Is telling people that the human race will go extinct if they vote republican (or for the wrong dem) a good strategy? Because Republican beliefs (and the beliefs of many dems for that matter) are trash garbage, greed-motivated, and super detrimental.
My concern is that if we don’t drastically change the make up of the US government like… basically now… we’re kind of screwed. We need leftists. Not center left neoliberal dems, not republicans cosplaying dems, and certainly not the fascist or religious fundamental right. LEFTISTS. Real ones.
I’m very pessimistic of the current US government to do anything meaningful to combat climate change. I think that the only thing that would actually save us is a revolutionary insurrection. Any reforms can and likely will be rolled back by a reactionary change of government (as it has under trump after Obama’s lukewarm reforms).
This thread has become a distillation of Dem infighting and I regret starting it. My idea of voting for the most progressive candidate ON each ballot going forward being a preferable outcome to not voting is still my stance.
Hey pressures running high for sure, but I think a lot of people on this thread will still vote when it comes to it. Most people just aren’t enthused about the center left choices that people fear will win the primary. It’s tough out there!
I’d like to raise issues with this point. It’s a very common talking point (and I don’t necessarily blame you or Terranova for raising it), but it seems disputable.
This is, ultimately, an appeal to demography as a reason to discount Sanders.
However, there’s two questions to be asked here: the first is whether this is about his policies or about his campaigning? I’d imagine most folks mean the latter when they make this case. I ask this question for two reasons: firstly, campaigns can be fixed easier than policy preferences. Secondly, if his politics are toxic to non-white voters (which is a claim touted by centrist pundits from time-to-time), that’s a much bigger problem for the left.
The second question is, of course, whether it is true and how much we need to complicate it. This is something I just don’t know – I’ve seen arguments that age played a significant impact or that his favourables have improved since the primary (this is, admittedly, from someone who worked on his team). I haven’t looked into the deeper statistical analyses that look into what is the most statistically significant factor.
Bad faith arguments are easy to make. “Oh, old people loved Hillary – we sure we want to bet on them again?” I’m not interested in making them. But I do think we should interrogate arguments like this one about Sanders when we make them. There’s a way in which something repeated can gain the appearance of truth without necessarily being, well, true.
I think the online discourse around the Democrat primary, most of which I see on Twitter and in Discord servers, is a bag of shit, largely because it is dominated by a lot of bad faith arguments. There’s some amount of difference of opinion at play, but there’s a lot of folks contorting themselves to make a point, even if it makes for a bad conversation.
My little two cents on this thread (building on what @Murph said about the state of the thread), in a personal capacity, is that if you’re not here to discuss, there are better platforms to not engage with folks. I mean this genuinely – you can shout into a void on Twitter, get your thoughts out on Medium, or write in a journal if you don’t want other folks to see.
This is me nudging in a non-mod capacity before I start doing it in a mod capacity
The center left choice is Bernie tho. He is the compromise already. If they’re to the right of him I ain’t doing shit besides voting for them in shame if I’m voting for more quality candidates in local elections.
created Back on Track program to assist people imprisoned on low-level drug offenses, later signed into law as the state-wide model for re-entry programs
sponsored bill banning Gay Panic defense
brought $12B settlement to California as litigant in lawsuit against banks
sponsored bill banning foreclosure dual-tracking and bank robo-signing (people blame her for not prosecuting Mnuchin, but the problem with what the banks were doing before / during the crisis is that a lot of it wasn’t technically illegal)
indicted oil companies for failures that led to 2015 Santa Barbara oil spill
instructed state LEO to ignore Obama admin ICE requests authorized under Secure Communities
launched OpenJustice platform making arrest and LEO actions transparent
wrote Memorandum of Understanding with UC President establishing robust procedures for investigating sexual assaults that happen on college campuses
The entire Democratic party pre-primaries would disagree with you on that. He ain’t perfect, but he does want to change a ton of central US infrastructure, which steps him out of centralist lines (which usually amounts to change things so slowly they never change and also the more women guards clap clap clap tweet).
while i am at the point where i agree with you out of strict (cynical) pragmatism, I think it is totally reasonable to push back against this assertion. will doing the thing we aren’t enthused about perpetuate the problem? when is it time to put our feet down and demand a change? i would say the answer is when there are enough people on your side to make that change, but knowing when that is is near impossible, and i don’t fault people for going with their hearts if they do so in earnest.
What if the door isn’t sticky? What if it’s hot because there’s fire on the other side? Maybe it’s a smaller, more manageable fire, but it’s still fire. I don’t think being the this is fine dog is really the mature option.
There’s gotta be a better option than jumping back and forth between two deteriorating status quos.
I know. I voted for Hillary too and it felt pretty gross lol.
I guess what I’m wondering is… at what point do we actually get to push for truly positive changes? When will we get candidates who won’t fall prey to corporate obligations/ the obligations of performing for capital and all the evils that extend from that?
Because it feels like we’re stuck in a loop. Time is a flat circle, etc
Things are changing, just not fast enough. We got a crop of leftist, diverse House reps this year, there’s stuff happening in local elections, but it’s not happening on the scale we want it and it probably can’t naturally happen at the speed we want it. I do not know how, without catastrophe, we have the type of change we want at a speed that is acceptable.
I think this post accurately reflects my concerns.
I don’t think the US election cycle is adequate when faced with the potential of climate driven extinction events (like what happened with all of the bats in Australia). Corporations are still going to be polluting the whole time we have to wait to vote for new ppl.
So I guess I have to sit back, hope for the best, but prepare for the worst?
Yeah, we have to vote, but I think the point here is that change is not going to happen fast enough. For the timeline of something like climate change, we’re not going to get to a point where people in power will fix it nearly fast enough via elections as they normally take place. Green New Deal talks are happening, but we can’t hope to see those sorts of things start to happen until, at the earliest, like 2021. Right?
We have to vote, but boy, I don’t think we’re getting saved by the system as it exists.
Right. That. I do vote. Always. But I’m at the point where I don’t think electoral politics is going to get it done. It’s just a piece on the board and playing it like it’s the only one is so frustrating to me.
I’m going to quickly nudge folks and say that while I appreciate that topics are interconnected, I’d recommend making a separate thread about the merits/demerits of mandatory voting (or ethics of voting, &c). 2020 Democratic primary has enough delicate objects in its shop without opening a wall into the adjoining one.