319
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] orclev@lemmy.world 20 points 9 months ago

How we got here is really easy, we've arrived at the ground state of First Past The Post voting. Once you have two extremists facing off against each other it takes a massive effort to get a non-extremist into office as you can just cruise into an easy victory by running your own extremist against your opponents extremist. Each side effectively has a lock on their own party and it comes down to which extremist will be slightly less off-putting to the independents. In this case the extremist on one side has aspirations to be a dictator, while the other side is so utterly bland he makes milk look spicy. If Biden was any less progressive he'd literally be a Republican.

That's basically what Biden is banking on, that he's so utterly boring and milquetoast that more independents will vote for him over the wannabe dictator of Trump while still getting enough Democrats to hold their nose and vote for him just to deny Trump the win.

[-] takeda@lemmy.world 31 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

You're kind of contradicting yourself. On one hand you are saying two extremists then later about that Biden is right centre.

I agree with the later part. At this moment we have one extremist and one right center guy. The reason Biden is running is to be still appealing to Republicans and independents to dissuade them from voting for trump.

Though, so much effort was put by media to make him look like he is Karl Marx reincarnated.

[-] 1stTime4MeInMCU@mander.xyz 6 points 9 months ago

It is a little bit of a contradiction and I had a hard time following the logic. But your post made me think of something else. If you have one extremist candidate by definition you have two, because from the perspective of the followers of the atypical extremist candidate (a trump like figure) status quo will be an extreme for them

[-] orclev@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

Extremism needs to be judged by the standards of that party in this context. An extreme Democrat is either a radical socialist like Bernie Sanders, or utterly non-progressive like Biden. Likewise extremist for the GOP would be a fascist like Trump, or someone so far left as to almost qualify as a progressive.

[-] takeda@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago

I can't help but notice that you couldn't come up with leftist GOP extremist.

I think you were able to do it with Democrats was because Democrats are really everyone else who doesn't identify themselves as Republicans. With the first past the post, those different parties have no option but to work together as one.

[-] orclev@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago

I couldn't list the left of the GOP because I don't honestly follow the GOP besides the nearly daily disgust at the things they do. There has to be a far left for the GOP, I'm just not sure who that is (probably because they aren't making the headlines, just quietly doing what they can to hold back the rest of the monsters in their party). Whose the least offensive Republican you can think of? That's probably the far left for them.

[-] Pratai@lemmy.ca 5 points 9 months ago

Democratic socialism isn’t “radical.”

[-] SonnyVabitch@lemmy.world 25 points 9 months ago

Give me milquetoast extremism or give me death!

I don't really understand your charge against Biden. Skimming headlines from afar it seemed like he was supposedly the most progressive president in a very long time. Where do you think one should read up on his record in office if we want to judge his presidency?

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

Biden has largely just maintained the status quo. He hasn't done anything to meaningfully progress anything. None of the problems facing the US or the world have been even remotely addressed by him. The best that could be said is he hasn't made most things any worse, although he's really giving it the college try with his support for Israel recently. The only reason Biden looks remotely progressive is because he undid all the stuff Trump fucked up. Just because the previous guy was running backwards doesn't mean you get credit for returning to where you started when you've done fuck all since then.

As for where to find his accomplishments, I've got no idea as he has very few worth mentioning. He's managed to keep the economy going so there's that I guess, and he supported Ukraine, but really that should be considered the bare minimum. Domestically he's doing nothing of particular note.

[-] vividspecter@lemm.ee 17 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Climate change is by far the most serious problem facing the US and the IRA is a genuinely substantial step towards addressing that.

[-] orclev@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Sadly too little too late. Something like that if done a decade or two ago might have worked, but at this point it's a bandaid on a sucking chest wound. Dealing with climate change is going to require not only the kind of investment the IRA authorizes but equivalent foreign policy pushes, as well as a significant domestic PR campaign. The petrochemical companies have been allowed free reign to push their messaging for too many decades and now a significant portion of the US literally believes climate change is a hoax. It's going to take something like the public awareness campaign that was instituted against tobacco companies to undo that damage and the best time to have done that was a decade ago. The second best time is now.

[-] SonnyVabitch@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

That's an interesting perspective, thanks for sharing.

Just because the previous guy was running backwards doesn't mean you get credit for returning to where you started when you've done fuck all since then.

I disagree with this point enthusiastically. If he steered the boat ten miles up river, that's still a major achievement, especially if the previous captain had just drifted from bank to bank while he was actively putting holes in the hull. We don't know how Biden would have sailed if he'd taken charge where the previous guy did, maybe he'd have stayed in one place, gone down stream, or maybe he'd taken another ten miles the right way, we'll never know.

this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2024
319 points (93.5% liked)

politics

19089 readers
1381 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS