• heavyboots@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    179
    ·
    1 year ago

    Slightly OT, but this is also why we absolutely need ranked voting ASAP. How much better would a candidate like Sanders do if people knew that voting for him as first choice and Biden as second was possible?

    • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      67
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well he lost the primaries, which is when you vote for the candidate you really want. But he lost the primaries because the DNC aired a never ending stream of bullshit telling the people it was impossible for Sanders to win, and then pointing to the current super delegate polls as evidence. Idk why people are terrified of voting for a losing candidate in the primaries though. Who gives a fuck if your vote loses in the primaries? You should vote for the candidate you want, not the one you think is going to win. It’s not a casino bet.

      • AWistfulNihilist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        34
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        The closed primary system is just so fucked in general, these are private organizations that can do whatever they want, the DNC and the RNC.

        I still don’t like Debbie Wasserman Schultz. She was literally marched out of the DNC office because of the bias she showed towards Hillary Clinton in leaked emails. Then she gets hired by the Clinton campaign!

        Shit was so crazy.

        • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Decades ago I changed my voter registration just because I was tired of not being able to vote in the primaries. I think they’ve changed that since then, but I don’t know, since it doesn’t impact me anymore.

          • JonTheKnight@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think some states require that you be registered to the party for primaries and some have open primaries.

      • MisterFrog@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        1 year ago

        The thing is, because the final vote for president isn’t ranked choice, the spoiler effect is also spoiling the primary. People will vote for the candidate they think can will at the national level, else Trump might win.

        If you had ranked choice voting at the actual election, only then would the spoiler effect be fixed.

      • khannie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Now no offence to the US political system but the primaries are a symptom of a two party system.

        Without them and with ranked choice voting, y’all would have had Sanders (edit: in 2016) and we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

        Much love. I mean it.

      • Thief_of_Crows@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        The left-ish party did the exact same thing to Teddy Roosevelt in 1916. They chose to fall on their sword and get a slavery denier in office rather than let the somewhat progressive (for the time) Roosevelt be their candidate (at the time, Roosevelt was allowed to run for a 3rd term). Liberals do not care about making things better, they care about protecting the status quo. Roosevelt would have won if not for liberal interference via their backing of Taft, just like Bernie would have.

        • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          I remember learning from my college history professor that when Upton Sinclair ran for governor of California, the Democrats teamed up with the Republicans to ensure he did not win. They would rather lose than let a socialist run the state. Even with their meddling he very nearly won the election with 37% of the votes. That is a lesson the American people should really take to heart. The established parties have more in common with each other than they do with their constituency.

        • Wiz@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Liberals do not care about making things better, they care about protecting the status quo.

          Thanks for the snort-laugh.

      • heavyboots@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, but I remember numerous people being like “Well he could never win against Trump, so I’m voting for Biden.”

    • flames5123@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ranked choice isn’t that much better. It is better, but very slightly. We need to implement STAR, which is vastly better even at its worst. Essentially, it’s just a 0-5 vote for candidates, and any empty is a 0. It allows you to rank some at the same and then some as “better than nothing” leading to a well rounded choice that most people approve of.

    • blazera@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      People love ranked choice voting but not whats involved with getting it instituted.

          • acockworkorange@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Here’s an interesting anecdote. The people of Shelby County, TN elected to enact ranked choice voting in the county (it was a ballot option 2 elections ago). It hasn’t been signed into law yet.

            So at least in this case, I’d say the problem isn’t people not voting, it’s nefarious agents succeeding in subverting the feeble democratic processes in this country to act against the people’s interest.

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

          Israel wasnt openly doing genocide then. Trump wasn’t giving weekly press conferences confirming his support for genocide. Trump wasn’t repeating blatantly obvious fake news about a genocide (he saved that for things he cared about). And what’s more, he got us OUT of the war that Biden and Obama perpetuated for their entire 8 years. Forget all the nonsense, none of that matters in the face of genocide. One guy is actively aiding in it, and the other most likely couldn’t give 2 shits about it, due to it not being a potential scam. I choose the guy who isn’t openly supporting genocide.

    • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I am not familiar with the US system. Is it really realistic that a US president can abolish or fundamentally change the rules around the democratic process?

      • Soulg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not him specifically, but there are multiple plans and machinations in motion, by other Republicans, to stack every level of government with 10s of thousands of loyalists who will do whatever they want, so that if he tried 2020 again, they’ll just roll over and enact it.

      • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        A lot of our best institutions are based on gentleman’s agreements. If our representatives must ignore the processes we’ve come to expect, because those processes were never actually written down or coded into law… Yeah, the president has an unbelievable amount of uncheckable power to make the government just not run as intended.

        The basic hypothesis is that if the president did something treasonous, he could be arrested by the military, who are sworn to protect the Constitution.

        He couldnt change the rules, because our legislators do that, and its all written in the Constitution. But he could fail to appoint people, appoint people to multiple cabinet positions, or some other weird ways to get around this.

      • OceanSoap@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, what you’re reading here is over the top fear mongering to try and get people to vote for their side. That why everyone who doesn’t toe the line are now “facist.” Because if you can get people to become afraid they’ll vote against their own interests (and as much as they like to claim they do, the DNC in no way is working in our own interests)

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

      Politicalhumor both on Reddit and here is for agendaposting. There is no funny to be had.

      And before you down vote me, I’m not republican or conservative in any fashion.

  • rekabis@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    As a Canadian looking from the outside in, it really does seem to be trending in that direction… any further Republican wins will mean the end of democracy, with America sliding into a ChristoFascist Autocracy.

    I fear for my American neighbours, but we have similar problems up here; we just happen to be a decade or so behind you folk.

      • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        No. Did you know they wanted to send international observers for the last election because of worries that the US no longer adheres to democratic process? They were turned away, of course.

        You know, like in third world nations and dictatorships.

        • TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          In political science terms it’s what we call a “flawed democracy,” meaning that it has some but not all the features of an actual democracy.

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

      Also Canadian. We are certainly on the same path. It feels like everyone around our part of the country is a “fuck Trudeau” type that just clearly wants the 1950’s to return and women where they should be. As a very liberal but not so political person it’s kinda scary.

      • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you remember when Trudeau was first elected, they called him the Selfie King or some idiotic shit like that. Like, the fact that he took photos with young people is somehow a reason to hate him. The propaganda and astroturfing has been ongoing for 8 years. It’s called “foreign interference”.

    • OceanSoap@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      A republican win does not mean the end of democracy, just like it didn’t last time.

      • Mossy Feathers (She/They)@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        It actually potentially does. I’d suggest looking into Project 2025. If you’re not familiar with it, it’s a political battle plan being put forward by a bunch of hard-right think tanks with substantial connections which would effectively establish a theocracy in the US. My understanding is that part of the plan hinges on the president basically removing anyone who can stop him and replace them with sycophants (which they’re currently populating a list of). The idea is that if they’re able to remove enough people, they can do whatever they want. They don’t need a majority in the supreme court or house of representatives because they can just ignore them; the sycophants will follow whatever orders they’re given regardless of what the house or court says.

        To put it another way, they’ve realized the house and scotus only have power if that power is respected; if they remove anyone in-between the president and the other branches who’d say “no” and replace them with yes-men, then there’s no one to stop the president from doing whatever he wants. That said, I’d be willing to bet the moment the president says “no” to the scotus is the moment they’ll make a show of how much power they truly have, but it’ll get really bloody if that happens.

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

          You know Lincoln told the supreme court to fuck off right? Was he “dictator” was it the end of democracy? Were people like you reading bathroom scrawling and screeching about project 1862?

          • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            That was a completely different situation ENTIRELY. Lincoln’s Republican party resembles nothing of what the GOP is.

          • Mossy Feathers (She/They)@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            There was also a civil war under Lincoln. Additionally, last time I checked Lincoln also wasn’t trying to overthrow the entire government and replace it with a theocracy. He was trying to abolish slavery. Reducing the country’s authoritarianism is kinda the opposite of what Trump & Co. are trying to achieve.

            That is such a poor comparison that I’m seriously wondering if you’re trolling. If so, 4/10, you got me respond but your comparison is so poor that it left me questioning whether or not it was genuine.

      • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Just like it didn’t last time because we managed to avert the attempt? You’re right, let’s give the same people another go, I’m sure they’ve given up on that idea by now.

        • OceanSoap@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Avert it how, by voting him out? Which he followed by stepping down?

          People say his fighting the results in courts are proof of him trying to overthrow, but it’s not, it’s proof that he used the system correctly, in the legal ways he could. He may still claim to have won, but his actions are not that of a dictator attempting to overthrow democracy.

          That being said, it’s still not clear who the republican nominee will end up being.

  • Rosco@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t know much about US politics, but is Biden the only choice you have besides voting for Trump? There’s zero alternatives? I’ve seen in the comments that people prefer Biden to other democrat candidates, because he already beat Trump already, so it has better chances to beat him again. But realistically, it seems like everyone hates Trump with a burning passion, so any Democrat that is not batshit insane and totally incompetent would beat him, right? Seems like an easy win.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s a first past the post system with only two major political parties. That means the choice is either the selected Democrat or the selected Republican, who are elected via a complex primary process that differs from state to state.

      Voting third party in the U.S. achieves absolutely nothing. Especially when there are almost never third party choices for lower office, aside from the libertarians and they’re nuts. If you are determined to not vote for any Democrats or Republicans, your vote has the same effect as staying home and not voting.

      I would love this to change, but I don’t foresee that happening anytime soon.

      • Metatronz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Hey, chin up. If the batshit nuts right wing of the GOP keep going the way they are maybe we’ll get a brand spanking new fascist third party. Lol, third party achieved!

        Tangent for a moment: I’m kind of curious, if we could somehow encourage more stupidity on the right. Perhaps, the GOP would fracture into two parties.

        In the short term, it could give Dems a large say in everything. Bolstered by the fact that the hard right is very performative and not really interested in doing any real work. In the more medium term, maybe that would finally give some freedom to open the door for more Dems and voters to peel off into yet another party.

        I guess at that point, the danger is the right would then realize the situation. Rally their fractured party and completely ice out Dems and whatever left party that came out of the above. Multipolar politics at the party level could get really freaking scary too.

      • lad@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I guess their point was “maybe the Democrats may choose someone else for the next elections”

        The answer stays the same, likely, that they don’t have many to choose from, I dunno ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

      • Bonskreeskreeskree@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        It does not achieve absolutely nothing. It sends a message of policy requirements to obtain a percentage of votes. Meaning, if dems lose enough elections by a margin that is seen voting elsewhere they will have to move their policy to secure those votes and start winning again. The problem now is with trump threatening our freedoms and democracy, we can’t afford to teach those stubborn centrists a lesson in true progressive policy.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          I see, so Trump has to win in order to teach Democrats a lesson and you will teach them that by doing something they will never know you did.

          That doesn’t seem especially rational to me.

          • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            You know what is even less rational? Parroting the same shit that has been repeated ad nauseum by liberals for the past 40 years and then expecting an improved outcome.

        • lingh0e@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s not how this works. That’s not how any of this works.

          Democrats losing your vote to a 3rd party doesn’t trigger some kind of response within the party that will push them to embrace the tactics of the 3rd party that siphoned off your vote. If anything, it demonstrates to them that they should maybe push further right in an attempt to court Trump voters. But it’s cute that you believe you’re making a difference.

          Congratulations. Instead of holding your nose and voting for the one guy who COULD beat trump and avoid sending the country into fascism, your principled stand allowed a fascist to rise to power AND sent Democrats the message that people prefer fascism.

        • pingveno@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          What this actually does is tell the Democratic Party that you’re unreliable and shouldn’t be catered to. Have you ever noticed how the Democratic Party gives a disproportionately prominent place to Black women? That’s because they have a long history of getting themselves involved and working to get others to the polls. Effective activists work as part of something greater.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      So what you’re talking about is a primary contender from the democratic party, but generally the incumbent party doesn’t have a primary for the president. Your only real options are the Democrat (Biden, unless he dies), or the Republican (looking like Trump, but they will have a primary). You can vote for other people, but it doesn’t do anything. You might as well try to get the better option than choosing not to vote out of spite, and getting whatever happens regardless.

    • Patapon Enjoyer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      There’s zero alternatives?

      Well, no, but actually yes.

      Legend tells that the primaries are where the vote for your candidate of choice actually counts, but as 2016 showed, they are allowed to and will happpily ignore it in favor of the party’s selected ghoul.

      So, yeah, it’s a pick between the mostly bad and the completely utterly awful.

  • Drinvictus@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    74
    arrow-down
    42
    ·
    1 year ago

    This was the same promise in 2020. And yet here we are. Democrats should have done better than beg to save democracy one more time.

    • MrVilliam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      67
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Preserving democracy was never going to be a single-step solution process. It takes consistent, persistent work to not only expand, but to just maintain our liberty for all. It’s a tower defense strategy game.

      At the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, a lady asked Benjamin Franklin “Well Doctor what have we got, a republic or a monarchy.” Franklin replied, “A republic . . . if you can keep it.” This existential threat has always been there and it’s something to always be wary of. It’s exhausting, but it’s worth it. Freedom ain’t free.

      • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        It wasn’t really a concern until recently. We didn’t have constant threats against democracy from within our own government when I was a kid.

        • ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          So, Nixon & Watergate wasn’t a threat?

          Citizens United wasn’t a threat?

          And don’t forget the constant attempts of voter ID laws in Republican states.

          Gerrymandering by incumbent parties.

          Poling booth closures and inaccessibility.

          As five examples of an endless, constant stream from Republicans.

          You just have no fucking idea what you’re talking about.

        • Stegget@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Until recently? We had a little thing called the Civil War that was a bit of a speed bump, too.

          • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s why I added the part about “when I was a kid”. I suppose I should have clarified that I’m talking about within my lifetime. There have definitely been other dark moments in our history.

            • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              To be fair “when I was a kid” is a rough estimation that typically can range about a 0-60 year timespan or more.

        • TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s cyclical. There was an uncannily similar fascist movement in the US immediately prior to WW2. We had members of Congress on the Nazi payroll, for example. It’s happening again; fascism and authoritarianism are on the rise across the globe.

        • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          You can just tell everyone you are an idiot instead of suggesting you know something they don’t.

    • money_loo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      41
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      “You ever notice whenever the republicans do something terrible or prevent something good from happening, it’s always the democrats fault?” -Fucking idiots everywhere.

      • Drinvictus@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah but we don’t have to eat shit to survive do we? So why the fuck are we acting like Biden was our only choice. What kind of stupid analogy is this?

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

      In 2028 a mummified version of Biden will be put forward as candidate until 2032, when a new act in place allow for digital avatars to be president and digital Obama comes back with Yes We Can, Again!

    • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      And it will happen again and again since the DNC and DGA fund fringe GOP candidates as an ongoing tactic. But that unhappy fact will take a few more election cycles before the non-political folk catch on to the grift.

      • paysrenttobirds@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The new existence of this fringe took everyone left of Lindsey Graham by surprise in 2016. It’s not conspiracies all the way down. These people exist and the sooner we realize the center is not where we imagined it was the sooner we can get on with governing and protecting the whole country and not just the little blue parts that like us.

        • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Uh, no dude, i’m talking about an existing tactic in use by the Democratic party, which you can find editorials on in like Newsweek n’ shit. Dems are doing this in the open, as it is not illegal.

          I’m not deep webbin’ dawg, you are simply lacking info. Read something first. Then you are allowed an opinion.

          Didn’t read it? Stop being a waste of everyone’s time

          EDIT: clarity, grammar, extra “esteem”

          • paysrenttobirds@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t disagree with that, all I’m saying is almost 50% of America really is ready to risk tearing it all down and the truth is only a small number of them would be willing to vote Democrat under any circumstances. For both Democrats and center Republicans, divide and conquer seems the only available strategy. A true third party is the hope of many, but I don’t think they could be left of Biden, and the space on the right is a madhouse. They’d have to basically fall from space in a shower of glory to cut through the mud at this point

            • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              50% of America really is ready to risk tearing it all down

              A true third party is the hope of many

              I don’t often say this, (cuz what’s the point?) but i’m one of those who has given up on voting Dem. I voted for joe, knowing i hated him in '20. My vote was my parting gift to the party after being a donating member for ~20 years.

              I don’t advocate for others to give up, but after many years of their tomfoolery and lies, the only path forward is to find that third party and start voting for it. Is it a great plan?

              No. It’s not even an ok plan. but its the one I’m rolling with, cuz why would i vote for a party who would rather entreat and berate than earn? I cannot tell you how much rage i feel inside at their sounding the alarm when i watched them start the fire

          • EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Hell, a Democrat published a book a few years ago about how she did exactly that to win an election. And then she lost to that same nutjob in the very next election!

  • 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.

    • 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?

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

        That most political action happens outside of voting for president. Ofc having a friendly presidency helps a lot for all the other political action, and rn its a choice between an Establishment Dem and a fascist, but having a friendly presidency alone does little for real change.

  • Hildegarde@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    32
    ·
    1 year ago

    Joe Biden has the authority to resign. Joe Biden can choose to not run in 2024. If he cared about preserving democracy, he would let someone more electible take his place.

    If things go wrong, it’s the fault of the people in power.

    • Mnemnosyne@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      46
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Joe Biden has already beat Donald Trump in an election. More electable makes no sense in this context.

      The only way Biden could lose is if some of the people who voted for him last time, after everything that’s happened since Trump lost the election, decide ‘ehh, that Trump guy wasn’t so bad, let’s give him another shot’ and decide not to vote against Trump.

    • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      The incumbent president has only lost 10 times in US history (and one of those was Trump). Biden already beat Trump once. Who has a better resume than that?

      Seriously. Tell us a name.

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

        Not to mention Biden actually had a great run and got a shitload done, but this is what you get when you have 24/7 banana republic propaganda blaring in people’s homes.

        • TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Also Lemmy itself. This place is a cesspool of mis and disinformation. I come here to waste a little time mindlessly doom-scrolling and shouting into the void, not because I actually think that I’ll find informed, intelligent and insightful comments.

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

      Why isn’t he electable? He was already elected. Are you saying he’s old? Trump is 3 years younger. Before Biden, Trump was the oldest president of all time.

    • Cruxifux@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      33
      ·
      1 year ago

      Came here to say this. If the dems actually cared about winning and preserving any last inkling of democracy the states still has then they would replace Biden with literally any other candidate.

      • _stranger_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        34
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’m all ears, who would be the better candidate? Because I want that person running for Senate in all the states that might be up for grabs.

        The president won’t matter if we lose control of the Senate AND the house. Well either be fucked or stuck in a deadlock like we are now

      • hglman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nah, it’s bugs. This shit is 234 years old. The failure of fptp nor primaries was part of the plan.

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

          FPTP was used by England since the middle ages. I don’t believe anyone worked out the math until much later than 1776. It was just a fairly old tradition.

          • hglman@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Exactly, fptp is fine in small groups and for single issues. How it fails at national scales was something unknown.

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

              The fact that it was something unknown, directly implies that it wasn’t “part of the plan,” as you already directly stated. The founding fathers were working with the best tools they could, they still made mistakes, but that’s a totally different argument.

              The plan was completely derailed between 1874 and 1929. The (completely unnamed in any documents) Secretary of The Congress illegally revised statute 1983 of the federal code in 1874, and no one noticed and alerted the general public until 5/15/23.

              In 1929 The House of Representatives decided that they would stop actually legislating by fixing the number of Representatives to the 1930 census, and never bothering to expand The House ever again, despite The Constitution saying that no Representative shall represent more than 250,000-500,000 constituents.

              These two actions by dubious actors in the latter case, and a traitor to the constitution in the former case, have caused almost 90% of the issues we currently have in The US, trying to hold anyone accountable, or trying to elect officials that will bother listening to us.

  • xarexyouxmadx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the same tired line we have to hear every 4 years. It’s been a substitute for concrete policy and it’s gotten all of us nowhere.

  • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s sad how the US spends trillions on defense, when all it takes to seize control over the nation is some bottom tier Dollar Store propaganda that any third world nation could afford.

  • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    Man the Democratic Party this election cycle has just been working overtime to invite the conversational wedge between ‘saving american democracy from fascism’ and ‘voting against Trump.’

    I guess that’s what the donor class wants this time: “Do nothing but vote.”

    • rDrDr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s what they want every time. Obama had to be shoved down their throats.

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        At first. He campaigned as a progressive the first time, but they soon taught him how to govern like a Clintonesque neoliberal 90%+ of the time while constantly promoting the (at the very most) 10% of what he did as president that benefitted regular people more than the already rich and powerful, their corporations and their hedge funds.

        • Wiz@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s a pretty unfair analysis of Obama, if you look at Congress during those 8 years.

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

            Not really, no. His own uninspired leadership is almost half as big a part of it as the 2010 redistricting plot. Not every bad idea or capitulation was because of Congress.