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
2737 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
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.
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.
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.