• venusaur@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    175
    ·
    5 months ago

    Ranked Choice Voting! Find your local RCV group and find ways to help get RCV implemented in your city! It’s something that sees opposition from republicans and democrats so you know it’s good.

    • chetradley@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      5 months ago

      I’m a fan of STAR voting myself, but anything is better than the first past the post system we have now.

      • venusaur@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        5 months ago

        If Star has traction in your city I say go for it! RCV just seems to have the most momentum.

    • SeaJ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      5 months ago

      It would be nice if they did that for the Democratic primaries.

      • LethalSmack@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        38
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        It’d also be nice if they couldn’t just override the primary election results because it’s not a “real election”

        Yes, I’m still a bit bitter about how the DNC treated Bernie in the 2016 election

        • EatATaco@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Sanders was crushed by Clinton in the 2016 primary elections. It was clear pretty much from the start that she was going to win. You take away all the super delegates, she still demolishes him. Did they show some favoritism towards her? Sure. Did they call him some bad names in private emails? Yes. Did she get a few questions before a debate? Yes. Is there any evidence that the election was rigged and stolen from Sanders? No, none at all.

          This insistence that the Sanders was somehow robbed of the 2016 nomination (or 2020 nomination at that) is equivalent to Trump’s claim that he was robbed in 2020.

          • LethalSmack@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            The DNC heavily undermined and consistently sabotaged Bernie’s campaign the point that the DNC chair stepped down and the DNC then apologized “for the inexcusable remarks made over email” that did not reflect the DNC’s “steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process.” (From the wikipedia link below).

            From the 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak: In the emails, DNC staffers derided the Sanders campaign. The Washington Post reported: “Many of the most damaging emails suggest the committee was actively trying to undermine Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign.”

            Bernie was absolutely robbed of a fair primary election.

            Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak

            • EatATaco@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              5 months ago

              The DNC heavily undermined and consistently sabotaged Bernie’s campaign the point that the DNC chair stepped down and the DNC then apologized “for the inexcusable remarks made over email” that did not reflect the DNC’s “steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process.”

              We all know and agree that they said bad things about him, but do you really think making “inexcusable remarks” in private actually supports the claim that he was “heavily undermined and consistently sabotaged”?

              Bernie was absolutely robbed of a fair primary election.

              The only “concrete” thing you cite is that “they said nasty things about him in private.” No actual evidence of them doing anything to undermine his chances. The worst concrete thing that came out is that Clinton got some debate questions early, but do we really think that is going to lead to a 12 point swing? No way.

              • LethalSmack@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                5 months ago

                Convenient you skip over the undermine his campaign portion of my previous comment. But the fact that the Chair of the DNC resigned over it shows it was more than just saying “nasty things about him in private”.

                It should also be noted that their actions “caused significant harm to the Clinton campaign, and have been cited as a potential contributing factor to her loss in the general election”. It is not as inconsequential as you present it.

                • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Convenient you skip over the undermine

                  Because it offered nothing concrete. It just says the emails “suggest” this, but doesn’t actually offer up anything of substance as to how it was done.

                  But the fact that the Chair of the DNC resigned over it shows it was more than just saying “nasty things about him in private”.

                  And yet, all you can point to is them saying nasty things in private.

                  It should also be noted that their actions “caused significant harm to the Clinton campaign, and have been cited as a potential contributing factor to her loss in the general election”. It is not as inconsequential as you present it.

                  I’m challenging the belief that Sanders had some chance in the 2016 primary against Clinton, and that there is good reason to believe it was stolen from him. I understand that the leaked emails were massively consequential.

            • btaf45@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              5 months ago

              From the 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak:

              From the Kremlin hacking operation that passed both true and false info to Assange who said in a memo that they wanted Treason Trump to win which was documented in the Mueller report.

              Why did Putin NOT leak RNC memos? Because he has been blackmailing the Republican Party ever since.

          • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            5 months ago

            America is not a progressive country and if you are progressive you will be eternally disappointed with it.

            Read more history if you disagree.

          • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Can we please not continue to relitigate this until the end of time? We will be in line at the republican death camps and people will still be arguing that sanders won in 2016. It serves no purpose other than supporting the idiots who would rather a republican win than a democrat who isn’t Sanders.

            When they start screaming stop the count or restart the count or whatever: Smile, nod, and ignore.

            • EatATaco@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              5 months ago

              I don’t really think I’m going to convince that poster. I know, like Trump supporters, they are probably long gone and no amount of pointing out that they have no evidence is going to convince them that the DNC not screwed him, Sanders would have won. I just watch young people shifting towards the right, and it’s probably partially because of these dopes spreading this lie about the democrats, so I’m speaking to anyone who might come after them.

                • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  When you actually offer up something other than “they said nasty things about him!” then we can talk. So far tho, nothing.

              • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                5 months ago

                I doubt being grumpy about Sanders is going to shift folk to be right-wing. A lot of them probably HAVE become tankies but… the Sanders campaign was already very heavily buoyed by tankies online. Because it would have been shooting fish in a barrel for the candidate most known for “fun nicknames” to be up against a guy who used to be a meme about how c-span was boring and actively refused to even say “While I think the socioeconomic model had a lot of benefits, I oppose the fascist communist regimes of olde”.

                But also? I know a few of the dumbest “Bernie or bust” morons you will ever see who focused that anger toward working with the Democrats to get considerably less shitty downballot candidates. And that is what the lesson should have been.

                • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  I doubt being grumpy about Sanders is going to shift folk to be right-wing.

                  It certainly turns them off of the Democrats. So maybe not a shift to the right, but certainly conditions where it increases the chance that the right is going to win. If Bernie bros had just accepted the outcome and then coalesced around Clinton, she likely would have won and we wouldn’t be in the same mess we’re in now.

        • SeaJ@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          They did not override that one. Sanders did not even win the non superdelegates. That’s not to say the 2016 Democratic primary was not fucked. Party officials clearly had a preference and were obviously pushing Clinton. Showing the super delegates planned counts before they actually voted made it seem like Sanders had no chance. They need to minimize the number of super delegates so that they can only decide really close primaries.

          • LethalSmack@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            5 months ago

            Eh, fair enough. Undermined, cheated, manipulated, schemed, swindled, deceived, duped, defrauded, etc might have been a better description.

        • btaf45@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          It’d also be nice if they couldn’t just override the primary election results because it’s not a “real election”

          That is some Trumpian level of bullshit. They cannot do that because it is against the Charter since the 1950’s. And yes legally the DNC could change their own charter but so can the RNC. Changing party charters to nullify primaries would spell certain doom for that party.

          Yes, I’m still a bit bitter about how the DNC treated Bernie in the 2016 election

          You and the Kremlin are bitter about how the Dem primary voters treated us Bernie supporters in the 2016 election. Got it.

      • GraniteM@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        I was curious about this. Since political parties run their own primaries, then they can decide to use whatever voting system they want. I suspect that RCV primaries would produce a candidate that is more competitive in the general election (though I don’t know enough about electoral math or demographics to be sure). I’m certain that RCV has a tendency to discourage scorched earth campaign tactics, so party candidates would be less prone to trying to destroy one another.

    • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Ranked choice doesn’t really help here. Generally right-wing/conservative/wannabe-gilead voters aggregate around the republican candidate. Libertarians get stupid but there are very few of them and they start off stupid.

      On the left? We have a LOT more infighting but the only viable candidates at the Presidential level (and most, but not all, states) are the Democrat.

      So what does ranked choice get us? Okay, everyone picks their favorite third party first. They all get eliminated. So who voted for the Democrat and who voted for the republican?

      It also becomes a question of what variation of ranked choice voting is used. Because, depending on the elimination model, you are just normalizing spoiler candidates.

      And… there is the very good argument that we already have ranked choice voting in a sense. Primaries. it happens less when there is an incumbent but everyone picks their absolute favorite candidate who most closely represents them. The majority of that then becomes the candidate we vote for come November.

      Nah, I think the real answer is to just get rid of the electorcal college at the presidential level and just do popular votes. We have the technology.


      I’ll also add on that there is a lot of theory (and even demonstrable-ish evidence) that you tend to consolidate around two-ish candidates even in the models that are fairly amenable to third parties. There are a LOT of question marks because this isn’t the kind of study you can really isolate, but even the third party heavy models (most parliamentary governments, for example) tend to have two dominating parties with a third or fourth that are “just strong enough to get concessions”.

      • Pennomi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        5 months ago

        Of course it helps. Sure, the first election wouldn’t see much change, but RCV emboldens third parties to exist and would give them a viable path towards displacing the establishment. Right now there is NO path.

      • venusaur@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        5 months ago

        Reforming the electoral college is definitely needed as well, but a much longer runway since it likely requires a constitutional amendment. You can implement RCV without forgoing electoral college reform or abolition. No single change will fix it all, but RCV is beneficial in moving towards democracy and has a lot of momentum already.

        I think after people learn and get used to RCV (and when older generations die), their voting styles will change. No more voting solely out of fear. It also requires the major (wealthy) candidates to align more to the smaller (less wealthy) candidates. There’s really no reason to be against it. In some states they offer both styles of ballots so you can just vote for one person if you’d like. The only downside is that it can be confusing to new people.

        • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          None of that addresses the points I made outside of a nebulous “wouldn’t it be great if all the boomers died” which… no arguments.

          Again, it all depends on what criteria are used to handle the rankings. Because a LOT of models will inherently favor the “side” that can rally behind a single candidate. Which is what we see under a lot of parliamentary models.

          I am ALL for election reform. But “it can’t hurt” is not a reason to enact a heavy change. Especially when… it CAN hurt and discriminate against different demographics.

          As for “the only downside is that it can be confusing to new people”: You should HANG with my buddy CHAD. Still hurting from that debacle.

          • venusaur@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            Wasn’t trying to address your points because they’re just speculation. We’ve never had RCV nationwide for federal elections so can’t say how it would affect the way people vote. I don’t think the 2 party ruling system goes away with RCV, but it’s a step towards making politics more equitable. There are only benefits to giving voters more options. It’s not that “it can’t hurt”. It’s that it will benefit voters.

            How does RCV discriminate? Which demographics?

            Any voting system is prone to errors and any change will have growing pains. Doesn’t mean you don’t move forward. People need a way to vote for who they want, not who they don’t want. RCV is one solution. Doesn’t impede on any others.

            • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              If we “can’t say how it would affect the way people vote” then what is the point? There are a lot of different voting systems and if you are going to put the effort in to cause a mass upheaval… you need to have a reason. Like I said, I very much favor just getting rid of the electoral college as a good solution because it is the same procedure we currently have but now it means EVERY vote matters at every level (rather than just at every level except POTUS…)

              And, again, we can just look at the current election. Basically every republican is fine with trumpian politics and refuse to even acknowledge they would vote against the orange fuckstain when they are “condemning” his behavior. Whereas the left? We can’t stop shitting on Biden. That translates to third party spoilers. Which is kind of the underlying issue of why we see right wing fascism on the rise globally. Because it is a lot easier to rally behind “We all hate this demographic” rather than “Well, I want UBI” “No, I want health care” “Fuck you all, the biggest issue we have is foreign policy”.

              Any voting system is prone to errors and any change will have growing pains. Doesn’t mean you don’t move forward. People need a way to vote for who they want, not who they don’t want. RCV is one solution. Doesn’t impede on any others.

              Moving forward is something you do with thought. Rather than “Well, I’m bored. Let’s redo everything because it might be better”.

              • venusaur@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                5 months ago

                To assume that all of the progress people are making towards RCV is without thought is incredibly ignorant. Lots of resources you can research to understand the benefits, how it works, and case studies for where it’s working now.

                https://fairvote.org/our-reforms/ranked-choice-voting-information/#the-impacts-of-rcv

                https://fairvote.org/news-and-analysis/#blog

                If you don’t support RCV for some reason, just say that. You have to criticize those who are working towards something that’s actually benefiting voters.

                You can sit around and wait for electoral reform, but change happens in baby steps. You don’t just jump to a constitutional amendment if nobody can get behind something like RCV.

                • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Yeah. This happens with basically every “political movement”. You have some people who actually have put the thought in. And then you have hordes of people who can’t even explain simple things like “how does this not just embolden spoilers” or how does this meaningfully solve the two party problem" (a problem which, again, is prevalent even in more praised election systems).

                  Let alone “Oh, the only problem is people might get a bit confused”

                  People just see “oh, it is different so it must be better” and ignore all other aspects of it. It is what led to the rise of libertarianism in the 90s and tankie dumbasses in the 10s.

    • robocall@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      My city does ranked choice voting, and it’s great! I would love to see it at the state level.

      • venusaur@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        That’s awesome! What city? What was the process for getting it on the ballot and what helped getting it passed?

        • robocall@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          San Francisco has had ranked choice voting since 2004. IIRC they called it “instant run-off voting” and it would save from having a run off election for the mayor and other elected officials.

    • RagingRobot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      I think ranked choice voting would give us RFK as president

      Edit: that was assuming we had these same candidates only as ranked choice obviously we would have more candidates

      • Patapon Enjoyer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        You gotta consider how many viable candidates aren’t throwing the hat in the ring because there is no chance for them to get even close thanks to the current system, plus they’d be labeled as spoilers.

      • chatokun@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Honestly my knowledge of ranked choice voting is that it works better for reps other than the president, and that our basically one guy wins it all form for presidential elections feels like ranked choice would work less. I’m willing to be wrong. I’m not sure if I actually like systems where the majority party picks the head of state, but it does feel like ra ked choice voting makes it matter more there.

        • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Yeah. Nobody wants to acknowledge it because they watched a youtube and define themselves by “ranked choice” (and most don’t even know the specifics of the criteria they are supporting…)

          Ranked Choice makes a LOT of sense at the county and state level. Because that is where third party candidates already have good odds if they actually represent the will of the people.

          At the presidential? And with electoral college nonsense? The amount of money required to run a campaign and the tendency for certain chuddy demographics to rally behind one shitstain mean that you only really have two viable parties and ranked choice, at best, is a noop. At worst it enables spoilers.

          Which… is also why a lot of parliament based governments still tend to have two major parties. They just have more splitting but… we already do when you realize that AOC and Hakeem Jeffries are in the same party.

  • ceenote@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    126
    ·
    5 months ago

    It’s stunning that each party managed to find a candidate that could lose against the other.

    • return2ozma@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      If the election was today, Biden would lose. Imagine if Trump wasn’t the nominee for November, the GOP would win the presidency.

      Edit: it’s just reality according to the current polling.

          • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            37
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            There it is again.

            The disconnect that exists is that people don’t see the good things he does. You know, green energy, chips act, unions, drug price controls, student debt relief, telling them to look at marijuana rescheduling, infrastructure building. It just goes on and on. You’re doing mental gymnastics to say B-B-Biden bad! Ciao.

            • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              17
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              r2o admitted that he only posts the negative stuff. It’s why he got banned from politics.

              • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                16
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                Lol you all caps shouted “YES” agreeing to what I said and literally said “Biden is bad”.

                Bare minimum huh? Back to your mental gymnastics. Biden’s doing fucking great.

                You want more? He doesn’t even have control of the house of representatives. If you want more give him and Dems consistent and resounding victories.

                I think this is where I inform you that Dems have had control of all three (house, Senate, and presidency) for a whooping 4 years of the last 24 years. If you include Bill Clinton, then it’s 6 of the last 32 years. You want more progress? Give Dems consistent and resounding victories. Not a measly half term every second president.

                • return2ozma@lemmy.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  Lol you all caps shouted “YES” agreeing to what I said and literally said “Biden is bad”.

                  My apologies, I post anything critical of Biden and the centrist rage comes out of the woodwork to defend him. I got my comments mixed up.

                  What should Biden do differently to run away with the change of winning re-election?

              • electric_nan@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                14
                ·
                5 months ago

                I would say that the bare minimum would actually include not actively supporting a genocide, but maybe I’m just out of touch.

              • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                14
                ·
                5 months ago

                That could be a point, but the person I was responding to is on the war path of trying to make/change the point of “B B BIden bad”.

        • crusa187@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Is a non-genocidal candidate capable of beating the criminal traitor Trump too much to ask for?

      • Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        31
        ·
        5 months ago

        according to the current polling

        I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: the polls are likely skewed towards the GOP, and it’s thought that this is because of random text/calls, which boomers are more likely to respond to.

      • nexguy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        5 months ago

        If you think polling relates to reality then look into polling and how it doesn’t.

          • nexguy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            5 months ago

            “Polls have “called” elections correctly 78 percent of the time” according to that article. Just because they are more accurate than in another time frame does not mean they are accurate overall. This is an incredibly poor rate in the larger picture. Independent groups are notoriously hard to poll and they are the ones that decide elections. If it’s a landslide then of course the poll will be correct. Completely unreliable in close elections. However they make excellent time filters for news networks.

            • EatATaco@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              5 months ago

              “Polls have “called” elections correctly 78 percent of the time” according to that article. Just

              Maybe you should just read their argument as to why this is a garbage metric. Especially if you are arguing they don’t even “relate to reality.”

              If always predicting who will win is the requirement for polls, the problem isn’t the polling itself, but your understanding of what a poll means and how statistics work.

              • nexguy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                5 months ago

                Polls only predict well in places where you don’t need polls… hence their 78% success rate. What is their rate in closer elections? Likely right at 50%…useless.

                • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  The article talks about this and why it’s a bad metric. If you’re going to ignore their descriptive argument, you’ll just ignore my less than descriptive argument here.

                  But rest assured that at least part of the problem here is that you don’t understand statistics and probability.

              • candybrie@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                5 months ago

                This is a thread where someone made the statement “Trump would win if the election was today.” based on polls. You said yourself, that’s not what polls are for. Take it up with the person who is misusing the poll to make definitive statements like that rather than the person saying you can’t trust the polls for that.

                • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Both that poster and this one can be wrong.

                  The difference is that the other poster is just conflating will with favored and it’s kind of pedantic to argue with that.

                  This poster is claiming that they are no relationship with reality, which is just blatantly wrong.

        • return2ozma@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          5 months ago

          You really think Biden would win the election if it was held today? Have you not been paying attention at the work he still needs to do to win?

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      5 months ago

      Its not that stunning. In fact, its more common than you’d guess.

      Only Ford could lose to Carter. Only Dukakis could lose to Bush. Only Hillary could lose to Trump. Hindsight 20/20. Foresight blind as a fucking bat.

      • jubilationtcornpone@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        5 months ago

        Ford did himself in. Apparently in 1976, American’s didn’t like the fact that the President could commit crimes while in office and get off with a pardon from his former VP. Crimes he was never charged with or convicted of.

        Today, a scandal is like a badge of “honor” and being a convicted criminal and morally bankrupt sleezeball is basically a requirement for the Presidency. At least it is if you’re a Republican.

  • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    94
    ·
    5 months ago

    The existence of Project 2025 makes all of the “which candidate is better?” discussion completely irrelevant. If you support the people that support Project 2025 then you’re a bootlicker who wants to end popular representation in the government and replace it with authoritarianism. If you are vocally against the people who oppose Project 2025 then you are collaborating with the enemy.

    Any other option is better.

    • jorp@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      5 months ago

      Meanwhile Project 2025 on the Democrat side is the codename for the medical advances being pursued to keep Biden functioning through to 2025.

      (I kid of course, you’re absolutely right, as depressing as that is)

      • crusa187@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        You kid, but we all know this walking corpse is on the best amphetamines our top medical scientists can whip up in the lab.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      The existence of Project 2025

      Republicans have a shitty pre-election plan in the run up to every election. This isn’t any different than every other election cycle, from the perspective of “Bad Republicans promise to do bad things”.

      Any other option is better.

      The illusion of electoral choice is choking the life out of any actual democracy in this country. Time and time again, we’re told which party is The Worst and that Anyone Else Would Be Better. That’s how Trump won in 2016 ffs. Republicans doomed themselves to a decade of this manic fascist bumblefuckery by whipping themselves into an “Anyone but Hillary!” feeding frenzy.

      If you are vocally against the people who oppose Project 2025 then you are collaborating with the enemy.

      You’re either with us, or you’re with the terrorists!

      • rsuri@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        The illusion of electoral choice is choking the life out of any actual democracy in this country.

        Ok so what’s your plan to fix it? Because I have one: vote for people that want to improve the electoral system and against those that want to prevent it from improving. As much as Democrats are “part of the problem”, they’ve also been open to runoff voting, switching to a national popular vote, easier voting mechanisms, and other changes that would allow for third parties and better representation. Republicans, meanwhile, have been trying to prevent those changes, as they’ve done in 5 states now where they banned ranked choice voting.

        To be fair though, Trump is more open to changing the electoral process. The only problem is, he wants to get rid of voting entirely and remove any option we have to prevent rule by wealthy oligarchs like himself.

      • MartianRecon@lemmus.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        5 months ago

        I mean yes, the people who are pushing 2025 are literally using threats, violence, and the threat of violence (legal and extra-legal), so you are correct.

  • Leviathan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    68
    ·
    5 months ago

    I think Trump retiring and the Republicans replacing him with a charismatic, young, intelligent christofascist would be devastating for the Democrats (and humanity) right now and I don’t know why they don’t do it.

    For that matter I don’t see why Democrats don’t replace Biden with a charismatic, young, intelligent social democrat which would be equally devastating for republicans. So who knows with these people.

    • taiyang@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      5 months ago

      Charismatic + Young + Intelligent + Christofascist…

      0 results found.

      I think Republicans might need to remove one search criterion to make that work.

      As for Dems… that might just be AOC? Lol

      • Leviathan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        5 months ago

        You’re right. DeSantis would’ve been catastrophic if he wasn’t such a little weirdo with no charisma.

      • AbsentBird@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        5 months ago

        I would love to vote for AOC. She will be old enough to run next year, but it will be four years before the next election.

        • taiyang@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          5 months ago

          She checks all the boxes unless you’re the type to believe Republican spin (she was a bartender once but has more education than most GoP house members). I’m unfortunately sure she’ll get the same DNC treatment as Sanders, though :/

          • AbsentBird@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            5 months ago

            I don’t think the DNC will be able to stop her. They can only do so much. I was a huge Bernie fan, volunteered at rallies and everything, but even I can acknowledge that the support was not quite strong enough to overcome the establishment headwind. He came close twice, but I think there were a number of people who wrote him off over his age and whatnot.

            I think AOC could tip the scales, she’s young and smart and has real conviction. She has all the Bernie benefits with none of the baggage.

          • Leviathan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            5 months ago

            That spin is hilarious when you consider the source, they voted for a reality TV personality and didn’t bar an eye when he padded his cabinet with family members and inept grifters.

          • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            I’m unfortunately sure she’ll get the same DNC treatment as Sanders, though :/

            What, other than bleak cynicism, leads you to that conclusion?

        • Burstar@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          5 months ago

          Not an American, but AOC is who I hope the Dems go with next time. She’s the only thing I envy about your political situation atm.

        • taiyang@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Of course! But I don’t think there’s any public figure Republicans who fit the bill.

          • TheBraveSirRobbin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            5 months ago

            You don’t think there’s people out there to chirp the republican agenda for their own personal gain? People are definitely smart enough to say things they don’t believe in to manipulate others

            • taiyang@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              5 months ago

              Who’s both charismatic, young, and intelligent? Don’t get me wrong, I’m quite aware people lie to manipulate others (that’s like all religions) but I don’t think there’s someone in the GOP, or are GOP aligned celebs, who fit the description. Like… who? The best they ran celeb-wise Dr. Oz and he’s am uncharismatic weasel.

              Maybe two of the three, but even that’s a stretch (DeSantis for instance might be two of three but I have doubts he’s particularly intelligent; maybe by GOP standards). I guess someone could emerge but whoever they are, they ain’t on my radar.

    • Croquette@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      5 months ago

      They don’t do it because it doesn’t serve them personally. As we have seen time and time again, politicians are mostly griftfers that will flip on a dime and change their moral compass just so that they can benefit from the situation.

      • Leviathan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        By personally do you mean financially? Because I think an argument for personal benefit could be made for blowing the opposition out of the water.

    • Starkstruck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      5 months ago

      I think one of the big things is the MAGA voters vote for Trump and ONLY Trump. They don’t turn out for elections without him in it. The Republicans know that without the MAGAs, they’re not gonna win the presidential election.

      Also this is purely theory but I wouldn’t be surprised if Russia gives Trump information he can blackmail Republicans with. I’m sure Russian honeypots have dug up a lot of stuff over the years.

    • ImADifferentBird
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      5 months ago

      Maga is a cult of personality. The Republicans’ fear is they won’t turn out for anyone but Trump.

      As for the Democrats, the line they always give is that social democrats can’t win elections, but honestly, I think the party elite is afraid of what would happen if they did.

      • Blackbeard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        I think both things can be correct at the same time. Unfortunately, they have quite a bit of evidence to support the former argument, which means they don’t have to openly engage with the latter. The closest we got to the veil coming off was 2016, but whether or not we agree with them that the left can win elections, the fact of the matter is they generally don’t except in the most ideologically homogenous districts.

    • PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      5 months ago

      Charismatic, intelligent people don’t need fascism nearly as much as dumbfucks do but even for the few who get sucked in anyway, there’s easier and more self-serving ways to express it than a grueling, always-on position in the Republican party.

      But ultimately the answer to both “why don’t they run someone actually good” questions is “because it would be a threat to neoliberals and their record profits”.

      • Maeve@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        Neolibs can’t countenance that their darling politicians are actually right of Nixon, let alone admit it.

    • Donebrach@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 months ago

      Because the cult is about the man, not the idea. Ron DeSantis tried to be just that (not saying he holds any of those qualities that you mentioned, just that he tried) and failed because no one cares about what Trump actually stands for (when you listen to Trump supporters talk about him, you’d think they would actually vote for democrats considering the issues they bring up—barring the worst of the worst racist, homophobic deranged individuals of course). At the end of the day, they just care about their god-lord little-hand long-tie orange-faced crybaby and the made-up grievances he’s had to endure and how that somehow translates to their own impending persecution.

      The reason the Democratic Party hasn’t does that is they hold the monopoly on milquetoast impotence in governing, as their corporate overlords have decreed.

    • Tom_Hanx_Hail_Satan@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Not saying I take everything Biden says at face value but he has stated that he wouldn’t be running if Trump wasn’t. I think there is sound rationale behind it though. Trump just flings shit all over everything, Biden has already been through it. Why expose a promising young candidate to that? Next election cycle the GOP primary candidates are going to be trying to out trump and whoever is going to be the dem candidate will be looking that much better because of the shit the GOP smeared all over themselves.

      The point I’m making is more than a little devils advocate though. Dems need to address the enthusiasm gap, it seems like theyre going to be leaning on the grassroots movement from pro-choice groups. Fingers crossed it’s effective.

    • slimarev92@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      They don’t have anyone nearly as good as him. People give Trump a lot of shit, deservedly so, but he’s one hell of a politician. Nobody can galvanize their base like he does.

      • jas0n@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Yeah. Agree 100%. His greatest political victory was to convince people that a born wealthy real estate clown is an “outsider” to politics that can relate to the common folk. A true outsider would be an engineer, doctor, scientist, etc. Someone that doesn’t have the ability to increase their wealth by millions with minor tweaks in the law.

        Ever notice that corpo speak and political speak are exactly the same. Like how they can both run circles around any question without ever answering it? Yeah.

      • samus12345@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        The worst part is that he’s only a “good politician” because the system is so horribly broken.

    • nucleative@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      These old stodgy dudes have two things going for them that young guys don’t (yet) have - a lifetime of building a support network of donors and mastery at playing “the game”.

      They should retire at 60 and pass along their donors and skills to a few proteges, but recently they cling until the very last breath.

    • outsideno1877@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      It would still be better then trump but i would like to see a party that doesn’t suck since we have a two party system with 0 good options which is why im voting for biden despite hating him (rather incompetent then malicious)

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      I have to assume the reason is because they don’t have anyone. If they did they’d be relatively forefront in politics and you’d know about them.

      • Leviathan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Probably why the Republicans attacked AOC so hard and made sure all their followers knew exactly where they were supposed to stand in regards to her.

  • The Picard Maneuver@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    62
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    This is the current state of US politics - it’s more about who you’re against than who you’re for, and I firmly believe this is the reason why no scandals seem to matter anymore.

    On the conservative side, they get a steady stream of content telling them how horrible Biden and the Democrats are, so anyone with a heartbeat and an ® next to their name is fine. It’s probably how Trump of all people became the party leader.

    • Nate Cox@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      5 months ago

      Strategic voting is a direct result of first past the post voting; effectively any system that uses FPTP will result in a two party system where your vote gets used against the other person not for your choice.

      I’ll continue to shill for ranked choice voting whenever I see any opportunity.

    • Verdant Banana@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      5 months ago

      On the progressive side, they get a steady stream of content telling them how horrible Trump and the Republicans are, so anyone with a heartbeat and an D next to their name is fine. It’s probably how Biden of all people became the party leader.

      • djsoren19@yiffit.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        5 months ago

        Sure, if you ignore all the progressives who hate Biden and protest his handling of Palestine constantly, you can pretend that both sides are lockstep behind dear leader.

          • MindTraveller@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            No, I see actual leftists criticise Biden all the time and get upvoted and praised. It’s only the marxist-liberals who get in trouble for criticising Biden, and it’s because they do it in the most counterproductive liberal way possible.

          • MindTraveller@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            5 months ago

            Nope, you’ll never catch a marxist-liberalist actually doing anything productive. They believe in order to be a good leftist you have to do nothing. Because if you do something, and it’s not perfect, you’re a bad person.

        • bhmnscmm@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          Time will tell if those people will still vote for Biden or if their hatred will be reflected in how they vote.

          • ceenote@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            5 months ago

            The only non-fascists who have a chance at winning. Progressives didn’t pick our first past the post election formula.

            • bhmnscmm@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              My comment and this thread has nothing to do with rightly or wrongly voting for anyone. Nor does it have anything to do with how anyone should justify their vote.

              I only reinforced the claim that anyone with a “D” next to their name is “fine enough” for progressives to vote for. A claim that you initially disagreed with, but are now proving to be true.

              • KnightontheSun@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                5 months ago

                I am unsure as to why a progressive would ever vote Republican. Progressives cannot politically exist on their own in this two-party system. They have to adopt one party or the other. Since the Republican party is completely and absolutely opposed to anything a progressive would believe in, they adopted the one party that has a minor shot at enacting policies they adhere to. There is no doubt they would likely vote D all the way down the ballot in every election. It’s the only opportunity at policy progression they have. It has been this way for a while so this claim isn’t some new prediction or revelation.

              • confusedbytheBasics@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                5 months ago

                If Biden was full of bravado around breaking the government so we wouldn’t have more elections like Trump I wouldn’t vote for him either. It’s not about the D or the R. It’s about the choice that most likely to lead to a peaceful transfer of power in the next election. There are no good options but I choose the one that’s going to allow future, hopefully better, choices.

              • btaf45@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                5 months ago

                I only reinforced the claim that anyone with a “D” next to their name is “fine enough” for progressives to vote for.

                Maybe listen to Bernie when he said that any Dem is “200x” better than any Republican candidate for president. I have never known Bernie to be wrong about anything.

              • ceenote@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                5 months ago

                One of the biggest factors that makes Republicans fascish is the way they use any power they’re given to entrench their positions, something democrats also do a little, but much less than Republicans. Voting for a party you’re less than happy with to keep the much worse party from permanent power is a much more practical and thought-out position than “blue no matter who” would have you believe. It’s disingenuous to liken that to the largely false fear-mongering the right wing media bubble does to convince their voters that the conservative Democrat Joe Biden wants to turn America communist.

        • PopOfAfrica@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Its “Democratic Party”.

          We dont call the opponents “Republic Party”

          Republicans started saying this to disassociate the party from the word “democracy”

        • btaf45@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          boTh SIdes aRe The sAMe!!!

          Yep. The GOP is waging a War on Democracy and Dems have been using the wrong brand of mustard.

      • btaf45@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        It’s probably how Biden of all people became the party leader.

        That and getting the most primary votes.

    • crusa187@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      I’m against all these assholes taking bribes from whoever they can and above all else ignoring the needs of their constituents. Recall them all!

  • kromem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    5 months ago

    “People voting for watching paint dry instead of poking sticks in their eyes appear to be mostly motivated by avoiding sticks…in their eyes.”

    • MartianRecon@lemmus.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      5 months ago

      I want politics to be something you look at with a sense of boredom vs a sense of dread again. Biden has been great for making politics ‘boring’ again, on top of being a very competent leader.

      Sure, there’s things he has done that I’m not a fan of, but that’s every leader.

        • MartianRecon@lemmus.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          I personally don’t find regular politics ‘boring’ at all, but I’m a poli sci graduate. Seeing how the sausage gets made regarding legislation is interesting.

          What’s not interesting is these charlatans pretending that congress is the WWE, and trying to enact laws that infringe on the rights of other Americans.

          • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            By “boring” I mean “We’re going to have a discussion about this and listen to the experts and try to find a way to serve competing interests in a calm and rational manner.”

            No more people SLAMMING other people. No stupid rhetorical games in committee hearings. No assholes shouting at the SOTU. No symbolic protests or virtue signaling. A government made up of people who want to find the right answer and work together. That fairy tale I was told about how it’s supposed to work. Going back to C-SPAN being a cure for insomnia. That’s what I mean by boring.

            And if they do want to slam people we should put a steel cage on the floor of Congress.

    • tastysnacks@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      I like Biden too. He could bring peace to the middle east and defeat Putin, but still his best attribute is that he is not Donald Trump.

  • hperrin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    I have never whole heartedly supported the Democratic candidate (because I’m far more left than any of them have ever been), but I’ve always voted for them, because they’re far better than the other option. This time they’re just so far better than the other option, not because they are any better, but because the other option is so astoundingly worse. So, I guess, welcome to the club.

    But I will say, Biden has been more progressive than any other candidate in my lifetime. Again, that’s not saying much, but hey, it’s better than nothing. He’s just killing himself by supporting Israel.

    • btaf45@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      5 months ago

      But I will say, Biden has been more progressive than any other candidate in my lifetime.

      I agree and I can remember every president since Nixon. Not one single president in the past 50 years has been better than Biden.

    • TexasDrunk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      I supported them wholeheartedly for like a day when I moved from libertarianish something in my teens and early twenties to slightly progressive. I feel exactly the same.

  • Let's Go 2 the Mall!@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    5 months ago

    Biden has not been as bad as I expected him to be, but he is out of touch with the average American. Politicians need mandatory retirements. We need someone under the age of 65. But I’ll take him over the convicted felon.

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    5 months ago

    “It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see…"

    “You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?”

    “No,” said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, “nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people.”

    “Odd,” said Arthur, “I thought you said it was a democracy.”

    “I did,” said Ford. “It is.”

    “So,” said Arthur, hoping he wasn’t sounding ridiculously obtuse, “why don’t people get rid of the lizards?”

    “It honestly doesn’t occur to them,” said Ford. “They’ve all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they’ve voted in more or less approximates to the government they want.”

    “You mean they actually vote for the lizards?”

    “Oh yes,” said Ford with a shrug, “of course.”

    “But,” said Arthur, going for the big one again, “why?”

    “Because if they didn’t vote for a lizard,” said Ford, “the wrong lizard might get in.”

  • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Anyone who who is capable of getting themselves made president should on no account be allowed to do the job.

    ETA: Anyone downvoting this is not a hoopy frood

    • AbsentBird@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 months ago

      Any man who can hitch the length and breadth of the Galaxy, rough it, slum it, struggle against terrible odds, win through and still know where his towel is, is clearly a man to be reckoned with.

    • androogee (they/she)@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      Ahhh yes, mind obliterating cynicism with no wisdom or practical solutions, just the bliss of never having to admit your own civic responsibility to do anything.

      Fuck this shit.

        • androogee (they/she)@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Oh I’m aware of the source. And I repeat: Fuck this shit. It’s stupid and self destructive and needs to be left in the past, not mindlessly repeated.

          • Bahnd Rollard@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            Pot, meet kettel. Complaining about cynicism without offering anything constructive is worse than being cynical itself.

            Pointing to the flaws in society is important, because not everyone has the right to complain about some entities (be it their government, religion or superiors), but your replies offer even less by failing to contribute anything and detracts from the point of the initial statement.

    • MartianRecon@lemmus.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      This is needlessly nihilistic, man.

      There are tons of politicians who are doing the job for the right reasons. Sure, there’s assholes, but there are assholes in every single profession on the planet.

  • Verdant Banana@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    5 months ago

    same reason people blindly follow Trump

    four years we still have low wages and higher costs, women lost rights held for over half a century, police are still running amuck, environmental concerns abound, genocide, antiimmigration policies

    and Trump’s resume does not look any better

    and the same people will scream and pitch a fit if anyone suggest a third party because it means a vote for that other guy

    football politics

    • Ledivin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      If you think these two candidates are the same, you haven’t put literally any effort into paying attention at all, get out of here with your enlightened centrist bullshit.

      Yeah, Biden is mediocre at best, and you’re usually right about the Dem vs GOP race… but this isn’t that, anymore. MAGA is a different beast.

      • Melkath@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Blue MAGA at its finest.

        “Ya, Biden got us into a genocide, BuT tRuMp WoUlD bE sO mUcH wOrSe!!@@!@”

        “Ya, Biden was the one who dropped 35 billion dollars for the militarization of police, BuT tRuMp WoUlD bE sO mUcH wOrSe!!@@!@”

        “Ya, Biden was the one who silenced and admonished peaceful protesters while commanding order, BuT tRuMp WoUlD bE sO mUcH wOrSe!!@@!@”

        The current conversation is “Trump would be so much worse”, but its like all of you forgot that he is going for a second term, and in his first term, while he was bad, he was not as bad as Biden. And you have no idea how much it fucking destroys me to say that about the leader of the party I used to so vehemently supported. But its just the case. All the bad things Trump did, Biden has continued, and Biden has come out with a host of things that are MUCH worse than anything that Trump ever did.

        We must reject the 2 party system.

        • JimSamtanko@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          “Ya, but don’t ask me who could win against Trump if not Biden, bEcAuSe aLL i kNoW iS biDeN bAd!!@@!@“

          “Ya, you can keep telling me how trump will be worse, and prove it, but aLL i kNoW iS bIDeN bad!@!@@!!”

          Ya, I couldn’t have even pointed to Palestine on a map a year ago, bUt aLL’s i kNoW iS, BiDeN BAAAAAD!!@!!@“

          You honestly think Trump wasn’t as bad as Biden? Really? I think we can all see why you’re here now.

          • btaf45@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            5 months ago

            You honestly think Trump wasn’t as bad as Biden? Really?

            It’s very hard to understand America from St. Petersburg.

            • JimSamtanko@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              I’m confused with the comparison… No one is talking about St. Petersburg here.

              • Ledivin@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                The implication is that the person you replied to is an actor paid for by Russia, trying to destabilize the country.

            • JimSamtanko@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              Did you seriously just suggest that democrats, or as you ignorantly like to call them: “blue MAGA” should die?

              And…

              Polls…. ROFL! This is one of the reasons why I can’t take you seriously. The other is that you didn’t give a shit about Palestine before October of last year.

              And news flash kiddo. EVERYONE opposed genocide. We still have an election to consider. So for all your pretending to know what you’re talking about- which MANY have disproven by the way-

              You’re going to get genocide no matter the results.

              But again, you already know that. You just seem to want better genocide.

              • Melkath@kbin.earth
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                Fascists. I said fascists should die.

                If this is your response, you are agreeing that modern democrats are fascists.

                • JimSamtanko@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  No, you said specifically… that blue MAGA should die. And everyone knows it’s the ignorant little pet name you people have for liberals.

        • MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          5 months ago

          in his first term, while he was bad, he was not as bad as Biden

          If you ignore the 4 years of constant chaos, mismanaged pandemic that ended up killing millions of Americans, damage done to our reputation on the world stage, the record setting amount of graft, and ten thousand other things… This is absolute lunacy.

        • btaf45@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          5 months ago

          and in his first term, while he was bad, he was not as bad as Biden.

          Convicted Felon and Sex Offender Treason Trump was 1,000,000x worse than Biden. Nice try Ivan.

    • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      5 months ago

      If you’re not voting for one of the big two in most cases you might as well save yourself the bother and stay home. Not saying it’s right, it shouldn’t be that way but the US voting system is extremely flawed so you need to make a frustrating decision. That’s just the shitty reality of it from what I can tell from the outside at least.

        • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          This is such BS. Trump is a piece of shit but there’s no way he can just declare himself a dictator and remove our right to vote. Remember “the president doesn’t really have that much power” or at least that’s what I hear anytime Biden gets criticized for doing so little to help the lower and middle class in this country. Voting for Biden isn’t going to make the GOP go away or rethink their strategies. We’ll continue our downward slide regardless of which one of these old windbags gets elected.

          • Ioughttamow@kbin.run
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Remember 1/6? Just give them a second go, they already tried to subvert democracy, they’ve already damaged many of our institutions by more than they’ve been able to recover in the last 4, building is more fruitful than destruction, but it takes longer and is harder. Give these fucks 4 more years and they’ll get it right, handmaids tale here we go

            • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              5 months ago

              Yes, I remember it along with every other American alive. There is zero chance they’ll allow that to be repeated again just like a 9/11 will never happen again because people no longer think a hijacking means being flown to some other country for ransom.

              Our institutions are being damaged by the leadership from both these parties. I’m so sick of hearing excuses for why things can’t improve meanwhile Republicans seem to face little opposition in passing their shitty agenda while also not holding a majority.

              • Ioughttamow@kbin.run
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                5 months ago

                The zero chance is only if you don’t give that power back. The judiciary is already captured for at least another decade. If they get the executive and legislature back, and 4 more years, the zero chance is gone. You need to stop being cute, there will be consequences

      • RampageDon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        5 months ago

        Right the issue isn’t voting for another person, the issue is that in first past the post voting, voting for a third party is essentially not voting. So you can protest vote because you dislike the main person your party puts forward, but if you think the other parties candidate is worse you are doing yourself a disservice voting third party. It’s not the people it is the system.

    • CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      5 months ago

      It makes perfect sense why we only have two parties while many countries in Europe have lots of parties. It’s not magic and it’s not because our parties are just so good at stopping third parties.

      The reason we are like this is because our voting system punishes similar candidates who run against each other. This results in parties that are more like coalitions, each made up of various factions that would be separate parties in a better system, who run a primary to pick one candidate to send forth, so that they don’t cannibalize each other in the general election.

      The bad part is that even the primaries generally have the same flawed first-past-the-post voting scheme, so similar candidates often have to strategically drop out or not run at all.

      This voting system desperately needs to be fixed. But you can’t fix it by simply acting like we just have to decide to have more parties, nor can you fix it by voting third party and screwing over one of the parties. I think this idea of voting third party in this election is appealing to some because it makes you feel like you’re doing something to fix it. You’re not.

      In my view the best hope of fixing this is pushing for election reform locally and winning over communities to the idea. There are some parts of the country with better voting systems in place. We should build on that.