Best as I can tell, blue party policy is to implement some minor fixes that still fall way short of basic western benefits and health care while continuing to do whatever the military industrial complex demands, while the red party policy is to win all future elections at any cost.
Was it actually her or was it some dumb shit Very Smart Person™ they hired as a political strategist for the campaign? I know there were the emails that were leaked but I don't remember if it was literally her decision to boost Trump.
I was hooking up with one of her campaign strategists' daughter when the election happened. Invited her over to my place figuring "hey it's about to be some 2008 Obama elected sex" put some CNN on and see where the night takes us.
OOF. Had to consule her crying and talking to her mom at the campaign HQ on the phone to find out the results were real. I did NOT get in her situation room that night.
Every single one of your headlines are rote r/Conservative and r/The_Donald. Your mask slips even further. Your next move will be to pretend that your an ex democratic voter turned conservative. Go back to Reddit, nobody’s buying your bs.
Are you sure you're looking at the right profile? I looked and there's a couple of bad headlines (I guess?) but the vast majority of their posts are pro-socialist in both headline and content
Their content runs about 40% generically leftist, 60% "this is why Biden / the Democrats suck" with varying degrees of subtlety about it. And, they have no interest in talking about it when they post something in the second category that's clearly just false; they just make some short generic statements and move on to the next thing whether it be anti-Democratic or generic. And it's literally every day in a constant stream.
(Actually, looking at their profile right now, it's more like 60/40 the other way, maybe even less... I know some of their stuff was removed as misinformation for the above reasons, so maybe they decided to tone it down.)
Yes, in the beginning. Now I definitely don't think it's a sincerely held belief for a couple of different reasons (mostly that they're totally uninterested in talking about whether what they're saying is true or not -- most people on the internet who have opinions on politics are interested in explaining their opinions, not like "no time gotta post more memes" about them.)
You can't have a conversation or hope to change opinion if you don't even recognize the other sides position even exists.
You'd be amazed what people can think and not be interested in talking about further. A lot of people are not rational and there really isn't any getting through to them on things. Especially if they are passionate enough about it to post memes and shout outs about the topic.
It's not hard to think there is a real person with these thoughts out there, the questions are is it a legitimate complaint that needs change to be done about it or is there a way to stop more people from feeling that way?
I actually firmly agree with you on that. I've had extensive conversations over the years on the internet with people I disagree with. Tankies, MAGA people, for-real kinda-could-be-neo-Nazis, standard liberals I disagree with for one of a variety of reasons. Lots of people. I actually feel fairly confident in saying that the "don't-vote-for-Biden" people on Lemmy behave very very differently from the way people with sincerely held beliefs behave.
Like it would be surprising to see a tankie posting a "Putin is great" meme and someone comes in the comments and says "actually Putin sucks" and they're like pff, don't have time for that, I gotta post another Putin-is-great meme. It's just unusual. Seeing five of them all doing it the same way in the same community is just weird.
Not every person is obligated to "argue" with me or anyone else if they don't want to. But most people with political beliefs, in my experience, are interested to relay them to somebody. They actually kind of like finding someone who doesn't agree with them, so they can tell them why they're wrong. The shills kind of only have two settings: They either throw at the other person baseless and random claims and hostility, like no real grounding in any kind of belief system, only just "against" the other person, or else abandonment. That's unusual.
I mean it's fair to say they usually want the fight. How else get the rush of shouting at the non-believers. But I dunno just a hard stance to take right off the bat that they don't exist at all cause you don't like how they don't argue. Also look you keep getting down voted. People have changed into more isolated, pro-echochamber, individuals and could just expect the rest of the flock to get you while they feel like the prophet shouting their "truths". They are, i think, just really disconnected people, with some legitimate woes who don't know how to voice or change it.
This is all speculation at this point, cause I assume they are real and think; the way they present to think, is how they think. I also think it's fucked up and them and others like them will lead to a horrible life for many where everyone refuses to compromise or talk.
But that's why I talk. See if there is a kernel of truth. And disregard the pandering and chest pumping.
People are shockingly honest if asked, especially with anonymity. It just might be hard to believe they exist. It's hard to comprehend sonder.
Sorry, what's the most upvoted comment on this post?
A lot of people are sick of the flood. Sometimes individual sections of a particular comment thread will all get the same little bloc of 3-10 upvotes or downvotes (in mirror image depending on who's on which "side"), all of a sudden at the same time. Is that the downvoting that you're saying keeps happening to me? I can list some specific examples if you want.
This is all speculation at this point, cause I assume they are real and think; the way they present to think, is how they think.
Random example:
return2ozma says he's trying to help the Democrats by pointing out issues with Biden, because he's concerned that Trump might win, because he's far-left
return2ozma posts a meme about how Biden's done nothing about marijuana policy after promising that he would, and that's a betrayal of people who voted for him
I point out that Biden introduced a bill for federal marijuana legalization (the Republicans defeated it), requested rescheduling of marijuana by the DEA, and pardoned anyone in federal prison for possession. I ask him what else he's asking Biden to do
return2ozma goes silent and leaves the meme up
There are a few different explanations for that, and obviously no one's obligated to keep talking to me if they don't feel like it or to explain themselves in order to leave a post up. But it doesn't line up real well with the "he is who he says he is" explanation.
But that's why I talk. See if there is a kernel of truth.
Yep, this I'm in agreement with. I've reached the state that Carl Sagan calls "postjudice" at this point -- after some interactions like the one above, I feel like I have pretty good reasons for concluding that a lot of these people are full of shit. You are, of course, free to reach your own conclusions.
There are a few different explanations for that, and obviously no one’s obligated to keep talking to me if they don’t feel like it or to explain themselves in order to leave a post up. But it doesn’t line up real well with the “he is who he says he is” explanation.
Yeah, the in group of people who consistently downvote without conversation. The apparent expected group think that is made easier by an up vote and down vote system that people use by emotion.
Sounds like someone who would rather be angry and demand more than recognize the steps taken cause they haven't had fruition and to them feels like too little in the face of all that is perceived as wrong. Which sounds like a lot of people in the world.
But I get it. He doesn't talk to you and your attempts to prove him wrong and that doesn't instill any trust in you. Probably shouldn't. Even at best they are locked to an irrational feeling because they feel hurt and just wants to be right no matter what. And not talking about it means never being able to move past it.
But I am gonna take your allowance and say I'm done talking on this matter. Around and around it goes and you have all the reason you need to not trust them provided to you and I can't say you are wrong. But I am personally done.
Thanks for the conversation and the perspective. And advice.
If the wall does not take your attempts to speak with it don't, but speak to the audience who reads it.
Just in case you are being serious, which I highly doubt:
It's a reddit sub created by right wing edgibois pretending to be disillusioned democrats that decided to vote republican because of reasons.
It has been unreasonably successful in both 2016 and 2020, spreading their 'drop of truth in ten thousand gallons of lies' soundbites all over the web.
The same group is also behind the label 'genocide joe', and popularized it on their darkweb forums as a meme before it ever made it to X or facebook.
My favorite, is how on some of their posts, they get the other russian bitches that spam post just the right news pieces out of their holes to defend them as well.
Keep on calling it out. It might not be all their posts, if it were, that wouldnt be as effective.
As a Canadian, I hate conservatives, but it cringe every time Justin Trudeau tries to tell me he understand the struggles of the working class, while wearing a $10k Rolex
Bill Burr had a great bit on Conan. He explained that he was more comfortable with the Republicans.
"I know they don't like me," he explained. "They're just pushing old people down the stairs... GOD MADE THIS FOR ME!" Whereas "the Democrats" (I would amend this to "a lot of the Democrats") are pretending to be for the working class, when they're the same crop of etc etc.
"So you feel like the Republicans are more honest," said Conan O'Brien.
"WHAT? No. No no..." said Bill, as if he was trying to reboot his whole explanation and try to explain again from the beginning what he'd been trying to say.
If y'all are going to post an incessant drumbeat of why Biden sucks, I'm just gonna keep pasting a few of the reasons why he doesn't. It's not just that it's not his fault that the Republicans kept him from doing good things (although they did prevent him doing much more than that); even hampered by their obstruction, he still managed to among other things:
He took the biggest action on climate change in US history; the goal of the climate bill is to put us on track for a 40% reduction in US emissions by 2030. It’s way too late but that’s clearly not Biden’s fault since he started fighting for it basically as soon as he got into office, and managed to achieve passed legislation which is several standard deviations above the norm for “let’s ignore it until we’re underwater and on fire” US politician status quo.
He ordered the forgiveness of half a trillion dollars in student debt, about a third of the current total balance, and the Supreme Court told him no. He’s still managed to forgive $138 billion worth of it even against stiff Republican “no we need that money to give to Wall Street criminals pls” resistance.
He introduced a bill to legalize marijuana federally, which the Republicans killed in the senate.
He achieved the lowest unemployment in 20 years after having been handed an economy that was still digging out from the apocalypse that was 2020.
The shitshow that is supporting Israel during its accelerating genocide, I won't defend all that much. But the overall attempt to paint him as the same as the average Democrat is dead wrong. (And, for what it's worth, "the DNC as a whole and Hilary Clinton specifically are tone deaf media idiots" I'll also fully agree with.)
All the folks that like to post memes like this haven't had much success in trying to say any of the above isn't true.
"Y'all" is the shills, OP included. I wrote the above in response to some conversation about Biden; at this point I'm using it as a copypasta because I haven't seen any of the here's-something-bad-about-Biden-gotta-go-my-planet-needs-me crowd have any real substantive response to any of it and it constantly irritates me that they're constantly posting "hello fellow kids we all agree Biden sucks for these vaguely-defined reasons" things, and I'm tryin to be a hero by putting it up when I see them do it.
Parts of this meme, I agree with. The main part ("Republicans get everything they want") is a load of horseshit as it pertains to the current president and the current election.
No, I'm mad because people are spreading transparent bullshit on my social network and not even bothering to pretend that they themselves believe it.
I get it if I'm being hostile and condescending and calling them shills and then, wo ho surprise, they're not excited to talk with me. Makes perfect sense and I'd probably do the same. But it doesn't change the fact that they're saying stuff that's wrong and then not bothering to address on any substantive level if I or anyone else says "hey Biden actually did on YYYY-MM-DD this thing you said he was deliberately not doing because he hates the voters"; they just fly away like Superman to the next misleading meme. They've got a right to do it of course, just like I've got a right to call them liars about it and explain why.
nah. if you're too chickenshit to post your argument inline I'm not gonna go hunting through your comment history. //edit - haha I thought this was @AWistfulNihilist not @mozz
If y'all are going to post an incessant drumbeat of why Biden sucks, I'm just gonna keep pasting a few of the reasons why he doesn't. It's not just that it's not his fault that the Republicans kept him from doing good things (although they did prevent him doing much more than that); even hampered by their obstruction, he still managed to among other things:
He took the biggest action on climate change in US history; the goal of the climate bill is to put us on track for a 40% reduction in US emissions by 2030. It’s way too late but that’s clearly not Biden’s fault since he started fighting for it basically as soon as he got into office, and managed to achieve passed legislation which is several standard deviations above the norm for “let’s ignore it until we’re underwater and on fire” US politician status quo.
He ordered the forgiveness of half a trillion dollars in student debt, about a third of the current total balance, and the Supreme Court told him no. He’s still managed to forgive $138 billion worth of it even against stiff Republican “no we need that money to give to Wall Street criminals pls” resistance.
He introduced a bill to legalize marijuana federally, which the Republicans killed in the senate.
He achieved the lowest unemployment in 20 years after having been handed an economy that was still digging out from the apocalypse that was 2020.
The shitshow that is supporting Israel during its accelerating genocide, I won't defend all that much. But the overall attempt to paint him as the same as the average Democrat is dead wrong. (And, for what it's worth, "the DNC as a whole and Hilary Clinton specifically are tone deaf media idiots" I'll also fully agree with.)
All the folks that like to post memes like this haven't had much success in trying to say any of the above isn't true.
I think I either replied to the wrong poster or you're replying to a reply I meant for someone else.
These are all fantastic points.
////goes and looks - yeah My reply was meant for: @AWistfulNihilist
instead of replying to your excellent post with some kind of articulated premise, he says: Honestly you seem a little angry and intimidating, I wouldn’t engage with you much either.
entirely lacking what his counterargument is, simply to tear yours down with specious commentary. your rage is entirely founded on reality and I share it. cheers.
keep making sense man, there's a tankie-like-undercurrent that would happily trash biden while staying mum on the alternatives, and that big picture should scare the SHIT out of anyone - they fucking told the world what they want to do w/ project 2025, they're already doing it by gutting the GOP now that Trump's rule has solidified. This country can choose between imperfect psuedo-democracy or actual fucking terror and fucks like @AWistfulNihilist will tell you to stop being angry. WE SHOULD ALL BE VERY ANGRY. The fact that the media kinda shrugged when the right published their dystopian vision scares the everlasting fuck out of me.
LMAO, dude normal people don't spend all their days on political comment threads writing paragraph long diatribes with cited sources.
Look at what you are doing here, tagging me in an unrelated conversation, like don't you see how that's looks angry and intimidating? You actually seem unhinged to me now looking back.
You know who spends all day arguing in political meme threads with a cited source for every argument they have? People who get paid with access to Lexi nexus.
Like I see you as was more likely to be a paid employee of someone than the dude posting this meme.
I am totally unconcerned with who is majority and minority when forming my opinions. In this case it seems like a big majority of lemmy.world users agree with me, which is nifty, but it forms 0 part of why I am saying these things.
Super interesting having this additional conversation with you! You are making books worth of pro Biden, anti shill posts on a largely leftist space. I would say most people who do that would get plenty of upvotes, like if a user on gab or truth made pro Trump, anti npc posts, they would collect a load of upvotes too.
You really believe this huh? my god you're stupid. It's lexis, you utter dolt, and no no one's being paid to point out how obviously wrong you are. It's a public service.
Man you are so angry you got angry about me asking you a question then got angry about a conversation I was having with another person! Unless this is you second account, then I'm sorry!
I'm just pointing out it's way more likely for a person spending day after day writing incredible amounts of cited and sourced arguments to randoms online to be paid for it than the dude posting memes who's tired of engaging I guess.
I mean they both seem weird to me, but this is more weird.
Tell you what, I'll block you now so it's easier for you to keep all these hard threads apart. Just remember, I'll always despise your position and shitty rhetoric ok? good.
They actually did a great job of going over their points in their answer, I didn't have anything to add! I wasn't here to angrily argue in a meme channel.
Yeah, my fear of this person going through my post history and following me from thread to thread (usual thing I find when people have this kind of energy, plus they seem to be stalking a different user and I just don't think they have the time) went down and now I'm super duper curious!
Ha. I get where you're coming from; I do give the whole topic maybe more energy than it deserves. It is an important thing to me though.
And no I don't hound OP or the other accounts I suspect of being shills. OP in particular posts a pretty nonstop flood of this stuff, and if I see some posting he's made that irritates me because it seems grossly misleading of the truth, I'll make a comment on it (and reference my belief that he's a shill). But it's not because he was the one that posted it or born out of any kind of vendetta. It's just that reaction of "wtf, that's wrong" when a post I disagree with comes into my feed, and a little bit of just academic curiosity about my they-are-shills theory.
yup. wish into one hand, shit into the other and see which fills up first. We've got a monumental shit storm coming in november and these dolts want to quibble about results when the alternative is the 2025 project to destroy our country.
Biden campaigned on the notion that 'nothing fundamentally will change' - big surprise that the people who think we need fundamental systemic change aren't happy with what little he's done to paper over big issues.
Liberals are just not in alignment with leftist goals, i'm not sure why we keep pretending otherwise.
I know whenever a US president tries to legalize marijuana federally and spend a trillion dollars on student loan forgiveness and climate change and more or less doubles the amount of tax Amazon is paying, I'm like "wow, nothing is changing."
I would love a Bernie Sanders person who would do more. Do you know what Trump might do if he wins the election to Bernie Sanders or an activist organization who's advocating for even more systemic change?
Why would cannabis rescheduling matter to someone who thinks the climate has already crossed the carbon-feedback tipping-point and we're a decade away from mass-crop failure?
Why would forgiving a fraction of existing federally-owned student debt matter to someone who believes that capital accumulation is accelerating and locking them into a permanent state of home rental and wage slavery regardless?
If you believe that our current political climate (and the rise of fascism in the US) is a direct result of 200+ years of capital accumulation leading to very real and accelerating economic disenfranchisement of the working class, why would a politician who swears by and protects that system from fundamental change be one you are at all happy with?
'But if you don't help us beat this other guy things will only get worse!' is a pointless plea to those who believe that the system Biden is defending is what is creating the fascist movement to begin with. The people you are trying to reason with are closer to blowing up a pipeline than they are to being convinced that modest incremental change will do anything more than give fascists more time to organize their own movement.
You don't need to share that perspective to understand why those people might find the accomplishments in your list petty and ineffectual.
Why would cannabis rescheduling matter to someone who thinks the climate has already crossed the carbon-feedback tipping-point and we're a decade away from mass-crop failure?
Because better outcomes are better than worse ones. Maybe a second term for Biden would enable him to maintain the policies that are planned to remove a billion tons per year of CO2 emissions, maybe even add a little to it, whereas Trump would reverse even those pitifully small gains and actually add to US emissions. Maybe 20 years down the road that little bit is what tips us into a "luckier" (relatively speaking) outcome, avoids a total runaway greenhouse effect that literally kills us all, and we get away with merely mass starvation and the loss of most of the biosphere. But humanity gets to continue after that within the wreckage, having learned an agonizing lesson about the consequences of its actions, instead of being extinguished.
Do you brush your teeth? Why? Why would you need a job, if because with the way the climate is going you may not grow old enough for your money or the state of your teeth to matter at all?
Maybe 20 years down the road that little bit is what tips us into a “luckier” (relatively speaking) outcome
You're not listening. The people you're talking to do not believe we have 20 years.
You don't have to agree with that analysis in order to understand the objections of those who do. Repeatedly berating leftists for critiquing Biden isn't going to persuade them to change their mind.
So is this, like, a one-way thing? Like I listen to their viewpoints but if I say my viewpoint, then it's "You're not listening" and then repetition of the viewpoint?
They're welcome to their opinion. This is mine, including why I think some particular ones of them are shills, and including that if anyone is concerned with activism outside of the system and real change in the United States they should be breaking their back making sure it's not Trump in the fall, because unlike Biden he will absolutely destroy their ability to organize and get anything done, maybe until it's permanently too late to do anything productive for the planet.
You can, of course, think what you like about it. Just stating my take on it and answering your question.
Of course not, I just think that pretending that they share the same interests and concerns as you is naive and willfully ignorant of their viewpoint. They clearly understand that you do not share their interests. Bragging about the marginal improvements to the problematic system they are fighting against is the height of hubris, especially if the aim is to actually change their mind.
"Put your concerns aside so that you can work for change when the stakes are lower" is just asking those people to sacrifice the only political leverage they have so that a politician that is ambivalent about their concerns can win re-election. If you're uncomfortable with the threat of their dissent then it is having exactly the intended effect and they should absolutely keep doing it.
"Put your concerns aside so that you can work for change when the stakes are lower" is just asking those people to sacrifice the only political leverage they have so that a politician that is ambivalent about their concerns can win re-election.
I think these people who are working for change will be in a better position to do so if there's an extra billion tons of CO2 per year not getting put into the atmosphere, and if they can protest without worrying if paramilitary forces are going to shoot them with lethal rounds. That means voting for Biden in this election. I'm certainly not telling them to put anything aside while they're doing that.
Protests don't mean anything if it isn't disruptive to people who hold the power. They have a better chance protesting against a politician who isn't going to put them down with lethal rounds and who has a lot to loose right now, rather than against the same politician after they have nothing to loose and a demonstrated history of not giving a fuck about progressive issues, or against a different politician who has no problem putting them down with paramilitary forces.
Protesting against Biden now is the best time and person to be protesting, and threatening to withhold support is as much leverage any leftist will ever have outside of less-than-legal economic disruption.
Protesting against Biden now is the best time and person to be protesting, and threatening to withhold support is as much leverage any leftist will ever have outside of less-than-legal economic disruption.
Yeah, sounds great. I talked about this with respect to Gaza; I think this is a good idea.
We are however all the way back at the full-circle point of, where does making up things that Biden didn't do and accusing him of doing them and so laying some propaganda groundwork for Trump to win the general election fit into that.
where does making up things that Biden didn’t do and accusing him of doing them and so laying some propaganda groundwork for Trump to win the general election fit into that
I am having a really hard time parsing this one out, and i'm not sure what inaccurate accusations this is in reference to, but I'm reminded of this quote from Malcom X:
Early in life I had learned that if you want something, you had better make some noise.
Expressing objections loudly is the actual definition of protest, which is effective solely by a function of its potential to damage reputation or public support. A protest lacking genuine threat is nothing more than political self-indulgence.
You might as well be complaining that the protest is too effective, IMHO.
i'm not sure what inaccurate accusations this is in reference to
So like two examples would be saying Biden's bad on marijuana policy, or saying he's bad for the climate because he's not doing enough to drag the US government into the vague proximity of something that will enable us to continue existing in 100 years.
Expressing objections loudly is the actual definition of protest, which is effective solely by a function of its potential to damage reputation or public support. A protest lacking genuine threat is nothing more than political self-indulgence.
You might as well be complaining that the protest is too effective, IMHO.
Not sure how else to say it. Doing this sounds great. Doing it over things that Biden didn't do, I don't agree with. Attacking him from the left and saying he better pass another climate bill that's 5 times more effective during his second term because what he did isn't nearly enough, sure, sounds great. In combination with trying to give the people who blocked him from being able to do more have some trouble in their elections sounds even better. Attacking him from the nonsense-perspective that he's actively hurting the climate on purpose and using right-wing talking points to make that case, giving him trouble in his election against Donald Trump with no particular way that he could address your concern and thus no productive pressure on him that will produce a good result, that sounds less great. Surely that makes sense?
(I'm not saying that you're doing any of the above things -- just saying what I most firmly disagree with about OP and a lot of the people I've been talking to about this.)
Doing it over things that Biden didn’t do, I don’t agree with
So like two examples would be saying Biden’s bad on marijuana policy, or saying he’s bad for the climate because he’s not doing enough to drag the US government into the vague proximity of something that will enable us to continue existing in 100 years.
Ok, well, sure, but you can see how these two assertions aren't fabrications about something Biden 'did', it's a statement that he isn't doing enough to address the problem or even mitigate the bulk of the harm those things have.. Right?
I understand you don't like criticisms of Biden because it feels like a threat to his re-election, but that doesn't make those criticisms a fabrication nor does it make them misplaced.
Attacking him from the nonsense-perspective that he’s actively hurting the climate on purpose and using right-wing talking points to make that case, giving him trouble in his election against Donald Trump with no particular way that he could address your concern and thus no productive pressure on him that will produce a good result, that sounds less great.
I'm not sure who if anyone has said he's 'actively hurting the climate on purpose', but I see a potential misinterpretation if someone said something about his approval of new oil drilling in Alaska (after campaigning on 'no new drilling contracts') - or approval of new gas pipelines - as an indication of "active" harm to the environment. A huge part of our disagreement exists in a difference of opinion on what 'reasonable' action he could take. And while a case could be made that he's done what he can without threatening US interests, a lot of leftists would say that the US has far too many interests and influences to begin with.
And I think this goes back to what I originally said: liberals are just not in alignment with leftist interests. Leftists give more weight to real climate impact over things liberals tend to give weight to, such as economic growth and GDP or international energy independence or hostile foreign relations. A lot of the reasons Biden doesn't do more are reasons leftists fundamentally disagree with. He is unwilling to take action that harms the system we seek to dismantle, and that means he frequently falls short of any kind of satisfactory result.
Maybe that's why you remain frustrated that we don't recognize his accomplishments; we see them as the continued prioritization of interests that are in conflict with progressive goals.
it's a statement that he isn't doing enough to address the problem or even mitigate the bulk of the harm those things have.. Right?
So on those specific topics: He introduced a bill to legalize marijuana federally, he set free anyone in federal prison for possession, and he requested for the DEA to reschedule marijuana (although the latter isn't real impactful in comparison to the first two). What else would you like him to do? Why does that represent him not doing enough to address the problem and a reason to oppose him specifically?
I see a potential misinterpretation if someone said something about his approval of new oil drilling in Alaska (after campaigning on 'no new drilling contracts') - or approval of new gas pipelines - as an indication of "active" harm to the environment.
Scientists estimate that his climate bill is set to reduce emissions by 40% by 2030. He tried to do more, but Manchin and Sinema blocked him, and he tried again and got the 40% version through. Why is that not mitigating the harm? If we posit that he doesn't have a magic wand that he can use to directly alter the behavior of every government agency and company in the US, can we measure his overall impact based on the overall expected emissions in total based on what he did?
Here's one summary of why Biden might have approved the Willow project.
Here's one summary of why he might have approved the Mountain Valley pipeline.
You might look at that and say, well, that's establishment crap, and if he were a good leftist he would have done X, Y, and Z instead of approving those projects. And sure, for all I know you'd be right in saying that. To be honest, I'm not real qualified to say; I'm just showing you what I just found in the news about it. But let me ask this -- do you think that judging his impact on the climate based on an overall reduction in emissions from all of his legislative actions in total is a fair way to judge his impact?
Leftists give more weight to real climate impact over things liberals tend to give weight to, such as economic growth and GDP or international energy independence or hostile foreign relations.
What is climate impact, if not emissions? I haven't said a word here about GDP or anything like that as a way of judging the impact of his actions.
So... Much... Time.... Probably billable, I'm really starting to wonder who you're a staffer for in DC, or which think tank you work for. Maybe military contractor?
In all honesty, the shills started to convince me that it's important enough that I might start volunteering for the Biden campaign or something. If I do wind up doing it, I'll be sure to let you know.
You should, you are amazing. Your arguments are excellent and long form. They are well cited, you clearly read and understand the citations, some of which have been political technical documents.
On top of all that you are maintaining that effort across multiple threads with multiple people. You are putting in pro level effort and pro level time! If you aren't doing that in a targeted way for something like the Biden campaign, that's a waste imo.
I love following you in all these posts. I actually started adding tags to people after I saw your post a few times. The tags really make it more noticeable how small a lot of these communities are when you can point out the same few people making posts and comments. I highly recommend tagging people for anyone who doesn't already.
Wholeheartedly agree. At least one of them actually did get removed as misinformation (which, it clearly was; it was particularly blatantly dishonest and OP was making no effort in the comments to argue that it wasn't.)
In my opinion though it's actually better for it to be around. I think as long as I or someone wants to take the time for a detailed factual rebuttal, the overall impact on the community is actually a net positive. Debate is a good thing, and the shills aren't doing a real good job of selling their case; they're just using a fairly blunt Goebbels-style endless repetition tactic, and doing such a hamfisted and obvious job with it that people seem like they're mostly seeing through it at this point.
Thank you. This is a BS take based in ignorance of all the factors involved in getting your legislation to the president's desk. You have to vote every election all the way down the ballot or you can assume the same marginal success. (Edit autocorrect)
Yes you're right that they are not perfectly democratic. Gerrymandering, the electoral college and representation in Congress being skewed towards land ownership all benefit Republicans. None of that will get changed through apathy. Nor will anything change pretending both sides are the same.
Look go vote, I do too, but voting is the apathetic reaction here. Its literally pressing a button to put someone you know is very compromised in charge. Its the other side of exactly the same coin, same policies and all. To that I would simply say get organizing.
And by god, the electoral college and gerrymandering combo alone put this system firmy in "not a democracy" territory. I mean they can essentially just choose the outcome of an election, makes all that theatre meaningless and I see right the fuck through it.
I get very wary anytime someone says both sides are the same. The same people who benefit from all the election trickery are the same ones who benefit from the two sides same coin disinformation campaign. It sows apathy. I'm not saying you're wrong that Democrats are also corporate stooges just that their policies also help the little people while the other side of the coin exclusively helps the "haves".
neither helps the little people, they just act like they do. the little people guy is currently financing a genocide of little people with little repercussion for him.
its like this all over the planet, the little people guy in my country is running the economy the same way the previous far right asshole did, and its currently trying to privatize prisions.
the real rulers calling the shots are the money class. those aint elected and are always helping themselves. if you don't want to be apathetic, go after them. i'm suggesting this in addition to voting, btw
I don't get this argument as a non American. Is the presidential a total vote regardless of geography? Most democratic countries you vote for local member. A lot of countries share the problem of progressives living close together and landsliding one electorate, but have no horses in other rural seats.
In Australia the standard story is the Liberal (conservative) party getting the most first preference votes, followed by Labor (centre left) then the Greens (progressive) coming 3rd but giving enough preferences for Labor to win.
Voting is based on electoral districts, which are areas mapped out every decade by state legislatures, and each district has electors which are given to a candidate who wins the vote in it.
The problem is that citizens of less populated states have more voting power due to the rules on how many electors a state gets.
Plus, conservatives often gerrymander – intentionally drawing the districts so ethnic minorities are divided, and most districts are designed to have a majority of Republican voters while all the areas with mostly Democratic voters are all put together into 1 or 2 districts. States like West Virginia also lower the amount of districts in the state as part of the strategy. The gerrymandering has lead to some pretty insane looking maps (North Carolina, Texas, Alabama, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Ohio)
Also electors may not actually vote for the candidate that wins the election in their district, which is technically illegal but also not really illegal and has happened quite a few times.
This accurately describes it. Further explanation:
Election of the President - Electoral College
Each citizen of Wyoming with a population of around half a million has somewhere around 3.7x the voting-weight as a Californian citizen. Why? Because each state's electoral votes to the president is the # of Congressional delegates it has.
For Wyoming: 3 Electoral Votes for the President
2 US Senators (Every state gets 2 US Senators)
1 US House Representative (proportionate to their population)
5.19 electoral votes per million people.
For California: 54 Electoral Votes.
2 US Senators
52 US House Representatives
1.37 electoral votes per million people.
Thus, you get elections where Presidents don't win the popular vote, and we expect our country to function...???
This may not seem like a big deal, but across 15-20 low-populated rust/bible-belt states, the effect adds up, leading to some of our worst Presidents in history being elected by a minority vote, including Bush Jr., in 2000, and Trump in 2016. In fact, Republicans have only won the Presidential popular vote ONCE in over 30+ years (which was Bush Jr.'s 2004 reelection when the country was wrapped around fear post-9/11 and Iraq invasion...).
The electoral college is an antiquated remnant of the slave era. In order to get America functioning properly again, it must go.
Election of US House of Representatives - Gerrymandering
Gerrymandering leads to mapping Congressional districts in ways that favors one party over another. This is probably the best layperson video to explain it. Traditionally this has been done far more nefariously and effectively by Republicans, who have also been in power at key moments, including the 2010 and 2020 Census.
Gerrymandering itself has no effect on US Presidential elections except for perhaps reducing peoples' interest in showing up to the polls in the first place if their district is gerrymandered.
Election of US Senators
This (and Governor races—effectively the President of the state) is how the US Presidential election SHOULD happen at minimum. Each individual in the state gets an equal vote regardless of where they live, and the person who receives the most votes wins.
We can discuss getting rid of FPTP later, but baby-steps.
I am not American. I am also from a non federal (unitary) state.
While non federal systems far from perfectly democratic, federal systems are inherently less democratic because they add another entity to the election process than the people, federal states. This is actually most egregious in senates where every federal state gets the same amount of members for being a state regardless of how many people it represents. Non federal parliaments have a similar problem because you have way smaller number of electors to represent the people.
At least in US presidential elections states are awarded electors based on their populations. However some or all states (can't really remember) have all their electors vote for the leader even if he won the state 51% to 49%. This acts like a filter and always changes the result as in the percentage of voters for candidate A is different than the percentage of electors for candidate A. It usually does not distort the result enough to flip the election but it happened in 2016.
It can theoretically happen in parliamentary systems as well but it's much more difficult. Also it's an unnecessary issue in the US because the head of the executive is not required to have the support of the legislative branch and the electors serve no other purpose.
I believe the most democratic way to elect the president would be a runoff like France's presidential elections.
Nah the UK has it too, its technically possible to win a majority with about 1/9th of the vote. It also tends to result in the right wing recieving an inflated share of the effective vote.
I wish I still had hope. It feels like one step forward and two steps back. Arguing about supporting genocide less, and we haven’t even begun the discussion on microplastics, their effects on our health & environment, and how to deal with all that create them.
Sure, but voting for better options for not only president but down ballot is really less effort than shitposting on here. I dont blame anyones dismal outlooks, but the doomerism isnt doing us any favors. We need cooperation and the formation of stronger social bonds.
Dont forget that most of us here in the US are in the (globally) rare and privileged position of not being at direct risk of perishing due to the fucked climate. Its not us so much as the island and desert dwelling folks that are truly fucked. If we want to mitigate the already unreasonable damage weve caused, it will be done here in the rich and powerful countries who have the means to do anything about it in the first place.
While i wish our system was different, the way to change it involves taking all available paths.
We need to protect the LGBTQ friends, bc they are on our side.
We need to protect our democracy, bc it remains our primary outlet for change.
If youre capable of takong direct action, do so, build strong bonds with ur neighbors and peers, but vote in the meantime as well. Theres more elections than just the general presidential, and looking into whose running and what they want takes me very little time for the most part.
Weve no choice but to be the future we wish to see in spite of all the bullshit.
Do you think that's because democratic voters are biologically less likely to vote, or could it be that the DNC is doing a poor job of energizing the base?
Fuck the GOP, of course, but they are absolutely pushing for fascism, and getting fascist policies through, which excites their fascist base.
The DNC has been pushing for tepid liberalism for decades, and when there hasn't been sign of genuine positive change at tangible levels, the DNC will lose voters.
If you can blame voters for not voting, you can blame the party for failing to grab voters as well. It's a two-way street.
or could it be that the DNC is doing a poor job of energizing the base?
You are not the DNC base. You are the fringe. The DNC base is Black, especially Black women. Plus college educated white women. The DNC base likes tepid liberalism, and they vote in EVERY election. That's what makes them the base.
You don't have to alienate your core to appeal more to others. The DNC core decreasingly likes tepid liberalism, which is why backlash against the DNC is growing.
If the DNC isn't actively trying to gain votes, then it's their fault as well for losing votes. Being not as bad as the other guy is not a platform to energize a base, and is why Hillary lost.
No, the DNC supports the interests of Capitalists, because that's their donor base. That's why they appeal to Capitalists, and feign progressive support.
If leftist votes aren't worth it, then you are making the terrible argument in favor of leftists voting third party, if they aren't needed.
The base getting more leftist does not mean more leftist candidates will be placed by the DNC.
If all the DNC cared about was money, they would be the GOP.
If leftist votes aren’t worth it, then you are making the terrible argument in favor of leftists voting third party, if they aren’t needed.
I'm trying to convince leftists to shut the fuck up and stop risking the giant mass of woefully uninformed voters who swing elections. Also ridiculing you for the stupidity of your takes, but that's just because it's fun, I've given up hope of dissuading you from stupidity. You cling to stupidity as much as MAGA. I just don't want your stupidity to infect the low information independent voters.
The DNC is a Capitalist party that is bought and paid for by their donors, of course they care about money. That's how Liberal Democracy is set up, as long as you have Capitalism and Democracy, the ruling parties will serve Capital before people.
Secondly, I truly do pity you. You're a confident conservative that spends most of their time complaining and whining about leftists, yet also expecting them to agree with your terrible takes just because you aren't an outright fascist. You're absolutely terrible at convincing leftists to vote for liberals, and try to take the moral and intellectual high ground every time someone proves you wrong for it and you start malding, like right now.
I don't expect you to agree with me, because you're all idiots. I think it's fair for you to at least ally with me against the fascists, but maybe you're too stupid to even do that.
When did I say that I was voting third party? You're the one that has been suggesting that leftists can only get meaningful change via voting third party, which I disagree with, because electoralism cannot bring about leftward change within the Capitalist framework, so voting for Biden is the correct answer for a leftist.
Given a large enough data set, there will be outliers. But those few of you who are not idiots are already aware of that, so no need to explain. It's a self-selecting statement.
Do you think that’s because democratic voters are biologically less likely to vote
Biologically? Really? You don't believe that, I don't believe that, I didn't say that, and we're both aware of all that, so it's a dumb thing to say.
could it be that the DNC is doing a poor job of energizing the base?
As I said, you're not the base.
the DNC supports the interests of Capitalists, because that’s their donor base. That’s why they appeal to Capitalists, and feign progressive support.
Wrong.
The DNC is a Capitalist parry that is bought and paid for by their donors, of course they care about money. That’s how Liberal Democracy is set up, as long as you have Capitalism and Democracy, the ruling parties will serve Capital before people.
Wrong.
You’re a confident conservative
Wrong and insulting, and just sad that you would consider progressives on par with literal nazis. We are not conservatives. You are just far removed from a realistic understanding of the world.
mald
I don't even have words for how wrong this is
In any case, like I said, when you're promoting a narrative that Democrats and Republicans are equally bad, you're a shit stain on the underwear of humanity. The specific details of how you do your shilling are not terribly relevant. One tiny throwaway line about how the GOP are bad among a screed about how bad the Democrats are - that's nothing.
It's not a dumb thing to say, you just made the blanket claim that not enough democrats are voting without giving a reason why, so it was a useless statement.
I am the base, I vote dem, and you're trying to convince me not to, and to instead vote third party for someone who will represent my views better. You don't have to like me to understand that dems need to appeal to their voters.
How, exactly, is it wrong to say that the DNC upholds the interests of their donors? That's the basis of lobbying.
You aren't progressive, you're anti-leftist and reactionary, which makes you a conservative. You may not be a fascist, but you are conservative.
You've been malding, after I proved you wrong you started throwing insults and crying.
In any case, I never once insinuated that the Democrats and Republicans are equally bad, otherwise I would be advocating for voting third party, instead of saying that leftist organization is easier under liberals than under fascists. You're talking among leftists, of course the GOP are fascists and are seen as scum, I decry the evils of the GOP all the time.
Even now, you call me a shit stain for what I have been correct about this entire time, because you can't actually disprove anything I say, just say "wrong." That's why I asked if you ever do any analysis, you're one of the most right-wing members of lemmy.world, lmao.
and you’re trying to convince me not to, and to instead vote third party
Please stop. There's no audience down here, it's just you and me. There's no need to pretend or project.
You're shit talking Democrats because your leftist ass hates Democrats more than Republicans. You call me conservative for the same reason. You are so far down your bubble/rabbit hole of leftism, you are so removed from the reality of actual fascists, that it's easier for you to attack Democrats instead. It's difficult for you to actually conceive of Republicans, they're so far off the scale of what you're familiar with.
You need to return to reality. Leftist fringe ideals are not mainstream, but they are light years closer to Dems than Republicans. So stop attacking Democrats and start attacking fascists. Democrats are not corporatists. They do not rig elections. They do not cut taxes for the rich, raise them for the poor, and then tell the poor they're better off. On almost every single issue there is one party pushing to make things better, and one party pushing to make things worse. It's a very stark choice and if you can't see the difference you need glasses.
And I'm not even saying give up your ideals. I'm saying push for them in the primary, especially in the legislature. But in the general election you should toe the fucking line if you ever want to vote for your ideals again.
I'm not pretending or projecting, I've been honest and forthright with you except for that back and forth bit with the mirror.
I hate Republicans more than Democrats, but because I also hate Democrats, you cannot logically cope with the fact that I hate Republicans more, so you must mald. I have never indicated any positive attention towards the GOP, except in saying they actually appeal to their disgusting fascist base while the DNC continues to peddle tepid liberalism.
I am well familiar with Republicans and their fascism, I deal with them daily. I have nothing but scorn for their views and actually combat them regularly. There are few Republicans on Lemmy, and those that do show up, I usually relentlessly disprove their bullshit, harder than I do yours.
You need to return to reality. Leftism is closer to liberalism than it is to fascism, but liberalism is closer to fascism than it is to leftism. That's why the liberals sided with the Nazis in the Weimar Republic against the leftists.
Democrats are corporatists. They support corporations because they make up the bulk of their donors. The DNC is not a Worker party except for the most progressive among them.
I attack Republicans regularly, you just cannot conceive of that. Check my recent post history, I got banned from Playstation@Lemmy.zip because the mod made an insanely racist post, and I called him out so hard he locked the sub.
The DNC does not push to make things better, they push for continued liberalism. This is not a simple "Democrats good, Republicans evil" issue, Republicans are fascists, which is in fact horribly evil, but Democrats are liberals, which is certainly not good. It's not nearly as bad as fascism, but is not making the US a better place.
I can't vote for my ideals, you already said I can't. The US is not a functional democracy, because I can't express my views, by your own admission. I must side with what I consider to be a lesser of two evils, and cannot side with what I believe to be positive change. The difference here is that you still think leftists can gain positive change via voting, which has never been the case.
We don't elect Democrats to legislate based on what Republicans might do. The real reason Democrats consider the Jim Crow Filibuster to be more important than the lives and rights of pregnant patients is that if the Jim Crow Filibuster goes away, they lose their procedural excuse for breaking campaign promises that they never intended to even try to keep.
Fair enough. Guess we'll just deal with a deliberately useless party with no ambitions greater than "don't lose" until they eventually lose anyway and we get the fascism they didn't bother to do anything to stop except temporarily occupying offices in its way.
But in the meantime, you get to pretend you're moral when you demand unquestioning fealty to a guy who supports genocide.
until they eventually lose anyway and we get the fascism they didn’t bother to do anything to stop except temporarily occupying offices in its way.
You: we're gonna eventually get fascism anyway, so why not today?
I dunno, maybe because every electoral cycle that you aren't under fascism is still better than being under it? Like if nothing else, you're keeping the status quo that isn't them executing political rivals and doing mass deportations for a time. I'd argue even if they've accomplished nothing else that is obviously better.
You: we're gonna eventually get fascism anyway, so why not today?
That's not what I said. I was saying that maybe Democrats should try actually moving the needle away from fascism instead of being content with temporarily slowing it's rightward motion.
This naturally offended you because you never want the status quo to improve, just get worse more slowly.
Doesn't offend me at all, because I don't live in fantasy land. You were implying that filling the seat and keeping the status quo is worthless, but it isn't.
It's honestly odd to me that people like yourself that claim to believe that Trump signals actual fascism seem relatively ok with the prospect that he could win. It's not the status quo couch potatoes that are the first in front of the firing squad if fascism gets empowered, it's the organizers and the protestors. It's the "leftists" you claim to be part of. Dude wanted to shoot protestors in his last stint in office and people like yourself are basically fine with his return.
Accelerationism is fucking stupid.
In addition to that point (that's very supported historically) accelerationism doesn't even accelerate the advent of "true leftism" or whatever. Mussolini stayed in power for decades. The odds of "the left" winning some kind of actual war in this country without the support of industry, the military, or the police are pathetically small.
But sure, don't vote and shit talk Biden cuz that'll get us gay space communism in 2024. 🥱
Doesn’t offend me at all, because I don’t live in fantasy land.
Gaslighting isn't the same as defending your position.
You were implying that filling the seat and keeping the status quo is worthless, but it isn’t.
In the long run, we get fascism either way. That needle needs to move left.
But sure, don’t vote and shit talk Biden cuz that’ll get us gay space communism in 2024.
I'm voting for the pro-genocide candidate you want me to. I have every right to criticize his support for genocide and the deliberate uselessness of his party at even attempting to stop fascism.
They won enough seats and found just enough no votes to kill BBB and the minimum wage increase, and keep the filibuster intact so they couldn't protect Roe or voting rights.
I wish they had done more too but they barely had 50/50 in the Senate and Sinema doesn't count let's be honest. So if we go back to this meme, Democrats keep winning, still just isn't the case or if you think it is true, see my comment about don't win enough. Enough being the key word.
Luckily they were able to pass lots of good legislation during that time of the thinnest of majorities. From Wikipedia: The Inflation Reduction Act, American Rescue Plan Act, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Postal Service Reform Act, Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, CHIPS and Science Act, Honoring Our PACT Act, Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act, Respect for Marriage Act.
