194
Biden closes gap on Trump but third-party candidates pose danger, polls show
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 14 Apr 2024
194 points (91.8% liked)
politics
19159 readers
4124 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Vote anyway.
Absolutely. Not voting is a vote for the candidate you don't like.
The neat part is that, for me, voting is also a vote for the candidate I don't like.
So I guess it comes down to which one will do the least harm to what you feel is the right thing. Both have had a term as president so we have a pretty good idea on how exactly they'll act in their second one.
If the Republic plunges into a dark age, for example because democracy ended, and you stayed home when your contribution could have prevented it, you're still sharing in the blame. No amount of smug self-righteousness will wind back the clock. You already have one previous devastating administration and an insurrection worth of warning.
Do you want to keep the Republic, or not?
I don't want the republic but I don't want fascism either
The genocide argument is a really bad one. Yes the Biden administration is culpable. The Trump administration would pump more money into it and start parading around the genocide like it's a good thing.
There's voting for the side who might get tired of the public opposition and stop funding that shit, or letting the genocidal wannabe dictator win.
Okay, so we punish the Democrats and the Republicans necessarily win as a result. Hopefully that's not a controversial assumption.
How many such intentional losses should be planned on so that we can get the Democrats try to move left to recapture support? How are we going to ensure they try to better court the left instead of moving to the right?
I'm always so confused by this argument because "punishing the Democrats by letting Republicans win"...wouldn't the assumption just be that the people WANT a more right wing government?
Wouldn't that simply encourage politicians to be like "Oh, the crazies won last time. Maybe that's who our voting block is now. Maybe it's time to also be crazy."
I'm not asking you to read minds. Just to explain how this works in your mind. I understand the frustration, and desire to express it, and the expression I'm, possibly incorrectly, assuming you have is to not vote for them. What is the process by which this accomplishes more than making Republicans win elections, and pushing the Democrats to the right?
Okay, fair. I asked that in that way because I believe that politicians listen primarily to corporations, sure, and secondarily to reliable voting blocs. My thought was that by proving to be an unreliable voting bloc, there's a reasonable risk that instead of trying to court that bloc to make it turn out more, they would just go after other blocs that already are reliable.
But! You don't think the democrats would try to court the right instead of the left if the left proves to be an unreliable voter bloc. Fair! What about the rest? We punish them via withholding of votes, they lose, and then... by what mechanism are they pushed to the left? By the loss, or is there more to the idea? What if they don't, or don't do it good enough? Withhold votes and make them lose again? Is there ever an adjustment to the plan, or is it just an unfortunate helping of our ideological opponents for however long it takes for the Democrats to get it right?
I see. I appreciate your taking the time to explain your point of view. Still not my preferred method of engagement, but I understand better where you were coming from, and that's what I was trying to accomplish!
Okay, so when the election happens, vote to keep the fascists out of power, and every other day the 4 years in between do something to push politics in the direction you want it to go.
No I'm thinking in terms of we cannot revive the dead so let's not put the genocidal wannabe dictator in power for 4 years. I clearly can't stop what's currently happening but I'm sure as hell not going to vote in a way that results in more people dying more quickly.
You mistake accepting genocide with trying to prevent a worse genocide.
Enjoy having your bodily autonomy stripped away and turned into a baby making factory because you don't understand the concept of harm reduction.
The fact that this is even on the table is why I'm upset. A sane government would not let that sort of thing happen. But we have a majority of the Supreme Court nominated by two presidents who lost the popular vote because a bunch of slave owners over 200 years ago were butthurt at the idea that the popular vote for president wouldn't go their way.
The Electoral College was also established to aid in guiding uninformed voters. It was logical to implement it for presidential elections, since most people wouldn’t have heard about the policy or platform of either candidate.
We have the Internet now, so that point is moot.
Exactly. Our government is like we took an 18th century sailing ship, bolted on a steam engine, piled it full of people, and then strapped on some wings so it could fly to the moon.
The structure of our government is so anachronistic I don't know why people are upset it's working so horribly.
The most important thing left out of the Constitution were the instructions on how often to update it.
There are instructions, but those instructions were also modified at the behest of slave owners who wanted an outsized influence. So we can't update it without risking something even worse.
What should have been added was the requirement that it be updated every 20 years.
Corrected. Do you have a source? You’ve piqued my interest.
Article V has the procedure for amending the Constitution