She’s so terrible. Like why does she even speak to the media? Lady shut the fuck up. You literally ruined the country with your hegemonic wet dream.
Fucking loser.
What I read here is 'go fuck yourself, this is our government and we will appoint whoever we want and you will like it.'
She just needs to STFU
That is consistent with the party's messaging from 2015-present, yes.
The lady's strategy was to prop up Trump and lost to him. I don't care about her opinions at all. I didn't forget she went around calling Black People Super Predators.
I didn’t forget she went around calling Black People Super Predators
The Clinton's get a lot of heat for that, but it was literally Joe Biden's bill...
Voters to Clinton: "Go Away! It's your fault we're in this mess to begin with."
Hillary says something stupid, everyone continues to not care what the fuck Hillary thinks about anything.
The amount of visceral anger in this thread seems to indicate that people seem to actually care quite a lot about what she says.
If people actually didn't care, they wouldn't have clicked on this.
We cared enough to tell this stupid loser to shut the fuck up and go away forever, but that's about it.
I clicked because I knew there would be people complaining about it, and those people need to stop being so goddamn idealistic.
These are the choices. They're shitty. They're always shitty. It's a shitty system of government, stop expecting it not to be.
Or we can fight to make it better
If it was actual, literal fighting I might believe you.
She’s right, but she still needs to fuck off permanently. She’s not helping.
I mean, she's right and wrong at the same time.
People shouldn't have to get over it, but Democrats don't give a shit what voters want. They are using Trump as the big bad monster to force the candidates that they want, not the ones that the people want or deserve.
Biden would likely lose against any other candidate, the only reason he might win is because Trump is so terrible. They're exploiting their voters to get what they want.
Well, voters are not completely blameless. Democrats need to get their act together and build a compelling, non geriatric candidate who moves at least a bit further left of contemporary democrats. I understand it's massively challenging to run a presidential candidate that is "too progressive", but there's room to move, and voters crave it.
The problem is they aren't demonstrating it enough.
Magats are rabidly gobbling up every low and unheard of post, elected or not, frequently and loudly demonstrating their wishes. These are data points planners use to shape larger candidates.
Tldr: wake the fuck up democrats.
Fuck Hillary Clinton like 0.98x as much as fuck Trump
She all but delivered us Trump.
People buying into anti-Hillary propaganda is what delivered us Trump. Go ahead and read up and how she has chosen to dedicate her time and resources throughout her adult life. See if that matches your current view of her. Everyone claims to want politicians that aren't corrupt, but Hillary is a lesson in how much we hate those very politicians.
Her campaign heavily leaned on the media in 2015 and 2016 to promote Trump because they thought he would be an easy candidate to beat. Not to mention the nonsense with Bernie and the DNC.
Were it not for Hillary, Trump would likely have never even been the nominee.
Iirc, she was touring public housing with a NY housing group. I'm assuming it was a photo op thing and the plants in the sink threw her off. People forget the Clinton's are dems from Arkansas. They're neoliberals, but from a state so poor they actually want public programs.
I like to shit on her, but she was a damn capable politician. I don't know anymore after 30 years of republican propaganda making sure everyone hated her. No one is immune to propaganda, but bitches get stuff done.
People forget the Clinton’s are dems from Arkansas. They’re neoliberals, but from a state so poor they actually want public programs.
And Hillary's father was a business owner in Chicago... And that's where she grew up. She moved to Arkansas after Yale.
She just acts like a Southerner as a PR move. As illustrated by people still thinking she was a poor girl from Arkansas when she lived a life of privilege before going to one of the best schools on the continent.
But Hillary didn't marry him for money, she saw a smart charismatic man who would do well in politics and hitched her wagon to him.
She was already pretty well off.
To be fair to this image, I think I would also have that face when walking into a kitchen where they are growing whatever that is in the sink.
Wait she went into an ordinary Americans home? That sounds like... more than most politicians. I get her face looks shocked, but isn't this more of a positive thing. Being aware of the photo, I didn't think about it to much until now, but why is it such a bad thing? Gasp! She gasped. Yeah she didn't know that we all grow big plants in the sink. Now she does and that's more than 99 percent of congress. She still failed though, and that's because she sucked at spin.
Should have gotten over Bernie being more popular instead of having to collude with the DNC to win a fake primary
Listening to him speak today makes me both hopeful that he's still fighting for us, but sad for what could have been. He's one of a handful of politicians that understands and cares about the true issues facing the US, and he articulates those issues so perfectly: https://youtu.be/8C2iyUmHeag?si=Gu9ZnbWWSVKvMSsQ
this is not helping
She's really good at attacking the base, and seemingly not wanting to win over any votes.
That's rich coming from the woman who proped up and helped fund Trump. Shes more responsible for him than any single voter could be.
Canadian here, who is aware of a lot of US politics, but not all. I'm confused about how she propped up and funded Trump. I know they were friends in previous years. Was this in business?
She's practically the most destructive person in American history with few exceptions.
more destructive than Trump? than Reagan? than GW Bush? Than James Buchanan? than Franklin Pierce? than Andrew Johnson?
more destructive than Mitch McConnell? than Ted Cruz? than Ron Desantis?
fuck me you people are detached.
I mean I do absolutely think there are more destructive people of course but like.... There should be a special place in hell for people that start the countdown on a bomb because they think the panic will get them into power faster.
She pushed a force of destruction and chaos because the idea of it made her think she would have control to disarm it and be the hero and get an easy win. Chicken or the egg, do you blame the bomb or the person who helped deliver and see it off. Granted Trump already wanted revenger for Obama existing and Reagan is a piece of shit so they are definitely both worse people overall but still Hillary doesn't have clean hands in all this. Just a modern traitor.
I wish she would just go away.
Shut up and do what we tell you! This is what’s good for the corporate ruling class! You have the illusion of choice we give you, so go and vote for the two terrible choices we have given you and be happy.
Nonetheless a choice you must make, or just sit back and let it happen.
This isn’t about the value of your vote or whether to vote. It is about the continued poor quality of choices and the people who decide the candidates that run and are eventually voted on in the elections.
Party leadership and manipulation of candidates have led us to where we are now along with a disfunctional congress that pushes regressive policies.
Politicians understand and manipulate the votes in every way possible. Gerrymandering is a great example of this, no opponents can win those districts as its a mathematical impossibility.
They have figured out they need to oen the courts and local governments that pass voting laws and control the election process.
Those are the real issues that need to be addressed.
If you're not in a swing state then your vote is about as valuable as spitting into a trashcan.
You can't expect a sitting President to not re-run for office. Of course Biden is going to run.
In Trump's mind, and in the minds of a lot of his supporters, he is the "rightful" sitting President, so of course he's going to run too.
Are they the BEST choices? Of course not. But they are THE choices.
Well… yeah you can. Why can’t you?
Huh? You find it unreasonable that someone sitting in the most powerful elected position on the planet, with the opportunity to extend that seat, would choose to run again???
When he’s 81 and unpopular, yes
No, that's an external view. That's your view.
The comment, the point, is about his perspective.
Yes, in his perspective he should look at himself and say “wow, I shouldn’t run again”. He did not, because he likes the power and pats on the back the Democratic Party gives him for clinging to life
Miss.
He clearly believes, or wants, to run again. Source? He's running again.
In YOUR perspective he should look in the mirror and say "wow I shouldn't run again".
I share your perspective, but that ship has sailed. What democrat is next? The work of building a new candidate needs to start yesterday.
Oh you were just being pedantic.
Yes, I dunno. Hopefully the next one can actually rope me in.
I wasn't, I was being clear, from the beginning and you were being emotionally driven.
Let me guess, computer programmer?
Biden? Naw I doubt he's very good with computers
you can't expect him to, no.
you can WANT him to. you can be pleasantly surprised if he does.
but expect him to? come on.
You can expect it if you want to. You can expect whatever you want. It's just your expectations won't mirror reality.
If your friends won't expect then you can leave your friends behind
I guess so. I just hope the Democratic Party know that their expectations for me to vote for Joe Biden again won’t mirror reality
Because nobody tells someone at that power level what to do.
They can choose, on their own, not to run like Johnson did in 1968. But no outside influence can or should tell a President they can't run.
If you think no one tells Joe Biden what he should be doing on the daily you might be more demented than he is.
"should do" and "to do" are two entirely different things. :)
Well… they also do that.
Also, even taking that statement as literal - is that supposed to be a good thing? “Despite his staff and advisors urging him to not run again, in a bid for power he is again!”
How is it that there are all these people who have nothing to do with political office in their daily lives who know all the personal conversations and thoughts of the inner circles of the presidency?
Are you unaware of the extremely basic fact that essentially every president in US history has relied incredibly strongly on a wide team of advisors and cabinet members.
They teach you that in middle school civics. Did you think the presidency was like in a movie where it’s just one guy who decides to do everything he does? Do you think Biden sits there with a calculator running the numbers??
Certain flanks of the party saying he shouldn't but not putting up anyone who should is hardly a consensus, plus to assume it's 'a bid for power', like some kind of movie super villain here, totally not like something someone who would try and prevent congressional certification of the election would do.
I do tire of these threads, 'Trump is evil incarnate and must be stopped by... scattering votes for the only viably running candidate all over the map?'.
It's not "in a bid for power", it's to block Trump. If Trump weren't running Biden would likely dust off his hands, go "My work here is done!" and quietly retire at the end of his term.
If something happened to take Trump out of the race, especially between now and the conventions in July and August, I think Biden would bow out, but he won't as long as Trump is around.
I simply don’t believe that Biden is the most electable person in the country against Trump lol
He's the only person who's already beaten him.
Well, I guess we’ll have to see if he can do it again. I don’t bemoan people for voting for him, but he doesn’t have mine
so you're voting for Trump? effectively or directly?
I thought the whole point of having a democracy was people got to choose their leaders.
If you're saying leaders become too powerful to reject, that's troubling.
The people had the opportunity to choose during the primary whether they wanted to vote for someone else who holds mostly similar views (e.g. the same political party) to their own, or the person currently doing the job. There weren't a lot of people from the same political party that offered themselves up as challengers to the person currently doing the job, for a variety of reasons. Our system heavily favors the person currently doing the job in our primary elections, but challenges have been made before, just not this time.
Reject no, this is about Biden choosing to run
You get to choose, between the Republican nominee and the Democratic nominee.
If you vote Libertarian, you are helping Biden by taking away a Trump vote.
If you vote Green, you are helping Trump by taking away a Biden vote.
To clarify, the above wasn't some kind of rhetorical question. I'm not American and am not asking for voting guidance.
You seemed to be saying that once a politician gets to a position of power, voters are no longer allowed to try to influence their decisions around whether to run, be the nominee etc.
That seems problematic to me, and against the basic principles of democracy, so I'm querying it.
I don't think they were saying anything about what is allowed, but they were saying what is likely and realistic to expect.
Incumbent politicians have multiple advantages, but if you don't want them then the choice is to vote for their opponent or not vote, which really is the same thing.
That seems really anti-democracy. If an incumbent performs poorly or breaks promises there should be mechanisms for people to ask to select another candidate to represent them.
There is, it's called "voting". But you aren't just going to remove someone as a candidate because you don't like them, that's undemocratic.
But didn't you just say they can't vote for non-Biden democrats?
I feel like either I completely misunderstood your initial comment about Presidents having so much power, or else you're misunderstanding what I'm asking.
They can, it's pointless, but they can. Nobody is going to sufficiently challenge the de facto leader of the party.
See all the primaries so far, on both sides.
Thanks, yeah I misunderstood your initial point. Thanks for explaining.
And you know what should happen? There should be actual primaries. But they're not even pretending at this point.
You don't have real primaries for a sitting President. You just don't. See any previous election ever. Trump 2020, Obama 2012, Bush 2004, etc. etc. etc.
They lead the party for a reason.
On the Republican side this year, they TRIED to primary Trump and, well, you see how well that worked out.
"You know what would help? For me to wade in." -Hillary Clinton, for some reason
Pokemon Go fuck yourself.
You first!
Ah TheHill. Born in the fires of 2016, raised on a steady diet of normalization and sailing smoothly into the new clicky horse race as some kind of established outlet.
Well, kudos, I guess. You are, in fact, still around. So. Yeah.
Wow. Tone deaf much?
Such a nasty woman.
"Stop caring and you won't care anymore"
Yeah, not helpful in any way.
We need to vote D, but her opinion is not relevant to anything and the media should not be reporting on it. She and her neoliberal support system in the DNC have caused so much damage.
Stop supporting them by voting D, then.
They don’t change if you just post online about it and then keep giving them the only support they care about.
It’s like saying “I’ll never support this fast food chain that makes hamburgers out of babies!” But then you go there for every single meal. Do you think they care about what you’re saying?
Fuck right off, we see through you. Everyone knows the nuances of a two-party system at this point. You are not clever.
Weird how only one of the most prominent female politicians gets vitriol, look at this thread just hate, for having mainstream Democrat views. I don't agree with either of them, and not a fan of Obama, but you would not see a thread filled with hate from an Obama sound bite. This is sexism, Hilary has always been right about the sexism.
F Obama too! Hope and change my ass! He's also a war criminal.
Yeah I agree with that. But the level of hate is disproportionate for Hilary bc of sexism
Clinton is reportedly set to host a Broadway-themed fundraiser with “Hamilton” star Lin-Manuel Miranda on Wednesday.
Another sign that Hillary is forever stuck in 2016 lol. Will corporate Dems ever move on from milking Hamilton dry?
Yes Madam Never President. NPOTUS if you will
I was told in no uncertain terms by someone on the fediverse that you're not allowed to complain about something everyone chooses. We just have to put on a smile, eat our shitty meal, and pretend we like it.
Yay democracy.
But when Hilary says it, 😠
I stopped being mad about it a while ago, because being mad about things I can't change just gives me heartburn.
I just mean people are mad at Hilary for saying the same things they upvote on Lemmy.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
“Get over yourself,” Clinton responded when comedian Jimmy Fallon asked what she would say to voters “upset” about the choice they face in the 2024 presidential election, during his late-night NBC program Monday, in a clip highlighted by Mediaite.
“One is old and effective and compassionate, has a heart and really cares about people,” Clinton said, describing Biden.
The other, she said, “is old and has been charged with 91 felonies,” referring to the legal woes Trump has and continues to face.
Clinton, formerly Trump’s political rival in the 2016 presidential election, has also previously hit the former president over his legal woes, saying he was the “only person who could say they were better off four years ago,” in a post last month on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter.
“Multiple indictments and half a billion dollars in civil liability later, pretty much the only person who can say they were better off four years ago is Donald Trump,” Clinton said.
Clinton is reportedly set to host a Broadway-themed fundraiser with “Hamilton” star Lin-Manuel Miranda on Wednesday, held at a performance of “Suffs: The Musical,” which the former secretary of State is co-producing.
The original article contains 267 words, the summary contains 195 words. Saved 27%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
I hate this bitch. For many years. Would never vote for her or listen to her BS.
Sexism
Hey if someone calls black people in 1996 "super predators" and brags about getting rapists off on their charges by making a 12 year old rape victim seem untrustworthy just enough to break a unanimous vote, I think there may be other reasons to hate a person other than their gender.
Not saying the OP you replied to isn't sexist but there is plenty of reason to call Hillary Clinton an absolute cunt.
Wow more sexist language!! Cool!
Cunt?
Your name is Whoreticulture. Like literally the kettle calling the pot black.
Sounds good Mrs. Clinton, I’ll be voting third party then
I'd urge you to reconsider. Also, fuck Hillary Clinton.
No, I have my mind set. Thank you though
I encourage you to vote for whomever you want representing you, but I also cannot stress enough that saying your mind is set is perhaps short sighted. This is something you should be evaluating right up to election day.
I’ve had four years to think. I’m happy to vote for who closest represents my policies and it’s not Joe Biden this time around
He most closely aligns with my interests and values. I believe he would probably not pour 37 billion dollars into 100,000 more cops and developing the police state if he was President as Biden did.
Single policy voter? Might as well admit you were an embarrassed Republican to begin with.
Do you cry this much in real life? I’m talking to you like an adult and all you can do is throw a tantrum.
I’m a card carrying DSA member. I’m not sure how being left of Biden makes me a Republican, but whatever you have to tell yourself.
Lmao, the projection. How can ypu see to type through those tears?
… I don’t think you know any of the words you’re saying, lol.
Says the embarrassed Republican lmao.
I’m a Republican because I’m… voting for the most leftist candidate possible….
Not what was said. Sorry you're struggling to read.
I've heard the reaction from the left on this already, and it's all too predictable, but....she's right.
Not to defend a Clinton, but she makes some good points if you actually read the article
Na. It still basically amounts to “get over yourself, our guy good the other guy bad”. It completely ignores legitimate grievances of the Biden administration.
Na. It still basically amounts to “get over yourself, our guy good the other guy bad”.
Yeah, we're being expected to accept second worst as good.
It completely ignores legitimate grievances of the Biden administration.
Completely ignoring legitimate grievances is kinda the party's whole thing.
Deciding to vote against Biden (or not vote for him) because you have legitimate grievances against him is completely ignoring Trump.
Yeah, I guess the Democratic Party should have considered that before they gave so many people reasons to have legitimate grievances against Biden
Are you expecting to have fewer grievances against Trump?
I vote for the best candidate. That’s all there is to it. It’s not Biden this time
God I hope you don't think the better candidate is Trump though who is currently grifting anyone and anything in order to make his money back and with power might literally view anything as worth it to enrich himself.
Thank you. Not the biggest fan of the Clintons, but she said the same thing everyone on here says every day. Sucky choice, but one guy is an outright crook, so just vote.
This is an appearance on a comedy show to promote her new show, not a formal press conference anyway.
I was going to stay out of this one, but I'm getting tired of Lemmy politics being even worse than Reddit.
I'm not sure why I was downvoted and you were upvoted lol
Hey, I upvoted you. You just got here first and got the first wave of the damage.
Most people just seem to be here to vent, and we got in the way of a lot of that.
As I said, I don't blame them for being mad, just that this particular comment wasn't the best direction for their frustration.
I'm grateful you made your post though.
I refuse to vote for genocide.
I'll take this in good faith, so let's rationally look at the situation.
Option 1: Biden - havent heard one person yet say Joe is perfect the way they do for Option 2. If you were to honestly look at what he's done or is attempting to get done, there's gotta be a few things you'd aprrove of on the list. Here's a quick list from Politico, which is mostly non-biased and credible.
Option 2: Trump - the other frontrunner. If you think anyone other than Biden or Trump has a chance of winning the popular or EC vote, more power to you. While we definetly have some significant issues with Biden, an attempted coup, at least 1 attempted rape, abusing the office of President for profit, idolizing dictators and saying it would be fun to be one, and overturning womens' right to choose to have children only fall on the list for 1 of the 2 candidates.
Option 3: Third Party - there is something to say for voting your principles. Some would also say there is something foolish is throwing away a well telegraphed opportunity to avoid disaster. Even if you hate both candidates, I'm sad to say barring unforeseen circumstances (and to be fair, we do have people publicly advocating taking out political enemies...) you're likely going to end up with one of the 2 of them. If you have a key issue to you, such as the Gaza conflict, you are taking a much greater gamble on what the outcome will be. Yes, Biden is protecting one of our country's alliances at the cost of human life. Again, I haven't seen anyone not a nationalist agrue that. Do you feel Trump will help Gaza? Unless he's got immediate family there or a way to profit off it, I'm going to say no.
Option 4: Don't vote - Can't think of any pros to this choice. You're still getting Biden or Trump and you haven't even done the bare minimum to accomplish anything. Neither party is hurt by your inaction.
If I'm missing any other options, please fill me in. Other than voting in primaries, there aren't any times I can think of where I was very enthused to vote for anyone, because they're people, not gods. They're all flawed. They're all going to make bad choices and do things that I dont like. Again, can you name me one president out of all of them that didnt do some really bad stuff?
You can bemoan the Electoral College or the First Past the Post system, or whatever you want, but that is the system we are in and what choices we actually have. That's what makes so many of these posts and comments bad. Point me to anywhere on Lemmy, Reddit, or anywhere where someone has a better plan that can win this November.
So far the best we have, no matter how you want to phrase it, amounts to "get over yourself, and just vote."
Option 4: Don't vote - Can't think of any pros to this choice. You're still getting Biden or Trump and you haven't even done the bare minimum to accomplish anything. Neither party is hurt by your inaction.
I'd disagree with this slightly. You're benefitting the minority party by not voting (and voting 3rd party for that matter) in a first past the post system. Currently in the US that would be the Republican party. Not voting does not mean you aren't having an effect. If you don't vote in November you're mathematically benefitting the GOP candidate regardless. If you're eligible to vote, there is no "sitting out" option.
I agree this option really isnt an option for anyone that cares about how our country is governed. If this is a valid choice to anyone, I'd probably question why they're on a political forum if they don't care about politics.
I think it would have been more constructive of us to discuss which party is actually the majority party instead of some Hillary quip from Fallon. I don't want to believe the polls saying Trump is favored over Biden at this point because I dont want to believe so many people actually support a single thing that guy says. This is by far the easiest election decision of my lifetime.
Discussing how we can improve polls or ensure we get better candidates is what I'd like to see a Lemmy community be about, not heckling some former politician on a late night show about things we can't do much about now.
I think its pretty evident that the majority of Americans support Democratic party policy vs the GOP. The GOP has power not because they've won fair democratic elections, but because they've gerrymandered districts and passed anti voting policies. If you run fair elections where every eligible voter has the opportunity to vote the Democrats win in a landslide most of the time.
Discussing how we boost turnout/engagement and getting more involved in the primaries is what I think we need to focus on, I think we agree there.
Voter turnout is depressing, especially when so many say they want change.
I do agree there is much gaming of the system by business and military interests, the uber wealthy, the regular wealthy, and numerous groups of bad actors from ultra conservative groups to organized hate groups. We need everyone we can participating if we want good outcomes.
I think people are inherently liberal, because the world is always still moving forward. But overcoming a well entrenched and systematically reinforced hierarchy requires massive effort beyond raging at stories like this one.
Yelling at people or preaching to the choir funny solve anything. We need to focus on awareness and education on issues and what people can do about them.
I never understood the argument that voting third party is “throwing away your vote”. A democracy is supposed to be a system in which everyone can vote for the path that aligns the most with their own values. If that is a third party, you should vote for that. Saying that you shouldn’t because “they probably won’t win and we need to defend democracy!” Is just goofy and bizarre to me. If that’s the system we’re in, there’s no defending democracy - it’s already dead.
I’m voting third party because that’s what best represents my interests. If one of the other major parties wants my vote, they can represent my interests better. That’s all there is to it. I don’t feel bad in the slightest.
I don't like that it works that way, and I support your reasons for doing so. If we're talking about the primaries especially. I know where I am, we haven't had ours yet, but the country seems to have already solidified our choices for November.
If you're talking about voting third party this November, the reason I can't back that is that if someone can't come close to getting enough votes to win (what's the most vote % a recent third party has gotten in a presidential election?), then why not vote for your second choice that may win? It's ranked choice voting in a way.
If you vote for someone knowing they will lose, you've maintained your principles, but is the outcome much different than if you sat out voting? By voting your second choice, you've still made what influence you can have be felt. It just seems more constructive that way.
Again, I really don't like this is where we're at, but it is. But one of these 2 old dudes doesn't belong anywhere near any elected office, and I'm gonna do all I can to keep him out of it.
I'm glad we seem to be able to discuss this though. I feel many of these topics are published to stir crap up and they are not constructive, but we don't need to let ourselves be sucked into it and fight each other. Thank you for being polite.
Yes. There is a massive difference between voting third party knowing you will lose and not voting at all. One casts your democratic vote and sets a record of what policies the country wants - one says nothing.
The country can have my vote. It can know where I stand, and I hope all progressives make it know where they stand. I won’t bend over to two party fascism because it already won, and I won’t have on my conscience voting for a person who poured 30 billion dollars into vastly increasing the police state, and who for months facilitated the killings of thousands abroad.
I’m glad you are taking that person in good faith, but I’d like to just quickly jump in and add that the electoral college does make some locations impossible to change. If you live in a deeply one-sided state like I do, you end up not really caring for the presidential election because there is nothing you can do besides dumping your entire life into campaigning for the minority candidate to improve their odds of winning by a negligible amount, albeit less negligible than voting alone. And I don’t think I could live with myself if I campaigned for biden daily 🙃.
I get that you bring up the fact that the EC and FPTP systems are shit, but voting because it’s the system we have won’t make the system suddenly work in a way that it is outside of the scope of what it is designed to do. Voting harder won’t do anything besides make the poll workers concerned.
I’ll be surprised if my state’s voting habit changes, but I think the odds of that happening is similar to getting struck by lightning when buying a winning lotto.
If you are in a swing state, voting will actually have a much more material impact. But millions don’t live in swing states.
Since I can’t impact the election in my state, I’m moreso going to the polls for the state representatives and other state/local positions, since those have a much more material impact on my life, and the lives of others. If biden wins and my state senate is full of fascists, things won’t be looking too good for anyone living in my state.
The biggest issue I have with your post is that voting isn’t the only choices we have, and the alternative option is often much more impactful albeit at a local scale. Direct action has been the backbone of every movement that has gotten results in the US. You should join some activist groups for damage control if trump wins, especially mutual aid groups. Having a network of solidarity and mutual aid will lessen the blow of giving that shitrag another 4 years, and it can be lifesaving to poc and lgbtq+ folk, as well as those who will face state repression or poverty/houselessness. Even if biden wins, it will still be invaluable to the most vulnerable people in your area. I recommend Food Not Bombs, and Heaterbloc if you live in an area that gets cold. Both orgs are found all over the US. Those groups are often a great place to find other local groups that are more specific to your locale. But even if you are unlucky and find none there still should be a local(ish) DSA chapter, as aimless as they are. Or you could start your own org!
If you want an example of people using mutual aid and solidarity to survive the hellhole of Mississippi, see “Jackson Rising” or the newer “Redux” version by Cooperation Jackson. It’s an excellent book that I can’t wait to finish.
Thank you so much for your response. This right here is so much what I wish all these communities and posts would be.
I like getting reminded of your perspective, as I am in a swing state. What you mention about the down ballot has historically been my counterpoint to people saying voting is useless because those people will absolutely have a much more immediate effect on your life then most federal issues. But after seeing the Supreme Court nominations go how they have and what they are now allowing to go on in all levels of the court system, I'm not so sold on the idea of the presidential vote being any less important.
Your comments about direct action are great too, and it's been something I've been trying to learn more about. I started listening to It Could Happen Here as I've been commuting again and needed more from the Behind the Bastards crew and I've greatly enjoyed learning about Unicorn Ranch and hearing personal accounts about the southern border. Learning more about these things is what has been getting me frustrated at the Lemmy political posts as they all feel like people complaining but nobody offering any solutions. It's important to vent, but it just either turns to insults or everyone just piling onto hating whoever. I want to see less doomer type content and more building up type things instead.
I'll check out all the places you recommended, and keep sharing anything else like this, you seem to have a good familiarity with it. We could really use more things like this here, in my opinion. Thanks a lot!
Thanks! 🖤
If you like Behind the Bastards, you should check out Margaret Killjoy’s “Cool People who did Cool Stuff”, it’s excellent, and similar in the sense it is the opposite of the podcast. Rather than focusing on shitty people who do shitty things, it talks about its namesake. If you aren’t a big fan of what else I say, I can say with confidence that you will at least like this.
I can see your dislike and/or dissatisfaction with lemmy leftists on this, but as someone who is not exactly an advocate for electoralism I understand theirs too. To briefly explain that, many people on the far left, such as myself, do not see electoralism as a viable means of change for many reasons. But I feel that some people take it to a silly conclusion of non-voting. I get the sentiment that you will never get a mainstream candidate that supports your views. But at a local level, one that isn’t gridlocked by congress, the likelihood that your vote could be the difference between a trans person having access to gender affirming care is much higher. Even in a congressional election there could be a chance that you help a non-republican win the seat.
In general, I feel that a better take on electoralism is, it will never lead to positive change, but can lead to negative change. You can never dismantle the master’s house with his own tools, after all. But the master can still build a new oppressive structure with them. All successful movements that sought to improve the conditions of the marginalized, be it the slave revolts and the civil war, the civil rights movement, the feminist/suffragette movement, and the LGBTQ+ rights movement, can thank direct action for their victories. But if the reactionary forces have their way, mounting such a movement will be more difficult, even though having the liberals in power won’t help that much (See MLK’s letter from a birmingham jail, and various Malcom X speeches).
I do recognize and agree with the sentiment of those living in a heavily gerrymandered district, or one with voter suppression though. Like it or not, in some area there is no hope of change at even the local level (at least, there is no hope without a movement behind it).
IMHO the sentiment on the presidential vote being unimportant is somewhat accurate. I dont mean that who the current president is has no impact. I do mean that the hope of having any lasting beneficial impact is essentially nil.
In action, it seems like a ratcheting effect where each step backwards is met with little effort to fix or undo past damage. Any victories done by the last democrat is undone before the next republican is up for reelection, but it will take a full 8 years to undo the damage done by a republican over a single term. And voting harder will not change that.
I’ve previously mentioned my gripes with the EC and FPTP voting, and their impact on the presidential election, but my cynicism is furthered by my disenfranchisement with Biden. I voted for him in 2020, foolishly believing that “we can push him left” and I was ecstatic to see him walk into office after the inauguration. But I feel betrayed to a huge degree, and since then I’ve ben pulled further left as I read more about politics.
For me, his bizarre stances are a gut punch. I can half forgive him for his student loans forgiveness from being shot down, though I feel like he quit real early on it and failed to approach it from another angle. I hate his border policy, as it is continuing what trump was planning with the wall while claiming otherwise, and then he tries his best to look tough on the border, a problem that only exists for electioneering’s sake. Well, there is a problem at the border, but it isn’t what the framing of the discussion is about (See No Wall They Can Build by Crimethinc, its a wonderful free book and audiobook/podcast). His current and historic positions on crime is barbaric. Tough on crime is, for the most part, a racist dogwhistle that many people either fail to see or callously ignore when they realize that americans are having a moment and need to be reassured that crime is bad and they oppose it, even though there is no surge in crime. His active stance aiding and abetting genocide while trying to appear like he is pushing back on Israel fills me with such disgust that I could never see myself supporting him again.
I’ve heard similar thoughts quite a few times from other people on the left, notably Anark and FD Signifire, and their opinions on Obama, which are very sturdy takes IMHO.
Finally, I think that we are really seeing how the american liberal democracy will continue to operate, and how it cannot fix itself. The separation of powers is flimsier than the founding fathers intended, and power is entrenched in such a way that the levers of power cannot be pushed or pulled in another direction. It would take a lifetime of work to grease the gears enough to make the levers movable, but that’s not feasible with the climate-collapse shaped cliff we are set to drive off, unless we kick the elephant and jackass out of the car asap. Anyone who advocates a hierarchical system like this one will inevitably create the same scenario for our great-grandchildren to deal with.
This is because this is the endpoint of any hierarchic system. Any hierarchical system will attract the worst people to it, be it the fascist, or the person supporting fascism a few countries over, since attaining power requires a single victory. A single won election, legitimate or illegitimate, will result in significant damage. If you combine this with the motivations of capitalism empowering those who take the worst actions possible, a capitalist democracy does seem like the worst combination possible. No matter how secure the controls on power is, it will be misused, legally or not. Enough lawyers working for enough time will find necessary loopholes to crack things wide open, even if their theories hold as much power as unitary executive theory.
/vent
Once again, direct action is the answer. If you plan your actions with means that match your ends, and carefully consider your praxis, you can begin to make an impact. Considering the big problem stems from hierarchical power structures, you need to make your structures non-hierarchical (AKA horizontal) if you want to prevent it from suffering the flaws of hierarchy, or remaking it in the end. With a lot of hard work, you can begin to create the new in the shell of the old, a democratic system that is empowered by the people to carry out their needs, not controlled by unaccountable politicians who claim to support you.
“We live in capitalism - its power can seem inescapable. But so did the divine right of kings.”
- Ursula K Le Guin
I’m not sure if you’ve heard this take/direction of argument before, but if you haven’t, check out libertarian socialism, and its submovements. I promise it isn’t cringe like the conservative libertarians who stole our label >:( (fuck you murray rothbard, i hope your company with reagan, kissinger, and thatcher in the pits of hell is eternally uncomfortable)
Crimethinc has a good intro book “From Democracy to Freedom” that summarizes my takes, as an anarchist. It’s quite short, but even if you don’t find anarchism your cup of tea, it will certainly be an interesting read. If you find the anarchist label scary, at least give the book a try because the common conception of anarchists is inaccurate, and it usually just finds itself being an insult levied by hierarchs who don’t want to cede ground. For the most part we are just your local activists who are feeding the needy, setting up community centers, or organizing your labor unions, easing the suffering under capitalism while dreaming and acting towards a better future. And we have vegan/freegan cookies.
I really do need to check out Margaret's show. I really enjoy when she does other shows with Robert, since for someone who's life is so much the opposite of my own, I feel she is very relatable most of the time. I've been opened up to many things that would never have been on my radar thanks to her.
Wrapping my head around all the -isms has been a lot of work. You need to learn what they are in both historical and modern context, and that varies from person to person as it is, so it can be hard to get what everyone is always advocating even if they use the same words.
I quick read the wiki entry on libertarian socialism, and I feel a lot of my values would support those concepts. But I wonder how tenable any of these systems are. We have much in the last century or so to credit to anarchists and socialists, but why do these values not seem to take hold on a larger scale? It feels like that need for hierarchy is built into us as a species as it seems to be the default through much of history. While one can find hundreds of years of "success" in empires, kingdoms, and democracies/democratic republics, where are these times or places for socialism and anarchism were something permanent is established? The major events I'm aware of at this point feel more like a reshuffling of the deck of a vertical power structure, but not a changing of the system itself.
State socialism is an option, but that still is overseen by a person/body, which feels is a great way to backslide into where China and Russia are at, which seems worse off than were the US and most other democratic states are.
So I'm not against most of the Lemmy Left in concept, I'd just rather see helpful post and comments like you and I are having than what feels like a leftist version of a FOX News comments section of everybody complaining, but not bringing anything useful to the party. We all need to vent and all, but it feels like that's the bulk of what I see on here now, and I dont really remember it being that way 9 months ago when I first hopped over here with everyone else. Us talking here is great, but now this chat is something deep in the comments of a bad post no one will ever revisit and it's covering too many topics to be really digestible. If this was what this group did all the time, I feel it'd be a much better product than what it currently is. I'd rather have a place on Lemmy to be made aware of these direct action groups and their current goings on than everyone just rehashing bad takes from mainstream media. It seems we all think it's crap, so why do we insist on bringing it here?
But thank you again for giving me specific things to read more about. I was raised conservative until I got to know some people who acted much like you are here that helped me to gain a better perspective and to see the things that I valued weren't being supported by those I thought I was supposed to trust. These conversations are what I feel political discourse should be. I guess these moments are the smallest and simplest direct actions we can take and are the foundation of anything bigger.
These are some pretty good questions, and ones that are not particularly uncommon. (I also promise this will be the last long post I make lmao, you are absolutely right about this being an empty room to speak in)
but why do these [anarchist/libertarian socialist] values not seem to take hold on a larger scale?
Depends on what you mean by a larger scale. There's nothing at the scale of a large country like the US in the current day, or at the current population. but, as detailed in "The Dawn of Everything" by anthropologist David Graeber and David Wengrow, pre-colonial america has some very anarchistic organizational structures that were successful in their right.
There are also currently some anarchistic projects. While they're technically not pure anarchism, the Zapatista and Rojava experiments are ongoing, and have some solid achievements (they consider themselves a different libertarian socialist branch that is very similar to anarchism, being neozapitismo and social ecology respectively). One interesting thing I'd love to point out is that these experiments are actually closer to socialism (and I'd arguably say are close to achieving it in both cases) compared to supposedly socialist/communist countries such as the USSR, the CCP, and Cuba. Here are two videos summarizing the two movements.
It feels like that need for hierarchy is built into us as a species as it seems to be the default through much of history.
First and foremost, the necessity of hierarchy being built into us would only be true if there was no horizontal (non-hierarchical) society in the past, but there have been many, as mentioned in "The Dawn of Everything".
I mean, it might feel like that considering we live in a world where we don't really see any alternative to the status quo. There's this concept of "Capitalist realism," where it becomes increasingly difficult to consider a world where there is no capitalism. We are told we live in "The End of History", where "There is no alternative", as put by Fukuyama and Thatcher. The same can be said for hierarchy, as we live in a hierarchic world that is simply "the way things are" as a social construct. But what says we can't tear it down? For many years there was the natural hierarchy of the divine monarch at the top and the peasant suffering under their boot. To the peasant, there was no alternative; the monarch had to be there. But in reality the monarch didn't have to be there.
Anarchists do have an answer for this (Well, there's quite a few, but I find this one simplest), which is the theory of practice. Essentially, many things are learned by people, including societal norms. Take a highly hierarchic culture like south korea, where the hierarchies enforced by their version of Confucianism is dominant. There is no organ in the human body that forces humans to be hierarchic in accordance to Confucianism from birth. Instead, people are taught that it is" the natural order", then practice said hierarchic order, making it reality. By the practice of said hierarchies, it becomes real. However, if you are raised in such a society, it would be difficult to see an alternative, unless you begin to practice a different hierarchic order.
On the other hand, what if we begin making a society that isn't hierarchic? What if instead of instilling the values of obedience, we tell people obedience is not a virtue? What if we tell people that there is no natural reason to live under such a hierarchy, and that they could set themselves free? What if we instill values of self-governance, and let people practice self governance.
This is why anarchists often approach spreading anarchy in what might not seem an intuitive way. You might see an anarchist organizing a union, or creating a mutual aid group, or making a chapter of Food Not Bombs. If we consider the fact that practice influences the way you think, then it only makes sense that creating a non-hierarchic structure such as an anarchistic union, mutual aid group, etc. When non-anarchists participate in these structures, they begin to practice anarchism, and dreaming of a non-hierarchic world becomes much easier. Unfortunately it's kinda hard to get people to participate in some of these structures under the increasingly individualist modes of capitalism, but it is still a viable path that will need to adapt to the changing times.
Wrapping my head around all the -isms has been a lot of work. You need to learn what they are in both historical and modern context, and that varies from person to person as it is, so it can be hard to get what everyone is always advocating even if they use the same words.
I've had a fun experience talking with someone at a protest, and we were agreeing with many things broadly speaking. He eventually was like "What type of communist are you", and I just said "Oh, I'm an anarchist" and he, a trot, was disappointed. I've also had a discussion with a different random person who was on board with literally everything I said in a discussion, barring a few implementation details. He then decried the communists and anarchists for their radical ideas 🤦♂️.
As far as current and historic context, check out "Means and Ends" by Zoe Baker. I've not gotten to reading it yet but a wonderful lady at my local Anarchist bookfair told me it was not only a good starting place for historical context to the movement, but it is also wonderfully written. Also, you'll be pleased to know that the differences between old and modern anarchism isn't too drastic. It's more refined than changed. There's some splinters and splits, but even the biggest differences are smaller when compared to how other leftist thought has developed.
As far as -isms, I totally get that. -isms are often used as an insult, such as when trump tried to insult all the cool people, which tends to devalue the fact that in many cases there is a huge amount of philosophy behind the idea (not that it makes the philosophy or the ideology good) and conversely elevates more mainstream politics by turning alternatives into an ideological insult, even if their philosophy and ideologies are kinda trash.
So I’m not against most of the Lemmy Left in concept, I’d just rather see helpful post and comments like you and I are having than what feels like a leftist version of a FOX News comments section of everybody complaining, but not bringing anything useful to the party. We all need to vent and all, but it feels like that’s the bulk of what I see on here now
First, thanks :)
I think you are right, but probably in a way you weren't thinking. When I watch FOX I always feel like I'm missing some context even though I am seeing a story beginning to end. I don't see this on mainstream lemmy, but interestingly I do sometimes see it on Hexbear. I think that's because I'm immersed in leftist culture, and there is a shared cultural understanding that I share with the left in general that the average conservative would share with FOX. I'm not a Marxist-Leninist, and sometimes I'll see a take on hexbear that catches me off guard, since I lack the ML viewpoint and shared culture. And just like FOX, I don't think that the average lemmy user will have the most nuanced and carefully examined takes (myself included, though I am getting better at discussing some topics after actually doing it more often) that makes their political discussion uneasy, but at least most of them lack the bigotry.
I dont really remember it being that way 9 months ago when I first hopped over here with everyone else
I remember occasionally seeing it. But not at this level. I think a lot of people are getting radicalized by the genocide and seeing the two genocide lovers on a ballot and are having a justifiably angry reaction. Also, election season is in full swing, so the internet will be infested with political discourse for a little while, and not the kind that is fun, pleasant, or interesting.
I was raised conservative until I got to know some people who acted much like you are here that helped me to gain a better perspective and to see the things that I valued weren’t being supported by those I thought I was supposed to trust
Me too. I was born in a deeply christian family, and I identified as a conservative libertarian after becoming politically active. IDK how I'd be doing right now if I was still conservative. Now, I'm queer, and while I still suffer the unfortunate position of having to be in the closet to prevent my family from exploding, having that feeling of shame and regret consume myself from the inside out would be 100x worse if my politics and religion made me objectively bad for it.
Thankfully I talked with some of my friends I had in a political science class I took in high school around the time Bernie started campaigning. At this time I was having some doubts about capitalism that I never shook off from seeing some good critiques of capitalism itself, and my libertarian ideology. I was pulled further left, and eventually surpassed them on my journey to becoming a socialist with a libertarian edge. I haven't looked back.
Granted, I've only really reconsidered politics recently when evaluating the absolute shitshow that's been american politics. While I was becoming increasingly anarchistic when studying theory, I can definitely say that I was radicalized by the ongoing genocide. The mechanisms that worked to justify the existence of an apartheid state, to justify the ongoing genocide, and to execute it are fueled by the state to further it's positions, which doesn't exactly give the it a good look. Once again, I went on this journey with a friend who was also becoming more radical.
Thank you for all your time and great list of resources.
I did check out Cool People Who Did Cool Stuff since I spotted a Kind Ludd episode. It turns out I had Margaret and Garrison mixed up in my head, but I like all the CoolZone people.
I'll have to look more into direct action programs available in my area. It seems like it provides much more instant gratification than voting ever will! 😁
It's been a pleasure talking with you, and good luck with all your efforts! If you ever need a positivity break on here, be sure to come by !superbowl@lemmy.world where I do highlight a bunch of direct to animal action. That's where I spend the majority of my Lemmy time.
Almost all these commenters are complaining, but I've had so many people tell me the exact same thing when I talk about third party voting.
This is literally actually just sexism, I don't really see any other reason for everyone to be suddenly hating on this comment when it comes out of Hilary Clinton's mouth, but turn around and upvote the exact same comments on Lemmy every time this topic comes up.
If you run into a version where Bill is saying it, and he may very well be, I'll happily hate it too. There's a flavour difference between some "In this house we believe in Science" sign in the yard capital L liberal saying it and an establishment ghoul on the caliber of (either) Clinton
People don't seem to be disparaging Biden for being an establishment ghoul ...
Every fifth political article including this one is related to the conflict of more progressive or leftist voters not wanting the highly establishment Joe "bussing policy, crime bill, I'm a Zionist" Biden. If you haven't seen that then frankly I'm a little baffled
Yes, there is some criticism allowed, but too much and people start to tell me I'm threatening his re-election
Not gonna hear it from me, criticize away!
I think this particular thing is more like: is my somewhat well intentioned but misguided neighbor coming to my house complaining that I'm killing the earth with my one monthly Ziploc bag or is Exxon Mobile coming and telling me that
The first one is surely an eyeroll but the second one is a real circus act.
So, while criticizing Biden might catch you heat from some random Vote Blue No Matter Who types, it's real fuckin rich to hear it from as deep inside the machine as a Clinton
Biden and Clinton are the same level of deep in the machine. Biden was vice president, and is now the president.
i feel like you left out "student debt for life, author of the patriot act, i represent a slave state" but like you got some of the good ones
For sure, there's quite the list to choose from!
He created and supported some of the most fucking atrocious bills to ever be fucking passed in recent history but he gets a pass for it now because.... He hasn't apologized but he's older now? Like that's it? People say he's learned but has he? What signs is there for that?!
This man started his career by ruining the life of his sister, and has been seeking power ever since, why is that a good man to save us from the horrors of Trump who is just a dumber version of Biden.
Oh and you forgot big fan of mass incarceration.
"Cadre of young people, tens of thousands of them, born out of wedlock, without parents, without supervision, without any structure, without any conscience developing because they literally ... because they literally have not been socialized, they literally have not had an opportunity. And it's a sad commentary on society. We have no choice but to take them out of society."
She’s so terrible. Like why does she even speak to the media? Lady shut the fuck up. You literally ruined the country with your hegemonic wet dream.
Fucking loser.
What I read here is 'go fuck yourself, this is our government and we will appoint whoever we want and you will like it.'
She just needs to STFU
That is consistent with the party's messaging from 2015-present, yes.
The lady's strategy was to prop up Trump and lost to him. I don't care about her opinions at all. I didn't forget she went around calling Black People Super Predators.
The Clinton's get a lot of heat for that, but it was literally Joe Biden's bill...
This protestor asked her about it at a fundraiser https://youtu.be/MN6iwqthZrU
Voters to Clinton: "Go Away! It's your fault we're in this mess to begin with."
Hillary says something stupid, everyone continues to not care what the fuck Hillary thinks about anything.
The amount of visceral anger in this thread seems to indicate that people seem to actually care quite a lot about what she says.
If people actually didn't care, they wouldn't have clicked on this.
We cared enough to tell this stupid loser to shut the fuck up and go away forever, but that's about it.
I clicked because I knew there would be people complaining about it, and those people need to stop being so goddamn idealistic.
These are the choices. They're shitty. They're always shitty. It's a shitty system of government, stop expecting it not to be.
Or we can fight to make it better
If it was actual, literal fighting I might believe you.
She’s right, but she still needs to fuck off permanently. She’s not helping.
I mean, she's right and wrong at the same time.
People shouldn't have to get over it, but Democrats don't give a shit what voters want. They are using Trump as the big bad monster to force the candidates that they want, not the ones that the people want or deserve.
Biden would likely lose against any other candidate, the only reason he might win is because Trump is so terrible. They're exploiting their voters to get what they want.
Well, voters are not completely blameless. Democrats need to get their act together and build a compelling, non geriatric candidate who moves at least a bit further left of contemporary democrats. I understand it's massively challenging to run a presidential candidate that is "too progressive", but there's room to move, and voters crave it.
The problem is they aren't demonstrating it enough.
Magats are rabidly gobbling up every low and unheard of post, elected or not, frequently and loudly demonstrating their wishes. These are data points planners use to shape larger candidates.
Tldr: wake the fuck up democrats.
Fuck Hillary Clinton like 0.98x as much as fuck Trump
She all but delivered us Trump.
People buying into anti-Hillary propaganda is what delivered us Trump. Go ahead and read up and how she has chosen to dedicate her time and resources throughout her adult life. See if that matches your current view of her. Everyone claims to want politicians that aren't corrupt, but Hillary is a lesson in how much we hate those very politicians.
Her campaign heavily leaned on the media in 2015 and 2016 to promote Trump because they thought he would be an easy candidate to beat. Not to mention the nonsense with Bernie and the DNC.
Were it not for Hillary, Trump would likely have never even been the nominee.
Iirc, she was touring public housing with a NY housing group. I'm assuming it was a photo op thing and the plants in the sink threw her off. People forget the Clinton's are dems from Arkansas. They're neoliberals, but from a state so poor they actually want public programs.
I like to shit on her, but she was a damn capable politician. I don't know anymore after 30 years of republican propaganda making sure everyone hated her. No one is immune to propaganda, but bitches get stuff done.
And Hillary's father was a business owner in Chicago... And that's where she grew up. She moved to Arkansas after Yale.
She just acts like a Southerner as a PR move. As illustrated by people still thinking she was a poor girl from Arkansas when she lived a life of privilege before going to one of the best schools on the continent.
https://heavy.com/news/2016/06/hillary-clinton-who-is-father-dad-mother-mom-family-parents-young-child-childhood-hugh-e-rodham-republican-goldwater-death/
Now, Bills family wasn't well off.
But Hillary didn't marry him for money, she saw a smart charismatic man who would do well in politics and hitched her wagon to him.
She was already pretty well off.
To be fair to this image, I think I would also have that face when walking into a kitchen where they are growing whatever that is in the sink.
Wait she went into an ordinary Americans home? That sounds like... more than most politicians. I get her face looks shocked, but isn't this more of a positive thing. Being aware of the photo, I didn't think about it to much until now, but why is it such a bad thing? Gasp! She gasped. Yeah she didn't know that we all grow big plants in the sink. Now she does and that's more than 99 percent of congress. She still failed though, and that's because she sucked at spin.
Should have gotten over Bernie being more popular instead of having to collude with the DNC to win a fake primary
Listening to him speak today makes me both hopeful that he's still fighting for us, but sad for what could have been. He's one of a handful of politicians that understands and cares about the true issues facing the US, and he articulates those issues so perfectly: https://youtu.be/8C2iyUmHeag?si=Gu9ZnbWWSVKvMSsQ
this is not helping
She's really good at attacking the base, and seemingly not wanting to win over any votes.
That's rich coming from the woman who proped up and helped fund Trump. Shes more responsible for him than any single voter could be.
Canadian here, who is aware of a lot of US politics, but not all. I'm confused about how she propped up and funded Trump. I know they were friends in previous years. Was this in business?
https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/
She's practically the most destructive person in American history with few exceptions.
more destructive than Trump? than Reagan? than GW Bush? Than James Buchanan? than Franklin Pierce? than Andrew Johnson?
more destructive than Mitch McConnell? than Ted Cruz? than Ron Desantis?
fuck me you people are detached.
I mean I do absolutely think there are more destructive people of course but like.... There should be a special place in hell for people that start the countdown on a bomb because they think the panic will get them into power faster.
She pushed a force of destruction and chaos because the idea of it made her think she would have control to disarm it and be the hero and get an easy win. Chicken or the egg, do you blame the bomb or the person who helped deliver and see it off. Granted Trump already wanted revenger for Obama existing and Reagan is a piece of shit so they are definitely both worse people overall but still Hillary doesn't have clean hands in all this. Just a modern traitor.
I wish she would just go away.
Shut up and do what we tell you! This is what’s good for the corporate ruling class! You have the illusion of choice we give you, so go and vote for the two terrible choices we have given you and be happy.
Nonetheless a choice you must make, or just sit back and let it happen.
This isn’t about the value of your vote or whether to vote. It is about the continued poor quality of choices and the people who decide the candidates that run and are eventually voted on in the elections.
Party leadership and manipulation of candidates have led us to where we are now along with a disfunctional congress that pushes regressive policies.
Politicians understand and manipulate the votes in every way possible. Gerrymandering is a great example of this, no opponents can win those districts as its a mathematical impossibility.
They have figured out they need to oen the courts and local governments that pass voting laws and control the election process.
Those are the real issues that need to be addressed.
If you're not in a swing state then your vote is about as valuable as spitting into a trashcan.
You can't expect a sitting President to not re-run for office. Of course Biden is going to run.
In Trump's mind, and in the minds of a lot of his supporters, he is the "rightful" sitting President, so of course he's going to run too.
Are they the BEST choices? Of course not. But they are THE choices.
Well… yeah you can. Why can’t you?
Huh? You find it unreasonable that someone sitting in the most powerful elected position on the planet, with the opportunity to extend that seat, would choose to run again???
When he’s 81 and unpopular, yes
No, that's an external view. That's your view.
The comment, the point, is about his perspective.
Yes, in his perspective he should look at himself and say “wow, I shouldn’t run again”. He did not, because he likes the power and pats on the back the Democratic Party gives him for clinging to life
Miss.
He clearly believes, or wants, to run again. Source? He's running again.
In YOUR perspective he should look in the mirror and say "wow I shouldn't run again".
I share your perspective, but that ship has sailed. What democrat is next? The work of building a new candidate needs to start yesterday.
Oh you were just being pedantic.
Yes, I dunno. Hopefully the next one can actually rope me in.
I wasn't, I was being clear, from the beginning and you were being emotionally driven.
Let me guess, computer programmer?
Biden? Naw I doubt he's very good with computers
you can't expect him to, no.
you can WANT him to. you can be pleasantly surprised if he does.
but expect him to? come on.
You can expect it if you want to. You can expect whatever you want. It's just your expectations won't mirror reality.
If your friends won't expect then you can leave your friends behind
I guess so. I just hope the Democratic Party know that their expectations for me to vote for Joe Biden again won’t mirror reality
Because nobody tells someone at that power level what to do.
They can choose, on their own, not to run like Johnson did in 1968. But no outside influence can or should tell a President they can't run.
If you think no one tells Joe Biden what he should be doing on the daily you might be more demented than he is.
"should do" and "to do" are two entirely different things. :)
Well… they also do that.
Also, even taking that statement as literal - is that supposed to be a good thing? “Despite his staff and advisors urging him to not run again, in a bid for power he is again!”
How is it that there are all these people who have nothing to do with political office in their daily lives who know all the personal conversations and thoughts of the inner circles of the presidency?
Are you unaware of the extremely basic fact that essentially every president in US history has relied incredibly strongly on a wide team of advisors and cabinet members.
They teach you that in middle school civics. Did you think the presidency was like in a movie where it’s just one guy who decides to do everything he does? Do you think Biden sits there with a calculator running the numbers??
Certain flanks of the party saying he shouldn't but not putting up anyone who should is hardly a consensus, plus to assume it's 'a bid for power', like some kind of movie super villain here, totally not like something someone who would try and prevent congressional certification of the election would do.
I do tire of these threads, 'Trump is evil incarnate and must be stopped by... scattering votes for the only viably running candidate all over the map?'.
It's not "in a bid for power", it's to block Trump. If Trump weren't running Biden would likely dust off his hands, go "My work here is done!" and quietly retire at the end of his term.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-not-sure-he-would-seek-re-election-if-trump-was-not-2023-12-05/
If something happened to take Trump out of the race, especially between now and the conventions in July and August, I think Biden would bow out, but he won't as long as Trump is around.
I simply don’t believe that Biden is the most electable person in the country against Trump lol
He's the only person who's already beaten him.
Well, I guess we’ll have to see if he can do it again. I don’t bemoan people for voting for him, but he doesn’t have mine
so you're voting for Trump? effectively or directly?
No, I’m just voting third party.
I thought the whole point of having a democracy was people got to choose their leaders.
If you're saying leaders become too powerful to reject, that's troubling.
The people had the opportunity to choose during the primary whether they wanted to vote for someone else who holds mostly similar views (e.g. the same political party) to their own, or the person currently doing the job. There weren't a lot of people from the same political party that offered themselves up as challengers to the person currently doing the job, for a variety of reasons. Our system heavily favors the person currently doing the job in our primary elections, but challenges have been made before, just not this time.
Reject no, this is about Biden choosing to run
You get to choose, between the Republican nominee and the Democratic nominee.
If you vote Libertarian, you are helping Biden by taking away a Trump vote.
If you vote Green, you are helping Trump by taking away a Biden vote.
To clarify, the above wasn't some kind of rhetorical question. I'm not American and am not asking for voting guidance.
You seemed to be saying that once a politician gets to a position of power, voters are no longer allowed to try to influence their decisions around whether to run, be the nominee etc.
That seems problematic to me, and against the basic principles of democracy, so I'm querying it.
I don't think they were saying anything about what is allowed, but they were saying what is likely and realistic to expect.
Incumbent politicians have multiple advantages, but if you don't want them then the choice is to vote for their opponent or not vote, which really is the same thing.
That seems really anti-democracy. If an incumbent performs poorly or breaks promises there should be mechanisms for people to ask to select another candidate to represent them.
There is, it's called "voting". But you aren't just going to remove someone as a candidate because you don't like them, that's undemocratic.
But didn't you just say they can't vote for non-Biden democrats?
I feel like either I completely misunderstood your initial comment about Presidents having so much power, or else you're misunderstanding what I'm asking.
They can, it's pointless, but they can. Nobody is going to sufficiently challenge the de facto leader of the party.
See all the primaries so far, on both sides.
Thanks, yeah I misunderstood your initial point. Thanks for explaining.
And you know what should happen? There should be actual primaries. But they're not even pretending at this point.
You don't have real primaries for a sitting President. You just don't. See any previous election ever. Trump 2020, Obama 2012, Bush 2004, etc. etc. etc.
They lead the party for a reason.
On the Republican side this year, they TRIED to primary Trump and, well, you see how well that worked out.
She really only ever makes things worse.
"You know what would help? For me to wade in." -Hillary Clinton, for some reason
Pokemon Go fuck yourself.
You first!
Ah TheHill. Born in the fires of 2016, raised on a steady diet of normalization and sailing smoothly into the new clicky horse race as some kind of established outlet.
Well, kudos, I guess. You are, in fact, still around. So. Yeah.
Wow. Tone deaf much?
Such a nasty woman.
"Stop caring and you won't care anymore"
Yeah, not helpful in any way.
We need to vote D, but her opinion is not relevant to anything and the media should not be reporting on it. She and her neoliberal support system in the DNC have caused so much damage.
Stop supporting them by voting D, then.
They don’t change if you just post online about it and then keep giving them the only support they care about.
It’s like saying “I’ll never support this fast food chain that makes hamburgers out of babies!” But then you go there for every single meal. Do you think they care about what you’re saying?
Fuck right off, we see through you. Everyone knows the nuances of a two-party system at this point. You are not clever.
Hey Hilary. Fuck off and shut up. Fuck Israel.
Hillary Clinton's "help" can only be a detriment.
Remember this? https://youtu.be/ydx8C5eMH4I
"Having said all that, why aren't I 50 points ahead?" - Hillary
I don't think anything can top my favorite Hillary moment ever. I still regularly laugh until I cry when I watch it. It hurts so good.
Remember her smugness on same sex marriage?
https://youtu.be/lPtj6dmbORA
like this? youtube
Weird how only one of the most prominent female politicians gets vitriol, look at this thread just hate, for having mainstream Democrat views. I don't agree with either of them, and not a fan of Obama, but you would not see a thread filled with hate from an Obama sound bite. This is sexism, Hilary has always been right about the sexism.
F Obama too! Hope and change my ass! He's also a war criminal.
Yeah I agree with that. But the level of hate is disproportionate for Hilary bc of sexism
Another sign that Hillary is forever stuck in 2016 lol. Will corporate Dems ever move on from milking Hamilton dry?
Yes Madam Never President. NPOTUS if you will
I was told in no uncertain terms by someone on the fediverse that you're not allowed to complain about something everyone chooses. We just have to put on a smile, eat our shitty meal, and pretend we like it.
Yay democracy.
But when Hilary says it, 😠
I stopped being mad about it a while ago, because being mad about things I can't change just gives me heartburn.
I just mean people are mad at Hilary for saying the same things they upvote on Lemmy.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
“Get over yourself,” Clinton responded when comedian Jimmy Fallon asked what she would say to voters “upset” about the choice they face in the 2024 presidential election, during his late-night NBC program Monday, in a clip highlighted by Mediaite.
“One is old and effective and compassionate, has a heart and really cares about people,” Clinton said, describing Biden.
The other, she said, “is old and has been charged with 91 felonies,” referring to the legal woes Trump has and continues to face.
Clinton, formerly Trump’s political rival in the 2016 presidential election, has also previously hit the former president over his legal woes, saying he was the “only person who could say they were better off four years ago,” in a post last month on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter.
“Multiple indictments and half a billion dollars in civil liability later, pretty much the only person who can say they were better off four years ago is Donald Trump,” Clinton said.
Clinton is reportedly set to host a Broadway-themed fundraiser with “Hamilton” star Lin-Manuel Miranda on Wednesday, held at a performance of “Suffs: The Musical,” which the former secretary of State is co-producing.
The original article contains 267 words, the summary contains 195 words. Saved 27%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
I hate this bitch. For many years. Would never vote for her or listen to her BS.
Sexism
Hey if someone calls black people in 1996 "super predators" and brags about getting rapists off on their charges by making a 12 year old rape victim seem untrustworthy just enough to break a unanimous vote, I think there may be other reasons to hate a person other than their gender.
Not saying the OP you replied to isn't sexist but there is plenty of reason to call Hillary Clinton an absolute cunt.
Wow more sexist language!! Cool!
Cunt?
Your name is Whoreticulture. Like literally the kettle calling the pot black.
Sounds good Mrs. Clinton, I’ll be voting third party then
I'd urge you to reconsider. Also, fuck Hillary Clinton.
No, I have my mind set. Thank you though
I encourage you to vote for whomever you want representing you, but I also cannot stress enough that saying your mind is set is perhaps short sighted. This is something you should be evaluating right up to election day.
I’ve had four years to think. I’m happy to vote for who closest represents my policies and it’s not Joe Biden this time around
Donald Trump thanks you for your support.
Don’t thank me, thank the Democratic Party
It's Donald Trump?
No sir
Who are you voting for?
Cornel West
Why?
He most closely aligns with my interests and values. I believe he would probably not pour 37 billion dollars into 100,000 more cops and developing the police state if he was President as Biden did.
Single policy voter? Might as well admit you were an embarrassed Republican to begin with.
Do you cry this much in real life? I’m talking to you like an adult and all you can do is throw a tantrum.
I’m a card carrying DSA member. I’m not sure how being left of Biden makes me a Republican, but whatever you have to tell yourself.
Lmao, the projection. How can ypu see to type through those tears?
… I don’t think you know any of the words you’re saying, lol.
Says the embarrassed Republican lmao.
I’m a Republican because I’m… voting for the most leftist candidate possible….
Not what was said. Sorry you're struggling to read.
Here she goes again, it’s 2016 all over again!
I've heard the reaction from the left on this already, and it's all too predictable, but....she's right.
Not to defend a Clinton, but she makes some good points if you actually read the article
Na. It still basically amounts to “get over yourself, our guy good the other guy bad”. It completely ignores legitimate grievances of the Biden administration.
Yeah, we're being expected to accept second worst as good.
Completely ignoring legitimate grievances is kinda the party's whole thing.
Deciding to vote against Biden (or not vote for him) because you have legitimate grievances against him is completely ignoring Trump.
Yeah, I guess the Democratic Party should have considered that before they gave so many people reasons to have legitimate grievances against Biden
Are you expecting to have fewer grievances against Trump?
I vote for the best candidate. That’s all there is to it. It’s not Biden this time
God I hope you don't think the better candidate is Trump though who is currently grifting anyone and anything in order to make his money back and with power might literally view anything as worth it to enrich himself.
Thank you. Not the biggest fan of the Clintons, but she said the same thing everyone on here says every day. Sucky choice, but one guy is an outright crook, so just vote.
This is an appearance on a comedy show to promote her new show, not a formal press conference anyway.
I was going to stay out of this one, but I'm getting tired of Lemmy politics being even worse than Reddit.
I'm not sure why I was downvoted and you were upvoted lol
Hey, I upvoted you. You just got here first and got the first wave of the damage.
Most people just seem to be here to vent, and we got in the way of a lot of that.
As I said, I don't blame them for being mad, just that this particular comment wasn't the best direction for their frustration.
I'm grateful you made your post though.
I refuse to vote for genocide.
I'll take this in good faith, so let's rationally look at the situation.
Option 1: Biden - havent heard one person yet say Joe is perfect the way they do for Option 2. If you were to honestly look at what he's done or is attempting to get done, there's gotta be a few things you'd aprrove of on the list. Here's a quick list from Politico, which is mostly non-biased and credible.
Option 2: Trump - the other frontrunner. If you think anyone other than Biden or Trump has a chance of winning the popular or EC vote, more power to you. While we definetly have some significant issues with Biden, an attempted coup, at least 1 attempted rape, abusing the office of President for profit, idolizing dictators and saying it would be fun to be one, and overturning womens' right to choose to have children only fall on the list for 1 of the 2 candidates.
Option 3: Third Party - there is something to say for voting your principles. Some would also say there is something foolish is throwing away a well telegraphed opportunity to avoid disaster. Even if you hate both candidates, I'm sad to say barring unforeseen circumstances (and to be fair, we do have people publicly advocating taking out political enemies...) you're likely going to end up with one of the 2 of them. If you have a key issue to you, such as the Gaza conflict, you are taking a much greater gamble on what the outcome will be. Yes, Biden is protecting one of our country's alliances at the cost of human life. Again, I haven't seen anyone not a nationalist agrue that. Do you feel Trump will help Gaza? Unless he's got immediate family there or a way to profit off it, I'm going to say no.
Option 4: Don't vote - Can't think of any pros to this choice. You're still getting Biden or Trump and you haven't even done the bare minimum to accomplish anything. Neither party is hurt by your inaction.
If I'm missing any other options, please fill me in. Other than voting in primaries, there aren't any times I can think of where I was very enthused to vote for anyone, because they're people, not gods. They're all flawed. They're all going to make bad choices and do things that I dont like. Again, can you name me one president out of all of them that didnt do some really bad stuff?
You can bemoan the Electoral College or the First Past the Post system, or whatever you want, but that is the system we are in and what choices we actually have. That's what makes so many of these posts and comments bad. Point me to anywhere on Lemmy, Reddit, or anywhere where someone has a better plan that can win this November.
So far the best we have, no matter how you want to phrase it, amounts to "get over yourself, and just vote."
I'd disagree with this slightly. You're benefitting the minority party by not voting (and voting 3rd party for that matter) in a first past the post system. Currently in the US that would be the Republican party. Not voting does not mean you aren't having an effect. If you don't vote in November you're mathematically benefitting the GOP candidate regardless. If you're eligible to vote, there is no "sitting out" option.
I agree this option really isnt an option for anyone that cares about how our country is governed. If this is a valid choice to anyone, I'd probably question why they're on a political forum if they don't care about politics.
I think it would have been more constructive of us to discuss which party is actually the majority party instead of some Hillary quip from Fallon. I don't want to believe the polls saying Trump is favored over Biden at this point because I dont want to believe so many people actually support a single thing that guy says. This is by far the easiest election decision of my lifetime.
Discussing how we can improve polls or ensure we get better candidates is what I'd like to see a Lemmy community be about, not heckling some former politician on a late night show about things we can't do much about now.
I think its pretty evident that the majority of Americans support Democratic party policy vs the GOP. The GOP has power not because they've won fair democratic elections, but because they've gerrymandered districts and passed anti voting policies. If you run fair elections where every eligible voter has the opportunity to vote the Democrats win in a landslide most of the time.
Discussing how we boost turnout/engagement and getting more involved in the primaries is what I think we need to focus on, I think we agree there.
Voter turnout is depressing, especially when so many say they want change.
I do agree there is much gaming of the system by business and military interests, the uber wealthy, the regular wealthy, and numerous groups of bad actors from ultra conservative groups to organized hate groups. We need everyone we can participating if we want good outcomes.
I think people are inherently liberal, because the world is always still moving forward. But overcoming a well entrenched and systematically reinforced hierarchy requires massive effort beyond raging at stories like this one.
Yelling at people or preaching to the choir funny solve anything. We need to focus on awareness and education on issues and what people can do about them.
I never understood the argument that voting third party is “throwing away your vote”. A democracy is supposed to be a system in which everyone can vote for the path that aligns the most with their own values. If that is a third party, you should vote for that. Saying that you shouldn’t because “they probably won’t win and we need to defend democracy!” Is just goofy and bizarre to me. If that’s the system we’re in, there’s no defending democracy - it’s already dead.
I’m voting third party because that’s what best represents my interests. If one of the other major parties wants my vote, they can represent my interests better. That’s all there is to it. I don’t feel bad in the slightest.
I don't like that it works that way, and I support your reasons for doing so. If we're talking about the primaries especially. I know where I am, we haven't had ours yet, but the country seems to have already solidified our choices for November.
If you're talking about voting third party this November, the reason I can't back that is that if someone can't come close to getting enough votes to win (what's the most vote % a recent third party has gotten in a presidential election?), then why not vote for your second choice that may win? It's ranked choice voting in a way.
If you vote for someone knowing they will lose, you've maintained your principles, but is the outcome much different than if you sat out voting? By voting your second choice, you've still made what influence you can have be felt. It just seems more constructive that way.
Again, I really don't like this is where we're at, but it is. But one of these 2 old dudes doesn't belong anywhere near any elected office, and I'm gonna do all I can to keep him out of it.
I'm glad we seem to be able to discuss this though. I feel many of these topics are published to stir crap up and they are not constructive, but we don't need to let ourselves be sucked into it and fight each other. Thank you for being polite.
Yes. There is a massive difference between voting third party knowing you will lose and not voting at all. One casts your democratic vote and sets a record of what policies the country wants - one says nothing.
The country can have my vote. It can know where I stand, and I hope all progressives make it know where they stand. I won’t bend over to two party fascism because it already won, and I won’t have on my conscience voting for a person who poured 30 billion dollars into vastly increasing the police state, and who for months facilitated the killings of thousands abroad.
I’m glad you are taking that person in good faith, but I’d like to just quickly jump in and add that the electoral college does make some locations impossible to change. If you live in a deeply one-sided state like I do, you end up not really caring for the presidential election because there is nothing you can do besides dumping your entire life into campaigning for the minority candidate to improve their odds of winning by a negligible amount, albeit less negligible than voting alone. And I don’t think I could live with myself if I campaigned for biden daily 🙃.
I get that you bring up the fact that the EC and FPTP systems are shit, but voting because it’s the system we have won’t make the system suddenly work in a way that it is outside of the scope of what it is designed to do. Voting harder won’t do anything besides make the poll workers concerned.
I’ll be surprised if my state’s voting habit changes, but I think the odds of that happening is similar to getting struck by lightning when buying a winning lotto.
If you are in a swing state, voting will actually have a much more material impact. But millions don’t live in swing states.
Since I can’t impact the election in my state, I’m moreso going to the polls for the state representatives and other state/local positions, since those have a much more material impact on my life, and the lives of others. If biden wins and my state senate is full of fascists, things won’t be looking too good for anyone living in my state.
The biggest issue I have with your post is that voting isn’t the only choices we have, and the alternative option is often much more impactful albeit at a local scale. Direct action has been the backbone of every movement that has gotten results in the US. You should join some activist groups for damage control if trump wins, especially mutual aid groups. Having a network of solidarity and mutual aid will lessen the blow of giving that shitrag another 4 years, and it can be lifesaving to poc and lgbtq+ folk, as well as those who will face state repression or poverty/houselessness. Even if biden wins, it will still be invaluable to the most vulnerable people in your area. I recommend Food Not Bombs, and Heaterbloc if you live in an area that gets cold. Both orgs are found all over the US. Those groups are often a great place to find other local groups that are more specific to your locale. But even if you are unlucky and find none there still should be a local(ish) DSA chapter, as aimless as they are. Or you could start your own org!
If you want an example of people using mutual aid and solidarity to survive the hellhole of Mississippi, see “Jackson Rising” or the newer “Redux” version by Cooperation Jackson. It’s an excellent book that I can’t wait to finish.
Thank you so much for your response. This right here is so much what I wish all these communities and posts would be.
I like getting reminded of your perspective, as I am in a swing state. What you mention about the down ballot has historically been my counterpoint to people saying voting is useless because those people will absolutely have a much more immediate effect on your life then most federal issues. But after seeing the Supreme Court nominations go how they have and what they are now allowing to go on in all levels of the court system, I'm not so sold on the idea of the presidential vote being any less important.
Your comments about direct action are great too, and it's been something I've been trying to learn more about. I started listening to It Could Happen Here as I've been commuting again and needed more from the Behind the Bastards crew and I've greatly enjoyed learning about Unicorn Ranch and hearing personal accounts about the southern border. Learning more about these things is what has been getting me frustrated at the Lemmy political posts as they all feel like people complaining but nobody offering any solutions. It's important to vent, but it just either turns to insults or everyone just piling onto hating whoever. I want to see less doomer type content and more building up type things instead.
I'll check out all the places you recommended, and keep sharing anything else like this, you seem to have a good familiarity with it. We could really use more things like this here, in my opinion. Thanks a lot!
Thanks! 🖤
If you like Behind the Bastards, you should check out Margaret Killjoy’s “Cool People who did Cool Stuff”, it’s excellent, and similar in the sense it is the opposite of the podcast. Rather than focusing on shitty people who do shitty things, it talks about its namesake. If you aren’t a big fan of what else I say, I can say with confidence that you will at least like this.
I can see your dislike and/or dissatisfaction with lemmy leftists on this, but as someone who is not exactly an advocate for electoralism I understand theirs too. To briefly explain that, many people on the far left, such as myself, do not see electoralism as a viable means of change for many reasons. But I feel that some people take it to a silly conclusion of non-voting. I get the sentiment that you will never get a mainstream candidate that supports your views. But at a local level, one that isn’t gridlocked by congress, the likelihood that your vote could be the difference between a trans person having access to gender affirming care is much higher. Even in a congressional election there could be a chance that you help a non-republican win the seat.
In general, I feel that a better take on electoralism is, it will never lead to positive change, but can lead to negative change. You can never dismantle the master’s house with his own tools, after all. But the master can still build a new oppressive structure with them. All successful movements that sought to improve the conditions of the marginalized, be it the slave revolts and the civil war, the civil rights movement, the feminist/suffragette movement, and the LGBTQ+ rights movement, can thank direct action for their victories. But if the reactionary forces have their way, mounting such a movement will be more difficult, even though having the liberals in power won’t help that much (See MLK’s letter from a birmingham jail, and various Malcom X speeches).
I do recognize and agree with the sentiment of those living in a heavily gerrymandered district, or one with voter suppression though. Like it or not, in some area there is no hope of change at even the local level (at least, there is no hope without a movement behind it).
IMHO the sentiment on the presidential vote being unimportant is somewhat accurate. I dont mean that who the current president is has no impact. I do mean that the hope of having any lasting beneficial impact is essentially nil.
In action, it seems like a ratcheting effect where each step backwards is met with little effort to fix or undo past damage. Any victories done by the last democrat is undone before the next republican is up for reelection, but it will take a full 8 years to undo the damage done by a republican over a single term. And voting harder will not change that.
I’ve previously mentioned my gripes with the EC and FPTP voting, and their impact on the presidential election, but my cynicism is furthered by my disenfranchisement with Biden. I voted for him in 2020, foolishly believing that “we can push him left” and I was ecstatic to see him walk into office after the inauguration. But I feel betrayed to a huge degree, and since then I’ve ben pulled further left as I read more about politics.
For me, his bizarre stances are a gut punch. I can half forgive him for his student loans forgiveness from being shot down, though I feel like he quit real early on it and failed to approach it from another angle. I hate his border policy, as it is continuing what trump was planning with the wall while claiming otherwise, and then he tries his best to look tough on the border, a problem that only exists for electioneering’s sake. Well, there is a problem at the border, but it isn’t what the framing of the discussion is about (See No Wall They Can Build by Crimethinc, its a wonderful free book and audiobook/podcast). His current and historic positions on crime is barbaric. Tough on crime is, for the most part, a racist dogwhistle that many people either fail to see or callously ignore when they realize that americans are having a moment and need to be reassured that crime is bad and they oppose it, even though there is no surge in crime. His active stance aiding and abetting genocide while trying to appear like he is pushing back on Israel fills me with such disgust that I could never see myself supporting him again.
I’ve heard similar thoughts quite a few times from other people on the left, notably Anark and FD Signifire, and their opinions on Obama, which are very sturdy takes IMHO.
Finally, I think that we are really seeing how the american liberal democracy will continue to operate, and how it cannot fix itself. The separation of powers is flimsier than the founding fathers intended, and power is entrenched in such a way that the levers of power cannot be pushed or pulled in another direction. It would take a lifetime of work to grease the gears enough to make the levers movable, but that’s not feasible with the climate-collapse shaped cliff we are set to drive off, unless we kick the elephant and jackass out of the car asap. Anyone who advocates a hierarchical system like this one will inevitably create the same scenario for our great-grandchildren to deal with.
This is because this is the endpoint of any hierarchic system. Any hierarchical system will attract the worst people to it, be it the fascist, or the person supporting fascism a few countries over, since attaining power requires a single victory. A single won election, legitimate or illegitimate, will result in significant damage. If you combine this with the motivations of capitalism empowering those who take the worst actions possible, a capitalist democracy does seem like the worst combination possible. No matter how secure the controls on power is, it will be misused, legally or not. Enough lawyers working for enough time will find necessary loopholes to crack things wide open, even if their theories hold as much power as unitary executive theory.
/vent
Once again, direct action is the answer. If you plan your actions with means that match your ends, and carefully consider your praxis, you can begin to make an impact. Considering the big problem stems from hierarchical power structures, you need to make your structures non-hierarchical (AKA horizontal) if you want to prevent it from suffering the flaws of hierarchy, or remaking it in the end. With a lot of hard work, you can begin to create the new in the shell of the old, a democratic system that is empowered by the people to carry out their needs, not controlled by unaccountable politicians who claim to support you.
I’m not sure if you’ve heard this take/direction of argument before, but if you haven’t, check out libertarian socialism, and its submovements. I promise it isn’t cringe like the conservative libertarians who stole our label >:( (fuck you murray rothbard, i hope your company with reagan, kissinger, and thatcher in the pits of hell is eternally uncomfortable)
Crimethinc has a good intro book “From Democracy to Freedom” that summarizes my takes, as an anarchist. It’s quite short, but even if you don’t find anarchism your cup of tea, it will certainly be an interesting read. If you find the anarchist label scary, at least give the book a try because the common conception of anarchists is inaccurate, and it usually just finds itself being an insult levied by hierarchs who don’t want to cede ground. For the most part we are just your local activists who are feeding the needy, setting up community centers, or organizing your labor unions, easing the suffering under capitalism while dreaming and acting towards a better future. And we have vegan/freegan cookies.
I really do need to check out Margaret's show. I really enjoy when she does other shows with Robert, since for someone who's life is so much the opposite of my own, I feel she is very relatable most of the time. I've been opened up to many things that would never have been on my radar thanks to her.
Wrapping my head around all the -isms has been a lot of work. You need to learn what they are in both historical and modern context, and that varies from person to person as it is, so it can be hard to get what everyone is always advocating even if they use the same words.
I quick read the wiki entry on libertarian socialism, and I feel a lot of my values would support those concepts. But I wonder how tenable any of these systems are. We have much in the last century or so to credit to anarchists and socialists, but why do these values not seem to take hold on a larger scale? It feels like that need for hierarchy is built into us as a species as it seems to be the default through much of history. While one can find hundreds of years of "success" in empires, kingdoms, and democracies/democratic republics, where are these times or places for socialism and anarchism were something permanent is established? The major events I'm aware of at this point feel more like a reshuffling of the deck of a vertical power structure, but not a changing of the system itself.
State socialism is an option, but that still is overseen by a person/body, which feels is a great way to backslide into where China and Russia are at, which seems worse off than were the US and most other democratic states are.
So I'm not against most of the Lemmy Left in concept, I'd just rather see helpful post and comments like you and I are having than what feels like a leftist version of a FOX News comments section of everybody complaining, but not bringing anything useful to the party. We all need to vent and all, but it feels like that's the bulk of what I see on here now, and I dont really remember it being that way 9 months ago when I first hopped over here with everyone else. Us talking here is great, but now this chat is something deep in the comments of a bad post no one will ever revisit and it's covering too many topics to be really digestible. If this was what this group did all the time, I feel it'd be a much better product than what it currently is. I'd rather have a place on Lemmy to be made aware of these direct action groups and their current goings on than everyone just rehashing bad takes from mainstream media. It seems we all think it's crap, so why do we insist on bringing it here?
But thank you again for giving me specific things to read more about. I was raised conservative until I got to know some people who acted much like you are here that helped me to gain a better perspective and to see the things that I valued weren't being supported by those I thought I was supposed to trust. These conversations are what I feel political discourse should be. I guess these moments are the smallest and simplest direct actions we can take and are the foundation of anything bigger.
These are some pretty good questions, and ones that are not particularly uncommon. (I also promise this will be the last long post I make lmao, you are absolutely right about this being an empty room to speak in)
Depends on what you mean by a larger scale. There's nothing at the scale of a large country like the US in the current day, or at the current population. but, as detailed in "The Dawn of Everything" by anthropologist David Graeber and David Wengrow, pre-colonial america has some very anarchistic organizational structures that were successful in their right.
There are also currently some anarchistic projects. While they're technically not pure anarchism, the Zapatista and Rojava experiments are ongoing, and have some solid achievements (they consider themselves a different libertarian socialist branch that is very similar to anarchism, being neozapitismo and social ecology respectively). One interesting thing I'd love to point out is that these experiments are actually closer to socialism (and I'd arguably say are close to achieving it in both cases) compared to supposedly socialist/communist countries such as the USSR, the CCP, and Cuba. Here are two videos summarizing the two movements.
First and foremost, the necessity of hierarchy being built into us would only be true if there was no horizontal (non-hierarchical) society in the past, but there have been many, as mentioned in "The Dawn of Everything".
I mean, it might feel like that considering we live in a world where we don't really see any alternative to the status quo. There's this concept of "Capitalist realism," where it becomes increasingly difficult to consider a world where there is no capitalism. We are told we live in "The End of History", where "There is no alternative", as put by Fukuyama and Thatcher. The same can be said for hierarchy, as we live in a hierarchic world that is simply "the way things are" as a social construct. But what says we can't tear it down? For many years there was the natural hierarchy of the divine monarch at the top and the peasant suffering under their boot. To the peasant, there was no alternative; the monarch had to be there. But in reality the monarch didn't have to be there.
Anarchists do have an answer for this (Well, there's quite a few, but I find this one simplest), which is the theory of practice. Essentially, many things are learned by people, including societal norms. Take a highly hierarchic culture like south korea, where the hierarchies enforced by their version of Confucianism is dominant. There is no organ in the human body that forces humans to be hierarchic in accordance to Confucianism from birth. Instead, people are taught that it is" the natural order", then practice said hierarchic order, making it reality. By the practice of said hierarchies, it becomes real. However, if you are raised in such a society, it would be difficult to see an alternative, unless you begin to practice a different hierarchic order.
On the other hand, what if we begin making a society that isn't hierarchic? What if instead of instilling the values of obedience, we tell people obedience is not a virtue? What if we tell people that there is no natural reason to live under such a hierarchy, and that they could set themselves free? What if we instill values of self-governance, and let people practice self governance.
This is why anarchists often approach spreading anarchy in what might not seem an intuitive way. You might see an anarchist organizing a union, or creating a mutual aid group, or making a chapter of Food Not Bombs. If we consider the fact that practice influences the way you think, then it only makes sense that creating a non-hierarchic structure such as an anarchistic union, mutual aid group, etc. When non-anarchists participate in these structures, they begin to practice anarchism, and dreaming of a non-hierarchic world becomes much easier. Unfortunately it's kinda hard to get people to participate in some of these structures under the increasingly individualist modes of capitalism, but it is still a viable path that will need to adapt to the changing times.
I've had a fun experience talking with someone at a protest, and we were agreeing with many things broadly speaking. He eventually was like "What type of communist are you", and I just said "Oh, I'm an anarchist" and he, a trot, was disappointed. I've also had a discussion with a different random person who was on board with literally everything I said in a discussion, barring a few implementation details. He then decried the communists and anarchists for their radical ideas 🤦♂️.
As far as current and historic context, check out "Means and Ends" by Zoe Baker. I've not gotten to reading it yet but a wonderful lady at my local Anarchist bookfair told me it was not only a good starting place for historical context to the movement, but it is also wonderfully written. Also, you'll be pleased to know that the differences between old and modern anarchism isn't too drastic. It's more refined than changed. There's some splinters and splits, but even the biggest differences are smaller when compared to how other leftist thought has developed.
As far as -isms, I totally get that. -isms are often used as an insult, such as when trump tried to insult all the cool people, which tends to devalue the fact that in many cases there is a huge amount of philosophy behind the idea (not that it makes the philosophy or the ideology good) and conversely elevates more mainstream politics by turning alternatives into an ideological insult, even if their philosophy and ideologies are kinda trash.
First, thanks :)
I think you are right, but probably in a way you weren't thinking. When I watch FOX I always feel like I'm missing some context even though I am seeing a story beginning to end. I don't see this on mainstream lemmy, but interestingly I do sometimes see it on Hexbear. I think that's because I'm immersed in leftist culture, and there is a shared cultural understanding that I share with the left in general that the average conservative would share with FOX. I'm not a Marxist-Leninist, and sometimes I'll see a take on hexbear that catches me off guard, since I lack the ML viewpoint and shared culture. And just like FOX, I don't think that the average lemmy user will have the most nuanced and carefully examined takes (myself included, though I am getting better at discussing some topics after actually doing it more often) that makes their political discussion uneasy, but at least most of them lack the bigotry.
I remember occasionally seeing it. But not at this level. I think a lot of people are getting radicalized by the genocide and seeing the two genocide lovers on a ballot and are having a justifiably angry reaction. Also, election season is in full swing, so the internet will be infested with political discourse for a little while, and not the kind that is fun, pleasant, or interesting.
Me too. I was born in a deeply christian family, and I identified as a conservative libertarian after becoming politically active. IDK how I'd be doing right now if I was still conservative. Now, I'm queer, and while I still suffer the unfortunate position of having to be in the closet to prevent my family from exploding, having that feeling of shame and regret consume myself from the inside out would be 100x worse if my politics and religion made me objectively bad for it.
Thankfully I talked with some of my friends I had in a political science class I took in high school around the time Bernie started campaigning. At this time I was having some doubts about capitalism that I never shook off from seeing some good critiques of capitalism itself, and my libertarian ideology. I was pulled further left, and eventually surpassed them on my journey to becoming a socialist with a libertarian edge. I haven't looked back.
Granted, I've only really reconsidered politics recently when evaluating the absolute shitshow that's been american politics. While I was becoming increasingly anarchistic when studying theory, I can definitely say that I was radicalized by the ongoing genocide. The mechanisms that worked to justify the existence of an apartheid state, to justify the ongoing genocide, and to execute it are fueled by the state to further it's positions, which doesn't exactly give the it a good look. Once again, I went on this journey with a friend who was also becoming more radical.
Thank you for all your time and great list of resources.
I did check out Cool People Who Did Cool Stuff since I spotted a Kind Ludd episode. It turns out I had Margaret and Garrison mixed up in my head, but I like all the CoolZone people.
I'll have to look more into direct action programs available in my area. It seems like it provides much more instant gratification than voting ever will! 😁
It's been a pleasure talking with you, and good luck with all your efforts! If you ever need a positivity break on here, be sure to come by !superbowl@lemmy.world where I do highlight a bunch of direct to animal action. That's where I spend the majority of my Lemmy time.
Almost all these commenters are complaining, but I've had so many people tell me the exact same thing when I talk about third party voting.
This is literally actually just sexism, I don't really see any other reason for everyone to be suddenly hating on this comment when it comes out of Hilary Clinton's mouth, but turn around and upvote the exact same comments on Lemmy every time this topic comes up.
If you run into a version where Bill is saying it, and he may very well be, I'll happily hate it too. There's a flavour difference between some "In this house we believe in Science" sign in the yard capital L liberal saying it and an establishment ghoul on the caliber of (either) Clinton
People don't seem to be disparaging Biden for being an establishment ghoul ...
Every fifth political article including this one is related to the conflict of more progressive or leftist voters not wanting the highly establishment Joe "bussing policy, crime bill, I'm a Zionist" Biden. If you haven't seen that then frankly I'm a little baffled
Yes, there is some criticism allowed, but too much and people start to tell me I'm threatening his re-election
Not gonna hear it from me, criticize away!
I think this particular thing is more like: is my somewhat well intentioned but misguided neighbor coming to my house complaining that I'm killing the earth with my one monthly Ziploc bag or is Exxon Mobile coming and telling me that
The first one is surely an eyeroll but the second one is a real circus act.
So, while criticizing Biden might catch you heat from some random Vote Blue No Matter Who types, it's real fuckin rich to hear it from as deep inside the machine as a Clinton
Biden and Clinton are the same level of deep in the machine. Biden was vice president, and is now the president.
i feel like you left out "student debt for life, author of the patriot act, i represent a slave state" but like you got some of the good ones
For sure, there's quite the list to choose from!
He created and supported some of the most fucking atrocious bills to ever be fucking passed in recent history but he gets a pass for it now because.... He hasn't apologized but he's older now? Like that's it? People say he's learned but has he? What signs is there for that?!
This man started his career by ruining the life of his sister, and has been seeking power ever since, why is that a good man to save us from the horrors of Trump who is just a dumber version of Biden.
Oh and you forgot big fan of mass incarceration.