Why the fuck are these two the choices?!
this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2024
304 points (97.2% liked)
Videos
14302 readers
164 users here now
For sharing interesting videos from around the Web!
Rules
- Videos only
- Follow the global Mastodon.World rules and the Lemmy.World TOS while posting and commenting.
- Don't be a jerk
- No advertising
- No political videos, post those to !politicalvideos@lemmy.world instead.
- Avoid clickbait titles. (Tip: Use dearrow)
- Link directly to the video source and not for example an embedded video in an article or tracked sharing link.
- Duplicate posts may be removed
Note: bans may apply to both !videos@lemmy.world and !politicalvideos@lemmy.world
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Because the system is set up to prevent any real change for the benefit of the common people. So your choice is between the friendly, somewhat reasonable oligarchy stooge and the utterly deranged oligarchy stooge.
A somewhat less pessimistic take: the system is set up to be self-stable.
And it was also designed so that States would have most of the power, not the Federal government.
At various points in history the common people did get benefits. New Deal. Universal suffrage. Civil rights. Abolition.
But it always requires a critical mass of the population to support change.
Like in the 2016 election? Or in 2000? The system is set up to prevent the will of the people from being enacted and it takes a massive crisis for everyone to be pissed off enough to do something. Add to that the control of nearly all media by the oligarchy and you get to where we are today.
The US government system was set up to be better than the monarchies its designers had grown up under. In this sense it has been wildly successful. But... it wasn't really designed to scale to the size it has, nor to account for the massive changes in technology that have occurred since it was written.
The leaders of the time decided to replace the first attempt only 6 years after it was ratified, and I believe they fully expected any future government to do the same if they found the current system wasn't working. They did try to make the new system more adaptable by adding the Amendment process, which was frankly genius and unprecedented in government systems prior to that.
I think it's very important to remember where and when the system we have came from, and to try to think like the people who wrote it, and to remember that at the time they had no other models for successful government beyond the writings of Enlightenment-period historians. It's very easy to criticize the current system. It's far more difficult (and substantially more important) to draft a better system.
I've often thought that America suffers from being the first successful iteration of our style of government. It was great and a huge improvement over all the other examples at the time. So much so that much of the world eventually followed in its footsteps.
But where other countries looked at our first successful attempt and further improved and refined the idea, we're still stuck on that very first version. What was once a radically new idea that worked so much better than everyone else, is now an old, outdated and barely functional relic. We're the early prototype iPhone 3g, while several other countries have iPhone 6/10/etc
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Both elections exactly prove my point.
The federal system is set up to favor State power, which is why the US presidential election isn't decided by popular vote. By design, Wyoming and California are considered equals in many respects.
It's a bad system, but it's very much entrenched in the constitution.
And it also requires critical mass. It's basically impossible to enact meaningful change with a 50-55% majority. You need 60% or more to get big changes. And a majority of states.
There's the NPVIC which would cut the electoral college out of the process entirely.
Indeed - and I really hope it passes.
I thought about mentioning it in my previous comment. But basically, it's another example that States hold most of the power. The States actually have the power to effectively replace the current system with a national popular vote if they choose.
Other examples are the IRV in Alaska and the district system in Maine and Nebraska.
And it was also designed so that States would have most of the power, not the Federal government.
Yeah, but then we changed it because of the civil war...
The system was designed for the president to be a mostly performative figurehead. Then we gave the president real power, but left determination like the president didn't matter.
Because we're ruled by the billionaire class, and they like giving us two useful idiots to choose from.
Same reason every independent store and restaurant gets replaced by a chain.
People want what's familiar. Both these men won their primaries and have the most support out of anyone in their parties.
Your example works but it's more like because capitalism concentrates wealth and power and little guys have no chance
load more comments
(1 replies)
Enshittification is not only in corporations
Because that’s all our owners will let us have. Thanks citizen United for hammering in that final nail in our collective coffin
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
It worries me that people can listen to trump say "we have the most unsafe border in history when I was president we had the most safe border in history" and not question that statement in the slightest.
It's like when Trump ran campaign ads about police brutality and crimes going up in inner cities....that all happened under Trump with the tag, "This is Biden's America".
It is true what they say: truth has a liberal bias.
I dunno, man.
I'd say stop watching corporate media, because CNN is making a shit-ton of advertiser money off these charades, but people won't.
load more comments
(1 replies)
"It votes for the geezer or it gets the facist again."
*or it gets the geezer fascist again
But unironically yes.
load more comments
(4 replies)
John Stewart always finds the best way to express what I'm feeling.
Regardless of the outcome, this election will go down as a shit stain on history.
I just hope the outcome doesn't turn it into explosive diarrhea.
Damn, I guess I'm going to ignore years of evidence that Biden's admin can function just fine and go with my feelings on this one. I mean would you vote constructively if it meant getting over yourself? Of course not. We're Americans. We want a leader with a good jaw, not with good character or good ideas.
Nah but seriously though. Biden and Trump make me feel bad so I'm going to vote in a way that harms the country. That'll show us.
Yeah, I mean, nevermind all the pending criminal charges and evidence of incompetence from Trump's 4 years in office where we had weekly "infrastructure week" failures, a constant stream of garbage tweets parading as "official Presidential communications", and egregious power grabs by the Executive branch. Trump said all his same BS in a more convincing-sounding voice during last night's debate and the guy with a known stuttering issue just didn't have a strong-sounding voice, that's all the convincing I needed. Biden is just so old, I literally can't tell them apart !
load more comments
(13 replies)
John nailed it at the end. Fuck, this can't be real life.
First of all- I agree concerns about both their ages are very much valid here but hasn’t Biden had a stutter from a very young age and struggled with it most of his life? Surely we should cut the guy some slack here?
That said, of course there won’t be slack. Political debates (especially one of high stakes as this one) are cut throat and no one has room for error.
Brother don't lie to yourself, that was way more than a just a stutter. Nobody who watched that debate is under the impression that the problem was Joe Biden stuttered sometimes. I understand you're disappointed and trying to cope somehow but it's not healthy to just create a fantasy. It was a train wreck. It was real real bad. Just accept it and move on.
It was a disaster. Trump lied for 90 minutes straight, but he did it confidently, with a straight face, and without rambling. It was a vast improvement over his stump speeches. Biden mostly told the truth, but he meandered, stammered, got mixed up, and was obviously ill. That's just what happened.
I'm going to vote for Biden anyway, because the old man stands for policies that actually benefit me personally (and a second Trump term is a threat to the existence of the Republic). But the debate was bad for him, possibly catastrophic. His campaign desperately needs an October surprise, and at this point it's hard to guess what it might be.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
One thing to remember is they didn't have notes, earpieces or teleprompters.
Trump just straight up rambled out a stream of bullshit, lies, and projection every time he had the mic. Biden was not only answering factually, but also had to counter bullshit. They were on the same stage but playing two completely different games.
And when the debate is analyzed down to "who was more truthful?", Biden slightly flubbing a fact/figure will be treated near equally to Trump straight up spewing out bullshit.
The problem is that most Americans don't care about the truth
Well, this American sure does and will be voting in November. Suggest everyone does the same.
I hope there's more of you than there are of them.
There are. The problem is getting them off their asses and out to vote.
Go back and watch his 2020 debate footage or his VP debates. This was not his stutter.
Shit just go back and watch the fuckin STATE OF THE UNION. Where was THAT Biden????
load more comments
(1 replies)
hasn’t Biden had a stutter from a very young age and struggled with it most of his life?
It hasn't apparently impacted his public speaking for most of his political career up until recently:
https://youtu.be/86Nrv5izaTs?si=bZ9WNXIEZNOaBV3T
And even when not speaking during tonight's debate, he often looked totally bewildered.
People have been saying this for quite a while now despite the excuses from the Democrat establishment, but tonight there was no hiding the fact that the dude just looks unable to last another four years as president.
And even when not speaking during tonight's debate, he often looked totally bewildered.
To be fair, my partner and I also looked totally bewildered by the things falling out of Trump's face. I don't know that he actually answered a single question, but rather spouted the same racist nonsense over and over.
load more comments
(7 replies)
In his first presidential primary in 1988, Biden was the front runner despite his youth because he was wildly regarded as one of the best public speakers in the country and he was (at the time) charismatic.
Then he started yelling at reporters about how high his IQ was after they found out he plagiarized speeches plagiarized work in law school, and lied about his grades and class standing.
Because he got over his childhood stutter. In childhood.
What's happening now isn't a stutter. It's 100% normal for an 82 year old.
That doesn't mean an 82 year old is fit to be president, just that Biden acts how an 82 year old is expected to act. Because he's 82 years old.
I'm surprised they didn't leash John Stewart. He must have a bad ass contract that let's him say what he wants.
That show has a proud tradition of talking shit about politicians. Been this way for 20 years.
Have you ever watched the Daily Show? What you describe has never been the practice there, they shit on everyone, it's great.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Shit Show 2024 begins.
view more: next ›