders. So this idea that the dnc picked her and everyone was forced to vote for her is just hogwash.
I could quibble about Clinton overwhelmingly defeating Sanders, but I really don't have to. The actual numbers were 55.2% Hillary Clinton, 43.1% Bernie Sanders. Clinton won a straight majority of votes -- not a plurality, a majority. And I say this as a Bernie Sanders voter who caucused (not voted in a primary, caucused, as in went to a school and stood in a classroom to be counted) for Bernie Sanders. Sanders came in second place because more Democratic Primary voters picked Clinton than Sanders. It wasn't stolen. Clinton won that fair and square. Contrary to all the various little voices that crept out of the woodwork, and I say this, again, as a voter who caucused for Sanders, more Americans wanted a moderate candidate than risk a Progressive that could honestly be tarred as a Socialist.
That said, I would have LOVED to see Crony Capitalism vs. Euro-Socialism as an election in the USA. Too bad, it was Fascism vs. Crony Capitalism....
Welcome to Lemmy! How has your first few weeks been?
It's great! I can speak my mind and vent my frustrations without getting banned by snowflake mods for not sharing the ideas of the hive-mind!
That will definitely not backfire.
::: spoiler NPR - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report) Information for NPR:
::: spoiler Search topics on Ground.News https://www.npr.org/2024/10/10/g-s1-27633/barack-obama-kamala-harris-black-men-pennsylvania ::: Media Bias Fact Check | bot support
why wont the black men?
The majority of white women always vote Republican and that's just fine. 12% of Black men lean Republican and we get article after article about what's wrong with us.
Not sure when that was true but it is not true now
You're kidding, right? LMAO
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/11/27/white-women-vote-republican-get-used-it-democrats/
Downvoting me for being correct gets tiresome. But this is precisely how racist this country is. Even if there has been some small shift towards Dems, ya'll would be way better off figuring out how to convert your sisters rather than worrying about a tiny number of Black Republicans.
White Democrats just prefer to blame us, like you always do. ✌🏾
Do you have a source? That's an opinion without a single source for their claims.
When I look for sources, they all dispute your claim.
A study about this topic: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/08/09/an-examination-of-the-2016-electorate-based-on-validated-voters/
Example from the exit polls 2016: https://www.statista.com/statistics/631224/voter-turnout-of-the-exit-polls-of-the-2016-elections-by-gender/
Here's a times article disputing your claim:
https://time.com/5422644/trump-white-women-2016/
None of those articles show white women voting blue. The first link shows them voting for Trump, the second one is for all women so the statistic is irrelevant, and the third article still says more white women voted for trump than Clinton...
More white woman voting for trump doesn't prove that the majority always votes for republicans, which I further disproved down below.
47% isn't the majority of woman, and that's the most extreme example I could find.
Sure, I could've picked a year with better numbers, but that seemed disingenuous, and why would I need to do that if even the spell of trump doesn't support the claim he made.
8% didn't answer and were excluded, why would you automatically assumehalf of them voted for trump?
I'm sorry are you asking about white women voting for Republicans? Did you look at your first link? I suspect you're conflating "women" with "white women".
That conflation is really what I'm talking about when I mention the racism of this country. It honestly was not meant to be pointed directly at the people here, I mean that stories abound about how "women" are solidly Democratic as a way to hide that the majority of white women are Republicans.
Edit: But if you're quibbling that 47% is not a majority when 42% voted for Democrats, you're just wasting time. If only white women voted, Republicans would win.
I suppose the whole white supremacy thing shouldn't surprise me, but still, I did not know this. Thanks for being such a firebrand about it here, I guess, haha.
I don't think you actually read those articles
I read those, and they made me confident enough to refute this statement:
I picked the most extreme case in his favour on purpose, quite the opposite of you that picked the worst of my three sources for my case..
2020 shows a very different picture.
https://www.msnbc.com/know-your-value/how-women-voters-decided-2020-election-n1247746
Edit: A little bonus
LOL! Did you even read that link? Good God, man, you should be ashamed of yourself.
That's Support for trump and reflecting on 2 years. Again, can you provide a source for your claim that they always vote in favour of republicans?
Just do the math yourself for the historic data. Just a hint, black woman shift the results about 3% towards Democrats, generously calculated. And that's ignoring the higher voter turn out for white woman.
To match your goal post shifting, why do you claim 12% black man vote for trump, when it's 17% that say they're going to vote for him?
You can't even say "Nonwhite women exist."
Goal shifting? You post 4 articles that agree with me and then claim I'm goal shifting. You should be ashamed of yourself. Learn to read and then come back and talk. 🤡
None of the articles agree with your statement. It only shows that even for the tightest race that has been trump, you are still wrong by saying "the majority of white woman always vote Republican".
That you're constantly trying to insult me says everything about you that I need to know.
Keep sniffing your own farts and get lost.
None are so blind as those who will not see ✌🏾
Why do you keep lying? I thought it was an accident, but you've got your head stuck in the ground.
You understand that nonwhite women exist, right?
Your article is precisely what I'm talking about: taking great pains NOT to say how the majority of white women voted Republican.
I provided you sources that refute your claim that a white woman MAJORITY ALWAYS votes for Republicans.
Now it's your time to back up your claims before calling me a lier.
What is the percentage of black woman that vote, 10% (Edit: it was 6.5% in 2016) in comparison to all voters?
Even if they all voted dem it wouldn't shift my numbers over the edge for your claim of always, actually still far from it.
Your articles are calling you a liar. Not me. (Edit: Well, I am too, come to think of it.)
The first Pew research graph clearly says that 47% of white women voted for Republicans and 45 for Democrats.
The second makes no mention of race. If you choose to reply, repeat after me: "Nonwhite women exist." Maybe you just forgot about Hispanic women. And Asian. And everyone else.
The third just dismisses exit polling without presenting any data to dispute it.
Edit: My bad, I should have looked at your whole article. It also agrees with me. Sit your lying ass down.
By my count, we have the Post and Pew Research (And the Times) supporting me, and you have yet to support your claim at all.
Yes everything is zero sum. if I dispute you, I'm racist. Great way to have a fucking conversation. What I disputed had nothing to do with your race in any fucking way. Bye.
FYI I went back and actually downvoted you just because you are intent on being like this instead of just correcting me if I'm wrong.
Obviously I'm the problem for pointing out WHY you're so incorrect. There really is no way to sugarcoat it enough for you to do any sort of introspection. Once you cool down a bit from how mean I am, maybe you should think about why you thought White women voted for Democrats.
How about we concentrate on both things?
However, this is one of the only articles I've seen on it, I don't think there's a LOT of focus on it, vs. all the many many posts/articles calling out white MAGAts. It's still possible to discuss both things.
Saying that this means everyone downvoting you is racist and all the white democrats are blaming blacks for everything "like always" is beyond disingenuous.
You're right. Left out one piece though. This commenter is actually saying here that Obama is a huge racist too.
Nah, don't twist my words. Obama's a war criminal, not a racist.
I'm not twisting anything. This article is about a thing Obama said, which you're declaring as racist. You told me I was racist for agreeing with the article, which by the way I literally never did. I just disputed your separate claim. Not every issue is a binary choice between two positions and this is a perfect example of that fallacy.
You’re very funny!
And of course if you haven't seen other articles that means they don't exist.
One might note that I said this country is racist. I called the people down voting me tiresome. The first is an obvious fact. The second is an understandable opinion.
I don't suppose you remember California Prop 8. But feel free to get your feelings hurt because I mentioned racism rather than actually trying to understand what I said.
OK, are you claiming that there are more articles blaming and calling out black republicans than those calling out white MAGAts?
No, I'm pointing out the difference and quantity of articles blaming and calling out Black men than one's exploring why so many white women, specifically, vote for Republicans. Especially considering how much larger their vote is than ours.
Your experience must be much different than mine. Ive seen way, way more articles/posts/comments focusing on the latter than the former. I don't know of a source that says how many of either exist, though. But it hasn't seemed even close.
In both cases, they tend to get called out as people who are "largely voting against their own interests".
Everyone gets their own internet. But consider that I might have been paying more attention to this specific topic than you have?
Do you remember Proposition 8?
There was SO much vitriol from white Democrats, especially some members of the LGBT community....when it turned out that even if every Black person voted for gay marriage, it still wouldn't have overturned the white votes against it. In 2020, there were endless articles about the increasing number of Black men voting Republican for a 3% increase.
I'm not saying I've done a scientific study on who is writing articles about what. That's my take and reasonable people may disagree. But it is wild how many people are just straight up lying in this thread to pretend that white women don't vote for Republicans though.
Anybody with a good grasp of history should understand how quickly and often Black people become the scapegoats for anything that goes wrong.
I downvoted you and it’s because blanket statements are ignorant. And your entire point is basically “some equals all!”
What vile group of loathed people also do this to support their argument?
So how did Obama win the popular vote? Were women not voting in that election?
What an odd question. As usual, Democrats won with a diverse voting bloc because the majority of white people voted for Republicans.
It took me about 20 seconds to find that 39% of white women voted for Obama. Why didn't you research that before commenting?
I really am shocked that "White women vote for Republicans" is somehow surprising, but that drives home the point I've been making this whole time.
Lmfao you're black and vote republican? US politics is fucking hilarious, honestly - thanks for the shit show.
Jesus Christ. Read whatever it was one more time, buddy.
Because only a fucking moron votes for the party that wants to enslave them.
First it was "if you don't vote for me you're not Black", which is incredibly racist.
Now, "it's shut up and vote for the person we tell you to vote for".
Amazing.
Would they do this with women or would they offer something by way of policy promises?
That's a shit take on the fact that he was speaking about misogyny and you interpreted it as marching orders and even confused who said what is hilarious here.
Do better.
Dismissing the issue at hand as simply misogyny is outright lazy or incredibly disingenuous. The messaging from the Democratic party towards Black males has been woeful for many years, including (somewhat ironically) during the Obama era - "a rising tide lifts all boats", orly?
Other groups are offered policy change. Black men are told to "shut up and vote", or else.
I suggest you follow your own advice and "do better", your response gives the impression of one without a clue.
Or else what? Obama going to drone strike them?
What? There have been significantly more policy and bill proposals from the Democratic party targeting, among others, black men than from the Republican party (at least, in a positive way). This is kind of a wild assertion. Most of the street interviews and the like I've seen have basically boiled down to misogyny.
Lazy analysis to dismiss the mild shift to the GOP as 'misogyny', during the Obama era the Dems lost some Black male support. Many of the issues that caused such have not bee addressed. The street interviews are not the whole picture. Yours is the view of one who is not Black or does not engage with Black men on any meaningful level. Sadly, this is the norm for most non-Blacks in NA and why it is so easy to fill the gaps of ignorance that 'others' have about Black people with absolute nonsense or hateful conjecture. It
Roland Martin, a Democrat discusses the issue re the Dems: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B9K-6DaoFZc&t=120s&pp=2AF4kAIB
shut up and vote.
No one is buying the bullshit you're selling.
Maybe you should direct your comment to the political party in question.
Poke the bear, get bit
Remember when this guy drank the water at Flint, too bad you can't drone strike lead pipes
I remember that your comments always focus on criticizing Democrats and Democrats alone.
What do you mean? I just don't comment on Republicans because threats of violence get removed
Also there was more aggressive pro-democrat posters, so it usually escalates when I do stuff like pointing out that Obama is a warmonger just like every other US politician.
Sounds like you understand that one side is worse than the other. Now act like it.
It's okay to criticize Democrats
It is NOT okay to exclusively criticize Democrats and then claim you're not a Republican. That's called lying, and lying is bad.
It's not lying, our two party system means you focus on the one that is closer to you. Why would I waste my breath trying to tell Republicans that bigotry is wrong, when I can instead pressure Democrats to do more about bigotry?
Abuser ideology. "I only attack you because I want to make you better!"
You're fucked in the head if you think everyone that disagrees with you is an abuser. Democrats can do better, and putting that energy into the world is a good thing.
You're a partisan hack that cares more about winning points than helping people.
I don't think you understand the nature of my critique. Republicans suck ass, and it enrages me that democrats will only pretend to oppose wars when it's Republicans in power
To stop this citizen's united, the electoral college, FPtP, and winner takes all need to go. But getting your average American to talk about civics and constitutional law is like teaching a raccoon to type.
And never mind if it's an election year
Must not have a very good grasp of your opinions if you can't talk about the opposition without threats of violence. Or you're not playing in good faith and just trying to rile up people by pointing out the warmongering nature of the US instead of having a real point.
I talk about Democrats all the time without threats of violence, what are you talking about?
I love it when people accidentally tell on themselves.
Yes, I'm an anarchist, I'm opposed to democrats. You figured it out lmao
An anarchist who can only talk intelligently against Democrats and only speaks in 'threats of violence' to republicans, meaning you can't talk about them and only attack democrats and sees the Democrats as opposition and not republicans.
Seems legit.
Edit: just saw you're on .ml, so yeah, you're 'an anarchist' and hate democrats, no wonder you can't speak against republicans LOL.
Like what do you want me to say about republicans? they're pretty much always car brained, incapable of having a nuanced understanding of the world around them, misogynist, transphobic, jingoistic.
Many of these can also be said of some Democrats, but it's far more the rule for republicans.
I get annoyed at democrats for their failure, because they pretend to be better.
lol how old are you? I'm going to guess like 19? have you had any Democrat president besides Obama or Joe?
Why is it always about age with you guys? part of the reason I'm like this is because I've seen so many disappointing democrats in my life, starting with Clinton. If anything I was more of a liberal as a kid and grew out of it once I learned how the world worked.
What are you now?
So we have people that are complacent in their beliefs and are inundated with hate from their media feeds. People of the past arent equipped for the disinformation age; its not that surprising. What stands out to me is that the hateful narrative exists, and is so successful at dividing people.
So what do we do? Is there any particular gain by seething over a general population of people? They arent inherently bad... people at large reduce meaning and memeify things so the mental load is lighter. Its a problem on lemmy and its a problem for the majority of people living. They want to care about the right things but they are missing guidance. There used to be a more cohesive narrative that people trusted which is now gone now.
I cut ties with pretty much everyone in my life who was not willing to gender me correctly. That's not seething, it's me protecting myself from having to deal with their bullshit. I'm here in a lib online space as a leftist not because I "like" conservatives, but because I dislike when liberals act like conservatives.
It's really a grand irony to be getting accused of being a republican because I have left-wing critiques of democrats and express disappointment in them.
What does your answer have to do with tee9000's question?
Americans make it a past time to hate on other Americans, and don't think this is limited to Left vs. Right. I like meat. Not going to lie -- I can be convinced to eat more plants and less meat, but I'll fight you if you try to take my meat away. For that, I get called vile things by fanatic vegans who can't seem to accept that I have my own life and make my own choices, despite the fact that I agree with them on a variety of other things, including having a lighter touch on the planet, being responsible stewards of our resources, treating animals with respect and kindness, and of course things like civil rights. Watch this; I expect them to be along shortly to prove my point.
My father and I can't be further apart on politics. He's a Goldwater Republican, old-school hard-core conservative that doesn't like Trump the man, but loves Trump the politician. He runs his big truck on Earth Day just to spite the Environmentalists. Tee9000's question speaks to my dad's and my relationship. If I follow your pattern, I cut him out of my life and leave him high and dry. And trust me: there have been times when I wanted to do exactly that. But what would it accomplish? I'd be disowned by my dad, he'd die old and alone (mom died 5 years ago, I'm his only child), and we'd just hate each other. And I'd never have learned that he swapped out all his incandescent bulbs, which he swore the government would have to pry out of his cold, dead hands, for LED lighting, because...*gasp*...environmentalists listened to the criticisms of CFLs and replaced them with something that matched the quality of lighting from his favourite lights.
You can accomplish far more by listening and cooperating than you do by vilifying and hating on people. That's Tee9000's point.
Now, I'm not saying that you should put up with people misgendering you. Far from it. Stand up for your rights. But maybe instead of cutting people out of your life, you should make inclusion in your life contingent on respect. "You used masculine pronouns to refer to me despite knowing that I prefer feminine pronouns. Unless and until you respect me, I will not interact with you any more." works far better than "fuck you, good bye." It makes it clear on them that they have to respect you, and maybe, just maybe, you'll actually change a few minds. I think that's what Tee9000 is trying to say here.
Agreed its really annoying when people categorize you based on nearly zero info like the other dumbass who replied to this comment.
I dare say try not protect yourself. Ignore the memers (real life or lemmy users alike), and discuss openly with the non memers who are actually trying to understand the world. Not exactly my business but maybe you are over-politicizing and feeding division.
Oh great comment! I mean, you're going to get downvoted to hell for it, and probably nasty DM's, but you are making a great point.
Stay strong, girl. Don't let anyone here bully you out of here. We need your voice.
I'd just like to point out that you accidentally admitted that Democrats are your opposition. And that is hilarious.
I also remember when he swam in the Gulf, after the BP disaster.
They fixed the pipes.
President Barack Obama declared a federal state of emergency, authorizing additional help from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Department of Homeland Security.[13]
I'm mostly poking fun at the devil's milkshake photo op he did- as a platform to jab at the foreign policy elephant in the room. it was theatrics of that whole thing which just came off as Obama showing up to tell people to shut up
Yeah lets vote Trump, right.
\s
Smh
liberals process any criticism from the left challenge: impossible