It's not a policy question it's a media question. The right started taking over news media the day Nixon resigned. Repealing the Fairness doctrine, ending League of Women voters debates, propping up Fox news, and Sinclair media buying out all the local stations. That's the decades long community goal they've been running. The left needs to understand it, and how to fight it, because MSNBC isn't doing it.
this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2024
-22 points (27.1% liked)
Asklemmy
43935 readers
897 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Every four years Jill Stein emerges from her burrow. If she sees her shadow, it will be four more years of fascism.
You can't vote out fascism, fascism is Capitalism in decay and it doesn't care about electoral politics.
You may as well ask, what would happen if the Democratic party were a different party?
The DNC pulled out all the stops to keep Sanders from the general election, twice. They can absolutely win elections, when they want to block any movement toward the left.
I recommend listening to this: Why the Democratic Party CANNOT and WILL NOT be Reformed
Do not compare Bernie Sanders to Jill Stein. Jill Stein is an anti-vaxxer and a Russian spy.
If there is proof that she is a Russian asset, why did the Democrats not oppose here and use legal measures against it?
probably for the same reason they took no measures against trump when they accused him of the same.
What is that reason?
I don't know. But democrats spent the past 8 years accusing trump of being a russian asset, then chose not to bring it up during either impeachment, nor did biden's justice department didn't charge him on that front.
In practice they seem to think that delaying a weapons shipment, or not returning documents to the presidential library were stronger cases to pursue. There's surely a reason for that.
Either the claims about russia are false, or the evidence is not actionable. I can't think of another reasonable explanation for their actions.
It's lack of direct evidence. Trump operates like a mafia boss. No paper trail, always use euphemisms for direct action, use intermediaries for voice communication. That's why everyone around him got caught and prosecuted, but he didn't. The entire case would be hearsay interpretations. Federal guidelines wouldn't let a prosecutor take that to trial. Usually in that case they go for intimidation to get a confession, which doesn't work on a megalomaniac narcissist.
Don't know much about Stein, but most of what I've heard from Sanders sounds like the kind of sanity that the asylum riots to resist. The USA has no Left.
They'd win elections more frequently, and the collapse of the US Empire would slow just a bit.
Jill Stein the useful idiot?
they win.
in 2016 jill stein campaigned on canceling student debt. that was a major part of her platform. in 2020, joe biden included student debt cancelation in his platform, and he won.
i want to believe that the democrats could have won; but they're so good at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory that they still would have let trump win again.
Why would that persuade someone living in a swing state that sometimes vote republican and sometimes democrat to vote D?
I think you over estimate how many hard lefts don't bother voting at all because both parties are too similar.
Going more left will cost more votes than they would gain.
I think you underestimate how many don't vote because neither party offers them something worth voting for. A huge percentage of US Americans don't vote, yet polling for progressive policies always polls better.
By going progressive you aren't convincing the rare swing voter, but the massive number of disaffected voters. These aren't far-left, but disenfranchised from the entire system.
But every vote from the center is a vote you deny the other party.
So extreme left/right policies have to be twice as popular to be worth it.
For starters, there are only right and extreme right policies among the Dems and Reps. Secondly, there is a massive pool of disaffected voters that would vote for a lukewarm progressive like Bernie, who was projected to even steal Trump voters, because progressive policy is popular. The Dems ran rightward and lost their voters in general.
How are centrists and "moderates" that pliable if the alternative is escalatingly radicalilizing (the right)?