• Foni@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    As a European I always wonder why Americans don’t create an alternative party to the Democrats, after all it is the party that in 2016 cheated in the primaries so that Hillary would win and still lost to an idiot. If you create a real left-wing party you can seriously propose things like socialized healthcare just as the right is not shy about proposing crazy things like banning abortion.

    The only difference is that they have been successful in colonizing the Republican Party and the Democratic Party is simply an outdated instrument that no longer represents its own bases.

    • DefederateLemmyMl@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      As a European I always wonder why Americans don’t create an alternative party to the Democrats

      A third party has no chance in a first past the post system. If you create an alternative party to the Democrats, you’re just making sure the Republicans win every election.

      • Foni@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        The British have a first past the post system and more than two parties, something else is wrong in that equation

          • Foni@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            But you have a parliament (congress and senate), right? Why isn’t there a third party in these chambers?

            • butwhyishischinabook@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              No, the executive is compartmentalized and voted for separately, so there’s no dissolution of parliament, negotiations over forming a government, etc. Seems like a small difference, but structurally it’s a large and impactful distinction.

              • Foni@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                5 months ago

                I know and understand the difference between parliamentarism and presidentialism, but I am not talking about the election of presidents exclusively, I am talking about the political system of the country in general. If 20~30% of the chambers are in the hands of a third party, the country becomes more plural and public debates better represent opinions and I don’t understand why that is not possible.

                • butwhyishischinabook@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  I understand, but how is it viable, from the standpoint of the opposition, to be anything other than a unified party in opposition if there’s no chance to bargain for a position in a coalition government, to form a coalition to win an election to make a new government, etc? That doesn’t make any sense, why would anyone split like that?

            • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              Americans are taught from elementary school that voting third party is basically a sin, its repeated on all forms of media and treated as fact for every single election regardless of the situation. When people say things like ‘America is the most propagandized country in the world’ this is part of what they’re referring to.

              Americans somehow believe they’re just too different from all those countries that made things like public transport, healthcare, and more than two political parties work. They believe those things simply wont work here even if they work elsewhere.

              • Foni@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                5 months ago

                I don’t know, I don’t deny what you say, but as I was answering to another, then the United States is not a democracy anymore, it is a plutocracy where a few elites can decide policies, but the population lacks the capacity to change the trends even if there is a broad consensus for it.

                this is sad

            • _chris@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              That’s just it, the system was created as a two-party system, and two-party is a hugely beneficial to the champions of that same system who make the laws, the same people who would have to make the law to change the system to make it harder for themselves to “win” but better for us.

              You would have to have people in charge who were willing to give up their power to make things better for the people as a whole, and sadly there’s basically nobody left who gives a shit about the population as a whole. They’re all selfish as shit. About half are currently more evil, but they’re all out of touch and working for nobody but themselves and their wealthy benefactors.

              • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                5 months ago

                It was not created as a 2-party system, there have been several other successful political parties in US history. We’ve had US presidents elected from 3 other parties plus an Independent. Federalists, Whigs, and “Democratic-Republicans” are the 3 other parties who had Presidents in the WH.

          • Foni@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            In 2010 they had a coalition government made up of Torys and Liberals, in Great Britain the executive power is not just the Prime Minister, it is the entire Council of Ministers and it was not made up only of Torys. Obviously a coalition government is not possible in the American system, but a third party being influential in the cameras is and I still don’t see because it is impossible

    • ThisIsMyLemmyLogin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      As a European I always wonder why Americans don’t create an alternative party to the Democrats

      The average American is too stupid to handle more than 2 options. American’s like everything easy and straightforward. Black and white. Good and evil. They have a very simplistic world view.

      • Foni@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        I don’t know, I have never lived in the United States, but I would like to think that there are still enough intelligent people for a third party to position itself as a real alternative and end up completely replacing the Democratic Party, which will leave two parties again, now that I think it

        • Rekorse@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          Wall yourself through the process of creating this third party. Let’s say its this leading edge european-style-leftist party that cares about people, for real this time.

          This party starts growing slowly, but where do the people come from? Maybe some people who avoided politics altogether until this new party came along, but most people will likely come from the Democratic party.

          So the party is building and the democrat party is shrinking, while the republican party stays the same. They may even see some growth from the “fracturing” of the Democrat party. They start winning more and more elections as instead of a race coming out 46% to 44%, it comes out 46% to 36% to 10%.

          That ratio keeps building in favor of the new leftist party, but we lose seats and elections every cycle. And then eventually (maybe stupidly hopeful?) The new left party completely takes over the democrat party which ceases to exist.

          Now we are back at a two party system, but have lost the country for maybe 5, 10, 20+ years? You could argue this is a better idea than what we currently do, which is try to change the party you are part of slowly over time with voting and campaigning, but I personally wouldnt say that myself.

          • Foni@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            Well, I don’t know, like I said before I’m not American and I don’t know all the ins and outs of the American electoral system, but if this is really impossible, I’ll just stop thinking of the United States as a democracy in any way. Changing the democrats party from within has proven impossible since Hillary’s rigged election in 2016, moving her policies to the left runs into a constant wall of “this is how we will lose the center”, well, I don’t know, I just think the system is so broken that either something different is done or it’s not going to be fixed

      • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Oh fuck off, the reason is we have FPTP elections and there’s too much hanging on an election to justify fracturing the country for four years while we establish a viable 3rd party.

      • Rekorse@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Or maybe we are stuck with the two parties we have.

        For a third party to appear, one of the current ones has to fracture. Neither party is willing to do that because fracturing your own party guarantees the other party wins due to FPTP.

        Right now especially, noone trusts the republicans to run the country while the democrats re-sort themselves into their new parties.

        Even then, it might be those two Democrat parties splitting their own vote for many elections to come, essentially conceding the country for a decade or more.

        If the parties we had now were more moderate and closer together on everyday issues, it wouldnt feel like picking between shit and poop, it would feel like choosing between vanilla and chocolate ice cream, which both are valid and good and have their own merits.

        Americans aren’t stupid, we are frustrated, and in some states there is still a strong pressure from religion, school, and government that causes people to learn the wrong ideals, and in some cases complete falsehoods. My favorite is the states that contradict themselves or avoid logic at all turns.

        We recently had a state pass a law including the ten commandments in every classroom in the state, but the approved list they are putting up is ELEVEN items long.

        I was probably all over the place in this reply but I hope I made some sense towards your post.

    • Frokke@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Why? The same reason the 1/3 burger flopped. Majority of mericans are dumb af. Splitting off from the D would give the R a sure win. That’s the only reason they aren’t doing it.

      • seathru@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        The same reason the 1/3 burger flopped.

        I think that was just A&W flopping. Braums did just fine with 1/3rd lb burgers. And in the south no less.

        • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          Hardees / Carl’s Jr have made many a dollar selling their 1/3 lb burgers for many years as well.

    • Famko@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Americans have tried to create third parties before, but due to the electoral college and the first past the post voting system, new parties are destined to fail and not win any votes. So the current two party system is the natural state of America.

      The only way to change this is to get rid of the electoral college and the FPTP system, like that’s ever going to happen.

      • Jesus_666@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        You can get a successful new party but only if one of the two big ones completely self-destructs and creates a power vacuum. And even then the new party will probably be a faction of the defunct one. There definitely won’t be a three-party constellation for more than a brief period.

        • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          completely self-destructs

          Well the GOP is on its way, and if they reform into a moderately sensible party, the dems will have to move left to actually differentiate themselves.

          I’m dreaming though.

      • Foni@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Well, the issue of the electoral college is something that I don’t fully understand, in the end from Europe I follow American politics relatively, but the English also have the first past the post system and they have more than one party.

        Perhaps it would be necessary to start setting it up from more local elections or to the Congress/Senate, where a small but more mobilized mass could be relevant. With a relevant percentage representation in the chambers and/or state positions it could stop being crazy.

        I don’t know, it’s an outside opinion, maybe it’s impossible, but if it is then American democracy is not only dysfunctional, it wouldn’t be a democracy at all, It would be a plutocracy with all the letters

        • Rekorse@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          I think it could work if the third party sets reasonable goals and steps to achieve a difference in America.

          I like the idea of focusing on local elections, it could start out as a network of local communities that grows and grows, and when it becomes big enough for a national conversation, if it does, then we start on the federal politics.

          We might find its not even necessary to continue on to federal government, as enough small communities change and it becomes the norm, the federal government will reflect that.

        • Asafum@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          The electoral college is mainly for the president. Each state is “worth” x number of electoral votes (actual people who do the real voting, they just are supposed to follow the publics vote.) so running for president becomes a game of “how many points can I gather using various states to win” instead of “how can I appeal to as many people as possible to win.” It’s a clusterfuck and it leaves candidates ignoring states they think aren’t worth spending money and time in.

          • Foni@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            Well, if that only applies at the presidential level, a party can be created that competes at the legislative and state level. When it is established with enough power at that level, running at the presidential level might not be such a risky game.

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        First Past the Post doesn’t guarantee complete nationwide hegemony of two parties. There can be areas where the vote is between a mainstream party and a regional party, because the other mainstream party doesn’t show up. This happens in the UK all the time.

        They don’t take a lot, but those seats are enough that the big parties often have to work with them to cobble together a majority.

        Nor is First Past the Post the only factor. There’s plenty of southern states that have runoff voting. Their last century of state level offices are just as filled with Democrats and Republicans as anywhere else.

        The US is unique in that not only are their only two real parties, but those two parties dominate at every level of government.

        • acargitz@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Canada also has a FPTP system and we have like 5 federal parties. But it’s also a Westminster parliamentary system that allows temporary alliances, minority governments, support and supply agreements and other power-sharing arrangements.

          The American system is unique in their imperial presidency and aristocratic Senate and supreme Court, where so much power is concentrated in so few people for such a long time that every election becomes a high stakes cosmic event.

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

            Canada also has a FPTP system and we have like 5 federal parties.

            Canadians were promised electoral reform recently, what happened?

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

      The American voting system is not Proportional Vote and instead is massivelly Mathematically rigged with (for Congress) huge single representative electoral circles which in some cases have borders designed exactly to make it near impossible to defeat incumbents (aka Gerrymandering), with (for the Senate) even larger electoral circles (literally, each state) with 2 representatives, and something somewhat similar for Presidential elections (though worse since ultimatelly it all adds up to a single representative electoral circle with 300 million voters for a position with lots of power, unlike most European countries - with some notable exceptions like France - which either don’t have a President or have one which is mainly symbolic and has little power).

      Further, the very nature of the system will, beyond the Mathematical rigging, push the people who would otherwise go for a 3rd party to instead go for the “useful vote” (i.e. chose an electable candidate instead of the one they want) - it’s not by chance that the heaviest argument of the Biden campaign was “vote Biden to defeat Trump”.

      Since new parties take various electoral cycles to grow, it’s pretty impossible for them to do so because it’s Mathematically near impossible for them to even establish a foothold that shows its earlier supporters they do have a chance to one day influence what laws are made in the US and how the country is ruled, so new parties invariable lose steam after the first or second election they go through.

      You can see something similar to this in the UK, were for example the Green Party gets 1 million votes out of 40 million (2.5% of votes) but only 1 member of parliament out of 300 (0.33%), and remember this is with lots of people chosing electable candidates from other parties, so the Green Party natural vote would likely be larger in a different system

      This stands in marked contrast with, for example, The Netherlands, were vote is Proportional and there are 15 parties in their Parliament (Tweede Kamer).

  • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    It’s not Joe. It’s the fact that he’s old, and Trump is old, stupid and a criminal felon. And we have no other choice? Out of the several hundreds of millions of Americans we get these two and that’s it? How come no one else wants the job?

    I will choose Biden 1000000000 times over Trumpfus. With Biden, China is what it is, an economical frienemy. With Trump they are our best friends and so on and so forth if they just give Trump tickets to the Padres game or something. No question, Biden. But if a piece of cheese 🧀🍕 was running and it could talk, I would vote cheese all the way!

    • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Representation in exchange for taxation? Sorry buddy, this is a purity test the democrats are not built to handle.

  • hark@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    I’ve been chuckling about danger since 2016 when the democratic party pushed through hillary and then lost against a clown. The democratic party does not instill confidence (except in their ability to sabotage themselves).

    • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      They would rather hand the country to the insane Nazi clown than do anything that night upset their sponsors.

      • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        There are troves of leftist literature that detail how liberals would sooner side with fascism peacefully than risk any kind of violence. They’re being vindicated by current events globally. Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds. They will do anything to maintain the order that keeps them as about half of the ruling body of the country.

  • enkers@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    On the one hand, he fumbled his words a few times pretty poorly. On the other hand, he didn’t spend an hour blatantly lying.

    I was watching CNN’s coverage. I thought Biden did alright, asides from a few notable blunders that he recovered from. CNN’s coverage made it sound like he needed to have his adult diapers changed mid question.

    It’s crazy how they’re completely ignoring any substance of the debate and solely focusing on appearances. It’s almost like that’d favour a populist candidate or something.

    • wick@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Biden looked like they injected meth into his balls right before he went on stage. Kinda hard to ignore him staring through bits of furniture and smiling at leprechauns.

      I’m shocked he performed at all with how high he was. I’d wonder as well if he needed assistance during that whole thing.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      The issue is appearances are all that mattered. I don’t believe anyone who was interested enough in politics to watch that debate was undecided. It’s now time for the campaigns to cut up the debate to use for ads that will actually reach the undecided voters. I feel it’s going to hurt Biden a lot more than Trump.

      • enkers@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Yeah, I don’t disagree. Those who make their decisions by disregarding policy are probably not going to be doing the right things for the right reasons anyways.

        If they tip the balance and that means a dictatorship, there’s nothing anyone can do to stop it short of global intervention.

        • bitwaba@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          I’m hoping the reason this debate was agreed to so early is that the DNC needs to know if they’ve got to work out a plan B. The convention is scheduled for the end of August so until then Biden isn’t the official candidate. Like, if in 2 months they’re polling at 30%, I don’t see how they can go “oh yeah, this is definitely a losing strategy. Let’s stick with it”. Why not switch it up? You’re losing already. The worst that can happen is you still lose.

          • jaybone@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            This is exactly what I’m thinking. So next then, who do they run instead?

            BTW remember when like three years ago Biden said multiple times he would only serve one term? smdh

            • Cethin@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              The obvious answer is Harris. The less obvious but I think better option is Buttigieg. He’s not who I would pick ideally, but I think people still remember him and he’s part of the Biden adm.

              I’m pretty confident they’re running Biden unless he dies though.

              • bitwaba@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                5 months ago

                Bootygig would piss a lot of the base off to pass over a POC woman who would literally be president anyways the moment Joe croaks.

                He’s probably a better pick for the country, but the DNC doesn’t give a shit about that. I don’t think he’s a particularly strong pick, but he’s better than Harris.

                I think the best option to win the election would be to pick someone that’s not a part of the current administration. And we can definitely count on that not happening. The DNC is too up their own ass with everyone getting their compensation for previous “support” once the positions open up.

                • Cethin@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  I agree totally. He’s not the best option, just the best option that’s plausible if we entertain the hypothetical that Joe isn’t running. Also, yeah it probably would piss some people off to skip Harris, so it’s probably her no matter what.

    • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      CNN can’t help themselves. They need to compete with social media I guess.

      I dunno, that debate just made me sad.

      • enkers@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        CNN can’t help themselves.

        I wonder if that has anything to do with CNN’s chairman and CEO, Mark Thompson, ranked by Forbes as the 65th most powerful person in the world. 🤔

        Would someone like that benefit from tax cuts to the ultra-wealthy?

        • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          I don’t think it’s even about candidates, but just focusing on appearances.

          That’s what grabs attention and makes money. Even the robotic social media feed algorithms know this.

    • _number8_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      you are trying to gaslight me. i want the democrats to win so we don’t have trump, and they’re voluntarily trotting out this fucking corpse.

      sure, it shouldn’t be about appearances, but it is, because that’s how most people interpret the debates (especially because it’s part of the job for politicians to lie and that isn’t exactly a meaningful shock at this point). that’s the worst i’ve ever seen anybody do in a debate in my life.

      • enkers@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        I fucking despise Biden for his policy in Palestine. If there was any reasonable chance that they could switch candidates now and still have a shot, I’d totally agree with you.

        I think he’s way too old to be president, but I’m sorry to say you’re stuck with a shit decision, and one that’s been engineered to help work against our best interests.

        I fully get where you’re coming from, but I’m not trying to gaslight you.

        • Tinidril@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          It’s come to the point where the risk of changing the candidate has to be weighed against the risk of not changing the candidate.

          • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            And it has been. The risk of sticking with Biden is the greater one by far. He’s losing the election and showing no willingness to change any of the behaviors that are causing it.

            Switching to another candidate might be a controversial choice, but it’s still a safer bet than Biden.

        • troglodytis@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          Na. It’s a pretty clear and easy decision. Neither option gonna get ya what you want and need, but one option is actively trying for a disastrous result.

          Unfortunately, too many people in the USA say the same thing and mean the opposite candidate.

        • tegs_terry@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          Regarding Palestine, not a single president would or could have done any different. You made your bed there, now you have to give it money. It’s the same with us here in the UK.

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

            The president could choose to not sign the bill sent by Congress for further funding. Congress might pass it with veto proof majority but it would still be making a statement. So, not exactly true

          • Shyfer@ttrpg.network
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            The President has plenty of power here. They can halt shipments like he did one time, which proved he could try that. He could not veto ceasefire deals in the UN. He could assign a better secretary of state that doesn’t run interference for Israel. He could not jump the gun making pro Israel statements or supporting suppressing the protests, than staying otherwise silent when they do things wrong like even kill American aide workers or Palestinian journalists. He could veto laws that get to him. He could rile up the populace to contact their local Congressmen and publish Israel’s wrongdoings in press conferences, while he’s only been doing that for pro-Palestinian “wrong-doing”, often getting the facts wrong in the process. He could threaten Israel harder to let aid through the ground. Even if some of these fail, it shows who he supports at least.

        • This is fine🔥🐶☕🔥@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          fucking despise Biden for his policy in Palestine

          I’m not an American and even I know it is not his policy. It is a result of decades of US-Israel relationships with all kinds of ties between the two countries and has far too many stakeholders than just the head of the state.

          Not even Bernie could’ve managed to navigate this shit situation properly.

          • enkers@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            I don’t know… I see what you’re saying, but does the president not have the power to take a principled stance on the matter? Maybe I’m being too naïve about what’s realistically possible, but ultimately intended policy decisions have to start at the mouth of the nation’s leader.

            He needs to firmly acknowledge and denounce the ongoing genocide in Palestine.

            • blackbrook@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              Can someone remind me of the last time a U.S. president took a principled stand on some foreign policy issue? Seriously, I’m not just asking this to be a dick. I’m pretty sure things are set up to ensure this does not ever happen.

              • enkers@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                I mean, he certainly did say that he wants to increases taxes on the ultra-wealthy.

                It’s not a foreign policy issue, but it’s one that would be unpopular with any rich donors so it perhaps demonstrates some amount of integrity.

                Just to be clear, I’m not trying to defend the US. Their foreign policy is stinkier than blue cheese.

                • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Their foreign policy is stinkier than blue cheese.

                  And doesn’t even compensate by also being delicious, like the cheese does!

                  Unless you have a significant profit stake in the military industrial complex and/or the fossil fuel industries, of course. Then it’s the most delicious thing ever.

              • Shyfer@ttrpg.network
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                5 months ago

                Biden has publicly criticized Russia and China before. Every US President has made statements against countries like North Korea or Iran. It’s the literally the least he could do.

              • enkers@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                5 months ago

                He did, and I’m not trying to downplay that in any way. He also called for peace, though, whereas Trump said he was also pro-Israel but thought Israel should finish what they started.

          • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            Bernie would’ve led Bibi by the fucking nose. He’d have recalled his days in the kibbutz and said that Bibi is burning everything good about Israel.

          • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            is not his policy.It is a result of decades of US-Israel relationships with all kinds of ties between the two countries

            Yeah it is. Obama said about the Cuban Embargo that “these 50 years have shown that isolation has not worked”, so he changed longstanding policy.

            Meanwhile, letting Israel do whatever the fuck they want to Palestinians for 75 years hasn’t made the treatment more just (duh) or the region more stable and peaceful, and the majority of the population realizes that now.

            People are demanding of Biden and the rest of the Dem leadership, which are the people with the power to do so, to change the awful status quo of total deference to a fascist apartheid regime and Biden et al are risking the election and thus American democracy by refusing to listen to the people who they are supposed to represent.

            • TheFonz@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              An embargo on a small island nation has nothing in common with a key strategic ally in the middle east. Why are we comparing these two? Are you for real now

              • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                5 months ago

                It has one thing in common and that’s the thing I was referring to:

                In both cases, the president has the power to change bad policy, no matter how longstanding.

                Obama chose to make the right choice under little to no pressure (except from people adamant that he should do the opposite) while Biden is insisting on the wrong choice in spite of intense pressure and a very significant risk that it’ll cost him the election.

                The specifics of Cuba has nothing to do with it.

                • TheFonz@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  You’re not addressing the central point of my claim and simply restating your initial statement: that the president can change policy

                  has the power to change bad policy

                  while ignoring the key difference between Cuba and Israel. They are completely dissimilar situations with vastly different implications. The progressive left --which cares so much about genocide suddenly (forget Yemen, Syria, where more people have died int he last 6 years by an order of 10 than the entire palestine-israel conflict in the last 100 years)-- made up their mind about Biden long before Oct 7. The only way for Joe to pander to their vote is by accomplishing miracles at this point and I think that ship has sailed a long time ago so I really doubt they are the key demographic that will cost him his election.

    • circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      I thought Biden did alright

      He just didn’t. In any other previous cycle, it would not have been considered acceptable. The bar has gotten very low.

      Biden looked senile, and Trump looked like regular, crazy Trump. The senility will do more for voters than Trump being Trump.

      • XIIIesq@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Exactly, people expect Trump to be Trump, but they expect Biden to not be senile.

        What a sorry state of affairs.

      • enkers@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        It should be the media’s responsibility to thoroughly fact check both parties. If that means they have to pre-submit their primary answers and read them off a teleprompter, then so be it.

        You’re right, it wasn’t a win, but it should have been.

    • tills13@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      They want fence sitters in Pennsylvania who are college educated to see what a blabbering idiot Trump is.

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        There’s almost no fence sitters. This isn’t your father’s Republican party. It’s a literal christofascist cult where you’re either part of the group or hated, and one of the main prerequisites of even CONSIDERING joining is an intense irrational hatred for anyone with a (D) behind their name, whether progressives like Bernie and AOC, or conservatives like Henry Cuellar and Biden.

        The Biden campaign is wasting its time and energy trying to appeal to people who would rather die than ever vote for a Democrat while alienating most of the Democratic base and extinguishing much of the enthusiasm of the ones who still aren’t completely turned off.

        Unless they change course dramatically, voter participation will be abysmally low and the orange fascist man-child is going to win and, with the help of Project 2025, is going to dismantle everything resembling democracy, regulations, and protections for any abused minority group.

        And the “blue no matter who” apparatchiks are going to victim blame the tens of millions of alienated potential voters rather than blaming the corruption, incompetence, and stubborn refusal to listen to them that alienated them.

        After all, they’d rather die than hold the leaders of their own party accountable for their mistakes and shortcomings, no matter how much ignoring it helps the fascist GOP.

  • peteypete420@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Troofs. Yea I’ll hafta vote Democrat cause holy fuck look at what republican means right now(also for as long as I was voting age). And while I want to just throw my vote away and vote third party because fuck both parties… I do live in somewhat important not necessarily decided state. (Iirc pa went Trump in 2016 but Biden in 2020).

    I forget the term for it, but fuck that thing that makes political bribes legal in the US. Fuck gerrymandering. And most of all fuck this two party system where both parties are owned, fucking outright, by companies and oligarchs and foreign influences.

  • melisdrawing@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Trying to watch that mess felt like listening to my schizophrenic relative explain her dream: Not fucking worth getting invested. Still voting against Trump but jeeze, this sure isn’t helping the case for our electoral system. Giant douche or Turd sandwich would literally be more compelling.

    • NegativeInf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      I legit had so much anxiety and despair watching the first 15 minutes I had to get up, walk a literal quarter mile to clear my head, then got back, heard more, walked out on the porch and just cried.

      I’m so getting arrested for being gay in Texas. I can feel it in my bones.

      • melisdrawing@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Dude, I know it isn’t always possible, but I would be doing everything in my power to get out of Texas before they set up state border crossings to contain their breeding-aged female hosts. It isn’t just gaiety that makes us vulnerable to the boot, certain reproductive organs make us targets as well.

        I am worried about a lot of the people in Texas, sending hugs.

        • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          they set up state border crossings

          That’s one of the few things that is almost certainly unconstitutional and I don’t think even this SCOTUS would let fly. Free travel between the states and federal power over interstate commerce are just too big a deal.

          • NegativeInf@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            They are already trying to restrict interstate travel for the purposes of abortion. I really don’t think it’s outside of the realm of possibility.

      • revelrous@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Sending love from the cold bits of NY. It ain’t over until it’s over-and then you hitch a ride up here and I row you into Canada.

    • arin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      First time independent wins election? The powers will be so furious, might be another assassination(suicide) before that happens

    • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Republicans making public plans to install an authoritarian government? Sounds serious!

      So when will democrats drop gun control considering this imminent threat?

      Work towards peace, prepare for the inevitable.

      SocialistRA.org

    • NegativeInf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      900+ pages of me getting my rights fucked straight into the ocean.

      Can we just like, set everything on fire?

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

          We certainly can, and should- but it takes a lot more than people being politically active only every four years.

            • JimSamtanko@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              Which won’t happen when most people are only politically active every four years. They’re like… an army of outraged cicadas.

            • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              Not necessarily. Elections are run by the states, which makes changing FPTP a lot more manageable than changing, say, House apportionment (which would take a federal law), abolishing the Senate (Constitutional Amendment), eliminating the electoral college (Constitutional Amendment) or most other things people suggest to “fix” our elections.

              It being a state thing means that you only need to get state legislatures (or in states with ballot initiatives enough voters) on board which is easier than moving Congress and that you can do it piecemeal - you can change individual states at a time and then use the success of the policy in the first states to promote the idea in other states. State laws are easier for the people to actually have an impact on.

              I’d love to see states switch over to approval voting - it solves most of the problems with FPTP and it’s dead simple to explain. Instead of picking your top pick, pick everyone you’d approve of. Whoever gets the most votes wins. No multiple rounds, or your vote counting for a different candidate depending on previous rounds or anything else. The only ballot change is “Choose every candidate you support” in place of “Choose one candidate”, stubborn voters who don’t want to understand a new system can just do exactly what they’ve always done without issue and most voting systems currently out there already effectively support it.

      • ChillPenguin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Actually with how much trump was falling asleep in court. It could also be Donald “I’m gonna go take a nap” Trump.

      • PunnyName@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Ok.

        Is there another criticism now, or is the one that constantly gets repeated going to continue getting repeated?

        • abracaDavid@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          Are you really trying to act like Biden’s age isn’t a huge issue? Did you not see the same old man that the rest of us saw?

          • Rekorse@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            Well, Biden doesnt stand alone, he didnt come up with all these ideas himself, he’s just leading the party. Its not really that important who leads it, the ideas aren’t going to change.

            If its more likely their party wins with another candidate then fine but it seems just as risky as not changing to me.

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

            It’s an issue for both candidates, so it’s moot, and therefore not worth wasting time over. Move on.

              • PunnyName@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                5 months ago

                We can later. But right now, it’s not happening. Primaries are done. We’re stuck with these fucking geezers.

      • CareHare@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Donald “Corrupt liar and professional conman” Trump is better somehow?

        You have your priorities straight.

        • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          Fun fact: even as one is much worse, they’re BOTH awful.

          Even when the alternative is stage four leukemia, it’s not reasonable to demand that people pretend that it’s good to get malaria.

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

              Still missing the point:

              Of course you’ll have to choose malaria Biden over stage four leukemia Trump. That’s obvious. And also besides the point I’m making.

              My point is that, no matter how bad the alternative is, malaria fucking SUCKS and nobody should ever be forced to pretend otherwise.

              It’s opinion policing, it’s authoritarianism, and it’s standing in the way of progressing to a point where there’s actually a GOOD choice instead of a bad one and a much worse one every Presidential election.

              • Rekorse@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                I personally dont attach nearly as much importance to the actual person filling the presidential seat, so much as the organization that backs and supports them. We all know trump literally will say anything to gain republican support and Biden is the spokesman for the democrats to gain support.

                The point is that trump and Biden could both pass tonight, and the people who replace them will have the exact same goals and ideas. Its not just about the person who wins president as it is about the group we want to run the country.

                So no, its not malaria and stage 4 cancer, its a mosquito bite vs a bee sting, for all the difference it makes between the two. We are voting for republicans or democrats, not Biden or trump.

                Do people really think the president sits there dictating what everyone else is doing like some extravagant conductor?

                They are fucking salespeople, client relations managers, public relations people. Trump didn’t bring a single original idea to his own campaign and people are frustrated with Biden because he won’t take a principled stance and instead just parrots back how his party feels (see Israel).