The far right did the work moving the Overton window to the right by working together.
Remember, they’re out there every day pushing. What are you doing?
do you really think it was collective grassroots action that did it and not the backing of capital and media?
No one said it was grassroots, just that they worked together.
it’s easy when “they” include people in positions of power and with great wealth, let’s not blame progressives for “not working together enough.”
The whole crux of leftism is collective action. It’s embarrassing when the fuck-you-I-got-mine individualists are better at collective action than the socialists.
Exactly. Fucking. This.
Yes but you’re ignoring my point that 3 kings working together have more power than 30,000 peasants. The far right represents the interests of the Kings
Or - OR, okay, you could do the work to build a more progressive party! It’s still legal! For now. So.
Have you done that? No? Oh, - so it’s - okay, you have, but it’s still about a thousand people? Well, hey, that is definitely a start. Say, do you think maybe those ‘about a thousand’ people could convince enough people to vote for a candidate that will defeat the fascism they’re clamoring for? Hm? What’s that? Oh, uhhh about sixteen weeks. Yeah. . . . Mmmmnnnno, there’s not really a “budget”, it’s sort of BYOB, y’know. Bring Your Own Budget. Ha ha. So - yes?
Removed by mod
What does that even mean? I hope you know at least.
Removed by mod
In Canada there is a second left-leaning party called New Democratic party. And in last election they got 16% of votes compared to 33% of Liberal party and 34% of Conservative party. And there are two more parties with significant number of voters - Bloc Quebecoise and Green.
In Germany, Netherlands and most other European countries there are similar distribution between multiple parties. Why is US so different ?
The short version is that the Constitution says the President is the one who gets the most votes. The Electoral college says there are only 548 votes, and they are mostly all awarded by each of the states to one victor (first-past-the-post).
The practical result is that if a party can only win 36% of the vote in a state, they get 0 electoral votes. Because of that, a two-party system has more or less been the norm.
It’s not ideal.
Sorry to repost, but coincidentally I made a comment a few days ago answering this:
First past the post elections is the answer. If we had ranked choice or runoff elections, more parties would appear.
Instead, in FPTP, every vote that is not for one of the two highest-polling candidates is objectively a wasted vote. Game theory dictates that the only rational choice is a vote for one of those two candidates, since the possibility of a third party gaining enough votes to win in any single election is nearly infinitesimal. So instead of many parties, all candidates self-sort into one of the two viable parties. Any candidate that does not is a protest candidate or deluded, but in either case, there is no hope of actually winning.
So what about primaries? The primary system decides the candidates, but even that is tainted by FPTP, because primary voters have to guess which will perform better in a FPTP general election and often vote against their ideal candidate in the hopes of winning (or, not losing) the general.
In short, until we structurally reform elections to be ranked/STAR/runoff/etc to remove the punitive effect of voting for your actual ideal candidate, we’re stuck with a prisoner’s dilemma election every time.
It rhymes
You’d rather let democracy die than compromise on a few ideals?
If Biden loses votes, trump wins.
If trump wins, you will never have the opportunity to get your leftist ideals again.
You’d rather let democracy die than compromise on a few ideals?
I feel that would be a better question to ask the DNC… Would you rather let democracy die than pick a candidate other than a senior citizen who’s obviously struggling with dementia?
The only reason we’re in this situation to begin with is because the DNC refuses to leave behind their archaic self enforced rule, where seniority is the only thing that matters.
Why doesn’t the democratic party have a single viable alternative to a man who can barely string together a coherent thought in public? Because, they refuse to support anyone who isn’t economically center right, and anyone who isn’t old enough to qualify for Medicare.
So you’ll give rulership to trump - who wants to have in the USA what Putin has in Russia - just to punish the DNC?
There is no other choice right now - it’s “doddering old man with a good cabinet and no ambition to become a fucking dictator,” or a wannabe dictator.
So you’ll give rulership to trump - who wants to have in the USA what Putin has in Russia - just to punish the DNC?
“So the DNC is giving rulership to trump - who wants to have in the USA what Putin has in Russia - just to punish the Democrats who want a more viable candidate?”
There is no other choice right now - it’s “doddering old man with a good cabinet and no ambition to become a fucking dictator,” or a wannabe dictator.
Why isn’t there another choice right now? Why wasn’t there another choice 6 months ago? Why are we being forced to choose between two decrepit old men?
I never said I was voting for Trump, or even abstaining from voting. I just think it’s ridiculous that people like you aren’t outraged at the DNC for propping up a candidate doomed to failure, and at such a crucial time.
Removed by mod
Where do you expect those leftist policies to come from when low voter turnout gives the Republicans enough seats to veto them all?
It’s funny I just made this one the other day
If I have to concede to a rightoid party, I’m going to vote for one that aligns with my political views on social policies.
It’s called compromise. Yes, you have to concede some things in order to get the closest thing to what you want. If you don’t compromise, then the biggest group that does band together wins. Compromise with the Dems or we get the right in charge who are compromising with Nazis.
What should we do about the Dems who compromise with Republicans/fascists like Sinema, Manchin, or Fetterman?
Are you saying that Sinema, Manchin, and Fetterman are Republican fascists or that they are Dems that compromise with republican fascists? Is there much difference?
Anyway, the answer is to recognize that they are individuals and not the group. Every coalition is going to have people at both ends. They represent the right end of the Democrat caucus. Bring more leftists into the caucus and you negate their strength. The only reason they have any power at all is that the caucus has such a slim majority. Then vote lefter in their races in the future.
It’s a game of tug-o-war, with ropes pulling in all directions. We need to recognize that not everyone wants to pull in our specific direction, but if we’re busy fighting each other on which leftward direction we go, while the group on the right is aligned and going straight to Christian nationalism we’re going to lose. Figure out alignment during primaries, but pull together in generals, and when turncoats like Sinema swap sides, get them out of office ASAP.
That is not how it works in most countries, but it certainly works like that in the US because it has an inherently shitty political and election system which only allows for 2 parties.
And dangerously undereducated people.
The appropriate action for now is to vote for the best option and simultaneously engage in grassroots activism. Publicly criticize the government to lean too far to the right. Volunteer for a nearby social initiative.
Ask what your fucked up country can do for you AND ask what you can do for your fucked up country.
