1374
Far left intellectualism
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2024
1374 points (100.0% liked)
Political Memes
5617 readers
2405 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
At least some, like Ralph Nader, regretted it. Now we have those actively seeking to spoil the vote.
The tragic thing about Nader was his activism basically proved to General Motors and later large American corporations in general that political engagement and and public opinion was vital. The corpos learned to fight grass roots activism with astro-turf until they were just as skilled as Nader's acolytes, only with orders of magnitude more resources.
Every time I see an Oil company do a commercial about their commitment to the environment I think of Ralph.
Similarly, Woodward and Bernstein showed the corporations how dangerous an independent press was.
Back in Watergate Era, there were plenty of locally owned newspapers and TV stations. Today, thanks to ronald reagan's assault on the Fairness Doctrine, we have six major media companies controlling what we hear.
What does third parties have to do with lifelong Dem voters wanting the Dem candidate to side with the Dem voting base on basic parts of the party platform like:
No fracking
Better healthcare
Climate change is real and producing less fossil fuels is a good thing
What you're doing is insisting if you're not 100% loyal to the candidate with a D by their name you really have an R.
That's the same fucking shit Republicans went thru and it ended up with trump.
Why the fuck do you want to follow down the path of "never criticize the party, and always vote for them".
Please explain to the class why this time it will work out good for the party that takes that path.
It's not that it will work out good (though in a sense, it has for the R in that they got what they actually wanted), it's that if the Rs have ~50% ish support, no matter what they do, because of them going that route, the only way to beat them is to get everyone that isn't them in a coalition together.
Right and that makes sense...
Unfortunately that's not what Kamala is doing.
I'll say it till my face turns blue:
Taking a stand against fracking is all it would take to guarantee trump can't win, but Kamala is pro-fracking, refuses to give the party voters what they want, and refuses to even explain why being pro-feacking is seen as a good choice by her and her campaign.
That isn't the only issue she's to the right of the party on either.
It's like her, her campaign, and the DNC aren't focused on beating trump, they want to beat Trump while giving the voters the bare minimum it would take, because the more they give voters, the less they get in donations.
So then telling voters "all that matters is beating trump" it's obviously bullshit because they're not doing everything possible to beat trump.
It ain't complicated.
Like you said:
That's the opposite of what OP spends their time on, but considering a month ago they were intentionally spreading misinformation about when early voting started, I'm surprised the mods still let them post here.
Every single "meme" OP posts is about how Dem voters should fight with Dem voters rather than band together.
Taking a stand against fracking is all it would take, when the largest swing state this election has an economy that leans heavily on fracking?
It's not the instant win you think it is.
You're confusing people and corporations...
https://www.wvia.org/news/pennsylvania-news/2024-10-10/pa-voters-split-on-fracking-but-show-widespread-support-for-stronger-regulations
58% of likely voters in PA want it banned...
Did the environmentalists show up for Gore? No they did not.
Did the environmentalists show up for Clinton who said she'd have a map room to fight climate change? No they did not.
Were the environmentalists going to show up for Biden after he passed green energy and ev policies? Polls said no they were not going to show up.
Harris saying she'd ban fracking is an instant loss. She and everyone advising her knows this.
When people are employed by those corporations, they have a vested interest in their livelihood not disappearing overnight.
A survey of 700 people leaves considerable room for polling error. Without information on how they selected participants, I wouldn't say that's an overwhelming margin.
...
https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2021/01/29/report-pennsylvania-stands-to-gain-243000-jobs-a-year-from-clean-energy-investment/
64k, not just fracking, that's all fossil fuel jobs in PA.
There's 12.7 million people in the state
0.5% of people in the state work any job connected to fossil fuels....
You're confusing corporations and people homie.
You didn't have to tell us you never learned about stats in any educational setting, but I appreciate the transparency.
700 is more than enough
700 people is a good sample size if they are a truly random representative sample of your population. In real life, polling error tends to vary far more than 1/sqrt(n) because of systemic biases in how you select participants. Depending on how the survey was conducted, it could intrinsically favor certain demographics.
Not the person you replied to, but 58% of Pennsylvanians support a ban on fracking. It really shouldn't be surprising. Pennsylvania may be a great hub of fracking, but very few people actually benefit from the wealth it creates. Meanwhile, they're the people actually on the ground, living there in the areas most affected by fracking. They know its effects better than anyone. It's their ground water and their wells are being contaminated, all so a few companies owned by out of state wealthy interests can profit mightily. Plus, it's not like Pennsylvanians aren't also worried about climate change.
An economy that "leans heavily" on fracking? What sort of economy leans on destroying their water table? What did you say about the economies that "lean heavily" on coal mining?
I'm skeptical that there's a huge swath of voters refusing to vote just because of fracking. And if there are people claiming that, I don't believe they would be voting even if Kamala did come out against fracking anyway. Everyone knows Trump would be much, much worse for the environment than Kamala, and to refuse to vote over one single environmental issue is either very dumb or completely disingenuous.
because, unfortunately, donations are important. It's a shitty system, and this is what they have to do to win in the system.
actually it is.
No one said there was.
I said a majority of voters in PA want it banned, and Kamala would gain votes there if she agreed with the Dem voter base nationally and wanted to ban it
https://www.wvia.org/news/pennsylvania-news/2024-10-10/pa-voters-split-on-fracking-but-show-widespread-support-for-stronger-regulations
58% of PA voters want it banned
What is Kamala gaining by being pro-fracking?
Donations so she can try and convince the people who live by fracking and know how bad it is that they should vote for her anyways because Trump is probably fracking?
Even if that works....
You know that means they still have fracking in their backyards, right?
I can admit when I'm wrong, I really didn't think it needed this much explaining.
you clearly implied it by saying, "Taking a stand against fracking is all it would take to guarantee trump can’t win".
...which does not mean she'd gain voters from changing her position. How many of those people are voting for her anyway? How many would actually vote for her if she did change her position? you don't know this, and neither do I, but I'm guessing they have a pretty good idea.
Yes. I'm not arguing that it's a good thing. I'm saying this is the way it is, and this is what they need to do to win in the system we have. If you want to fix the system, you need to vote D to gradually re-take SCOTUS and overturn shit like Citizens United that is fucking our politics with money.
again some things are not as simple as you think.
That doesn't say anything about non voters....
If 58% of PA voters were voting for her anyways, why is it still a battleground state?
But why are you questioning every reason for why Kamala should match the party and ban fracking....
And you can't offer a si gle reason why she's pro-fracking besides:
So are you just admitting that the reason both candidates in 2024 are pro-fracking is because they're taking bribes in the form of donations?
Like, and I hate that I have to say this:
Just because trump takes fossil fuel bribes doesn't mean Kamala does.
Like, by that same logic you're using to defend fracking, a foreign government can buy off the Dem party to support and find their invasion of sovereign countries...
Because trump and the Republicans do it too.
Is that what you meant to say or do you not even realize what you're defending here?
Yes, in order to win in a shitty system, sometimes you have to do shitty things. Welcome to the real world.
because there is more than one issue at stake in this election, and fracking ranks far down on that list for most people. there is also likely a significant amount of trump voters who are against fracking but would never change their vote to kamala.
The problem is that the broader Democratic electorate is a much bigger tent, with overall much more moderate politics, than online leftists are typically willing to admit. We're still only eight years past an election where Hillary Clinton took the Rust Belt for granted, and we all paid the price for that when traditionally solid union votes swung to Trump because he was boosting fossil fuel extraction while Clinton implicitly threatened the livelihoods of families dependent on coal and fracking jobs.
Healthcare you have a point on, but also keep in mind that the last time Dems had the votes for sort of sweeping reform was 2008, and what we got out of that was the ACA, which for all its faults was still a big step up over the status quo. Obama was going for a big bipartisan win, in spite of McConnell's announcing that he was killing bipartisanship in the GOP caucus, and that was a mistake, but perhaps an understandable one given that up to that point that's how Congress had always worked.
There have been windows of time since in which Dems have held the Presidency and both houses of Congress, but never with enough margin to defeat a Senate filibuster, and with DINOs like Manchin and Sinema standing in the way of filibuster reform. I do not doubt that progressives in Congress would move an M4A or public option bill through the legislature if, in 2025, the House flips back and the Senate stays Democratic in spite of the unfavorable cycle, but withholding your vote doesn't get you any closer to that happening.
Polls show progressive policy isn't just popular with Dems, but all voters...
That's life mate, I'm sorry it doesn't agree with your opinions, but it's the truth.
That's why Obama's 08 campaign did so fucking well, despite not really being that progressive in any other developed country.
The neoliberal experiment has only benefited the wealthy, stop defending them, they got lawyers and lobbyists for them, pick people over corps and we can get something done.
That is until they're told it's a Dem policy.
And of course the progressives actually show up to vote.
What's your alternative, Trump? Because a 3rd party candidate will never win the general election without a massive overhaul of our election system which will never happen as long as the Rs have a majority in any branch of the government.
Except Biden repeatedly gave in to pressure from his voter base on a lot of actions, we also got a lot of changes to DNC policy care of Sanders voter base. It's not ''do or die'' it's vote for an administration that will actually respond to pressure and voter's policy goals, or vote for a dictator backed by industralists who all want an ethnostate of uneducated second class citizens.
And Biden got elected despite his age...
2020 was an example of the candidate moving their campaign left and winning the election.
Bad faith: "I want her to stop sending weapons to the country doing genocide."
Good faith: "So basically you're demanding that she solves the entire conflict immediately."
I think this is a dumb take. Third parties are only used like this in the US because our voting system is incredibly broken and there is little interest in fixing it. If you don't explicitly highlight the caveats:
then what you're doing is attempting to uphold and protect the broken system from being improved.
It is a fixable problem, but it is not a fixed problem. Bringing them up during presidential elections and only during presidential elections doesn't fix the problem and just leads to it.
So you won't complain about spoilers during midterms, then?
The spoilers rarely show up, if ever, during midterms, which is very telling.
Then it'll be really easy to not complain about them.
Which is why the correct way to bring it up is to mention the spoiler effect.
The problem is when you talk to some republicans they want a 1 party system. They want to ban democrats. If you talk to some democrats they believe we should ban third parties. These are both antidemocracy views that normalize each other.
So what you're arguing for here (to be very clear) is that it is better to embrace a softer form of anti-democracy messaging than to explain that we should avoid voting third party when spoiler effects are a concern.
I'm saying that if you're in favor of strengthening third parties in America a lot of work needs to be done and just shouting vote third party every 4 years is none of that work.
And I'm saying damage control for third parties a lot more work needs to be done than simply saying "3rd party bad, 2 parties good." because idk if you've been watching but we're perilously close to having a 1 party system.
This a prime opportunity to educate voters on their own voting system and people are squandering that to oversimplify their messaging to the degree they sound like republicans.
Edit: To clarify if you wanted to eliminate the republican party, a 3rd party needs to replace it in a 2 party system creating a "catch 22" situation where fptp props up a fascist minority party because 3rd parties can't compete
Any third-party candidate trying to run for the president is either stupid or acting in bad faith. That's what the meme was pointing out. That's the reality of the situation in America until the work is done to fix the spoiler problem. If someone is competent and actually is acting in good faith, they don't run as a third party in US presidential elections. If their belief is we need stronger third parties, they do that by trying to change the electoral system at a more local level.
I have never seen this argument from any democrat before.
Questioned their legitimacy in participating as a candidate in a presidential election? Yes.
But banning third parties? Absolute hogwash, I've never once seen that.
Sure you conveniently haven't, but I've seen it floated on these boards and the post in the chain above us we're replying to is aligned with antidemocratic messaging - it by no means rejects anyone who wants to ban 3rd parties.
But lets make an even easier comparison making it hard for 3rd parties to exist is not wholly different than banning them. This is in fact how republicans approached abortion before the supreme court's catholic wing decided to allow bans.
Its all working to the same goal. Anti 3rd party messaging without context and rational thought is just anti-democracy messaging which only helps republicans. Every legal tool democrats are using to beat down 3rd parties will eventually be used by republicans to prevent democrats from being elected.
The only way to fix it is to change the way we vote so that 3rd parties don't produce spoiler effects.
You improve a broken system by fixing the broken system, not by pretending you're not using it.
Vote, agitate or even run as a candidate that will pass ranked choice voting, locally or larger. Support the interstate electoral vote compact. Do whatever you can to directly fix the system.
Until then, you mitigate harm within the broken system.
The spoiler effect is absolutely a fixable problem. It would be great if our current third party candidates actually put in effort to exist in the political eye and work for said reform, outside of crawling out of their hole every 4 years to run for President.