58
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2024
58 points (77.4% liked)
politics
18601 readers
5836 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Biden shouldn't drop out until a solid plan moving forward is established.
Do we even know if a Democrat can unify the party if he drops out? Or will the replacement be worse?
As I've pointed out in other topics: people need to start listing names, and I need to start seeing those names consolidate into one obvious choice. IMO, Newcom, Kamala and Buttigege are out as non-starters.
Kamalas best chance is for Biden to hold the election and then promise to resign on January 2025 for example. Which I'm not particularly against but y'all ignore the racism of Pennsylvania and Arizona voters at your own peril. Biden serves as a useful shield for Kamala in this instance.
Buttigege is worse. An openly gay man in this age where Don't Say Gay is entering mainstream is a political mistake. Newcom is all sorts of compromised on both left and right issues.
Man...
Sounds like the party should have let an open and fair primary happen...
Could have seen what Biden on a debate stage was like 6 months ago...
Voters could have had all sorts of time to evaluate possible paths forward....
Its yall's problem. I'm a Republican. I barely know the Democratic ticket.
But who did best in the Primaries anyway? Do you think they can seriously unify the party and make a strong anti-Trump candidate?
So...
You don't know anything about what people are talking about here, by your own admission...
You're just a Republican here to tell us no matter what Biden is the only option besides trump?
This is lemmy, yes.
I feel like the vast amount of "Biden supporters" online these days are just flat out republicans trying to make sure Biden is their worst case scenario...
It's the only way any of this makes sense.
None of them can give any real reasons why Biden is the best candidate, they just keep repeating "it's too late".
I listed two options I think would work for me:
Biden
Kamala (using Biden as a shield)
Of course, #1 and #2 are basically identical. So the easiest thing for the Democrats to do is just lean into #2.
In any case, I think this discussion is still useful to have. Whoever you pick needs to win Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia like Biden did vs Trump. Do you know of any candidate who can perform similarly to Biden in these states?
I'm a Republican here wondering if yall actually have a plan, or if this is another one of those "Occupy Wall Street" situations where a bunch of Republicans get voted in a few months after yall's temper tantrum. (Occupy Wall Street was 2011. And we all know how 2012, 2014, and 2016 went immediately afterwards).
For better or worse, you know you need me and my perspective on this matter. Lest you lose Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Arizona and let Trump take the victory.
If yall Occupy Wall Street / kill your own political chances again this year because you got freaked out that Biden was acting as old as any 80+ year old would... okay, you deserve the loss that's coming to you. But before you make an irreversible mistake, lets talk through this. I want Trump to lose as much as you do.
Note: I'm not necessarily against you changing candidates this late in the game. But I want to know what your overall plans are, and why you actually think that improves your political chances.
You also told me you're a Republican and know nothing of the Democratic party or what its voters want...
So let me give you some advice, for Republican candidates I want:
Boots Riley
Optimus Prime.
No we don't.
Because Obama 08 didn't need help from "moderate Dems" and he sure didn't need help from Republicans.
The entire problem with the modern DNC is they ignore their base and chase Republicans.
Who will always say the DNC isn't conservative enough.
It creates these feedback loop where the party gets more and more conservative leaving behind more and more of its own voters.
We can just leave you all behind, and give voters a candidate they like. A progressive candidate.
Okay. Name the candidate.
Except we both know you don't have a name, and that's why you're going through this exercise of avoiding uncomfortable truths.
Go get that name, start pushing that name consistently, start saying [Insert Specific Name Here] is a better choice than Biden and MAYBE you have a chance.
But for now, you're just giving Republicans in general a field day and a ton of joy by attacking Biden.
I've never seen a better ambassador of the Republican party.
You have truly personified the meme of a pigeon walking up to a chessboard.
I'm an Anti-Trump Republican. I'm quite interested in seeing what yall's plan is to fight Trump this fall, and frankly, I'm not impressed with what I'm seeing in this topic yet.
Hopefully you all figure something out by next week. And if not next week, the week after that. But your time is short, and time is ticking.
I'm likely voting for the Democratic candidate, whoever it is. But none of this internal Democrats's chaos is my responsibility or my problem. I'm just here to point out that you have a large degree of my support from being anti-Trump, but I can't go so far left as Bernie (or some other progressives you got).
That's really all I'm here to point out.
In any case, figure out a name. Otherwise Democrats will lose. And figure out a name before you get rid of Biden/Kamala. You're throwing away a decent candidate with a decent anti-Trump record for literally nobody right now.
Bernie is older, but sharp as ever. I know it’ll never happen though. The DNC would rather give it to trump, again
No kidding, if y'all put Bernie in as Democrat pick I'm voting fucking Trump.
The other ones (Kamala, Buttigege and Newcom) I might be fine with. But 100% Bernie is far left bullshit I for one am not putting up with. And no, we ain't gonna go with an even older candidate who is far more extreme.
EDIT: I'm a Republican. You have me on some candidates. Newcom is... a stretch but I can imagine myself voting for him vs Trump, but not much else. Kamala and Buttigege I can be fine with but I don't think they can win Arizona, Pennsylvania, Michigan.
Bernie? He's too far left and very extreme in my eyes. Bernie (and his cohort of Occupy Wall Street dumbasses) don't even understand how the world works, how families react to some of these policies or whatever. It'd be an instant and immediate loss for the Democrats. Sorry to say. He's so far left I personally need to vote against that. You're going too far.
Just curious, what far left bullshit?
The Dem party platform apparently...
But PUMA didn't stop Obama either.
No matter how loud "moderates" get, they're a very small voting block. They're just overrepresented in party leadership
He's literally running as a socialist.
Free housing, free health care, free everything. It sounds good until you look at Venezuela.
When we point out... oh... I dunno... how Venezuela collapses because of government takeover as private entities or their other socialist policies (which directly have similarities to Bernie's discussion points), yall just ignore us.
We're seriously having issues coming up with a budget where Social Security does fine over the next 20 years, and Bernie over here is reaching to the far, far, far extreme and going "Not only Free Social Security, but Free Housing and Health Care on top of it". Okaaaaaaayyyyyyy. Lets talk about the taxes needed to get that funded.
Hell, can we even start with the taxes we need to keep Social Security going?
And you can see the problem right after that. Bernie is fully unrealistic. Its the benefit of being on the flank, Bernie can promise the world because he doesn't actually have to worry about the details of his proposals.
I wouldn’t pass on the free education, if I were you
Lets put it this way.
Do you know how Elon Musk tricks his dumbass followers that they're all going to Mars? And its so ridiculous that no one actually seriously talks about the overall plan?
That's Bernie Sanders. No one seriously debates him because its so far out. Seeing a couple of followers get strung up in Bernie's moonshots is whatever, its going to happen. But nothing will come from it, and Bernie knows that. (Much like how Elon knows all the bullshit he spews is nothing either).
I get that its a popular way to get a niche following. But when we're talking about a real Presidential candidate, hopes and dreams aren't quite good enough. You'll need to talk about things that are ya know, at least close to political reality.
Or if Elon Musk is a bad example, consider how the Abortion debate played out. Back 10 years ago, it wasn't really a real discussion point. Today, it is, and now its suddenly a problem for Republicans because the implementation details of Abortion bans are really fucking stupid.
Same thing with Bernie. By the time Bernie is in office, its too late to realize that it was all bullshittery and the numbers simply don't line up.
On healthcare: removing the profit incentives of private health insurance drives down costs as well as frees up money to pay for universal coverage. It's not free Healthcare and has never been referred to as such unless people are debating in bad faith. He wrote the Medicare for All bill and just because you aren't aware of the details doesn't mean Sanders didn't have them.
On housing: again calling it free housing is a disingenuous bait. His housing policy had so many facets that even if only half his proposals were put into place, it would do wonders to improve the situation for millions of Americans. Federal funding for expanding Community Land Trusts (if you don't know what CLTs are you should look it up), combat gentrification/exclusionary zoning/segregation/speculation, expand the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund a fund that he was responsible for and fought for 15 years to become the first new federal affordable housing program funded in several decades, tenant protections like New York's right to counsel that was created in 2017, which saw their eviction rates drop five times faster than comparable areas. God damn man I could keep going but if I haven't made my point why waste the effort.
All of this could easily be paid by taxing the wealthy and reducing military spending. Would that be a problem for you?
The fuck do I hear Bernie saying "Medicare for All" ?
That's literally free Healthcare as his top-of-the-line discussion point for the last decade.
Where does Ukraine and Taiwan fit in that reduced military spending?
Ah right, Bernie is also isolationist. He probably doesn't give a shit. And even if we don't support Israel (I know how the left feels about that), we the USA need to continue to patrol the Red Sea vs not just the Houthis, but also Somali Pirates and other threats.
Military spending is going up, by any realistic discussion. Ukraine is only heating up, and Taiwan is likely getting hotter and hotter as China literally cuts off Filipino fingers and uses them to bully others in the Far East. If yall think peace will happen by reducing US Military spending at this juncture, you're losing my vote.
Bonus points: I'm also Filipino. So consider myself, and my family, very interested in hearing what the Democrats actually have to say about far-east stability / Taiwan / China's increasingly aggressive actions.
Military spending is going up, and not because anyone wants war. But because its necessary to keep the peace. USA has no control over China or Russia, we only have control over our own spending. And we must keep our spending up with them as they get more aggressive.
You're either trolling or too stubborn to evaluate new information that might change your position.
Medicare For All is not free healthcare, as in on the government's dime, it is entirely paid for by taxes. (Unless you actually object to free healthcare as in being able to go to the hospital when you need it for free, which is too ludicrous to be sincere.) The only reason it seems "free" is that the total operating cost of the system without the middleman of private insurance is significantly lower than our existing healthcare spending.
Most households would significantly increase their spending power throughout the year by eliminating healthcare premiums, deductibles, copays, and prescription costs in excess of $200 a year, and would only see a smaller increase at tax time. Those who would be paying more in total are very wealthy households who would be paying primarily at tax time, and frankly many of those households have not been paying their fair share of taxes already, so I find it hard to see that as a bad thing.
Yeah, no shit sherlock. Socialist / Communist countries like Cuba also pay for Health Care.
That doesn't change the fact that several important examples (Soviet Union, Cuba, and now most recently, Venezuela) have collapsed... or are currently collapsing under that load and those costs.
We know plenty of examples of countries who have done that. My question is why the fuck do you want to bring it to the USA?
Why do you keep pointing out these Marxist countries and ignoring the perfectly functioning western liberal democracies with policies like these? There's literally one on our northern border.
We're the only 'first world" country without centralized healthcare. So the other countries that have done that would be... All the other first world countries, and all of them spend way less on healthcare then we do in the US.
https://berniesanders.com/issues/medicare-for-all/ Ah so you just keep your fingers in your ears. Got it.
Yeah, and Medicare / Social Security are already going bankrupt by 2040.
A gross expansion of those programs will make them go bankrupt even faster. You need to explain how to raise money for a "Medicare for All" program... and not just "Well fuck Taiwan / Phillipines / Far East / Ukraine / everyone else in the world".
We're going to have our hands full just keeping the programs available over the next few decades, and you want to expand them?
By having free healthcare for all you actually save money if basically no other change is made.
People will go to the dr whenever they first start feeling ill instead of putting off until it gets so bad that it now costs 10x what it would have to catch early as well as the reduced economic potential in workers being unable to due to recovery or worse.
It will also save money by reducing er costs from above by the jobless, homeless and addicts only going at the same points but they have even higher rates of hospitalization and severity so we save a ton more there.
You cut out the middlemen on all negotiated services and products, will save manpower and labor by everything being standardized universally with one system.
Eliminating all of the inefficiencies that insurance causes will reduce the cost of healthcare.
Also, no one is trying to make private insurance illegal, look at all the different Medicare programs they already allow.
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2022-02/57637-Single-Payer-Systems.pdf
Sounds like we pay by having a loss of GDP measured between 1% to 10%. That's rather substantial.
CBO is the non-partisan accountants of the US Senate/House. They are our best estimate on the true costs of various programs.
Your arguing that workers who would have the option under single payer healthcare to work less is a bad thing? Jesus christ dude.
Go look up GDH.
That's cool and all, but GDP is related to.... You guessed it. Inflation.
I recognize that Republicans overemphasized GDP but it's a chief metric for a reason. If our top line GDP drops it will absolutely be a problem.
If you want to bring up easy inflation gremlins into your argument, be my guest. But inflation is already a weak point for Democrats and I expect y'all to get hammered on it even harder moving forward.
> picks vuvuzela as example
> conveniently overlooks hundreds of European and Asian "socialist" countries
> also overlooks merely redirecting 10% of defence budget to "socialism" will cure more of your cuntry's ills
> also overlooks the MIC as the biggest "socialist" welfare queen program ever
Kys
If we nominate Bernie it's not to win you over. It would win over leftists who otherwise wouldn't vote Democrat.
No offense but I don't actually believe that you are on the fence about whether or not you'll vote for Trump.
Dude: Kamala is seen as too far left that she's probably going to lose to Trump on a head-to-head matchup and you're talking Bernie still.
Bro: You are voting fascist.
Ideally not.
Hopefully you can offer me a good enough candidate where I don't feel like supporting the fascist. But if you go too far left, there's a point where fascism doesn't look as bad. No joke.
But the further left you go, the more points you lose out on me. I'm relatively religious (not the most compared to my family, but moreso than you guys I'm sure). I'm Republican, conservative. Etc. etc. There's threats to me and my way of life that the far left seriously have, and nothing yall say here are changing my opinion on that (or removing said threats from me).
I would have preferred if the Republicans fielded Niki Haley, but apparently that was too hard for them too. So now I'm seeing who the Democrats want to field. Ideally someone I can vote for, because trust me, I don't want to vote for Trump.
I promise you, there's a ton of other people like me in the center who are thinking the same thing. The name-of-the-game is figuring out a candidate to keep enough of us voting Democrat this fall (not necessarily me, but hopefully enough to gain and counteract the loss of my vote).
I'm here to discuss my opinion with all of you openly, because I know that Lemmy leans so far left that yall are fucking nuts and need my opinion to tie you back down to where reality is. Believe it or not, I'm here to help, and that's why we're having this discussion right now at all.
This isn't about just picking the most progressive candidate you can think of. Biden was the perfect choice for me and yall are now thinking of getting rid of him. Okay, so are you fine losing my vote? Or alternatively, do you think you can give me someone who is at least moderate enough (like Biden) to handle my concerns about the world? (IE: Ukraine and Taiwan in particular).
Alternatively, you can consider me to just be a nutcase and ignore me. But I don't think that's beneficial to you as a group either. Mostly because I know who the real nutcases are (ie: full on MAGA Trump supporters over there). I'm the one who have switched from Republican vote from 2008 / 2012 over to Democrat vote with the rise of Trump in 2016+, so I think I am actually an ideal case study for this discussion. That's all.
You've already given up the benefit of the doubt by admitting you'd vote fascist. I simply don't believe the honesty of your promises.
So you're going to kill this discussion with me just because you don't like my opinion? Cool. Lets see how that plays out this year. Its a fucking election year, get used to hearing people's opinions you don't like.
People will vote one way or the other on this issue. With any luck the Democrats put a good moderate on board who can keep my vote (as well as the Arizona, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia voters). Biden vs Trump already was looking sketchy before you progressives literally destroyed your best chance at beating Trump.
And suddenly, you're blaming me for your own mistake... because I have the audacity to try to talk with you and share my opinion.
I'm sorry, that I'm not sorry.
In any case, Trump needs to be defeated, so I'm going to stay loud about my message. Yall progressives can't Occupy Wall Street into Republican wins again this year. This is too important for me to stay silent. You fucking dumbasses are destroying your own election chances as we speak, and its best if I pointed out this before its too late. (And yall have done it before, and you're doing it again).
If you really are going to switch candidates this late in the game, then for the love of god please put someone I can vote for (and other voters like me). That's all I'm asking. Don't lose the anti-Trump Republican vote over this self-defeating move you all seem intent upon inflicting upon yourselves. Please be at least a little bit politically expedient about the situation?
FYI: "Hey Fascist" is so passe it was in the Barbie last year. Its a bad argument now. Come up with a new one. You've been calling Republicans Fascists for 8 years now, the phrase has lost its effect. You'll need to try harder if you actually want to convince people or surprise us.
Being verbose won't un-say it...
For fucks sake man, I'm here to try to help you beat Trump
You're lucky I'm not easily discouraged. But your attitude about this is quite wrong.
Everyone else in this topic: you see the problem with your rhetoric or strategy yet? Let's point out what does and doesn't work here.
What doesn't work: trusting fascists to tell the truth.
Get fucked
Dude, your insult is so fucking old that there's literally movies making fun of your insult.
It don't work very well when you spam the insult for 8 fucking years. Yes, liberals think everyone they disagree with are fascists. You're not making news here. Your overuse of the phrase is not helping.
Seriously, protip. I'm trying to help you here. I don't care if you ignore me, because eventually you'll get it. I've just got to push you so you are at least introduced to this concept of overuse of a phrase.
You not being embarrassed anymore doesn't change anything.
Get fucked
Kamala Harris is the sitting VP. She is in the conversation by default. If God exercises His ultimate recall vote on Biden tomorrow, then Harris inherits both the job and the ticket.
Exactly.
So making Kamala the top of the ticket does nothing but energize the racists to vote against her.
There is no point putting Kamala front and center. Just have Biden resign in January after serving as a political shield for Kamala.
There's no need to shield Harris, the racists are going to be triggered regardless, that's what those snowflakes do.
Except the racists did vote for Biden in 2020, despite Harris being the VP.
Arizona ain't exactly a happy-go-lucky civil rights state. Do you really have assurances that Arizona goes to Kamala if she's on the top of the ticket?