this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2024
429 points (83.1% liked)

politics

19120 readers
3337 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ThePerfectLink@lemmy.world -2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (5 children)

Idk if I'm back on the accelerationist train or not yet. Not that I can vote in the States, so it doesn't matter. Regardless, I feel like it would be hard for anyone that even slightly cares about the future to vote for either of these two earnestly. As a progressive, you'd have to weigh the pros and cons of the value of the Dems possibly reevaluating and restructuring if Trump gets back in, vs the absolute abysmal reactions and policies that Trump will cause if he does, especially outside the US. But then if you vote the Dems in again, the neo-nazis around the world will feel less empowered, and there will be less terrible decision making in the short term. All at the cost of Dems not having to change the status quo, and effectively being the lesser evil for the foreseeable future.

Actually, I don't envy the American voter. And I certainly wouldn't want to vote in this election.

[–] jkrtn@lemmy.ml 21 points 7 months ago (1 children)

No progressive is voting earnestly for Biden, they just don't want a fucking dictator dismantling the EPA and stacking the courts with more corrupt servants of the Federalist Society.

There are no pros for the Dems restructuring, they first of all won't do it, and secondly we are running out of being able to vote at all. The next insurrection has better odds of success.

How is this even a conversation with anyone? We don't like Biden, but he hasn't led an insurrection. Do people want to continue having any choice at all?

[–] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Exactly.

Anyone not voting because they don't like Biden very much is missing the whole picture. It can always get worse.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It's always getting worse every single day. Biden is just less worse.

[–] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 3 points 7 months ago

I'm fine with nuance like that and I agree.

It's like we are on a slick road headed for a tree. Biden is the brake and Trump is the accelerator: same 3 options for voting.

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 20 points 7 months ago (2 children)

When Bill Clinton was in office in the 90's, after the Democrats lost three presidential elections in a row to Republicans, he did not adopt socialist policies. Bill Clinton and Democratic party declared they would no longer fight Republicans on economic issues. The Democratic party shifted to the right, not the left, in response to losing elections. They opted to grab moderate voters from Republicans rather than try to win over more progressive voters.

If Democrats see moderates voting in the next election, but not progressives they will move to the right to grab those voters. They aren't interested in chasing nonvoters or third party voters. So, the choice is not between averting fascism and driving the Democratic Party to the left. Those options are one in the same for progressives. The choice is between driving the Democratic Party to the left and averting fascism or allowing fascism to take hold in the US and allowing the Democratic Party to drift to the right. Of course if we lose our democracy, which way the Democrats shift isn't going to matter, but I think it's important to make this clear. There is nothing to be gained for progressives by not participating in elections, only things to lose.

This is a clear cut decision, but unfortunately people on the left are not framing it that way. We need to choose the option that delays fascism for another four years. We need time to give ourselves the opportunity to convince people that socialism is the answer to fixing our problems not blaming out groups. Considering the consequences of a fascist dictatorship in the US, voting is the thing everyone should want to do.

[–] PlexSheep@infosec.pub 9 points 7 months ago (2 children)

And this makes sense. Because the election has shown that the nation is happy to vote the right wing Republicans into the government, not the lesser evil Democrats, so naturally the Democrats would have to shift towards the popular opinion a bit more, instead of radicalizing to the left.

You guys need ranked choice voting.

[–] jkrtn@lemmy.ml 4 points 7 months ago

I would prefer score voting but I will take anything that allows me to meaningfully vote third party.

[–] OneWomanCreamTeam@sh.itjust.works 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

We need it so bad, but neither the Democrats nor the Republicans want it, so we're fucked unless we revolt.

[–] Ultragigagigantic@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

We aren't Russia (for now). Some states have already succeeded in their efforts to do away with First Past The Post voting. It's not impossible!

Don't give up working towards peace, but yes prepare for the inevitable purge Republicans salivate over daily. They are armed and organized, are you?

SocialistRA.org

Some of us aren't privileged to be on the bottom of the Republican hit list.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

We need to choose the option that delays fascism for another four years.

And then in four years we need to choose that same option.

And four years after that.

And four years after that.

And four years after that.

Just like every presidential election I've voted in.

This is why they don't need to worry about progressives. First, because the country isn't progressive at all. And second because they can always just tell them that if they don't vote they're enabling fascism.

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Since Bill Clinton until Trump the choices were between neoliberals and neoconservatives. Neoliberalism leads to fascism, so if we stick with neoliberalism it's going to become harder and harder to delay fascism. We need socialist candidates like Bernie Sanders to win the presidency and Congress. But we're stuck with the incumbent president for this election, which is typical of American politics. If our democracy lasts that long, we will have another shot at a progressive president in 2028.

Give the polling on progressive policies, it would seem the country's population is more progressive overall than our elected representatives. Republicans are definitely overrepresented. That means it is essential that as many progressives vote as possible to give Democrats room to move the left. All the Democrats are interested is being where the Overton window is in order to gain the most votes. Progressives have to shift the Overton window to the left by voting Blue if we want to see change. edit: typos

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I disagree that the country is progressive, because we have a government that represents us and there aren't that many progressives at any level of government.

Accepting that Americans are shitty and dumb makes it easier to understand why our government sucks ass.

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The country is more progressive than our current representatives. Our democracy has many different flaws in it, that have been there since the constitution was written, that undermine majority rule. Our current government does not accurately represent the population's views. Fascists are exploiting these flaws to perform their takeover. We need more people voting, especially progressives, to correct for these flaws. Mother Jones did a great job of reporting on this topic.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/04/minority-rule-is-threatening-american-democracy-like-never-before/

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Being more progressive than our current representation isn't hard, and doesn't make them "progressive."

And if progressives don't move to the flyover states en masse it won't matter how much they vote.

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

And if progressives don’t move to the flyover states en masse it won’t matter how much they vote.

There are progressives in every state. The margin of victory in swing states is so narrow that every vote counts. And even in non-swing states, there are plenty of races where progressive voters can make a difference. But more importantly, even if a progressive is in a non-swing state they should still vote, because it's important for Democrats to see that progressives make a sizable portion of the electorate and specifically their voting base across the country.

Being more progressive than our current representation isn’t hard, and doesn’t make them “progressive.”

No where in my argument did I say that being more progressive than their representatives make them progressives. Just that the current state of affairs in the United States with its current policies is not representative of the people. Whether that issue is abortion, trans rights, the minimum wage, universal healthcare, or whole host of other issues. The majority is not being represented properly at present on these issues. By assuming that where we are now as a country on these issues is reflective of the people is to miss an incredible opportunity. There is the potential to shift the Overton window to the left and radically change the US for the better. edit: typo

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Dude, fuck off. Your opinion doesn't matter, and if it's just that doing the best thing possible also sucks then it's not useful. Yeah, the system needs to change eventually, but I'm happy to vote for the person who is doing more good than most US presidents in my memory. Biden isn't who I'd choose, but he's much better than just a supporter of genocide or whatever. Under his administration the other day the FTC just banned non-compete clauses for example. It's all very quite, but the Biden administration has done much better than most US president.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Guy reiterated what any reasonably knowledgeable American voter already knows and almost equivocated over our choice like we actually have a choice. Well, we do… throw away votes by not voting or voting third party, voting for the trump disaster, or what constitutes our liberal party with Biden.

Unless you’re into fascism and a likely dictatorship, there’s really only one choice. The only people screaming about genocide and laying it at Biden’s feet are the same ones worshipping the military industrial complex.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Regardless, I feel like it would be hard for anyone that even slightly cares about the future to vote for either of these two earnestly...

Actually, I don't envy the American voter. And I certainly wouldn't want to vote in this election.

Yeah, this comment is a little more than just saying it sucks that we only have two choices. It's pretty much saying voting won't change anything, and they wouldn't feel compelled to vote. I'm about as left as they come, but Biden has been fairly good as far as US presidents go (which isn't very far in the past century or so). It's a really easy choice to advocate for, especially when the other party says and does what they do.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

There’s a lot of those. I’ve mentioned it before on this site, but there are a lot of posts intimating the futility of voting, how shitty the candidates are, blaming anyone who votes for Biden as a supporter of Israel, and often just straight-up blaming Biden for Israel’s actions. They really ramped up maybe two to three months ago.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Idk if I'm back on the accelerationist train or not yet

Voting as Fire Extinguisher

by Kyle Tran Myhre

When the haunted house catches fire: a moment of indecision.

The house was, after all, built on bones, and blood, and bad intentions.

Everyone who enters the house feels that overwhelming dread, the evil that perhaps only fire can purge.

It’s tempting to just let it burn.

And then I remember: there are children inside.

[–] ThePerfectLink@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago

Yes, I get that, but at what point do you start considering future children over the current children? Accelerationists are not deontologists, they are consequentialists. A child lost now is valued against the amount of children saved at some calculated point later.

No, the best way to convince an accelerationist that accelerationism is not the right play is to show that there will be no decently positive outcome. Which I'm inclined to agree with, since I can only imagine the continual election of populist figures such as Trump will only increase the divide between voters of the two parties. This'll create more violence, possibly destabilize the US, and could destabilize large parts of the western world due to policy, military vacuum, and emboldening of alt right groups. Now measure all those consequences against the possibility of an improvement in the political system and multiply that by likelihood. This, to me, seems like a very low gain, for the high likelihood of increased losses. So it should be preferable for accelerationists to go with Biden, since he's likely to bring about accelerationists goals too, but with less risk, but much slower.

Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that it's incredibly hard to vote earnestly rather than strategically.

[–] return2ozma@lemmy.world -2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I'm a true Leftist and it's incredibly frustrating seeing so many Democrats that just went back to sleep during Biden's presidency. People should be out in the streets protesting and fighting for a better future. They let Dems do basically nothing because "at least Biden's not Trump."

Most Americans just went back to sleep.

[–] Hazzia@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Hey man I have like a 4 hour daily commute I'm tired when I get home give me a break-

oh you meant colloquially. Right yeah I think a lot of people held so much tension in the preceding 4 years that the collective sigh of relief caused them all to pass out for the next 3. I think a few are starting to come out of hibernation, but I really hope they all get the sand out of their eyes before election day.

[–] Ultragigagigantic@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

Most people desire peace in their life, and will suffer greatly to maintain it. But it's getting harder for people to convince themselves that this is actually peace.

Yall call this civilization? It's the jungle with extra steps and concrete