American Politics

[ninjabot]

Anyone here fans of the game Cards Against Humanity?

Elon Musk Owes You $100 ⢠Cards Against Humanity Saves America Day 7

Elon Musk stole your land, and now he owes you $100.

www.apologize.lol

This is pretty awesome. Get paid 100 bucks if you didn't vote in 2020 by registering to vote, apologizing for not voting last election, and posting "Donald Trump is a human toilet" on social media.

The wiki is pretty hilarious too.

What's happening?

Cards Against Humanity is exploiting a legal loophole to pay America's blue-leaning non-voters to (1) apologize for not voting last time, (2) walk us through a step-by-step plan of how they'd vote this time, and (3) post "Donald Trump is a human toilet" on social media. This whole thing should probably be illegal—so quick, give us your money before they change the law!

How do you know who didn't vote?

We formed a Super PAC and bought the personal voting records of every American citizen from a data broker we found on the internet. It's pretty fucked up.

This is probably the best part though lol:

Is there some way I can force Elon Musk to pay $47 to Cards Against Humanity PAC?
Funny you should ask! If you’re a registered voter in PA, GA, NV, AZ, NC, WI, or MI, just type your name into this dumb website for his PAC, put “[email protected]” as your referrer, and they'll be legally obligated to pay us $47. The more people who do this, the more Musk money we’ll get to un-fuck America.
If he doesn’t pay up, we’ll sue him again.

--- Double Post Merged, Oct 9, 2024, Original Post Date: Oct 9, 2024 ---

ah so you're just going by your own "logic," not data.

Yes, it's my logic that people who put "independent" as their political identity identify as independents.

Very wrong, very stupid. Why focus on people whose votes are guaranteed as long as you make it clear that their values align with yours? That's how you lose. Goal should be to get as many voters as possible, and a lot of left who are independents are more than willing to vote for Dems, they just have to be convinced to do so like anyone who isn't in a cult.

Because those guaranteed votes are only guaranteed as long as you tow the party line.

Non-voters too. Doing that helped Biden win 2020, when all he had to do was just point out how Trump handled the pandemic and how bigoted he was.

That was a special occasion. That's not an advantage we have now. In the same way we could point at the handling of Covid as a major fuck-up of his, uneducated voters are having inflation pointed out to them and blamed on the Biden administration. People forget the last problem the second a new one takes it's place.

She'd stand a better chance if she wasn't supporting a genocidal country and if the party wasn't trying to outlaw anything that doesn't help Israel, even suppressing freedom of speech. If these someones knew that Harris was the better candidate, then they'd vote for her. THey see her as bad a candidate or worse than Trump, which is the problem.

No she wouldn't. You keep acting like the number of anti-genocide pro-Palestinians out there to vote outnumber the pro-Israel, genocide-indifferent people out there.

It is on her to convince them otherwise. You know what can? Fighting harder to abolish student loans and trying to make sure that women get back rights to their bodies and don't lose it in any of the states. You know what hurt her? Bragging about getting the Cheneys' support, when Dick Cheney is not seen favorably.

If you know what the Democratic party stands for, and you align yourself with those values, then you vote for them. It shouldn't take any further song and dance from a politician, especially if that song and dance could cause them to lose an established advantage.

You yourself said that seeing how the left defended the group who were protecting Palestinians pushed you away from the left. Plus, the left and Dems are not the same, as we've seen in the past year or so, so it'd be weird of you to become independent if you're still in the Dem cult.

Yeah and I meant it, but I will only ever be different shades of Blue. I'll never, ever become an independent, centrist, or any shade of Red, because I know what my values are, and they're all values that are championed on the Left. No matter how I feel about Leftists, I'll always be on the Left until I die. Taking the title of independent or centrist would be me asserting that I think the Left and Right are equal. I don't believe that.

And Dems, Socialists, Socdems, Demsocs, Libertarian Socialists, Tankies, and Communists are ALL members of the Left, so this "Dems aren't the same as the Left" claim is just false.

--- Double Post Merged, Oct 9, 2024, Original Post Date: Oct 7, 2024 ---

Harris saying she'll have a republican in her cabinet.... That's a horrible idea, especially when so many of them are unhinged

It might be a bad idea, but it's great politics. She's a politician. She has to play the game. She has to prove that she can govern. And when you become president, you become president of the entire country. Both the red states, and the blue states. You have to work together whether you want to or not.

 

[M3J]

It might be a bad idea, but it's great politics. She's a politician. She has to play the game. She has to prove that she can govern. And when you become president, you become president of the entire country. Both the red states, and the blue states. You have to work together whether you want to or not.

The main issue is that republicans don't want to work with Dems, to the point that McConnell did his best to block Obama from nominating a Supreme Court justice. The only time they do is when it comes to money, like being pro-Israel.

Harris and Dems trying to whitewash republicans like Bush and and Cheney is so tone deaf and a bad move. They need to focus on getting independents and the left to vote for them, not centrists and republicans who can easily change their minds for whatever reason, if they even planned on voting for her.

Harris apparently raised $1 billion, right? It'd help her chances if she put some of that money towards helping out communities affected by the hurricanes. Bad enough she's hurting her chances by shilling for a genocidal country as it is, and lying on top of that, but the least she could do is do more to show that she does care somewhat about the American citizens.

 

[ninjabot]

 

[shionoro]

And Dems, Socialists, Socdems, Demsocs, Libertarian Socialists, Tankies, and Communists are ALL members of the Left, so this "Dems aren't the same as the Left" claim is just false.

Is it? That largely depends on what you think left is. I would not see Tankies as left, neither would I see Democrats who are in the pocket of fossil fuel companies like Manchin or sinema to be part of the left. Why would I?

Democrats are, right now, the party that benefits leftist causes more, but that is not the same as being left. Some democrats are left, but the party in itself is not reliably pro working rights or for the end of poverty. If we look at democratic mayors like in New York, that should be double clear.

I am certainly not saying that centrist democrats like obama should be seen as enemy by leftists, but there is a very fundamental wedge and polar conflict between a leftist and someone like obama or macron (if we look overseas). One of them is in support of some leftist causes, but the underlying thought process is always to keep stability and order. That is the thought process for moderate republicans, too. They just disagree on the means.

But for a leftist, the underlying cause of their action are bigger ideas like the end of poverty. You will find that most people in the democratic party would not be willing actually support a wealth tax or housing-first. They wouldnt be even if they had the supermajority in all chambers. And how would someone be a leftist if they are not even for that in the current situation? I really would not know what "left" means in that case.

Going forward with different strategies is one thing. There are people who would rather fight policemen in protests and there are people who would rather move along lawfully in an NGO. But if the ultimate cause of your actions and your fundamental worldview are different, it cannot be said that two people are part of the same political spectrum in my opinion. In that case, it would be more accurate to say that they have many common causes and thus can often form alliances.

I would 11/10 times vote for Harris if I were a US citizen, bur Harris is not a leftist and not a reliable political ally. And she can't be to be in the position she is in, I am not even faulting her for that morally. But day 1 after the election, she is an opponent to many of the priority goals any leftist has (end of fossil fuels, end of poverty, wealth tax) while she is a moderate ally in some of them (workers rights for example). And the same goes for most of the people that are on a ballot of importance.

 

[ninjabot]

Is it?

Yes.

Democrats are, right now, the party that benefits leftist causes more, but that is not the same as being left. Some democrats are left, but the party in itself is not reliably pro working rights or for the end of poverty. If we look at democratic mayors like in New York, that should be double clear.

You don't have to be in favor of every single left-leaning policy position to be considered on the left. Just the majority of your positions. Otherwise, if you want to focus on one single pet issue and ostracize your allies based on that one issue, you're committing a No True Scotsman fallacy in addition to cutting your nose to spite your face.

I am certainly not saying that centrist democrats like obama should be seen as enemy by leftists, but there is a very fundamental wedge and polar conflict between a leftist and someone like obama or macron (if we look overseas). One of them is in support of some leftist causes, but the underlying thought process is always to keep stability and order. That is the thought process for moderate republicans, too. They just disagree on the means.

In that case your problem isn't with Democrats, it's with Democracy, because while the majority of Americans lean left, they don't lean FAR left.

But for a leftist, the underlying cause of their action are bigger ideas like the end of poverty. You will find that most people in the democratic party would not be willing actually support a wealth tax or housing-first. They wouldnt be even if they had the supermajority in all chambers. And how would someone be a leftist if they are not even for that in the current situation? I really would not know what "left" means in that case.

Sure, but if you're familiar with the phrase "letting perfect be the enemy of good", this is an example of that. People keep telling me that Democrats don't care about the same things Leftists do, and that's just not true. We just don't pursue immediate, radical change. We want incremental change over time. It's the only way to pursue lasting change. Radical change is reversed just as radically, but procedurally generated change has time to be ingrained from several different avenues so that tearing it down becomes nigh impossible, since we've taken the time to prepare for future problems, and granted ourself time to deal with said problems. Granted we didn't do that with Roe v. Wade, but that's a problem that will be rectified.

Going forward with different strategies is one thing. There are people who would rather fight policemen in protests and there are people who would rather move along lawfully in an NGO. But if the ultimate cause of your actions and your fundamental worldview are different, it cannot be said that two people are part of the same political spectrum in my opinion. In that case, it would be more accurate to say that they have many common causes and thus can often form alliances.

That's simply objectively false. I don't need to have the same fundamental worldview or cause for my actions as a communist, tankie, demsoc, democrat, centrist, democrat or socialists in order to be considered a member of the left. It only matters if my values are completely opposite to these groups. And none of these listed demographics are opposites of each other, they're just diluted or concentrated versions of each other with a quirk here or there. If you want to avoid being fallacious at least.

I would 11/10 times vote for Harris if I were a US citizen, bur Harris is not a leftist and not a reliable political ally. And she can't be to be in the position she is in, I am not even faulting her for that morally. But day 1 after the election, she is an opponent to many of the priority goals any leftist has (end of fossil fuels, end of poverty, wealth tax) while she is a moderate ally in some of them (workers rights for example). And the same goes for most of the people that are on a ballot of importance.

She's not a leftist, but she is on the left, because she's a Centrist Democrat. That's just how a true dichotomy works. Take a look at positive numbers and negative numbers. Postive being the Right, Negative being the Left.

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

Everything behind 0 is negative, everything ahead of it is positive. You're trying to say "Well, since 3 isn't 4, it's not a member of the positive numbers." You are wrong. Objectively.

As for your claims about her being against leftists goals, I'd say "only a few of them." She's not against fracking anymore because she doesn't wanna destroy the economy, but she's pro other options that help fight climate change for example. She also claims the same thing every Democrat ever has claimed: that she wants the rich to pay their fair share, which IS a tax on the wealthy. I don't have an answer for the ending poverty part, but there you go.

 

[shionoro]

@ninjabot

The question would be, why should Harris/Biden/Obama/Clinton (to name the latest few democrat presidents) be considered to be in the same political spectrum as Bernie Sanders or other Leftists like me?

That is not a question of radicalism here. Bernie Sanders is not a radical, but a moderate leftist. He is a lawful political player who works with both sides to get legislation done. He even endorsed Joe Biden and had a relevant role in working with that administration. You cannot be much more moderate than that. There are actual radical leftistws like Roger Hallam, who uses drones to stop planes from flying at heathrow airport. He uses unlawful actions, wants to create a revolution that overthrow government and uses religious messiah rhetoric for that. Bernie Sanders would probably not respect that guy and vice versa. Still, they are both leftists because their ultimate goals do align. You can imagine a world in which both him and Bernie Sanders are at least somewhat satisfied because very relevant leftist goals like abolishing billionaires, degrowth and a debt cut for the third world are archieved. You cannot imagine the same for Harris and Sanders (or any other on the list).

It is not like Sanders is farther on the left than Harris or Obama. It is that their endgoals are not the same. No democratic president on the list would be for ending american military exceptionalism, aka for ending america controlling weaker countries via military or economic coercion. None on the list would be for measures that longterm end billionairism. There are many longterm leftist goals that, if you or I want to achieve them, would make us their enemies somewhere down the road.

It is a problem all in itself that someone like Luka or Sanders, who are both moderate, pragmatist men who would never let idealism cloud their judgement on reality, are seen as radical just because they are put into the same category as centrists who sometimes advocate for policies that leftist can also endorse. That would be like saying someone is a radical feminist for saying women and men should be equal, just because it already makes you a feminist to say men shouldnt hit women. If you cannot get around to say "men and women should be equal", you are not a feminist, no matter how you slice it.

It is not that there is no political spectrum on the left ranging from moderate to radical (for example, Lula as a moderate men had some disagreements with the less moderate MST worker's movement), but it does not make a lot of sense to me to put two people into the same category if their goals contradict each other.

To put it quite bluntly: The goal of Kamala Harris, Obama, Biden, Clinton, you name them, is not:

1. to end poverty
2. to end american coercion of weaker countries via threat of military or economic violence
3. to end homelessness
4. to end inequality
5. to end abuse of refugees
6. to prioritize climate change over keeping companies happy

Just to name a few. Their goal is to keep the status quo (which contradicts the complete realization of these goals), and they might play at some of these points somewhat if they think that will help them to keep stability (like championing the unions), but they will never pursue these goals just on their own and will always cede them if they are in the way. And that is what makes them centrists. This is not "good against the perfect", this is a fundamental difference on the very goals and priorities someone has.

The goals of tankies and me oppose each other (because tankies are pro authoritarianism) and the goals of a liberal and me oppose each other, too (because liberals want to keep the status quo and just make it a little nicer, they would never change it to achieve a leftist goal).

 

[M3J]

Bernie is further on left than Harris or Obama or Biden. That's the biggest part of what made him popular in the first place, because he opposed racism, believed in Medicare for All, and etc, even though he's probably misogynist. But Harris and Biden are seen as more of a right wing Democrat than anything, in tons of issues anyway.

And although Dems and Reps seem to be very similar, one thing I've seen Dems actually do is protect consumers and workers from businesses while Reps have been benefitting businesses at the expense of consumers' and workers' safety.

 

[shionoro]

As I said before, I do respect some democrats and I have quite some admiration for Joe Biden. But it can hardly be said that the party or their most dominant figures are "on the left". They are just not. Kamala Harris is closer to Mitt Romney than she is to Bernie Sanders in many absolute core issues.

Kamala Harris can go on stage and boast about how oil drilling rose under Joe Biden while at the same time claiming she is the better climate candidate before she is for green energy. A person on the left could never do that, because they know that oil drilling is very bad and playing a long with big oil just because you want to be seen as "economically competent" is a horrible idea, too. But Kamala is not on the left, she is a centrist who think doing a little clean energy while largely maintaining the grip of the fossil fuel industry on america is fine. Just like Mitt Romney would do, just with even less focus on green energy.

It is definitely good to vote for Kamala Harris over Trump, just like it was to vote for Biden over Trump. But when it comes to core issues like climate change, the second she is in office, she will be an obstacle to overcome if you want to keep sane climate goals (like keeping the souther globe habitable).

 

[xi0]

Honestly, they'd be better off pretending like nothing is happening. At least it'd be less disingenuous then this tepid, passive voice-laden nonsense she/her campaign are shitting out on twitter.

 

[M3J]

Harris really needs to either stop talking about Israel's genocide of Palestinians or actually promise to stop helping Israel and tell Biden to stop helping Israel completely and hold them accountable, because all she's doing right now is hurting her chances. Again, at this point, if Harris loses, she has no one to blame but herself, Biden, and her party for supporting genocide without hesitation and lying to justify the genocide.

 

[shionoro]

Harris treats gaza much like climate change. She goes on stage to say climate change is an existential threat, but she will not ban fracking and she will boast about how the fossil fuel industry did well under biden.

She does that because she thinks there is a tradeoff she wants to take: Assuring voters who are scared of real climate change or real anti-gaza-war measures that Harris is not going to do that seems more important to her campaign than winning more approval in the camps that feel strongly about these issues.

I think she might be right. It is not just about who you mobilize but also for whom you make mobilization harder. If Harris said she is going to end weapon deliveries to israel alltogether, that would probably make it easier for republicans to mobilize.

The other reason of course being that she probably does not care a lot about these things anyway.

 

[xi0]

Harris treats gaza much like climate change. She goes on stage to say climate change is an existential threat, but she will not ban fracking and she will boast about how the fossil fuel industry did well under biden.

She does that because she thinks there is a tradeoff she wants to take: Assuring voters who are scared of real climate change or real anti-gaza-war measures that Harris is not going to do that seems more important to her campaign than winning more approval in the camps that feel strongly about these issues.

I think she might be right. It is not just about who you mobilize but also for whom you make mobilization harder. If Harris said she is going to end weapon deliveries to israel alltogether, that would probably make it easier for republicans to mobilize.

The other reason of course being that she probably does not care a lot about these things anyway.

The gap she had in polls no longer exist. While I won't say that's because of Gaza because I don't have any polling data at hand, she's losing ground in Michigan, a state with key Muslim demographics.

--- Double Post Merged, Oct 15, 2024, Original Post Date: Oct 15, 2024 ---

You won't find a single fucking Republican running for office that wants a "healthy Democrat party". What's with this idiot's obsession with bipartisanship while simultaneously suggesting Republicans are a threat to democracy? The entire Democratic establishment running off the need to prevent Project 2025 from coming to fruition, yet all of these people she wants to court would co-sign it. The Cheneys would be endorsing fucking DeSantis instead of her if he was the one running. What the hell is their problem?

 

[shionoro]

I do not think Harris is gullible enough to think the republicans endorsing her are her friends. I think that by having them endorse her, it is harder for Trump to mobilize some of the Republican voters that are not very enthusiastic about him. And her calculation is that these are more numerous than the pro Gaza voters she might be able to convince to vote for her.

We are in agreement that there is no coherent message in american elections anymore. Being an establishment nominee means being a cyncical liar, there is no real way around that. It is not like Harris would tell the truth if she said she is going to stop weapon deliveries to Gaza. It would just mean she'd have to find a somewhat convincing reason later on why she couldnt do it.

 

[M3J]

Harris treats gaza much like climate change. She goes on stage to say climate change is an existential threat, but she will not ban fracking and she will boast about how the fossil fuel industry did well under biden.

She does that because she thinks there is a tradeoff she wants to take: Assuring voters who are scared of real climate change or real anti-gaza-war measures that Harris is not going to do that seems more important to her campaign than winning more approval in the camps that feel strongly about these issues.

I think she might be right. It is not just about who you mobilize but also for whom you make mobilization harder. If Harris said she is going to end weapon deliveries to israel alltogether, that would probably make it easier for republicans to mobilize.

The other reason of course being that she probably does not care a lot about these things anyway.

Yet polls say her endorsing and helping genocide has hurt her in the polls. She and the Dems are actively hurting their campaign and chances, when taking action to help Palestinians and stop Israel would not hurt the Dems other than their pockets.

Dems' biggest blunder, yet again, is ignoring the people that they have to win over for people they already have, and for people that would not vote for them regardless.

 

[xi0]

--- Double Post Merged, Oct 15, 2024, Original Post Date: Oct 15, 2024 ---

I do not think Harris is gullible enough to think the republicans endorsing her are her friends. I think that by having them endorse her, it is harder for Trump to mobilize some of the Republican voters that are not very enthusiastic about him. And her calculation is that these are more numerous than the pro Gaza voters she might be able to convince to vote for her.

The issue is that today's average conservative and former Trump voter, fucking hates Dick Cheney. There's no calculus involving the Cheneys and the Harris campaign that makes sense. Unless you believe in the idea of the deep state colluding against Trump. If anything, one could make the argument that it only makes people more enthusiastic to vote for Trump.

--- Double Post Merged, Oct 15, 2024 ---

 

[shionoro]

@xi0

There is a considerable voter base in america scared about democrats being left extremist. That is why republicans tend to tap into these fears. That is also why Biden was a good candidate, because it was hard to frame him as such. Having Republicans endorse Harris is a good way to counteract these fears. Obviously nobody likes Dick Cheney, but you do not have to like Dick Cheney to vote for Harris. however, you have to think Harris is not an insane left radical person to vote for her.

The same goes for fracking gas. Saying she is against the fracking ban now might mean losing some climate votes. But the calculus seems to be that the people scared about climate will vote against Trump anyway, while the people who are afraid america loses economic power are more on the fence about her.

As far as polls and reasonings go, everyone is free to have their own analysis. Back when Biden ran, everbody said he will not win if he "does not get out of the basement". He still won. When Trump ran people thought the "grab her by the pussy" comments will seal his chances, they did not. I am not saying there are no better or worse strategies, but whether her positioning on Gaza will hurt or not is something impossible to say right now. I think fracking gas is a crime and the war in Gaza is a genocide and I'd still vote for her.

 

[xi0]

@xi0

There is a considerable voter base in america scared about democrats being left extremist. That is why republicans tend to tap into these fears. That is also why Biden was a good candidate, because it was hard to frame him as such. Having Republicans endorse Harris is a good way to counteract these fears. Obviously nobody likes Dick Cheney, but you do not have to like Dick Cheney to vote for Harris. however, you have to think Harris is not an insane left radical person to vote for her.

Based on what? What data suggests that?

Biden was called an extremist every hour of the day, Harris is still called that. Conservative talking points aren't grounded in any reality. They largely appeal to people who would never vote for a Democrat in the first place.

As far as polls and reasonings go, everyone is free to have their own analysis. Back when Biden ran, everbody said he will not win if he "does not get out of the basement". He still won. When Trump ran people thought the "grab her by the pussy" comments will seal his chances, they did not. I am not saying there are no better or worse strategies, but whether her positioning on Gaza will hurt or not is something impossible to say right now. I think fracking gas is a crime and the war in Gaza is a genocide and I'd still vote for her.

With this comparison you're leaving out the part where Republican politicians are by and large not held accountable by their voters for consequential moral failings. Sure, if someone is outed from the closest or changes their mind on abortion, they're shitcanned. Anything else? It's entirely hand-waved and not paid attention to. This not being the case for Democrats can be thought of in both a positive and negative way, and there's certainly many things that don't get headlines.

 

[shionoro]

Based on what? What data suggests that?

Biden was called an extremist every hour of the day, Harris is still called that. Conservative talking points aren't grounded in any reality. They largely appeal to people who would never vote for a Democrat in the first place.

He was, and it did not seem to work on him. The fact that republicans tend to always use that strategy means that it usually works. Whether it is grounded in reality or not is not the question, but whether it is useful to mobilize your own voters. Republicans seem tot hink it is, I have no reason to doubt it.

With this comparison you're leaving out the part where Republican politicians are by and large not held accountable by their voters for consequential moral failings. Sure, if someone is outed from the closest or changes their mind on abortion, they're shitcanned. Anything else? It's entirely hand-waved and not paid attention to. This not being the case for Democrats can be thought of in both a positive and negative way, and there's certainly many things that don't get headlines.

I am not leaving that out. Right after his comments, his polling numbers dwindled. So it was not a bad guess to think it hurts him. But on the long run, it did not and whether that polling was representing reality is another question. That is why it is impossible to say rn whether miniscule changes in polling are due to s th a candidate did, due to polling errors or due to s th else that nobody really sees. Most of these races are so close that polling errors seem to outweight any real development.

What if Harris said tomorrow "I will end weapon delivery to Israel". It is completely up in the air how that will benefit or hurt her. She would very suddenly, shortly before the election, create a situation in which the democratic party is divided on that issue and will fight each other. And she might just aswell face young pro-Gaza voters who still do not trust her and still say she is a war criminal or a genocidal psychopath because it is not enough for them. And then?

 

[M3J]

And she might just aswell face young pro-Gaza voters who still do not trust her and still say she is a war criminal or a genocidal psychopath because it is not enough for them. And then

Or if they are convinced to vote for her because she actually did something to stop Israel since Reagan's time? And then?

Dems really suck at this politics game now just because they're greedy.

 

[James Rye]

Man, Trumpy's townhall meeting was weird af. Just 4 minutes of standing around and "dancing" after two questions. Imagine if Biden had done this. Or Kamala for that matter. The Newspapers would have ripped them into shreds.