this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2024
78 points (79.1% liked)

politics

18072 readers
5655 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 37 points 4 months ago (4 children)

Right... Because there is another real choice in this race.

The orange con-man is even friendlier to Israel and would help to escalate this tragedy.

I don't like the choices either, but the one that isn't Biden is so much worse!

[–] fishos 15 points 4 months ago (3 children)

The point is "you don't have a better choice" isn't a great argument FOR something. The Democrats need to put forth strong candidates, not "he's not the other guy" lumps of wet tissue paper.

[–] IchNichtenLichten 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The Democrats need to put forth strong candidates

It's assumed that the incumbent will run unless they decide not to. Biden should've stuck to one term only, he would've gone down as a pretty good President, all things considered. That he didn't is on him, the DNC isn't going to go against a sitting President when there's no concrete reason to do so.

[–] fishos -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

And they SHOULD. That's why they're weak. That's the entire problem.

[–] IchNichtenLichten 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

What should they do, exactly?

Lay it out for me.

[–] fishos 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Not let traditions like "we don't oppose the sitting president" override supporting who is actually best for the job. Elections should be cutroat even amongst the party. Not some dog and pony circus that we're given where both candidates are chosen for us and we get to play "lesser of two evils" game.

[–] IchNichtenLichten 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

There will still be a sizable, perhaps even majority, of members who support Biden's choice to run again. What you're advocating for is a civil war in the Dem party during an election year against Donald fucking Trump.

[–] fishos -2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

No, what I'm advocating is for more than a 2 party system where multiple viable candidates are brought forth and not just the same two groups controlling it all.

Crazy idea, I know. Maybe we could call it a "Parliament" or something.

You just keep arguing "LESSER OF TWO EVILS!" like that actually means something

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

I think you'll find a large number of people on here would prefer a system like score voting that allows us to choose a third person without throwing the vote away. That's something that would get the results you want. The DNC infighting during an election year will not get the results you want.

[–] IchNichtenLichten 2 points 4 months ago

You're talking about something that would be great to work towards. I'm talking about why the DNC didn't do the thing you wanted them to do.

What actually means something is keeping Trump out of the White House.

[–] Archer -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yes, that’s why we should have RCV. Until then though, we’re stuck with first past the post voting and not voting for Biden is basically the same as voting for Trump. This could flip enough people in battleground states to let Trump win.

It’s stupid and she knows it but she’s doing it anyway

[–] fishos 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

And what will be next elections reason to not change the system, fight against it at all, and just "vote for the safer pick"? Change has to happen sometime or not at all. So when, pray tell, do we start caring that we're stuck in a shallow 2 party system and do something about it? When it's convientant?!?

[–] Archer 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If there’s a risk of not having a next election then that changes the calculation

[–] fishos 0 points 4 months ago

Our elections are already a sham. We already don't have truly free elections in this closed two party system. So again, when do we make change? It'll never be convientant.

[–] splicerslicer -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

None of this changes the fact that if you wanted a better candidate you should have campaigned them a year ago, not now.

When is the best time to plant a tree? Twenty years ago, when is the next best time? Now.

[–] fishos 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Lmao "it's too late now, why are you even trying?". Your quote at the end literally contradicts yourself, by the way. The point of the quote is that yes, it should have been done then, but it's now and now is better than later. And of course later you'll have another handy excuse for why it's too hard, right?

None of this changes the fact that you're advocating the easy answers instead of the right answer and even you know it. But just like the boomers before who only looked out for themselves and what was easiest, so too will these next generations. And round and round we go.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago

Now is not better than later. Just like how you should plant a tree in the spring. If you plant too early in winter, it will die.

Just doing what you want, without considering the consequences is selfish and dumb.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Do you not understand what a primary is?

[–] [email protected] -2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I do.

The better question is this: How does trying to make Biden lose the primary in Michigan help the people in Gaza?

[–] Maggoty 5 points 4 months ago

It's a pressure campaign. It shows that the voting block is large enough to matter in November.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

This is an extremely short sighted approach to elections.

[–] splicerslicer 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The time to primary Biden was last year.

[–] Maggoty 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Nobody is actually making a primary run against him. They're using the primary vote in a state heavily connected to Gaza to show Biden there can be consequences in November if he doesn't change course.

And no they aren't going to vote for Trump. They'd likely not vote at all. And yes they know what that means but on the scale of genocide vs genocide it's not like it can get worse for them.

[–] mriguy 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

And no they aren't going to vote for Trump. They'd likely not vote at all. And yes they know what that means but on the scale of genocide vs genocide it's not like it can get worse for them.

Anybody who thinks in any situation “it can’t get worse” has absolutely no concept of history.

[–] Maggoty 1 points 4 months ago

Once things get bad enough people stop thinking logically.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago (2 children)

As the next few decades roll by, and the US continues to backslide into fascism, it'll be interesting to see your line of thinking evolve into

"Well, look... John 'blue-tie' Smith isn't the strongest candidate. Sure, he's waging 4 genocides across multiple theaters, but compare him to Chris 'red-tie' Lee who wants to start 7 more genocides, and the answer of who's the better candidate is very clear. Thank God for my liberal pragmatism. Vote blue no matter who!"

The country is ratcheting further and further into fascism, and liberal 'pragmatism' is keeping people from asking real questions about how overarching political systems can be conducive to genocide. It obfuscates the real reasons behind the emergence of fascism.

But sure, keep falling for the good cop bad cop routine - I'm sure after just 4 or 5 or 20 more democratic presidents, you'll finally have the enlightened society you've been aiming for.

[–] gnate 3 points 4 months ago

I have a feeling this is more like throwing soup at the protective cover of the Mona Lisa: nothing changes but it gets attention.