634
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 06 Oct 2024
634 points (90.6% liked)
Political Memes
5579 readers
572 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The most famous Democratic Socialist who does the most for the movement and achieves the most for the country is Bernie Sanders.
Note that he runs on the Democratic ticket in order to stay relevant even though he and the party aren't always in alignment. And when he didn't get nominated in 2020 he threw his support behind Biden even though he could have easily run third-party. He knew that running third-party would have guaranteed a Trump victory.
Ralph Nader ran for the Green party and spoiled the vote when Al Gore - the most famous environmentalist in Washington -was running and handed the election to Bush.
The GOP doesn't actually want Trump, but they know 100% that he'd run third party without the nomination and kill the GOP, which is why they back him.
The spoiler effect is real and, until we have a better system, running or voting third-party is political malfeasance.
You’re mistaken about bush v gore. The Supreme Court gave us bush because gore didn’t want to do a whole state recount (which is what would have been necessary to show that Florida went for him, which it did. the handful of counties they settled on wasn’t enough to change the results by themselves).
Why are you talking about sanders? He’s not running and if he were I wouldn’t vote for him.
Bush defeated Gore in Florida in the final count by 537 votes.
Nader received over 97,000 votes. Had he not been in the race, his supporters would have overwhelmingly preferred Gore to Bush. Yeah, some of them would have chosen not to vote. But even if 99%of them had stayed home, that remaining 1% would have been enough to win Gore the state in a manner that would have kept it from ever going to the Supreme Court.
The Bush administration was a horror show for the US and the world. The economic, diplomatic, environmental, and human cost of it is unimaginable, and people like you are why it happened.
You are, as I have stated several times, mistaken about bush v gore.
Every post-hock review of statewide ballots that I’ve ever heard of has had gore winning by a narrow margin.
Just the butterfly ballots alone would have tilted the pre-recount tally in gores favor.
Nader didn’t give us bush, the Supreme Court and the weak recount of only a few counties did.
Would gore have been significantly different after 9/11? I thought so back then, but now I’m not convinced. The preparations to invade Iraq again were being made during the end of the Clinton administration and there was enough personnel carryover from Clinton to bush that I believe it would have been the same but with different graft.
I asked earlier if people like me were more to blame than non voters, than the parties who failed to convince us or even recognize that they needed us and the administrations who actually perpetuated the myriad war crimes of the bush and Obama administrations. Are we?
Break it down here, what precise volume of Iraqi blood is on my hands?
It never would have reached the point where it went to the Courts if Nader hadn't run and the recounts not occurred. And the recounts that did occur likely would have turned out differently because Bush would have been further behind in the rest of the state's numbers.
Nader gave the Court the opportunity to put their thumb on the scale.
Wait, so you think it’s more naders fault than the unjust, undemocratic system that installed bush or the gore campaign for pushing a partial recount open to an equal protection ruling (that’s the bush v gore basis) that it couldn’t even win or for not realizing that it needed left voters and adjusting its platform appropriately?
When is it the fault of the democrats for running a bad campaign? For running on a bad platform?
I'm saying that Nader, knowing full-well he has zero chance of winning, intentionally ran a campaign that could do nothing but harm Al Gore's campaign and help the GOP.
The Green party did now fandango to the environment in that campaign than can ever be offset by them. They're an environmentalist party that doomed the planet of of arrogance, stupidity, or duplicity, and I don't care which. I blame them and anyone who voted for them for the current state of the world that they enabled with their irresponsibility.
Evil people are gonna try to be evil. When there's an enemy at the gates we need to put aside our minor differences and work together to defeat them, not stab the other guards and let the city get overrun.
I’m no defender of the greens and I don’t think people should vote for them, so please bear that in mind before you read this:
You blame the self proclaimed environmentalist party and their voters, a tiny proportion of the electorate by comparison, for 24 years of the two non environmentalist parties devastating the climate while in power which they reached by receiving in every case several orders of magnitude more votes than the ostensibly environmentalist party did.
You blame them more than the foolishness of the gore campaign for not choosing the full recount it would have won, and the undemocratic system it was operating under for stopping the recount and installing bush.
Do you think that responsibility for the actions of people in power ultimately rests on their shoulders? Do you think that there was some deficit in the gore campaigns environmental policy and that the Green Party shaped itself to fit that niche?
I literally think people shouldn’t vote for the greens though, so why not talk about what I do support, voting psl?
Gore couldn't do a full recount because there's a federal deadline (first Tuesday after second weekend of December) by which the delegates must be selected so they can vote for President. That's what Bush v Gore was about - whether or not the recount could go on past the date the electors were required to select the President. The Court ruled that the election date couldn't be moved, so the recount couldn't continue.
The ruling was that to allow only a partial recount (which gore would have lost!) would constitute a violation of the equal protection clause and that because the state couldn’t do a full recount in the three days remaining between when the Supreme Court heard the case and the safe harbor date that the stay would be granted and as a consequence, bush installed.
Once again: do you assign more blame for the events of the last 24 years to the people who voted for the self proclaimed environmentalist party than the major party that didn’t appeal to those voters, the undemocratic systemic failure at the municipal, county, state and federal level, the decisions made by the people in power during those times to perpetrate the actions of this nation and the administrative state actors who went along with them?
If you would prefer not to answer that question:
Why not abandon talking about the greens, a party I do not support or want people to vote for and instead engage with what I do want, for people to vote psl?
The GOP is gonna GOP.Blaming the enemy for being the enemy doesn't change their behavior. Anyway - they're a minority and should be easy to stop. Since the 90s, they've received a majority of the popular vote 1 time.
But they've managed to hold the White House for 14 years in that same time period and have gerrymandered the shit out of the Congressional map. Texas had a majority Democratic delegation to the US House from the Civil War until 2005.
Hiw have they achieved so much? Easy - they're organized and put forth a unified front while the rest of us flail about chasing perfection, sabotaging and resistance, and get crushed.
Asking the GOP to stop winning is dumb. That's their goal, and I can't really expect them to not try and win. What I can expect is for those who oppose their policies to get their heads out of their asses and vote for the people who can stop the GOP. We can work on making the Dems better later.
Right now we're being stabbed to death by the GOP, and instead of fighting that third-party voters are focusing on a hangnail.
Good to know you don’t hold me responsible for the last 24 years of American policy.
I am not chasing perfection. There’s a lot I don’t like and have to look past about psl.
I’m not asking the gop to stop winning
It was a real stretch to read your response as a reply to me. Did you reply to the right post?
If you're claiming to hold an ounce of socialist leanings and you don't oppose the GOP, you're an idiot. They need to be stopped before any progress can be made. Look at the GOP as cancer and the Dems as Chemotherapy. You may not feel good about the Dems, but the GOP will kill the country if left unchecked.
Supporting third parties is like trying to cure cancer with a chain letter. It achieves nothing, wastes resources, and is super annoying.
Be careful with insults on world communities. I expect they’ll tolerate fewer and fewer qualifying words as the rhetoric heats up going into November. You’ve also spoken to me enough for a discerning eye to recognize that as a direct insult.
My vote for psl is by definition in opposition to the gop, although I don’t hold the same ideas as you that opposing the republicans a fundamental communist principle.
If the republicans were killing the country then it’d be dead already and good riddance. Democrats have consistently tacked right for the last 40 years and the country’s not dead because of it. Harris is running to the right of Regan. I have trouble thinking of a metric by which the country is dying that can be attributed to the Republican Party.
You keep bringing up what voting for a third party is like. Neither of us live in a world where the gop is a cancer. The gop doesn’t have to be stopped before the country can improve.
I actually don’t believe that America can have a communist future without some body representing the small bourgeois (closest thing I can think of to the land/local and regional capital axis that best describes the republican base) in the transition to socialism and eventually communism.
You and I don’t want the same thing.
You are acting in a manner that strenghthens the party that outlaws workers unions. How is that in anyone's interest except the bourgeois?
I don’t see how my actions strengthen the republicans but if the republicans benefit from a person voting psl then shouldn’t the democrats try to appeal to that block of voters in order to get their votes and remove that benefit from their opponent?