86
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 27 Nov 2023
86 points (73.1% liked)
politics
18863 readers
5760 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
I think a lot of people thinking about voting third party are going to need reasons TO vote for someone, not reasons to not vote for the other guy. Telling them “it’s just voting for Trump” isn’t going to convince them.
And no, I’m not planning on voting third party. But finger-wagging won’t convince anyone already looking elsewhere.
If a Trump presidency doesn't scare the shit out of them at this point, then they were already looking for excuses to support him, and "I want someone to vote FOR" is just a stupid excuse.
Like, I want a gazillion dollars and a private island, but I also don't smear shit on the walls of the public library when I wake up and don't get those things. Anyone who does, just wanted to smear shit on the walls.
Yup. It is basically the same as how Romney and Cheney are "good republicans" because they want all the same shit trump does but want to pretend they are classier than that
I haven't seen Dark Brandon in a while. Like, months.
I vote FOR Dark Brandon. I'll give Biden my vote over Trump. Those are different things, even if the objective measure looks the same.
I'd like to vote for DB and get him.
Hey man, the dude has enough sense to understand that between the situations in Ukraine and Israel, the world is in a fucked up place at the moment. He's a lifelong statesman, and he's probably telling his more aggressive political advisors to back the hell off so we can figure out what the hell is going on and maybe get our hostages to safety. I respect him for that, and I'm not entirely convinced that being combative or bellicose would be even remotely helpful right now, despite the fact that it would make you feel better in the here and now.
So you don't get Dark Brandon exactly when you want him? And you have to wait....checks notes....a few months? Tough shit. If you have to wait months for him to come out, imagine how many decades you're going to wait for the institutions of this country to recover from this. If "I had to wait months for Dark Brandon" is enough for you to waffle on the gravity of your decision in 2024, then you were already lost before this conversation started.
To be fair to OP, I've seen "Dark Brandon" more as a meme to vex conservatives, used when Biden accomplishes a one of his policies, and particularly when fighting to get student loans forgiven.
This.
Dark Brandon gets policy wins, judges in seats, he moves things. He gets funding for Ukraine.
I haven't seen as much of that.
Israel isn't something I agree as much with him on, but that's not what I was talking about.
It's been a few days so this thread should largely be inert.
I'm not sure who you were replying to because it wasn't me.
I said nothing about Israel. I said I'd give him my vote. Your tone was dismissive to someone who wrote what you wanted to read, but I did not say or imply.
Not interested in a flame war, only discussion. If you respond with hostility or more bad faith, you'll get the last word - I'll not reply.
Joe Biden and Dark Brandon are the same person. You're splitting rhetorical hairs for the sake of argumentation, based largely on a meme, and there's no need for me to substantially respond to what is largely a meaningless assertion. You just refuse to give Biden credit for Dark Brandon's accomplishments, which is insane.
I used a rhetorical device to easily distinguish what excites me about him being president versus what's meh. It worked and works.
Most people know they aren't going to see a DB meme for the Israel topic *that you introduced from... Somewhere? *
He's chalked up wins and I know he'll end up with L's. But I prefer seeing him using his political capital on the economy, green energy, trust busting, courts... The virtuous things Roosevelts did.
You keep implying I said something I didn't and your post history is argumentative. Smart, but too many elbows. This will be my last reply.
Anyone not terrified of a Republican and/or Trump presidency has a shitton of privilege and needs to fucking check it. Cishet, white and men are prominent demographics for "he won't hurt me too badly" and by the time the redcaps come for those not in lockstep it'll be far, far too late.
In other words lots of people have an incredibly childish attitude about voting and are completely prepared to throw a little tantrum in the voting booth even if it means fascists get to take over the whole federal government. I'm becoming pretty convinced that people like that are just incapable of rational decision making.
It’s crazy how people view voting. In life we have so many situations where we look at realistic options and choose the best thing, or even the least bad thing, from those options.
But then with voting people feel like making their vote should be like wishing on a birthday cake. It’s totally irrational, as you say.
If we don't accept that irrational people exist and do what we can to get their votes, we risk the return of Trump.
But it's way more fun to shout at them.
One can't cater to or court the irrational. We can however stop humoring them and giving them undeserved respect. That might lead more rational people to mistakenly consider them.
Republicans keep doing it. They beat Clinton in 2016 by doing it.
Centrist Democrats would rather lose than debase themselves by moving one Planck length to the left.
And it's coming back to bite them in the ass. Further, condoning and catering to those views only speeds up the rotting brain mush that is the current American political psyche. Making it easier for fascist strong men to take over. On undeliverable promises of candy mountains and soda pop swimming pools. As a socialist largely opposed to Democrats neoliberal economic plans. I can still support them, as our best current possible option. But they absolutely do need to promote themselves better.
But Republicans have cornered the market on those who enjoy being lied to at infinitem. And it is simply not a viable tactic for democrats to even try to steal that group from them.
So first it'll never work, and now it works but it's biting Republicans in the ass by... giving them control of the House and the Supreme Court. When you're finally done moving goalposts, please return them.
Yeah, I can support them too. That doesn't mean I need to shut up when I think they're making stupid mistakes, particularly since they're gonna blame me for the results regardless of who I vote for.
Yes, in a long-term scope it will never work. The statements are not contradictory no matter how hard you try to imply that they are.
Love that straw man though. Why that's even non sequitur. The thought process to contort from someone pointing out that they're a socialist and disagree with Democrats. To claiming that critiquing democrats is inappropriate after immediately critiquing democrats. That's such an odd claim that I'm inclined to ask if you were reading off the wrong script.
That said, in the context of presidential elections. One should NEVER consider 3rd party candidates until one of 2 things happen. First past the post voting is replaced with something better. Or said 3rd party has a presence in state or federal legislature of 10% of US states.
Criticize Democrats all you want. I sure do. In the meantime primary them, push them left. But don't split the vote letting the ideal be the enemy of reality when it's important. And it's very important Trump never gets back in. Well important if you like even having an illusion of voting.
So, first you said it can't work. I provided an example of it working. Then you moved the goalposts and said it's biting Republicans in the ass. I pointed out that they gained power, not lost it. And now you've moved them again and said it can't work long term. I didn't say it needs to.
If it's vital to the very continued existence of Democracy that Trump loses this next election, why are we not trying to get every vote we can, even from people who you consider irrational? It certainly never stopped the Democratic Party from moving to the right to court the few remaining irrational moderate Republicans who stay with that party even after what it's become. Why is it always the left that has to think about the short term when we're being screamed at to vote for the candidate who will maybe consider temporarily forestalling fascism because eventually the party will totally start listening to anyone to the left of Manchin? Why does the party never have to think about the short term and court people who it considers beneath their contempt so that they can forestall fascism?
At no point have I suggested voting for a third party. To the contrary, I think the Democratic party should work to get those votes back, because it needs them. But for some reason, that never works because of wherever you decide to put the goalposts this time.
Sure, if you happen to like wild accusations.
Nah, the number one reason to vote lately is to prevent Trump from pissing all over democracy. Even Republicans are joining in.
It's gonna be republicans making a protest vote. Democrats are in lock step for once
Trump might be the biggest reason to vote against him, but Republicans have played all their cards and threatened the American people's rights. Even if he is locked up, Biden would still win.
I hope your confidence is founded.
[finger-wagging intensifies]
Republicans are all for third party candidates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingent_election
They also use that argument against people who don't show up to vote -- the very same people who might show up for a candidate they want to vote for.
In other words, despite conventional wisdom to the contrary, they might not vote for a two-party candidate anyway.
There are people who, despite the entirety of human history, fail to take into account that people aren't always rational. In fact, they're deeply offended by the suggestion and become hostile towards anyone who suggests that they should take this into account, even in situations in which the consequences for failing to do so are dire.