656
Joe Biden wins primary election in New Hampshire despite not even being on the ballot
(www.businessinsider.com)
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 24 Jan 2024
656 points (100.0% liked)
News
23266 readers
2788 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Democrats don't just want a pro-genocide corporate shill, they want an 80-year-old pro-genocide corporate shill.
Get ready for next 11 months of “BoTh SidEs aRE thE SaME” bullshit.
If both sides are same, why not vote for pro-genocide corporate shill who is not a rapist, not a traitor, and not a criminal?
I mean, this is a primary, not the general.
Unfortunately the incumbent has a massive advantage. It's rare for a party to switch to a different candidate when one of theirs already has the seat.
Because you can vote third party and not endorse Nazism
Please name the third party candidate that has a reasonable chance of beating both Trump and Biden.
Both of the people you named commit genocide. Voting for them means you endorse genocide. I fail to see how percentages are relevant here.
The vote is to elect a president. If you are not going to vote for someone who has a chance of winning, what is the point of voting at all?
I will happily vote for a third party candidate that has a chance of winning. I have asked for a name many times and have yet to be given one.
The Greens have a 99% chance of winning if everyone stops acting like Biden is holding a gun against their heads to prevent them from voting differently.
I see, so if something that is almost certainly not going to happen happens, a Green candidate who you have not named has a 99% chance of beating Trump.
That's not what I asked. I didn't ask for special, very unlikely circumstances.
Name the third party candidate who has a good chance of winning as things stand now. Just give me a name.
Biden doesn't have a good chance of beating Trump either lmao. I'd give him 20% max.
Your wild guess percentages based on zero evidence are not a name. You still have not given me a name. Who am I supposed to vote for if you won't even give me a name?
Cornel West there you go.
I asked for a name that has a reasonable chance of beating both Trump and Biden. I see that West has 2% support. That is not a reasonable chance, so that name is not the name I asked for.
Also, you have contradicted yourself, because Cornel West is not a Green party candidate. Therefore, based on your previous post, he won't have that (evidence-free) 99% chance of winning.
Odd that this name for a candidate that can win is so hard for you to come up with.
Donald Trump. he has a high percentage chance to win.
That's what you're looking for right? Someone with a high win percentage?
Or are you looking for someone that endorses your views with a win percentage? I hear Joe Biden endorses Genocide, do you endorse genocide?
Nope, this is what I have asked you for multiple times:
If there is no candidate that has such a chance, why bother voting?
Because if the amount of voters for a different candidate increases then it will be noticed. It will do two things:
Force the Dems to move back more to the left actually to win back those votes
The next time around people will consider it a more viable option.
Asking for them to win directly is basically a catch22.
If you keep voting Democrat now you very explicitly endorse that you are content with their current policies.
The opposite happens when Democrats lose. Republicans become emboldened and pull us right. Tea Party in 2010, Trump in 2016. The biggest right wing swings in modern US politics.
If you don't vote Democrat, you still endorse contentment with their policies. Not voting is a statement that you're content with whoever wins -- or, that you're so privileged it doesn't matter who wins.
Obama was probably the largest swing right, blatantly bailing out the big banks and going HAM on imperialism.
The DNC are the ones that tried to promote Trump because they thought it'd be an easy score for Hillary so you can thank the Democrats for that one too. And for screwing over Bernie of course.
I don't think that's how it works.
If you're telling me that you think Obama was a larger swing the right than Trump was, I think we've once again exhausted all constructive discussion between us.
Obama was not more right wing than Trump. But he was the largest swing to the right.
He didn't close Guantanamo. Terrorized Afghanistan, Massively increased CIA surveillance to the point he even lost a lawsuit for breaking the law. Lied about not surveilling journalists. Drone striked like a genocidal maniac. Overthrew regimes such as in Libya creating huge chaos.
Obama was a maniac on the global stage.
What did Trump do? He drone striked like crazy too, but not in new countries. But he actually withdrew from Afghanistan. He killed Suleimani and ruined the Iran nuclear deal but (luckily) didn't start a new war. Screwed over relations with China.
All in all Trump was mostly known for his insanely stupid domestic policies. But in foreign policies he was not actually worse than Obama.
That didn't happen with Perot or Nader. I find it very hard to believe that would happen this time.
Why can't you just admit that you can't give me a name?
If you don't want to vote for someone who doens't have a chance of winning then just stay home
I didn't say anyone should stay home.
I said:
You have not given me a good reason. Your reason so far is not supported by history. Neither Perot nor Nader changed a thing. Unless you can give me a good reason why that will be different this time around, you are grasping at straws.
If you want to vote, fine. Go ahead. I just don't see why you're bothering when you can't even give a good reason. Seems like a lot of effort for nothing.
"candidate X would easily win if everybody voted for them"
No shit, now who are they and how do you propose convincing people to vote for them?
By not voting for genocide and showing that there is support for the other party so people can finally jump ship. If their voting percentage stays at 2% forever nobody will ever jump ship.
Will you win in one election? Not likely. But continuing to vote for Democrat will only solidify America sliding into Fascism (though with the current Genocide I'd argue we've reached that point already)
Again I ask you, who do you propose we vote for instead?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_presidential_election
18.9% wasn't enough either
Maybe if we gerrymander hard enough
I live in a state that is not even close to be competitive. Why should I not vote for the Green Party candidate?
Why bother voting at all?
In my state, the two major parties keep changing the rules to make it harder for other parties to get ballot access. If a party gets a certain number of votes in the general, they can keep their ballot access without needing to jump through a bunch of expensive hoops designed to keep them out. I vote to have more choice in future elections. Because that is all I can vote for.
Okay, that is, at least, a reasonable explanation of why to vote third party without having to name a candidate. You're literally the first person who has done this even though I have asked people who tell me to vote third party for a name for months now.
Here is another reason: because I would rather try for long-term improvements than to accept gradual worsening.
Voting for conservative Democrats will not improve anything. They do not want increased accountability for the rich. They do not want universal healthcare. They do not want to get away from fossil fuels (in the time frame required). They do not want to fix our car-centric infrastructure. They do not want to stop genocide. They do not want affordable housing. They do not want affordable education. They actively fight against those who do.
Voting for conservative Democrats is not about making things better, it is about stopping things from getting worse. The Democratic Party is not a big tent, it is a hostage situation: the liberals are told "stay with us and vote for us, or the fascists will kill you."
Long term, will voting 3rd party force the Democrats left? If the Democrats shift further right instead, will there be enough time for a liberal party to emerge and challenge before the county fails? I do not know.
I am not mad at anybody for voting for the lesser of two evils. It is a reasonable, defensible choice. I understand that many of the people making that choice are victims of our system, not the perpetrators. If their strategy works, and we keep getting the lesser evil, I cannot fault them for it.
But I would rather try for a long-term improvement than to accept gradual worsening.
This is the primary. This is when we should be able to vote for candidates who more closely align with our views. (Like being anti-genocide.)
Primaries are when you vote for a candidate from a specific party. The person above me said to vote third party. You can't do that in a primary. It was obvious they were talking about the general election.
Low turnout and high degree of votes for independents tend to favor Republicans in USA, and you have heard of their project 2025 right? A program literally designed to be a clone of nazism
After all the 2016 fearmongering I am genuinely flabbergasted anyone is still falling for it. Republicans aren't interested in overthrowing the plutocracy because the illusion of voting is the most effective way to keep Americans repressed and docile
They are literally telling you what they want to do. They want a republican president above the law and make a permanent legislative and judicial majority which can't be unseated through elections.
If they wanted that they could have done it in 2020 when they controlled everything and Trump was president? We heard this story back then and aside from the looney parade on Jan 6, the Republicans did not try to keep him in power like some god ruler.
They tried but couldn't due to infighting, and because they didn't have a plan because they didn't expect to win. Now they have plans. See project 2025 to start with
They absolutely tried to keep him in power, all the lawsuits and other shenanigans was all about trying to block transfer of power when he lost. They literally tried to rig the vote by damaging the postal service, because they knew democrats would rely more on voting by mail with the pandemic going on. They're working on gerrymandering state maps to artificially give Republicans more winning districts, giving them a chance to win states where they lost the popular vote.
Because I won't vote for genocide.
Instead I'm voting for Hillary Clinton.
Can't wait to watch this doofus not reply to anyone
Ok.