1351
Exclusive: Bernie Sanders worries young people are underestimating the threat from Trump
(www.usatoday.com)
this post was submitted on 02 May 2024
1351 points (97.9% liked)
News
23644 readers
4200 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
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
It seems that many of them know that Trump is worse, but think that sticking to ideals and voting for a non-viable candidate (or not voting at all) is somehow the best course of action. Republicans count on people like that to win. Fascists don't give a fuck how they get into power, as long as they do.
They don't just count on it. They actively invade spaces and spread that idea. I'm almost certain the first people saying that about Biden/Israel were right wing trolls, and people on the left actually took the bait and started spreading it themselves.
I get the sentiment, because I hate our two choices, too, but until first past the post system is changed, the lesser of two evils will always be the most practical choice.
They also seem to fervently believe:
Any time you ask for details on step 2, you get an unhinged rant with zero plausibility.
My best guess, if they actually believe there's a path to a ranked choice system and aren't just being doomers, is that they think a bloody rebellion will do the trick.
Yeah, there's a lot of tankies that pretend they are progressives so they don't get laughed at outright. They'll take their masks off 10-20 comments down the thread where few people actually see.
I tend to find that the people who believe in participating in the 2 party system also do these same steps. Why would either party do away with FPTP? Neither one has any incentive to do it. At least third parties often have it listed as part of their platform and have incentive to do it because they can't easily get elected within the current system.
The way it will happen is grassroots local compaigns. Those don't have as much need for FPTP and are more likely to be politicians who care. Eventually you build up enough to change things locally, then change state laws. That might be enough there, but it can potentially be pushed further and go for a national campaign once you have enough momentum.
It won't change by the president or congress right off the bat. That's not how this sort of thing happens. I wish it were. It'd be a lot faster and simpler, but it just won't work.
Your part 3 and part 1 are the same.
This is the ??? part you left out:
You don't just stop voting because FPTP is rigged and wildly corrupt. You fight with every weapon at your disposal, even the ones rigged against you.
This is how Maine, Alaska, and Hawaii did it. This is how everyone else needs to do it.
What exactly is your plan for changing first past the post?
You could make the case that if the democrats actually supported that, it's worth holding your nose and voting for them in order to open up other options in the future. But they don't support it, because they benefit from it. So basically you're asking the left to keep voting for the democrats unconditionally forever while they don't address any of our concerns and refuse to make any sort of reforms that might allow us to have a voice in the future. How is that a viable path to accomplishing anything?
The plan is to keep voting in every primary for the most progressive candidates and then voting for the least bad people in elections while pushing for reform. However hard it is to enact change while Democrats are in power, it will be impossible while Republicans are.
I'll pose the same question to you: how is not voting for the least bad viable candidates, thus guaranteeing the worst candidates get into power, a viable path to accomplishing anything?
Did you not notice what the DNC did to Sanders in the last Democrat primary???!
It's not just a case of "a few bad apples".
I noticed that voters didn't turn out to vote for him. The DNC doesn't get all the blame.
But what I'm being told over and over is if Biden cuts off support for Israel he'll lose the election. Which means moderates and liberals won't vote for a progressive candidate who makes it through the primaries leading to whatever nutjob is running on the other side.
So our reward for being pragmatic and holding our nose will be the same as voting 3rd party today.
It's just as impossible to enact reform through the Democratic party. Especially when you adopt the approach of "vote blue no matter who." The Democratic parties interests in terms of voting reform are directly contrary to the interests of voters, and will never allow it happen unless they have no other choice. If they know they can count on your support no matter, then you have forfeited whatever negotiating power you've managed to accrue.
To the extent that electoralism is worth engaging with, strategic voting as part of a bloc is the only way to make it worthwhile. The goal should be to build an organization or movement that can say, if you refuse to give into our demands, we will not vote for you and you will lose. In the short term, it might mean losing an election, but if you can demonstrate that power, then in the future you'll be able to make a credible threat of withholding votes to get what you want, and if they cooperate you won't have to follow through. If that organization is able to coordinate other actions like strikes, then all the better.
It's like this: two countries are facing a powerful invader, and the only way to fend them off is through an alliance. But country A says, "I know you need us to survive, so we demand 99% of your territory in exchange for an alliance." If country B follows the ideology of "lesser evilism," they'll agree to that, because 1% is better than 0%. But how did that happen, when country A needs the alliance just as much? Because lesser evilism is stupid and irrational. At some point you have to set a red line and say, this is the absolute minimum that I'll accept, and I'll reject anything less even if it means the deal falling through and me facing a worse outcome. And "no genocide" is decidedly inside of that line.
There are a few ways of going about it. One is third parties. If you vote for the Green Party for example, you get voting reform, anti genocide policies and a much better enviromental policy. At the same time Biden is still much better then Trump and being realistic about what you can get should also be part of voting strategy. Also it is incredibly important to say, that citizenship does not end at the ballot box. You got to and can do more to influence politics. So I would probably vote Biden in a swing state and Green Party in an state, which is not a swing state. This matters in two ways. Firstly the more people vote third party, the more likely they can get into some actual power, but also the Democrats see that they can gain potential votes, by improving policies.
Also no lesser evil has to be distinguised from compromise and deals. If you get an actual improvement out of doing something, it can be worth doing even at a price. So if two countries face a powerfull invader, it can be worth making a deal that country A gets 40% of the invaders land and country B also 60%, if country B is already stronger for example. In that case both get something out of it. However without the alliance both would probably fail. In this case the question is, if Biden would actually net improve the US compared to today.
The point of the hypothetical is to demonstrate why the principle of lesser evilism is incorrect. Not every deal has to be exactly equal, the question is what to do when offered a terrible deal when the other party needs you just as much as you need them, and the answer is to bargain even if it means a risk of the deal falling through.
Republicans have lost more than one Senate seat because they ran zealous nutbag losers in safe elections and pissed off moderates.
I'm not sure why Democrats get to run pro-war Zionists and Blue Lives fascists, free from the fear that they'll suffer the same fate.
Because even though they would prefer the fascists don't get into power, the wealthy Democrat politicians know they won't be too adversely affected by it.
Well that just begs the same question about the moderates and liberals who keep them in power. Do they think this is a winning strategy?
Because unfortunately the pro-Israel, pro- cop Democratic candidates are much closer to the average voter than the nutbag religious extremists are.
The majority of Americans are against the continued support for the Genocide. Sanders speaks about that in the speech.
This is an uncomfortable truth that people don't want to face
If that's true, why do more Republicans hold office at the national, state, and local levels?
Gerrymandering, structural advantages, etc. the same as it's always been.
This sounds like the strategy Republicans are banking on to win.
You will understand this when you understand why most people who have more than 20s of geopolitical memory associate people who unironically rant about evil Zionists with neo-nazis.
You realize this critique cuts both ways right? Fox news and CNN are completely aligned in their criticisms of the protestors.
Yeah but the problem is we live in at least a pro-fascist state if not a fascist state already. So convincing people who realize this to vote for the guy who has been voting for fascist policies for decades (as well as some progressive ones, for those who will say I'm ignoring the "good" he's done) and is actively supporting genocide not just in policy but in his statements and apparently beliefs is going to be pretty tough. It's not just about voting "not Trump" anymore, people also want to vote "not Biden".
If you're going to call Biden a fascist, the word really does mean "anything I don't like".
They know Donald will destabilize the country and accelerate a collapse. They think that will make room for China to expand.
If their goal is to destroy the US then helping Trump makes sense, at least.
The hypocrisy comes when millions of vulnerable people they pretend to care about actually suffer as a direct result of their nihilism. Acceptable costs, right?
It really is shocking that more people on the "Lemmy left" don't see this. The US is one of the most tolerant places in the world for a bunch of otherwise marginalized groups. Pretending that it is irredeemable and must be destroyed because of your cold war grudge is destroying one of their biggest safe spaces and condemning them to suffer.
I'm going to give you a serious answer even though it's obvious you know nothing about us and don't care to learn.
Accellerationism is stupid and reactionary, and from my perspective Biden seems to be doing a fine job of doing that as it is. Trump is a symptom produced from the policies Biden has spent his entire career enacting. There will be plenty more candidates like Trump, because the material conditions that produced him still exist, and Biden is perpetuating and worsening those conditions.
The US is in decline and that's not going to change regardless of who wins this election. What I'd most prefer is to refocus our efforts domestically in order to address some of the many different crises that the country is experiencing. If we did this, it's likely that China would eventually eclipse the US due to it's manufacturing capacity, but the lives of everyday people would be improved and the country would become more stable and healthy. Whether the decline could be reversed, I don't know, but it would at least be a gradual, peaceful decline.
But that's never going to happen, even a little bit. Instead, our leaders are intent on getting involved in conflicts all over the world while ignoring all the problems at home and allowing things to get worse and worse. The geopolitical interests of the US government are completely disconnected from the interests of the American people.
The US doesn't need to collapse for China to grow. China's strategy for many years has been a policy of peaceful coexistence with capitalist states while it focuses on economic development. And that strategy is proving successful. The only concern is what the US is going to do once it becomes eclipsed as global hegemon, and the concerning thing is that while China manufactures more than the next 10 countries combined, the US spends more on the military than the next 10 countries combined. The possibility that the US could start WWIII in an attempt to maintain hegemony by pressing the area where it has an advantage is deeply concerning.
Even if you believe, as you probably do, that Xi Jinping is paying me to run around some niche corner of the internet pretending to be Phoenix Wright - why would China actually want to destabilize the US? They're already winning the peace.
Taking the “moral high” ground even though it would have a bad result. Sounds like what the DEMs do all the time.
“I learned it from you” -young people probably.
And the Dems get criticized for taking the moral high ground at the expense of being practical, too.