128
submitted 7 months ago by YourMom@hexbear.net to c/politics@hexbear.net
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] JohnBrownsBussy2@hexbear.net 57 points 7 months ago

At this point, it would probably be a major boon to the Democrats, since Biden polls incredibly poorly compared to a generic Democrat (as long as they pick someone other than Kamala or Gavin Newsom).

[-] Comp4@hexbear.net 36 points 7 months ago

Im not really "that" tuned into US politics. Are there really any democrat politicians people are into at the moment ?

[-] Justice@lemmygrad.ml 58 points 7 months ago

Sinc Oct when all the "progressive" Democrats collectively smashed their "support genocide" buttons, no, not really.

The only democrat at the federal level qualified as this point, in my view, is Tlaib. I know others have since joined her, but I consider anyone who wasn't IMMEDIATELY against Israel's genocide to be basically dead to me forever... on the political stage anyway. Some random dipshit can learn and change their mind, ok. But politicians should have already known and been anti Israel before Oct. So, whatever, fuck em all. For the rest of my life, or until Palestine is free, I'll be looking at each candidate and it they take money from AIPAC or express any support for Israel, not voting for them. If that means writing in or not voting, ok. The dems can get my vote if they value it. But they gotta give up genocide and that means give up Israel.

[-] YourMom@hexbear.net 50 points 7 months ago

You're really going to do that? The upcoming election is THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION OF YOUR LIFE. Enough with the purity tests, jfc

[-] freagle@lemmygrad.ml 39 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

If voting changed anything, it would be illegal. If Trump wins, racist gangs will rove the streets with presidential approval. If Biden wins, racist gangs will rove the streets with strongly worded presidential opposition.

[-] the_post_of_tom_joad@hexbear.net 32 points 7 months ago

Lol i just had someone say that to me on the lib verse

[-] CannotSleep420@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)
[-] CommunistBear@hexbear.net 34 points 7 months ago

Unironically Pritzker is someone to watch out for although imo not this election cycle. Of the democrat governors, I've seen more positive and less negative from him. Motherfucker got me legal weed and a paid vacation. That's powerful energy going into the future

[-] RION@hexbear.net 25 points 7 months ago

It's wild that the richest politician in the country is somehow one of the better ones

[-] alcoholicorn@hexbear.net 23 points 7 months ago

Same reason FDR was smart enough to invest in guillotine insurance.

[-] star_wraith@hexbear.net 17 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I have met more than one rich person IRL who gets what’s going on and understands how to actually keep capitalism running. Weirdly it’s the CEOs and people who have inherited vast sums (like Pritzker) that are the sharpest on this. Entrepreneurs and business owners are completely off the deep end though, they all think they’re characters in an Ayn Rand novel.

If I was a soulless billionaire I would be pushing for social democracy tout court.

[-] Poison_Ivy@hexbear.net 3 points 7 months ago

Inb4 a mega billionaire takes it too far for them and accidentally presses the communism button that also guillotines them at the same time

[-] PoY@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 7 months ago

i like this for us

[-] corgiwithalaptop@hexbear.net 19 points 7 months ago
[-] CommunistBear@hexbear.net 17 points 7 months ago

Oh, I've been here. I've been contemplating going out of my way to see you play one of these days but I don't want to be cringe irl

[-] corgiwithalaptop@hexbear.net 13 points 7 months ago

Haha, you're all good! I've met a number of people from this site. DM me if you ever wanna!

[-] Rod_Blagojevic@hexbear.net 13 points 7 months ago

It's better than nothing, but imagine what I would've accomplished without federal interference.

[-] star_wraith@hexbear.net 12 points 7 months ago

I don’t want to say I “like” Pritzker, but I’m not sure I have the right words for it. He’s definitely made me ask myself which is better: a “leftist” politician like AOC or Bernie who won’t even try to get anything done (or just not very good at getting things done; to me AOC is the former or Bernie is the later), or a more centrist lib like Pritzker who at least can be funny and also an asshole who can actually get shit done, even if it’s just meager improvements.

[-] JohnBrownsBussy2@hexbear.net 25 points 7 months ago

As far as I can tell, not really, but there are certainly democrat politicians that are quite loathed. Simple indifference would be a massive improvement over the attitudes towards Biden.

[-] buh@hexbear.net 23 points 7 months ago

Biden polls incredibly poorly compared to a generic Democrat (as long as they pick someone other than Kamala or Gavin Newsom).

so basically the concept of a generic democrat but not any particular generic democrat?

[-] NephewAlphaBravo@hexbear.net 35 points 7 months ago

Chapo boys said years ago that they'd win every election if they just ran blank silhouettes named "[popular policy]" instead of any specific dem

well then they'd have to actually do the policy which would defeat the whole point of a bourgeois election

[-] bigboopballs@hexbear.net 10 points 7 months ago

well then they'd have to actually do the policy

No, they get away with not doing things they promised all the time

[-] macerated_baby_presidents@hexbear.net 8 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Been talking to socialist alternative about this recently. I think that since bourgeois politicians are in the end only going to do things businesses want, they prefer to run on bullshit over lying when possible. So they're "a President you could have a beer with", not the other guy, etc. They try not to make specific promises, in my local elections half the time they don't even bother putting together a policy platform until they're elected. When they are dumb enough to make a specific claim, they obfuscate and say it's some other politician's fault the thing didn't get done and they're "in talks" about it, or they have to try and gaslight everyone that they meant $2000 total instead of $2000 checks, or whatever. People remember that stuff; there's a limited amount of lying you get before you lose re-election to the other party (representing a different slice of capital).

The thing SAlt really liked about Bernie is that he made Medicare For All more important than the guy himself. Every time he got up on stage he talked about it and if elected he might have even tried to do it*. I think there is some value to getting specific policy proposals in the public eye. Everybody's been calling for "police reform", whatever that means, for the better part of a century. But once people started to say "defund the police" - literally decrease the police department budget - the gloves came off and we got a tremendous backlash from the bourgeois parties. It's too specific. In a few decades they'll probably be renaming police departments to Department of Resident Health and Wellness and calling it defund, but for now candidates who say they support defunding actually mostly mean it, voters believe that they mean it, and so the rest are forced to tell you straight that they won't defund. In Chicago Lightfoot ran on "police reform", but Johnson did not run on defunding the police and strenuously tried to avoid talking about it.

* no enforcement mechanism obviously

this post was submitted on 08 Jan 2024
128 points (99.2% liked)

politics

22126 readers
181 users here now

Protests, dual power, and even electoralism.

Labour and union posts go to !labour@www.hexbear.net.

Take the dunks to /c/strugglesession or !the_dunk_tank@www.hexbear.net.

!chapotraphouse@www.hexbear.net is good for shitposting.

Do not post direct links to reactionary sites.

Off topic posts will be removed.

Follow the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember we're all comrades here.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS