385
submitted 3 months ago by geekwithsoul@lemm.ee to c/politics@lemmy.world

“Federal Election Commission records show Stein paid $100,000 in July to a consulting outfit that has worked with Republican campaigns, as well as Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s independent presidential bid. The firm, Accelevate, is operated by Trent Pool. The Intercept reported that he appeared to be part of the mob that breached the grounds of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6., 2021. The Journal hasn’t independently verified the reporting.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] meowMix2525@lemm.ee -5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I'm much more interested in your plan than whatever strawman you can make up about the voters whom Democrats have left on the table for objecting to the genocide they want to fund.

[-] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 months ago

Focus on getting progressives into local and state offices so they can build experience necessary to successfully run for federal office. Vote lesser evil for president in the meantime to buy time for progressive to get that experience. In 10-15 years of diligent efforts we can get progressives into probably about a 1/3 of our congressional seats. At that point, a progressive presidential candidate with congressional experience stands an actual chance of winning the presidency, and will have the legislative support to actually accomplish their policy goals when they get there.

[-] meowMix2525@lemm.ee -2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

How does this differ from the plan 10-15 years ago? Should we not be seeing returns if lesser evil voting did anything other than ratchet us over to the right? Should a politician have to do anything to earn the votes that put them into office?

[-] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago

How does this differ from the plan 10-15 years ago?

It doesn't, we just haven't been doing it. Progressives show up at mid terms in lower proportions than conservatives, we have to show up for every election, even the boring local ones. Governors and Senators become Presidents. If we want a progressive President, we need progressive Governors and Senators to nominate.

Should we not be seeing returns if lesser evil voting did anything other than ratchet us over to the right?

Perhaps I wasn't clear: voting lesser evil is necessary for change but it is not sufficient. Again, the return on lesser evil voting is delaying the greater evil so that good can get into position. If we're not using that delay to vote progressive into lower offices, then yes voting lesser evil accomplishes little else.

Should a politician have to do anything to earn the votes that put them into office?

This isn't a productive perspective. Lots of things should happen. You shouldn't have to look both ways before crossing at a crosswalk when you have the light; but if you follow "should", you'll have the satisfaction of being in the right when you get hit by a car.

The point of your vote isn't to reward candidates for having the right policies, the point of your vote is to protect your interests. You vote lesser evil for the same reason you lock your doors, to mitigate a worse outcome.

[-] meowMix2525@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago

That's my point. I'm not convinced that my vote is protecting my interests at all, and what's changed to make the story any different with the plan from 10-15 years ago?

The voting system works well for Republicans as it is currently. They have no reason to make the radical changes in the next four years that are being fearmongered right now. At least not any that the Democrats, with or without the president, would do anything to stop.

Every bogeyman propped up as reasons to vote against republicans has not slowed down under recent democratic administrations, who refuse to defend the rights and meet the demands of the people even in the face of clear power grabs by the other side. There is no firm policy being presented, only vague projections that it won't be as bad as under republicans, who have shown us that don't need the presidency. The tail is already wagging the dog in that respect and the side that claims to represent the left believe in decorum too much to say enough.

It is up to the democrats alone to convince anyone otherwise. We should not be scolding voters for being disillusioned by poor and ineffectual governance. If that's where we're at; blaming the voters for the failures of politicians that are first and foremost chosen by monied interests; then we've already lost democracy.

We can do this again in four years, just like we did it four years ago and four years before that, or we can get what we want right now by banding together and telling them that our votes are on the table only if they make a good faith attempt to meet our demands, and if we're serious we will put our votes where our mouths are when the day comes. It's not impossible to win that way, we just watched it happen when they switched out Biden for Kamala.

You're going to have at least as much success doing that as you are scolding american voters every four years for voting their conscience just to then turn around and somehow convince them to be more politically active. Because that's who you're alienating, the handful of voters that actually care about the state of politics and may hold just enough power to swing a federal election. Certainly not the voters that are won just by having a larger campaign budget.

You can't beat them, so join them. Do not let this political moment go to waste, do not let yourself be complicit in genocide. Put pressure on the democrats to acknowledge the genocide in gaza, to stop arming Israel. That will get everyone on the same side, along with being a show of good faith that voters wishes still matter to Democrats. At a minimum, open your mind to that possibility.

Do not let the establishment intimidate you into forgetting what power we hold as a collective, into actively working against collective's own interests and shielding the establishment from the electoral consequences of their actions.

[-] immutable@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago

That’s not how evaluating a plan works.

Here, I’ve got a cure for cancer, shove pinecones up your ass.

You can determine that this plan is bad without having to have a cure for cancer.

[-] meowMix2525@lemm.ee -1 points 2 months ago

Right, well you keep guaranteeing your vote for Democrats every year and attacking anyone that criticizes them for being ineffective and see how much that gets you, since their current platform and every election leading up to this one hasn't been enough to prove that they don't really care that much about defending progressive policy and will throw both it and their voters under the bus if they think it will help them tap into the republican base instead. Continue directing your ire at your fellow voters instead of using it to hold your elected representative's feet to the fire. That definitely seems like a sound plan and totally isn't more of what got us here in the first place 👍

[-] immutable@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago

It’s a nice straw man you’ve erected and if I did any of those things you might have some kind of point.

I didn’t attack anyone, I pointed out that this alternative plan is unlikely to bring about any substantive change either.

So you keep telling people to sit at home and I’ll wait for the glorious revolution, maybe if you shout down people and tell them to read more theory that’ll help. The American people are super into reading political theory.

[-] meowMix2525@lemm.ee -1 points 2 months ago

Lmao I've never told anyone to read theory or to sit at home but go off I guess.

[-] immutable@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago

I thought we were just casting aspersions for fun 🤣

[-] meowMix2525@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago

Oh, so you're just trolling. Got it 👍

this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2024
385 points (93.1% liked)

politics

19238 readers
2126 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS