Yeah, it was too much voting by the young and lefties in 2016 that put Trump in power, don’t you remember?
Two days old and the memes already aging well as Bidens campaign says they don’t want to reform the Supreme Court.
Oof.
Put a sword in my hand and I’ll fight. Don’t give me a rusty metal stick.
To my American friends: Please don’t give up hope yet! As the GOP is very closely communicating with Fidesz, they’re banking on activist burnout. They want to break you, so you not only won’t do anymore activism, but to maybe even join them finally in the hopes of getting something from them finally. After the next Trump victory, they’ll likely also copy one another thing from Hungary, namely the firing of leftists, to force them to convert to conservatism.
I’m actually tired of being blackmailed with fascism.
In my country we had maybe five elections in a row where the premise was “it is us or fascism”. And yes, fascism is there but… COULD YOU ACTUALLY MAKE THINGS GOOD AND WORK FOR IMPROVING YOUR PEOPLE LIVES!!? I don’t want my choice to be die shot down or slowly being impoverished until life is no longer any good. I want to actually have a good life, and enabling “just not fascism ™” is not doing it.
If people win on that type of rhetoric, it means the fascists are part of the electoral strategy, meaning it’s not in their interests for the fascists to go away, because how will they win votes then?
voting is pointless, just reinforces ruling class, you are not subject of social change but an object to manipulate with and blackmail with every mean possible
I have some bad news for you if you think the ruling class gives one wet fart whether or not people vote.
“Not voting” doesn’t matter to a corrupt politician, they don’t care if you stay home. There will never be a voter turnout so low that the ruling class will go “oh shucks, they all stopped voting I guess we have to give up our wealth and power now.”
Voting is not the solution to the problems that plague our society, but just like how putting out a wildfire doesn’t solve climate change, you still put the fire out before it burns a bunch of shit down.
You don’t put the fire out by voting, you put the fire out with guillotines.
As that one fucking taco commercial put it: ¿Por qué no los dos?
maybe because neoliberalism is not the right tool to fight back against fascism
But without neoliberalism, who will protect us from the Far-Left Authoritarian Tankies?
Wierdos on lemmy not bringing up tankies in conversations that have nothing to do with them challenge level impossible.
But without neoliberalism, who will protect us from
the Far-Left Authoritarian Tankies?being able to live happily on a single income!!Having to work 3 jobs to scrape by is a small price to pay for corporations to further consolidate our economy into the pockets of like 10-20 people.
Anything less is tankie, now shut up and go find a 4th job commie!
The more jobs you have, the more means of production you control, obviously. /s
Any anti-authoritarian ideology, especially some of the other far-left ones like libertarian communism, anarchism, etc. It’s not a world with only fascists, tankies, and neoliberals.
libertarian communism, anarchism, etc
Famous for their large, robust, and enduring governing institutions.
libertarian communism, anarchism, etc
famous for their large, robust, and enduring governing institutions.
Do you know what these words mean? It seems like you don’t, and you have resorted to speaking out of your ass.
Anarchism is a political philosophy against all unjust hierarchies, including the state and capitalism. It exists directly in opposition to what you are claiming.
Libertarian communism, even though it has the word that is probably scaring you, is usually pretty anti-government and strives for a minimal state, and self-government. A lot of the more marxist bookchinites I’ve met consider themselves libertarian communists.
Anarchism is a political philosophy against all unjust hierarchies, including the state and capitalism.
Unfortunately, its been tightly aligned with capitalism over the last half century. The whole Network State movement in California is a capitalist wet dream. Nevermind the various failed projects in Liberland or the Republic of Minerva, which ended up as little more than failed colonial projects.
Then you’ve got Anarchist figurehead Milei out in Argentina absolutely shredding civil liberties and public services for his own personal profit.
Fucking reprehensible.
Libertarian communism, even though it has the word that is probably scaring you, is usually pretty anti-government and strives for a minimal state, and self-government.
Name one actual libertarian commune.
unfortunately its been tightly aligned with capitalism over the last half century.
Clearly you know nothing about anarchism. Stop speaking about it like you know what you are talking about.
That’s simply not anarchism. Over the last half century, there has been an effort to co-opt it by the right. Libertarianism is literally a left wing philosophy in most other parts of the world, but some dunce-muppet named Murray Rothbard stole it as his own (p83) and on this page he even admits that it was a word used by anarchists, which he distances himself from. One of the foundational anarchist thinkers, Proudhon, literally says “Property is theft,” a complete rejection of fundamental property rights needed for an “an”cap society.
Stealing words from the lefties isn’t anything new, the Nazi party did with their “National Socialism” (granted there’s some interesting history with it. Even though all of the nominally economically left wing nazis were killed in the night of long knives, they kept the socialist bit). But to say Nazism was ever socialist would be parroting a pathetic right wing talking point that should have died a long time ago.
If you ignore the entirety of anarchist thought, throughout well over 180 years of development and practice, where hundreds of thousands of people fought against authoritarianism, fascism, and capitalism, you could only lie through your teeth when saying shit that wack. Or, you would have to not know anything that you are talking about.
To say that failed “anarcho”-capitalist projects are the fault of anarchism, an ideology that rose in opposition to capitalism is ignorant.
And to consider Milei an anarchist, someone who is weilding the power of the state in service of right wing ultra-neoliberalism, you would have to be insane. If you don’t take my word that as anarchists we hate Milei, how about you check out this Crimethinc. article on Milei covering the topic from the perspective of an argentine anarchist.
I’m not a libertarian communist so my knowledge of this stuff is lacking, but I do know that Rojava, a radically feminist experiment inspired by Bookchin’s later works. It is based in NE Syria has been doing decently well. Especially considering it is under constant attack from the Turkish government, the second largest NATO military. They even managed to push out ISIS, which is an impressive feat for a new government. While they haven’t gotten rid of capitalism, they aren’t fully capitalist.
If you paid attention to the news during the trump years you might know of trump betraying the Kurds, which is usually how the media refered to Rojava.
Edit: fixed typo
Clearly you know nothing about anarchism.
This is the Anarchism At Home. If you want 19th century European anarchism, you’re going to need a boat and a time machine.
Rojava, a radically feminist experiment inspired by Bookchin’s later works. It is based in NE Syria has been doing decently well.
It’s a heavily armed Kurdish cut out that exists primary to fight proxy wars with Turkyie and the remnants of the Iraqi military. It has some excellent press around it, thanks to US/UK media needing a progressive champion in a region where everyone hates us. But there’s a word for a minority militant left wing proxy force.
Tankies.
This is the single most ridiculous post I’ve read on the Internet today.
“Anarchist figurehead Milei”. What are you smoking? It sounds like you think “anarchist” is synonymous with right wing “libertarian” or you think “anarcho-capitalists” are somehow anarchists, even though it’s an oxymoron.
Please 🙏🏻 I implore you, read any basic anarchist literature like Mutual Aid: A factor in evolution, the conquest of bread, Anarchy by Malatesta, Are you an anarchist? by Graeber, Anarchy Works by Gelderloos.
You are severely misguided.
What are you smoking?
you think “anarcho-capitalists” are somehow anarchists
The AnCaps bill themselves as Anarchists, adopt anarchist rhetoric and policy as it suits them, and fill mass media with their propaganda. They’re the only anarchists Western countries actually recognize.
read any basic anarchist literature like Mutual Aid: A factor in evolution, the conquest of bread, Anarchy by Malatesta, Are you an anarchist? by Graeber, Anarchy Works by Gelderloos.
I physically can’t find them under the waterfall of Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, and Peter Theil books crowding out the shelf space in my local book store.
Are these “tankies” in the room with you now?
This is Lemmy, so, yeah, pretty much all over.
“There’s no such thing as tankies” is the weirdest doublethink propaganda I’ve seen in a while.
“There’s no such thing as tankies” is the weirdest doublethink propaganda I’ve seen in a while.
Is that what you think I said? Interesting.
What do you think you said? Because I took that as questioning their existence as well.
What do you think you said? Because I took that as questioning their existence as well.
What I didn’t say was “there is no such thing as tankies”. And what I implied, albeit subtlety, was that people bandy about this term so freely that it can really only be taken as “people I disagree with who might be leftist-ish”. The use of the term has morphed so much over many decades that it means essentially nothing… or, “whatever I say it means”.
It means: “Leftist” Who defends/supports regimes like Russia and China, and their use of Tanks to suppress thier opposition, hence the term.
It gets bandied about on Lemmy like crazy because theres a crazy amount of Tankies on Lemmy
Doubling down, too. Fascinating.
Doubling down, too. Fascinating.
Doubling down on what tho?
The leftist fifth columnist menace is the single greatest threat to American freedom and liberty.
The leftist fifth columnist menace is the single greatest threat to American freedom and liberty.
Sure grandpa, sure. Let’s get you to bed!
Not before I’ve finished posting to Facebook!
quick reminder: Democrats have had control of house, senate, white house exactly 4 months of the last 44 years. There’s been little opportunity for the ‘fight back’ part where they fight for democracy when most of their time is undoing the absolute worst of the fascists’ hate-ball of regulations. THAT’s the exhausting part.
There’s also the fact that even when they have absolute control by the numbers, reality doesn’t really reflect that; The democrat party is not united, and is full of politicians who will refuse to follow the party line unless the party bends over backwards for them.
“Oh, you want me to vote to stop fascism? Sure, I’ll be happy to do that, as long as you add funding for a brand new bridge in my home state.” Repeat ad nauseam until you have a horribly bloated bill that nobody actually wants to vote for.
Oh, you want me to vote to stop fascism?
The real joke of the Democratic Party is running Coal Baron Joe Manchin to replace former KKK member Robert Byrd, on the grounds that only these two people can keep the US Senate free of fascism.
Meanwhile, you’ve got guys like Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley glad-handing J6ers minutes before they storm the capital, and Biden’s AG just kinda shrugs and says “Nothin’ we can do! There’s not a single law on the books that makes conspiring to overthrow the federal government illegal.”
“Nothin’ we can do! There’s not a single law on the books that makes conspiring to overthrow the federal government illegal.”
Funny thing is as soon as you or I plan that and they smell any hint of socialism/leftism in our language suddenly they’ll have 35287253381 laws that they’ll throw all of at us for a combined prison sentence that’s longer than the eventual heat death of the universe.
Or they’ll just send a few cops around back to suicide us.
In a potential future where Democrats own 100% of the senate, and nobody sane is voting GOP, it’s also possible for third party candidates to make progress in elections since no one has fear of a batshit lunatic getting into office.
In a potential future where Democrats own 100% of the senate
it’s also possible for third party candidates to make progress in elections
Once Democrats control 100% of the Senate, we can finally run a Green Party candidate in the brightest blue state who will lose to the incumbent Democrat 40/60 instead of 5/42/57. But not one minute before! You don’t want to risk a Republican winning in Massachusetts, New York, Minnesota, or California, do you?!
You say this like it’s satire, but literally yes. We lost the House because we let Republicans win in New York.
Thanks to Andrew Cuomo, no less
Repuglicans still win in California at the lower levels, because local, and possibly state assembly, elections are run NPP. This means the candidates don’t officially run for any party. I’m pretty sure the Repuglicans passed that when they realized that an R by your name is a death sentence out here.
Okay, sorry, 93% is also an acceptable number.
But like, 7% Republican votership is still…weird. And unexpected. Given that that party has contributed absolutely nothing but lies and murderers.
If a hungry man is hanging from a rope over a pit of lava, I am not starving him by keeping food on my side of the pit, I am prioritizing getting him off the rope and away from the dangerous situation first, before addressing equity issues.
Given that that party has contributed absolutely nothing but lies and murderers.
It contributes a bunch of patronage, both through the private sector via tax cuts and federal contracts and “faith based initiative” spending and via the public sector through our enormous national security state and attendant bureaucracy.
I don’t think it can be overstated how much something like the invasion of Iraq or the War on Drugs or the Bush-Era bank bailout or the GOP war on renewable energy has profited both the big corporate interests and the hundreds of thousands of scammy small business shits plugged into the public money spigot.
And that’s before you get into the social mobilization provided by the party. Religious organizations and white nationalist groups generally like the GOP because the GOP promotes, defends, and finances their own socio-economic goals. The airforce is swarming with Christian fundamentalists while the army and marines churn out a steady supply of future chud police officers to do the dirty work of suppressing minorities in big urban settings. The tech industry is flush with white nationalism in large part because it trades money and talent with the NSA, the CIA, and the FBI - themselves hot-houses of right-wing social and religious sentiments. Anti-union activists, anti-environmentalists, and anti-DEI/Civil Rights organizers all adore the GOP, because they enable continued socio-economic domination nationally.
To say the party just supplies a few lies and the occasional bloody war drastically diminishes what the party does at the national, state, and local levels. Modern white nationalism can’t exist without an ally in the Republican Party. Modern evangelical christianity can’t propagate without the endless pogroms and inquisitions conservatives inflict on schools and colleges. Modern extractive corporate interests can’t reliably generate bigger profits without the cycles of deregulation and eminent domain land seizures perpetuated by Republican state and national leaders.
None of this shit works without the GOP.
It’s not weird when you realize most voters just do whatever their favorite algorithm tells them to.
For how long has this trifecta been under fascist control? Because it seems like fascists act with impunity and unlimited power as soon as they control one institution.
Because they don’t care about the rules, but they know the other side does. Whenever they act, they defend not their actions, but the process by which they were allowed to do them. If fascists break the rules, liberals can only request that the rules be followed. If they follow the rules, put on a tie and speak like an academic, liberals can only trust that their ideas will be voted against. In either case, they don’t know how to call a fascist a fascist, and they don’t know how to fight fascism within the current ruleset, and they never will.
You can count by going to party division websites for the house and senate. Then cross reference with the presidency. For what it’s worth, 4 months in 44 years is hilarious and a lie. We just had 2 years 2020-2022 with Democrats in a trifecta.
It is fairly rare for either party to control Congress and the executive for long, so I’m not sure if that’s exactly the main pitfall we’ve run into.
I think this is mostly an unforced error on the part of neoliberalism, specifically 3rd way political ideology. In the 80s and 90s 3rd way politics grew as an idea to work around congressional gridlock.
Basically, the democratic party figured they would work across the aisle with moderate Republicans on policy they could both agree on. Hoping that this would show the American population that they were the party that could get things done.
This worked in part, Bill Clinton the main architect of American 3rd way movement became very popular. However, it had two repercussions that we are still dealing with today. It gave the policy initiative to the Republican party, allowing them to be the directors of this across aisle cooperation. It also drastically shifted the democratic party to the right.
If the DNC is rating Congress members based on criteria of Third way ideology, then the members most willing to cooperate with moderate Republicans are going to fill leadership positions. Which is why the DNC leadership is currently full of center right senior citizens conditioned to bending backwards to the whims of Republican economic policy.
Third Way was originally a think tank architected by Wall Street for the sole purpose of committing ideological false flag operations and grossly misrepresenting academic findings for the benefit of their corporate overlords. They once released a study under a headline that basically stated that because of Democrat economic policies, the gender wage was falling. And they were technically right. It was falling. It was falling because men were getting paid less and women were making the same amount.
I think this is mostly an unforced error on the part of neoliberalism, specifically 3rd way political ideology. In the 80s and 90s 3rd way politics grew as an idea to work around congressional gridlock.
I agree with this, and would also point to the same thing happening all over the world.
finally, actual political analysis. on this website it’s like finding a drop of water on the moon, or something, hoo lee.
Yeah, tolerance for valid self criticism in politics is dead. The only thing people want to hear is full throated support and validation. Anything else is automatically labeled as extremism in one direction nor another.
Democrats have had control of house, senate, white house exactly 4 months of the last 44 years.
Democrats: “We only have 60 votes in the Senate! That’s not enough to pass anything!”
Republicans: “The Senate minority will filibuster the debt ceiling bill unless you extend the Bush tax cuts, double border spending, and add birth control pills to the Schedule I drug registry.”
Breaking things is a thousand times easier than fixing them. It’s easy for Republicans to threaten to break the government unless they get what they want, because it’s a win-win scenario for them.
I’m gonna go ahead and ask the obvious question: if it’s so effective when the Republicans do it, then…you can fill in the rest.
Not really. I don’t understand where you’re going.
Are you saying Democrats should threaten to break the government? Republicans would call that bet, because breaking the government is a good thing to them.
How do you figure? If they’re in power and let the government, they get blamed for it. Call the bluff. Let the government fail. If it’s in a position where one political entity gets to hold it hostage in perpetuity, it’s functionally unsalvageable and broken by design.
That’s the most naive thing I’ve heard in a long time, I’m not quite sure where to start.
If they’re in power and let the government, they get blamed for it.
Demonstrably not true, Republicans love this tactic because people tend to AT BEST blame both sides. Voters are incredibly misinformed.
Let the government fail. If it’s in a position where one political entity gets to hold it hostage in perpetuity, it’s functionally unsalvageable and broken by design
I don’t know how you could get to this conclusion. Let the government fall, because by attempting to break it, Republicans have automatically made it just as bad as if it was already broken? That’s an incredibly dumb statement.
The Democrats had a two year period, 2020-2022. GTFO out your lies.
They’re talking about a supermajority where Republicans can’t stop them. Every other time we’ve been stopped by Republicans or Democrats working as Republicans (Manchin and Sinema) 2020-2022 we had a razor thin margin that Manchin and Sinema shat all over.
The filibuster isn’t a law or Constitutional requirement. It’s a self imposed rule they could have removed at any time. In fact the Constitution only requires a simple majority for anything it doesn’t specifically mention needing a larger number.
And Sinema and Manchin stopped us from removing it :(
Then kick them out of the party. Make the actual position clear. Don’t tell us you have the votes and you just don’t want to because voters will take you at your word.
The Repuglicans controlled the House of Representatives during that time. And still control the house. You are lying to yourself.
Here you go. There’s helpful websites if you have trouble remembering.
Go far left enough you get your guns back. Arm up, comrades.
Remake this meme for tankies where instead of vote, it just says, “Tankies say ‘get gunz!’”
Bro, I hate tanks, wtf?
Democrats say “vote!” -> not enough people actually vote
Actually, the recent record turnouts should really be getting you to pay attention to how the elections are structured. It turns out, the way districts and the electoral college are organized means that where you get out the vote matters. Telling people to vote harder doesn’t make those systemic obstacles go away.
This is on purpose, too. The farthest-right states also just so happen to have the lowest educations, incomes, healthcare, etc. They make it miserable for people who live there to organize AND so people from cities don’t want to move there.
Which is also why they wind up filled with “small business owners” who seem to all be about making money off land they own.
The thing is, the record turnouts are still pretty bad. Something like 60% of eligible voters, I think? You’re right that there are systemic reasons why it’s not feasible for some people to vote. But if everyone who didn’t have a systemic reason to not vote did, the turnout would still be much higher.
Overall, 70% of U.S. adult citizens who were eligible to participate in all three elections between 2018 and 2022 voted in at least one of them, with about half that share (37%) voting in all three.
-Pew Research Poll on Voter Turnout
And it looks like a significant portion of the 30% who don’t vote are white adults without a college degree who lean Republican.
70% of eligible voters participating in at least 1 of 3 elections is abysmal. That only 37% voted in all 3 demonstrates this.
I’m not sure how intense your off year elections are, but one of mine had only a single uncontested race, so I’m not sure I’d jump to considering missing some of the offyears “abysmal”.
66% voted in the 2020 presidential election. That number sucks considering how high the stakes were.
Based on the numbers I’m looking at, the people who didn’t vote were the ones that were likely Republican voters. The people that stayed home were likely Republicans who did not vote for Trump. I’m all for political engagement, but I’m not sure how invested I am in making sure Trump gets all the votes he told people not to cast.
Yeah should be -> not enough people actually vote -> fascists retain enough power to evade consequences -> fascists seize more power
Democrats say “vote!” -> not enough people actually vote
If it’s known that voting isn’t effective for whatever reason (including turnout) then suggesting it in the first place is a marker that one is unserious about realistic solutions and should be ignored.
Um, yeah, voting isn’t effective if you don’t fucking do it.
I promise you that the Republican Party would undergo serious reform even if they were kept out of the presidency for 3 terms. I’d bet on a complete collapse if they find themselves a significant minority in Congress for only a couple terms. We’re not talking about a crazy unrealistic amount of time here.
Why would liberals lift a finger against the very people that will protect their precious status quo for them?
Right. Voting third party truly is trying nothing, since we already know it’s pissing in the wind.
No you don’t understand voting is doing nothing and not voting is a heroic action worthy of Stalin himself
Between “Democrats say ‘Vote’” and “Democrats do nothing to fight back,” they didn’t vote in 2016.
This Supreme Court is a result of that inaction.
Congratulations on demonstrating how voter abstention hands the government to Republicans.
Let’s not do that any more.
Mitch McConnell specifically refused to allow Obama to appoint a justice while there was an election going on.
That’s true. Had Obama appointed a Justice we’d just have 5-4 rulings instead of the 6-3 we have now. Trump’s immunity would still have passed.
We had 8 good years before that and didn’t set up any protections.
During the last year of that, Obama was denied the ability to nominate a Supreme Court Justice on an Election Year. Then, Trump got 2 nominees appointed to the SCOTUS, one of which was on an election year.
Denied as in dems were unable to or chose not to?
As in the Republican Senate decided they weren’t going to vote on any nominations from Obama.
As in republicans could veto the nomination?
Could dems veto the new justices?
Sorry im not American and am trying to understand. I thought dems could have but chose not too due to integrity.
The Senate has to confirm the president’s picks. The Republicans controlled the Senate during Obama’s last years in office. So they just didn’t confirm his pick. Their reasoning was that it was an election year. When Trump faced the same situation (supreme court vacancy in an election year), the Republicans still controlled the senate and confirmed his pick.
Ahh okay. When the President wants to nominate a new federal judge the Senate has to approve them. At the time the other party controlled the Senate. The effect was to leave the Supreme Court with an even number of Judges for a while, making tie decisions possible. They also broke their own rule once they had the Senate and Presidency. So they aren’t making arguments in good faith.
How to appoint SCOTUS judges:
-
Vacancy on Court (usually means the old Judge died)
-
Presidential Nomination
-
Senate votes to confirm
How to remove judges:
-
Impeachment hearings in congress
-
Senate votes to remove Judge
-
You had the first 2 years of Obama. Obama’s thanks for the ACA was voters not showing up and losing the house of representatives for year 3 and 4. And again for year 5 and 6. And then both the house and Senate in years 7 and 8. So no you didn’t have 8 years with Obama, you had 2 years with Obama because voters did not show up. Congress is what passes laws and has power. They even shut down the freaking government under Obama.
With a heavily divided legislature that only just passed the ACA before it exploded.
Only Congress can increase the number of Justices on the Supreme Court. We had two years of congressional majority in the last twenty. They focused on healthcare.
How could they have possibly predicted that they’d need to expand and pack the Supreme Court to prevent the next President from becoming a dictator?
They focused on healthcare.
And they gave us Romneycare
And even that was a monumental task. One vote away in the Senate, and that one guy got rid of the single payer option for the cost of his vote. Joe Lieberman if you want to look him up, the guy who started no labels political party (without a platform).
4 years, or 3 because of Scott Brown. But we just had 2 years. And Obama had 1 year.
More people (as a percentage of the eligible voting population) voted in 2016 than 2012, and more in 2020 than in 2016.
Finger wagging at people for criticizing the current ruling party (which is sending weapons to a country that is using them to commit genocide) instead of recognizing that we live in an undemocratic system is taking it out on the wrong people. Clinton literally won more votes in the election you’re saying people didn’t vote hard enough in. It’s spitting in the face of everyone whose votes were shat on by the Electoral College to turn around and blame the people who were disenfranchised.
No one is finger wagging for criticizing. They’re being chastised because they whining to everyone how they’re refusing to vote.
Criticize the fuck out of him. I don’t see anyone giving a shit about that-
FUCKING VOTE ANYWAY.
Who’s saying they’re refusing to vote?
That’s the topic of conversation here.
FUCKING VOTE ANYWAY.
the really makes me feel like voting, y’know? that really makes me feel like I should go out and vote. that seems like a good strategy
You should know what’s at stake by now. But If you want a list of reasons, there’s something called Project 2025 that has all the reasons you’ll need to vote for Biden in nice and handy, and easy to understand place.
I suggest you read it.
already seen it but thanks anyways
Riiiight. Didn’t think it would matter much to ya.
I get your point, but only 48% of registered Democrats voted in 2016. 25% were abstention due to dislike of the candidate.
Unfortunately, more Democrats need to vote than Republicans, because of the disproportionate weight of Republican states’ electoral votes.
Run better candidates to get more votes, it really is that simple. Blaming the voters just makes you look like a tool.
And thinking that Democrats are primarily progressive makes you look like one.
A better candidate for progressives would have been Bernie. DNC fuckery aside, he was very polarizing to half of the party.
25% were abstention due to dislike of the candidate.
Sounds like the problem is with who the DMC puts up, then. If 25% of your own team refuse to participate you’ve got s fucking problem
I’m not seeing where in those links it says only 48% of registered Democrats voted? If I’m missing it please point it out. The overall turnout was about 60% of eligible voters, so Democrats pulling in less than that and STILL getting more votes would be shocking.
Getting angry at voters for not voting hard enough after turnout increases every election cycle should illustrate that yelling at people to vote harder isn’t a solution, it’s a stopgap. It doesn’t change that it’s an intentionally undemocratic system, and it doesn’t prevent the exact same “the person with less votes wins” result from happening again.
Not sure who’s downvoting you for asking for clarification. I think the person you responded to misinterpreted the first figure in their second link. It says among validated voters, 48% voted for Clinton and 45% for Trump.
Nowhere in those links does it say the percentage of voters by party registration that voted, and I can’t find it in any other searching either. Your 60% turnout of voting-eligible population comes up all over the place though.
I don’t see the downvotes since I’m on Blahaj, that’s funny though. Sorry for reading the sources I guess? The 60% figure was straight from one of the linked articles!
Not just voter abstention, but ineffective voting too. Voting 3rd in this election is a surefire way to get trump back in office. If you wanted to stick it to Biden and get someone else, your chance was 4 years ago during the primary.
You’re not voting Biden because you like him, you’re voting Biden because you want to be able to vote for someone else in 2028. That is literally what is at stake here, and it can’t be said loud enough or often enough.
Before the “real left” quisling trolls respond, please tell us two things… Who is the 3rd party candidate you are supporting instead? What are their chances of winning this election?
your chance was 4 years ago during the primary.
I’m sorry I didn’t realize we elected presidents for 8 year terms?
Edit- just preserving this quote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries
Biden is very much the Democrat presumptive nominee. The time to select someone else was before he was President. The acting president is usually the nominee for their respective party. Also note that the DNC primary nomination is not the presidency.
We have absolutely aborted the campaigns of incumbent presidents before. The DNC and White House however worked very hard to shut down any criticism during the primary timeframe, refused to have debates, disburse money, etc
So if they’re going to treat this full election as a preference poll on Biden, then so will the people. And his approval numbers are bad.
We have absolutely aborted the campaigns of incumbent presidents before.
Once… Over 100 years ago…
https://www.npr.org/sections/politicaljunkie/2009/07/a_president_denied_renominatio.html
How bad do you want to roll those odds on trump getting elected again? Also, who are you supporting for president this time round, and what do you figure their chances are of winning?
I said aborted the campaign, not lost the nomination. Usually the candidates have the good sense to bow out before that happens.
Are you talking about Truman? One guy who started to seek the presidency, after serving 1.5 terms, and then pulling out before being the presumptive nominee? I don’t think history is on your side for this one.
Also, answer the questions please.
Edit: You actually said “We have absolutely aborted the campaigns of incumbent presidents before.” Implying that the candidate did not win their nomination. Let’s go ahead and put those goalposts back where they were initially.
Donald Trump lost the popular vote and was illegitimately placed into power by the broken electoral college system.
You’re half right. He won due to the Electoral College, but it was unfortunately legitimate.
It was legitimate in the same way that a dictator’s rule over their people is legitimate or hangings for blasphemy are legitimate. It may be technically written on a piece of paper somewhere, but someone who got less votes becoming president over someone who got more is not representative of a genuinely legitimate democracy.
“Whatever the Supreme Court says is legitimate” is a different sort than “systems that don’t deviate from serving their purpose are legitimate”
If the National Popular Vote gets 61 more electoral votes worth of states to sign, we’d actually have a direct democracy. Until then, land continues to get a louder voice than people in America.
Well said, but sadly they are a lot of people here that don’t care. Which is ironic, considering the meme.
This Supreme Court is a direct result of Ruth Bader Ginsberg refusing to retire because ???.
Thanks again DNC. Couldn’t have done a worse job.
Don’t bring up reality.
Blame Republicans for the Democrats forcing the Supreme Court to be used as a voting carrot.
It’s all the lefties fault that they didn’t vote for corporate overlord Hillary Clinton.
Abby Martin has something to say about that …
That’s great. She’s an idealist. How do we abolish the Supreme Court when we can’t even get congressional majority for more than two years every twenty?
AOC Says She’ll File Articles Of Impeachment Amid SCOTUS ‘Corruption Crisis’
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s threat of impeachment comes after the court ruled on Trump’s immunity argument.
I’m all for it. I just have no clue how she expects to win that vote with House minority.
Well, if Biden would fucking stop dancing around the point, he could just force this. He has immunity now, after all
He doesn’t have sweeping executive powers. He has immunity from prosecution of crime related to official acts.
He can’t force a House vote. He may be able to wrongfully arrest a few Justices and get away with it.
Thank you, the number of people getting this ruling wrong is too damn high.
It’s not good but it’s not anything close to total power.
The wrongfully arrest a few justices was the point I was pushing there
Voting will not solve our problems, but it can buy us time allowing us to work to change things outside electoral politics.
Except nothing is changing (positively anyways).
As it stands now voting is nothing more than a placebo for the masses.
The disease is still killing us.
But we’re voting for the lesser of two evils in the meantime - and then doing jack shit to fix the broken system.
Hmmm I wonder why they don’t do anything about? 🤔
Oh well I’m sure all those millionaires, billionaires, and their lackeys in both parties will want to stop it.
Well on the plus side I’m sure once they get rid of that whole separation of powers thing it’ll be a lot easier to do stuff.
“It’s soooo exhausting to vote one day every two years, so might as well allow as many republicans as possible to become firmly entrenched in every level of government, able to sabotage any attempt to push the inertia in any other direction.”
Here’s a novel idea: you are not just electing one charismatic godking messiah with a magic political wand to the executive office every four years, but an entire system of appointees and employees.
Then there’s Congress, and the Supreme Court, and state governors and state congresses, city mayors and city council, school board, etc.
One side strives for reason and science, the other is scorched earth anti-science anti-reason ignorant hysteria. And you keep giving them enough power to thwart everything.
Tune out and stop watching the infotainment bullshit designed to keep us outraged and polarized every minute of the goddamned day, just show up at the polls each first Tuesday in November and vote Democrat. Once every two years is enough.
At this point, you have enough information to do this with great confidence that it is the correct and sane choice.
Let’s get our collective heads out of the Middle Ages peasant mindset.And yet, somehow the DNC is completely powerless while we are watching all of our human rights get washed down the drain and simultaneously watching it become legal to bribe judges.
This is horseshit and the DNC is complicit.
Once every two years is enough.
No. In a democracy, it should not be “enough” to partake in elections once every two years.
Let’s get our collective heads out of the Middle Ages peasant mindset.
At least the peasants rebelled every once in a while when the lords fucked them over too much.
At least the peasants rebelled every once in a while when the lords fucked them over too much.
What do you think the anti-war protests, BLM marches, and Palestinian rights sit-ins were about?
Can’t count the times a popular movement erupts onto the streets and a Democratic Mayor or Governor starts ringing the big “Call in the SWAT teams!” alarm bell to snuff it out.
Okay, get your guns! If I remember correctly from Project 2025, Trump wants to dispatch the military on the streets to stop the people from revolting against the christofascist dystopia he and his friends want to impose on others. Maybe you can be just like in the FPS games, and survive from health, weapon, and ammunition drops from the soldiers.
If your military is already so far gone that it will gun down protestors without remorse… why do you want to keep that system alive, again?
When you say once in a while, are you meaning once every few hundred years? If so then I agree and think we are perfectly on track.
That it only becomes a topic of popular discussion once every two years doesn’t mean people are sitting on their hands the rest of the time. I’ve volunteered on local, state and Congressional campaigns, mostly translating campaign website and literature/fliers into Spanish. I’ve done this in the lead up to the 2020 presidential elections, state assembly, city council and mayoral races here. If I talk to people about this stuff outside explicitly political gatherings or a presidential election cycle, I’m an annoying leftist who won’t shut up about politics. When the rest of the country gets off their collective ass and pretends to care, I get “Why haven’t you done anything in between election cycles, you’re not serious,” from the same people who didn’t want to hear about local elections the last few years.
Yeah, it’s pretty exhausting having the same liberals disengage between presidential elections and then pretend to be the arbiters of serious politicking once every 4 years to try and punch left and exclude any actual leftist viewpoints. Thanks for doing your part to keep that liberal tradition going strong.
You think we just don’t know about the lower offices? Really?
Yes.
