Biden Condemns Trump as Dire Threat to Democracy in a Blistering Speech
President Biden on Friday delivered a ferocious condemnation of Donald J. Trump, his likely 2024 opponent, warning in searing language that the former president had directed an insurrection and would aim to undo the nation’s bedrock democracy if he returned to power.
On the eve of the third anniversary of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol by Mr. Trump’s supporters, Mr. Biden framed the coming election as a choice between a candidate devoted to upholding America’s centuries-old ideals and a chaos agent willing to discard them for his personal benefit.
“There’s no confusion about who Trump is or what he intends to do,” Mr. Biden warned in a speech at a community college not far from Valley Forge in Pennsylvania, where George Washington commanded troops during the Revolutionary War. Exhorting supporters to prepare to vote this fall, he said: “We all know who Donald Trump is. The question is: Who are we?”
In an intensely personal address that at one point nearly led Mr. Biden to curse Mr. Trump by name, the president compared his rival to foreign autocrats who rule by fiat and lies. He said Mr. Trump had failed the basic test of American leaders, to trust the people to choose their elected officials and abide by their decisions.
“We must be clear,” Mr. Biden said. “Democracy is on the ballot. Your freedom is on the ballot.”
We need the media to start taking this shit seriously and stop "both sidsing" shit like the insurrection or the fourteenth amendment.
Yeah but the Biden crime family!
I'm not sure I've ever heard any major media outlet say "the Trump crime family" even though that's literally what those 5 traitors are. Not to mention the INCREDIBLE nepotism and grift of putting his kids in the WH.
Imagine Fox News's heads exploding if Hunter Biden (assuming no criminal past, which is generous comparing with Trump spawn) was an appointment in Biden's government.
That's because NPR is too pussy, and all the other outlets are super far right. Overton Window is a B.
Edit:
I'm tempted to buy argument space in the upcoming election booklet and attack my Republican representative and drop "Trump Crime Family" repeatedly. Maybe a super sarcastic one in support and then a more serious one against.
Crime family? I thought he couldn’t speak a sentence properly? Which is it?
He's just faking it! Old Man Joe really pulls all the strings! He's both extremely cunning and hopelessly inept! Simultaneously at the same time!
https://www.openculture.com/2016/11/umberto-eco-makes-a-list-of-the-14-common-features-of-fascism.html
You’re looking for point #8.
That was a really interesting read. Thanks for sharing that. It’s well worth the time for anyone else wondering.
Didn’t Rocky win awards
Mafia "Dons" get old and senile too. Hitler shat. Mussolini farted. There are no gods and only the masters we allow. Does it need to be said that human evil also ages?
Both sides it is better for views. Which is better for sponsors. In turn keeping the debate going and keep the fire going. They have zero interest in taking any sides. It's bad for business.
I know how we could short circuit the "both sides" arguments. Let's reform the Democratic primary process into something actually democratic.
Everyone gets to vote on the same day.
Replace "first past the post" with any of the more functional systems for all elected offices.
Let a neutral organization manage debates as an open and consistent process.
The Democratic party has total control over their primary process. Presenting themselves as the "defenders of democracy" while continuing to subvert democracy is a losing strategy, and no amount of complaining about "both sides" arguments will change that.
You realize this would give a huge boost to the "establishment" candidate, right? Primaries are staggered to give lesser known candidates a chance to build up momentum.
The primary isn't FPTP. For example, in the 2020 NH primary both Sanders and Buttigieg won 9 delegates, and Klobuchar won 6.
What do you mean by that?
Sounds like removal or remote/mail in voting which is a bad idea. We do need to make voting day a federal required off day so everyone can actually go do it, making that happen wouldn’t eliminate the need for mail in votes though
Personally I think the polls should be open for a week just to make sure everyone has a chance to go.
Keep mail in of course for the people who can’t or don’t want to make it in.
We have to have mail in for those that live super remote and our soldiers stationed abroad.
I agree a week of voting, nov1-7 would solve a lot of issue, make it a federal requirement that business have to provide at least one of those days off
The answer is less populism, not more.
What exactly do you think populism is? Are you aware that you are specifically promoting oligarchy?
Didn't CNN get bought out by some conservative news group fairly recently? I'd be careful about that stuff.
Out of curiosity, do you financially support any left wing news networks (that aren't owned by a right wing organization such as AT&T) ?
as a german I'm not that up to date but is it still possible that this orange, wig wearing cunt can run for presidency?
We're working on that. So far 2 states (Colorado and Maine, which have 10 and 4 electoral college votes respectively out of a total of 538) have taken Trump off their election ballots, but this will likely go to the supreme court, of which 3 out of 9 judges were appointed by Trump.
Despite 3 of the judges being appointed by Trump, they have made it clear that they won't do his bidding, so far, so there is hope that he won't be eligible.
I'm disappointed he's not already in prison.
Colorado was overturned a few hours ago, he'll be on the ballot.
https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/colorado-secretary-state-certifies-2024-presidential-primary-election-ballot-trump-ballot/
Fuck :(
The decision is paused until the Supreme Court renders judgement, this was always going to happen.
It shouldn't be happening. The law and precedent is clear. But it was going to anyways.
The only question is exactly how compromised the newer additions are, what Harlan Crow wants, and whether Roberts will remember he supposedly cares about the Constitution as a sacred institution.
I think people are missing something important here - this ruling is merely that he can appear on a party primary ballot, which is something not explicitly covered by the constitution. Even if he wins a primary the supreme court can then rule that he's still ineligible to run as president.
They have said that, but have they convincingly demonstrated it?
please work harder and also good luck to you
He will likely be allowed to run because so much of the country supports him, there is some legal gray area (he has not been convicted), and the courts are "conservative." I personally think he will win because Biden is getting even worse at speeches, much of the population doesn't think their personal lives improved under Biden, and a lot of people are upset for how Biden has/is handling the Israel war.
A lot of things could happen before the election that would hurt Biden as well. A recession, expansion of Israel war, and losses in Ukraine are possibilities that could hurt Biden. I don't think anything could hurt Trump. I think he could win the election from prison. Trump voters will eagerly buy any conspiracy theory to keep supporting Trump, and they don't care about democracy or human rights. Democrat and Biden voters are much more critical and fickle.
"He hasn't been convicted of insurrection" isn't a legal gray area, that's just misdirection by his supporters. Just like most other legal proceedings this one isn't dependent on the result of other legal proceedings. The supreme court will decide for themselves whether he was "involved in insurrection" - the law here doesn't depend on him being previously convicted of "insurrection", a different charge which has a much higher legal bar.
There's overwhelming evidence that he was "involved" in this insurrection so he'll almost certainly be held accountable. But whether the supreme court decides to disqualify him depends mostly on their interpretation of the clause naming the offices which he can be banned from. Given that the supreme court are republicans will they rule that "public office" does or doesn't include the presidency since it isn't named explicitly in the clause?
No they won't. That has already been found to be fact in the Colorado Supreme Court. They have to decide on it despite that finding. They have to find a way to support their boy despite having to admit he engaged in insurrection.
According to another random lemmy user, the clause actually did originally include the president explicitly, but it was then removed saying the language already covered it so it wasn't needed.
Not sure if that's true at all, but apparently it's recorded history, so if it's true it's hard to refute it and say they didn't mean it?
But maybe they removed it because they saw it as unnecessary? It'd be restating the obvious since it already says insurrectionists can't be officials, then goes on to list a few examples which were pertinent when the law was created in response to the aftermath of the civil war. In the end it depends whether they decide to interpret part of the clause literally and as more important than the intent of the clause, which seems pretty clear. How they interpret it seems to be a bit up in the air given their party affiliations.
Legal Eagle does a really good run down of the legal aspects here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krVNdQOWYk4
Yes, and he's just as popular with his voters as he was in 2020, if not more, because they're sympathetic to his claims that all the charges against him were politically motivated.
The 14th amendment hasn't been tested to anywhere near this extent ever, so the Supreme Court is likely to rule in his favor because there haven't been any convictions yet and we have literally nothing to use as precident (and because he personally appointed 1/3 of the justices)
That will likely come down to a decision by our supreme Court, who haven't been known for making very reasonable (or ethical, or logically consistent) decisions as of late.
My personal hunch is he'll be allowed to run. Happy to be surprised, though.
He will still lose when he is allowed to run. Because if he is allowed to run EVERYONE will show up to vote him out. Because he's got way more people that hate him than love him. He lost by a lot last time. And it's even worse now that we have had to hear about him non stop since he has been in the spotlight.
I suuuuuure hope so
That sounds a lot like how I thought in 2016. I hope you're right, but my faith in my fellow citizens hasn't been restored yet.
It's tired and worn out, but my faith is so low that I look both ways at a roundabout.
He'll only lose if everyone who comes out votes for the same guy. If people protest vote for a third party, Trump will win.
He isn't polling very well against Trump... I have my doubts
Polls are only for boring people with nothing else to do but bicker. There are plenty of people that vote that don't bother with all the grandstanding before the actual elections.
The Supreme Court with a majority of Republican originalists would bend over backwards to let Trump run for presidency
everything here has devolved into a state by state issue with state trumping federal laws
it depends on who each individual state decides to put on the ballot to allow the people to vote for
Yes absolutely. It will be up to the Court to decide.
I posted the following elsewhere, just before I read that he said this, as I was thinking about a quote I heard earlier from DL Hughley regarding Trump's election:
The Democrats' problem is that they don't address who we are. They offer only aspirations. Who are we (beyond the racists and fascists Trump and his supporters represent)? Broke. Sick. Overworked. Exploited. Isolated. Scared. He wants us to vote based on hope that we can push back fascism. Hope that we can win our rights back. He wants us to vote based on some dream of democracy I can't say I've ever witnessed in my lifetime. Give me someone to vote for who's going to meet us where we are.
Obama was practically the platonic ideal of the perfect neoliberal president. He said all the right words, checked all the right boxes, and effortlessly combined warmth and charm with an air of stern authority. He was, in all likelihood, the best neoliberal president we will ever get. Neoliberalism is clearly not enough.
It's time for the Democratic party to stop pretending they can serve the elites while paying lip service to the proles. In a rational world, the proles would have no option. Democrats are not their friends, but they will never be as bad as Republicans. But it's not a rational world, and fascism thrives with the disaffected masses. When faced with the choice between "bad" and "worse", "worse" is far more attractive than it should be.
It's crazy to me that people actually consider it a choice.
Take everything that you dislike about Biden and then apply it all to Trump and then add on fascism and destruction of democracy on top of it.
There's nothing to gain there, would Trump do any better with Israel? Hell no. We all know where he stands, in any way he can personally benefit from it at the cost of literally anyone else he will.
Disenfranchised people don't value the current system. People in general tend to be extremely myopic. Trump was a molotov cocktail thrown at the current system. The Democrats foisting Biden on the country was a clear response of "we don't hear you".
I imagine most wager earners couldn't care less about Israel, and it's silly to me to pretend that that is the important issue here. Most Americans are seeing their money losing value thanks to runaway inflation, working multiple jobs. or dealing with skyrocketing energy and grocery bills. The scarcity of housing is accelerating as well.
Yes, Trump won't do anything to fix those issues either, but he doens't have to. He just has to point out Biden's shitty record and cast himself as the candidate of change, the same way he did in 2016.
People aren't going to care that he's a fascist.
People give Obama way too much credit, but that's how far great oratory skills will get you as president. He ruled as a conservative and was solidly in the corner of the billionaires, just like every president since Reagan.
This. Common folk haven’t had a president since Carter, and that didn’t go well. Ruling class is called that for a reason. We need more anti-corporatism (aka Boston Tea Party).
Don’t blame me, I voted for the email lady.
WE ALL SAW WHAT TRUMP DID ON JAN 6
He reminded people to be peaceful and refrain from violence?
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1346912780700577792
He said that on twitter, while advocating for insurrection in a live speech. If he cared that much he would've gone on a public speech too, but that would've actually been heard by the target demographic
Sorry, but that's misinformation. He also said it in his speech, but they left that part out at the impeachment trial.
Classic Trump supporter here, posting sources that contradict their point as supporting their point because, out of eight statements, one weakly suggested peace while the other seven weakly suggested insurrection.
This is how con men win over the critical thinking challenged crowd.
Right, because critical thinking equals defending the majority opinion.
Critical thinking means reading an article with one point that agrees with your stance and seven points that contradict it and realizing it doesn't actually support your argument.
Critical thinking means you question what you read, hear, think, write, and say. If you were capable of critical thought, you'd have read your previous comment and realized it doesn't actually address my comment at all. It just makes an unrelated point. But you're not capable of even primary school level feats of cognition yet you still vote, and people like you are why American democracy is circling the drain. You just. Don't. Think.
Bro. You're in the minority here, and you've made bad takes on every subthread. I don't have the energy to argue with you. You're on a predominantly leftist social media platform. No one here agrees with you.
Yes, please do tell me how you really feel about minorities.
Did you read the entire page?
Which of these statements strikes you as more of an incitement to violence, than, say, "I just don't even know why there aren't uprisings all over the country." or "This is a movement, I’m telling you, they’re not going to stop, and everyone beware, because they’re not going to stop before Election Day in November, and they’re not going to stop after Election Day. And everyone should take note of that, on both levels, that they’re not going to let up, and they should not, and we should not."?
id like to piggy back, youre really stupid and i hate you. i have no extra argument as everyone has shown you everything you need to see its obvious you treat reality like religion where your opinion intrinsically holds truth.
the best part of reality is despite what you want to believe, trump still incited violence and insurrection. your opinion on the matter doesnt change the reality. this isnt christianity this is real life.
I’m sorry you feel that way. Must be rough.
its probably more rough to boot lick someone that doesn't like you
I'm assuming you still think your father is coming back too?
Neither. You're looking for controversy or "muh hypocrisy" where it doesn't exist.
So you’re saying there’s no objective standard for what consists incitement of violence, it’s just a matter of what’s politically expedient.
Yeah, seriously, one time he told everyone to remain peaceful. That totally contradicts every other time he almost explicitly called for violence! And certainly, he didn't want it to happen, because as we all saw he swooped in immediately when they started to attacking the capitol to tell them to stop, instead of disappearing for an hour and a half.
Stop being such an easily fooled sheep. The proof is in the pudding: his cultists who were in the capitol that day nearly universally said they were there because Trump wanted them to be there. From their own fucking mouths, and you're still trying to maintain that Trump wasn't instrumental in making that happen.
Hours after he told them to go to the Capitol building and "fight like hell".
They'll sacrifice their lives for a person who is demonstrably the actual biggest loser in history, and he just gets more loser-y, folks, okay... If any of you are starting to have your memories fade, here's a quick refresher to read this morning and then copy and send to your aunt karen in Missouri.
amazing copy spaghetti
Fuckin do something about it. Lock his ass up in the name of homeland security.
Luckily, and despite what Trump keeps whining about, the POTUS can't have people locked up. The courts are doing their job, as they should in a democracy. Calling for the POTUS to ignore the law, like a tyrant, in order to protect the democracy from tyranny is not a good look.
If it were me or you we would be locked up pending trial. Don't give me excuses
The "Saving Democracy" messaging is not going to reach people at all. Also, not being Trump is not good enough also. This is going to be rough if Democracy rests on the shoulders of the current leader enabling genocide.
Not being Trump is the best you're going to get. I guess you'll just have to choose if the guy you vote for to destroy Palestine also plans to destroy the USA.
People should just brace for the worst outcome. Biden losing to someone saying "Day 1 Dictator" is pretty crazy but extremely possible. Trump is good at framing things being better under his run, and people care about their material needs being met.
Too bad those same people can't see how severely they're being lied to by Trump.
Because that's how fascists work. They make chaos, then bill themselves as the solution to that chaos.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I detest loudly what is happening to the Palestinians. But people like you are willing to let their own nation fall into fascism for people half a world away. Letting Trump win will absolutely not help the Palestinians, and in fact could make things worse as a Trump-led administration tells the IDF, "Hey, need any help slaughtering civilians?"
This nation has fallen into fascism way before Trump. This nation is built on it. Arms dealer nation full of psychopaths who enabled the lesser of two evils until they got two choices of genocide on the ballot. It isn't harm reduction for the people who are already dead. Better put that energy into getting Biden to stop losing to a man calling himself a dictator.
So just let the world burn? Take the Black Pill and succumb to the end of the world? The end of all we know? The end of us? Coward. Raise your head and scream out against oblivion, cry out in defiance of fate. Where's your rage, your anger? You choose to go silently into that cold dark night, I however will go down kicking and screaming.
I've been having the same thoughts. I think liberals, especially white liberals, are scared of a Trump presidency because, for once, the fallout might come down on them. They don't have to be scared of a Biden presidency, because their lives can continue on as they have been. So then they attack you for saying that the US is already a fascist state, even though it already is for anyone who isn't white and straight.
You get it. Most of the saving of democracy comes down to being comfortability and not actual democracy or even fixing systematic issues. The saving democracy has terms and conditions anyway depending on who you are. My black experience isn't the same as theirs. I could vote for Biden and he still would increase police funding like he did last time.
Uhh
Please do not invoke my rights as an excuse to let Trump take away more of my rights. What the fuck.
This comment is so shitty and condescending and completely devoid of intelligence. It reads the same as "Please do not invoke my white privilege as an excuse to let Trump take away my white privilege." Liberals love to act like they care about issues but comments like these come off so self-centered. I don't live in some fantasy world where a second Trump presidency is better than a second Biden presidency, but liberals are so adamant that it has to be Biden. Why aren't liberals outraged that the DNC is forcing an unpopular candidate down our throats again? The most common response I see is "it's complicated" but it's not fucking complicated in the slightest, liberals just want to be comfortable and they'll gladly roll over and take it from anyone who promises them to at least use lube. Yes I'm talking about you.
You say that like Trump would not have enabled genocide in Ukraine
Lemmy doesn't care about Ukraine anymore. Half the people on here are on some moral high horse like there is a chance that the US wouldn't be supporting Israel if someone else was in power. Not that it's okay I think we shouldn't be sending shit there or supporting what they are doing at all but that's reality of the situation.
I mean, speak for yourself. Plenty of people care about Ukraine, there's just no controversy there other than Putin being an asshole. But there's no legitimate wing of American political discourse that is pro-Putin. It's just completely obvious that he's the bad guy and the propaganda never worked wholesale on the American population that he was a good guy. Israeli propaganda has been much more effective on creating a false dichotomy of opinion.
You must not be American because if you were you'd know the GOP is very much pro-putin and behind holding up further aid for Ukraine.
It should be enough. But I fear that you're right. Everyone here is pretty much on the same page, but Lemmy does not represent the average voter mentality in America.
Exactly. People will see this so-called "democracy" and wonder if it's even worth saving. The only choices we're given are if we want things to get worse slower or faster.
I fear part of the issue is many United States citizens either know or indirectly understand that the United States already isn't fully a democracy anymore.
Just tell him to go home because he's drunk on stage lol
Not sure we will have a 2024 election, unless supreme Court rules on status of Presidential immunity. Biden may just stay in office.
That's not how it works. Even if the GOP doesn't produce a candidate in a handful of states for no reason other than incompetence, then people will still vote and either choose the DNC candidate or use the Write In option on the ballot.
Trump sucks but lets not pretend Biden isn't an amalgamation of weapons contractors and ruthless capitalists pulling his puppet strings. We can do better than 100 year old presidents that won't be here when they ruin tomorrow
Well, there are no better candidates lined up for 2024 so actually the USA can't vote for better this go round.
Biden was ruining things when he was younger too. He pushed the crime bill and pushed to make student loans non-dischargeable through bankruptcy. However he's now forgiven since he pardoned a small fraction of the prisoners he helped imprison and forgave a small fraction of the student loans he helped build up. Most progressive president in modern US history!!!1
Nobody is saying Biden is great, I agree we could do better. So stop with the whataboutism. If it weren't against Trump, there might be more tradeoffs to talk about. But right now it's pretty much "anyone but Trump"
Any other poorly-applied buzzwords like "whataboutism" you'd like to apply? It doesn't stop with trump. Before trump was bush, and the message was "we gotta stop bush". It's not a "just this time" sort of deal. Democrats will keep promoting the shittiest candidates and then say that we must vote them in because the alternative is worse. It doesn't end.
When one of the candidates claims they will be a dictator then any other candidate will automatically be better.
The moral gap between the candidates has never been wider.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvUEsm0wNIA
This is nothing new.
Whataboutism isn't a buzzword, it's a logical fallacy. Its exactly what you are saying, "what about Biden though!" while completely ignoring the point being discussed, which is that we want an alternative to trump
It is a buzzword because people like you misuse the hell out of it. I wasn't even the one who brought up biden, I was responding to a post that talked about him. It's like you've never had a conversation with a human before. Conversations can involve more than one laser-point-focused subject.
Name another president since Carter that is more progressive. We’ll wait.
I'm waiting too, because democrats won't let one get through.
So you’re complaining about Biden but admit he’s the most progressive president in 50 years. Sounds about on brand for progressives.
No one is denying that biden is the most progressive president that will democrats will allow through, so it's not much of an admission. This isn't the gotcha you think it is. That you're satisfied with a bar so low that it reaches into the core of the Earth sounds about on brand for a diehard democrat such as yourself.
I'm not a democrat and I'm certainly not a huge fan of Biden. But he's not demented and he's the best president for progressives in 50 years. Yet progressives act like there is no difference between Biden and Trump. The reason you're not getting a reasonable progressive candidate/president is that nothing is ever good enough for progressives.
If you're not a democrat, you still certainly talk like a democratic party PR bot. Asking for health care or to not be under loads of student loan debt is not too much to ask for, but apparently it is for you and the rest of the Biden cheerleaders who think we should all be happy with the garbage-ass president that the democrats pushed through as president. Progressives wanted Bernie. Bernie was the compromise and even then Biden doesn't hold a candle to Bernie. Biden is fucking garbage, so you touting that he's the most progressive president that the democrats will allow only makes you and the democratic party (that you supposedly aren't a fan of) look bad.
QED. Nobody takes progressives seriously because all they do is complain. Fact: Biden is the most progressive president in 50 years. And because progressives like you think he’s “trash” you’re going to get Trump back. How’s that noseless face feel?
If you were alive at the time, you'd probably be telling black people to shut up and be happy with jim crow laws because that was the most progressive state of things since slavery.
Don’t be an asshole and assume what I think about this. I’m not even a progressive and I know the way to get more progressive policies is to be positive about the accomplishments more than being negative about the failures. You fail and your approach is having the opposite effect that you want.
I'm not assuming, I'm basing this off your posts. By the way, if you're not a progressive and you're not a democrat, then what are you?
you are doing great
https://www.democracynow.org/2012/10/17/green_partys_jill_stein_cheri_honkala
"President Biden on Friday delivered a ferocious condemnation of Donald J. Trump, his likely 2024 opponent, warning in searing language that the former president had directed an insurrection and would aim to undo the nation’s bedrock democracy if he returned to power."
dude has someone chained to chair to keep her from participating in American democracy but somehow he is a defender of democratic values
“We must be clear,” Mr. Biden said. “Democracy is on the ballot. Your freedom is on the ballot.”
we lost rights with you as president and with trump and with obama such as voting rights some are not allowed to vote and some states tell you who is going to be on the ballot or not restricting choices
jill stein said it better
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Stein
Stein stated during the 2016 campaign that the Democratic and Republican parties are "two corporate parties" that have converged into one. Concerned by the rise of neofascism internationally and the rise of neoliberalism within the Democratic Party, she has said, "The answer to neofascism is stopping neoliberalism. Putting another Clinton in the White House will fan the flames of this right-wing extremism. We have known that for a long time, ever since Nazi Germany."
I figured people would've learned from the elections involving folks like Nader and Stein, but I guess here we go again.
me too
when someone says something progressive and wants to do something for the citizens everybody yells that is too far do baby steps
The conservatives do, not everyone.
"Democracy is on the ballot. Your freedom is on the ballot"
Indeed, vote out these two geezers from the government
I share your objective, but how. The third party approach has been a complete and total failure, and the spoiler effect makes it dangerous. Pushing the Democrats left has achieved at least some minor wins. Third parties have had none.
"But if people just voted third party...". Great, you found a political strategy that can win, provided that the majority of voters do as their told. If we had that kind of unified engagement, any strategy would win.
Voting for a third party will push red and blue to change more than asking them kindly. As soon as a third party start to get attention red and blue even if still in power will have to go in damage mode not to lose all their voters.
Actually, it's probably the exact opposite. They want fewer people actually involved in the election, because then they need to convince fewer people to vote for them in order to win. If you effectively remove yourself from the voting pool, by voting for someone who can't win, you are basically making it so they don't have to court you, not that they will.
Even if you managed to get a third party elected, it would just revert back to two parties very rapidly. This is the nature of a FPTP voting system. This is not something you can do top down by flipping a switch. It's gotta go the other way. Work on your local elections.
Go ahead and vote for a fascist or a genocide supporter and remember for the rest of your days that you voted for it
Even if I were to agree with this and I could oversimplify it to this one thing, under the current situation my vote is only meaningful if I choose one of the two. And there is a lot more at stake than a policy difference over support for Israel.
So how the rest of my days play out will not be affected at all by my choice to support Biden in the upcoming presidential election.
You, however, seem blinded by anger. Your third party vote on principle will unlikely free you from this anger. Maybe it's time to look elsewhere.
Sounds like you are lucky enough not to live in africa, western europe, south america or the middle east otherwise you would taste the consequences of voting for a fascist or a genocide supporter first hand under live bullets.
Sound like you are also not really smart because you fail to realize that the moment your country stop being governed by corrupted politicians in bed with billionares and warlords, public money and the economy would spin in favor of people and not evil corporations exploiting workers and the environment for more profits.
The fact that you think you were able to infer the rest of the paragraph from what I've said proves that, despite how dumb I am, I'm still light years more intelligent than you.
i could be a savage living in jungle, the moment you support voting for a fascist or a genocide supporter you have no right to call yourself smart at all.
If I were a betting man, it would be a very safe bet that if we just selected a "savage" out of the jungle at random, they would be more intelligent than you. I would even give you 3-2 odds.
Yikes
Third parties are not a new concept. Just like the two parties, they have a track record we can look at. This has never happened. Bernie Sanders has pushed the Democrats further left than anyone since FDR, and he only started to make substantive gains when he ran as a Democrat.
If you want to claim that third parties can achieve anything at all, it's on you to explain what changed. The track record is abysmal.
Go ahead and vote for a fascist or a genocide supporter then. I'm sure this will turn out good and the two party will change its policies because someone on social media is reacting with angry emojis
Agreed. You are getting downvoted by all the Russian and Chinese (and idiot Americans) that just want to foment division. Democracy is on the ballot. Just not the way most people think.
Voting third party is not really a viable strategy until we change the FPTP voting system. You aren't going to fix this by attempting to vote for a third party in the upcoming presidential election. If you want change in the system, you have to start from the bottom and work in local elections and then state elections to get them to change the voting system. Then we can have viable multiple parties. But this "we can vote out the POTUS in the next election!" is theoretically possible, but it's also painfully naive in reality.
In reality is just as easy as putting a vote on a third party
Sure, just get 175 million other people to think exactly like you and you'll have your new political system.
175 million people already know that voting for a fascist or a genocide supporter is not ok, propaganda makes them believe they either have to chose one of the two
The United States were literally founded on an insurrection.
Not sure what point you're trying to make. Back then they couldn't be pro-insurrectionist and pro-Britain; you can't be pro-something you want to revolt against.
The point is that being American is being anti-government.
Ever hear of "taxation without representation"?
If you live in DC you deserve getting screwed.
You need to learn more about the Boston tea party. Being American originally meant being anti-corporatism. And Trump is definitely pro-corporatism.
Right, that’s why every major corporation out there has been donating to his campaign.
Oh wait…
Super PACs big dog. Citizens United. You have no idea who they're buying. Free speech baby!
Weird how it's been going on for a quarter of a millennium then.
Yes, and all without any major incidents like assassinations or revolution attempts either /s
Are you still making blanket statements about 'being American'? Because you make it sound like Americans are a bunch of failing losers with your last statement if you are.
Boy, would that sound less hollow if the dems were not actively trying to cancel primaries.
Pray tell, say more.
Well, you see, I'm a sheep and can't really think on my own, and so when I was told that Biden not debating is actually cancelling the primaries, well, you know, I just started to parrot it because that's my job.
Cancel primaries? Sounds like a huge load of BS. I don't suppose you have a source?
deleted by creator
https://www.wral.com/story/biden-won-t-face-any-competition-in-nc-s-2024-democratic-primary-state-election-officials-confirm/21218264/
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article282666758.html
Add New Hampshire to the list of states showing DNC election interference along with Tennessee, North Carolina.
I get the frustration people have with NH always going 1st. However, SC was pushed 1st, specifically bc of how Biden performed there last election.
It's crazy how obviously racist their justification for the NC move is too. Black people are apparently interchangeable, and a black person in NC is just like a black person in NY, Detroit, LA, Chicago, or Texas. They couldn't possibly have different perspectives or interests, after all, they are black.
Do explain please.
Moron
Blatant fake news.
deleted by creator