ABCnews

  • jimmydoreisalefty@lemmus.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    37
    ·
    1 year ago

    IMO still better to vote 3rd party than to waste your vote with the blues and reds.

    We need to start showing them that we are not shee, just keep voting for them with no changes; Reagan/BushSr/Clinton/BushJr/Obama/Trump/Biden all they did was for the wealthy class not for the working class, do not get me wrong they do throw in crumbs here and there…

    • wrath-sedan@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Trump admin: passes $1.5 trillion tax cut where 60% of savings go to the top 20% and slashes the corporate tax rate by 40%

      Biden admin: passes $1 trillion infrastructure bill, $400 billion in climate funding, $1.9 trillion in COVID aid that temporarily boosted unemployment aid and child tax credit, and first major gun safety legislation in decades, seen here

      Demand change. Demand more from the politicians that work for you. Take Biden and all elected officials to account for expiring temporary relief for the lower class. But on many important issues for the lower class there are big differences between red and blue.

      • Pattern@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Thank you. I get so frustrated with people who say the two parties are the same. They are not, and all you have to do is compare the policy achievements of the Trump and Biden administrations. There are real consequences to choosing Dem over GOP.

      • jimmydoreisalefty@lemmus.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        28
        ·
        1 year ago

        You don’t get it, we don’t care for the crumbs.

        They don’t matter to us, only to you who still vote team blue no matter what.

        The real problems will only be addressed when we all band together against the wealthy class, so we need to stop playing their games.

        • fubo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          27
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Sure, while you’re building your revolution, don’t betray your country to the actual freakin’ fascists. The Republicans are not the party of big business anymore — that’s the Democrats, who have done great things for the capitalist economy. Today’s Republicans are the party of hate groups, Nazi street gangs, child abusers, rapists, thieves, and traitors.

          • jwiggler
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I agree with you to an extent, but I also sympathize with the person above. I think it was Noam Chomsky who said this, but if each president after WW2 were brought before the Nuremberg Court, they’d be hanged for war crimes. I think when he said this he stopped at HW Bush, but Id be willing to bet it’s true up to now.

            This doesn’t mean all sides are the same. I’m still going to vote Democrat in a general election, for the most part. But at the end of the day, they still push a globalist free-market ideology, they still promote war, and they still condone the surveillance of the American people, the imprisonment of dissidents and political threats, and the destruction of the environment in the name of profit.

            Fascism is already here. It’s the corporations (the rich) who hold power, and both neoliberals and conservatives work to uphold that dynamic so they themselves can maintain power.

              • jwiggler
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                Why do you think that? I think really the only big hallmark that is missing is a single dictator/autocracy.

                Otherwise, you have a nationalist, privatized, militaristic country, in which national politicians and news organizations collect money from corporations and as such are so influenced, and a lack of political plurality where voters are consistently forced to choose between the lesser evil.

                Idk, I mean you’re right Im no political science grad. But sounds pretty fascist to me.

                  • jwiggler
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Yeah. I mean I guess if you want to get technical with it, I’m probably talking about something more akin to neo-fascisim. But I kinda think it’s splitting hairs at the end of the day.

          • jwiggler
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I agree with you to an extent, but I also sympathize with the person above. I think it was Noam Chomsky who said this, but if each president after WW2 were brought before the Nuremberg Court, they’d be hanged for war crimes. I think when he said this he stopped at HW Bush, but Id be willing to bet it’s true up to now.

            This doesn’t mean all sides are the same. I’m still going to vote Democrat in a general election, for the most part. But at the end of the day, they still push a globalist free-market ideology, they still promote war, and they still condone the surveillance of the American people, the imprisonment of dissidents and political threats, and the destruction of the environment in the name of profit.

            Fascism is already here. It’s the corporations (the rich) who hold power, and both neoliberals and conservatives work to uphold that dynamic so they themselves can maintain power.

            • SCB@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Noam Chomsky should stick to linguistics because it’s the only thing he’s good at.

        • wrath-sedan@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          People to the left of Biden sitting the election out/voting 3rd party will have one practical outcome: helping to elect Trump, who is about to go on trial for trying to overthrow the government.

          I would love to live in an America where Biden is the rightmost option instead of the leftmost. That’s not where we are, and if we want to get there we can’t let fascists near the levers of power.

        • Sassy@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          You might not “care for the crumbs,” but with your attitude, that’s all you’re destined to get.

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          we’re gonna bang together against normal people

          You’ll get less than 10% of the vote.

        • GodlessCommie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          They are happy with their chains, they gotten so used to them they take comfort in their presence.

          They settle for crumbs when they have the power to take the whole damn loaf

    • negativeyoda@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      We need ranked choice voting first. Funny how it’s something both Democrats and Republicans can unite over why it’s bad, confusing, whatever…

      • LetMeEatCake@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Some democrats don’t like RCV (see the DC thread from the other day), but many do. NYC has RCV, and I assure you it didn’t get there without democrats supporting it. So does Maine.

        RCV wouldn’t work well for presidential elections as they are anyway, because it’s a two-stage election. What would RCV mean in an individual state? Pretend a 3rd party is in contention in that state but has no chance nationally. Candidates A and B are the major parties, and C is our third party. If the results are C=40, A=35, B=25, and B’s support transfers to C, and C’s support would transfer to C, does that mean B should be eliminated so C can win the state, or should C be eliminated (because they won’t win any other states) and B should win the state? There’s no obvious answer and it just invites more of a clusterfuck.

        RCV is great for popular vote elections, which is what everything else is (mostly… there’s… I think it’s Mississippi governor?) and what the presidential election should be.

        Popular vote first, RCV second.

          • LetMeEatCake@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The problem is that it depends on how you assess it. There are two, both perfectly valid, ways to look at this.

            The way you’re looking at it is you see it as a state-only contest. B got the fewest votes, B’s votes go to C, C wins the state. The end. From an administrative level this is the simplest approach. I don’t feel any need to expand on this assessment as you’re in favor of it and seem to grok the principles behind it.

            The other, equally correct, way to look at it is to assess this as a national contest. In that case, C is the one that actually gets the fewest votes because they have 0 electoral votes in any other state. C is incapable of winning, so C would be eliminated in the first round of the state level contest. After all, one of the points of RCV is to eliminate the impact of spoiler candidates that cannot win. With that in mind, it’d be dumb to design an RCV system that increases the impact of a spoiler candidate that cannot win.

            The issue with the first interpretation is the risk of magnifying the impact of a spoiler candidate who cannot win. The issue with the second interpretation is the sheer administrative difficulty (if C were competitive in multiple states then each state needs to take into account how other states are doing their RCV process, etc.). Both flaws would be unlikely to matter >99% of the time, but that one time the flaw would matter could lead to a constitutional crisis or less dangerously result in fundamental dislike of RCV systems. That one time might also become more likely if voters feel more comfortable voting for third parties due to this system.

            The problem here is that both systems are fair, logical, and valid; they also each present major issues in edge scenarios. That’s why it’s important to go for a popular vote first. That way the election is one election, which RCV is explicitly designed for. The current two layer 51-elections that lead to another election that we have for the US presidency is basically a nightmare scenario for an effective RCV system.

            • Stumblinbear@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              It IS a state-by-state contest. The electoral votes each state decides to give are decided completely at a state level, and it should be at a state level. Each state has different priorities, different laws, different populations, and are all differently affected by the result of the presidential election, so just because they voted for C doesn’t mean each individual state wouldn’t have a preference for A over B given a different choice at a state level.

              As an example, Kansas may put C as first choice and B as second choice due to their state-specific priorities. Florida may put C as first choice and A as a second choice for whatever their reason may be.

              If B gets thrown out in the end, then each state needs to resolve their votes differently to reflect their differences in priorities. It’s the most fair.

                • Stumblinbear@pawb.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  The presidential election is decided entirely by electoral votes, and once those are cast then that’s that. You cannot just change it to ranked choice unless you change the constitution itself

                  However, states are free to decide how they want to allot their electoral votes. Considering it is a state-by-state contest by nature, only that interpretation is even feasible. Technically you could do it if every state decided on the same system of RCV, but I highly doubt you could get every state to effectively make it a popular vote decision, considering most states already don’t like that idea.

      • wrath-sedan@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Eh I think it’s more complicated than that. Neither national party is calling for it definitely. And DC Dems are suing to block it in the city. But if you look at where RCV is implemented it’s basically very Democratic cities and independent-streak states like Maine and Alaska. Both of which do have a lot of pressure from viable independent/dem-soc alternatives. It’s also completely banned in Florida, Idaho, Montana, South Dakota, and Tennessee. So I would tip the scales slightly towards Democrats here, but I agree it primarily challenges those in power so if you’ve been elected under the current system you’re usually not crazy about it regardless of party. (To be clear I totally support RCV or really anything other that FPtP voting)

      • jimmydoreisalefty@lemmus.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        You do not understand what I am saying.

        This is not a first we need to do this… first we need to do that…

        We need to stop voting for the bloods and crips.

        Looking at the long term, this will help us win the war on the wealthy class.