It did but then Meredith Levien took control of the business and added a hard authoritarian edge to the paper which is showing in all the right wing religious nonsense it has been spewing of late.
It's fitting that the liberal paper of record supported every single war the US has been in, opposed MLK when he was marching, promoted the whole "crack babies pre-disposed to crime" horseshit in the 90s, but evolved to take the correct side that was bad, MLK was good (but civil rights is over, these new guys need to shut up), etc 5 years after it mattered.
I mean, they hired a Hitler sympathizer in the 1930s who praised Goebbels, so one could argue they have always been shitty. I'd say it's time to start telling people they (NYT) are shit and hope they lose money.
Preface: I am hard-left neutralist. I believe in equality and fairness, but there are universal rights like housing, food, water, education, etc. Closest ideological icon I respect would be Howard Zinn. So...
NYT stands for something, but not what everyone thinks it does. Like NPR, it has a masked bias that is, on its face, disingenuous. NYT hauls the DNC and corporate interest lines. (tows the line, not "toes the line").
The latter, NPR, are ultra Liberal but espoused neutrality. Bullshit. NYT spouts liberal agenda but sows chaos in their supposed ranks.
Neither NPR or NYT are "ultra liberal," tf you talking about? They pretend to be liberal at times, but they're about as centrist--and more often than not, center-right--as you can get in the US without disenfranchising too many customers. NPR was a lot more objective back when they didn't rely so heavily on corporate sponsors/donors, but those days are long gone. That being said, NPR's actual news reporting is at least among the lesser tainted when it comes to bias compared to corporate news/media outlets. It's far from perfect, though.
Liberal with a capital L is not the same as left. I'm far to the left of both of them. Liberals, like Pelosi, Biden, Jeffries, Newsom, and their ilk, are Center-Right. Taken in the context of the world, they're more Right.
NYT backs their agendas. NPR has been their mouthpiece for a long time. Neither are balanced the way we'd like for them to be.
But, trying to explain this on the internet is like screaming into a void, so whatever.
I don't know if the tweet is wrong or did NYT change the title but it's now called "Why I won't vote". I don't know what it contains because I'm not clicking on it to give that dickhead clicks.
If no one votes because they don't think they can win, they're right. Vote anyway, you never know, you might unseat a local candidate and begin making incremental progress. And to be honest, the local level is always going to be more impactful on your day to day life anyway.
But if you don't cast the vote, you're going to be in the minority forever, along with everyone else who agrees with you and does the same.
Voting is misdirection of the masses. It's the wrong answer to the wrong question.
While you are directing your anger at the citizen voters on the other team, or the people not voting, the lobbyists are the people with the real greenbacked votes that actually count.
So what's your solution? Do nothing and let the fascists take over? Start a revolution that will (at best) get put down quickly and nothing changes?
The only way to really show force is to do a general strike, but no one has the community support networks to outlast the capital class to get shit done. So for now, we either vote to keep shit from spiralling or we give in and accept the boot.
Win, lose, it doesn't matter.
Spoken from a place of privilege, where the consequences of your choice don't affect those around you. It matters to me who wins and loses, because one person winning means the rest of us lose and may not have a chance again. I have people I love who may not have rights in a year or two depending on how things play out.
So what's your solution? Do nothing and let the fascists take over?
Don't fall for the misdirection. Sure, vote. But don't belive it changes anything.
Start a revolution that will (at best) get put down quickly and nothing changes?
Take the occupy wall street approach, not the BLM approach.
The only way to really show force is to do a general strike, but no one has the community support networks to outlast the capital class to get shit done.
Yes yes yes. A one day strike. A one hour strike. A Japanese bus driver refuse fares strike (if applicable).
So for now, we either vote to keep shit from spiralling
My disillusion sees this as both easy to do and damaging because that's all people do once every 4 years. Dur. I did my part, I voted.
Spoken from a place of privilege, where the consequences of your choice don't affect those around you.
You don't need privilege to observe when your vote doesn't matter.
It matters to me who wins and loses, because one person winning means the rest of us lose and may not have a chance again.
It doesn't matter who wins or loses because the corporatocracy wins if the wheel lands on red or blue.
I have people I love who may not have rights in a year or two depending on how things play out.
Misdirection again, although this time with serious side effects. The bigger the difference between the parties in social policies, the smaller the difference in economic policies. Corporatocracy wins either way.
Yeah this is bullshit and I question the sincerity of anyone saying this. We know empirically that areas that tend to vote left-wing have a harder experience in voting compared to areas that don't. If voting didn't matter there wouldn't be a targeted effort since 1865 to make it more difficult for some groups over other groups.
People have quite literally risked getting into sent to federal, rape in the shower, prison for decades to prevent black people from voting. You don't do that if you think voting doesn't matter.
The more of them that give up, the more the Republicans take over the smaller, less significant roles and then you end up with Republicans doing the districting, deciding the cases in the lower courts, twisting the law to suit their agenda. There are definitely blue states that went red this way. The population stayed blue, but didn't vote enough in the little things and the reds took over the decision making and now you have a red state.
Local elections aren't sexy or entertaining like presidential elections. Voters don't become engaged. Yet, local elections will have the biggest impact on voters.
Looking at how fucked the right has been in many elections they were expected to come out on top in, I wouldn't be very surprised if the Republicans lose in some areas both sides are assuming they'll win in and typically do this time around. Need every vote though.
What I'm saying is that the set of swing states might be different this year than it has typically been in the past. There's some very good reasons for people who usually vote Republican to vote otherwise this election. There's a vocal subset of the party and the mass media seems to be trying to push a narrative that Trump has a good chance, but they might not have support from the usual voters who are mostly staying quiet because they know as well as everyone else that there's no benefit from trying to reason with them.
There's a chance that they might discover during this election just why the quiet parts were previously kept quiet. And saying them on platforms that won't try to shut them up with lots of simps eating it up doesn't mean society has accepted that worldview.
Yes. For one when the loser loses the less they win WV or WY the harder it is to claim it was stolen. Let's say Biden got 30% in WV (about normal lol) that's still 3 in ten people. That sends a message and it helps legitimize votes in super blue areas.
Democrats voting in west Virginia got us to a slim democratic majority in the Senate in 2020 which allowed passage of the infrastructure act and the inflation reduction act.
Literal years, their game plan with getting the DNC leaked was getting progressive dems to not vote, or vote 3rd party (which is the same as not voting in the US) And the end result was... Trump.
Clearly, the only way to beat the system is to not play the game, or to purposely lose the game to show the other players how bad the system is. It will work one of these centuries!!
I don’t accuse everyone. Just the ones that are obvious. You can tell who they are by the fact that they can’t help themselves from accusing others of making blanket statements when they’re clearly not- in order to appear as if they have a valid argument.
I support right-wingers not voting. Like they kept threatening when they were insisting (not that they aren't still insisisting) that the 2020 election was stolen.
Where it matters is which sock is putting judges on the Supreme Court. Trump added three in his last stint. Seeing as they tend to sit for 30+ years, this has generational impact.
When was she supposed to retire? Republicans didn't even hold a vote for Merrick Garland under Obama's presidency, so if your answer was during that term, then there'd be no chance she would have been replaced, and she'd be blamed for retiring too early.
Blaming Ginsburg for Republican fuckery is misguided and can only be justified with the benefit of hindsight, which she didn't have at the time.
She was supposed to have the foresight to assume that the six months or so when they had a majority (when they passed ACA) was the last time Democrats would have the slightest hope of appointing a new supreme court justice.
The house does not vote on judges. Only the Senate. Obama had a friendly Senate until Jan 2015. They could even have done it during the lame duck session. But in reality the Senate was widely forecasted to change control so she could have retired in the spring without controversy.
But they didn't have the supermajority necessary to overcome a filibuster anymore. Even the cloture rule enacted in 2013 excluded supreme court nominations.
The ones that get caught may fit your internal bias, but that doesn't mean that all people who look like that are pedophiles or that all pedophiles look a certain way. You're letting attractive people who molest children get away with it more easily by thinking that.
You surely have some peer-approved scientific sources to for your claims? Also, "can we not" automatically makes me think of you as some brain dead meme kid with no identity other than being "good at" social media.
Your "surely have some peer-approved scientific sources" automatically makes me think of you as some brain dead meme kid with no identity other than being "good at" social media.
Right? Like it's not a matter of scientific inquiry, it's equivalent to saying "all thieves are black people". You don't need a peer reviewed study to refute that lmao
It is gaining traction with leftists that don't understand how FPTP voting works. Just educate them. Every single right-wing anchor they try to attach to our society can be destroyed with education and information.
This is the classic pincer manoeuvre of the right and mainstream media: the left wing candidate is always both too left and not left enough at the same time.
And they reinforce it with shitty opinion pieces of “all sides”. Anything to minimise left wing gains and keep the ratchet going.
Well fuck that guy. I love how he tries to compare voting to sexual abstinence too. He's so high on his own supply he can't stop from telling on himself.
Their only chance to win is if the Democrats don't vote. If everyone voted, there wouldn't be enough republikkklowns in office to make a difference. They know this. VOTE like your freedom depends on it. (because it does)
I've noticed a substantial decrease in the "Hurr durr Genocide Joe, I'm taking the moral high ground by not voting!" comments since the debate, with a stark uptick in "Biden is unfit, so I'm not voting". It's almost like... some sort of group or organization were intentionally manipulating the public commentary based on carefully selected and salient talking points to convince American voters to not turn out for Biden on election day... Perhaps an entity with something to gain from having Trump be re-elected? A certain plutocratic state currently mired in a years-long losing war against a much smaller and weaker foe, maybe?
Like seriously, I've barely heard a peep about Gaza in the past two weeks. It's bizarre. I'm sure there are still people who care about that issue, but the vast majority of the most vocal anti-Israel users on Lemmy went silent right after Biden bombed that debate.
yeeeeuuup. the guy who replied with actual facts during the debate is called unfit while the idiot who spewed lies or just rambled is somehow better. just like the guy who is trying to reign in bibi is genocide but trump somehow would save Gaza.
Remember an op-ed is a blood pact. Everything the NYT puts out again should be viewed through this lens. They endorsed not voting, and nothing will ever make that not true..
Edit: oh look it was trivial to find a form on their website to let them know what I think.
Looking forward to this one guy being held up as representative of the entire 1/3 of Americans who don't vote, as well as third party voters of all stripes.
Mostly because the people that don’t feel represented are overwhelmingly on the left.
You won’t find many right-wing people dissatisfied with the current choices, if they’re extremists they’d vote Trump and if they aren’t they’re probably fine with Biden. The only reason I can think of for a potential Republican voter not going is that they think Trump will win anyway and they don’t need their vote.
Because Democrats in the US are right-wing too. And they know as long as Republicans keep pushing literal comic book villains, leftists are forced to vote for them. They don’t have to try harder, because they know any leftist that actually knows how the system works will vote for them even if they just do the bare minimum.
The only way for that to change is to keep voting for the lesser evil, because once Republicans lose enough terms in a row they’ll have to shift more towards the center, and at that point Dems will be forced to actually go left because “we’re not threatening democracy” won’t be enough anymore to get elected.
Are you actually just asking? Or are you trying to be a petty little bitch? This guy, if true, is a clown. He voted incorrectly, but I can’t repair the brain damage, but I won’t stop them from voting because everyone should have a vote in the election system. That’s how it works.
Now, say that guy and others are voting to create a new system that takes the system of free and fair elections away from others. Then is it fair to let them implement that system when we know it’s counter to what the actual goal of democracy is? It’s the argument of allowing hate speech to exist in a world of free speech.
Oh, and if people don’t vote.. maybe they shouldn’t be writing a fucking op-Ed about it while talking about politics.
Why are you so upset? Are you afraid his opinion piece is going to influence other people and turn Biden's -7% in the polls into a -10%? Not voting is actually considered a political decision, especially if you feel disenfranchised in a system where neither candidate appeals to you. Democrats complained about people voting third party in 2016. They blamed the Bernie voters that instead voted for Jill Stein for Trump winning, rather than admitting they picked a bad candidate. So again, tell me what it is about not voting that bothers you so much when it is people's choice which you should respect if that is what they decide.
Here’s the deal, for me; I’m wealthy, white, and have a typical nuclear family. I will be fine. Whatever happens will probably benefit me for the better. However, clearly you’re somewhat paying attention to politics while advocating not doing anything. The cowards way, or the weak man’s philosophy. No one was wrong when they said that not voting for Clinton would be the biggest mistake. My wife now can’t get an abortion if she needs one, my gas guzzling truck will soon be given free reign to pollute as much as it wants because the chevron doctrine has been struck down, and we’re staring down the barrel of a potential president (again) with ambitions of being a dictator and life long ruler who has shown that he will do anything to keep his family in charge. Was there some wrong shit done in the 2016 election? Sure, however Bernie still didn’t have the momentum that Clinton had. Full stop. And I voted for him. I didn’t go off to Grandma Russkie and her pockets full of Kremlin cash. People like you will absolutely watch the US burn down because you’re too stupid to take a stand and you’re incapable of realizing when something is bigger than you. Fucking vote. It’s that simple. Show up, fill out a form, do something. Don’t let them take that from others and you. Rather than your weak attempt at trying to prove you’re some intellect when you’re just a pompous loser on the fucking internet trying to talk others into complacency with fascism.
Forgive me if I sound mean, it’s 114 outside right now. You’re still a full on idiot if you don’t vote and then talk any politics, bitch, or do anything.
It isn't a role. It is a choice in America. There are no laws requiring you to vote. Not voting can also be seen as a protest of what some consider to be a uniparty. We can prob agree it isn't really the best choice right now, but one that I respect to not overreact to those that advocate for it.
If anyone bemoans the degradation of so many aspects of American social contract ( or highlight it was never available) , they have to do their part as a citizen.
Edit it's one of the core principles of democracy. It's not "I'll vote if I feel like it".
If you must protest, do so by voting for a spoiler, or your favorite philosopher or writer.
Tantrum voting for a spoiler (objectively the exact same as voting for "the other guy" btw...FPTP Voting suuuuucks) is fine, usually. This time around it is a hard one to suggest, or even tolerate, because the stakes are the worst. That is why it is even a debate...spoiling to feel superior and us ending up with Bush jr. lead to a lot of horrible stuff (I lost friends and brothers to one of them in particular), but it didn't bring down our country and never really threatened to.
Honestly, people should definitely vote, even if it is for their own downfall. That is how America works. If the majority of the population GENUINELY want us to become a christofascist theocracy, then it should become one (very much to my and many others' chagrin...).
Yeah but one is trying to control women’s bodies and erase LGBT people and the other isn’t, so maybe think of your neighbors when you pull the lever in defense of those who don’t have the privilege of being able to lay low when shit goes south.
Or if you’re among the above vote in your own interests lol
I saw how the Democrats responded to the Roe leak. They fundraised.
That is it.
$80,000,000 was the cost of your bodily autonomy, so at this point, I'm not really able to pretend that Biden's going to stand, drooling over the Resolute Desk, and do anything meaningful to stop the spread of fascism.
Idaho got away with criminalizing abortion, so now, 2/3 of the states will follow within the next year. You can bank on it.
So you're voting for the end of America and in full support of destroying democracy, all just because you're an ignorantly proud and stubborn dumb fuck.
There's something pure about a Green candidate. The fact that they stand no chance of winning is kinda Zen, they'll never stop being a candidate.
It's absolutely ghoulish to throw your vote away on Green when so many stand to suffer when the left splits their votes, but it is pretty Zen if you care more about abstract principles than human suffering.
You're exactly 100% wrong. The reason we're in this mess is because we let perfect be the enemy of better, and prioritized unactionable abstract principles over tangible policy.
Every third party vote is an admission that the voter prefers pristine, incorruptible (because it will never suffer the test of implementation) fantasy over ugly but effective pragmatism.
The way I see our choices is, one old man, the blue donkey, has the goal of continuing to support the status quo, for better and worse. He also has that baffling willful ignorance about the increasingly rabid violent behavior of the other guy's colleagues and voters, and how he definitely needs to fucking do something. But at least he hires people who are less old and more mentally secure than himself, since a president's cabinet and advisors are vital to the administration's function, and tend to fill in where they fall short.
But the other old man, the red elephant, he has the very well-published goal of severely lowering the quality of life for all us citizens besides wealthy white men, in some cases removing the right for some demographics to live at all (trans people, for one). The plan also includes smash-and-grabbing the federal government and raiding its wealth; this is all that Project 2025 thing that people need to talk more frequently about. He also hires unqualified criminals for his cabinets, and is a convicted criminal himself; just not in the eyes of his dogmatic culty voters, or in the majority opinion of the unelected for-life supreme court that he had previously rigged in his favor. And he is known to be in the pocket of a sadistic oligarchic foreign government for whom the cold war never actually ended.
Sure, long term this country won't last, but in the short term, this is the last shot at renewing our fragile democracy subscription while we still can. If we lose it completely with this looming fascism takeover, it will require the spilled blood of tens of millions of lives and more, to ever get it back, and at the minimum it will come with the severe decline of quality of life for all US citizens, besides wealthy white men, and the destruction of decades of history and culture that we currently take for granted. Think a US version of China's great firewall, book burnings, server wipings, cops raiding your home and smashing up all your hard drives.
And that's only if this country could even be taken back, considering, you know, the USA has the most guns and nukes of anyone, and I don't see an average Joe who happened to already own an assault rifle being successful in employing the second amendment on a missile drone swarm. Probably the best case scenario would be Balkanization, and being lucky enough to end up in a good region of the former-US, and just getting bombed over the border back and forth occasionally, and hoping everybody continues playing nice with the nukes. Because the only alternative in an unshattered fascist US at that point would be waiting for a natural decline. But as we've seen with the likes of North Korea, that process could end up taking so long that none of us here will live to see it, just the kids of our kids and on.
I'm never voting for the crazy felon cult guy who officially wants me dead, among so many other things. I don't think that any combination of our laws or legal system should have ever allowed him to return to the polls for this election, or done anything besides end up in a cell or be executed as a high threat terrorist traitor. But it's just how it ended up. But please don't act like it doesn't matter, and nobody should be keeping up with that bullshit propaganda bot lie that the outcomes will be the same either way. Sorry for the long incoherent rant, I barely even remember what your comment was, nor do I particularly want to scroll up to read it again, but nothing makes me more irritable and verbose than people giving into hopeless apathy.
It matters which Supreme Court nominees get appointed, it matters who’s potentially breaking ties in the senate, and it matters who gets appointed to direct departmental policy.
And either the effecting people behind the one or an all new set of criminals behind the other (because all the last ones went to jail)...thinking you are voting for a single person is such an ignorant take...
The could with ranked choice voting. But until that's a thing, you gotta use your brain and assess whether or not your first choice has a shot and maybe go with another choice instead.
Ok so here's an analogy for you. There's a grocery store and two checkout lines are open. One of the cashiers is a complete dick, says racist shit you don't like, and will probably going to scan your items multiple times just to fuck you over. The other cashier is old guy that's competent but slower then you'd like. Which line do you get in?
Ah, but you want to be a genius, so you go stand by a cashier that isn't open and complain about how the kind of employee to want to scan your items doesn't work at the grocery store so you're taking a stand! So you stand in that line that will never get your items scanned, and eventually the store closes and you end up with nothing. Everyone in either line thinks you're an idiot. "But someday they store will understand and hire a better cashier!" you think as you go home with no groceries. So you think everyone else is an idiot but they all when home with groceries while you went home with nothing.
Your dumb plan works in a situation where there isn't one guy that is going to remove voting entirely(or at least functionally).
Your garbage idea is "let's turn the US into Russia...look at how they broke the system and took down their dictator.....oh wait...."
How does voting for a dictatorship run by trump bring this change about? (If you don't vote for one of the two, you voted for the winner, hate the system not the messenger)
Unfortunately it lost legitimacy already, and all that happened is fascists consolidated power. It will never be reformed into functioning by the people capable of wielding power within it.
As long as people participate in the two party cicrle jerk, they will continue to rule as they see fit. Just because you and I mock them online, doesn't reduce their legitimacy.
If we have a situation where D 25 R 25 third parties combined 50. That's the type of loss of legitimacy I am talking about.
The only people stupid enough to follow your bad plan are on the left, the right is a cult. It will be D10 R49 and the stupid people vote combined across several candidates never breaking double digits 41. Great plan...
Then the next election will be D75 R25...but the king will invalidate the clearly rigged elections, because look at the last one, must be a Dem Hacking ring changing the votes! R still wins. Supreme Court shoots down appeals.
The way to fight this is by voting and participating locally. Third parties are getting elected and alternative voting methods already exist in a few locations around the U.S. you can help by voting in more systems like that and maintain the candidates and systems you like locally. If we could get more people like you to participate locally we could actually get something done.
You're problem is you want to live at the end of history and unfortunately for you we're forever in the middle of it. Local action is the most effective and relatively slow. Instead you want to enable the larger of the two fascists that will inevitably be elected and then throw up your hands when it doesn't work, blame everyone else, and never take any effective action locally.
This is it. Big change takes time and the wheels move slowly. This isn't some simple issue that doesn't cost anyone power like abortion rights or gay marriage, it is a game changer and has to slowly come into being without scaring the old people running the show.
239 Comments
ceenote@lemmy.world · 107 pts · 2y
I know how editorial sections work, but you'd think they'd at least check for bald-faced lies. Not out of a sense of decency, but self-interest.
mozz@mbin.grits.dev · 57 pts · 2y
I see you're not familiar with our media
can@sh.itjust.works · 43 pts · 2y
Didn't the NYT mean something at one point?
ChicoSuave@lemmy.world · 49 pts · 2y
It did but then Meredith Levien took control of the business and added a hard authoritarian edge to the paper which is showing in all the right wing religious nonsense it has been spewing of late.
alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml · 31 pts · 2y
It's fitting that the liberal paper of record supported every single war the US has been in, opposed MLK when he was marching, promoted the whole "crack babies pre-disposed to crime" horseshit in the 90s, but evolved to take the correct side that was bad, MLK was good (but civil rights is over, these new guys need to shut up), etc 5 years after it mattered.
asteriskeverything@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 2y
Yeah
What's crazy is that everyone else didn't
TOModera@lemmy.world · 23 pts · 2y
I mean, they hired a Hitler sympathizer in the 1930s who praised Goebbels, so one could argue they have always been shitty. I'd say it's time to start telling people they (NYT) are shit and hope they lose money.
Freefall@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 2y
Pretty sure someone did a deep digging of info and every news outlet of consequence is at least headed by a gop donor.
Not equating correlation with causation here....let's just say "I'm just asking questions!"
Orbituary@lemmy.world · -13 pts · 2y
Preface: I am hard-left neutralist. I believe in equality and fairness, but there are universal rights like housing, food, water, education, etc. Closest ideological icon I respect would be Howard Zinn. So...
NYT stands for something, but not what everyone thinks it does. Like NPR, it has a masked bias that is, on its face, disingenuous. NYT hauls the DNC and corporate interest lines. (tows the line, not "toes the line").
The latter, NPR, are ultra Liberal but espoused neutrality. Bullshit. NYT spouts liberal agenda but sows chaos in their supposed ranks.
bassomitron@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 2y
Neither NPR or NYT are "ultra liberal," tf you talking about? They pretend to be liberal at times, but they're about as centrist--and more often than not, center-right--as you can get in the US without disenfranchising too many customers. NPR was a lot more objective back when they didn't rely so heavily on corporate sponsors/donors, but those days are long gone. That being said, NPR's actual news reporting is at least among the lesser tainted when it comes to bias compared to corporate news/media outlets. It's far from perfect, though.
Orbituary@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2y
Liberal with a capital L is not the same as left. I'm far to the left of both of them. Liberals, like Pelosi, Biden, Jeffries, Newsom, and their ilk, are Center-Right. Taken in the context of the world, they're more Right.
NYT backs their agendas. NPR has been their mouthpiece for a long time. Neither are balanced the way we'd like for them to be.
But, trying to explain this on the internet is like screaming into a void, so whatever.
John_McMurray@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 2y
"Sows"
roguetrick@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 2y
What's with you and pigs, McMurray.
John_McMurray@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 2y
Sows, not sows, give yer balls a tug, fucking pailfed
Orbituary@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2y
Thanks. That was indeed an accident on my part. Good catch.
Cryophilia@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 2y
It is "toe the line", as in lining up, putting your toes on a literal line.
Orbituary@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2y
Which is why I clarified in parentheses the intent of my statement and the modification of the phrase. It was intentional. Thanks.
Steve@startrek.website · 5 pts · 2y
Gotta get them clicks baybee!!!!!!!
allNamesAreTaken@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 2y
I don't know if the tweet is wrong or did NYT change the title but it's now called "Why I won't vote". I don't know what it contains because I'm not clicking on it to give that dickhead clicks.
Objection@lemmy.ml · -1 pts · 2y
fsxylo@sh.itjust.works · 60 pts · 2y
Reminder that voting does work, because you can set your watch to the fascists voting, and they're getting exactly what they want.
Stern@lemmy.world · 42 pts · 2y
If voting didn't work they wouldn't need to tell us not to.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world · -38 pts · 2y
Voting had never worked for me. I've always lived in places with large majorities.
davidagain@lemmy.world · 39 pts · 2y
This kind of thinking gets conservative justices power.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world · -24 pts · 2y
Let's take an extreme example.
Does a Democrat vote in Wyoming or West Virginia really make a difference?
Passerby6497@lemmy.world · 24 pts · 2y
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy
If no one votes because they don't think they can win, they're right. Vote anyway, you never know, you might unseat a local candidate and begin making incremental progress. And to be honest, the local level is always going to be more impactful on your day to day life anyway.
But if you don't cast the vote, you're going to be in the minority forever, along with everyone else who agrees with you and does the same.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world · -18 pts · 2y
Counter opinion.
Win, lose, it doesn't matter.
Voting is a pressure release valve that allows the status quo to exist.
It tricks the population into thinking it has an ounce of control over a country that serves it corporations
Voting is misdirection of the masses. It's the wrong answer to the wrong question.
While you are directing your anger at the citizen voters on the other team, or the people not voting, the lobbyists are the people with the real greenbacked votes that actually count.
Passerby6497@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 2y
So what's your solution? Do nothing and let the fascists take over? Start a revolution that will (at best) get put down quickly and nothing changes?
The only way to really show force is to do a general strike, but no one has the community support networks to outlast the capital class to get shit done. So for now, we either vote to keep shit from spiralling or we give in and accept the boot.
Spoken from a place of privilege, where the consequences of your choice don't affect those around you. It matters to me who wins and loses, because one person winning means the rest of us lose and may not have a chance again. I have people I love who may not have rights in a year or two depending on how things play out.
But hey, I guess that part doesn't matter to you.
MehBlah@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 2y
Don't feed the troll. knock knock is no different than the subject of this thread.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world · -10 pts · 2y
Don't fall for the misdirection. Sure, vote. But don't belive it changes anything.
Take the occupy wall street approach, not the BLM approach.
Yes yes yes. A one day strike. A one hour strike. A Japanese bus driver refuse fares strike (if applicable).
My disillusion sees this as both easy to do and damaging because that's all people do once every 4 years. Dur. I did my part, I voted.
You don't need privilege to observe when your vote doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter who wins or loses because the corporatocracy wins if the wheel lands on red or blue.
Misdirection again, although this time with serious side effects. The bigger the difference between the parties in social policies, the smaller the difference in economic policies. Corporatocracy wins either way.
fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de · 4 pts · 2y
Democracy is not perfect but it's the system you have and voting is how you participate.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 2y
Corporatocracy is the system we have and money is how you participate. The only laws that are passed are ones that benefit corporations.
afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2y
Yeah this is bullshit and I question the sincerity of anyone saying this. We know empirically that areas that tend to vote left-wing have a harder experience in voting compared to areas that don't. If voting didn't matter there wouldn't be a targeted effort since 1865 to make it more difficult for some groups over other groups.
People have quite literally risked getting into sent to federal, rape in the shower, prison for decades to prevent black people from voting. You don't do that if you think voting doesn't matter.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 2y
I'm not denying many people care about voting. I'm saying due to corporatocracy it is irrelevant.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Your vote is important.
Honytawk@lemmy.zip · 21 pts · 2y
Maybe the Republicans keep winning in Wyoming because too many Democrats think like you.
You never know until you vote. So go vote.
davidagain@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 2y
The more of them that give up, the more the Republicans take over the smaller, less significant roles and then you end up with Republicans doing the districting, deciding the cases in the lower courts, twisting the law to suit their agenda. There are definitely blue states that went red this way. The population stayed blue, but didn't vote enough in the little things and the reds took over the decision making and now you have a red state.
ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one · 5 pts · 2y
Local elections aren't sexy or entertaining like presidential elections. Voters don't become engaged. Yet, local elections will have the biggest impact on voters.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 2y
Very strong argument. I don't disagree. I would also add corporate sponsored lobbying into the picture you painted.
Buddahriffic@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 2y
Looking at how fucked the right has been in many elections they were expected to come out on top in, I wouldn't be very surprised if the Republicans lose in some areas both sides are assuming they'll win in and typically do this time around. Need every vote though.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world · -8 pts · 2y
In swing states you certainly have a point.
In a state that is deeply one colour or the other, you don't need every vote.
Buddahriffic@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 2y
What I'm saying is that the set of swing states might be different this year than it has typically been in the past. There's some very good reasons for people who usually vote Republican to vote otherwise this election. There's a vocal subset of the party and the mass media seems to be trying to push a narrative that Trump has a good chance, but they might not have support from the usual voters who are mostly staying quiet because they know as well as everyone else that there's no benefit from trying to reason with them.
There's a chance that they might discover during this election just why the quiet parts were previously kept quiet. And saying them on platforms that won't try to shut them up with lots of simps eating it up doesn't mean society has accepted that worldview.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2y
Personally, delusion in democracy doesn't stop me voting, but it does depressing me when the result is announced and hindsight confirms it's value.
Cryophilia@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2y
The presidential election is not the only election.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 2y
It's the one where everyone tells you to vote.
markon@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 2y
Yes. For one when the loser loses the less they win WV or WY the harder it is to claim it was stolen. Let's say Biden got 30% in WV (about normal lol) that's still 3 in ten people. That sends a message and it helps legitimize votes in super blue areas.
Cryophilia@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 2y
Democrats voting in west Virginia got us to a slim democratic majority in the Senate in 2020 which allowed passage of the infrastructure act and the inflation reduction act.
afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2y
Yes. The difference is slight but it is measurable.
JimSamtanko@lemm.ee · 55 pts · 2y
I’ve been saying this for months. And it’s incredibly obvious with most of them.
Rakonat@lemmy.world · 42 pts · 2y
Literal years, their game plan with getting the DNC leaked was getting progressive dems to not vote, or vote 3rd party (which is the same as not voting in the US) And the end result was... Trump.
Freefall@lemmy.world · 28 pts · 2y
Mathematically, anyone who didn't vote against trump, vote for him, when he won. That is just how our system plays out.
We all agree it is a bad system.
Passerby6497@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 2y
Clearly, the only way to beat the system is to not play the game, or to purposely lose the game to show the other players how bad the system is. It will work one of these centuries!!
Cryophilia@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2y
Had me in the first half
Maggoty@lemmy.world · -8 pts · 2y
If you just accuse everyone of course you're going to eventually be right.
JimSamtanko@lemm.ee · 6 pts · 2y
I don’t accuse everyone. Just the ones that are obvious. You can tell who they are by the fact that they can’t help themselves from accusing others of making blanket statements when they’re clearly not- in order to appear as if they have a valid argument.
Maggoty@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 2y
Sure...
Iheartcheese@lemmy.world · 53 pts · 2y
Why does he look like a cartoon British man
talentedkiwi@sh.itjust.works · 54 pts · 2y
I was thinking a few strokes of a razor away from looking like a certain fascist.
Oisteink@lemmy.world · 33 pts · 2y
And I think he knows, and that's it’s on purpose
talentedkiwi@sh.itjust.works · 17 pts · 2y
Oh, I 100% agree with you on that.
eran_morad@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 2y
flicker@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 2y
Why does his mustache look like armpit hair?
SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca · 12 pts · 2y
I just got creepy pedo vibes.
Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee · 3 pts · 2y
He dresses like a high school English teacher to me.
LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world · 42 pts · 2y
Dude’s got the haircut down. All he needs is to trim down that mustache from either sides to complete the “fine people on both sides” look
xantoxis@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 2y
God damn, I actually was trying to put my finger on why he looked familiar and you just nailed it
lemmy_get_my_coat@lemmy.world · 40 pts · 2y
Hitler-haircut-having motherfucker
mojofrododojo@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 2y
yup. he's one quick shave away from methfurer, bet his password is something hitler related.
Lwaxana@startrek.website · 34 pts · 2y
his haircut is really reminding me of someone 🤔
samus12345@lemmy.world · 25 pts · 2y
I do Nazi what you mean.
Lwaxana@startrek.website · 2 pts · 2y
🔍👀
Madison420@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 2y
It's surprisingly common in some circles and yes I mean Nazis and cops.
TootSweet@lemmy.world · 33 pts · 2y
I support right-wingers not voting. Like they kept threatening when they were insisting (not that they aren't still insisisting) that the 2020 election was stolen.
Maggoty@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 2y
Oh no he definitionally votes. He just doesn't want you to vote.
WoolyNelson@lemmy.world · 31 pts · 2y
Where it matters is which sock is putting judges on the Supreme Court. Trump added three in his last stint. Seeing as they tend to sit for 30+ years, this has generational impact.
Anticorp@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 2y
One of those could have been avoided if Ginsberg would have retired when she was supposed to.
bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 7 pts · 2y
When was she supposed to retire? Republicans didn't even hold a vote for Merrick Garland under Obama's presidency, so if your answer was during that term, then there'd be no chance she would have been replaced, and she'd be blamed for retiring too early.
Blaming Ginsburg for Republican fuckery is misguided and can only be justified with the benefit of hindsight, which she didn't have at the time.
WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 2y
Any time prior to 2015. The Democrats didn't lose their Senate majority until the 2014 elections.
Zorque@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 2y
She was supposed to have the foresight to assume that the six months or so when they had a majority (when they passed ACA) was the last time Democrats would have the slightest hope of appointing a new supreme court justice.
What a fool she was! Not knowing the future!
Maggoty@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2y
The house does not vote on judges. Only the Senate. Obama had a friendly Senate until Jan 2015. They could even have done it during the lame duck session. But in reality the Senate was widely forecasted to change control so she could have retired in the spring without controversy.
Zorque@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2y
But they didn't have the supermajority necessary to overcome a filibuster anymore. Even the cloture rule enacted in 2013 excluded supreme court nominations.
Maggoty@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2y
And that would have been gone in a hot second if they blocked RBG's replacement. They removed exactly what they needed to confirm judges.
John_McMurray@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2y
During the fucking clinton administration, bitch was old as hell.
Maggoty@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2y
2009-2015 was a pretty big window dude.
John_McMurray@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2y
You know, with the way everything just seems to go Trumps way in the end, a person might almost theorize there's a conspiracy.
Zorque@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 2y
Trump didn't do it all on his lonesome. He did it with senatorial approval.
The president is not a king... yet. Treating it like the only position that matters is a big part of the problem.
davidagain@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 2y
Maybe not a king, but SCOTUS ruled that the president is above the law.
Zorque@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2y
Which is all the more reason to pay attention to congressional races.
DontMakeMoreBabies@lemm.ee · 24 pts · 2y
He looks like a pedophile.
Daxtron2@startrek.website · 8 pts · 2y
He may be but can we not equate pedophilia with a certain look? It let's a lot of bad people get away with it and throws innocent people in harms way.
afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2y
They do have a certain look. Just go on one of those Megan's law registers online and look at the pictures for a while. That weird smile
Daxtron2@startrek.website · 2 pts · 2y
The ones that get caught may fit your internal bias, but that doesn't mean that all people who look like that are pedophiles or that all pedophiles look a certain way. You're letting attractive people who molest children get away with it more easily by thinking that.
afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2y
I am not letting anyone get away with anything. I am not a LEO
Daxtron2@startrek.website · 0 pts · 2y
Establishing a culture of "pedophiles are always ugly" is letting attractive pedophiles get away with it.
suction@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 2y
You surely have some peer-approved scientific sources to for your claims? Also, "can we not" automatically makes me think of you as some brain dead meme kid with no identity other than being "good at" social media.
Daxtron2@startrek.website · 2 pts · 2y
What? You don't need a peer reviewed study to know that pedophilia has absolutely nothing to do with a person's physical appearance.
suction@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2y
Then you also don’t need that for the opposite. See how that works?
Daxtron2@startrek.website · 1 pts · 2y
you're literally the one that brought up peer reviewed studies you soggy napkin
suction@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2y
You started with the unfounded claims, so glasshouses and stones.
Daxtron2@startrek.website · 1 pts · 2y
No I didn't, the original comment did claiming that pedophiles have a certain look
CascadianGiraffe@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2y
Your "surely have some peer-approved scientific sources" automatically makes me think of you as some brain dead meme kid with no identity other than being "good at" social media.
Daxtron2@startrek.website · 2 pts · 2y
Right? Like it's not a matter of scientific inquiry, it's equivalent to saying "all thieves are black people". You don't need a peer reviewed study to refute that lmao
pubquiz@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2y
iAvicenna@lemmy.world · 22 pts · 2y
They almost always do. Don't vote campaigns works on only non-fanatics and they are usually the more sensible compared to fanatics so yea
Freefall@lemmy.world · 20 pts · 2y
It is gaining traction with leftists that don't understand how FPTP voting works. Just educate them. Every single right-wing anchor they try to attach to our society can be destroyed with education and information.
whereisk@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 2y
This is the classic pincer manoeuvre of the right and mainstream media: the left wing candidate is always both too left and not left enough at the same time.
And they reinforce it with shitty opinion pieces of “all sides”. Anything to minimise left wing gains and keep the ratchet going.
aesthelete@lemmy.world · 20 pts · 2y
Karma police, arrest this man; his Hitler haircut is making me feel ill.
Maggoty@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 2y
Well fuck that guy. I love how he tries to compare voting to sexual abstinence too. He's so high on his own supply he can't stop from telling on himself.
InternetUser2012@lemmy.today · 14 pts · 2y
Their only chance to win is if the Democrats don't vote. If everyone voted, there wouldn't be enough republikkklowns in office to make a difference. They know this. VOTE like your freedom depends on it. (because it does)
DigDoug@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 2y
I hate that I know the US is having an election because all leftist spaces fill up with "I'm so principled that I'm not voting for the Democrats".
drunkpostdisaster@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2y
I am hoping most of them are bots.
Etterra@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 2y
That guy just straight up looks fascist.
suction@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2y
and extremely soft and boring at the same time
afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2y
I think it's most likely the hair
gmtom@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 2y
He looks like a character played by a youtube comedian.
UncleGrandPa@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 2y
They are on board with YOU not voting. But they will be voting... Extra if they can arrange it
Don_Dickle@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 2y
STUPIDVIPGUY@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 2y
What a hideous mustache
Freefall@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 2y
He should shave 2/3 of it off.
[Clap For Hitler Joke]
nixfreak@sopuli.xyz · 7 pts · 2y
ANNNNND maybe Hitlers long lost grandchild ?
MehBlah@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 2y
With a hitler stache
bitwaba@lemmy.world · 22 pts · 2y
Hitler 'stache is the width of the nose.
That's a Pedo 'stache
nonfuinoncuro@lemm.ee · 2 pts · 2y
drunkpostdisaster@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 2y
He looks exactly like I imagined. Like the idea came first and then he was born, created from it even.
LiveLM@lemmy.zip · 5 pts · 2y
How come the NYT published that gunk? I thought they had a reputation to care about
Furbag@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 2y
I've noticed a substantial decrease in the "Hurr durr Genocide Joe, I'm taking the moral high ground by not voting!" comments since the debate, with a stark uptick in "Biden is unfit, so I'm not voting". It's almost like... some sort of group or organization were intentionally manipulating the public commentary based on carefully selected and salient talking points to convince American voters to not turn out for Biden on election day... Perhaps an entity with something to gain from having Trump be re-elected? A certain plutocratic state currently mired in a years-long losing war against a much smaller and weaker foe, maybe?
Like seriously, I've barely heard a peep about Gaza in the past two weeks. It's bizarre. I'm sure there are still people who care about that issue, but the vast majority of the most vocal anti-Israel users on Lemmy went silent right after Biden bombed that debate.
mojofrododojo@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2y
yeeeeuuup. the guy who replied with actual facts during the debate is called unfit while the idiot who spewed lies or just rambled is somehow better. just like the guy who is trying to reign in bibi is genocide but trump somehow would save Gaza.
It's so fucking stupid.
Adulated_Aspersion@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 2y
If you saw this guy with his right arm straight out, palm down.....you wouldn't say he doesn't look comfortable.
feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2y
not a well man
afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2y
Remember an op-ed is a blood pact. Everything the NYT puts out again should be viewed through this lens. They endorsed not voting, and nothing will ever make that not true..
Edit: oh look it was trivial to find a form on their website to let them know what I think.
Objection@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 2y
Looking forward to this one guy being held up as representative of the entire 1/3 of Americans who don't vote, as well as third party voters of all stripes.
mojofrododojo@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 2y
50/50 on him entering politics or being caught for sex offenses.
suction@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2y
I didn't get the news that Musk had bought the NYT.
reksas@sopuli.xyz · -1 pts · 2y
less other people vote, more worth your vote will have if you vote something others weren't going to vote
hark@lemmy.world · -3 pts · 2y
I wasn't going to vote but you convinced me that there is an agenda to get me to not vote so now I'm going to vote for trump.
::: spoiler spoiler Not really, but still, why is the assumption that not voting means a vote is lost for democrats? :::
Syrc@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2y
Mostly because the people that don’t feel represented are overwhelmingly on the left.
You won’t find many right-wing people dissatisfied with the current choices, if they’re extremists they’d vote Trump and if they aren’t they’re probably fine with Biden. The only reason I can think of for a potential Republican voter not going is that they think Trump will win anyway and they don’t need their vote.
hark@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 2y
So if democrats need those votes from the left, why don't they try appealing to those voters?
Syrc@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2y
Because Democrats in the US are right-wing too. And they know as long as Republicans keep pushing literal comic book villains, leftists are forced to vote for them. They don’t have to try harder, because they know any leftist that actually knows how the system works will vote for them even if they just do the bare minimum.
The only way for that to change is to keep voting for the lesser evil, because once Republicans lose enough terms in a row they’ll have to shift more towards the center, and at that point Dems will be forced to actually go left because “we’re not threatening democracy” won’t be enough anymore to get elected.
umbrella@lemmy.ml · -10 pts · 2y
timewarp@lemmy.world · -16 pts · 2y
So people should vote even if it is for Trump?
athairmor@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 2y
Yes.
If every single eligible voter in the U.S.A. would vote in the next election, Trump would lose.
FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world · -8 pts · 2y
They can't. Most can't afford to miss a day of work.
TheTetrapod@lemmy.world · 20 pts · 2y
I'm a big proponent of compulsory voting, and Voting Day being a national holiday is a natural consequence of such a system.
Freefall@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 2y
We really need to push this along side ranked choice voting (or another third-party friendly system). Also critical thinking skills in all schools.
FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world · -10 pts · 2y
It's a lovely thought, but I think you know how likely it is to ever become law here in the US.
mean_bean279@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 2y
You’re totally right. Guess we shouldn’t try to fix it.
Freefall@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 2y
Guess we should give up and write in "genocide bad" so trump can be king! /s
timewarp@lemmy.world · -21 pts · 2y
But if they don't vote, that is okay too cause it is their right not to?
Just asking... The last post that was highly upvoted about this guy was calling for people to murder him and set the campus on fire.
mean_bean279@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 2y
Are you actually just asking? Or are you trying to be a petty little bitch? This guy, if true, is a clown. He voted incorrectly, but I can’t repair the brain damage, but I won’t stop them from voting because everyone should have a vote in the election system. That’s how it works.
Now, say that guy and others are voting to create a new system that takes the system of free and fair elections away from others. Then is it fair to let them implement that system when we know it’s counter to what the actual goal of democracy is? It’s the argument of allowing hate speech to exist in a world of free speech.
Oh, and if people don’t vote.. maybe they shouldn’t be writing a fucking op-Ed about it while talking about politics.
timewarp@lemmy.world · -25 pts · 2y
Why are you so upset? Are you afraid his opinion piece is going to influence other people and turn Biden's -7% in the polls into a -10%? Not voting is actually considered a political decision, especially if you feel disenfranchised in a system where neither candidate appeals to you. Democrats complained about people voting third party in 2016. They blamed the Bernie voters that instead voted for Jill Stein for Trump winning, rather than admitting they picked a bad candidate. So again, tell me what it is about not voting that bothers you so much when it is people's choice which you should respect if that is what they decide.
mean_bean279@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 2y
There it is! Your absolute dog shit take on life.
Here’s the deal, for me; I’m wealthy, white, and have a typical nuclear family. I will be fine. Whatever happens will probably benefit me for the better. However, clearly you’re somewhat paying attention to politics while advocating not doing anything. The cowards way, or the weak man’s philosophy. No one was wrong when they said that not voting for Clinton would be the biggest mistake. My wife now can’t get an abortion if she needs one, my gas guzzling truck will soon be given free reign to pollute as much as it wants because the chevron doctrine has been struck down, and we’re staring down the barrel of a potential president (again) with ambitions of being a dictator and life long ruler who has shown that he will do anything to keep his family in charge. Was there some wrong shit done in the 2016 election? Sure, however Bernie still didn’t have the momentum that Clinton had. Full stop. And I voted for him. I didn’t go off to Grandma Russkie and her pockets full of Kremlin cash. People like you will absolutely watch the US burn down because you’re too stupid to take a stand and you’re incapable of realizing when something is bigger than you. Fucking vote. It’s that simple. Show up, fill out a form, do something. Don’t let them take that from others and you. Rather than your weak attempt at trying to prove you’re some intellect when you’re just a pompous loser on the fucking internet trying to talk others into complacency with fascism.
Forgive me if I sound mean, it’s 114 outside right now. You’re still a full on idiot if you don’t vote and then talk any politics, bitch, or do anything.
VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world · -6 pts · 2y
wrong.
GBU_28@lemm.ee · 15 pts · 2y
Yes. Are you kidding? It's a critical role of a citizen
timewarp@lemmy.world · -23 pts · 2y
It isn't a role. It is a choice in America. There are no laws requiring you to vote. Not voting can also be seen as a protest of what some consider to be a uniparty. We can prob agree it isn't really the best choice right now, but one that I respect to not overreact to those that advocate for it.
GBU_28@lemm.ee · 16 pts · 2y
It's part of the social contract.
If anyone bemoans the degradation of so many aspects of American social contract ( or highlight it was never available) , they have to do their part as a citizen.
Edit it's one of the core principles of democracy. It's not "I'll vote if I feel like it".
If you must protest, do so by voting for a spoiler, or your favorite philosopher or writer.
Freefall@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 2y
Tantrum voting for a spoiler (objectively the exact same as voting for "the other guy" btw...FPTP Voting suuuuucks) is fine, usually. This time around it is a hard one to suggest, or even tolerate, because the stakes are the worst. That is why it is even a debate...spoiling to feel superior and us ending up with Bush jr. lead to a lot of horrible stuff (I lost friends and brothers to one of them in particular), but it didn't bring down our country and never really threatened to.
Freefall@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 2y
Honestly, people should definitely vote, even if it is for their own downfall. That is how America works. If the majority of the population GENUINELY want us to become a christofascist theocracy, then it should become one (very much to my and many others' chagrin...).
FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world · -17 pts · 2y
I'm going to vote.
I can't pretend it matters much though. No matter which lever you pull we're getting a cognitively-impaired sock puppet.
bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 19 pts · 2y
Yeah but one is trying to control women’s bodies and erase LGBT people and the other isn’t, so maybe think of your neighbors when you pull the lever in defense of those who don’t have the privilege of being able to lay low when shit goes south.
Or if you’re among the above vote in your own interests lol
FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world · -22 pts · 2y
LOL
I saw how the Democrats responded to the Roe leak. They fundraised.
That is it.
$80,000,000 was the cost of your bodily autonomy, so at this point, I'm not really able to pretend that Biden's going to stand, drooling over the Resolute Desk, and do anything meaningful to stop the spread of fascism.
Idaho got away with criminalizing abortion, so now, 2/3 of the states will follow within the next year. You can bank on it.
bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 16 pts · 2y
“Yeah may as well go vote Trump then”? Is that the response you want?
FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world · -23 pts · 2y
Nope.
I'm voting Green. I like my candidates to be able to form coherent sentences.
bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 18 pts · 2y
So you’re throwing away your vote got it. Jfc the Green Party? You need to do some research man.
FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world · -19 pts · 2y
Totally.
Did you watch the debate, by chance?
bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 16 pts · 2y
Oh ffs please drop the faux polite pretentious bullshit.
ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 2y
Did you watch the Green candidate with Russian puppet strings?
Captainvaqina@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 2y
So you're voting for the end of America and in full support of destroying democracy, all just because you're an ignorantly proud and stubborn dumb fuck.
Nice.
Freefall@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 2y
Then you are voting for whoever wins.
agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 2y
There's something pure about a Green candidate. The fact that they stand no chance of winning is kinda Zen, they'll never stop being a candidate.
It's absolutely ghoulish to throw your vote away on Green when so many stand to suffer when the left splits their votes, but it is pretty Zen if you care more about abstract principles than human suffering.
John_McMurray@lemmy.world · -8 pts · 2y
The reason yall are in this mess is cause you quit caring about abstract principles a long time ago.
agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 2y
You're exactly 100% wrong. The reason we're in this mess is because we let perfect be the enemy of better, and prioritized unactionable abstract principles over tangible policy.
Every third party vote is an admission that the voter prefers pristine, incorruptible (because it will never suffer the test of implementation) fantasy over ugly but effective pragmatism.
jumjummy@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 2y
Ah, so you’re a Russian shill then. Voting 3rd party is as effective S not voting. You’re pulling for Trump.
FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world · -5 pts · 2y
Yeah, that's what the Trumpists say when I tell them I'm voting Green.
You all are the same.
bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 2y
Because you are voting for whoever wins not the green candidate.
Catpurple@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 16 pts · 2y
Well it does matter though.
The way I see our choices is, one old man, the blue donkey, has the goal of continuing to support the status quo, for better and worse. He also has that baffling willful ignorance about the increasingly rabid violent behavior of the other guy's colleagues and voters, and how he definitely needs to fucking do something. But at least he hires people who are less old and more mentally secure than himself, since a president's cabinet and advisors are vital to the administration's function, and tend to fill in where they fall short.
But the other old man, the red elephant, he has the very well-published goal of severely lowering the quality of life for all us citizens besides wealthy white men, in some cases removing the right for some demographics to live at all (trans people, for one). The plan also includes smash-and-grabbing the federal government and raiding its wealth; this is all that Project 2025 thing that people need to talk more frequently about. He also hires unqualified criminals for his cabinets, and is a convicted criminal himself; just not in the eyes of his dogmatic culty voters, or in the majority opinion of the unelected for-life supreme court that he had previously rigged in his favor. And he is known to be in the pocket of a sadistic oligarchic foreign government for whom the cold war never actually ended.
Sure, long term this country won't last, but in the short term, this is the last shot at renewing our fragile democracy subscription while we still can. If we lose it completely with this looming fascism takeover, it will require the spilled blood of tens of millions of lives and more, to ever get it back, and at the minimum it will come with the severe decline of quality of life for all US citizens, besides wealthy white men, and the destruction of decades of history and culture that we currently take for granted. Think a US version of China's great firewall, book burnings, server wipings, cops raiding your home and smashing up all your hard drives.
And that's only if this country could even be taken back, considering, you know, the USA has the most guns and nukes of anyone, and I don't see an average Joe who happened to already own an assault rifle being successful in employing the second amendment on a missile drone swarm. Probably the best case scenario would be Balkanization, and being lucky enough to end up in a good region of the former-US, and just getting bombed over the border back and forth occasionally, and hoping everybody continues playing nice with the nukes. Because the only alternative in an unshattered fascist US at that point would be waiting for a natural decline. But as we've seen with the likes of North Korea, that process could end up taking so long that none of us here will live to see it, just the kids of our kids and on.
I'm never voting for the crazy felon cult guy who officially wants me dead, among so many other things. I don't think that any combination of our laws or legal system should have ever allowed him to return to the polls for this election, or done anything besides end up in a cell or be executed as a high threat terrorist traitor. But it's just how it ended up. But please don't act like it doesn't matter, and nobody should be keeping up with that bullshit propaganda bot lie that the outcomes will be the same either way. Sorry for the long incoherent rant, I barely even remember what your comment was, nor do I particularly want to scroll up to read it again, but nothing makes me more irritable and verbose than people giving into hopeless apathy.
FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world · -12 pts · 2y
LOL
Man, I wish I lived a life where voter apathy was my biggest problem. I am legitimately happy for you.
gramathy@lemmy.ml · 9 pts · 2y
It matters which Supreme Court nominees get appointed, it matters who’s potentially breaking ties in the senate, and it matters who gets appointed to direct departmental policy.
The president doesn’t do everything
Freefall@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 2y
And either the effecting people behind the one or an all new set of criminals behind the other (because all the last ones went to jail)...thinking you are voting for a single person is such an ignorant take...
sunzu@kbin.run · -44 pts · 2y
The system doesn't care if people don't vote as long as two party system keeps going.
Only way to fight this is third party vote to deny the regime legitimacy
Wilshire@lemmy.world · 26 pts · 2y
FPTP voting systems and third parties will never coexist.
SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca · 5 pts · 2y
The could with ranked choice voting. But until that's a thing, you gotta use your brain and assess whether or not your first choice has a shot and maybe go with another choice instead.
sunzu@kbin.run · -26 pts · 2y
The point is not to win for the third party and don't even need to vote for the same third party.
The point is to protest the system until the two party system loses legitimacy and is reformed.
SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca · 25 pts · 2y
So destroy your democracy to make third parties viable in your democratic system?
There might be a flaw in this plan.
sunzu@kbin.run · -23 pts · 2y
Is this democracy in the room with us right now?
SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca · 13 pts · 2y
Not very good with abstract thought are you?
Ok so here's an analogy for you. There's a grocery store and two checkout lines are open. One of the cashiers is a complete dick, says racist shit you don't like, and will probably going to scan your items multiple times just to fuck you over. The other cashier is old guy that's competent but slower then you'd like. Which line do you get in?
Ah, but you want to be a genius, so you go stand by a cashier that isn't open and complain about how the kind of employee to want to scan your items doesn't work at the grocery store so you're taking a stand! So you stand in that line that will never get your items scanned, and eventually the store closes and you end up with nothing. Everyone in either line thinks you're an idiot. "But someday they store will understand and hire a better cashier!" you think as you go home with no groceries. So you think everyone else is an idiot but they all when home with groceries while you went home with nothing.
sunzu@kbin.run · -19 pts · 2y
This analogy assumes that at least one side under current system enables me to go home with "groceries"
I deff don't get any "groceries" and I slaved under both biden and trump. Things have been getting progressively worse all around tho.
There is a strong shill campaign to preverse the two party system. So regime must be feeling vulnerable.
As gamers say, if you see enemies, you are going the right way ;)
Freefall@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 2y
Your dumb plan works in a situation where there isn't one guy that is going to remove voting entirely(or at least functionally). Your garbage idea is "let's turn the US into Russia...look at how they broke the system and took down their dictator.....oh wait...."
ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 2y
I love how you think you're clever, but in every post you come out more and more as a clown.
SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 2y
Ok so you're not good at abstract thought, and also not good with analogies.
Apparently you can only learn through narratives? So... Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra when the walls came down?
Freefall@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 2y
How does voting for a dictatorship run by trump bring this change about? (If you don't vote for one of the two, you voted for the winner, hate the system not the messenger)
toomanypancakes@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 2y
Unfortunately it lost legitimacy already, and all that happened is fascists consolidated power. It will never be reformed into functioning by the people capable of wielding power within it.
sunzu@kbin.run · -16 pts · 2y
As long as people participate in the two party cicrle jerk, they will continue to rule as they see fit. Just because you and I mock them online, doesn't reduce their legitimacy.
If we have a situation where D 25 R 25 third parties combined 50. That's the type of loss of legitimacy I am talking about.
Freefall@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 2y
The only people stupid enough to follow your bad plan are on the left, the right is a cult. It will be D10 R49 and the stupid people vote combined across several candidates never breaking double digits 41. Great plan...
Then the next election will be D75 R25...but the king will invalidate the clearly rigged elections, because look at the last one, must be a Dem Hacking ring changing the votes! R still wins. Supreme Court shoots down appeals.
Donkter@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 2y
Klaxon sound Wrong!!!!
The way to fight this is by voting and participating locally. Third parties are getting elected and alternative voting methods already exist in a few locations around the U.S. you can help by voting in more systems like that and maintain the candidates and systems you like locally. If we could get more people like you to participate locally we could actually get something done.
You're problem is you want to live at the end of history and unfortunately for you we're forever in the middle of it. Local action is the most effective and relatively slow. Instead you want to enable the larger of the two fascists that will inevitably be elected and then throw up your hands when it doesn't work, blame everyone else, and never take any effective action locally.
Freefall@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 2y
This is it. Big change takes time and the wheels move slowly. This isn't some simple issue that doesn't cost anyone power like abortion rights or gay marriage, it is a game changer and has to slowly come into being without scaring the old people running the show.
sunzu@kbin.run · -16 pts · 2y
My advice doesn't prevent anyone from voting in their local elections... In fact the two can be used together for the more zealous types.
Donkter@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 2y
Your advice only makes the world worse by enabling the worse fascists without the groundwork needed to make your protest vote meaningful.