As a lifelong democrat, I find this to be very dangerous rhetoric. It sounds tonedeaf. Regardless of the candidate, being critical of politicians is a cornerstone of democracy.
I understand it's important to be a united front, but the need to seemingly bring dissenting voices into line is not a good way to do it. We cannot force people to say we have a perfect candidate for the sake of avoiding discussion.
Edit: a word
I disagree that's what's happening here. He's saying that you can be disappointed with Biden all you want, but not voting for him means we get trump and Project 2025 and fascism.
I don't know a single person that is stoked on Biden, but he's all we have right now. And we cannot let Trump get a second term.
Unfortunately, that’s not what Fetterman is saying.
Fetterman noted during an interview an uptick in Democrats who have become more critical of Biden lately, and said it’s only helping former President Trump.
“I don’t understand why,” Fetterman said, speaking on “Morning Joe” on MSNBC. “I don’t know what’s in it for you to do that whether you’re just chasing clout or you want to make it in the news or anything like that. But if you’re not willing to just support the president now and say these kinds of things, you might as well just get your MAGA hat, because you now are helping Trump with this.”
He’s addressing other Democratic politicians, whom would probably be one of the last groups to not vote for Biden. He seems to think that Biden would fare better in November if Dems outright refuse to acknowledge the realities of unprecedented homelessness, Israeli war money, or being 81 years old. (Because forcing people to look to Republicans for a dissenting opinion on these subjects is a great idea.)
You should vote for Biden if you don’t want Trump, obviously. And vote for Fetterman over whomever if you don’t want whomever. But either Fetterman severely misspoke here, or his opinion goes way beyond that, and I can’t help but lose a lot of respect I had for him.
This is buying into the Republican way of thinking, which is that you criticize someone's performance for any shortcoming you feel. A progressive stance is to elevate other people (There is more than one person in Government) who are doing things correctly without tearing down the current leader. It s the difference between a collaborative government and a competitive one. Within a (generally speaking) unified political block which values diversity of opinions, a collaborative approach is much more productive than a competitive one.
The strength of a movement is in the sum of the effort.
Oh, I totally agree everyone needs to vote for Biden based on how the system currently works. But what I disagree with is the insinuation that anyone disagreeing with Biden needs a MAGA hat. That's tonedeaf and bad for the party.
It's pretty much the party's only message anymore. Just shut up and be happy with the genocide that party leadership has decided that you must love.
I don't think we have enough nuance in our politics to have that as more than an idyllic dream.
That has been proven time and again to not work. You can't take the high road and expect to win.
Win what? Ultimately no one wins if we can't discuss areas for improvement even within one's own party.
Elections.
Right, but winning an election where your own party already required you to shut up about anything where you disagree -- doesn't seem like a win?
I think there's this idea that if we keep the Dems in power, then we'll hit a point where we can return to discussion and fix issues within the party. But that's a false idea. There will always be an opponent, and the idea that we should all fall in line just to avoid fascism is, well, misguided at best -- because it's also fascism. We're already setting a precedent within the party to avoid dissidence. That's wild.
With first past the post voting, a "win" is very simply avoiding the biggest loss.
Push and scream and lobby as much as you like, but at the end of the day, Biden only needs to be marginally less psychotic than Trump for him to be the preferred candidate.
The other side will fall in line behind Trump. So what choice is there?
Try criticizing Biden openly here or on Reddit. This is the party sentiment right now, open criticism is viewed as being equal to supporting Trump. It's nutty.
I don't think that's true, there's plenty of disagreement over Biden policies. It's when people try to play the both sides card, lumping Biden and Trump as both being senile or blaming the situation in Palestine on Biden that gets people riled up especially when people try to use those arguments to convince people to not vote.
Yeah, that's one of my fears with this rhetoric. We keep reducing issues to bifurcations which is incredibly dangerous.
It's news when the democrats say there's no appropriate time to critique democrats
It should be news when someone calls himself progressive for years and as soon as he gets to congress he starts ranting about how much it pisses him off everyone thinks he's progressive.
Asshole pulled a Sinema and the most annoying part is everyone defending him because he wears a hoodie.
I hope it's more due to the fact that he had a stroke rather than he's doing it intentionally. Either way he has had a complete shift in personality and its disappointing to no end that he's not who he was when elected.
I'm not worried about Biden's age mostly because I think this comes from the racist fear that Kamala Harris isn't capable of running this country.
I think we’re worried about biden’s age less because we’re worried he’ll die in office and more because we’re worried he won’t and will keep running the country as his mind deteriorates beyond the point he should be running a bingo game.
I'm far more confident of Biden surrounding himself with capable stewards, than Trump. So even if the worst happens and he stays alive but loses it like Reagan, he will at least have intelligent, relatively progressive people behind the scenes making the actual decisions.
With sundowning narcissist Trump at the wheel? Buckle the fuck in, because it's going to be a wild ride. I wouldn't worry about having to vote at the federal level again, so at least it'll help with that decision.
I really wish I could joke about this, but if Trump becomes president again, things are going to get very very dark.
For sure, I’m in no way advocating voting for trump I just wish the Democratic Party had ran someone who was even “just ok” instead of just barely better than the serial rapist
And they will in 4 years. This is the time where progressives need to start grooming primary candidates for 2028. Not during the 2024 general. We need some young, viable progressives (who aren't going to Fetterman as soon as they win) to start campaigning now.
Democrats were never going to give up the incumbent advantage, and I'm legitimately surprised by how the media has been acting like it's a weird situation. It's giving people this impression that pulling your current leader (of both the party, and in this case, the county) and running someone else in their place is a viable strategy in US presidential politics.
If you want young, progressive candidates, now is the time to start bringing them to the forefront...
Note: apologies in advance for the biography that nobody will probably read... But I swear it's related! You could probably skip to the " TL;DR part, but ehhh c'mon
Not to tell my life story, but it relates and ended up typing up more than expected...
I have this very vivid, formative even, memory from 2004 of sitting down with my conservative, Republican, Evangelical Christian parents (basically just "lower taxes and stop abortion" days of conservatism, and the "you can't read Harry Potter" Christianity) and watching both party's conventions.
This was to be the first presidential election I was eligible to vote in, and I was taking it seriously. Up until that point I was still just mimicking my parents political (and unfortunately, religious as well) views, so I remember that we were supposed to be happy, etc, when we watched the RNC, and boo/ridicule the DNC. And for the most part, embarrassingly, I did those things.
It was almost like watching WCW. I even remember mimicking my father's sports-like taunts we made towards the Democratic party when he saw that Zell Miller (some old racist conservative who, I guess never got the memo that the Dixiecrats left the party, and was somehow still a Democrat at the time) was a keynote speaker for the Republicans. I'll say that again, one of the main speakers at the 2004 Republican National Convention, was a registered Democrat. Imagine that happening now, it would be like Rand Paul speaking at the DNC. Yeah he might openly disagree with the leadership of his party, but he would never do something like that unless he officially left the party. And even then...
"Well it's over," I thought. The Democrats really must be as bad as Fox News, and my dad, are saying, if their own party members are giving speeches in support of the other guy. I ended that night still thinking the GOP was clearly the only real option here...
Then a week later or whatever, we watched the DNC (on Fox News). It was a different time, but I do give my parents credit for making sure that we watched both conventions since it was my first time voting and they really wanted to drive home how important it is to be informed. They were not quiet about whom they thought I should vote for, but they wanted it to be clear that voting is deeply personal, and that the decision is ultimately mine to make.
Anyway, we watch the DNC, and for a lot of these speakers, it's the first time I've ever even heard of them. I was aware of Ted Kennedy because my dad used to "joke" about driving a car off a bridge, but had never actually heard him speak and even in his advanced age I remember being a bit like, "now hold on...". I had always been told that liberals were terrible people, but a lot of the stuff he's saying (in a silly voice/accent) was actually kind of making sense to me.
That's when I learned the term "bleeding heart" when my dad used it as a derogatory. And it just didn't make sense to me... We were an Evangelical Christian home, I had been raised on those exact same values. How is caring for others a thing to ridicule?
Anyway, finally getting to my actual point (if there ever was one). I was watching these speeches, and kind of thinking to myself, "this sort of makes more sense, and aligns more closely to my values that the things I heard at the RNC," but cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing, and it doesn't help that we're watching it on Fox News).
So we keep watching, and next up is some young, unknown state senator from Illinois with a weird sounding name. Barack Obama. And holy shit, I was enthralled the moment this guy opened his mouth. I know hindsight and that everyone says this and all of that, but I KNEW this guy was going to be President some day. He was just in his element, and everyone could tell immediately.
He didn't single-handedly undo the 10+ years of religious trauma that was keeping me as identifying as conservative, I'm embarrassed to say that I ultimately did not vote for John Kerry that year. But I definitely credit that speech as being one of my first major "wake up calls" that conservative ideology is rotten, and my misunderstanding of a single issue (abortion) was being used to elect awful people
And it was not only based on the quality and content of the speech (which made everything at the RNC look like Four Seasons Landscaping), but based on the fact that this previously completely unknown guy got a keynote (possibly even the keynote spot, I forget) slot at the DNC. You could tell that the party knew what they had with Obama, and within 4 years, he was goddamn President.
(TL:DR of sorts follows despite it just being the end of my comment):
So what I think I'm trying to say, after telling my life story that nobody asked for, and probably won't read, is that we need to be looking for our "next Obama" (using this simply out of convenience, I don't want another Obama) now. Like 4 years ago even.
We need to be grooming progressive state senators, community organizers, etc. and we need to get them on the national stage, and into the American consciousness ASAP. This is the time to be doing this for the next election (hopefully we will still have them).
I apologize for this crazy long message nobody asked for lol. I will probably not proof read so sorry if something doesn't make sense..
It was kind of just coming out of me and may even have helped me process how much of an effect that 2004 DNC Obama speech had on my change/growth as a political person.
Anyway, thanks for coming to my TED talk.
It’s not surprising or weird, I just wish we weren’t here
First off, I want to say that I appreciated you telling your story here. I'm going to argue against some points, but I think it was a good comment even if there are points I disagree with.
It’s giving people this impression that pulling your current leader (of both the party, and in this case, the county) and running someone else in their place is a viable strategy in US presidential politics.
No other leader has been this old. And there have been plenty of times where a party's leader didn't run for reelection. What's doomed is a challenge. If Biden had followed the rumor from 2020 and stepped down after a single term, Democrats would probably be in a much better position.
The "incumbent advantage" has led to 3 of the last 7 incumbents losing. It's not a bulletproof strategy, particularly if the incumber is very unpopular.
I’ll say that again, one of the main speakers at the 2004 Republican National Convention, was a registered Democrat. Imagine that happening now, it would be like Rand Paul speaking at the DNC.
Nah, everyone loves a "convert". Tulsi Gabbard has been a featured speaker at CPAC since 2022. Just like Zell, it's not really a Democrat highlighting Democratic values while supporting a Republican, it's a conservative with a good story to tell about how the other side went too far.
And it was not only based on the quality and content of the speech (which made everything at the RNC look like Four Seasons Landscaping), but based on the fact that this previously completely unknown guy got a keynote (possibly even the keynote spot, I forget) slot at the DNC. You could tell that the party knew what they had with Obama, and within 4 years, he was goddamn President.
Do you even remember who the 2020 DNC keynote speaker was? I don't. And that's not because we don't have inspiring speakers (AOC is a fantastic communicator, Ayanna Pressley is one of the best orators I've ever heard), it's because the party establishment finds Obama-level politicians threatening. Looking it up now, they had 17 different people all give part of a speech. No risk of a rising star in that mish-mash. That's why, despite several political disasters under their watch, the leadership was the same dinosaurs, only to very recently be replaced by their long term acolytes.
Remember, they didn't want Obama to be president. When he ran for president he was the outsider because the party establishment was all lined up behind Clinton.
Hey, I'm just glad someone read my comment lol...
What is a party if not just a group of people with similar values? Change the values of the Democratic party from within (which I believe is already happening, especially with all the ancients dying off) to the type of party that realizes when they need to start grooming new candidates sooner.
Easier said than done, sure. Young people need to show that they are a voting bloc that demands to be taken seriously, but that can't happen until they actually start voting. It's kind of infuriating. That's really the thing that could begin fixing all of this, and yet... Who knows, maybe Taylor Swift will throw a wrench in things and get enough young folks involved.
As for Obama, maybe he was a once in a lifetime phenomenon, I don't know... But like you said, the DNC didn't even want him. He was a black guy with an Arab name, but he had the money and power of the DNC (and, I believe at that time Howard Dean in charge who actually knew how to get progressives elected up and down ballot. Could be wrong though, it might have been after he lost his career for getting a little too excited), and that allowed him to mobilize people who had never thought about voting before.
That's what we need again. We need to start bringing up young, charismatic progressives from state and local politics, and give them the money and support they need to get their message (which, let's not forget, is correct) to those types Obama mobilized back in 08.
We should have been doing this for years already. In fact, I would say Howard Dean's removal as chair of the DNC especially doomed the party to years of tepid neiliberalism.
We need another Howard Dean running the DNC and we need it yesterday.
What is a party if not just a group of people with similar values? Change the values of the Democratic party from within (which I believe is already happening, especially with all the ancients dying off) to the type of party that realizes when they need to start grooming new candidates sooner.
The party is very separate from the people who vote for it. I don't have a vote for who becomes Speaker, only a vote for my individual representative, who himself is chosen by both Democrats and Republicans (our primary is open and everyone knows the Democrat is going to win the general election so the real election is in the primary). He's in something like a D+30 district and still threatens to oppose Democratic legislation unless it's more fiscally conservative.
The ancients are dying off, but this isn't resulting in an open race for replacement, they're using their influence to pass it on to chosen successors that share their values. Theoretically there could be a revolution, but politics isn't really just a battle of ideas, but a complex web of relationships and fundraising. One of Hakeem Jeffries primary qualifications for succeeding Pelosi is simply that he can raise a lot of money.
But I agree that's not fixed, and a good chair could really lean into candidates who excite voters rather than are approved by donors. The Obama's of the party win while the machine politicians generally just maintain power in safe districts. You need someone who excites people to flip districts and states.
It's unfortunate that Katie Porter might be eliminated in the initial round in California. We need progressive successors to our own ancients in the senate. Massachusetts has a pretty good bench getting built. Hopefully when Warren steps down Ayanna Pressley will succeed her. I'm not sure if Bernie has anyone in Vermont lined up.
Can't really disagree with much there.... I would say that a party's views (should) reflect those of its voters. Ideally, that's what's supposed to happen in a representative democracy. They're supposed to represent the will of their constituents, and if they aren't, you vote in a new one (obv it doesn't really work out that way in the real world. Maybe Finland or something).
But I agree that's not fixed, and a good chair could really lean into candidates who excite voters rather than are approved by donors. The Obama's of the party win while the machine politicians generally just maintain power in safe districts. You need someone who excites people to flip districts and states.
And this is kind of what I'm talking about.
There's this defeatism everywhere lately (much of it is astroturfing, but I believe it's been somewhat effective, unfortunately) with people being like, "I'm totally a leftist (often sus), and the conservative Democratic party is just going to run their establishment candidate no matter what and there's nothing I can do so I'll throw away my vote on a third party, if I vote at all."
Some'll throw in something about "Genocide Joe" too, somewhat betraying their actual intentions and the true reality that most of them want nobody left of Donald Trump in that office...
Yet everyone seems to forget that Hillary Clinton very much was the establishment candidate in 2008. It was "her turn." Obama was just another nobody's on a debate stage with like a dozen other relative nobodies, and Hillary Clinton. It would have been like (if Trump actually attended the debates, just a thought experiment) if Doug Burgum, or Will Hurd became the GOP candidate over Trump despite the party doing everything it can ($$) to get Trump as the candidate. It would be unheard of.
In other words, Democrats were making preparations for her coronation. And none of that ended up mattering, because Democratic primary voters wanted Obama. I personally switched my affiliation from "independent" to "Democrat" to make that vote.
None of that mattered because the liberals/progressive/the left/etc.(voting) public made it very clear that they didn't give a shit what the Democratic party wanted, they want "that guy who gave that speech at the 2004 DNC." And that's who we got, and Hillary Clinton didn't run as a third party candidate or anything silly like that. We almost got it to happen again with Bernie... Different situation and discussion, though I do think things could be very different at the DNC now that Hillary is out of electoral politics .
(To be fair, Obama's demographics, and social media teams were on point and like a decade ahead of their time. Probably pretty rudimentary compared to that (or literally just the fact that they had a social media team)
Well said. A vote for Biden is a vote for his entire administration, including all the judges and secretaries and people behind the scenes. These have proven to be overwhelmingly competent people and the roles are absolutely critical. Trump has openly said he'll purge the entire federal government and replace them with lackeys. It's about more than just the man.
Honestly, I would not at all be shocked if Biden resigns the day after inauguration and Harris takes over. I’ve seen several recent articles that seem to indicate she’s WAY more in tune with the concerns of the (sane portion of the) electorate, and is actively trying to step up in many areas where Biden and his campaign are dropping the ball. We’ll see what happens, I guess.
And then she'll be the incumbent we can't primary in '28.
Yeah, I've known a couple family members who had a stroke and became better people.
Sometimes it works the other way.
Personality changes arent a rare after effect, it's pretty common.
idk. he's always been big on fracking, and everyone remembers the jogger with a suspicious look. i don't identify as progressive, either, so it's not an identity i look for in anyone else, but he insists that he never told people he was progressive.
Biden's been in office for more than 3 years. But all the complaints get drummed out during election season. I wonder who's pushing them...
You've had your head in the sand if you haven't been hearing people complain about Biden for nearly 4 years.
I have. But it seems to have been ramping up lately. And criticisms of things in the past now are not being done for anything but to tank the election.
Dude, it's primary season now. It's precisely the time when you should be criticizing someone.
You aren't going to primary an incumbent. Get over it.
That is not at all what the argument was. You said now's not the time. Now is literally the time.
There's never a time.
It's a shame the genocide had to ramp up for election season, huh? Oh well, it's not the people that are criticizing the genocide enablers fault. That is 100% the fault of all the elected officials enabling it.
I bet trump will totally fix it. /s
Democrats should not be supporting genocide.
You should stop. So should Biden.
The election industry is massive in the USA. The media is not really indicative of the conversations of the citizens, but they do know how to start reflecting these things when it's time to sell it.
Just like the GOP when it comes time to talk about firearm reforms or another shooting
I mean, I'm still voting for Biden over any of the Nazis on the red team, but the whole funding-a-genocide-on-gaza thing is going to make it a pretty unenthused vote.
I really wish I could vote for someone on a basis other than lesser evil.
I really wish I could vote for someone on a basis other than lesser evil.
Down-ballot exists! That's where I'm most enthusiastic about voting. There might be some places where it's just lesser evil option in some down-ballots, unfortunately, but you're more likely to have a representative that represents voters within the down-ballot which makes lesser evil choice less likely.
Down-ballot exists!
And has the added benefit of a vastly lower vote count so your vote matters much more. The general election for my state rep got like 4,000 votes. And it was a blowout as expected, so really it was decided in the primary where there were a little over 2,000. One of the other races was literally decided by a single vote!
Exactly. The game sucks, but it exists and one must play to win. The other team has been remarkably successful at working every lever to their advantage for half a century now.
It would be nice if our team wasn't treating the "game" as a friendly co-op match.
During a vs match lmao
I got to vote for Bernie Sanders twice. That was the only time I've voted for a politician I fully support, as opposed to voting for not-the-republican.
If valid criticism of a candidate causes someone to decide not to vote for them, then so be it. That's how democracy is supposed to work. What's important is that people vote for who they want to lead them, period.
America isn't really a democracy though. You can't apply idyllic democratic principles to an oligarchy with FPTP.
Funny how demanding unquestioned loyalty is a MAGA cultist quality.
Hey, I’m gonna be honest: his enormous about-face of political ideology (“I no longer identify as a progressive”, when, you know, him being a progressive before was a big part of why he got elected) and obvious personality changes make me extremely suspicious that his stroke permanently affected his brain in some pretty serious ways.
That’s not a derogatory comment. That’s just an observation, and strokes can absolutely have that effect on someone.
Regardless of Fetterman's ideology or any stated or perceived shift, he's a pragmatist and straight-shooter above everything else. He was that way long before the stroke. The fact that a lifetime grifter and department store rapist with 91 felony indictment counts has a good chance of winning the election is absurd. A bag of rocks running against Trump should win. Biden and the Democrats are in a very weak position, but it's clear that Biden is the chosen candidate. It makes no sense at this point to have Democrats amplifying GOP talking points, unless they're in any position of power with the DNC to change what is inevitable right now with the Democratic nomination.
I'm in PA and I doubt his progressiveness got him elected. Anyone with a D after their name carries Philly and Pittsburgh by default. Fetterman's no nonsense approach and the fact that the working class can relate to him got votes in Pennsyltuckey, a segment the Democrats have been losing over the years. Democrats should be in a lab right now trying to figure out how to clone Fetterman.
I'm sure I'll be labeled a Fetterman fan boy, but I'm a 50-something 30+ year Democrat that has seen Democrats do a really good job at losing elections and letting the GOP walk all over them. Fetterman no doubt has a cult-like following, but the DNC powers that be should be examining why that is.
makes no sense at this point to have Democrats amplifying GOP talking points, unless they're in any position of power with the DNC to change what is inevitable right now with the Democratic nomination.
That's a bunch of horse shit. Self criticism is the only thing keeping Democrats from becoming a clone of the GOP.
Anyone telling me I can't participate in discourse involving totally valid criticisms about any politician can go kick rocks.
Also, how is discussing his drastic turn towards conservative politics "amplifying GOP talking points"?
Democrats should be in a lab right now trying to figure out how to clone Fetterman.
Ahh yeah, America surely needs more brain damages politicians advocating for genocide...
50-something 30+ year Democrat that has seen Democrats do a really good job at losing elections and letting the GOP walk all over them.
Maybe because your generations idea of a progressive is John Fetterman? Maybe because Democrats have just become the GOP from the 90s, and thats not typically what actual progressives want?
has a cult-like following, but the DNC powers that be should be examining why that is.
I'm not sure if that's still true. Fetterman had a cult like following because he primarily ran on labour, something he was actually progressive about. I don't think it's super common to be progressive on labour but an insane reactionary when if comes to everything else.
self criticism is the only thing keeping democrats from becoming a clone of the GOP
Sometimes I wonder if people on this platform were born yesterday.
What in flying fuck are you smoking. What policies or legislation overlaps between these two? One is ending school lunches for starving children and the other is trying to push progressive policies. Why, oh why, do you guys keep repeating this insane, asinine, talking point like it's gospel. Please, for all the love that is holy, tell us where the legislature of the Democrats mirrors the GOP in Any. Fucking. Form.
I await with bated breath.
What in flying fuck are you smoking. What policies or legislation overlaps between these two? One is ending school lunches for starving children and the other is trying to push progressive policies
I didn't say don't vote for them...... What do you think keeps Democrats sliding further and further right? It's not the leadership, it's their constituents screaming at them when they step out of line.
The reason the GOP has become hostage to someone like Trump and the freedom caucus is because people within their own aren't allowed to criticize them.
What policies or legislation overlaps between these two?
Off the top of my head, the Patriot act, the Iraq war resolution, DMCA, SOPA, KOPA, support for israel's genocide, Japanese American interment in WW2, and the Gulf of tomkin resolution. Only some of the most dangerous policies in this nations history, no big whoop.
I like that we have to go back in time long before the southern strategy as if the Dems are a monolithic body. Just from a cursory first glance on Patriot act:
the Act passed the House by a vote of 357–66, with Democrats comprising the overwhelming majority of "no"-votes.
I won't argue on SOPA because that is indeed contentious, but going back in time like that is really disingenuous.
I answered your question accurately. Instead of moving the goalposts after the fact, maybe you should ask a different question to begin with.
No goalposts were moved. You lied. Quick ten second Google search proved you wrong. You equivocated between the two as if they are both lock step voting the same on all legislation. Not only that, but you had to go back to W W 2 , long before the southern strategy was effected to back your claim.
You equivocated between the two as if they are both lock step voting the same on all legislation
I did no such thing. You asked when they ever agree, implying that they never do, and I gave several examples of them agreeing on some pretty bad legislation. Maybe you're confusing me with someone else. This was our first interaction.
you had to go back to W W 2
No I didn't. SOPA and the DMCA were a few years ago. Patriot act gets renewed every few years with bipartisan support. KOPA is brand new. You're latching onto the oldest example I gave because it fits your narrative and ignoring the others. Stop that. It makes you look like a dipshit.
I misspoke. It's expected that some bills will pass with bilateral support. It would be crazy if that never happened. The issue is the Dems are a big tent with many contrasting perspectives. The Gop is lockstep on almost every bill (except lately they are starting to fracture). What I was aiming to express is that overall, if I was to compare every bill pushed forward by the Democrats compared to their Gop counterparts, it would paint a very clear picture of where they diverge policy wise. That's all.
The issue is the Dems are a big tent with many contrasting perspectives. The Gop is lockstep on almost every bill (except lately they are starting to fracture).
The reason why the GOP is always lockstep is because they don't allow self criticism within their party. This makes them legislatively powerful, but it also makes them prone to fascism.
The reason we have to allow self criticism within the democratic party is because it is a big tent party. Without allowing politically disadvantaged groups within the party to point out its internal contradictions, the progressiveness party will stagnate. Instead its leadership will be consolidated with those who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Namely the older members whose idea of political progress is stuck the 90's.
Everything you said is correct. I don't mind criticism within the Democratic party if its constituents actually showed up to vote (in local or federal elections). The other side shows up regardless who's on the ballot, as proven by the current frontrunner for the Gop. Meanwhile, Dems have to hold their noses tell each other how they'll sit this one out because Biden is just not radical enough as the Trump's cabinet guts the EPA and demolishes every institution and value. In four years Trump's cabinet stacked almost all the lower circuit courts with republican judges. All these downstream effects from one administration have consequences.
Self criticism is the only thing keeping Democrats from becoming a clone of the GOP.
Well, it also helps the Democrats don't have a criminal insurrectionist leading the party.
Anyone telling me I can’t participate in discourse involving totally valid criticisms about any politician can go kick rocks.
You can do whatever you want. What TV channels are interviewing you this week?
Also, how is discussing his drastic turn towards conservative politics “amplifying GOP talking points”?
I'm referring to what Fetterman was criticizing, not what the OP or others here discuss about Fetterman or Biden.
Ahh yeah, America surely needs more brain damages politicians advocating for genocide…
Oh, Gaza. Right. I am so sick of hearing about "genocide". It's BS. Despite what Israel has done over the decades, Hamas is responsible for this. They launched an offensive that had no clear objectives (like autonomy) other than killing Israelis, and specifically civilians. Now that they're getting their ass handed to them, which was inevitable, losing a poorly-conceived offensive is coined "genocide". Hamas thanks you.
50-something 30+ year Democrat that has seen Democrats do a really good job at losing elections and letting the GOP walk all over them.
Maybe because your generations idea of a progressive is John Fetterman? Maybe because Democrats have just become the GOP from the 90s, and thats not typically what actual progressives want?
John Fetterman beat two other well-pedigreed Democratic Senate nomination candidates, won an election over a very publicly popular GOP candidate, and took the seat of Republican Pat Toomey. While this is one data point that you cite, it doesn't support that "my generation's" idea of progressive is losing elections. If a lack of "sufficiently progressive" candidates is losing elections for Democrats due to progressives not voting for Democrats, those progressives are shooting themselves in the foot as the only what to get more left-leaning Democrats is to actually win elections.
Well, it also helps the Democrats don't have a criminal insurrectionist leading the party.
Ahh, so we adopt the same ideologies as them. Surely equating valid criticism as aiding the enemy will lead to a better democratic candidate......
This is exactly how the GOP fell to a fascist, by making criticism within the party political suicide.
You can do whatever you want.
Make you kick rocks? I mean I guess, but I'm going to need an address?
What TV channels are interviewing you this week?
Like 10-12. I didn't think it was anything special, but apparently being your mom's 1000th customer is pretty big news. I didn't even know prostitution was such a celebrated custom up north!
what Fetterman was criticizing
Palestinians right to existence?
am so sick of hearing about "genocide". It's BS. Despite what Israel has done over the decades, Hamas is responsible for this.
What would you call it? At what point do war crimes turn into genocide?
They launched an offensive that had no clear objectives (like autonomy) other than killing Israelis, and specifically civilians.
And that is bad..... correct? Doesn't that imply that killing civilians is inappropriate? Hmm it's almost like it's a war crime or something?
So if killing 700 civilians is bad, what is killing 25k?
Now that they're getting their ass handed to them
Well they are mostly killing women and children, so I guess that makes it easier?
losing a poorly-conceived offensive is coined "genocide"
It's mostly the targeting of civilian population, the collective punishment, the targeting of key civilian infrastructure, the targeting of international journalists and aid workers, the targeting of hospitals, and the summary executions.
Then there's the fact that Hamas only had 25k members and they've already killed well over 25k people, most of which have been women and children. So either Hamas was primarily made up of women and children.......or the idfs not really discriminating against who they are killing.
candidates is losing elections for Democrats due to progressives not voting for Democrats, those progressives are shooting themselves in the foot as the only what to get more left-leaning Democrats is to actually win elections.
You can't vote for someone if they aren't even an option? Democrats win when we can actually get young people excited to vote. It's the whole reason Fetterman won in the first place.
It's not a battle between having just a better candidate than the Republicans, it's about getting a candidate that's progressive enough to get young people to the booths.
he’s a pragmatist and straight-shooter
Is he? This doesn't look like someone particularly concerned with pragmatism to me.
Fetterman noted during an interview an uptick in Democrats who have become more critical of Biden lately, and said it’s only helping former President Trump.
If it were closer to the election, I would definitely agree, and maybe it is too close now, although I don't think so... if it is not too close, then Biden should be criticized by Democrats who have their ear to the ground to move him towards supporting more popular policies.
I'm voting for "not trump" no matter what, but if Biden doesn't want to get criticized, he should get his shit together.
It's absoultely fair to criticize. I'm astounded at all the people who got pissed about John Stewart calling Biden old. It's clear we need an upper age limit on the presidency. Also, my main "wants" for the Biden admin were...
Resolve covid crisis
Resolve or at least drastically reduce inhumane conditions at the US Mexico border.
Hold trump and members of Congress accountable for criminal acts and fomenting an insurrection.
Listen, Coach Fetterman: We love your size and bombastic past but "if you aren't for us you are against us" is not the type of faux populism that is needed in 2024.
Yes it is. Don't want to vote for Biden because you're not so happy with him? How about Trump? Would you rather Trump?
Here we are again in a forced choice, as if democracy exists in the US. But it's Biden or fascism.
You're not going to make that outcome more likely by berating people.
We're past the point of coddling people into seeing that Trump = bad. Lives will literally be at stake. We all need some sobering perspective about the reality of a 2nd Trump administration.
Let me be more clear: Berating people is not just ineffective, but sabotages the outreach done by people who are actually focused on winning. No one actually working on voter outreach or political persuasion wants you doing that.
Calling out Trump's ills is fine and good, but berating people to vote doesn't work, it's just something to make yourself feel good. If that's actually all you're trying to accomplish, fine, message boards can be stress relief and entertainment, but don't fool yourself into thinking you're working to avert a Trump return.
He's not entirely wrong. I've been critical of Biden myself, but it is because I am concerned about Biden's ability to beat Trump. I want Biden to be a stronger candidate, and a stronger leader for that matter. Criticizing Biden is the best way I know to make him to better than he's doing now. Poking holes in candidates is my love language.
But I'm a nobody. I don't make headlines when I point out his flaws. Maybe somebody somewhere will read something I wrote, or at a minimum it becomes part of the rising din of concern, and Biden is forced to make an effort to speak to my concerns. That's the best I can hope for.
I'm not backing an alternative candidate. I'm not calling for him to step aside or resign. I'm not suggesting we all throw our votes away on some long shot third party candidate. Anybody who is doing those things is helping Trump. And it's hard not to think that they don't know they are helping Trump, which makes it hard not to think that their intent is to help Trump.
So while I think Fetterman ought to be more specific with his criticism of critics, I don't disagree that there are people who fit his accusation. I also think there are far more reasonable progressives and moderates who have voiced legitimate concerns that Biden should do well to hear. Hillary ignored many of those same criticisms, to the peril of all Americans. America would be a much better place if Democrats tried harder to be more than just the lesser bad option. "At least we're not traitorous rapists" isn't a campaign slogan that inspires confidence.
It's a primary. Vote for whoever you want.
Always vote for whoever you want. That's how voting works.
But know what you're voting for. Know who you're voting for. Our electoral system is inherently flawed.
Voting for some schmuck running against Biden in the primary might make you feel good about protesting one or more of Biden's policies. His support of Israel, his approach to border policies, his inaction on any number of progressive issues, whatever the objection, who else are you going to vote for? I know there is the pro-Palestine contingent in Michigan promoting a "none of the above" campaign, which is effective at registering your complaint.
But in the general election, it's time to put away such petty animus and defeat the orange monster that will destroy everything.
I chose "none," since I'll be stuck voting for Joe in November anyway.
The “I’m a progressive until I’m voted into office” guy?! Nah fuck him
Is this the the guy that chases innocent black men around with a shotgun or is that someone else.
Fuck you, Fetterman.
What a fucking disappointment this guy is turning out to be compared to all the love he got on his campaign. Not that I'd prefer Oz by any means, but it's still pretty crushing.
I'm increasingly sure that the rising tide of never-Biden-ers is going to send Trump back into the White House. People need to be pragmatic and strategic about their voting and encourage others to do the same. So I understand WHY he felt a need to say stupid shit like this.
But if you're not allowed to criticize Biden without being banished to Siberia, then he's actually insufficiently different from Trump.
I'd bet Biden would not agree with Fetterman's message. He's not a whiny little thin-skinned gremlin the way Trump is. Based on his political career, he can even update platforms and change policy based on that feedback. So yeah, lay down the criticism to him re: Israel, he deserves it, and enough voices might actually change the foreign policy here. Do not tell the critics their votes aren't welcome. Their votes are still needed. And hopefully they're smart enough to know that NOT voting for Biden will create even worse outcomes, even while they continue clearly and loudly speaking up.
I’ve said this before and got downvoted but I’ll say it again. I will not tell a Muslim person or a Palestinian that they should hold their nose and vote for Biden. If the guy in charge is actively supporting a genocide and is providing the weapons that are killing your family, friend’s family, or just someone with your same religious beliefs, I don’t think we have the right to tell them they are wrong to abstain from voting for the pro genocide of their people guy. If a president was actively supporting the Nazis in killing my people, I would not have voted for that president.
It is the candidates responsibility to listen to his constituents. Not be finger wagged into voting them.
I agree that we shouldn't shame someone in that situation.
But the counterfactual still exists -- if Biden loses, that means Trump wins. And under Trump, things will be far worse. If we're calling Biden genocidal for taking a cynical and cowardly approach to the conflict, then I am not even sure what word can possibly be extreme enough to describe the guy who actively wants all Muslims and Arabs dead.
I fundamentally disagree with the view that your vote is some signal of deep personal convictions. Voting should always be strategic. The more strategic, the better. That's also why how you vote in the presidential election as a resident of California can be VERY different from how you vote as a resident of Georgia. I'd love to see a significant number of people in places like New York and Colorado voting third party in protest -- because it's not going to be enough to influence outcomes in that race, but may have a real and positive effect on future politics.
I just want everyone to think very, very carefully about what the counterfactuals are. In all things.
I am someone who will likely end up voting for Biden. But when Rashida Talib says vote uncommitted, or Bassem Yousef says the same, or Andy Levin in Michigan saying that he understands why. All I can say in response to that is I get it. I wouldn't dream of trying to talk them out of it. What I've seen people on lemmy and in general liberals do, is callously talk about people like them as if they are too dumb to understand what it is that they're saying. I would argue that they've thought about the counterfactuals and completely understand the impact of a trump presidency. They can't support the guy actively causing their people harm. Again. If I was caught between the nazi guy and the guy supporting Nazis overseas, I'd likely not vote for either.
If I was caught between the nazi guy and the guy supporting Nazis overseas, I'd likely not vote for either.
Totally understandable. But in our voting system, you're effectively supporting the Nazi Guy. You are lowering the amount of votes he needs to win. People can do whatever they want, but they don't get to act like they aren't participating when they absolutely are. Not voting ≠ not participating.
If someone understands the counterfactuals and implications of a Trump presidency and chooses to "sit out" they should absolutely be classified as supporting Trump. That's what they're doing. We need to be strategic just as much as Biden needs to be a better candidate and step his shit up.
Nope. This is Biden choosing to tank his presidency. This is not on the voters who are telling him what they need from him. 80% of democrats want a ceasefire. Biden is effectively setting up a Trump presidency all on his own.
Fine, let's say Biden is intentionally tanking his presidency. Let's say he's actually super buds with Bibi and fully supports what Israel is doing.
Even supposing that, he's still not only a better option than trump on this specific issue, but an entire slew of issues.
The only way this argument is even viable is assuming that DONALD TRUMP being in power would result in less dead Palestinians. That's absurd and I think everyone knows that.
Primary, do what you want. Send a message. The general, pick the option that results in less death in Gaza. It's gonna be Biden or Trump who wins, there is no "nobody wins" scenario on the table.
Exactly right. A vote is a chess move, not a manifesto.
Almost no real voters view voting as a chess move. Emotion matters. People can yell at what are essentially political junkies all they want on this message board, but it's not going to influence all those marginal voters with other stuff going on, and they're at risk if there are big emotional issues going on (like a genocidal war). You don't solve that problem by talking about greater evils and strategic voting.
Almost all voters strategically choose to vote for a candidate they don't actually like.
Tbf there is no US president that would have acted differently on Gaza. The alternative is to abandon an ally. Yes, that choice is morally superior, but strategically a disaster.
Doesn't change what I said. Also, I would wager that after this conflict future democratic presidents will be very different on their rhetoric with Israel. We're just stuck with the decrepit windbag that was born before Israel was established.
Also, I would wager that after this conflict future democratic presidents will be very different on their rhetoric with Israel.
I would too. They'll be supporting genocide even more overtly next time. Democrats only move to the right.
Hell man, Biden is already very different on his rhetoric with Gaza, and the language coming out of his administration is clearly evolving. I would be unsurprised to see some direct condemnations in the coming months.
I WILL, however, be surprised to see the US severing its defense agreements with Israel. There's too much seen as at-stake in the region. Hence my prior phrasing -- it's cynical and cowardly.
And it's hardly like Israel is the only unpalatable regime we formalize and prop up to serve what are estimated to be greater foreign police interests.
Hell man, Biden is already very different on his rhetoric with Gaza, and the language coming out of his administration is clearly evolving.
"Cut it out, guys. Here's more money and weapons to cut it out with."
"That's the way we've always done it" is a shitty excuse for supporting genocide.
I can think of a past presidential candidate willing to bern that bridge.
Basically no political operatives would agree with his message. You're not positively influencing voters by yelling at them and doing it as a representative of the party paints it in a negative light. We liked candidate Fetterman because he was an outsider, but this seems like the consequences of not really understanding what's effective vs. what's emotionally satisfying.
I mean, what's his point we should never bitch about it when Biden does shit we don't like? I have a novel idea, maybe he should start focusing on public approval instead of you demanding that the public blindly approve of everything he does.
Yeah, I'm going to vote for him because the alternative is a bad fucking idea.
His criticism isn't out of left field He's earned this shit. It's not that he's an irredeemable president, but a significant amount of his campaign is not being Trump. And still we hope all the hell that that's enough.
I’m still on the fence about whether I can stomach knowing that I voted for the genocidal monster that can barely remember his name because he’s better than the fascist genocidal monster that wants to end whatever semblance of democracy we might have. This country is just the worst.
WOULD YOU RATHER eat a chocolate bar off a public toilet seats lid.
OR WOULD YOU RATHER Eat a chocolate bar out of a public toilet bowl.
Lol wtf you can literally choose neither??
It could be worse. We could have a dictator that regulates literally everything we do. My porn is anonymous for now.
But he's the lesser of two evils! Doesn't that get you motivated to get to the polls on November? Lesser!
It really should.
And yet, it doesn't. It's incredibly easy to not choose either, believe it or not.
It's unfortunately nothing new, but I do think the alternative is a new level of bad.
Literally every single US president since 1948 has assisted Israel in committing genocide against Palestinians. Don't clutch your pearls now.
"That's the way we've always done it" - people who like the way we've always done it.
Genocide must stop.
You’d prefer to have voted for Trump?
These kinds of comments are getting obvious. You’re string here bitching about Biden, when we can all agree the alternative would be worse.
Go peddle your bullshit elsewhere.
While voting for Biden is the right thing to do in these circumstances, Fetterman has zero understanding of optics and apparently the oil companies got to him judging by his pro-Israel stance.
There are other choices. We don't have to settle for Trump or Biden.
Come to me with your plan to convince 160 million people to vote 3rd party and then I'll take this seriously.
Better yet, they should come to us with the plan that's going to make ANY of the Democrats or Republicans work with a 3rd party president to allow them to get anything done. Even if some insane miracle occurred, and a 3rd party candidate got elected president, they would accomplish absolutely nothing, as it is not in the political interest of either Democrats or Republicans to work with them. In spite of what Trump would like people to believe, presidents are not dictators and can't just do whatever the hell they want. All of the people endlessly screaming about how there are more choices simply refuse to accept this fact.
Is your plan to vote based on how everyone else votes? Seems like a great way to reinforce a two party system.
what plan does anyone have to make one of these other choices viable? bonus points if it doesn't involve trying to overhaul both the electorate and the electoral system in 9 months.
I'm just voting 3rd party or write in and telling moderates they can either start compromising with leftists and progressives or lose to fascists a second time.
As a member of one of the vulnerable groups targeted by those fascists I want to thank you for using my family's safety as a bargaining tool. We're happy to be sacrificed to your protest vote which will accomplish nothing.
The moderates are doing that. They elevated Trump intentionally because they thought it would make it easier to win elections. Where is your anger towards them?
i'm pissed as fuck but my anger is irrelevant, this is a matter of my survival and your privileged attempt to "punish" the moderates is putting me in immediate danger.
Have you put any energy into telling moderates they need to wake the fuck up? Did you tell anyone they were an asshole for voting for Biden in the 2020 primaries?
I worked for the sanders campaign in 2016 and 2020, I worked with a group called the restaurant opportunities center to help get paid sick days mandated in the city of pittsburgh and on an ongoing campaign to eliminate the tipped minimum wage in pennsylvania, I volunteer at a food bank and give people rides to the polls on election day. I don't owe you my credentials but there they are, out in the real world doing the real work to make things better for real people while you're throwing a tantrum online to punish the "moderates" because you're too cowardly to pick a fight with the people who have openly stated that they want to seize power so they can hurt you and me. "Did you tell anyone they were an asshole?" What the fuck sort of strategy for actually getting anything done is that. If being obnoxious, smug and morally superior was ever gonna work why hasn't it?
What the fuck sort of strategy for actually getting anything done is that. If being obnoxious, smug and morally superior was ever gonna work why hasn’t it?
You're in here calling me privileged and cowardly and telling me I'm throwing a tantrum when I say I'm voting 3rd party or write in. Clearly you think name calling and personal attacks work. So why aren't you trying it on moderates?
And for the record I phone banked, canvassed and donated in both the 2016 and 2020 primaries and general elections. I voted for Biden in the 2020 general. I won't be doing that again.
(This never actually happened but I think the idea holds)
It "feels good" but it doesn't work. The math isn't there. If you can't nominate a better candidate in a Democratic primary, with a significantly smaller and further-left voter base, you aren't even in the game for the general election. Do you want to feel good, or have an impact?
There are more than two parties -- math checks out
There is literally no other reasonable option than Biden, thanks to FPTP. Voting for Trump is voting for a fascist, every other "option" is throwing your vote away.
There is literally no other reasonable option than Biden
Biden is not a reasonable option. Biden is merely the least horrifically unreasonable. The Democratic Party's ambitions extend no further and never will.
They used to, and they can again. A party is not a person or even a group of people. Let that silly anthropomorphism go. A party is a tool, a lever of power. Don't like the people who control it? Great! Neither do I. Let's take it from them.
Ask Jessica Cisneros what happens when you try.
The party fights progressives and capitulates to Republicans.
The people who control the party fight progressives and capitulate to Republicans. Of course the people who control the party are going to fight us to keep control of it. It remains the only viable tool to win in general elections. Blaming "the party" is like being on a losing football team and blaming the ball.
The people who control the party fight progressives and capitulate to Republicans. Of course the people who control the party are going to fight us to keep control of it. It remains the only viable tool to win in general elections. Blaming “the party” is like being on a losing football team and blaming the ball.
"The party" is shorthand for those who control it.
Well, you sir are a free thinker. Claim your prize in the ruins of democracy.
Ahh, yes, isee. You're just as delusional as my mother.
Sounds like you're ok with Trump winning then.
That's what you're gonna get, unless you think the Republicans are going to infight like this (non-spoiler-because-duh, they aren't)
My plan is to pick a check box without the name Biden or Trump, or maybe write someone in. Being institutionalized into thinking a vote for anyone other than Biden is a vote for Trump is a pathway to madness
But that's how FPTP works. Any one less vote for Biden is by default an extra vote for Trump. Unless of course, you're not an immigrant, woman, transgender, gay, or any other minority. Then of course, Trump being in office means nothing to you so you do you. The rest of us have to suffer the consequences of having the country's judicial, legislative, and executive branches stacked with Christian cripto-fascists hell bent on sending us back to the middle ages. Sorry the Revolution isn't radical enough with Biden I guess.
This might be an instance where a good portion of the country might actually agree that the two major party candidates are jackasses. I remain hopeful.
Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) panned Democrats who are upping their criticisms of President Biden ahead of the November election, saying they might as well don a “MAGA hat.”
Fetterman noted during an interview an uptick in Democrats who have become more critical of Biden lately, and said it’s only helping former President Trump.
Democracy! No longer allowed to question or criticize our politicians.
That's a dishonest way to look at what he said. An honest one would be that he has just as much right to criticize Democrats offering aid to Trump as the Democrats offering aid to Trump have a right to criticize Biden.
Biden: [Does things]
Anti-Biden Democrats: [He shouldn't be doing that.]
Fetterman: [They shouldn't be doing that.]
You: [Fetterman is anti-democracy and pro-censorship.]
This is just pure clownishness.
Context is key, and you've broken down the situation to the point of absurdity.
But what else would I expect from someone from York?
Supreme Leader is above criticism, and to believe otherwise means you're the one in a cult.
Folks talking shit isn't news.
This is the guy (whom I proudly voted for) who was getting defensive because people didn't think he was as progressive as they were led to believe. The people criticizing Biden and Fetterman are typically liberals and progressives, not MAGA.
I think Joe Biden is grossly under-appreciated for what he's accomplished thus far. He's legit incredible (imo). He's also old as shit and I reject the idea that he's the only American citizen capable of running the country as well as he has for three years. Dude, take the W and GTFO.
I don't think Joe Biden is underappreciated, it's just that the main issue is of Gaza War, and people just don't like how Israel conduct their war campaign and how US responded. No one reasonable would support Hamas, and any people with a moral compass would rather support a war campaign that minimizes deaths of civilians over those who signed up for combat.
But the reality check is that Gaza isn't the main issue, it's just the most recent one. And even if it were the GOP would handle it far worse than Biden has.
I'm saying the Gaza war is why Biden has the level of support that he has today, and I'm aware that GOP would have handled it far worse. Without the issue of Gaza, I can see Biden having significantly more support than he has now.
That's a good point but most people care more about the economy and his approval ratings were shit before Gaza.
Any progressives who actually pay attention to what the government is doing and not just Republican propaganda are probably also supporting Biden.
He's not been perfect. I wish he was younger, and i have criticisms on a lot of middle east foreign policy including Israel, but on the whole he's been by far the most progressive president in my lifetime.
You can support someone while criticizing them.
"haha jk I'm mid right just like every other dem! Vote mid right or vote far right cause you can suck a dick otherwise!"
DJ air horn
He already got his I suck Israeli lobbyist dick hat.
Eat shit Fetterman.
Ahhh, the land of the free and the home of the brave, where you're not allowed to mock your elected leader without hurting someone else's feelings.
I've recently come to the conclusion Biden shouldn't run again. There's no two ways about it. Guy is too old. (Trump is too, but maggats won't care.)
If Biden left after one term, he would be remembered as a great president. If he loses to Trump, he will be that senile asshole who helped to destroy US democracy because he couldn't see what everyone else could.
There's plenty of younger Democrats. Any one of them could campaign circles around Trump.
Unfortunately, he decided to run whether or not we think he "should". What are we supposed to do? We had better vote and not let apathy get the best of us.
There's still time for him to change his mind though. Everyone is pretending this is all set in stone. This fatalism is so weird.
There's technically still time, but many states have had primary elections already. We have no other way to give our voices to the selection process, so if the party chooses a new candidate now it would be quite undemocratic.
If the criticism only comes up now, it's not real criticism. It's astro-turfing for Trump. We've had 4 years of Biden but the amount of Biden criticism I've seen lately has risen sharply. Sure, criticize the things he's done lately, but I've seen stuff from years ago.
There's no point in that unless you're trying to tank his chances against Trump.
Progressives who would rather primary a nobody who will absolutely fail to get non-progressive votes and lose to Trump are unhinged or failed gradeschool civics. It's just stupidity or worse: Trump propaganda.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) panned Democrats who are upping their criticisms of President Biden ahead of the November election, saying they might as well don a “MAGA hat.”
Fetterman noted during an interview an uptick in Democrats who have become more critical of Biden lately, and said it’s only helping former President Trump.
But if you’re not willing to just support the president now and say these kinds of things, you might as well just get your MAGA hat, because you now are helping Trump with this.”
He also told longtime political strategist James Carville to “shut the f‑‑‑ up’ after the ex-Clinton aide said that Trump could dethrone Biden in the general election.
Carville also noted that concerns about Biden’s age are a very real thing for voters amid his polling swoon.
Fetterman also projected confidence that Biden will win in Pennsylvania, which he carried in the 2020 contest, and that it will buoy him to a second term in office.
The original article contains 289 words, the summary contains 161 words. Saved 44%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
he thinks people criticizing biden should vote for trump? i don't think that's going to work out the way he hopes.
no. its that a tacit non-democratic vote is a vote for fascism. while true, doesnt mean we cant blame the DNC and Biden for refusing to run a defend-able candidate.
Fuck the DNC and how they shit all over america, putting us in this position.
Fuck the DNC and how they shit all over america, putting us in this position.
You could go ahead and blame boomer generation for putting us in such a bad position. All of that can be traced back to them. Newer generation needs to vote out GOP, and then when GOP dies out, vote for progressive party, and ignore the whims of the boomer generation.
> its that a tacit non-democratic vote is a vote for fascism.
a vote for biden is a vote for fascism. the antifascist candidates i see are cornel west and jill stein.
if you dont hold your nose and vote non-trump, those 3rd parties will never get a chance again. at the very least the DNC do pretend democracy. trump isnt even pretending democracy anymore.
so yeah, vote those 3rd parties one last time.
those so-called third parties are non-trump
ok
This is one of the people who has been trying to convince me that Cornel West has a decent chance of being president. Take from that what you will.
And this person talks about the upballot when the subject matter was downballot. He wasn't able to answer how is Cornell West or Jill Stein relevant when it comes to downballot choices of people who refuses to vote for Biden.
prolly just ignoring the irrelevancy of the downballot in the face of losing democracy altogether.
yet more poisoning of the well, a form of ad hominem.
You're going to need to explain that.
I offered an alternative to voting against Democrats, and that is the primary, and that means picking the downballot that has the most chances along with ones that aligns with ones' view the best. You weren't the person I responded to. And then, you decided to talk about the upballot instead. And the subject matter of the alternative wasn't really anything to do with the upballot, and you're not able to give a sastisfactory answer as to how they're relevant to this proposal.
poisoning the well is a form of ad hominem where you say (or imply) that someone's arguments are unsound because of something else they have said or done. it's prima facie ad hominem because you are attacking the person, not the argument.
The argument you provided weren't arguments because they didn't align with the subject proposal at hand which is downballot choices. You came with the upballot. That's not an argument to begin with. And I was making a observation of your responses.
>I offered an alternative to voting against Democrats, and that is the primary,
and i said "no".
>And then, you decided to talk about the upballot instead.
i never talked about the downballot at all. anyone can see exactly what i quoted, and what i said, and that i'm not getting dragged along into voting for even more democrats.
Of course you didn't. But you responded with upballot instead when the subject matter of the proposal of alternative was to look for downballot. Do I have to repeat that until you get it?
poisoning the well is a form of ad hominem where you say (or imply) that someone's arguments are unsound because of something else they have said or done. it's prima facie ad hominem because you are attacking the person, not the argument.
Splitting the Dem vote with third parties is a good way to get Trump elected. So it’s a sideways way of voting for extreme fascism.
Yep. Duverger's law and history. Third party haven't been able to get significant points to the point where they win the election in first past the post system. So, basically Cornell West and Jill Stein are completely worthless.
As a lifelong democrat, I find this to be very dangerous rhetoric. It sounds tonedeaf. Regardless of the candidate, being critical of politicians is a cornerstone of democracy.
I understand it's important to be a united front, but the need to seemingly bring dissenting voices into line is not a good way to do it. We cannot force people to say we have a perfect candidate for the sake of avoiding discussion.
Edit: a word
I disagree that's what's happening here. He's saying that you can be disappointed with Biden all you want, but not voting for him means we get trump and Project 2025 and fascism.
I don't know a single person that is stoked on Biden, but he's all we have right now. And we cannot let Trump get a second term.
Unfortunately, that’s not what Fetterman is saying.
He’s addressing other Democratic politicians, whom would probably be one of the last groups to not vote for Biden. He seems to think that Biden would fare better in November if Dems outright refuse to acknowledge the realities of unprecedented homelessness, Israeli war money, or being 81 years old. (Because forcing people to look to Republicans for a dissenting opinion on these subjects is a great idea.)
You should vote for Biden if you don’t want Trump, obviously. And vote for Fetterman over whomever if you don’t want whomever. But either Fetterman severely misspoke here, or his opinion goes way beyond that, and I can’t help but lose a lot of respect I had for him.
This is buying into the Republican way of thinking, which is that you criticize someone's performance for any shortcoming you feel. A progressive stance is to elevate other people (There is more than one person in Government) who are doing things correctly without tearing down the current leader. It s the difference between a collaborative government and a competitive one. Within a (generally speaking) unified political block which values diversity of opinions, a collaborative approach is much more productive than a competitive one.
The strength of a movement is in the sum of the effort.
Oh, I totally agree everyone needs to vote for Biden based on how the system currently works. But what I disagree with is the insinuation that anyone disagreeing with Biden needs a MAGA hat. That's tonedeaf and bad for the party.
It's pretty much the party's only message anymore. Just shut up and be happy with the genocide that party leadership has decided that you must love.
I don't think we have enough nuance in our politics to have that as more than an idyllic dream.
That has been proven time and again to not work. You can't take the high road and expect to win.
Win what? Ultimately no one wins if we can't discuss areas for improvement even within one's own party.
Elections.
Right, but winning an election where your own party already required you to shut up about anything where you disagree -- doesn't seem like a win?
I think there's this idea that if we keep the Dems in power, then we'll hit a point where we can return to discussion and fix issues within the party. But that's a false idea. There will always be an opponent, and the idea that we should all fall in line just to avoid fascism is, well, misguided at best -- because it's also fascism. We're already setting a precedent within the party to avoid dissidence. That's wild.
With first past the post voting, a "win" is very simply avoiding the biggest loss.
Push and scream and lobby as much as you like, but at the end of the day, Biden only needs to be marginally less psychotic than Trump for him to be the preferred candidate.
The other side will fall in line behind Trump. So what choice is there?
Try criticizing Biden openly here or on Reddit. This is the party sentiment right now, open criticism is viewed as being equal to supporting Trump. It's nutty.
I don't think that's true, there's plenty of disagreement over Biden policies. It's when people try to play the both sides card, lumping Biden and Trump as both being senile or blaming the situation in Palestine on Biden that gets people riled up especially when people try to use those arguments to convince people to not vote.
Yeah, that's one of my fears with this rhetoric. We keep reducing issues to bifurcations which is incredibly dangerous.
It's news when the democrats say there's no appropriate time to critique democrats
It should be news when someone calls himself progressive for years and as soon as he gets to congress he starts ranting about how much it pisses him off everyone thinks he's progressive.
Asshole pulled a Sinema and the most annoying part is everyone defending him because he wears a hoodie.
I hope it's more due to the fact that he had a stroke rather than he's doing it intentionally. Either way he has had a complete shift in personality and its disappointing to no end that he's not who he was when elected.
I'm not worried about Biden's age mostly because I think this comes from the racist fear that Kamala Harris isn't capable of running this country.
I think we’re worried about biden’s age less because we’re worried he’ll die in office and more because we’re worried he won’t and will keep running the country as his mind deteriorates beyond the point he should be running a bingo game.
I'm far more confident of Biden surrounding himself with capable stewards, than Trump. So even if the worst happens and he stays alive but loses it like Reagan, he will at least have intelligent, relatively progressive people behind the scenes making the actual decisions.
With sundowning narcissist Trump at the wheel? Buckle the fuck in, because it's going to be a wild ride. I wouldn't worry about having to vote at the federal level again, so at least it'll help with that decision.
I really wish I could joke about this, but if Trump becomes president again, things are going to get very very dark.
For sure, I’m in no way advocating voting for trump I just wish the Democratic Party had ran someone who was even “just ok” instead of just barely better than the serial rapist
And they will in 4 years. This is the time where progressives need to start grooming primary candidates for 2028. Not during the 2024 general. We need some young, viable progressives (who aren't going to Fetterman as soon as they win) to start campaigning now.
Democrats were never going to give up the incumbent advantage, and I'm legitimately surprised by how the media has been acting like it's a weird situation. It's giving people this impression that pulling your current leader (of both the party, and in this case, the county) and running someone else in their place is a viable strategy in US presidential politics.
If you want young, progressive candidates, now is the time to start bringing them to the forefront...
Note: apologies in advance for the biography that nobody will probably read... But I swear it's related! You could probably skip to the " TL;DR part, but ehhh c'mon
Not to tell my life story, but it relates and ended up typing up more than expected...
I have this very vivid, formative even, memory from 2004 of sitting down with my conservative, Republican, Evangelical Christian parents (basically just "lower taxes and stop abortion" days of conservatism, and the "you can't read Harry Potter" Christianity) and watching both party's conventions.
This was to be the first presidential election I was eligible to vote in, and I was taking it seriously. Up until that point I was still just mimicking my parents political (and unfortunately, religious as well) views, so I remember that we were supposed to be happy, etc, when we watched the RNC, and boo/ridicule the DNC. And for the most part, embarrassingly, I did those things.
It was almost like watching WCW. I even remember mimicking my father's sports-like taunts we made towards the Democratic party when he saw that Zell Miller (some old racist conservative who, I guess never got the memo that the Dixiecrats left the party, and was somehow still a Democrat at the time) was a keynote speaker for the Republicans. I'll say that again, one of the main speakers at the 2004 Republican National Convention, was a registered Democrat. Imagine that happening now, it would be like Rand Paul speaking at the DNC. Yeah he might openly disagree with the leadership of his party, but he would never do something like that unless he officially left the party. And even then...
"Well it's over," I thought. The Democrats really must be as bad as Fox News, and my dad, are saying, if their own party members are giving speeches in support of the other guy. I ended that night still thinking the GOP was clearly the only real option here...
Then a week later or whatever, we watched the DNC (on Fox News). It was a different time, but I do give my parents credit for making sure that we watched both conventions since it was my first time voting and they really wanted to drive home how important it is to be informed. They were not quiet about whom they thought I should vote for, but they wanted it to be clear that voting is deeply personal, and that the decision is ultimately mine to make.
Anyway, we watch the DNC, and for a lot of these speakers, it's the first time I've ever even heard of them. I was aware of Ted Kennedy because my dad used to "joke" about driving a car off a bridge, but had never actually heard him speak and even in his advanced age I remember being a bit like, "now hold on...". I had always been told that liberals were terrible people, but a lot of the stuff he's saying (in a silly voice/accent) was actually kind of making sense to me.
That's when I learned the term "bleeding heart" when my dad used it as a derogatory. And it just didn't make sense to me... We were an Evangelical Christian home, I had been raised on those exact same values. How is caring for others a thing to ridicule?
Anyway, finally getting to my actual point (if there ever was one). I was watching these speeches, and kind of thinking to myself, "this sort of makes more sense, and aligns more closely to my values that the things I heard at the RNC," but cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing, and it doesn't help that we're watching it on Fox News).
So we keep watching, and next up is some young, unknown state senator from Illinois with a weird sounding name. Barack Obama. And holy shit, I was enthralled the moment this guy opened his mouth. I know hindsight and that everyone says this and all of that, but I KNEW this guy was going to be President some day. He was just in his element, and everyone could tell immediately.
He didn't single-handedly undo the 10+ years of religious trauma that was keeping me as identifying as conservative, I'm embarrassed to say that I ultimately did not vote for John Kerry that year. But I definitely credit that speech as being one of my first major "wake up calls" that conservative ideology is rotten, and my misunderstanding of a single issue (abortion) was being used to elect awful people
And it was not only based on the quality and content of the speech (which made everything at the RNC look like Four Seasons Landscaping), but based on the fact that this previously completely unknown guy got a keynote (possibly even the keynote spot, I forget) slot at the DNC. You could tell that the party knew what they had with Obama, and within 4 years, he was goddamn President.
(TL:DR of sorts follows despite it just being the end of my comment):
So what I think I'm trying to say, after telling my life story that nobody asked for, and probably won't read, is that we need to be looking for our "next Obama" (using this simply out of convenience, I don't want another Obama) now. Like 4 years ago even.
We need to be grooming progressive state senators, community organizers, etc. and we need to get them on the national stage, and into the American consciousness ASAP. This is the time to be doing this for the next election (hopefully we will still have them).
I apologize for this crazy long message nobody asked for lol. I will probably not proof read so sorry if something doesn't make sense..
It was kind of just coming out of me and may even have helped me process how much of an effect that 2004 DNC Obama speech had on my change/growth as a political person.
Anyway, thanks for coming to my TED talk.
It’s not surprising or weird, I just wish we weren’t here
First off, I want to say that I appreciated you telling your story here. I'm going to argue against some points, but I think it was a good comment even if there are points I disagree with.
No other leader has been this old. And there have been plenty of times where a party's leader didn't run for reelection. What's doomed is a challenge. If Biden had followed the rumor from 2020 and stepped down after a single term, Democrats would probably be in a much better position.
The "incumbent advantage" has led to 3 of the last 7 incumbents losing. It's not a bulletproof strategy, particularly if the incumber is very unpopular.
Nah, everyone loves a "convert". Tulsi Gabbard has been a featured speaker at CPAC since 2022. Just like Zell, it's not really a Democrat highlighting Democratic values while supporting a Republican, it's a conservative with a good story to tell about how the other side went too far.
Do you even remember who the 2020 DNC keynote speaker was? I don't. And that's not because we don't have inspiring speakers (AOC is a fantastic communicator, Ayanna Pressley is one of the best orators I've ever heard), it's because the party establishment finds Obama-level politicians threatening. Looking it up now, they had 17 different people all give part of a speech. No risk of a rising star in that mish-mash. That's why, despite several political disasters under their watch, the leadership was the same dinosaurs, only to very recently be replaced by their long term acolytes.
Remember, they didn't want Obama to be president. When he ran for president he was the outsider because the party establishment was all lined up behind Clinton.
Hey, I'm just glad someone read my comment lol...
What is a party if not just a group of people with similar values? Change the values of the Democratic party from within (which I believe is already happening, especially with all the ancients dying off) to the type of party that realizes when they need to start grooming new candidates sooner.
Easier said than done, sure. Young people need to show that they are a voting bloc that demands to be taken seriously, but that can't happen until they actually start voting. It's kind of infuriating. That's really the thing that could begin fixing all of this, and yet... Who knows, maybe Taylor Swift will throw a wrench in things and get enough young folks involved.
As for Obama, maybe he was a once in a lifetime phenomenon, I don't know... But like you said, the DNC didn't even want him. He was a black guy with an Arab name, but he had the money and power of the DNC (and, I believe at that time Howard Dean in charge who actually knew how to get progressives elected up and down ballot. Could be wrong though, it might have been after he lost his career for getting a little too excited), and that allowed him to mobilize people who had never thought about voting before.
That's what we need again. We need to start bringing up young, charismatic progressives from state and local politics, and give them the money and support they need to get their message (which, let's not forget, is correct) to those types Obama mobilized back in 08.
We should have been doing this for years already. In fact, I would say Howard Dean's removal as chair of the DNC especially doomed the party to years of tepid neiliberalism.
We need another Howard Dean running the DNC and we need it yesterday.
The party is very separate from the people who vote for it. I don't have a vote for who becomes Speaker, only a vote for my individual representative, who himself is chosen by both Democrats and Republicans (our primary is open and everyone knows the Democrat is going to win the general election so the real election is in the primary). He's in something like a D+30 district and still threatens to oppose Democratic legislation unless it's more fiscally conservative.
The ancients are dying off, but this isn't resulting in an open race for replacement, they're using their influence to pass it on to chosen successors that share their values. Theoretically there could be a revolution, but politics isn't really just a battle of ideas, but a complex web of relationships and fundraising. One of Hakeem Jeffries primary qualifications for succeeding Pelosi is simply that he can raise a lot of money.
But I agree that's not fixed, and a good chair could really lean into candidates who excite voters rather than are approved by donors. The Obama's of the party win while the machine politicians generally just maintain power in safe districts. You need someone who excites people to flip districts and states.
It's unfortunate that Katie Porter might be eliminated in the initial round in California. We need progressive successors to our own ancients in the senate. Massachusetts has a pretty good bench getting built. Hopefully when Warren steps down Ayanna Pressley will succeed her. I'm not sure if Bernie has anyone in Vermont lined up.
Can't really disagree with much there.... I would say that a party's views (should) reflect those of its voters. Ideally, that's what's supposed to happen in a representative democracy. They're supposed to represent the will of their constituents, and if they aren't, you vote in a new one (obv it doesn't really work out that way in the real world. Maybe Finland or something).
And this is kind of what I'm talking about.
There's this defeatism everywhere lately (much of it is astroturfing, but I believe it's been somewhat effective, unfortunately) with people being like, "I'm totally a leftist (often sus), and the conservative Democratic party is just going to run their establishment candidate no matter what and there's nothing I can do so I'll throw away my vote on a third party, if I vote at all."
Some'll throw in something about "Genocide Joe" too, somewhat betraying their actual intentions and the true reality that most of them want nobody left of Donald Trump in that office...
Yet everyone seems to forget that Hillary Clinton very much was the establishment candidate in 2008. It was "her turn." Obama was just another nobody's on a debate stage with like a dozen other relative nobodies, and Hillary Clinton. It would have been like (if Trump actually attended the debates, just a thought experiment) if Doug Burgum, or Will Hurd became the GOP candidate over Trump despite the party doing everything it can ($$) to get Trump as the candidate. It would be unheard of.
In other words, Democrats were making preparations for her coronation. And none of that ended up mattering, because Democratic primary voters wanted Obama. I personally switched my affiliation from "independent" to "Democrat" to make that vote.
None of that mattered because the liberals/progressive/the left/etc.(voting) public made it very clear that they didn't give a shit what the Democratic party wanted, they want "that guy who gave that speech at the 2004 DNC." And that's who we got, and Hillary Clinton didn't run as a third party candidate or anything silly like that. We almost got it to happen again with Bernie... Different situation and discussion, though I do think things could be very different at the DNC now that Hillary is out of electoral politics .
(To be fair, Obama's demographics, and social media teams were on point and like a decade ahead of their time. Probably pretty rudimentary compared to that (or literally just the fact that they had a social media team)
Well said. A vote for Biden is a vote for his entire administration, including all the judges and secretaries and people behind the scenes. These have proven to be overwhelmingly competent people and the roles are absolutely critical. Trump has openly said he'll purge the entire federal government and replace them with lackeys. It's about more than just the man.
Honestly, I would not at all be shocked if Biden resigns the day after inauguration and Harris takes over. I’ve seen several recent articles that seem to indicate she’s WAY more in tune with the concerns of the (sane portion of the) electorate, and is actively trying to step up in many areas where Biden and his campaign are dropping the ball. We’ll see what happens, I guess.
And then she'll be the incumbent we can't primary in '28.
Yeah, I've known a couple family members who had a stroke and became better people.
Sometimes it works the other way.
Personality changes arent a rare after effect, it's pretty common.
he'd been saying for a while he's NOT progressive
That began conveniently after his election.
idk. he's always been big on fracking, and everyone remembers the jogger with a suspicious look. i don't identify as progressive, either, so it's not an identity i look for in anyone else, but he insists that he never told people he was progressive.
Biden's been in office for more than 3 years. But all the complaints get drummed out during election season. I wonder who's pushing them...
You've had your head in the sand if you haven't been hearing people complain about Biden for nearly 4 years.
I have. But it seems to have been ramping up lately. And criticisms of things in the past now are not being done for anything but to tank the election.
Dude, it's primary season now. It's precisely the time when you should be criticizing someone.
You aren't going to primary an incumbent. Get over it.
That is not at all what the argument was. You said now's not the time. Now is literally the time.
There's never a time.
It's a shame the genocide had to ramp up for election season, huh? Oh well, it's not the people that are criticizing the genocide enablers fault. That is 100% the fault of all the elected officials enabling it.
I bet trump will totally fix it. /s
Democrats should not be supporting genocide.
You should stop. So should Biden.
The election industry is massive in the USA. The media is not really indicative of the conversations of the citizens, but they do know how to start reflecting these things when it's time to sell it.
Just like the GOP when it comes time to talk about firearm reforms or another shooting
I mean, I'm still voting for Biden over any of the Nazis on the red team, but the whole funding-a-genocide-on-gaza thing is going to make it a pretty unenthused vote.
I really wish I could vote for someone on a basis other than lesser evil.
Down-ballot exists! That's where I'm most enthusiastic about voting. There might be some places where it's just lesser evil option in some down-ballots, unfortunately, but you're more likely to have a representative that represents voters within the down-ballot which makes lesser evil choice less likely.
And has the added benefit of a vastly lower vote count so your vote matters much more. The general election for my state rep got like 4,000 votes. And it was a blowout as expected, so really it was decided in the primary where there were a little over 2,000. One of the other races was literally decided by a single vote!
Exactly. The game sucks, but it exists and one must play to win. The other team has been remarkably successful at working every lever to their advantage for half a century now.
It would be nice if our team wasn't treating the "game" as a friendly co-op match.
During a vs match lmao
I got to vote for Bernie Sanders twice. That was the only time I've voted for a politician I fully support, as opposed to voting for not-the-republican.
If valid criticism of a candidate causes someone to decide not to vote for them, then so be it. That's how democracy is supposed to work. What's important is that people vote for who they want to lead them, period.
America isn't really a democracy though. You can't apply idyllic democratic principles to an oligarchy with FPTP.
Funny how demanding unquestioned loyalty is a MAGA cultist quality.
Hey, I’m gonna be honest: his enormous about-face of political ideology (“I no longer identify as a progressive”, when, you know, him being a progressive before was a big part of why he got elected) and obvious personality changes make me extremely suspicious that his stroke permanently affected his brain in some pretty serious ways.
That’s not a derogatory comment. That’s just an observation, and strokes can absolutely have that effect on someone.
Regardless of Fetterman's ideology or any stated or perceived shift, he's a pragmatist and straight-shooter above everything else. He was that way long before the stroke. The fact that a lifetime grifter and department store rapist with 91 felony indictment counts has a good chance of winning the election is absurd. A bag of rocks running against Trump should win. Biden and the Democrats are in a very weak position, but it's clear that Biden is the chosen candidate. It makes no sense at this point to have Democrats amplifying GOP talking points, unless they're in any position of power with the DNC to change what is inevitable right now with the Democratic nomination.
I'm in PA and I doubt his progressiveness got him elected. Anyone with a D after their name carries Philly and Pittsburgh by default. Fetterman's no nonsense approach and the fact that the working class can relate to him got votes in Pennsyltuckey, a segment the Democrats have been losing over the years. Democrats should be in a lab right now trying to figure out how to clone Fetterman.
I'm sure I'll be labeled a Fetterman fan boy, but I'm a 50-something 30+ year Democrat that has seen Democrats do a really good job at losing elections and letting the GOP walk all over them. Fetterman no doubt has a cult-like following, but the DNC powers that be should be examining why that is.
That's a bunch of horse shit. Self criticism is the only thing keeping Democrats from becoming a clone of the GOP.
Anyone telling me I can't participate in discourse involving totally valid criticisms about any politician can go kick rocks.
Also, how is discussing his drastic turn towards conservative politics "amplifying GOP talking points"?
Ahh yeah, America surely needs more brain damages politicians advocating for genocide...
Maybe because your generations idea of a progressive is John Fetterman? Maybe because Democrats have just become the GOP from the 90s, and thats not typically what actual progressives want?
I'm not sure if that's still true. Fetterman had a cult like following because he primarily ran on labour, something he was actually progressive about. I don't think it's super common to be progressive on labour but an insane reactionary when if comes to everything else.
Sometimes I wonder if people on this platform were born yesterday.
What in flying fuck are you smoking. What policies or legislation overlaps between these two? One is ending school lunches for starving children and the other is trying to push progressive policies. Why, oh why, do you guys keep repeating this insane, asinine, talking point like it's gospel. Please, for all the love that is holy, tell us where the legislature of the Democrats mirrors the GOP in Any. Fucking. Form.
I await with bated breath.
I didn't say don't vote for them...... What do you think keeps Democrats sliding further and further right? It's not the leadership, it's their constituents screaming at them when they step out of line.
The reason the GOP has become hostage to someone like Trump and the freedom caucus is because people within their own aren't allowed to criticize them.
Off the top of my head, the Patriot act, the Iraq war resolution, DMCA, SOPA, KOPA, support for israel's genocide, Japanese American interment in WW2, and the Gulf of tomkin resolution. Only some of the most dangerous policies in this nations history, no big whoop.
I like that we have to go back in time long before the southern strategy as if the Dems are a monolithic body. Just from a cursory first glance on Patriot act:
I won't argue on SOPA because that is indeed contentious, but going back in time like that is really disingenuous.
I answered your question accurately. Instead of moving the goalposts after the fact, maybe you should ask a different question to begin with.
No goalposts were moved. You lied. Quick ten second Google search proved you wrong. You equivocated between the two as if they are both lock step voting the same on all legislation. Not only that, but you had to go back to W W 2 , long before the southern strategy was effected to back your claim.
I did no such thing. You asked when they ever agree, implying that they never do, and I gave several examples of them agreeing on some pretty bad legislation. Maybe you're confusing me with someone else. This was our first interaction.
No I didn't. SOPA and the DMCA were a few years ago. Patriot act gets renewed every few years with bipartisan support. KOPA is brand new. You're latching onto the oldest example I gave because it fits your narrative and ignoring the others. Stop that. It makes you look like a dipshit.
I misspoke. It's expected that some bills will pass with bilateral support. It would be crazy if that never happened. The issue is the Dems are a big tent with many contrasting perspectives. The Gop is lockstep on almost every bill (except lately they are starting to fracture). What I was aiming to express is that overall, if I was to compare every bill pushed forward by the Democrats compared to their Gop counterparts, it would paint a very clear picture of where they diverge policy wise. That's all.
The reason why the GOP is always lockstep is because they don't allow self criticism within their party. This makes them legislatively powerful, but it also makes them prone to fascism.
The reason we have to allow self criticism within the democratic party is because it is a big tent party. Without allowing politically disadvantaged groups within the party to point out its internal contradictions, the progressiveness party will stagnate. Instead its leadership will be consolidated with those who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Namely the older members whose idea of political progress is stuck the 90's.
Everything you said is correct. I don't mind criticism within the Democratic party if its constituents actually showed up to vote (in local or federal elections). The other side shows up regardless who's on the ballot, as proven by the current frontrunner for the Gop. Meanwhile, Dems have to hold their noses tell each other how they'll sit this one out because Biden is just not radical enough as the Trump's cabinet guts the EPA and demolishes every institution and value. In four years Trump's cabinet stacked almost all the lower circuit courts with republican judges. All these downstream effects from one administration have consequences.
Well, it also helps the Democrats don't have a criminal insurrectionist leading the party.
You can do whatever you want. What TV channels are interviewing you this week?
I'm referring to what Fetterman was criticizing, not what the OP or others here discuss about Fetterman or Biden.
Oh, Gaza. Right. I am so sick of hearing about "genocide". It's BS. Despite what Israel has done over the decades, Hamas is responsible for this. They launched an offensive that had no clear objectives (like autonomy) other than killing Israelis, and specifically civilians. Now that they're getting their ass handed to them, which was inevitable, losing a poorly-conceived offensive is coined "genocide". Hamas thanks you.
John Fetterman beat two other well-pedigreed Democratic Senate nomination candidates, won an election over a very publicly popular GOP candidate, and took the seat of Republican Pat Toomey. While this is one data point that you cite, it doesn't support that "my generation's" idea of progressive is losing elections. If a lack of "sufficiently progressive" candidates is losing elections for Democrats due to progressives not voting for Democrats, those progressives are shooting themselves in the foot as the only what to get more left-leaning Democrats is to actually win elections.
Ahh, so we adopt the same ideologies as them. Surely equating valid criticism as aiding the enemy will lead to a better democratic candidate......
This is exactly how the GOP fell to a fascist, by making criticism within the party political suicide.
Make you kick rocks? I mean I guess, but I'm going to need an address?
Like 10-12. I didn't think it was anything special, but apparently being your mom's 1000th customer is pretty big news. I didn't even know prostitution was such a celebrated custom up north!
Palestinians right to existence?
What would you call it? At what point do war crimes turn into genocide?
And that is bad..... correct? Doesn't that imply that killing civilians is inappropriate? Hmm it's almost like it's a war crime or something?
So if killing 700 civilians is bad, what is killing 25k?
Well they are mostly killing women and children, so I guess that makes it easier?
It's mostly the targeting of civilian population, the collective punishment, the targeting of key civilian infrastructure, the targeting of international journalists and aid workers, the targeting of hospitals, and the summary executions.
Then there's the fact that Hamas only had 25k members and they've already killed well over 25k people, most of which have been women and children. So either Hamas was primarily made up of women and children.......or the idfs not really discriminating against who they are killing.
You can't vote for someone if they aren't even an option? Democrats win when we can actually get young people excited to vote. It's the whole reason Fetterman won in the first place.
It's not a battle between having just a better candidate than the Republicans, it's about getting a candidate that's progressive enough to get young people to the booths.
Is he? This doesn't look like someone particularly concerned with pragmatism to me.
If it were closer to the election, I would definitely agree, and maybe it is too close now, although I don't think so... if it is not too close, then Biden should be criticized by Democrats who have their ear to the ground to move him towards supporting more popular policies.
I'm voting for "not trump" no matter what, but if Biden doesn't want to get criticized, he should get his shit together.
It's absoultely fair to criticize. I'm astounded at all the people who got pissed about John Stewart calling Biden old. It's clear we need an upper age limit on the presidency. Also, my main "wants" for the Biden admin were... Resolve covid crisis Resolve or at least drastically reduce inhumane conditions at the US Mexico border. Hold trump and members of Congress accountable for criminal acts and fomenting an insurrection.
Right now, I'd say we're a fail on all 3 fronts.
Listen, Coach Fetterman: We love your size and bombastic past but "if you aren't for us you are against us" is not the type of faux populism that is needed in 2024.
Yes it is. Don't want to vote for Biden because you're not so happy with him? How about Trump? Would you rather Trump?
Here we are again in a forced choice, as if democracy exists in the US. But it's Biden or fascism.
You're not going to make that outcome more likely by berating people.
We're past the point of coddling people into seeing that Trump = bad. Lives will literally be at stake. We all need some sobering perspective about the reality of a 2nd Trump administration.
Let me be more clear: Berating people is not just ineffective, but sabotages the outreach done by people who are actually focused on winning. No one actually working on voter outreach or political persuasion wants you doing that.
Calling out Trump's ills is fine and good, but berating people to vote doesn't work, it's just something to make yourself feel good. If that's actually all you're trying to accomplish, fine, message boards can be stress relief and entertainment, but don't fool yourself into thinking you're working to avert a Trump return.
He's not entirely wrong. I've been critical of Biden myself, but it is because I am concerned about Biden's ability to beat Trump. I want Biden to be a stronger candidate, and a stronger leader for that matter. Criticizing Biden is the best way I know to make him to better than he's doing now. Poking holes in candidates is my love language.
But I'm a nobody. I don't make headlines when I point out his flaws. Maybe somebody somewhere will read something I wrote, or at a minimum it becomes part of the rising din of concern, and Biden is forced to make an effort to speak to my concerns. That's the best I can hope for.
I'm not backing an alternative candidate. I'm not calling for him to step aside or resign. I'm not suggesting we all throw our votes away on some long shot third party candidate. Anybody who is doing those things is helping Trump. And it's hard not to think that they don't know they are helping Trump, which makes it hard not to think that their intent is to help Trump.
So while I think Fetterman ought to be more specific with his criticism of critics, I don't disagree that there are people who fit his accusation. I also think there are far more reasonable progressives and moderates who have voiced legitimate concerns that Biden should do well to hear. Hillary ignored many of those same criticisms, to the peril of all Americans. America would be a much better place if Democrats tried harder to be more than just the lesser bad option. "At least we're not traitorous rapists" isn't a campaign slogan that inspires confidence.
It's a primary. Vote for whoever you want.
Always vote for whoever you want. That's how voting works.
But know what you're voting for. Know who you're voting for. Our electoral system is inherently flawed.
Voting for some schmuck running against Biden in the primary might make you feel good about protesting one or more of Biden's policies. His support of Israel, his approach to border policies, his inaction on any number of progressive issues, whatever the objection, who else are you going to vote for? I know there is the pro-Palestine contingent in Michigan promoting a "none of the above" campaign, which is effective at registering your complaint.
But in the general election, it's time to put away such petty animus and defeat the orange monster that will destroy everything.
I chose "none," since I'll be stuck voting for Joe in November anyway.
The “I’m a progressive until I’m voted into office” guy?! Nah fuck him
Is this the the guy that chases innocent black men around with a shotgun or is that someone else.
Fuck you, Fetterman.
What a fucking disappointment this guy is turning out to be compared to all the love he got on his campaign. Not that I'd prefer Oz by any means, but it's still pretty crushing.
I'm increasingly sure that the rising tide of never-Biden-ers is going to send Trump back into the White House. People need to be pragmatic and strategic about their voting and encourage others to do the same. So I understand WHY he felt a need to say stupid shit like this.
But if you're not allowed to criticize Biden without being banished to Siberia, then he's actually insufficiently different from Trump.
I'd bet Biden would not agree with Fetterman's message. He's not a whiny little thin-skinned gremlin the way Trump is. Based on his political career, he can even update platforms and change policy based on that feedback. So yeah, lay down the criticism to him re: Israel, he deserves it, and enough voices might actually change the foreign policy here. Do not tell the critics their votes aren't welcome. Their votes are still needed. And hopefully they're smart enough to know that NOT voting for Biden will create even worse outcomes, even while they continue clearly and loudly speaking up.
I’ve said this before and got downvoted but I’ll say it again. I will not tell a Muslim person or a Palestinian that they should hold their nose and vote for Biden. If the guy in charge is actively supporting a genocide and is providing the weapons that are killing your family, friend’s family, or just someone with your same religious beliefs, I don’t think we have the right to tell them they are wrong to abstain from voting for the pro genocide of their people guy. If a president was actively supporting the Nazis in killing my people, I would not have voted for that president.
It is the candidates responsibility to listen to his constituents. Not be finger wagged into voting them.
I agree that we shouldn't shame someone in that situation.
But the counterfactual still exists -- if Biden loses, that means Trump wins. And under Trump, things will be far worse. If we're calling Biden genocidal for taking a cynical and cowardly approach to the conflict, then I am not even sure what word can possibly be extreme enough to describe the guy who actively wants all Muslims and Arabs dead.
I fundamentally disagree with the view that your vote is some signal of deep personal convictions. Voting should always be strategic. The more strategic, the better. That's also why how you vote in the presidential election as a resident of California can be VERY different from how you vote as a resident of Georgia. I'd love to see a significant number of people in places like New York and Colorado voting third party in protest -- because it's not going to be enough to influence outcomes in that race, but may have a real and positive effect on future politics.
I just want everyone to think very, very carefully about what the counterfactuals are. In all things.
I am someone who will likely end up voting for Biden. But when Rashida Talib says vote uncommitted, or Bassem Yousef says the same, or Andy Levin in Michigan saying that he understands why. All I can say in response to that is I get it. I wouldn't dream of trying to talk them out of it. What I've seen people on lemmy and in general liberals do, is callously talk about people like them as if they are too dumb to understand what it is that they're saying. I would argue that they've thought about the counterfactuals and completely understand the impact of a trump presidency. They can't support the guy actively causing their people harm. Again. If I was caught between the nazi guy and the guy supporting Nazis overseas, I'd likely not vote for either.
Totally understandable. But in our voting system, you're effectively supporting the Nazi Guy. You are lowering the amount of votes he needs to win. People can do whatever they want, but they don't get to act like they aren't participating when they absolutely are. Not voting ≠ not participating.
If someone understands the counterfactuals and implications of a Trump presidency and chooses to "sit out" they should absolutely be classified as supporting Trump. That's what they're doing. We need to be strategic just as much as Biden needs to be a better candidate and step his shit up.
Nope. This is Biden choosing to tank his presidency. This is not on the voters who are telling him what they need from him. 80% of democrats want a ceasefire. Biden is effectively setting up a Trump presidency all on his own.
Fine, let's say Biden is intentionally tanking his presidency. Let's say he's actually super buds with Bibi and fully supports what Israel is doing.
Even supposing that, he's still not only a better option than trump on this specific issue, but an entire slew of issues.
The only way this argument is even viable is assuming that DONALD TRUMP being in power would result in less dead Palestinians. That's absurd and I think everyone knows that.
Primary, do what you want. Send a message. The general, pick the option that results in less death in Gaza. It's gonna be Biden or Trump who wins, there is no "nobody wins" scenario on the table.
Exactly right. A vote is a chess move, not a manifesto.
Almost no real voters view voting as a chess move. Emotion matters. People can yell at what are essentially political junkies all they want on this message board, but it's not going to influence all those marginal voters with other stuff going on, and they're at risk if there are big emotional issues going on (like a genocidal war). You don't solve that problem by talking about greater evils and strategic voting.
Almost all voters strategically choose to vote for a candidate they don't actually like.
Tbf there is no US president that would have acted differently on Gaza. The alternative is to abandon an ally. Yes, that choice is morally superior, but strategically a disaster.
Doesn't change what I said. Also, I would wager that after this conflict future democratic presidents will be very different on their rhetoric with Israel. We're just stuck with the decrepit windbag that was born before Israel was established.
I would too. They'll be supporting genocide even more overtly next time. Democrats only move to the right.
Hell man, Biden is already very different on his rhetoric with Gaza, and the language coming out of his administration is clearly evolving. I would be unsurprised to see some direct condemnations in the coming months.
I WILL, however, be surprised to see the US severing its defense agreements with Israel. There's too much seen as at-stake in the region. Hence my prior phrasing -- it's cynical and cowardly.
And it's hardly like Israel is the only unpalatable regime we formalize and prop up to serve what are estimated to be greater foreign police interests.
"Cut it out, guys. Here's more money and weapons to cut it out with."
"That's the way we've always done it" is a shitty excuse for supporting genocide.
I can think of a past presidential candidate willing to bern that bridge.
Basically no political operatives would agree with his message. You're not positively influencing voters by yelling at them and doing it as a representative of the party paints it in a negative light. We liked candidate Fetterman because he was an outsider, but this seems like the consequences of not really understanding what's effective vs. what's emotionally satisfying.
I mean, what's his point we should never bitch about it when Biden does shit we don't like? I have a novel idea, maybe he should start focusing on public approval instead of you demanding that the public blindly approve of everything he does.
Yeah, I'm going to vote for him because the alternative is a bad fucking idea.
His criticism isn't out of left field He's earned this shit. It's not that he's an irredeemable president, but a significant amount of his campaign is not being Trump. And still we hope all the hell that that's enough.
I’m still on the fence about whether I can stomach knowing that I voted for the genocidal monster that can barely remember his name because he’s better than the fascist genocidal monster that wants to end whatever semblance of democracy we might have. This country is just the worst.
WOULD YOU RATHER eat a chocolate bar off a public toilet seats lid.
OR WOULD YOU RATHER Eat a chocolate bar out of a public toilet bowl.
Lol wtf you can literally choose neither??
It could be worse. We could have a dictator that regulates literally everything we do. My porn is anonymous for now.
But he's the lesser of two evils! Doesn't that get you motivated to get to the polls on November? Lesser!
It really should.
And yet, it doesn't. It's incredibly easy to not choose either, believe it or not.
It's unfortunately nothing new, but I do think the alternative is a new level of bad.
Literally every single US president since 1948 has assisted Israel in committing genocide against Palestinians. Don't clutch your pearls now.
"That's the way we've always done it" - people who like the way we've always done it.
Genocide must stop.
You’d prefer to have voted for Trump?
These kinds of comments are getting obvious. You’re string here bitching about Biden, when we can all agree the alternative would be worse.
Go peddle your bullshit elsewhere.
While voting for Biden is the right thing to do in these circumstances, Fetterman has zero understanding of optics and apparently the oil companies got to him judging by his pro-Israel stance.
There are other choices. We don't have to settle for Trump or Biden.
Come to me with your plan to convince 160 million people to vote 3rd party and then I'll take this seriously.
Better yet, they should come to us with the plan that's going to make ANY of the Democrats or Republicans work with a 3rd party president to allow them to get anything done. Even if some insane miracle occurred, and a 3rd party candidate got elected president, they would accomplish absolutely nothing, as it is not in the political interest of either Democrats or Republicans to work with them. In spite of what Trump would like people to believe, presidents are not dictators and can't just do whatever the hell they want. All of the people endlessly screaming about how there are more choices simply refuse to accept this fact.
Is your plan to vote based on how everyone else votes? Seems like a great way to reinforce a two party system.
what plan does anyone have to make one of these other choices viable? bonus points if it doesn't involve trying to overhaul both the electorate and the electoral system in 9 months.
I'm just voting 3rd party or write in and telling moderates they can either start compromising with leftists and progressives or lose to fascists a second time.
As a member of one of the vulnerable groups targeted by those fascists I want to thank you for using my family's safety as a bargaining tool. We're happy to be sacrificed to your protest vote which will accomplish nothing.
The moderates are doing that. They elevated Trump intentionally because they thought it would make it easier to win elections. Where is your anger towards them?
i'm pissed as fuck but my anger is irrelevant, this is a matter of my survival and your privileged attempt to "punish" the moderates is putting me in immediate danger.
Have you put any energy into telling moderates they need to wake the fuck up? Did you tell anyone they were an asshole for voting for Biden in the 2020 primaries?
I worked for the sanders campaign in 2016 and 2020, I worked with a group called the restaurant opportunities center to help get paid sick days mandated in the city of pittsburgh and on an ongoing campaign to eliminate the tipped minimum wage in pennsylvania, I volunteer at a food bank and give people rides to the polls on election day. I don't owe you my credentials but there they are, out in the real world doing the real work to make things better for real people while you're throwing a tantrum online to punish the "moderates" because you're too cowardly to pick a fight with the people who have openly stated that they want to seize power so they can hurt you and me. "Did you tell anyone they were an asshole?" What the fuck sort of strategy for actually getting anything done is that. If being obnoxious, smug and morally superior was ever gonna work why hasn't it?
You're in here calling me privileged and cowardly and telling me I'm throwing a tantrum when I say I'm voting 3rd party or write in. Clearly you think name calling and personal attacks work. So why aren't you trying it on moderates?
And for the record I phone banked, canvassed and donated in both the 2016 and 2020 primaries and general elections. I voted for Biden in the 2020 general. I won't be doing that again.
Moderates aren't losing much. They're not the type to care about leftists losing or rightists losing.
Plenty of moderates express serious concern about Trump winning.
We kinda do though. Sure you can vote for someone else if you want, but we are going to end up with either Trump or Biden.
That's what they'd like you to think. If everyone moved a few check boxes down on the ballot, we'd have anyone else. Break free! It feels good 😊
https://intersol.ca/news/organizational-culture-and-the-5-monkeys-experiment/
(This never actually happened but I think the idea holds)
It "feels good" but it doesn't work. The math isn't there. If you can't nominate a better candidate in a Democratic primary, with a significantly smaller and further-left voter base, you aren't even in the game for the general election. Do you want to feel good, or have an impact?
There are more than two parties -- math checks out
There is literally no other reasonable option than Biden, thanks to FPTP. Voting for Trump is voting for a fascist, every other "option" is throwing your vote away.
Biden is not a reasonable option. Biden is merely the least horrifically unreasonable. The Democratic Party's ambitions extend no further and never will.
They used to, and they can again. A party is not a person or even a group of people. Let that silly anthropomorphism go. A party is a tool, a lever of power. Don't like the people who control it? Great! Neither do I. Let's take it from them.
Ask Jessica Cisneros what happens when you try.
The party fights progressives and capitulates to Republicans.
The people who control the party fight progressives and capitulate to Republicans. Of course the people who control the party are going to fight us to keep control of it. It remains the only viable tool to win in general elections. Blaming "the party" is like being on a losing football team and blaming the ball.
"The party" is shorthand for those who control it.
Well, you sir are a free thinker. Claim your prize in the ruins of democracy.
Ahh, yes, isee. You're just as delusional as my mother.
Sounds like you're ok with Trump winning then.
That's what you're gonna get, unless you think the Republicans are going to infight like this (non-spoiler-because-duh, they aren't)
My plan is to pick a check box without the name Biden or Trump, or maybe write someone in. Being institutionalized into thinking a vote for anyone other than Biden is a vote for Trump is a pathway to madness
But that's how FPTP works. Any one less vote for Biden is by default an extra vote for Trump. Unless of course, you're not an immigrant, woman, transgender, gay, or any other minority. Then of course, Trump being in office means nothing to you so you do you. The rest of us have to suffer the consequences of having the country's judicial, legislative, and executive branches stacked with Christian cripto-fascists hell bent on sending us back to the middle ages. Sorry the Revolution isn't radical enough with Biden I guess.
This might be an instance where a good portion of the country might actually agree that the two major party candidates are jackasses. I remain hopeful.
This guy turned heel pretty quickly.
Democracy! No longer allowed to question or criticize our politicians.
That's a dishonest way to look at what he said. An honest one would be that he has just as much right to criticize Democrats offering aid to Trump as the Democrats offering aid to Trump have a right to criticize Biden.
Biden: [Does things]
Anti-Biden Democrats: [He shouldn't be doing that.]
Fetterman: [They shouldn't be doing that.]
You: [Fetterman is anti-democracy and pro-censorship.]
This is just pure clownishness.
Context is key, and you've broken down the situation to the point of absurdity.
Destin Sandlin, aka the Smarter Every Day guy, got some great advice from Obama about negative feedback which I think Fetterman should take to heart.
But what else would I expect from someone from York?
Folks talking shit isn't news.
This is the guy (whom I proudly voted for) who was getting defensive because people didn't think he was as progressive as they were led to believe. The people criticizing Biden and Fetterman are typically liberals and progressives, not MAGA.
I think Joe Biden is grossly under-appreciated for what he's accomplished thus far. He's legit incredible (imo). He's also old as shit and I reject the idea that he's the only American citizen capable of running the country as well as he has for three years. Dude, take the W and GTFO.
I don't think Joe Biden is underappreciated, it's just that the main issue is of Gaza War, and people just don't like how Israel conduct their war campaign and how US responded. No one reasonable would support Hamas, and any people with a moral compass would rather support a war campaign that minimizes deaths of civilians over those who signed up for combat.
But the reality check is that Gaza isn't the main issue, it's just the most recent one. And even if it were the GOP would handle it far worse than Biden has.
I'm saying the Gaza war is why Biden has the level of support that he has today, and I'm aware that GOP would have handled it far worse. Without the issue of Gaza, I can see Biden having significantly more support than he has now.
That's a good point but most people care more about the economy and his approval ratings were shit before Gaza.
Any progressives who actually pay attention to what the government is doing and not just Republican propaganda are probably also supporting Biden.
He's not been perfect. I wish he was younger, and i have criticisms on a lot of middle east foreign policy including Israel, but on the whole he's been by far the most progressive president in my lifetime.
You can support someone while criticizing them.
"haha jk I'm mid right just like every other dem! Vote mid right or vote far right cause you can suck a dick otherwise!"
DJ air horn
He already got his I suck Israeli lobbyist dick hat.
Eat shit Fetterman.
Ahhh, the land of the free and the home of the brave, where you're not allowed to mock your elected leader without hurting someone else's feelings.
I've recently come to the conclusion Biden shouldn't run again. There's no two ways about it. Guy is too old. (Trump is too, but maggats won't care.)
If Biden left after one term, he would be remembered as a great president. If he loses to Trump, he will be that senile asshole who helped to destroy US democracy because he couldn't see what everyone else could.
There's plenty of younger Democrats. Any one of them could campaign circles around Trump.
Unfortunately, he decided to run whether or not we think he "should". What are we supposed to do? We had better vote and not let apathy get the best of us.
There's still time for him to change his mind though. Everyone is pretending this is all set in stone. This fatalism is so weird.
There's technically still time, but many states have had primary elections already. We have no other way to give our voices to the selection process, so if the party chooses a new candidate now it would be quite undemocratic.
If the criticism only comes up now, it's not real criticism. It's astro-turfing for Trump. We've had 4 years of Biden but the amount of Biden criticism I've seen lately has risen sharply. Sure, criticize the things he's done lately, but I've seen stuff from years ago.
There's no point in that unless you're trying to tank his chances against Trump.
Progressives who would rather primary a nobody who will absolutely fail to get non-progressive votes and lose to Trump are unhinged or failed gradeschool civics. It's just stupidity or worse: Trump propaganda.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) panned Democrats who are upping their criticisms of President Biden ahead of the November election, saying they might as well don a “MAGA hat.”
Fetterman noted during an interview an uptick in Democrats who have become more critical of Biden lately, and said it’s only helping former President Trump.
But if you’re not willing to just support the president now and say these kinds of things, you might as well just get your MAGA hat, because you now are helping Trump with this.”
He also told longtime political strategist James Carville to “shut the f‑‑‑ up’ after the ex-Clinton aide said that Trump could dethrone Biden in the general election.
Carville also noted that concerns about Biden’s age are a very real thing for voters amid his polling swoon.
Fetterman also projected confidence that Biden will win in Pennsylvania, which he carried in the 2020 contest, and that it will buoy him to a second term in office.
The original article contains 289 words, the summary contains 161 words. Saved 44%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
he thinks people criticizing biden should vote for trump? i don't think that's going to work out the way he hopes.
no. its that a tacit non-democratic vote is a vote for fascism. while true, doesnt mean we cant blame the DNC and Biden for refusing to run a defend-able candidate.
Fuck the DNC and how they shit all over america, putting us in this position.
You could go ahead and blame boomer generation for putting us in such a bad position. All of that can be traced back to them. Newer generation needs to vote out GOP, and then when GOP dies out, vote for progressive party, and ignore the whims of the boomer generation.
> its that a tacit non-democratic vote is a vote for fascism.
a vote for biden is a vote for fascism. the antifascist candidates i see are cornel west and jill stein.
if you dont hold your nose and vote non-trump, those 3rd parties will never get a chance again. at the very least the DNC do pretend democracy. trump isnt even pretending democracy anymore.
so yeah, vote those 3rd parties one last time.
those so-called third parties are non-trump
ok
This is one of the people who has been trying to convince me that Cornel West has a decent chance of being president. Take from that what you will.
And this person talks about the upballot when the subject matter was downballot. He wasn't able to answer how is Cornell West or Jill Stein relevant when it comes to downballot choices of people who refuses to vote for Biden.
prolly just ignoring the irrelevancy of the downballot in the face of losing democracy altogether.
yet more poisoning of the well, a form of ad hominem.
You're going to need to explain that.
I offered an alternative to voting against Democrats, and that is the primary, and that means picking the downballot that has the most chances along with ones that aligns with ones' view the best. You weren't the person I responded to. And then, you decided to talk about the upballot instead. And the subject matter of the alternative wasn't really anything to do with the upballot, and you're not able to give a sastisfactory answer as to how they're relevant to this proposal.
poisoning the well is a form of ad hominem where you say (or imply) that someone's arguments are unsound because of something else they have said or done. it's prima facie ad hominem because you are attacking the person, not the argument.
The argument you provided weren't arguments because they didn't align with the subject proposal at hand which is downballot choices. You came with the upballot. That's not an argument to begin with. And I was making a observation of your responses.
>I offered an alternative to voting against Democrats, and that is the primary,
and i said "no".
>And then, you decided to talk about the upballot instead.
i never talked about the downballot at all. anyone can see exactly what i quoted, and what i said, and that i'm not getting dragged along into voting for even more democrats.
Of course you didn't. But you responded with upballot instead when the subject matter of the proposal of alternative was to look for downballot. Do I have to repeat that until you get it?
this is classic poisoning the well, a form of ad hominem.
You to me one half hour ago:
https://lemmy.world/comment/7788120
This is not the way to get me to do that.
do you need help finding the block button?
https://lemmy.world/u/bigmouthcommie@kolektiva.social
it's in the upper right
Let me get this straight, you want me to ignore you, so you expect me to block you?
I think you're going to be very disappointed if that's what you expect.
If you want me to ignore you, I will only be forced to if you block me.
Of course, I sincerely doubt you'll block me because then you won't be able to do things like tell me how I support genocide.
But go for it: Prove me wrong.
>Let me get this straight, you want me to ignore you, so you expect me to block you?
oh, that would be lovely. i can't click the button for you though.
>If you want me to ignore you, I will only be forced to if you block me.
thats not how blocking works on lemmy
poisoning the well is a form of ad hominem where you say (or imply) that someone's arguments are unsound because of something else they have said or done. it's prima facie ad hominem because you are attacking the person, not the argument.
Splitting the Dem vote with third parties is a good way to get Trump elected. So it’s a sideways way of voting for extreme fascism.
Yep. Duverger's law and history. Third party haven't been able to get significant points to the point where they win the election in first past the post system. So, basically Cornell West and Jill Stein are completely worthless.
Backstabbing lib says lib shit. More at 7.
"How dare you criticize our glorious leader"
Fetterman is great on domestic policy, but he's a shit hawk on foreign policy.
not great on the environment.
Reading through these comments....
Yep, Trump's going to be elected and we're all fucked. Good game everyone thanks for playing
Sounds like every other genocide-happy centrist.
He's not wrong, he's just an asshole.
Fetterman's trolling is a great way to find the tankies. 🤣
Based Fetterman.