148
Biden considering executive action to close southern border, sources say (www.cnn.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/news@lemmy.world
194 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

And you all told me the blue maga border bill that Republicans rejected was 4d chess.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -2 points 2 years ago (3 children)

I’ve keep being put into a position where I have to further my consideration in voting for Biden.

No you don't. Because you have 2 options: Biden or Trump. If you are considering Trump as a legitimate pick, then just say you're a fascist and save everyone time.

You will ONLY get votes for Biden stepping to the left.

Despite what the internet says, most of America is not that progressive. Else we'd have more progressive candidates down ballot. People love to bitch and whine about how there's no good options. Well that's because America is pretty conservative on a lot of issues. It's not like there's this giant leap from left-leaning to far-right fascists. It's a huge spectrum. People not wanting to recognize this is why we get posts like this.

If America was truly as progressive as some people thought, a third party could sweep the Democrats with a popular progressive candidate. Unfortunately that's just not the case. But it is changing. Albeit slowly.

So get out there and campaign or run for office. Because this kind of grandstanding only creates voter apathy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    If America was truly as progressive as some people thought, a third party could sweep the Democrats with a popular progressive candidate

    In a word, no. The GOP and the DNC actively collude to ensure that no one else can compete.

    No you don’t. Because you have 2 options: Biden or Trump. If you are considering Trump as a legitimate pick, then just say you’re a fascist

    So our choices are 1) fascists who support a fascist or 2) ethnic cleansing apologists who are 100% okay with voting for the man supplying weapons and aid to those committing the cleansing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Hitler was voted in.

    Part of the problem with the political system of fascism is that it leads to scapegoating and then genocide.

    We've got genocide right now, though.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago

    Hitler was voted in.

    Not quite. He was named chancellor. https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/adolf-hitler-1

    In 1932, Hitler ran against the war hero Paul von Hindenburg for president, and received 36.8 percent of the vote. ... Though the Nazis never attained more than 37 percent of the vote at the height of their popularity in 1932, Hitler was able to grab absolute power in Germany largely due to divisions and inaction among the majority who opposed Nazism.

    But your point stands: Hitler gained power in a legitimate fashion. Chancellorship (it's why that's the fascist win condition in Secret Hitler, not Hitler being elected President). And then he took the rest of the power and made himself a dictator. Which is why we should be absolutely terrified of risking a Trump election. Giving him the pretense of legitimacy will only make it that much easier for him to take absolute power. And Trump has said he would. He said he'd be "dictator for a day". Which is the biggest red flag possible.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    If America was truly as progressive as some people thought, a third party could sweep the Democrats with a popular progressive candidate.

    Yeah fucking right. Money is the number one determining factor in candidate success, and after that it is the organizational power of the DNC. How deluded do you have to be to think that ANY third party is going to be able to muster populist support given the current economic & political paradigm. I'm sorry, but that is just so fucking naive I can't believe you even tried to float that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Jesus, get some reading comprehension skills. The person you're responding to agrees with you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    No, no they do not.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    They're arguing against voting for a third party, just as you are.

    I don't agree with either of you, but this isn't about what I agree with or disagree with:

    You're arguing that anyone voting for a third party is a waste, and that anyone arguing for that is naive.

    The person you responded to is saying the same thing, but with more words, and the final paragraph arguing that if people are unhappy they should run or organize for political offices, rather than argue for or vote for a third party.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    I guess you could potentially read that interpretation into what they said, but that is not how I personally took it. To me it seemed like they were arguing that if there was any real appetite for a progressive populist candidate that it would be possible to get them elected through grassroots support alone, and I just don't agree with that at all for the reasons that I already stated. The nature of the two party system is that it necessarily creates the artificial appearance of majority support for candidates that would otherwise not even represent a plurality within their own party a lot of the time.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent