Of course they didn’t. They literally had every establishment democrat coordinatedly drop out of the primaries in exchange for cabinet positions to throw their support behind Biden when Sanders started winning the primaries in 2020. Like, it’s been clear they’d learned nothing. And thanks to the idiotic two party system, they got rewarded for that maneuver with the opportunity to say “we told you so! Look, we got trump out of office!” And when they lose this time…they won’t learn a goddamn thing. Again.
luckily, they won't have to learn a thing if trump wins, because MAGAts will stack the odds so much in their favor that no dem will win a presidential election in many years. yay project 2025!
Why doesn't anyone call him out on lying about running for a second term? I very vividly remember hearing him say in 2020 that he would not seek reelection and yet here we are.
Yeah, I don't get it. I was confused and not happy when I saw he was running again. He could've gone out like a heavily watered down LBJ, instead he's going to be forever remembered as the lost nursing home patient who wandered onto the debate stage. This is an unmitigated disaster, and the only way forward I see now is have Joe step down and let Kamala be the president. I'm not excited for that prospect, but I assume she can at least win a debate against a potted plant.
Just went ahead and Googled it and I can find no credible source that he actually said these words at any time. So, if you'd like to bandy out that source, I think we'd all appreciate it.
No, your own source states that that was never announced. It was talked about within the party. There was never a public announcement to the American people stating that he would not run as an incumbent. Every source reporting on that was and is reporting on unsubstantiated hearsay never set into stone.
I would vote for a wet sandwich before I vote for Trump, but Jesus Christ, it would be nice if the democrats fucking tried.
why should they? you're going to give them what they want from you anyways in november and multiple novembers into the future; there's literally no reason for them to ever bother.
Remember when a bunch of people didn't vote because the Democrat candidate was a piece of shit? And then trump won? And then the democratic party said "oh wow we should put up actual candidates instead of decrepit neolibs" except they didn't because they didn't learn shit.
Democrats suffer from a condition that I've come to call "Democratic Realism," named after Capitalist Realism. No matter how much they get their shit kicked in. No matter how badly they do. No matter how little they accomplish. No matter how badly they look or do in debates. Democrats always believe, beyond a shred of doubt, that they'll win elections without trying. Not because of their own merits, but because they're just the only "real" choice; they simply can't fathom anyone willingly voting for their opponents.
Hillary barely campaigned in the "flyover states" that she needed to win because she couldn't be fucking bothered to actually try. It wasn't worth the effort to try and persuade people she thought of as her lessers. And the DNC just went "well, it's obviously her turn. She's been waiting for the chance at the presidency for 20 years now. We should go ahead and let her be president." Because that's the mentality. They don't have to "win" elections. They just pick a candidate and they get to win, because there is no "real" alternative. That Bush and Trump won don't indicate that, yeah, actually, you do have to fight for the people who are voting for you, otherwise they'll vote for the schmuck that appeals to their basest and most venal instincts. Those were just flukes...right? And you don't have to inspire confidence and admiration in others, because they should just recognize how smart and accomplished and inoffensive their candidates are, and that they're told to vote for them by people that are smarter than they are, so they should just shut up and do it.
It's a party driven less by any kind of ideological goals and more by a pervasive sense of smug, impotent, lazy egotism. And, yeah, they'll get a shitload of votes in the elections because the alternative always seems to be someone who is one goose-step shy of a literal Nazi. Biden will probably even win the popular vote. Y'know....just like Hillary did...
Good essay. I don't know if you remember after Obama won in 2008 a bunch of democratic party apparatchiks came up with this idea of "the coalition of the ascendant" and that they pretty much had the government locked in for a generation, due to support that would never waver for them amongst immigrants, yuppies, tech bros, etc. They didn't need the working class anymore and the Republicans would be the minority party for many years.
Two years later the democrats were wiped out in the midterms.
The coalition of the ascendant concept is kind of insane when you remember for a moment that the popular vote is kinda worthless in winning elections. The electoral college is structured in such a way that conservative whites have a larger share of the electorate relative to their minority peers. It doesn't matter if you're a lock for California and New York (enclaves of coastal elites and minorities alike) if you lose the entirety of the South, Southwest, and Midwest, enclaves of...the opposite of those things, really. This 538 article on it has links to other discussions related to this and represents a fascinating look into the relationship between popular votes and electoral votes. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-a-difference-2-percentage-points-makes/
They think they don't have to, they just have to keep you scared enough of the GOP that you'll vote for them out of terror. It's how Biden won the first time, after all.
You misunderstand the dynamic. Most GOP voters are going to vote and are going to vote for the Republican, regardless of how awful that Republican is. Voting is a civic duty and party above all are kinda core ideas for them.
Dem voters are a lot more flighty in general. Any barrier to voting no matter how small (even having to rise from the couch) impacts Dem voters more than GOP ones.
There are more Dem voters than GOP ones except maybe in very red states. It's about turnout - US voter turnout is God awful and it's worse among Dems than GOP.
That's why the debate was so bad for the Dems, because it's not about whether or not it pulls voters to Trump but about what it does to Dem turnout.
I see, sorry for misunderstanding. I've also heard about the problem with voting turnout. As a European, the whole US voting system just seems kinda obscure in general. Although, to be fair, the right party voters are also way more likely to vote here than the ones from other parties.
There was a show primary but candidates were essentially stonewalled from participating and voters browbeaten for not supporting Biden, which is why only wackos like RFK Jr are the only other people who ran.
Up until tonight, there really was little point. Biden already beat Trump, has the incumbent advantage, and has had a successful term. I'm still not convinced that replacing him suddenly this late is even remotely a good idea unlike a lot of people seem to be
Not American, but a furby surrounded by Biden's team would still be preferable to Trump to most people, so I'm not for this changes much. Americans around here seemed to mostly be in the "hold your nose and vote for Biden" camp anyway. Not sure how representative that is.
I see your post is missing the required 20,000 word essay in how the Republicans are worse then democrats... thus you are a secret Russian Republican antisemite!
I do love having to give a 2 paragraph disquisition of caveats about how I didn't vote for either major party candidate in 2016 or 2020, before I can make literally any comment on either of these people or the current state of US politics, lest I be downvoted into oblivion or accused of being an evil Repub shill.
Ironically when we do this on Lemmy we are qualifying ourselves to a cohort of mostly people who didn't vote at all, or aren't even Americans.
And remember how they made a big deal about Bernie's age in 2020? They asked for medical records, and even after getting letters from two or three doctors, that wasn't enough. It was like the birthers all over again: when they got what they asked for, they moved the goal posts and wanted the long-form documents.
Meanwhile, not a peep about Biden, who is Bernie's junior by fourteen fucking months, as if that made all the difference.
And then, four years later, it wasn't an issue anymore. Just run the guy again.
On top of that, the DNC would condescend to anyone left of center about electability.
That's on average 57 per day, or 3.5 per hour if we assume 16 hours a day awake. Seems likely he just automated the process somehow, or that multiple people were making reports under his name. Or he was just submitting a report every 17 waking minutes for the entire year. Who knows.
What if he was preemptively planning his complaints? You know, studying flight paths, departures, & arrivals, then just delivering 57 unique complaints each day with one phone call?
“Look… I know Quantus 617 leaves for Houston at 5:45, the 974 at 3, 452 goes at 4:12, & the 889 heads out at 9pm.
Yep, that’s right.
Uh huh.
Yes I fucking know it’s only 8am. Those flights WILL be too loud & I expect you to take my complaints immediately!”
The only word salad moment(as of 15 minutes ago when I just had to turn it off) was near the start when Biden just kinda trailed off saying random words.
It was him showing America how much he cares about women's rights, equality, & democracy. So much he's willing to put us at a significant risk of losing those things for decades if not longer. God, I can only hope something causes Kamala to become the candidate or he steps aside for someone else.
Kamala would 100% lose. Her campaign didn't have a single victory in 2020, and she was one of the first to drop out. If the Democrats had held a primary, we might have found a candidate that could beat him, but as it stands now, our best hope is that Trump finally finishes eating himself to death before the election.
That was certainly the worst of it, but it didn't get much better for him, he fumbled over a lot of his delivery. It was much harder for him though, he was using facts and figures while Trump was just saying whatever lie popped into his head.
I think that's the biggest danger with Trump. Even though he's less with it than Biden, what comes out of his mouth sounds more coherent if you're not concerned with the facts of the matter.
I was a bit concerned with Biden when he would say the wrong word or trail off, but at the end of the day it's less about who the president is and more about who they hire. I really wish the DNC had ran a different candidate.
Yeah, this is pretty painful to watch. Trump is a piece of shit, but he's way more forceful and even somewhat coherent. Meanwhile, Biden's just above a whisper and is somewhere between stuttering and rambling.
If this Biden feeling ‘jacked up’, I shudder to think what he’s like when he’s not. He’s not doing a great job of spruiking his own achievements and his answers are devoid of stats or figures - likely because they weren’t able to bring notes in. He’s sadly making trump look more coherent and lively by comparison.
I'm paid to be a software developer, but my real passion is to be a bisexual communist game developer and writer. But i'm not good at the bisexual, communist, game developer, or writer thing.
It's always funny when liberals come from Reddit because the profit motive slowly ruined everything that once made Reddit fun and disruptive, but then absolutelty mald about Marxists and other leftists once they get here, the explicitly leftist answer to Reddit.
It's especially bad on !Lemmy.world, where the majority of users are too idealistic to stay on Reddit but not well-versed enough in leftist theory or practice to actually engage with most of Lemmy.
It's even goofier when these same liberals think they are leftists, but then still get upset at Marxists, and even Anarchists.
I was called a "fascist" for saying that Lenin was a Marxist. Not even for suggesting to read Lenin! Marx is whatever they want him to be, Lenin is whatever they want him to be (nevermind Lenin's deep respect for Kropotkin), ideas shape reality.
Kropotkinskaya was therefore designed to be the largest and grandest station on the first line.
I think something both the Vaushites and PatSocs have in common is viewing things in a vacuum like liberals do, they try to carve up ideologies like football teams and insist that you cannot be an anarchist if you don't swallow NATO propaganda, or that you can't be a socialist if you acknowledge the unique struggles of LGBTQ people or colonized people in the US for example.
Meanwhile historically the lines are a lot fuzzier and both groups have aligned and clashed in various ways over a whole century.
We also do not need to keep rehashing hundred year old ideological beefs when we can simply examine the causes of those divides and also the points of agreement and learn from past mistakes. This should be something all contemporary communists of any tendency should agree on.
Yep, it's 100% vibes based and excessively frustrating to deal with. You don't even have to support the USSR or anything, just please be historically and politically consistent!
I have critical support for the USSR because they were clearly a net good and their existence gave leverage and power to workers' movements in the US because they were terrified of us doing our own october revolution. It is glaringly obvious that the existence of the communist bloc held at bay the unrestrained voracious maw of capital because we can see what happened in the years since its (illegal) dissolution.
Sure, I largely agree. I don't believe the USSR was perfect, but I see it as invaluable to seeing how a large-scale socialist project can actually work, and what parts didn't. Regardless of tendency, it's one of the best examples of Socialism at work, period, for good or ill.
Ok, that's a new one. Calling you a fascist for saying Lenin was a Marxist...
I can usually take these liberal takes in stride, but this is like they invented some new kind of weapon. I feel this weird itch to engage with them somehow, and that's not healthy.
It's a genuine drain trying to feed Lemmy.world's radlibs with any theory of any kind. Usually I try to avoid saying scary words and they will ultimately agree with the logic and analysis, which gives me hope that some can be convinced to actually educate themselves on leftism, but there's such a strong anticommunist slant on Lemmy.world that it's usually met with absurd claims with no basis in reality. Just knee-jerk vibes.
If you want to get into Marxism (even if it's just to learn about what people are actually talking about), Principles of Communism by Engels and How Marxism Works by Chris Harman are fantastic pamphlets that really take no time to read through, though beware, Harman is a Trotskyist and that bleeds through a bit in his writing.
Marx mostly spoke about Capitalism and while no Marxist can avoid reading Marx, he doesn't provide a great introduction to Socialism in the Marxist sense, if that makes sense. Still, Value, Price, and Profit and Wage Labor and Capital are fantastic intros to the critique of Capitalism.
Even if you're interested in learning about Marxism-Leninism, jumping straight to Lenin before even understanding Marxism would be a mistake. Lenin builds his own critique off of Marxism, as a Marxist, so it is preferable to go through Marx first.
not well-versed enough in leftist theory or practice to actually engage with most of Lemmy.
The problem is that if your political world view requires actual study in order to understand and promote, you're never going to get anywhere when it comes to affecting real change. Most humans don't give a shit. You have to give them something simple and easy to make the core of their political identity. In our society capitalism has a head start because it's baked into the school system, but you don't get the luxury of forcing everyone to learn how you economic system works.
The problem is that if your political world view requires actual study in order to understand and promote, you're never going to get anywhere when it comes to affecting real change.
Two war-torn feudal backwaters transformed themselves into spacefaring superpowers in the span of a single human lifetime. History has shown that mass political education is possible and effective. I mean hell, we all have to be instructed as kids about the dangers of fire, and that works. I don't believe that educating people in Marxism is some sisyphean task any more than educating people in math. I think I can and has been done.
Do you control the public education system? Because until you do, you have to work with the educational background of the population you're given, not the one you want.
Edit: the replies to this comment that I can see are so nonsensical or make so many wrong assumptions that it's impossible to to even know where to start with them. I'll just leave my reaction at "????". If you, dear reader, want to explain to those people why their statements make no sense, I applaud your effort and the essay it will require.
If many millions of actual illiterate peasants who grew up with no school system at all can do it multiple times on different continents, it can absolutely be done here.
It really doesn't require much study to understand and promote. You can go as deep as you like, but the underlying principles are straightforward and rather obvious, like class dynamics.
Additionally, Capitalism doesn't have any "edge" over Socialism - it's in a steady state of decline, has been declining, and appears to continue to decline. Capitalism cannot be permanent, it does not have a head start, and there is no need to force everyone to understand how Socialism works.
That's really my point, you have these knee-jerk reactions because you are unfamiliar with the topics at hand, and do not appear to have tried to understand them further. The inevitability of Capitalism's decline means you don't need to be forced to understand Socialism by anyone, you'll either learn on your own or will ride the tide.
You probably won't agree with what I have said, but that's more a choice you personally make, on whether to engage or disengage, and that's fine.
"Redfash" or "horseshoe theory" is usually another giveaway. MAGA Communism and PatSocs certainly exist, but not in any serious number, and they aren't here on the mainstream Lemmy communities.
I kind of think this is also a bit misleading. Isn't the point of the phrase that you should remove the bad apple lest it affect the rest. As in, "If you leave the bad apple in the barrel it will spoil the bunch. So remove it before it does." I don't quite think that its really being misappropriated.
From your link a translated original proverb:
“Well better is a rotten apple out of the store
Than that it rot all the remnant."
So, by that logic, if you get those bad apples put before they spoil the bunch then they were "just bad apples".
To be clear I'm not saying the phrase isn't being used to minimize serious issues. But the point of the phrase wasn't that one bad apple means the entire bunch is already rotten, but that you need to remove the bad elements before the rot spreads.
I have had some time to think about it, and I should have included the word systemic instead of serious. I still stand by my overall point with regard to what the idiom actually means. I don't believe that its a good thing to misrepresent something just to prove a point.
We talking about Tyson dumping 18.5 billion gallons of contaminated wastewater in 2022?
This toxic stew includes animal parts and byproducts like blood and feces, pathogens like E. coli and Enterococcus, and nitrogen and phosphorus that can deplete oxygen in bodies of water.
This just proves to me more and more that my business partners were/are prudes. We started a bratwurst stand. I wanted our slogan to be "We just want our sausage in your mouth." They voted it down because it was "too risqué."
When I was in high school, the girls' running team made shirts that said, "Fast girls have good times." It's been more than twenty years, and I still think about how funny that double-entendre is.
i.imgur.com
Top