• venusaur@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    4 months ago

    Ranked Choice Voting! Find your local RCV group and find ways to help get RCV implemented in your city! It’s something that sees opposition from republicans and democrats so you know it’s good.

    • chetradley@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      I’m a fan of STAR voting myself, but anything is better than the first past the post system we have now.

      • venusaur@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        If Star has traction in your city I say go for it! RCV just seems to have the most momentum.

      • neidu2@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Could you give a quick primer on what STAR voting is? I got a star from my teacher some 30 years ago, but somehow I doubt the system is based on those…

        • chetradley@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          STAR, or Score Then Automatic Runoff, differs from RCV in that instead of ranking the candidates in order of preference, you can assign a rating to each, out of five stars. All of the stars are added for each candidate (score), and the ones with the fewest stars are eliminated (automatic runoff), then the scores are added again, another runoff, etc.

          So say you love candidate C, you dislike candidate B, and you hate candidate A.

          • In an RCV system, you’d rank C,B,A, and if C is eliminated, your full support goes behind B, but in the initial scoring round, only your top ranked candidate gets your full vote.
          • In a STAR system, you’d maybe give C five stars, B two stars, and A zero stars. You’re still giving some support to B for the initial scoring round, but most of your support goes to C.

          So the biggest difference is that in the initial scoring round, your preference for candidates other than your first choice are considered. Check out this video, which gives a good breakdown of voting systems and how they account for spoilage: https://youtu.be/oFqV2OtJOOg?si=8sLYiYpA7EnOt94i

    • SeaJ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      It would be nice if they did that for the Democratic primaries.

      • LethalSmack@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        It’d also be nice if they couldn’t just override the primary election results because it’s not a “real election”

        Yes, I’m still a bit bitter about how the DNC treated Bernie in the 2016 election

        • SeaJ@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          They did not override that one. Sanders did not even win the non superdelegates. That’s not to say the 2016 Democratic primary was not fucked. Party officials clearly had a preference and were obviously pushing Clinton. Showing the super delegates planned counts before they actually voted made it seem like Sanders had no chance. They need to minimize the number of super delegates so that they can only decide really close primaries.

          • LethalSmack@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            Eh, fair enough. Undermined, cheated, manipulated, schemed, swindled, deceived, duped, defrauded, etc might have been a better description.

        • EatATaco@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Sanders was crushed by Clinton in the 2016 primary elections. It was clear pretty much from the start that she was going to win. You take away all the super delegates, she still demolishes him. Did they show some favoritism towards her? Sure. Did they call him some bad names in private emails? Yes. Did she get a few questions before a debate? Yes. Is there any evidence that the election was rigged and stolen from Sanders? No, none at all.

          This insistence that the Sanders was somehow robbed of the 2016 nomination (or 2020 nomination at that) is equivalent to Trump’s claim that he was robbed in 2020.

          • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            America is not a progressive country and if you are progressive you will be eternally disappointed with it.

            Read more history if you disagree.

          • LethalSmack@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            The DNC heavily undermined and consistently sabotaged Bernie’s campaign the point that the DNC chair stepped down and the DNC then apologized “for the inexcusable remarks made over email” that did not reflect the DNC’s “steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process.” (From the wikipedia link below).

            From the 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak: In the emails, DNC staffers derided the Sanders campaign. The Washington Post reported: “Many of the most damaging emails suggest the committee was actively trying to undermine Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign.”

            Bernie was absolutely robbed of a fair primary election.

            Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak

            • EatATaco@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              The DNC heavily undermined and consistently sabotaged Bernie’s campaign the point that the DNC chair stepped down and the DNC then apologized “for the inexcusable remarks made over email” that did not reflect the DNC’s “steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process.”

              We all know and agree that they said bad things about him, but do you really think making “inexcusable remarks” in private actually supports the claim that he was “heavily undermined and consistently sabotaged”?

              Bernie was absolutely robbed of a fair primary election.

              The only “concrete” thing you cite is that “they said nasty things about him in private.” No actual evidence of them doing anything to undermine his chances. The worst concrete thing that came out is that Clinton got some debate questions early, but do we really think that is going to lead to a 12 point swing? No way.

              • LethalSmack@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                Convenient you skip over the undermine his campaign portion of my previous comment. But the fact that the Chair of the DNC resigned over it shows it was more than just saying “nasty things about him in private”.

                It should also be noted that their actions “caused significant harm to the Clinton campaign, and have been cited as a potential contributing factor to her loss in the general election”. It is not as inconsequential as you present it.

                • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Convenient you skip over the undermine

                  Because it offered nothing concrete. It just says the emails “suggest” this, but doesn’t actually offer up anything of substance as to how it was done.

                  But the fact that the Chair of the DNC resigned over it shows it was more than just saying “nasty things about him in private”.

                  And yet, all you can point to is them saying nasty things in private.

                  It should also be noted that their actions “caused significant harm to the Clinton campaign, and have been cited as a potential contributing factor to her loss in the general election”. It is not as inconsequential as you present it.

                  I’m challenging the belief that Sanders had some chance in the 2016 primary against Clinton, and that there is good reason to believe it was stolen from him. I understand that the leaked emails were massively consequential.

          • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            Can we please not continue to relitigate this until the end of time? We will be in line at the republican death camps and people will still be arguing that sanders won in 2016. It serves no purpose other than supporting the idiots who would rather a republican win than a democrat who isn’t Sanders.

            When they start screaming stop the count or restart the count or whatever: Smile, nod, and ignore.

            • EatATaco@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              I don’t really think I’m going to convince that poster. I know, like Trump supporters, they are probably long gone and no amount of pointing out that they have no evidence is going to convince them that the DNC not screwed him, Sanders would have won. I just watch young people shifting towards the right, and it’s probably partially because of these dopes spreading this lie about the democrats, so I’m speaking to anyone who might come after them.

              • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                I doubt being grumpy about Sanders is going to shift folk to be right-wing. A lot of them probably HAVE become tankies but… the Sanders campaign was already very heavily buoyed by tankies online. Because it would have been shooting fish in a barrel for the candidate most known for “fun nicknames” to be up against a guy who used to be a meme about how c-span was boring and actively refused to even say “While I think the socioeconomic model had a lot of benefits, I oppose the fascist communist regimes of olde”.

                But also? I know a few of the dumbest “Bernie or bust” morons you will ever see who focused that anger toward working with the Democrats to get considerably less shitty downballot candidates. And that is what the lesson should have been.

                • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  I doubt being grumpy about Sanders is going to shift folk to be right-wing.

                  It certainly turns them off of the Democrats. So maybe not a shift to the right, but certainly conditions where it increases the chance that the right is going to win. If Bernie bros had just accepted the outcome and then coalesced around Clinton, she likely would have won and we wouldn’t be in the same mess we’re in now.

    • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Ranked choice doesn’t really help here. Generally right-wing/conservative/wannabe-gilead voters aggregate around the republican candidate. Libertarians get stupid but there are very few of them and they start off stupid.

      On the left? We have a LOT more infighting but the only viable candidates at the Presidential level (and most, but not all, states) are the Democrat.

      So what does ranked choice get us? Okay, everyone picks their favorite third party first. They all get eliminated. So who voted for the Democrat and who voted for the republican?

      It also becomes a question of what variation of ranked choice voting is used. Because, depending on the elimination model, you are just normalizing spoiler candidates.

      And… there is the very good argument that we already have ranked choice voting in a sense. Primaries. it happens less when there is an incumbent but everyone picks their absolute favorite candidate who most closely represents them. The majority of that then becomes the candidate we vote for come November.

      Nah, I think the real answer is to just get rid of the electorcal college at the presidential level and just do popular votes. We have the technology.


      I’ll also add on that there is a lot of theory (and even demonstrable-ish evidence) that you tend to consolidate around two-ish candidates even in the models that are fairly amenable to third parties. There are a LOT of question marks because this isn’t the kind of study you can really isolate, but even the third party heavy models (most parliamentary governments, for example) tend to have two dominating parties with a third or fourth that are “just strong enough to get concessions”.

      • venusaur@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Reforming the electoral college is definitely needed as well, but a much longer runway since it likely requires a constitutional amendment. You can implement RCV without forgoing electoral college reform or abolition. No single change will fix it all, but RCV is beneficial in moving towards democracy and has a lot of momentum already.

        I think after people learn and get used to RCV (and when older generations die), their voting styles will change. No more voting solely out of fear. It also requires the major (wealthy) candidates to align more to the smaller (less wealthy) candidates. There’s really no reason to be against it. In some states they offer both styles of ballots so you can just vote for one person if you’d like. The only downside is that it can be confusing to new people.

        • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          None of that addresses the points I made outside of a nebulous “wouldn’t it be great if all the boomers died” which… no arguments.

          Again, it all depends on what criteria are used to handle the rankings. Because a LOT of models will inherently favor the “side” that can rally behind a single candidate. Which is what we see under a lot of parliamentary models.

          I am ALL for election reform. But “it can’t hurt” is not a reason to enact a heavy change. Especially when… it CAN hurt and discriminate against different demographics.

          As for “the only downside is that it can be confusing to new people”: You should HANG with my buddy CHAD. Still hurting from that debacle.

          • venusaur@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            Wasn’t trying to address your points because they’re just speculation. We’ve never had RCV nationwide for federal elections so can’t say how it would affect the way people vote. I don’t think the 2 party ruling system goes away with RCV, but it’s a step towards making politics more equitable. There are only benefits to giving voters more options. It’s not that “it can’t hurt”. It’s that it will benefit voters.

            How does RCV discriminate? Which demographics?

            Any voting system is prone to errors and any change will have growing pains. Doesn’t mean you don’t move forward. People need a way to vote for who they want, not who they don’t want. RCV is one solution. Doesn’t impede on any others.

            • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              If we “can’t say how it would affect the way people vote” then what is the point? There are a lot of different voting systems and if you are going to put the effort in to cause a mass upheaval… you need to have a reason. Like I said, I very much favor just getting rid of the electoral college as a good solution because it is the same procedure we currently have but now it means EVERY vote matters at every level (rather than just at every level except POTUS…)

              And, again, we can just look at the current election. Basically every republican is fine with trumpian politics and refuse to even acknowledge they would vote against the orange fuckstain when they are “condemning” his behavior. Whereas the left? We can’t stop shitting on Biden. That translates to third party spoilers. Which is kind of the underlying issue of why we see right wing fascism on the rise globally. Because it is a lot easier to rally behind “We all hate this demographic” rather than “Well, I want UBI” “No, I want health care” “Fuck you all, the biggest issue we have is foreign policy”.

              Any voting system is prone to errors and any change will have growing pains. Doesn’t mean you don’t move forward. People need a way to vote for who they want, not who they don’t want. RCV is one solution. Doesn’t impede on any others.

              Moving forward is something you do with thought. Rather than “Well, I’m bored. Let’s redo everything because it might be better”.

              • venusaur@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                To assume that all of the progress people are making towards RCV is without thought is incredibly ignorant. Lots of resources you can research to understand the benefits, how it works, and case studies for where it’s working now.

                https://fairvote.org/our-reforms/ranked-choice-voting-information/#the-impacts-of-rcv

                https://fairvote.org/news-and-analysis/#blog

                If you don’t support RCV for some reason, just say that. You have to criticize those who are working towards something that’s actually benefiting voters.

                You can sit around and wait for electoral reform, but change happens in baby steps. You don’t just jump to a constitutional amendment if nobody can get behind something like RCV.

                • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Yeah. This happens with basically every “political movement”. You have some people who actually have put the thought in. And then you have hordes of people who can’t even explain simple things like “how does this not just embolden spoilers” or how does this meaningfully solve the two party problem" (a problem which, again, is prevalent even in more praised election systems).

                  Let alone “Oh, the only problem is people might get a bit confused”

                  People just see “oh, it is different so it must be better” and ignore all other aspects of it. It is what led to the rise of libertarianism in the 90s and tankie dumbasses in the 10s.

      • EndlessApollo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        We all know you only want far right neolibs to be president, you don’t have to try to be sly about your conservatism :3

    • RagingRobot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      I think ranked choice voting would give us RFK as president

      Edit: that was assuming we had these same candidates only as ranked choice obviously we would have more candidates

  • kromem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    “People voting for watching paint dry instead of poking sticks in their eyes appear to be mostly motivated by avoiding sticks…in their eyes.”

  • Leviathan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    I think Trump retiring and the Republicans replacing him with a charismatic, young, intelligent christofascist would be devastating for the Democrats (and humanity) right now and I don’t know why they don’t do it.

    For that matter I don’t see why Democrats don’t replace Biden with a charismatic, young, intelligent social democrat which would be equally devastating for republicans. So who knows with these people.

    • taiyang@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Charismatic + Young + Intelligent + Christofascist…

      0 results found.

      I think Republicans might need to remove one search criterion to make that work.

      As for Dems… that might just be AOC? Lol

      • Leviathan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        You’re right. DeSantis would’ve been catastrophic if he wasn’t such a little weirdo with no charisma.

      • AbsentBird@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        I would love to vote for AOC. She will be old enough to run next year, but it will be four years before the next election.

        • taiyang@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          She checks all the boxes unless you’re the type to believe Republican spin (she was a bartender once but has more education than most GoP house members). I’m unfortunately sure she’ll get the same DNC treatment as Sanders, though :/

          • AbsentBird@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            I don’t think the DNC will be able to stop her. They can only do so much. I was a huge Bernie fan, volunteered at rallies and everything, but even I can acknowledge that the support was not quite strong enough to overcome the establishment headwind. He came close twice, but I think there were a number of people who wrote him off over his age and whatnot.

            I think AOC could tip the scales, she’s young and smart and has real conviction. She has all the Bernie benefits with none of the baggage.

          • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            I’m unfortunately sure she’ll get the same DNC treatment as Sanders, though :/

            What, other than bleak cynicism, leads you to that conclusion?

    • Croquette@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      They don’t do it because it doesn’t serve them personally. As we have seen time and time again, politicians are mostly griftfers that will flip on a dime and change their moral compass just so that they can benefit from the situation.

    • PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Charismatic, intelligent people don’t need fascism nearly as much as dumbfucks do but even for the few who get sucked in anyway, there’s easier and more self-serving ways to express it than a grueling, always-on position in the Republican party.

      But ultimately the answer to both “why don’t they run someone actually good” questions is “because it would be a threat to neoliberals and their record profits”.

      • Maeve@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Neolibs can’t countenance that their darling politicians are actually right of Nixon, let alone admit it.

  • letsgo2themall@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Biden has not been as bad as I expected him to be, but he is out of touch with the average American. Politicians need mandatory retirements. We need someone under the age of 65. But I’ll take him over the convicted felon.

    • Luke@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Politicians need mandatory retirements. We need someone under the age of 65.

      Ah yes, ageism.

      There’s nobody over 65 who is a good political leader. Nobody under 65 is a bad political leader. Everyone immediately turns into a useless chump on their 65th birthday. They should all be puréed into a drink to sustain the rest of us.

      • pyre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        it’s not ageism to expect care for the future from people who are going to expect to see it. we’ve already seen that boomers could care less what happens after they’re gone, as long as they absolutely ruin whatever they can in the mean time.

      • kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        I don’t think it’s ageist to believe that someone who represents this country should be able to accurately understand that wants and needs of the average American. At a certain point someone becomes too old to understand the average American, they rely on their own personal experiences which may be out of date.

      • Glytch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        They should all be puréed into a drink to sustain the rest of us.

        That’s just wasteful, you need to scrap them first so you can extract the valuable metals from their medical implants. Then you butcher them for any good meat. Then you puree the rest (apart from the brain due to prions) to feed to children.

      • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        You can’t be a good president if you’re over 65.

        You can’t be a good president if you’re under 65.

        You can’t be a good president.

  • ceenote@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    It’s stunning that each party managed to find a candidate that could lose against the other.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Its not that stunning. In fact, its more common than you’d guess.

      Only Ford could lose to Carter. Only Dukakis could lose to Bush. Only Hillary could lose to Trump. Hindsight 20/20. Foresight blind as a fucking bat.

      • jubilationtcornpone@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        Ford did himself in. Apparently in 1976, American’s didn’t like the fact that the President could commit crimes while in office and get off with a pardon from his former VP. Crimes he was never charged with or convicted of.

        Today, a scandal is like a badge of “honor” and being a convicted criminal and morally bankrupt sleezeball is basically a requirement for the Presidency. At least it is if you’re a Republican.

    • return2ozma@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      If the election was today, Biden would lose. Imagine if Trump wasn’t the nominee for November, the GOP would win the presidency.

      Edit: it’s just reality according to the current polling.

      • Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        according to the current polling

        I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: the polls are likely skewed towards the GOP, and it’s thought that this is because of random text/calls, which boomers are more likely to respond to.

          • someguy3@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            There it is again.

            The disconnect that exists is that people don’t see the good things he does. You know, green energy, chips act, unions, drug price controls, student debt relief, telling them to look at marijuana rescheduling, infrastructure building. It just goes on and on. You’re doing mental gymnastics to say B-B-Biden bad! Ciao.

            • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              r2o admitted that he only posts the negative stuff. It’s why he got banned from politics.

              • someguy3@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                That could be a point, but the person I was responding to is on the war path of trying to make/change the point of “B B BIden bad”.

            • EndlessApollo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              Expanding the oil industry and shutting down strikes then giving them a pittance isn’t good. Liberals keep lying ig, maybe if you lie hard enough biden will stop being a piece of shit

              /s nothing and no one will stop him from being a piece of shit, telling blatant lies isn’t gonna get people to like him

            • return2ozma@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              I never said Biden is bad. He’s doing the bare minimum. Expect more from our politicians.

              • electric_nan@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                I would say that the bare minimum would actually include not actively supporting a genocide, but maybe I’m just out of touch.

              • someguy3@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                Lol you all caps shouted “YES” agreeing to what I said and literally said “Biden is bad”.

                Bare minimum huh? Back to your mental gymnastics. Biden’s doing fucking great.

                You want more? He doesn’t even have control of the house of representatives. If you want more give him and Dems consistent and resounding victories.

                I think this is where I inform you that Dems have had control of all three (house, Senate, and presidency) for a whooping 4 years of the last 24 years. If you include Bill Clinton, then it’s 6 of the last 32 years. You want more progress? Give Dems consistent and resounding victories. Not a measly half term every second president.

                • return2ozma@lemmy.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  Lol you all caps shouted “YES” agreeing to what I said and literally said “Biden is bad”.

                  My apologies, I post anything critical of Biden and the centrist rage comes out of the woodwork to defend him. I got my comments mixed up.

                  What should Biden do differently to run away with the change of winning re-election?

        • crusa187@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Is a non-genocidal candidate capable of beating the criminal traitor Trump too much to ask for?

      • nexguy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        If you think polling relates to reality then look into polling and how it doesn’t.

          • nexguy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            “Polls have “called” elections correctly 78 percent of the time” according to that article. Just because they are more accurate than in another time frame does not mean they are accurate overall. This is an incredibly poor rate in the larger picture. Independent groups are notoriously hard to poll and they are the ones that decide elections. If it’s a landslide then of course the poll will be correct. Completely unreliable in close elections. However they make excellent time filters for news networks.

            • EatATaco@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              “Polls have “called” elections correctly 78 percent of the time” according to that article. Just

              Maybe you should just read their argument as to why this is a garbage metric. Especially if you are arguing they don’t even “relate to reality.”

              If always predicting who will win is the requirement for polls, the problem isn’t the polling itself, but your understanding of what a poll means and how statistics work.

  • The Picard Maneuver@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    This is the current state of US politics - it’s more about who you’re against than who you’re for, and I firmly believe this is the reason why no scandals seem to matter anymore.

    On the conservative side, they get a steady stream of content telling them how horrible Biden and the Democrats are, so anyone with a heartbeat and an ® next to their name is fine. It’s probably how Trump of all people became the party leader.

    • Verdant Banana@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      On the progressive side, they get a steady stream of content telling them how horrible Trump and the Republicans are, so anyone with a heartbeat and an D next to their name is fine. It’s probably how Biden of all people became the party leader.

  • exanime@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Isn’t this the general sad state of democracy? Specially in America and it’s 2 party system?

    Rarely people get to vote for whom they want, they vote against the one they dislike/fear the most

  • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    The existence of Project 2025 makes all of the “which candidate is better?” discussion completely irrelevant. If you support the people that support Project 2025 then you’re a bootlicker who wants to end popular representation in the government and replace it with authoritarianism. If you are vocally against the people who oppose Project 2025 then you are collaborating with the enemy.

    Any other option is better.

    • jorp@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Meanwhile Project 2025 on the Democrat side is the codename for the medical advances being pursued to keep Biden functioning through to 2025.

      (I kid of course, you’re absolutely right, as depressing as that is)

    • EndlessApollo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Not wanting biden to commit genocide isn’t collaborating with the enemy, that’s what you’re doing by shutting down discussion of that. Republicans want more Palestinians dead, and you’re helping to give them what they want. What’s so cool about genocide that you think people should shut up and just take it? What a cool smart moral guy you are, calling people bootlickers if they don’t quietly accept genocide

      • MindTraveller@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Biden doesn’t want to do anything about gaza, but Trump wants to bomb the west bank too. That means I support less genocide and you support not doing anything to prevent more genocide. That makes you a racist traitor.

        • EndlessApollo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          I support voting for biden (barely) and I support telling him to stop supporting genocide. All you wanna do is pretend there is no genocide. That makes you a genocidal reactionary, and whatever I am it’s a fuck of a lot better than that :3

            • EndlessApollo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              So you do oppose genocide? I thought you wanted people to shut up about it until after the election? If genocide is so bad you should try protesting it instead of telling people to be quiet about it

      • glimse@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Your comment would carry a whole lot more weight if we didn’t have this shitty FPTP system…but we do.

        In this system, it’s a vote for a shitty Democrat or a vote for authoritarianism.

        • EndlessApollo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t pressure biden to not support genocide ffs. How are you all so on board for sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending thousands of civilians aren’t being slaughtered by weapons provided by our president? I’ll probably still vote for him, but you can go fuck yourself if you’re telling me I should stay silent about ethnic cleansing

          • InternetUser2012@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            What’s your tone going to be if talk like this is what gets tRump the win and speeds up the genocide? Since he’s the one calling for it and will do nothing to prevent it.

            • EndlessApollo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              “What if opposing genocide gets trump elected” says a lot more about you and other liberals than it does about me

              • InternetUser2012@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                Still waiting for your answer. I’ll go out on a limb and guess you won’t answer, you’ll come back with some whataboutism or some other insult further proving you’re just a troll.

          • MindTraveller@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            Look at you, inventing imaginary positions that imaginary people in this thread hold so you can get mad at the imaginary people.

            • EndlessApollo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              You know what op was saying, them not specifically mentioning Israeli genocide doesn’t change that it’s clearly a response to that, telling people to shut up and stop complaining. Pretending to be sly about it doesn’t make it any less reprehensible

              • MindTraveller@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                Your argument would be completely sound, if not for the fact that anyone who gives a shit about preventing genocide is trying to help Biden win the election. You, on the other hand, want to complain about genocide and use the awfulness of the genocide as an excuse to go ahead and make the genocide even worse. If you get Trump elected, he’s going to go after the West Bank too.

                • EndlessApollo@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Very cool and convenient how you ignore me saying we should vote for biden bc otherwise it doesn’t fit your narrative of apathetic leftists not voting to own the libs. If you have nothing to say in good faith then fuck off, genocidal cunts like you are a waste of time to talk to

      • nBodyProblem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Biden isn’t “committing genocide” and saying he is amounts to simple propaganda.

        The conservatives want to take aid away from Ukraine to deliver it to Israel. If Trump wins, far more weapons will be going to Israel than they are now. Repeating propaganda like this is not helpful for the Palestinian people.

        Lastly, Israel is an important ally from a strategic perspective. Not only are they our closest ally in the Middle East, but they have a number of important resources like intel semiconductor facilities. Cutting ties with Israel would be bad for America, and the role of the US government is to put America first. It’s more complex than simply supporting one side or the other and Biden is attempting to balance aid for Palestine with preserving our relationship with Israel. That’s exactly what a good president should be doing.

        • Saurok@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Biden is complicit in genocide, so much so that he should be tried in court with the rest of the people in the Israeli state. You can’t get much more complicit than sending weapons and aid to an apartheid state that is carrying out a genocide, without which they would not be able to carry out said genocide as effectively. A good president would divest and sanction Israel, not write a blank check for their crimes against humanity.

          • nBodyProblem@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            The claims of genocide are colored by propaganda and misinformation. Academic researchers are split on the issue, at best. The fact of the matter is that Israel could swiftly end all life in Gaza through overwhelming military force if that was their goal, and this has not happened.

            I’d agree that Israel’s actions in Gaza are unethical but there is a stark difference between acting without regard for civilian casualties and outright ethnic cleansing. The evidence doesn’t seem to support the latter.

            A good president would divest and sanction Israel

            A good president would prioritize what’s best for America, which means preserving the favorable relationship America has with Israel. Meanwhile, a good president would provide humanitarian aid for Palestine and help negotiate for peace.

            That’s exactly what Biden is doing and refusing to vote for him harms almost every party involved, including Palestine. Really, the only groups who would benefit are the far right and Russia… makes you wonder where comments like this come from, doesn’t it?

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      The existence of Project 2025

      Republicans have a shitty pre-election plan in the run up to every election. This isn’t any different than every other election cycle, from the perspective of “Bad Republicans promise to do bad things”.

      Any other option is better.

      The illusion of electoral choice is choking the life out of any actual democracy in this country. Time and time again, we’re told which party is The Worst and that Anyone Else Would Be Better. That’s how Trump won in 2016 ffs. Republicans doomed themselves to a decade of this manic fascist bumblefuckery by whipping themselves into an “Anyone but Hillary!” feeding frenzy.

      If you are vocally against the people who oppose Project 2025 then you are collaborating with the enemy.

      You’re either with us, or you’re with the terrorists!

      • rsuri@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        The illusion of electoral choice is choking the life out of any actual democracy in this country.

        Ok so what’s your plan to fix it? Because I have one: vote for people that want to improve the electoral system and against those that want to prevent it from improving. As much as Democrats are “part of the problem”, they’ve also been open to runoff voting, switching to a national popular vote, easier voting mechanisms, and other changes that would allow for third parties and better representation. Republicans, meanwhile, have been trying to prevent those changes, as they’ve done in 5 states now where they banned ranked choice voting.

        To be fair though, Trump is more open to changing the electoral process. The only problem is, he wants to get rid of voting entirely and remove any option we have to prevent rule by wealthy oligarchs like himself.

    • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      It’s funny right? This should be the strongest green party showing ever and it’s strangely quiet politically. Dems emptying the pistol into their toes, Repubs frothing at the mouth, ya think more folks would say “fuck it let’s try a third way”. But the 2 party backers are more loudly than ever proclaiming how important it is to stay a 2 party system, and we are generally eating the bait.

      Ill take my downvotes cuz im voting stein. I don’t like her that much frankly but i don’t actively despise her so i guess that’s who ill "throw away"my vote for.

      Lol i don’t care enough for her to even say stein '24. No pins, no bumper stickers for this cat.

      But i figger its the only way ill be able to sleep at night

      • cybersandwich@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Because with the way we do our voting (first past the post), a vote for Stein is effectively a vote for Donald J Trump, Convicted Felon, adulterer, fraudster, sexual assaulter, etc, etc.

        This election is NOT the election to get “principled” with your choice. The consequence of Trump getting another term is incredibly dire for the health of our country and democracy. The consequence of Biden winning is a shift back in the right direction. Jill Stein and other candidates will still be around in 4 years and you can vote for them then-- and she’ll lose then, but maybe, with another 4 years of Biden, we’ll have laws protecting womens choice, supreme court nominees that aren’t conservative lunatics, and forward thinking stability. So you vote 4 years from now we’ll be on more solid ground in the event you cause a Republican to win.

        If you vote for her now, and Trump wins as a consequence, you might not ever get a chance to vote again. (only being a little dramatic).

            • DAMunzy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              I know. I just can’t take it some times. I swear they must be bots. I really should just ignore/block them instead of losing it like that. C’est la vie.

              • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                Well i appreciate the backup anyway. It’s a lonely slog talking truth in election season. Hard to keep sanity what with all the propheads parroting, as you say. So what I’m saying is it was nice to see, even if you’re not happy with the content of your comment.

  • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Anyone who who is capable of getting themselves made president should on no account be allowed to do the job.

    ETA: Anyone downvoting this is not a hoopy frood

    • MartianRecon@lemmus.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      This is needlessly nihilistic, man.

      There are tons of politicians who are doing the job for the right reasons. Sure, there’s assholes, but there are assholes in every single profession on the planet.

  • Verdant Banana@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    same reason people blindly follow Trump

    four years we still have low wages and higher costs, women lost rights held for over half a century, police are still running amuck, environmental concerns abound, genocide, antiimmigration policies

    and Trump’s resume does not look any better

    and the same people will scream and pitch a fit if anyone suggest a third party because it means a vote for that other guy

    football politics

    • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      If you’re not voting for one of the big two in most cases you might as well save yourself the bother and stay home. Not saying it’s right, it shouldn’t be that way but the US voting system is extremely flawed so you need to make a frustrating decision. That’s just the shitty reality of it from what I can tell from the outside at least.

        • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          This is such BS. Trump is a piece of shit but there’s no way he can just declare himself a dictator and remove our right to vote. Remember “the president doesn’t really have that much power” or at least that’s what I hear anytime Biden gets criticized for doing so little to help the lower and middle class in this country. Voting for Biden isn’t going to make the GOP go away or rethink their strategies. We’ll continue our downward slide regardless of which one of these old windbags gets elected.

          • Ioughttamow@kbin.run
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            Remember 1/6? Just give them a second go, they already tried to subvert democracy, they’ve already damaged many of our institutions by more than they’ve been able to recover in the last 4, building is more fruitful than destruction, but it takes longer and is harder. Give these fucks 4 more years and they’ll get it right, handmaids tale here we go

            • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              Yes, I remember it along with every other American alive. There is zero chance they’ll allow that to be repeated again just like a 9/11 will never happen again because people no longer think a hijacking means being flown to some other country for ransom.

              Our institutions are being damaged by the leadership from both these parties. I’m so sick of hearing excuses for why things can’t improve meanwhile Republicans seem to face little opposition in passing their shitty agenda while also not holding a majority.

    • Ledivin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      If you think these two candidates are the same, you haven’t put literally any effort into paying attention at all, get out of here with your enlightened centrist bullshit.

      Yeah, Biden is mediocre at best, and you’re usually right about the Dem vs GOP race… but this isn’t that, anymore. MAGA is a different beast.

      • Melkath@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Blue MAGA at its finest.

        “Ya, Biden got us into a genocide, BuT tRuMp WoUlD bE sO mUcH wOrSe!!@@!@”

        “Ya, Biden was the one who dropped 35 billion dollars for the militarization of police, BuT tRuMp WoUlD bE sO mUcH wOrSe!!@@!@”

        “Ya, Biden was the one who silenced and admonished peaceful protesters while commanding order, BuT tRuMp WoUlD bE sO mUcH wOrSe!!@@!@”

        The current conversation is “Trump would be so much worse”, but its like all of you forgot that he is going for a second term, and in his first term, while he was bad, he was not as bad as Biden. And you have no idea how much it fucking destroys me to say that about the leader of the party I used to so vehemently supported. But its just the case. All the bad things Trump did, Biden has continued, and Biden has come out with a host of things that are MUCH worse than anything that Trump ever did.

        We must reject the 2 party system.

        • JimSamtanko@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          “Ya, but don’t ask me who could win against Trump if not Biden, bEcAuSe aLL i kNoW iS biDeN bAd!!@@!@“

          “Ya, you can keep telling me how trump will be worse, and prove it, but aLL i kNoW iS bIDeN bad!@!@@!!”

          Ya, I couldn’t have even pointed to Palestine on a map a year ago, bUt aLL’s i kNoW iS, BiDeN BAAAAAD!!@!!@“

          You honestly think Trump wasn’t as bad as Biden? Really? I think we can all see why you’re here now.

          • Melkath@kbin.earth
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            “Ya, but don’t ask me who could win against Trump if not Biden, bEcAuSe aLL i kNoW iS biDeN bAd!!@@!@“

            Then why is he losing in the polls?

            “Ya, you can keep telling me how trump will be worse, and prove it, but aLL i kNoW iS bIDeN bad!@!@@!!”

            I cant remember 4 years ago, let alone now. Give me a recent history lesson I wont listen to. - JimSamtanko

            Ya, I couldn’t have even pointed to Palestine on a map a year ago, bUt aLL’s i kNoW iS, BiDeN BAAAAAD!!@!!@“

            Because it isnt a well known and popular nation of people, it is okay to genocide those people. - JimSamtanko

            You honestly think Trump wasn’t as bad as Biden? Really? I think we can all see why you’re here now.

            You’re here too, so I don’t quite get what you are saying. If you are guessing why I’m not on Reddit, its because I said Nazis deserve to die. I am against fascists. You know, Blue MAGA, OG MAGA, Nazis. All fascists should die.

            • JimSamtanko@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              Did you seriously just suggest that democrats, or as you ignorantly like to call them: “blue MAGA” should die?

              And…

              Polls…. ROFL! This is one of the reasons why I can’t take you seriously. The other is that you didn’t give a shit about Palestine before October of last year.

              And news flash kiddo. EVERYONE opposed genocide. We still have an election to consider. So for all your pretending to know what you’re talking about- which MANY have disproven by the way-

              You’re going to get genocide no matter the results.

              But again, you already know that. You just seem to want better genocide.

              • Melkath@kbin.earth
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                Fascists. I said fascists should die.

                If this is your response, you are agreeing that modern democrats are fascists.

                • JimSamtanko@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  No, you said specifically… that blue MAGA should die. And everyone knows it’s the ignorant little pet name you people have for liberals.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Biden won 2020 in spite of being Joe Biden, it’s why it took almost 40 years for him to win his first presidential primary, people just don’t ot want him as president.

    Now that we’ve had him for four years, and he was worse than we expected…

    I really don’t think he can pull out another razor thin win like in 2020.

    We’re risking trump so we can have a Dem president that’s more conservative than Dem voters want.

    There’s no logic behind it, except the donor class would rather have trump than a progressive. And just like AIPAC, they decided it’s easiest to just buy both parties in the primary.

    This is the third election and a row, it’s not going to be different in 2028. If voters only requirement is “blue” then nothing is stopping either party from getting more and more conservative every election

    • ccunning@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Now that we’ve had him for four years, and he was worse than we expected…

      He far exceeded my expectations.

        • ccunning@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago
          • Massive infrastructure bill
          • Student loan forgiveness
          • Marijuana rescheduling

          There’s plenty more, but my expectation was for him to not be Trump which he has thoroughly succeeded at. The rest is icing.

          The biggest things he’s disappointed on, Trump disappoints on too…:

          • Palestine
          • Being too fucking old

          …so it’s easy to see how that on balance he has exceeded expectations…

            • Dojan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              It’s silly to downvote you for wanting the leaders and representatives of a country and its people to be held to a certain standard.

              • return2ozma@lemmy.worldOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                I mean, politicians work for us. We’re their boss. They should be working their asses off for the people.

              • return2ozma@lemmy.worldOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                It would be nice if we actually had policies we could champion instead of just “not Trump”.

                • Blackbeard@lemmy.worldM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  Marijuana rescheduling, infrastructure spending, student loan forgiveness, clean drinking water, lowered costs of generic drugs, expanded Medicaid, increased domestic manufacturing, rejoining the Paris agreement, increased nationwide gas mileage requirements, and improved healthcare access for veterans not enough policies for you?

                  edit 3 hours later…

                  return2ozma: “There are policies we can champion that are more than ‘not Trump.’

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Everyone has different standards and expectations.

        Hell, look at how many people say that about trump.

      • blazera@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        -Union strike busting

        -Climate acceleration, more highways, more trucks and SUV’s, banning affordable EVs

        -Increased defense spending

        -Higher deportations and now executive order asylum closing

        -Renewed oil and gas leasing on federal lands, and weird restriction on leasing federal lands for renewable energy that more oil and gas leasing has to happen first

        -The longest stretch of no minimum wage increase ever.

        -rampant inflation

        -lack of prosecution for a ton of crimes from Trump and other republicans

        -no effort against Americas problem of gun violence

        -campaigned on fixing a gap in subsidy coverage for health insurance for the lowest earning Americans, with no mention since

        Not even mentioning the biggest problem people have with them, plenty of people have told you already.

        • Dojan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Roe v. Wade was overturned under his mandate period as well. Sure it’s a Supreme Court decision, and the SC is mostly republican but it’s not like Biden couldn’t have pushed harder. He could, but then he wouldn’t be able to campaign on it.

          “Vote for me and I’ll return some rights to people, maybe.”

          • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            Yes, it’s all the Democrats’ fault that six Republican appointed justices overturned Roe.

            Bullshit.

            • Patapon Enjoyer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              It is absolutely their fault there are more Republicans in the Supreme Court. Justices aren’t naturally occurring by unpredictable Acts of God.

              It is also RBG’s fault, while we’re at it.

              • GBU_28@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                4 months ago

                Your RGB point is the first one of merit. Sure should have left at an advantageous time.

                The judges were appointed by a majority Republican Congress with a republican president. In what way could democrats stop it?

                • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Scalia died almost a full year before Obama left office. That was his appointment, but the Dems didn’t bother putting up a fight because they were convinced Clinton would be the next president and wanted to focus on the election. Then in freaking late October 2020, days before the election, they once again allowed another Trump appointment without putting up any sort of fight or stall tactic because they didn’t want to rock the boat before the election.

                • Patapon Enjoyer@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  The majority republican congress and the republican president are also their fault. They’re pretty much the only ones running against them.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago
        1. The genocide he’s not just supporting, but now actively involving US military in.

        2. Making trump border policies permanent law.

        3. Not fulfilling campaign promises

        But like, please don’t do that thing where because I didn’t list every little thing, that I’m saying the only issues with Biden are the ones I listed.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            If you expected #1 and still voted for him…

            I dunno, but at least now people can’t act like they don’t understand how people voted for hitler.

            I expected this shit from republicans, but way too many people who call themselves Dems are just ok with genocide.

            Apparently all it took to get Dems to support genocide, is only give them the option of more genocide?

            And republicans are all about genocide, so now neither party can be counted on to be consistently against genocide?

            What I still don’t understand, is why so many of you are just ok with it.

  • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Man who closed the deal with 43k votes out of 5.7M across three pivotal states happy to report he has well over 80% of his original voter base behind him.

  • CaptainKickass@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    The only reason I’m voting for him is that he’s not trump.

    I’m not voting for Biden, I’m voting against trump