You must log in or register to comment.
deleted by creator
That’s not a counterpoint, that’s just pointing out that both aren’t good signals. The main difference is that not voting or voting third party makes it more likely that the guy you yourself admit you’re more scared of more likely to win.
Counter-counter-point : democracy, as a system of government, is pointless because whether you vote, you don’t vote, you protest vote, you vote tactically or you just set your ballot paper on fire it’s not going to make a difference – you still get shafted by corrupt fuckers.
deleted by creator
yes we made a bunch of noise about the failures of the democrats in an effort to pressure them to fucking do something. whether you think we are stupid for refusing to vote or not, you can’t deny how much discourse there is and how much engagement has occurred.
Refusing to vote in the general election is actually beyond stupid. None of your arguments will have any merit, and when Trump wins, you can buy some golden shoes to commemorate sticking it to the DNC.
Voting for someone that does not represent you because you are more scared of the other guy is indistinguishable, as a signal, from someone that fully supports them. By voting against your own interests you are actively undermining the democratic process.
See that’s where your argument makes no sense. Unless you want Trump to win, not voting is in effect “against your own interests”. Undermining the democratic process is what Trump WILL DO if he is elected.
This is the reality of our election process, like it or not.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Stop thinking and start voting!
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
How?
Who do you think is going to read your blank ballot?
My constituency has 250,000+ people in it.
Do you REALLY think that someone is going to sift through over two hundred and fifty THOUSAND ballots, find one that has “abstain” on it and go “oh – we must find this person and find out why they are upset with the process”?
Also – not to put too fine a point on it – voting is supposed to be anonymous. If I write “abstain” on my ballot and they track me down, isn’t that FAR more worrying?
deleted by creator
Maybe rephrase your other comment then.
Vote early and vote often!
Democracy requires participation to be legitimized by the people.
But sure, don’t vote and have the fascists take away those annoying voting rights. Like an idiot.
Putin really love the way you think! <3
yeah, didn’t work in brazil, we just opened up for the right to elect their dumbass just before the pandemic started, it was grim, please do vote for the lesser evil.
Yeah, vote if you want, but please do more than that.
My voting strategy is super easy. You don’t need to keep up with politics or policy. Just see who the KKK is voting for and then vote for the other guy.
As an outsider, it’s really depressing to hear you only get two parties to choose from.
There were a few times the Klan rallied behind progressive pro-civil rights candidates to intentionally sabotage them, but this tactic doesn’t get used today.
That’s pretty good! Mine is similar: I check which feces-smearing insurrection has attendees with the “Camp Auschwitz” hoodies and vote against their candidate.
deleted by creator
This works 100% of the time.
You shouldn’t have just one other guy though. KKK might prefer one, but be ok with the other as well.
You can hate all the candidates and still vote for the less shitty one.
You can hate the concept of government in it’s entirety and still vote. Even Lysander Spooner, a total anarchist, said as much in his writings. He said government is completely illegitimate, but there’s nothing wrong with voting when you are forced into the system, and doing so does not imply your consent to the system. It’s like a torturer asking you how you’d prefer to be tortured. It’s OK to have an opinion. Over here in the USA, I’d rather suffer Sleepy Genocidal Joe than that fucking orange monster. Since we don’t have ranked choice voting, I have to pick one or else I don’t get any say at all, and that’s exactly how the powers-that-be want it.
Yep. Do you want a festering carbuncle on your ass or do you want AIDS, Ebola, leprosy and testicle cancer combined? Shitty choice but an easy one nonetheless.
If the primaries aren’t complete can’t you vote for another option?
deleted by creator
I cannot because I’m (fortunately) not a US citizen. If you are and you don’t vote, it’s a vote for Trump. If you want Trump to win because you think things will somehow get better after he brings down the system, you’re delusional.
deleted by creator
A-fucking-men
deleted by creator
Got it, should riot instead.
You should.
You won’t though.
A riot on your own is just a tantrum. There’s no point of you’re not organised.
Well that’s the left fucked then.
I’m convinced that the CIA is somehow causing the American left to be unable to organize, because with organization comes power, and the left having power would mean a shift away from corporate rule.
Closest they seemed to get was the Black Panthers. So it was the FBI rather than the CIA that busted that in.
deleted by creator
Like by infiltrating, arresting, and executing them? It’s the FBI. You know about COINTELPRO, right? There are tons of FBI documents talking about how they did exactly that. Or like… The drug war?
This shit is recent and still going on. I have a friend who’s an organizer. The FBI comes and knocks on his door every April just to tell him they’re watching him. This happens to every visible organizer in the Seattle area. I mean, fucking Durkan and Robert Child’s.
The US apparatus of state violence primarily targets the left. We live under a continuous counterinsurgency program and it’s mostly targeted and keeping the left from organizing. Go read Life During Wartime and watch Trouble episode 6.
There’s huge and well documented paper trail. The CIA prevents democracy aborad, the FBI prevents it at home.
Who’s the one that tried to get MLK Jr. to off himself due to him getting a bit too socialist? FBI? Whoever it was was probably also involved in his shooting.
That would be the FBI.
Good thing May is coming ;)
Agreed, that’s why the strategy of voting uncommitted and/or third party is superior.
Except it’s a primary where he’s running against himself basically.
That’s the point. It’s a primary, it’s not the general election. They’re showing up and saying “we’re your voters and you know what our message is.”
Oh I’m 100% behind handing in a blank or Mickey Mouse or something in the primary. What’s upsetting is the people who swear up and down they’re going to do it in the general.
Doesn’t help that the US uses first past the post voting instead of ranked choice. You usually have to pick who you hate least, rather than who you like most.
It does not in the slightest help, no. But it is worth noting that even here you can see differences in the parties - one of them keeps trying to strip voting rights from people, put minimal polling places into high density areas, etc.
If you can, please go vote. You give the vote up to the person you like the least if you don’t show up. I know this election sucks and the candidates aren’t the best. But is there someone you absolutely don’t want in office no matter what? I have one in mind and you better believe I’m showing up to vote for the only guy who can have a chance to keep him away. These other third party guys have no chance, like always. If you don’t show up to vote or vote third party as a throwaway, then don’t complain for the next four years.
These other third party guys have no chance, like always.
Also they aren’t serious candidates. You can tell because they just crawl out of the woodwork for presidential elections and cause problems. They don’t run for any offices further down the hierarchy and demonstrate that they have good ideas and build up public trust enough to merit their becoming president. They just go on vanity tours and fuck around the serious candidates who are willing to put in the work.
Honestly sometimes I think every country should have its own Sinn Féin of sorts. Just a party that never takes its seats. Yeah, try calling it the “same thing” when you can’t pass any legislation or form coalitions or get anything done because a third of the seats in the national legislature are literally left empty on purpose. Don’t like it? Well, it’s your problem that your party is literally less electable than No Representation!
In the US that would almost literally be voting in Republicans. They want the system to crawl to a halt, and critical functions are legislated to frequently sunset so they can hold the system hostage on a regular basis.
This is very superficial.
It’s how the system works with First Past the Post voting. It doesn’t support more than 2 viable candidates. We need to reform our election system.
Well, it’s a short comment on a social media platform, what do you expect. At least it’s less superficial than “This is very superficial.”
I should’ve gone into detail, but I’m just not in the mood to argue sometimes. I’ll get back to you if I do.
Yeah, try calling it the “same thing” when you can’t pass any legislation or form coalitions
Isn’t that the Republican strategy?
That’s the Republican strategy when they’re in the minority and the legislation in question is stuff that actually helps people. Real POSIWID hours
Well, good news, US legislature managed to dismantle itself with all the “checks and balances” and
liberum vetofilibuster. Now it’s just a circus to play for the gullible to legitimize this oligarchic empire. It is no representation, one way or another and somebody should openly state it. The best the progressive caucus could do now is to walk out.
CGP Grey’s Rules for Rulers spells out power structures in authoritarian and democratic countries really well.
If you vote, you are saying “I can support you, or I can support the other guy, but I will support someone” whereas not voting tells politicians you are politically useless, so they won’t pay any attention to your needs.
It’s a cynical way of looking at it, but if the no. 1 imperative for a politician is reelection, spending time doing things that will get you more votes is better than wasting time pleasing people who probably won’t vote anyway.
If somebody tells you not to vote, they know who you would have voted for and rather you didn’t.
Who would tell someone not to vote?
AI Biden voices via mass robocall.
That can’t be a real thing, source?
That is only true in the undemocratic 2 party system of the US.
In places where they actually have multiple parties, say 10 or so at least. It is hard to not find a party that you like more than the others.
So if someone doesn’t vote, it means none of the parties are good enough. Otherwise they would vote blank. And if too many people do not vote, it sends a clear signal to the government that they need to change something fast in order to prevent an uprising.
We need ranked choice voting. First past the post virtually guarantees a two party system.
Ranked choice voting is just a primary with fewer steps. Caucuses are already essentially ranked choice.
Ranked choice gives you the most moderate candidate and weeds out the others. Or, gives you the most charismatic demagogue. Notably, Joe Biden and Donald Trump check those boxes.
Ranked choice voting is just a primary with fewer steps
This is wrong. It is a multi-stage runoff election with fewer steps (hence why it’s called “instant runoff”), and that’s a good thing because it means that people are much less likely to invalidate their ballot by voting for a first-preference candidate with no chance of winning.
Ranked choice gives you the most moderate candidate and weeds out the others
Ranked Choice Voting gives you (more often than not*)the most broadly popular candidate. Which is what you should want if you believe in democracy or the concept of a republic.
I feel like this should go without saying, but the goal of democratic reform is not to put the person you like in power, it’s to put the people back in power.
If the most popular candidate happens to be too “moderate” for your tastes, then it’s up to you to advocate for your positions in a way that will change hearts and minds in order to get more people on your side. If you can’t do that, then you really have no business winning a truly democratic election, right?
- There are some statistically possible scenarios in which the most broadly popular does not win a RCV election, but they are far less likely than any version of our current first-past-the-post plurality voting system.
We need STAR voting more. Ranked choice voting is only marginally better than first past the post.
Could you explain star?
Sure! It’s also called approval voting. But the key is it’s called STAR: score then automatic runoff. You rank any of the candidates from 0 to 5. If you don’t rank them, it’s a 0. Then you total all the scores and the highest score wins.
More info here: https://www.starvoting.org
The cool thing about STAR is that I can rank some people a 1 saying “they’re better than nothing!” While voting for my favorites with 5’s. The highest score wins, so the most approved by most people wins.
There it’s indistinguishable from being uninterested in politics. And politicians have no incentives to cater to those that seem unlikely to vote. Null and blank votes are better at showing disaproval of the system, and at making politicians rethink their strategies
I was gonna mention this: You don’t have to vote for anyone, and you can just lie after you leave the ballot blank.
deleted by creator
Whilst I’m not in US with it’s Power Duopoly system, were I’ve lived I’ve always made a point of voting in the elections I can vote, and if none of the options appeals to me, I just vote blank.
Abstention out of principle does get mixed with abstention out of laziness, out of disconnect from politics or simply because of not being able to go vote, but a blank vote is a statement of “I did go to the trouble of going to vote just to register my dissatisfaction with all available options”.
I’ve also been on the other side (manning a voting place) and I don’t recommend spoiling your vote (if voting with a paper ballot) as whilst the people talling the votes will indeed see your beautiful artistic depiction of male genitalia or read your strongly worded message of disgust with the selection of candidates available, it won’t go beyond them as in the tally it just gets mixed with people that incorrectly filled-in the ballot (such as multiple marks, marks significantly outside the box or, in the US, hanging chads).
I agree with your stance, but would take it a step further.
If one refuses to participate, rather than being unable to for what ever reason (we do realize that voter supression happens and that alone is a complicated subject that im not going to dig into for this hot take), one gives up the right to complain about politics until the next election cycle. Showing up and turning in a blank ballot is a valid protest, being loud from the side lines without putting in a minimum of effort is not.
Although in the US where its been “the lesser of two evils” for my entire life, a blank ballot is statistically in support of the greater evil.
I think that if there is one thing the US’ political system shows is that you’re still supporting great evil, just at a strategical level rather than a more inmediate tactical one: if all a politician needs to gain power is to be perceived as less evil that the other one they have way more room for evilness (pretty much all the way up to were the other one sits in that scale) than they would if they had to convince voters by the quality of their own actions.
As we’re seing, over multiple electoral cycles the result of this is that, as one side pulls further and further into “complete total nutter” levels, the other side also becomes more and more so, just not quite as much: one side is still less evil that the other but both are more evil than their predecessors something which would never happenned if people refuse to votde for any evil.
This is how for example we ended up with Reaganism adopted by both parties in the US (hence they both only really represent the upper classes when it comes to things like Quality of Life and Economics) and the situation now with Biden supporting Genocide and unwilling to roll that support back (which, if you think about it, would be the only way he could get a significant fraction of votes in a system were people voted for good rather than accept evil “as long as its lesser”) - with people voting like that politicians don’t need to be good, much less better than before, they only need to a tiny bit better than “the other guy”, so they keep getting worse (hence how Democrats are now active supporters of Genocide)
By voting evil with merelly a moving reference (the greater evil) as constraint, you’re enabling evil to grow, and that’s exactly what you’ve gotten in the US over the last 4 decades were Quality Of Live has gotten worse and worse for the majority, Social Mobility has gone down a cliff (and is now worse than most of Europe, when it used to be better) culminating with the current “choice” between 2 candidates who both support a nation led by openly racist Fascists who are active commiting a Genocide.
Choose evil, Get evil - even if you salve your conscience by saying “yeah, but it could’ve been worse” (which, funilly enough, is a common cope of the submissive and the mediocre).
Forgive me the crudness but from were I’m standing it looks a lot like Biden is treating a significant fraction of the electorate as his bitches: cowed into keeping on coming back no matter what he does “because it could be worse”, with even some bitches activelly convincing the other bitches not to leave.
deleted by creator
If possible I prefer voting for a small party / candidate even if they have no chance at winning. That way it actually takes away votes from the big options, while blanks are just ignored in the reported results. At least that’s how it works here, the first thing ignored are the non-voters, next invalid / blank votes, and the only thing that matters and gets reported on are valid votes.
I think blank votes are ignored because there are so few of them.
If an election is getting 10 or 20% blank votes, that’s hard to ignore because it means a huge fraction of actually engaged and active voters - who could’ve just as easilly put a cross somewhere - aren’t being served.
Amongst other things it tells existing parties that “my vote is here for the taking”.
deleted by creator
As a dual citizen with Australia:
Vote, vote, vote. You are disrespecting all hard-fought wons by marginalized groups throughout 200+ years of history.
Literally, the first voters in the country were land owning white men.
People died. So you could have a say.
You are disrespecting the dead, and denying you civic duty, and your obligation in the social contract, by not voting.
People should be disgraced and shunned for not voting. I do not care what your political beliefs are, even if they are odious or fickle or contrarian or uninformed to me.
Show up and cast your ballot you otherwise absolute disrespectful coward.
So – and I want to be clear about this – to honour and respect those who fought and died for my right to vote, I should show up and put a cross next to the name of someone I think is a homophobic, transphobic, bigoted piece of shit just because she is less of a homophobic, transphobic bigoted piece of shit than the other person I could put a cross next to the name of?
To me that doesn’t suggest I am showing any honour or respect to anyone. It just says that I am giving up every bit of my dignity, integrity and shame and that when I stand before my ancestors in the Halls of Judgement they will look at me and shake their heads in disgust.
I should show up and put a cross next to the name of someone I think is a homophobic, transphobic, bigoted piece of shit just because she is less of a homophobic, transphobic bigoted piece of shit than the other person I could put a cross next to the name of?
Yes. Either voice your opinion for who is less bad, or have no voice. The game is rigged, but it’s the only game in town.
Either voice your opinion for who is less bad, or have no voice.
That’s not how living in reality works. Tell that to the rioters of the stonewall inn. That was the most meaningful change to the fight for LGBTQ+ rights. They used their voices for multiple nights and it mobilized the community like never before. No thanks to the “repspectables” Also what do you tell the disenfranchised, the people that have been robbed of their opportunity to vote? You are essentially telling them that they are voiceless which isn’t true in the slightest. They are just living under a repressive government that people have voted for time and time again thinking they are doing something good. Yet what this allows people to do is say they don’t need to participate in direct action and they create “officials” that maintain narratives that further disenfranchise more people. And democrats do this too, not just republicans.
That’s not how living in reality works
Funny choice of words, because in reality, it’s a zero sum game and you either vote for the person closest to your views or risk getting the person you disagree with more. That is the reality of the situation.
They used their voices for multiple nights and it mobilized the community like never before
Yes, direct action is very cool and very hip, and I encourage it, but we’re talking about voting.
You are essentially telling them that they are voiceless
No, I am telling people that abstain from voting that they are voiceless, because they are choosing to not use it because of ~dignity~ and ~integrity~
Yet what this allows people to do is say they don’t need to participate in direct action and they create “officials” that maintain narratives that further disenfranchise more people. And democrats do this too, not just republicans.
Nobody said anything like that, you are injecting that narrative out of nowhere. Nobody said voting for Biden is the only political thing you have to do this year. Go advocate and go protest, I encourage you, but also vote.
Yes, direct action is very cool and very hip, and I encourage it, but we’re talking about voting.
not voting and voicing why you are not voting has so far created more discourse around the failures of the democratic party than saying “vote blue, no matter who”. so to me this seems much more direct than just quietly voting.
dems thought they may have it in the bag with biden but they don’t. the biden admin has the lowest approval rating of any administration. enabling a genocide and aligning with the country perpetrating it for most of your political career will do that to your approval rating.
all they have to do is say permanent ceasefire and they get all those votes back. its not a hard concept. maybe instead of threatening voters with what will happen if they lose, they should do the thing that is preventing them from winning
not voting and voicing why you are not voting has so far created more discourse around the failures of the democratic party than saying “vote blue, no matter who”. so to me this seems much more direct than just quietly voting.
Sure, but is creating discourse the goal? Is the discourse even helping?
all they have to do is say permanent ceasefire and they get all those votes back. its not a hard concept. maybe instead of threatening voters with what will happen if they lose, they should do the thing that is preventing them from winning
Agree
Sure, but is creating discourse the goal?
I can’t speak for everyone but for me, yes
Is the discourse even helping?
Depends on a lot of things. I know I’m not the only one that feels this way. Ik there are aggressive democrat voters trying to shame and bully people into compromising themselves in an already compromising situation. They are told that what they think doesn’t matter and they “don’t have a voice” unless they vote. They don’t have a voice because y’all wont listen. We have voted, for what… to feel dirty and used by people you will never meet? I hope my replies and posts reach the eyes of those so they know that they aren’t voiceless and that this is an effective means of protest. Its obviously working by how much time and energy has been spent to try and convince us we are wrong. This is how democrats disenfranchise leftists. By saying this kind of protest and that kind of protest is ineffective, which is as ive pointed out demonstrably false because they are talking about it. You’re only allowed to protest a certain way even by democrats standards.
One fateful night, Marsha P. Johnson dropped a bag of bricks on a cop car and inspired millions of LGBTQ+ people over multiple generations. A trans woman that lived on the streets and was disenfranchised her whole life and couldn’t vote made real change happen that politicians could only dream of. Even trumps failed insurrection can’t put anything on that series of nights at the Stonewall Inn
There is a time to vote for people based on principle and that is what you are asking me to do by voting for biden. When the next major genocide is literally being conducted with the full support of the United States and the ones overseeing it are up for election and you can literally stop another holocaust like event from happening by telling those in power that they better do something or fuck off and make a lot of noise about it, then you have to take that opportunity.
I can still protest against them.
You seem to be missing my main problem – you are asking me to put a cross against the name of someone who will strip away the basic human rights of groups of people. Which is not something I am willing to do.
Especially if I am doing it in the name of those who fought and died for their rights.
I have some integrity.
If you want to protest against them, go ahead, I have no problem with that.
you are asking me to put a cross against the name of someone who will strip away the basic human rights of groups of people. Which is not something I am willing to do
Okay, but as I said, the reality of the situation is to put your cross on someone you don’t like or risk someone you really don’t like. I understand and empathize that it might feel like moral compromise, but I see it less like “I endorse this person and their principles” and more like harm reduction.
I have some integrity.
Is it integrity? If you are, by inaction, helping someone who will remove those human rights faster, aren’t you putting those high-minded morals above the physical reality of what will happen to those marginalized groups?
If you want to protest against them, go ahead, I have no problem with that.
you are asking me to put a cross against the name of someone who will strip away the basic human rights of groups of people. Which is not something I am willing to do
Okay, but as I said, the reality of the situation is to put your cross on someone you don’t like or risk someone you really don’t like. I understand and empathize that it might feel like moral compromise, but I see it less like “I endorse this person and their principles” and more like harm reduction.
And if they are as bad as each other?
I live in the UK and for the past five years the Labour party has been – from what I can see – turning into the Tory party. It has had no policies that aren’t Tory policies. Starmer is so scared of being seen as Jeremy Corbyn that he has become a Tory MP in waiting. He is so scared of not being elected that he is pandering to the far right. He doesn’t stand up for anyone who needs standing up for.
Voting for him… I really don’t see a difference between him and the Tories.
I have some integrity.
Is it integrity? If you are, by inaction, helping someone who will remove those human rights faster, aren’t you putting those high-minded morals above the physical reality of what will happen to those marginalized groups?
And if I put someone in power who enacts policies to the marginalised groups being erased, beaten, imprisoned or killed? Should I feel better about that?
And if they are as bad as each other?
If they are both truly as bad as each other, then yeah there is no harm reduction.
Should I feel better about that?
Would the other person have done it faster? Again, I don’t see voting as a complete endorsement; if there is an area in which one candidate is less bad than the other, then it is in your best interest to vote for them
Sounds like you think that one: we live in a democracy, and two: that democracy somehow equals more freedom. this is not the case.
Western democracy originated in ancient Greece. This political system granted democratic citizenship to free men, while excluding slaves, foreigners and women from political participation. In virtually all democratic governments throughout ancient and modern history, this was what democracy meant. An elite class of free men made all the decisions for everyone. Before Athens adopted democracy, aristocrats ruled society, so “rule by the people”, or the idea of a government controlled (in theory) by all its (free) male citizens instead of a few wealthy families seemed like a good deal. But really it was just a new iteration of Aristocracy rule rather than the revolution it’s painted as. The rich still rule society by feeding voters carefully constructed propaganda and keeping everyone poor, overworked and desperate to be granted basic needs by the state.
In democracies today, only legal citizens of a country are granted democracy. In a lot of countries, people who have been convicted of a “crime” are denied the right to vote, regardless of how long ago they served their sentence. In the US, this is used to deny voting rights to minority groups, who make up a large proportion of the prison population.
In some societies only a small minority group are allowed to participate in the democracy. In Apartheid South Africa, the minority group (European settlers) granted themselves democracy and excluded the native majority, using democracy to deprive the native population of the rights granted to European settlers. Anarchy, of course, is an absence of government; of rulers. Democracy aims for the individual to be governed, ruled, controlled by others.
America is and always has been an illegitimate apartheid state.
In the US, this is used to deny voting rights to minority groups, who make up a large proportion of the prison population.
Sure sounds like The Powers That Be are trying to prevent marginalized people from voting, we should probably vote against that. I wonder which party is more favorable to enfranchising convicts and making voting easier.
I wonder which party is more favorable to enfranchising convicts
neither the republican or establishment democrats are interested in that
One is definitely more actively opposed
oh really? NYS is a blue state no? One of the bluest, as I have been told. Should have some decent legislation surrounding incarceration, right? You ever hear of securis? Do you know how much it costs to talk to an incarcerated individual over the phone and how much that company makes in profit price gouging incarcerated folks families?
Democrats allow this to happen.
In new york, they were making hand sanitizer for COVID with prison labor. Yea, big blue New York uses prison labor. Very left of them. I’m sure the democrats are really interested in rights for convicts.
Yeah, that’s it… lecture and gaslight the people who have seen what you refuse to admit - that’s the way to get them back on your side.
People died. So you could have a say.
Innocent people also died at the hands of the government that was voted in. Many people have died for amerika’s imperial expansion and due to it. Many have been indentured and still are.
People should be disgraced and shunned for not voting.
What if the state bars you from voting because of past criminal history, regardless of time served? What if you are disabled and cannot make it to the ballot and you live somewhere that has heavily restricted mail in voting? What if you are unhoused and don’t have a physical address? You are calling to have these people shunned? How democratic and fair of you.
your obligation in the social contract
As if the social contract is upheld by the people you vote in. We get lied to so they get the vote and then we don’t even have recourse to sue or hold them accountable. All we can do is “vote them out” but then they tell us if we don’t vote for them, the world will literally end cause the other guy is evil. As if to say democrats are a force for good. lmao
The ability to vote and participate in a democracy is one thing of many that people have fought for, yes, so it should not be taken for granted. Ignoring it is throwing away the power you and everybody else who can vote have to influence how things will be in the future.
Im not ignoring my right to vote. I am using my right to participate or not as a catalyst for dialogue. Also voting someone in doesn’t guarantee they will do what we want them to or even what they say they will do. this has been proven time and time again. at this moment they want something from me, my vote, and I am denying them that until they change. Do you give a child what it wants just because it is whining? no. these politicians are supposed to answer to us, not the other way around.
For there not being any power in withholding a vote, people sure are upset about people threatening to do it.
It has the power to let the other guy win, and for all of us, especially the most vulnerable among us, to suffer more greatly. Is has the power to relinquish control of our nation to a reactionary authoritarian nationalist movement that won’t give power back willingly.
It does not, however, have the power to make things better.
I think you’ve missed the point.
Removed by mod
You are disrespecting the dead
you are disrespecting dead anarchists and communists by saying you need to participate in bourgeois virtue signaling instead of direct action for your fellows
Who said “instead of”?
One of the things I’ve found as someone who has moves between countries and continents is how different your exposure to news and issues is. I am not a fan of out of country voters and in this case I doubt they will make a difference, and there are plenty of them, retirees, who will just follow what Fox News tells them because they are the international propaganda arm that appeals to expats that are within a retirement bubble where they are not even directly affected by their vote.
But everyone in the US should be campaigning in the streets, putting out bulletins of how corrupt Trump is and how it was an issue before he even ran for president, and how corrupt he has continued to be and influenced by internal interests intent on weakening the US. If there are no ready to print bulletins, make them and post them for others to print and distribute. Specially in the Southern states, show how much of one of those big fancy snake oil salesman from the North he really is and just how much he has been fooling everyone. Tell them not to rely on those who are bought into the Trump diatribes so that lobbyists can get politicians on the tab, because they are really only interested in making products out of them for the next for years. Remind them of how 2020 ended up and what followed, how Trump’s dissing and dismissal of the WHO had consequences, and how it was only after he was removed that actions were taken to avoid getting the US stuck in the same rut China still is. Tell them how just as he dismissed WHO, he will cause a disaster with NATO, an organization commanded and empowering the US, and how a Trump win will lead to a complete loss of US power to foreign invaders already setting their sights on US soil in Alaska.
Recognize their political inclinations and points out how even well-respected representatives like Mitt Romney have been driven out of their party by charlatans, and if they are ok with it, that they should see themselves in the mirror and how they’ve changed since 2012. I know this is tough, but the long lost art of critical thought involves seeing and appealing to things from their perspective even when you might disagree with them yet are far better than an orange authoritarian clown. Don’t campaign for Biden if you are that really disillusioned with him, campaign against Trump and for the Trump alternatives that would have appealed to the voters and would have been candidates but no longer are capable of being because of how much his snake oil has rotted the party.
And I guess people from outside the US as well, since their bubbles will certainly by trying to get them to. Unless you want to vote for Trump, then your vote has already been preregistered so those nasty Dems don’t fake them, don’t worry about it :)
deleted by creator
Low turnout doesn’t change their minds it makes them think they need to either go further to the center or that Americans are too lazy
Low turnout consistently favors republicans, that’s why they do all they can to make it harder to vote, not going out to vote is basically for the republicans, who are at this point, basically a Fascist party.
basicallyLiterally a Fascist party.
The Democrats go further to the center no matter what, but they only win when they run to the left. Obama ran as a radical leftist that was going to deliver universal healthcare and hold the banks accountable, but jettisoned that as quick as he could. The truth is they just want to be in the center, and they’ll justify it no matter the turnout or outcome of the election.
Obama ran as a radical leftist
Do we live in the same reality?
Off the top of my head, he was going to bailout the mortgage holders, reign in the banks, close Gitmo, end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, pass universal healthcare, and end warrantless wiretaps. He either abandoned those objectives (sometimes when he held a super-majority) or technically did something but not really (like ending the warrantless wiretap program but creating a mass surveillance program). Anyway, maybe, “radical leftist,” is a little hyperbolic, but he ran further to the left than anyone had since the 70s and he governed slightly to the left of George W.
It’s more accurate to say he made leftist promises, and then turned out to be just another conservative asshole with amazing oratory skills.
Heavy sits the crown
I think it might actually be impossible to remain a good person as a president, even if you manage to somehow be a good person who can become president (also rare)
The president definitely has to be an asshole to some extent, because it’s impossible to make everyone happy in this country.
With that said, we’ve seen presidents do what they say they’re gonna do, even as progressives. We sat through four years of Trump using every possible resource to do the awful stuff he did, and there’s no good reason why anyone should look at Biden and expect less than that.
Democrats deserve credit for ruling as conservatives. They reinforced the narrative that voting is pointless, at least in terms of federal elections.
Expecting Biden to rule like Trump is absolutely fucking insane. He ignored or broke any rule that stood in his way, and it got many of his policy initiatives shut down by the courts until he went back and did it the proper way, with the end result being that he was so busy fighting in the courts he didn’t have time to do everything he wanted. He tried to exploit his powers to persecute his opponents and got impeached over it. He shut down the government over border wall funding and got nothing for it. The only areas he was actually successful in pushing the boundaries of acceptability were in grifting the government by staying at his properties and charging inflated prices I’m violation of the emoluments clause.
I’m a leftist because I believe government can be a force for good, and because I believe in the rule of law and in fighting against corruption. If Biden or any democrat acted like Trump did, I’d vote them out in a heartbeat.
LMFAO
Youre right. I lived so long under Obama the president i’d forgotten Obama the candidate
Right? I was there man, what the fuck is this take?
By my understanding, radical left for Americans and also slightly less so but also Canadians is kinda center right for the rest of the world. I’ve also heard people start calling politicians radical when they bait and switch even though that’s not really how that word works.
radical right/far right, is pushing neo nazi territory. Radical left/far left, is people who like socialism and communism.
“Radical” just means “outside the status quo”. “Extremist” is more the term you want there.
Radical has a customary meaning in this context - someone calling for systemic change
That is a better way of putting it, thanks. Not just outside the status quo but pushing to change it. I still think it carries a milder connotation than neo-Nazis or Anarchists and different language should be used for the fringe than just further-than-mainstream politics.
if we’re talking extremists we’re talking our boy the unambomber, and uh, the people that bombed abortion clinics, maybe.
I dont actually have a good second handle for extremists on the right lol. I guess hate criming nazis? That kind of shit.
“Terrorist” works fine.
He didn’t jettison his healthcare plans, he was railroaded by an uncooperative Congress. The fact that he was able to get the ACA passed, even as neutered as it is, is nothing short of miraculous compared to the relative lack of delivery of even a single campaign promise by any president in recent history.
He had a huge margin in the House, a super-majority in the Senate, and he chose to pass the Heritage Foundation’s Healthcare proposal. Clinton didn’t even have that majorities like that his first term. If Obama couldn’t get that congress to cooperate he wasn’t fit to lead.
Someone being the same party doesn’t mean they will co-operate.
Yeah, again, he had 60 in the senate, a big majority in the house, and a huge mandate from the voters. If he couldn’t pass his legislation under those circumstances he wasn’t fit to lead.
He lost the super majority very quickly, and it was rarely an effective supermajority. Having 60 geriatric men in a room at one time is hard. Byrd was in the hospital, and frankin had been denied his seat for months. By the time the aca passed they’d lost the “super” part of the majority anyway.
I’m pretty sure that the ACA passed before Scott Brown took office, which as I remeber it was the end of his Super Majority. But even if I’m wrong, then why don’t they end the filibuster? If the Republicans are determined to be the obstructionist party, why aren’t the willing to limit their ability to obstruct? They’ve been willing to do it to get nominations through, so why won’t they do it to pass legislation?
Anything that’s not fascism is running to the left now.
What more should Obama have done on the front of universal healthcare than to draft a universal healthcare plan and try to get Congress to pass it? Which is what he did. They didn’t have the votes and the president doesn’t write laws. They got healthcare reform as far as they could with a few asshole Democrats and a totally stonewalling GOP. Also how is that platform radically leftist
He had huge majorities in both houses, and he had a 57% approval rating at the time. Had he wanted to, he could have twisted some arms and gotten the public option through. He just didn’t care. And as I said in another comment, I was being a little hyperbolic with, “radical leftist,” but he ran farther left than anyone in 20 or 30 years and governed center-left to center-right.
Ah, so you’re another person speaking from ignorance with great confidence. In order for major healthcare reform to pass, it had to overcome a Senate filibuster. That requires 60 votes, and the Senate had exactly 60 non-GOP votes for all of 2 months and some change in 2009. And one of those 60 Senators (who later left the Democratic Party) wouldn’t even support the public option on the ACA. They were barely able to get the ACA voted for before Ted Kennedy kicked the bucket and they lost vote 60. They then had to use the bill they did manage to pass along with reconciliation to get the ACA signed into law. It was by the skin of their teeth.
But based on your confident ignorance I’m sure you’ll just give some excuse and completely gloss over or ignore the fact that you are just factually wrong about the specifics of your criticism.
He had huge majorities in both houses, and he had a 57% approval rating at the time. Had he wanted to, he could have twisted some arms and gotten the public option through.
Ignorant bullshit!
I wish I could find the tweet to credit the guy, but someone once said something to the effect of, :“The number of Democrats needed to do anything is N+1, where N is number number of Democrats currently in office.” 50 votes in the Senate? Well, nothing can get done because of Joe Manchin. Need one more. 60 votes on the senate? Well, that’s barely a super-majority, need one more. Oh, Ted Kennedy died! Need one more so we can have a super-majority again! Could the Democrats eliminate the filibuster? Don’t think about it! Elect one more Democrat.
You can call me ignorant all you want (I’m not by the way, I lived in MA at the time, I remember Scott Browns election better than you), but at the end of the day, these are just more excuses. Two houses, a President with a strong mandate, and a year of filibuster proof majority, and they couldn’t pass their own agenda. Either it wasn’t important to them or the party isn’t fit to govern.
Bro really doubled down then cited a tweet 💀
LOL, wait, do you think the thing I cited is supposed to be a fact? You get that it was a joke, right? I’m trying to credit a guy who made a good joke about how Democrats always have an excuse not to do anything. Bro really thought it was a real mathematical formula 💀
