this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2023
289 points (87.7% liked)

politics

19238 readers
2102 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

"We recognize that, in the next four years, our decision may cause us to have an even more difficult time. But we believe that this will give us a chance to recalibrate, and the Democrats will have to consider whether they want our votes or not."

That's gotta be one of the strangest reasonings I've heard in a while.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TrippyFocus@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

Everyone in the comments focusing on literally only this election and ignoring what they said in their reasoning.

Yes they understand if Trump wins it will be worse in the next 4 years. They’re hoping that the democrats realize that putting a candidate just slightly less evil isn’t good enough anymore and they actually need to win votes instead of saying “we support marginally less genocide then the republicans” and that being good enough.

Not saying that’s going to fully work out, but people acting likes that’s crazy aren’t seeing the full picture. At a certain point the democratic establishment needs to be punished for its bullshit lesser of two evils otherwise it’ll continue to do it. Is now the best time? Maybe not but thats a much more in depth analysis than just reacting “oh they must love Trump then!?”

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Punishing the lesser of two evils by rewarding the greater evil isn't going to lead in the direction you want it to.

[–] variaatio@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Just it will, it it makes the lesser of two evils to turn to be actually good, instead of lesser evil.

Ones power in democracy isn't in given ones vote It is in withholding it. Your vote is your hostage and the political party is the hostage negotiator trying to get it from you.

If you give away the hostage before the bargaining even begins, you have no leverage. You are nobody, non-entity. Your opinion and your interests don't matter. Since you always release the hostage, before the negotiating starts.

At some point in comparative lesser of two evils must come the moment of "in absolute measures the evil is too much, even the lesser evil". Withold vote and the egotistical lesser evil, who doesn't want to lose to the greater evil has to listen to your concerns and turn course.

Until the first moment you withhold vote, they can happily slide in behind the greater evil just two microns behind them in the evil slide.

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

I'll take those two microns over actively chasing fascism.

But we all know it's a whole fucking lot more than two microns.

[–] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Rewarding genocide with a vote will ensure genocide.

You support genocide if you vote Biden.

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Yes, yes, you're very clever. We get it.

One of two people is going to win the election in November. I'll take the one that isn't promising to deploy the military against anyone who doesn't vote for him.

[–] TrippyFocus@lemmy.ml -5 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Again they understand that for the next 4 years, the thought is after that

[–] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The last 4 years of a GOP president saw 3 supreme court seats that will cause brutal ripples though our country for 20-30yrs at least.

Thinking that "whatever happens will only last 4 yrs" is either wildly stupid or intentionally misleading.

[–] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago

It's a non-trivial assumption that there would even be a genuine election after that.

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

How well has that worked? Republicans won major victories in 2010 and 2016. Did we get a huge leftward swing between 2010-2016? Have Republicans been forced to moderate themselves since 2020?

There's a key mistake in your thinking. If Democrats lose, Republicans win, and when they win, they feel emboldened to push us as far right as possible. When they won in 2016, they took it as confirmation that Trumpism and fascism was the way to go.

Losing elections has never worked to push Democrats to the left. It's probably done the opposite actually, since Republican victories pull the country the other way.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The problem is that the Democratic Party interprets all losses as evidence that they haven't yet moved far enough to the right, and all wins as evidence that moving to the right works.

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They've been running on Clinton's "third way" for three decades.

AOC and the squad are finally starting to turn it around.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

They’ve been running on Clinton’s “third way” for three decades.

And will continue doing so, win or lose, until elections are no longer a thing.

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Yeah, I get what you're saying. What I'm saying is that if the farther right candidate wins, the next nominee is going to move right because that's where the voters are.

And that's ignoring the rest of the comments about if there will even be another election.

[–] MikuNPC@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago

So they will help put someone in power that will remove fair elections? That makes no sense as a long term plan, imo it's more likely they are trying to push democrats a certain way but are not truly entertaining the notion of voting for a fascist.

[–] Whattrees@lemmy.blahaj.zone 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, because that worked out so well last time a block of Dems threw a fit and decided not to vote. The party definitely learned a lesson and would never do something like 2016 again, right?

It literally is crazy. It's psychotic to think that the party would change their mind about the system that holds them in power after another 4 years of Trump, assuming we even get to have a real election again at all. Project 2025 anyone? It's psychotic to think that all the harm that will come from another 4 years of Trump, now with a grudge, nothing left to lose, and a playbook of how to not be stopped is somehow worth the hope that Dems will change their mind. You know what made the party pick Biden in 2020? The four years of hell before it. You know what will guarantee a "moderate" Dem as the only option in perpetuity? Another 4 years of Trump. Allowing him to win doesn't move the party left, it moves them right to try and get people who actually fucking vote from the middle to move over. The closest we ever came to an actually left president was after 8 years of a moderate Dem.

[–] TrippyFocus@lemmy.ml -3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I mean has going with the status quo worked for 50+ years (in the specific case of Palestine)? Clearly not? So makes sense they would try something else.

Just because the dems decide not to learn the actual lesson in 2016 means we should just eat shit forever?

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Just because the dems decide not to learn the actual lesson in 2016 means we should just eat shit forever?

As far as the party is concerned, we should like the taste of shit because they do.

[–] Whattrees@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The Dems have moved a LOT in 50 years in almost every aspect. You think the Dems of 50 years ago would have even tried to forgive student loans? Hell, even in 2016 it was laughed out of the park. Believe it or not, the Dems have moved on their position with Israel, just not enough to be hugely noticeable. The biggest change has been Israel increasing moving further right and the Dems staying where they have been/very slightly moving.

In the past few weeks we've seen Biden go from "Ceasefire is off the table" to "We helped organize a humanitarian pause." They just announced a plan to block violent settlers from the States. It's not much, and certainly not enough, but to act like the Dems have not moved on anything in 50 years is a level of stupid I cannot abide. Hell, the Dems of 50 years ago passed DOMA.

[–] mattw3496@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago

Why do you think they shifted their policy? It's because dem voters are threatening to not vote for them if they are shitty. Yeah, democrats have a problem with not voting together leading to 2016-like elections, but that type of event causes the party to correct themselves a little. It'd be better if they would actually learn the lesson though.

They won't because they are corporatists and reactionary, but maybe one day.

[–] banneryear1868@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Exactly if it's a system which requires the export of genocide how can you tell the people being genocided that they should consent to that. Isn't trying to pressure the better option to not genocide you a good thing?

[–] hessianerd@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

Don't act like if Trump wins this election he isnt going to try to stay in office again. Don't pretend that he won't erode the election process, or eliminate it if he could.

I don't like Biden. But look how close the fucking baboon came to overthrowing the government. Imagine him have competent people next time. People prepared to do what is necessary, to go as far as is necessary.

[–] kromem@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I'm sure there were a lot of protest votes making a similar rational choice against the increasingly unpopular and ineffective Social Democratic Party of Germany in 1933 too.

I saw their reasoning and it is flawed. We might not even get a 2028 election if Trump wins in 2024. We are heading to a christofascist dictatorship under the Republican party. Once they get power they are going to do everything they can to keep it.

It takes activism between elections to push the Democratic party further to the left. Abstaining spits in the face of our democracy and the people fighting to keep it. It does nothing to influence Democratic politicians.

We live in a two party system. If you are against one presidential candidate, then you are helping the other presidential candidate. Attempting to make Biden lose makes them pro-Trump, as Trump ultimately beneifts. They can say it is long term thinking, but that doesn't change the fact that Trump put three supreme court judges and many more lower court judges into office in one, four year term. Giving Republicans control is going to set us back decades.

[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee -4 points 1 year ago

It would be harder for Biden to get elected without support for the Jewish community, which leans heavily Democratic. I'm sure he's winning plenty of Jewish voters to make up for whatever loss this amounts to, if any.