“Incompetent” is a stretch. No chance of winning, perhaps, but that’s only true because the two major parties continue to work together to make it true. Colluding with a fledgling fascist dictator to lock out other competition and then smirking about “wasted votes” maybe be stabard operating procedure but it shouldn’t be.
Trump is a monster. Biden is not a good person. Let’s kick then both to the curb and agree to support someone who isn’t an objectively terrible person.
You’re right; incompetent is a stretch. Some of them probably are, but others are just… I don’t know, out of touch with reality? And others are probably there knowing they will lose, but showing up anyway just to make their presence known for one reason or another, whether naive idealism, or cynical attention-grabbing.
I’d love to kick both Trump and Biden to the curb, truly. Well, a little farther than the curb for Trump. But the only way to do that is to change the way the system works. There is no scenario where a) it is realistically possible to elect a 3rd party candidate, and b) a 3rd party candidate, if elected, would have the ability to make any meaningful change to the system.
Remember, we’re talking about changing election law here. And who is responsible for changing laws? Not the president. It’s the legislature.
If we want something like a viable Green Party or Libertarian Party or whatever, we need to focus on the legislature, not the presidency. If we want to eliminate FTTP winner-take-all elections for the presidency, we need to focus on the legislature, not the presidency.
And believe me, I do want all of that. Which is why the puritanical grandstanding about protest votes by people who don’t seem to understand the fundamental rules of US government is so painfully frustrating. If people were half as passionate about actual politics as they are about arguing badly about politics on lemmy, change would be possible. Instead, they are bamboozled time and time again, like clockwork, every four years by political insiders who feed them the notion that a protest vote that help the worst possible candidate is the most meaningful action they can take.
Yep. What’s truly disappointing is that the voters in one of those major parties are extremely comfortable being complicit in genocide et al. It is entirely within their power to demand that their own party field someone less terrible… but they do not for reasons that only make sense if one looks at the process as one that values winning over all.
I agree that the system is broken. But the process that favors the two parties need not be used to field terrible candidates. THAT part of the process is 100% the responsibility of those who vote for those parties. If the candidates are terrible, then the blame for that rest solely on their shoulders.
Biden has a terrible history of friendship and collusion with racists, bigots, etc. Currently, he’s a genocide apologist. I would LOVE it if the Democrats fielded someone I could get behind. It’s not about one issue, it’s about asking for a bare minimum level of humanity. “Not a bigoted genocide apologist” should not be a stretch goal.
I don’t disagree with your assessment of Biden, but you’re saying this like he’s not the better choice of the two. Everything you accuse him of is amplified by entire magnitudes with anyone in the GOP.
And let’s be real here, Israel has been a central pillar of US policy for generations. There are one or two high-ranking politicians in the entire government who don’t support Israel, but they have zero chance of becoming president. Biden is being chosen not because of one belief or another, it’s because of his track record and his experience. He is capable of one of the most important jobs of the office, which is working with the rest of the government, even the people who hate you, to get shit done.
The Democrats have a membership of millions. If they find someone who isn’t objectively a garbage person, I guarantee they win. You’ll still see the “must vote blue” crowd vote D because let’s be real, they’ll do as they’re told every time. And you’ll also get the votes of the people who believe in a better world.
Win win, but the millions of D voters will continue to sell the line that they are powerless to sway thier own party.
I don’t know who’s selling this line you think is being sold. I’ll happily vote for a better Democrat than Biden. And I don’t know of anybody who is so enamored with Biden that they’d throw a temper tantrum if he wasn’t the nominee. I actually don’t know what you’re arguing here other than saying “a better person than Biden would be better.” Which is true, but it’s just a tautology.
I’m noting that expecting people to vote for the least bad candidate here is easily rectified by the Dems choosing someone less terrible. The base would vote for a pickle sandwich if it had a blue sticker on it. As such, choosing someone who appeals to swing allies is the right move.
Biden, whatever value he has, does not appear to have that appeal. So if winning is important, Democrats hold the key. Choose someone less repugnant to swing voters.
Again, that’s just saying someone better than Biden would be better. I’m not sure who you’re trying to convince that wouldn’t agree with you.
I expect people to vote intelligently based on the outcome they want. If there’s 2 outcomes and they don’t want outcome A, they should vote for B. Complaining that B isn’t sparkly and written in glitter doesn’t change the fact that they don’t want outcome A more.
If choices A and B are both bad and team B has full control of who they’re fielding, rewarding them for choosing poorly perpetuates the same. If they’re too blind or arrogant to see that B is losing them the contest, then that’s their own fault.
“Incompetent” is a stretch. No chance of winning, perhaps, but that’s only true because the two major parties continue to work together to make it true. Colluding with a fledgling fascist dictator to lock out other competition and then smirking about “wasted votes” maybe be stabard operating procedure but it shouldn’t be.
Trump is a monster. Biden is not a good person. Let’s kick then both to the curb and agree to support someone who isn’t an objectively terrible person.
You’re right; incompetent is a stretch. Some of them probably are, but others are just… I don’t know, out of touch with reality? And others are probably there knowing they will lose, but showing up anyway just to make their presence known for one reason or another, whether naive idealism, or cynical attention-grabbing.
I’d love to kick both Trump and Biden to the curb, truly. Well, a little farther than the curb for Trump. But the only way to do that is to change the way the system works. There is no scenario where a) it is realistically possible to elect a 3rd party candidate, and b) a 3rd party candidate, if elected, would have the ability to make any meaningful change to the system.
Remember, we’re talking about changing election law here. And who is responsible for changing laws? Not the president. It’s the legislature.
If we want something like a viable Green Party or Libertarian Party or whatever, we need to focus on the legislature, not the presidency. If we want to eliminate FTTP winner-take-all elections for the presidency, we need to focus on the legislature, not the presidency.
And believe me, I do want all of that. Which is why the puritanical grandstanding about protest votes by people who don’t seem to understand the fundamental rules of US government is so painfully frustrating. If people were half as passionate about actual politics as they are about arguing badly about politics on lemmy, change would be possible. Instead, they are bamboozled time and time again, like clockwork, every four years by political insiders who feed them the notion that a protest vote that help the worst possible candidate is the most meaningful action they can take.
Yep. What’s truly disappointing is that the voters in one of those major parties are extremely comfortable being complicit in genocide et al. It is entirely within their power to demand that their own party field someone less terrible… but they do not for reasons that only make sense if one looks at the process as one that values winning over all.
I agree that the system is broken. But the process that favors the two parties need not be used to field terrible candidates. THAT part of the process is 100% the responsibility of those who vote for those parties. If the candidates are terrible, then the blame for that rest solely on their shoulders.
Biden has a terrible history of friendship and collusion with racists, bigots, etc. Currently, he’s a genocide apologist. I would LOVE it if the Democrats fielded someone I could get behind. It’s not about one issue, it’s about asking for a bare minimum level of humanity. “Not a bigoted genocide apologist” should not be a stretch goal.
I don’t disagree with your assessment of Biden, but you’re saying this like he’s not the better choice of the two. Everything you accuse him of is amplified by entire magnitudes with anyone in the GOP.
And let’s be real here, Israel has been a central pillar of US policy for generations. There are one or two high-ranking politicians in the entire government who don’t support Israel, but they have zero chance of becoming president. Biden is being chosen not because of one belief or another, it’s because of his track record and his experience. He is capable of one of the most important jobs of the office, which is working with the rest of the government, even the people who hate you, to get shit done.
The Democrats have a membership of millions. If they find someone who isn’t objectively a garbage person, I guarantee they win. You’ll still see the “must vote blue” crowd vote D because let’s be real, they’ll do as they’re told every time. And you’ll also get the votes of the people who believe in a better world.
Win win, but the millions of D voters will continue to sell the line that they are powerless to sway thier own party.
I don’t know who’s selling this line you think is being sold. I’ll happily vote for a better Democrat than Biden. And I don’t know of anybody who is so enamored with Biden that they’d throw a temper tantrum if he wasn’t the nominee. I actually don’t know what you’re arguing here other than saying “a better person than Biden would be better.” Which is true, but it’s just a tautology.
I’m noting that expecting people to vote for the least bad candidate here is easily rectified by the Dems choosing someone less terrible. The base would vote for a pickle sandwich if it had a blue sticker on it. As such, choosing someone who appeals to swing allies is the right move.
Biden, whatever value he has, does not appear to have that appeal. So if winning is important, Democrats hold the key. Choose someone less repugnant to swing voters.
Again, that’s just saying someone better than Biden would be better. I’m not sure who you’re trying to convince that wouldn’t agree with you.
I expect people to vote intelligently based on the outcome they want. If there’s 2 outcomes and they don’t want outcome A, they should vote for B. Complaining that B isn’t sparkly and written in glitter doesn’t change the fact that they don’t want outcome A more.
And that’s why we have two terrible candidates.
If choices A and B are both bad and team B has full control of who they’re fielding, rewarding them for choosing poorly perpetuates the same. If they’re too blind or arrogant to see that B is losing them the contest, then that’s their own fault.