1348
submitted 7 months ago by fukhueson@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 35 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

He absolutely is more so. Also, young people have more power to influence Biden because they are part of his coalition. Of course, using this power is tricky because you need to pressure and criticize Biden without actually making him lose. So far I support the pressure campaign but I hope as the election gets closer people will start to realize what an epic disaster Trump term two would be.

[-] foggy@lemmy.world 36 points 7 months ago

He said he would level Palestine.

Not sure what these youngins are reading but he isn't coy about it.

[-] Krono@lemmy.today 17 points 7 months ago

Are young people really a part of Bidens coalition? Bidens policies and rhetoric have consistantly pushed young people away. The ridiculous speech he gave just a few minutes ago maligning student protestors is emblematic of this.

And it seems like young people have got the message. The last poll I saw had 18-24yr olds voting for Trump at +8%

[-] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 7 points 7 months ago

Historically they have been. I think Biden seems out of touch but I’m not sure I agree with this sentiment overall. That poll sounds dubious but I mean coalitions can change certainly. Trump seems even further from the views I see most young people espousing so I’m not sure why they would move to him but maybe it’s protest vote kind of situation.

[-] makyo@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago

Young people are part of the coalition but they've never proven to be a reliable part. When the 18-25s vote like the older generations then campaigns will start to take their needs more seriously.

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago

Exactly. When I was 18-25 bernie learned this. We didn’t like Hillary so we got trump.

[-] BakerBagel@midwest.social 2 points 7 months ago

It's a two way street. Young progressives don't see any reason to vote for Democrats who won't fight for any of the policies they care about, so they wont defend or fight for those officials.

If i am thirsty and someone is offering me toilet water after they just shit in the toilet, I don't need to show gratitude to the next person who comes by offering water from their toilet after they pissed in it.

[-] makyo@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago

Your analogy is completely absurd though, it's more like voting for cake and getting bread - and then being so pissed off about the bread that you let bread guy get voted out in favor of toilet guy.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 months ago

Hold it!

Let me make sure I've got that right. In this analogy, a candidate supporting genocide is a perfectly fine option, and people who have a problem with him are comparable to picky eaters?

[-] makyo@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Trump would probably be just fine with nuking Palestine so consider that when you think about what's the shit and what's the bread.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 months ago

objection

Irrelevant. Answer the question please: is supporting the genocide of Palestinians comparable to "bread" in this analogy? Do you consider the genocide of Palestinians to be a perfectly acceptable outcome? Do you think people who aren't satisfied with a candidate who supports genocide are comparable to picky eaters?

[-] daltotron@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

I support the phoenix wright roleplay, but I think you'd find more success in just saying something like "this is kind of a glib analogy when the outcome is still genocide, don't you think?", or something along those lines, rather than asking like, a series of questions asking whether or not they find genocide to be an acceptable outcome. One of those will come off as bad faith, and put the defendant on the back foot, the other will get them to open up and possibly admit fault, or potentially come off much poorer to a jury, were they still to choose to object.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 7 months ago

I wanted to apply maximum pressure, because they already said everything I needed to prove my point phoenix-smug

[-] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 2 points 7 months ago

fuck i need to play this series already

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 months ago

I just got into bc it was on sale and it inspired this account, they're really fun

[-] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 2 points 7 months ago

I mean, a silly game about ridiculous over the top anime court room nonsense, becoming so culturally relevant that its memes become genuinely useful metaphors to shut down annoying, repetitive rhetorical strategies by grifters trying to sidetrack an otherwise serious conversation..... that is some next level shit

Who needs Virtual Reality when you can make reality virtually part of your game?

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

This is what I've been saying: Don't vote and expect cake. Vote and expect bread at best. Lower your expectations and treat it like paying your taxes and you'll feel better about it.

[-] BakerBagel@midwest.social 3 points 7 months ago

I guess sime people viewed "Never again" as more than just a feel good saying, and don't want to condone genocide.

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

If they don't want to condone genocide I suggest they just never vote. And also leave the country. Because this is a country built on genocide, and that will ignore genocide if its in their economic or geopolitical interest.

America sucks. Stop thinking it doesn't and that you have any control and you'll be less frustrated.

[-] crusa187@lemmy.ml 8 points 7 months ago

Young voters delivered GA in 2020, and what did Dems do with that majority?

Biden immediately dropped all pretense of doing immigration reform because an unelected senate parliamentarian said no, offered no meaningful student debt relief, didn’t legalize cannabis, and is drilling for oil at record rates - more so than Trump did. Dems had yet another chance to codify Roe, and blew it. Biden even left in Louis DeJoy as postmaster general. Now he’s mischaracterizing peaceful student protesters as violent radicals, while actual thugs in riot gear and stars of david are free to descend upon them and beat them into submission.

Don’t blame young people for having eyes and ears and paying attention - Biden had his chance, and blew it in favor of his donors’ interests. It’s a tale as old as time, and if you have any interest in actually galvanizing youthful voters, you’ve got to offer something better than the outmoded views of geriatric, genocidin’ Biden.

[-] makyo@lemmy.world -3 points 7 months ago

Downvote me if you want but it's still a fact that older voters vote more reliably and therefore get better representation. I don't know that GA was that large of a deviation but even if it was, in general the younger vote still can't be counted on.

Either way, your comment is case in point (if not also a bit misinformed) - if the youth vote is going to abandon the Dems after one election you can kind of see why they might consider spending more time and money going after a more reliable bloc.

[-] crusa187@lemmy.ml 5 points 7 months ago

I love your framing here, “youth vote is going to abandon the Dems.” lol!

The youth vote delivered a majority for the Dems, which was squandered yet again, because democrats don’t actually want to lead. Dems clearly are a fundraising organization, not a political organization.

Shouldn’t the DNC have to do something to earn people’s votes? Instead they spit in our faces as they continue to serve the corporate donors.

So fine, let them continue to court boomers. Because that will obviously work forever.

[-] makyo@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

Correction - you were the one that implied the young people were going to abandon the dems: "Biden had his chance, and blew it"

[-] go_go_gadget@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

You're missing their point. Biden didn't abandon younger voters because he never supported them in the first place. He talked a good game so he had their support which is why he won in 2020. Now that it's clear they never had his support yes, they will abandon him.

[-] Ferrous@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

"because you need to pressure and criticize Biden without actually making him lose"

"We need to be toothless about our criticism of Biden" FTFY

The threat of making your candidate lose is the only power you have to shift them.

Next time you're negotiating for a car, see how much the seller budges after you preceed negotiations with "Now, I am fully committed and happy paying sticker price, but how much can you lower the price?"

Edit: at least have the intellectual honesty to say out loud that Biden could do anything, and you'd still vote for him

[-] daltotron@lemmy.world 7 points 7 months ago

The threat of making your candidate lose is the only power you have to shift them.

I mean this is also not really a threat, though. I think realistically biden and trump are both closer to each other than either of them are to this like, eclectic amalgamation of positions that is the "youth vote". Him not winning isn't like, still a victory, in that circumstance, but it's not like, a loss to them in the same way that it would be if they actually had to do all the stuff the "youth vote" wanted. Basically I'm just saying that they, the DNC broadly I suppose, would rather give as little as they absolutely can, while still maintaining a delicate balance of power where they're the only ones that can maintain the status quo rather than a backslide into total fascism. Going with all the "youth vote" positions, to them, would be as big if not a bigger loss than a slide into total fascism.

Which is to say, I think they're willing to lose as long as it means they don't have to really do anything major.

[-] go_go_gadget@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

Which is to say, I think they’re willing to lose as long as it means they don’t have to really do anything major.

100% agree. This is something liberal and moderate voters are completely blind to.

[-] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 0 points 7 months ago

I’m fully committed to lesser evil voting since it’s the only viable electoral strategy. So as long as Biden is better than Trump I would vote for him. I have a hard time understanding why people don’t see that this is the most rational way to vote. If you don’t like it, and I don’t either, then you need to pursue strategies to change it, particularly outside the electoral system. Since these strategies do not conflict with voting I think it’s rational to pursue both actions.

And no I don’t think we need to be toothless. But a lot of people don’t seem to be smart enough to walk the line of threatening to withhold support without actually doing so. I’m not going to go right up to Biden and tell him that’s what I’m doing. He doesn’t know what my strategy is, so it can still be effective.

[-] daltotron@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

I mean so lesser evil voting is generally a good strategy for damage control, but it's not necessarily a great strategy in terms of like, blanket things you can just effect to the whole. If you take a voter in a non-swing state, say, california, a state that votes very consistently, them defecting their vote to a third party which represents them more accurately, is going to be of much lesser weight in totality than if someone in a swing state had done so. They are probably much safer in their estimation of walking up towards the line without crossing it. This is probably also true of states who get their votes tallied up later on, and also of states where projections are already in favor of certain candidates, since those projections affect elections.

This also kind of discounts "not voting" as an electoral strategy because that doesn't send a super clear signal, but it's probably not the worst thing in the world, since we could kind of file them away under like, either the average non-voter's position in their state, or just the average non-voter's position at large, which is probably going to be more radical of an average position than most would think.

But yeah, all of this still tracks with what you're saying so far. I think the biggest determining factor for me, though, is that electoralism as a strategy at all hinges on the assumption that democrats would rather move left than lose to republicans. And I dunno, that's kind of a tenuous assumption, and I think is the major disagreement on people who are willing to engage in electoralism vs those who aren't, is that most people who aren't, assume that the democrats would rather lose to republicans and ensure a status quo/backslide into fascism rather than move to the left.

this post was submitted on 02 May 2024
1348 points (97.9% liked)

News

23649 readers
2834 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS