this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2023
470 points (93.0% liked)

politics

19089 readers
5468 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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! 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The Pennsylvania Democrat recalled his time serving as a Hillary Clinton surrogate in 2016, even after he supported Bernie Sanders in the primary.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Introversion@kbin.social 25 points 1 year ago (3 children)

So you like Trump for 2024, then? Noted.

[–] PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Depends on where they are. If they're in a liberal stronghold like California, it's probably fine. If they're deep in the red like Florida, also fine.

But voting third party in a swing state is definitely not pragmatic.

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

which, if yall voting third party in some "safe state" and the candidate doesn't even support some kind of electoral reform, what are yall doing. this whole "swing state" thing is 100% bullshit and virtually any of 10,000 plans to fix it will work, at least send a message.

[–] PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 9 points 1 year ago

Well, the problem with politics is that it basically renders a ton of wants into like 5 choices at most, and only 2 if you really want to win.

[–] banneryear1868@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Perfect summary of how fucked the two party system and partisan identity in the US is. "Oh you don't want to get behind a party that supports the Palestinian genocide? Trump lover!" You basically have a moderate rainbow capitalist center right party, and a fashy culture war right party, they have the same donors and corrupt capital directing their policies though. The vote is like picking the aesthetic you want to see things degrade under.

Biden taking the L for pulling out of Afghanistan was the best thing he's done. Obama and Trump didn't want it and he finally went though with it.

[–] fubo@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

These two things can be true at the same time:

  1. The two-party system is structurally bad for the country. We really, really need ranked-choice or approval voting, and have needed them for a long time.
  2. If you are a voter in a contested ("purple") state and don't vote for Biden, you will be thereby supporting the election of a fascist candidate, which will make you a material supporter of fascism.

Feel free to vote for West if you live in, say, California. But in a contested state, a vote for West is a vote for Trump (or his replacement as Führer).

There is an actual, material difference between the center-right big-business party (the Democrats) and the fascist party. If you don't believe me, go ask a gay schoolteacher from Florida.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You basically have a moderate rainbow capitalist center right party, and a fashy culture war right party, they have the same donors and corrupt capital directing their policies though.

Holy fuck is this insane. While it was still dumb, complaining about lack of differentiation between neoliberalism with social conservative tendencies and neoliberalism with socially liberal tendencies could at least masquerade as a cogent argument, but "fashy culture war" isn't just another stylistic draping on neoliberalism, it's storming school boards, skinheads marching through cities, and federally directed jackboots kidnapping protesters.

[–] Zink@programming.dev 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It helps to think of it in pragmatic terms of what your vote does, versus whether or not you fully support X or Y. It is undeniable that given the stupid electoral system we were born into, that voting third party effectively supports whichever mainstream candidate you don’t want to win.

All the rest of the time, whether in primaries or public forums like this, you argue and vote for what/who you really want.

But once you hit the general election, it is essentially cast in stone that either the R or D candidate will win.

We need ranked choice voting so that candidates care about what the people really want, versus just getting more votes than one specific other person.

[–] banneryear1868@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

voting third party effectively supports whichever mainstream candidate you don’t want to win.

What if you don't want either to win and see the trend of both parties turning more to the right since Reagan and locked in a death spiral. Corporate tax rates are as low as ever, both parties support the military industrial complex and police state, both support the Palestinian genocide, neither party wants to get rid of Citizens United and Super PACs (regulated less than charities) now control and appropriate political action for corporate interests, neither party supports public healthcare. Like yeah the degradation may happen slower under Democrat but they haven't shown signs of turning their backs against the corporate interests ruining the country/world.

[–] Zink@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you don’t want either one to win, there is no way for you to legally make that happen.

So if you accept that is true, and you have a preference among the two parties, that is where pragmatism suggests voting against the greater evil.

But if you honestly have little to no preference, then you won’t care about the so-called consequences of voting third party, and can do whatever.

I mean obviously you can always do whatever you want. This is just the game theory you’re thinking that means we need to change our voting system before the two-party lock-in would even start to loosen.

[–] banneryear1868@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Pragmatism would suggest I spend my efforts being politically active in other ways rather than dedicate it to a bipartisan death spiral. I'm active on the labor, municipal, and environmental front, and none of it is online.

[–] Zink@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago

That sounds awesome!

I was just talking about the vote decision in the booth though. Actually helping change along is arguably even more important than voting in the first place, because each individual involved has a larger effect, and one that they care about much more than choosing the lesser evil.