• vaseltarp@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I look at this fom a far and i wonder: Why do the democrats not just get a younger more capable person to vote for?

    • Final Remix@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because they’re part of the system run by the wealthy and powerful, and younger peeps not only have to claw their way into that microcosm, but are often then bought out / corrupted by that very system.

    • endhits@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Democrats are a party of capital, which resist the young for two reasons:

      1. They do not hold capital in any capacity that can be compared to older generations

      2. As a result, they are overwhelmingly more anti-capital than previous generations.

    • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      In practice the Democratic Party establishment simply does not want a younger or more capable person.

      Old and/or ineffectual is the perfect candidate for the corporate donor class.

      • fosforus
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I seem to remember from recent history a young black president who served 2 terms.

        Somehow Democrats looked at that and said to themselves “no, we don’t want any of that”. Or perhaps Biden was just promised a presidency during/due to his vice presidency and they had to deliver?

        • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The key factor here is Citizens United and SpeechNow occurred during his first term. Corporate donors bought out the Democratic Party immediately into suppressing or mitigating any progressive policy being passed.

          It can be hard to remember that America pretty much had a corporate uniparty with the Democrats from 2010-2016.

    • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because Biden’s flaw isn’t his age. That’s the propaganda. Biden’s flaw is that most of America are mouth-breathing retards that don’t understand what political ideology is and vote for the guy who says “it’s not your fault, it’s that guy’s fault!”

      • vaseltarp@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        the guy who says “it’s not your fault, it’s that guy’s fault!”

        Aren’t that both of them?

    • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because they are as corrupt as the Republicans are. The democratic party will never fix America only a third party can.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        The ‘viable’ third party candidates in my lifetime so far have been Ross Perot, Ralph Nader and RFK, Jr. None of them had a real chance and all of them were one flavor or another of crazy.

        So maybe a third party can fix things, but none of the ones that have ever had a chance within the past 46 years.

        • Bonskreeskreeskree@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ron Paul was viable but ran as a republican and got the establishment treatment despite insane support from the younger generations. His party prevented him from being a 2nd name on the ballot for Republicans. Then many years later, the exact same thing happened to Bernie who was fucked over from a 2nd spot on the ballot by a last second rule change vote at the democratic convention when the nays clearly outweighed the yays. Both times those respective parties lost those elections. Both times they would have won should they have gone with the people that would have brought about change to our political systems. The establishment doesn’t care about losing. Only preserving itself.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            The libertarian racist Ron Paul was not in any way viable. That’s nonsense. You show me a single poll where it showed like he would have made it into the Oval Office if he had done things differently.

            I know you Ron Paul fans think he’s awesome, but he’s a paeloconservative shitbag that would rather people die in the streets than tax the rich.

        • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          Once you’re so far gone that you will only choose between “genocide guy” and “a little more genocide guy” it’s Joever.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Okay. Name the candidate aside from Trump or Biden that has a good chance of winning in 2024. Go ahead. Because otherwise, as I keep suggesting, it looks to me like a vote for someone else is no better than no vote at all.

            I keep asking what it achieves and I’m not getting an answer.

            If all you care about achieving is “I feel good about myself,” fine. But that doesn’t seem like a reason to make the effort to vote.

                • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Well you better stop voting for the parties of Capital then. Your vote is already almost meaningless, so use it to make a better world before its too late!

            • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              1 year ago

              Whichever you want.

              The Liberatian party seems like a decent alternative to the Dems so you could go for Jo Jorgensen. But anything that isn’t Republican or Democrats is a requirement for a moral vote.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                The Liberatian party seems like a decent alternative to the Dems so you could go for Jo Jorgensen.

                In what way are Libertarians an alternative to Democrats? Democrats want a strong social safety net and Libertarians want a government so small you could drown it in a bathtub.

                You either know nothing about Libertarians or nothing about Democrats.

                • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  If you care about the cultural freedoms they’re the same. Also the non intervention policies are a lot better than throwning all your money into the military industrial complex which you seem to call “Healthcare”.

                  Else you got the Greens.

                  Unless of course you want everything the Democrats do including the genocide part. Then I can’t help ya.

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    They’re not even close to the same. I have never heard a libertarian say that taxes should be raised on the rich to pay for social services. Every libertarian I have ever talked to or read about is against all taxation and thinks everything should be privatized. They’re as far apart politically as you can get.

                    As for healthcare, please do show me the libertarian that wants universal healthcare paid for by taxes.

    • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      How would that help old fucks like Feinstein (rest in piss), Pelosi, Biden et al make more money or their corporate masters though?