ABCnews

    • EnderWi99in@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      54
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      He’s a spolier candidate that is openly backed by interest groups on the right. He isn’t personally a Republican, or ideologically conservative, but he sure has some strange friendships.

      • aidan@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        27
        ·
        1 year ago

        Spoiler candidate when not voting for one of thr two preferred oligarchs is kind of a degrading term. Perot didn’t spoil the Bush campaign- and the Libertarian party, that gets more votes than the Green, draws mostly from “would-be Republicans”

      • GodlessCommie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        34
        ·
        1 year ago

        Splitting the vote is liberal myth, we wouldn’t vote for your shitty candidates if they were the only ones running

        • Pratai
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          26
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          And this is why everyone thinks you’re all idiots.

            • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Or in other words, they compromise to form coalitions with people who mostly agree, so that have a better chance of winning and seeing most of their goals achieved.

              Versus refusing to compromise, and not supporting a candidate unless they pass your purity tests and you call in love with them.

              Which strikes you as the more mature, adult option?

              • EnderWi99in@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                Or in other words, they compromise to form coalitions with people who mostly agree, so that have a better chance of winning and seeing most of their goals achieved.

                This is what progressives don’t seem to understand, which is why they never get anything done and will never win.

                • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yeah :/. It bothers me because the lack of coalition building and antagonism turns away natural allies – I thought I was a neo liberal shill until I glanced at a progressive platform and realized I supported everything on there, at least in concept if not implementation.

                  I think today’s progressive wing is a lot better and more pragmatic, although that earns the ire of purists who think that compromise is a dirty word. I’ve generally found those purists however to be an incredibly loud minority, and far more focused on tribalism than policy.

              • GodlessCommie@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                14
                ·
                1 year ago

                If 65% of people living paycheck to paycheck is ‘goals achieved’ then hes doing good. If 750k living on the streets is ‘goals achieved’ hes doing good. If 3 people having more wealth than the entire combined populations of the top 11 states is ‘goals achieved’ then hes doing good. If 62% of bankruptcies are due to lack of affordable healthcare is ‘goals achieved’ then hes going good. If 42m people, more that the entire population of California, need SNAP to barely survive is ‘goals achieved’ then hes doing good.

                So far he’s kept Trumps tax cuts for the rich in place. = Goals achieved. He’s kept Trump’s immigrations policies in place. = Goals achieved. He adopted Trump’s ‘stop COVID testing and the numbers will go down’ approach to COVID = Goals achieved. The party lack of following through with promises of making RvW law resulted in its repeal. = Goals achieved. Drilling in protected areas that liberals were outraged when Trump proposed them = Goals achieved. Leasing off most of the Gulf of Mexico for oil drilling despite further damaging the climate = Goals achieved.

                His achievements are off the fucking charts.

                • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The party lack of following through with promises of making RvW law resulted in its repeal

                  This is a perfect point to discuss. At no point in the last several decades have Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate that were pro choice, nor 50 votes to remove the filibuster. One of those are needed to enshrine abortion rights in law. The closest Democrats came was in 2008 with Obama, where they had 60 Senate votes for only a couple months because of contested races for Franken and Ted Kennedy’s death. They used that window to pass Obamacare, which was the most progressive bill for healthcare possible at the time. There would’ve been a single payer option, except they needed Lieberman’s vote to pass it, and he refused single payer. At this point in time there were a lot more Manchin types in the party too. They all lost their seats in 2010 when the Tea Party dominated and Democrat voters stayed home. You’ve been around long enough that you should know all of this.

                  2016 was a critical election for abortion rights because of the supreme court, but many professed abortion supporters didn’t seem to understand that, nor that Roe being overturned is a direct consequence of that. Many people recognized the risk and warned them, but they said “don’t threaten me with the supreme court!”. I sincerely question how many of them actually care about abortion and how many of them just try to find reasons to dislike Democrats – much like Republicans do.

                  Given how long this comment is with discussing just one of your points, I hope you’ll understand if I don’t go through every single point you’ve raised. Instead I’ll ask you something, in general – how much time did you think was necessary to undo the damage caused by the Trump years, and not only return to the status quo of 2016, but improve on it? I know you didn’t expect everything to be fixed on Day 1 of the Biden presidency. When did you think we’d at least return to the 2016 status quo? In my line of work, changes that we make to the process take time to show up. You don’t see the consequences of some of them for years. You could make all those changes on Day 1, and it could still take 10 years for you to see results. That’s just how it works – I’m not going to see the impact of lower temperature on piping stresses until its at the end of its life.

                  I can’t fault Biden nor Democrats because given the resources at their disposal, I don’t think there’s much more that they could’ve done. Things are still shitty, but it’s because change takes time. If I go on a diet I’m not going to hit my goal weight the next day. It’s going to take months to become noticeable. The same goes for fixing poverty and wages and what have you.

                  • GodlessCommie@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    5
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Change does not take time, that’s bullshit liberals tell themselves to avoid acknowledging their party can’t govern. It allows the party leaders to shirk responsibility for their inaction as they take small, unnoticeable, miniscule steps to the right.

                    People have been fighting against poverty and wages for decades, in the words of James Baldwin ‘how much time do you want for your progress?’

                    There have been multiple times since RvW was ruled where Dems have had super majorities in Congress when they could have passed it. But like Obama said it was no longer a legislative priority, he said this while they had the majority to pass it.

                    Lieberman was their convenient rotating villain for the time they needed him. They always have one when it comes to passing legislation benefitting the public. It’s always someone that’s safe from being voted out, or soon retiring.

                • SCB@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  This take is among the dumbest I’ve ever seen and I wish there was an Award I could give you for that.

                  • GodlessCommie@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Can’t dispute the facts. Duopoly zombies ignore the bad and only acknowledge what they perceive to be the good

              • GodlessCommie@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                12
                ·
                1 year ago

                You are delusional if you believe we are not a fascist state. The democrat ratchet effect has helped enable that

    • SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      47
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think Cornel West not paying his child support is one of very few things I dislike about Cornel West as a person.

      One of the others, of course, being that he’s running as a spoiler candidate.

        • stown@sedd.it
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          A third party candidate. The US has 2 real political parties. Democrats see voting for a Green party candidate as spoiling the chances for the Democratic candidate because only left leaning people would vote Green and this effectively splits the vote.

            • stown@sedd.it
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              What is your point? Corollary between left leaning voters and the Green party? Duh!? I don’t understand what you are trying to say.

              • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                i’m saying most other parties do not lean left, including the democrats. if democrats are worried about splitting a vote with greens, they could vote for the green candidate.

                • stown@sedd.it
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Well when compared to socialist/communist ideology it’s definitely more right but the Democratic party is the only realistic hope leftist people have in the United States.