this post was submitted on 27 Apr 2024
166 points (67.6% liked)
Memes
1235 readers
1 users here now
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm voting for Biden because I don't want Trump picking the next couple Supreme Court justices.
Not only could he pick the next ones, he would have the power to expand the Supreme Court. Imagine a SCOTUS that isn't just filled with Federalist Society goons but his own special brand of Conservative from places like the Fifth Circuit in Texas.
Instead, we’re going to elect democrats who won’t do anything for however many decades it takes for the current conservative justices to get old and then, when the time is right, they’ll show their cunning strategy for saving the court: Putting forward a slightly less conservative justice that they won’t even fight for enough to push past republican objections.
Meanwhile: We’re drowning!
True, but those are our two choices. Status quo or hard Conservative Authoritarianism. There is no third option, no matter how much wishing, whinging, or opining people engage in.
If we want a third option, we'll have to start working towards that possibility the very second Biden gets reelected. If Trump wins, then we're fucked for the next 40 years, at least.
Also, we have the chance to take back the House and keep the Senate. Republicans may be irrelevant in the decision to choose the next justices, should Biden win. There's a lot at stake in this next election.
Yall said we could push Biden further left. The election cycle is such that there is always the next election, and we arent allowed to complain about the candidate, for fear of hurting their chances.
Its rigged against progressives
We did push him left. Anyone with a brain stem who Compares Biden in the 90s to Biden today knows he's much further left
I've been here before. The second Biden gets reelected, the tune will shift from "we’ll have to start working towards that possibility the very second Biden gets reelected" to "we’ll have to start working towards that possibility after the first year of his second term, since that's the only time Biden can get things done" to "we’ll have to start working towards that possibility the very second democrats win in 2026" ad nauseam. The time for change is now or the time for change is never.
Our two glorious parties
A corpofacist theocracy.
A corporate theocratic controlled opposition party.
Okay. What do you expect you can do in seven months? Because you don't just have to convince people like you—there's not enough of you to do anything but throw the election to Trump. You'll have to convince the leftist Boomers, Gen X, Millennials, and Gen Z who don't share your particular views that it's worth doing something drastic and potentially dangerous.
You'll have a much better chance of doing that when you have four years of "status quo" than 4+ years of hard right authoritarianism.
I mean, yes. That is what I am trying, in a very small way, to do.
I'm not an accelerationist. I have nothing against voting for Biden as harm reduction. And I want to be clear that what I'm about to say is not me advocating for voting for Trump, which I view as a morally reprehensible and disgusting act. But you are just wrong; 4+ years of hard right authoritarianism will likely make those people much more likely to understand that something drastic and potentially dangerous is necessary. Again to be clear: that one good thing doesn't justify the rest of what will happen under a Trump admin, and people should not vote for him.
My point is that whatever you think should be done after Biden gets elected, you should just do now, because if you wait, you'll be waiting forever.
2 points:
Why is the republican the line for hard core authoritarianism? What the hell do you call it when the government does massive expansions to the military, police, and surveillance state while also designating left wing activists, including climate activists, as domestic terrorists? What about trying to undo the damage caused by the Supreme Court taking away people’s rights? If the republican’s actions were subversions of democracy, then surely it would be justified to take actions outside of normal law to oppose that. But they won’t do that, because at best the democrats are collaborators and more realistically, they’re just the faction of fascists with a better marketing department.
There is a third option: Join up with your fellow workers/citizens/people around the world to work towards something actually productive. Join/organize a union. Sharpen your pitchforks. Destroy some pipelines. Become the domestic terrorist they’ve already labeled you as. That path won’t be any different under a democrat or republican president because both are just as adamant about maintaining the power of the state and capital over people.
If your plan is to vote for one fascist then wish for the system to reform itself, I have 200+ years of history to show to you.
I did not say "hard core authoritarianism." Go back and reread what I wrote. I said "hard Conservative Authoritarianism." Biden is authoritarian, and I never said otherwise. Biden is not a Conservative (capital "C").
Okay. You be the one to start it. Put up or shut up. I'm not interested in this option until I see the ideologues and tankies brave enough to talk about this online doing it in reality. If all you have is, "C'mon bro! We just need to band together," then it's not much of a movement. Meanwhile, I plan to hold my nose and vote for Biden, because at least that's an actionable plan.
What?
One of these things requires effort and involves risk and the other does not. But only one of these things does anything if you end up doing it. Yeah. I’m not doing anything at the moment because I’m depressed, anxious, and don’t really know anyone I live near. I should be doing more, but it’s hard. But you know what I’m not doing? I’m not carrying water for fascists. If you want to talk about harm reduction, for as little as that matters, that inaction is doing less harm than your inaction of telling people to shut up and go tick a box to say they’re ok with fascists.
EDIT: Perhaps more to the point: There have been and are still people who are doing this work regardless. People in countries that have been colonized or otherwise screwed over by the west put up a fight to try to change that. You aren’t just poo pooing hypothetical direct action that nobody has the courage to do. You’re supporting a government that actively attacks those people who are alrighty fighting for freedom and justice.
And see, that's where we disagree. I see no evidence that Biden is a fascist (authoritarian ≠ fascist). If you want to convince me he's a fascist, I'm going to need you to define what a fascist is and how Biden fits that definition.
I don’t see why you feel the need to obsess over definitions. I’ve already given a handful of my objections to the US gov and even some specific things done under the current administration.
But hey, if you want another one: How about supporting a genocide? Is that fascist enough for you?
No. Because "supports genocide" is not an exclusively fascist thing, and that's why definitions matter. People on the internet love to reduce it to "Guh, Biden is a fascist," but words have meaning. It's telling that when asked to define what they think a fascist is, they always deflect. I have never once met someone who can, because they know they are committing a reductio ad absurdum fallacy.
Call Biden a fascist all you want, but if you don't know what those words mean, you're just making shit up and spouting some bullshit you heard from Political Compass chuds on the internet.
I’m missing the part where the word matters more than what’s actually happening. If your best defense of Biden is “Well AHKTUALLY! Technically Biden isn’t a fascist because of whatever definition I’m using!” What are we doing here? Just say you don’t care about hurting people. It’ll make things go a lot faster.
EDIT: Or if I'm being slightly more charitable: Even if you aren't ok with hurting people, you view the decision to support current harm being done to people as at worst a neutral act, and possibly even positive since it could be worse. You don't see how your support for the status quo enables continued once sided violence rather than keeping a fictitious peace.
What I'm telling you is that you ARE making a decision and that decision IS for more state and structural violence. But you're too caught up in the fantasy land that is definitions and respectability politics.
I'm deflecting from talking about the definitions? You're using definitions to deflect from reality. What do you even want? If I copy pasted a definition from Wikipedia or the dictionary would you then be happy and engage with the reality of what's actually going on? Are you then going to talk about sending weapons to arm a genocide or grossly expanding the surveillance state? Or will you just move on to some other pedantry?
It's not the end-all for me. That's why it matters. Genocide is bad, and I'm sure we both agree. But imagine you can choose a candidate who supports a genocidal regime or you choose a candidate who supports a genocidal regime and makes being LGBTQ federally illegal, and makes abortion federally illegal, and plans to install a theocracy.
One of those two will be president next year. Period. Choosing a third option will only help Trump, who has a reliable and rabid voting base.
You can choose your own moral logic, but for me I don't think this argument holds much value.
For one, it takes it as a given that some of that suffering will happen regardless and we are powerless to do anything about it. We're not. There is another choice, you're just not willing to accept it as valid.
By supporting the system which causes this suffering, you are enabling the suffering. Period. You are saying "We will not oppose you doing these things as long as you're not doing some other things." Except of course even those other things are on the table because you've already backed yourselves into a position where any amount of evil is acceptable if there is a greater one out there somewhere.
How can you assign and weigh the moral value of the suffering of any given group against any other? Do LGBTQ rights for the imperial core help the people getting bombed in various countries around the world? Does the legal right to an abortion help the people who don't have financial access to get one for lack of healthcare? (Remember, in America, a right is only a right if you can afford to exercise it.) How do you even begin to compare the value of any given policy (or lack of policy) to the harm done by living in a surveillance state?
To me, the harm reduction argument is one that says "We are ok with trading the rights of some people for other people and we believe we have the right to make that decision for those groups." It's horrifyingly easy to hand wave away the suffering of people you don't know. But if you were living in Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Vietnam, Korea, Cuba... actually it'll be faster if I just link this: https://archive.globalpolicy.org/us-westward-expansion/26024-us-interventions.html
If you were one of the people impacted by US imperialism... would you still make the same choice? Would you still support the US government because a different US government might hurt some US people you don't know?
Because genocide is bad, but genocide plus other human rights violations is worse. Seems like simple logic, to me. Sucks that those are the choices.
So for me, it's "choose Joe Biden," who will be complicit in Gazan genocide, or it's "choose Trump," who will be complicit in Gazan genocide and hurt me, people like me, and people I know. If I vote for "third party person" who has zero chance of winning and Trump wins, I will bear the blame for failing to act in my best interest, and my moral purity won't save anyone. If I vote third party and Biden wins, it will be in spite of me, and I will get to enjoy the benefits of people who weren't afraid to get their hands dirty while also being indebted to them.
And that is not a position in which I wish to find myself.
I'm not saying to vote for a 3rd party. I'm saying that the solution does not involve voting and that the act of participating in such a vote is an active choice to support cruelty.
Voting, to the extent that it does anything, communicates 2 things:
So by voting within such a system, you provide your support for it. You say that you will not otherwise oppose it's actions. Your choice isn't harm some people or harm more people. Your choice is whether or not you will make it easier for the government to harm whoever they're harming. Not only does that government harm people, but it actively works to crush opposition to it. You are supporting the efforts to do that to. You are actively opposing everyone who fights against the system.
More people will suffer every year that the government stays in the hands of capitalists and imperialists. Those people wouldn't be hurt in the world where we actually did something about that. You can't just take them for granted as having already been hurt by something other than your decision to continue participating in the system.
Okay, but what alternative do you propose? I'm not an anarchist, so "just tear it down" isn't an option I'd agree with.
I’m not an anarchist either. (At least I think. Admittedly my understanding of anarchism is a little lacking, but from the gist of it it doesn’t seem very practical.) I’m a communist. The path forward is simple even if it’s very difficult. You band together with people, build power through your capacity to withhold your labor, and be ready to fight back when the capitalists inevitably attack.
Power is about the ability to make people do what you want even when they don’t want it. It’s inevitable derived through the means to reproduce society and force to back it up. Right now capitalists have that means and force and thus can impose their will on others. In that context, voting lacks any basis for power to enforce the will of the voters on the ruling class because the capitalists own things and the workers don’t successfully use their collective productive power to oppose them. It can ONLY turn out this way if your only political action is voting in a capitalist “democracy.” The system isn’t set up to respond to anyone who doesn’t already hold power because if it did, they wouldn’t be in power anymore.
It’s important to have an understanding of the how things work structurally, because if your analysis only begins and ends with the actions and professed ideologies of specific people, you can’t possibly hope to ever break out of the cycle of meager progress followed by regression.
You should read up on anarchism, it's cool. Our tactics largely the same as you ascribe to the communists, but we aim for only bottom up orgs and not top down.
I'm with you on collective action, like unions, but I don't really see how that applies to government. The system works whether one person votes or 1mil, and if zero of the regular non-politicians voted, the politicians still get a vote. If you're talking about collective action to vote for someone different, there's two main problems with that:
We can't all agree on what issues are most important, which is part of why third parties never win.
There's too many bad actors who would use that opportunity as an authoritarian power grab.
I think your idea could work if we had federal ranked choice, but we average people don't "produce" anything that the government can't produce itself. If someone wanted a communist government, they'd have to get communists elected, and to do that, they'd have to sell the idea of Communism to regular people who don't know anything other than late-stage capitalism.
It would have to emerge organically from the ground up, not the top down. I think we're on our way (I'm more of a socialist), but I don't think it will happen in our lifetime, and rushing it will only scare the ignorant.
Either way, I think we've beaten this horse enough. You've been at least respectful, which is more than I can say for a lot of comments. Have a nice day.
Why don't we just start [redacted] the government? Or work on getting a third option right now?
Because it's too late. What do you think you can achieve in seven months? You'd have to unite leftist Boomers, Gen X, Millennials, and Gen Z and convince them that your plan (third party voting or "industrial action") is better than the relatively safe option of simply going out and voting for Biden.
And not only that, but thanks to FPTP, convincing people to join you also means convincing people that it won't throw the election to Trump, whose party reliably turns out to vote for more Republicans.
Unless you know something I don't, we're about four years too late to build the momentum needed to make dramatic changes.
You know you can make change outside the official channels, right?
Such as? Do you mean revolt? If that's what you mean, just say it: you want a revolution. I don't know why you're being coy about it.
But my core point is that you still have to convince everybody else that revolution or civil disobedience are worth losing their security and privilege. You can't do this alone, and 100,000 people online who share your ideals aren't anywhere near the same as feet on the ground.
Lol, I'm not trying to get arrested right now.
There is plenty of direct action people can take besides a violent revolution to improve their and others circumstances
So do you like not know anything about the court? Sotomayor and Kagan? Those two are fucking rock stars. The best legal minds of the last 30 years. The fuck are you even talking about?
Do you not remember the entire fiasco with Obama’s failed attempt at selecting a justice? He picked a “moderate,” the Republicans stonewalled him until the election, and instead of trying to use any of the procedural tricks to push through the appointment that the Republicans would gladly use, the Democrats didn’t put up a fight. Fast forward, Trump wins the election, appoints his justices, and Democrats let it go through.
If this is an issue where democracy and rights are at stake and if democrats actually gave a crap they wouldn’t be playing by the rules and then accepting the slide into fascism that all this represents.
But for the elite of the party, none of this shit matters. They aren’t really bound by the same laws as the rest of us. So who cares if the plebs lose some rights? If anything it’s a positive for them. They get to run on being opposed to the bad stuff they let the Republicans do instead of anything positive and they fundraise like crazy over the fear that generates.
For the Democratic base: They’re just watching a fucking TV show. Politics isn’t a real thing to them. They say they see this slide into fascism, but then the most they’re willing to do about it is go check a box once every 2/4 years and then accept the horrible things that come after because respecting the system is more important than protecting people from it. Maybe the really “radical” ones will go to some march to hold up signs in a spot that’s not gonna bother anyone and then go home after regardless of if that changed anything.
Meanwhile, their continued uncritical support of the government enables that government to keep working to crush more serious opposition to it.
This is just unbelievably myopic and foolish. Yes Merrick Garland was stonewalled. Although considering what an ineffectual and incompetent AG he is I'm not entirely sure that one wasn't for the best. But as I mentioned Obama got the two greatest justices of Our Generation appointed. And Biden already got Jackson appointed. Claiming that they'll never get an appointment is silly when they've done it three times. So here's your choice sit there and stew while fascist put in fascist judges or get actual people appointed. You've created some kind of fiction for yourself that allows you to sit there and be myopic and ineffectual for no reason. Is it laziness? Just an excuse to avoid having to do anything? I don't get it.
Did I also miss the part where we got Roe v Wade, etc back? Has this translated into changes to defend our rights? If not, why isn't more being done? Procedure? Rules? Why should any of that supersede protecting real people? And what about the more direct attacks on our rights coming directly from the administration such as once again expanding the surveillance state?
As far as my own participation: I'm not doing anything, and that's distressing, but were this merely a matter of laziness I'd just be voting. It's not that hard to vote, at least not in my area. I haven't formed my entire politics around not wanting to drive like <5 minutes to a local poling station once every few years. In 2020 I actually volunteered for 2 different campaigns during the primaries because I still had some fleeting belief that we could change things that way. I don't know why, I had already learned a lot of the history which informs my lack of faith in the system. But maybe it's just easier thinking you can change things without the risk of getting shot.
The liberal's political responsibilities demand almost nothing of them. Vote from a list of 2 things once in a while, perhaps even less than that if the position isn't contested or one of the choices is a non-choice. After that, shut up and let others do the thinking and politics for you.
Anything more than that, which risks running into the apparatus of state violence, is "the wrong way to do things." We should just be patient, trust our institutions, and continue to believe in the myth of steady progress over time.
As scary as that is, there are people out there who are brave or desperate enough to be risking their lives to fight the system. I can't really blame people for being too scared to join in, but I can blame them for insisting that their minimal political participation to support the government that fights against those people is actually a good thing.
Oh so now you want to protect Roe versus Wade? By letting conservatives have more justices? That's your big master plan? The three liberal justices who were the dissenting opinion on the Dobbs decision. An opinion that you clearly didn't read, nor have you read any dissenting opinion is my guess considering your absolute lack of knowledge about the justices. Sure though continue to fold your arms and pretend like you're above it when you're directly allowing it. Arguing for this disengagement when one side is directly trying to take your rights away from you is basically supporting it. Things only get better by winning. Bit by Bit by Bit. But you got to keep winning to do the bit by bit. The show's got to keep going. The greatest expansion of civil rights in our nation's history happened during a string of democratic victories.
This guy gets it.
Pardon my ignorance as a non-American, but weren’t there rumblings of Biden being able to do the same, back around the time of the RBG debacle?
Yep, and he didn't out of some misguided belief that Republicans would behave with some amount of human decency. Unfortunately, the Republicans he knew from his time as a Congressman had given up decorum and bipartisanship for their personal ideologies and fealty to a fraudster.
It would have been and still is the sensible thing to do, because the highest judiciary should be the least partisan, and it's a progressive move Biden really should make in an effort to maintain that balance.
Still would've needed congress to expand the court and no way in hell would Manchin or sinema ever have gone along w Biden
this vould almost be a valid single issue to single-issue-vote at this point. the supreme court has been aging incredibly poorly and the republican candidate is running a platform to make it worse.
but im seeing so many comments (edit: including OP and the admin of a very popular instance?) who are down to abstain or split the vote, ignoring this AND all the other oppression that another maga win would be about, because we have let the “both sides are bad and voting is a blood pact” propoganda take over for the past decade.
both sides are not equally bad and voting is not a blood pact.