This is Left Praxis, LIBERALS would never understand the 4d chess involved in how Trump winning helps Palestine and American minorities.

  • sOlitude24k
    24·
    4 months ago

    I’ll end up voting for Biden. Not psyched about it, but pragmatically the alternative is so much worse. Might get shit from the ultratankies and hexbros, but I’d rather do damage control than whine about Biden and do nothing while an actual fascist snakes his way back in.

    It doesn’t feel good. And it isn’t good. But this is the reality we live in at the moment.

    • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      16·
      4 months ago

      Thank you, comrade. I mean it. 2000 wasn’t like this. 2004 wasn’t like this. 2008 and 2012 weren’t like this. The opposition was cretinous and eager to violate what rights they could, our failure to defeat them in 2000 and 2004 caused hundreds of thousands of deaths, minimum, and is a stain on our soul, but they weren’t a direct threat to democracy itself. More than happy to cheat if they could, but not trying to fundamentally dismantle the system. This? Trump? I don’t know that we would survive a second term - large amounts of ‘us’ and the republic itself.

      The vote for the Dem candidate (one hopes not Biden) is essential against fascism.

      • whoreticulture@lemmy.world
        86·
        4 months ago

        2000 was like this, the Supreme Court literally passed a law to get Bush to win the presidency.

        George W. Bush and Al Gore. On December 8, the Florida Supreme Court had ordered a statewide recount of all undervotes, over 61,000 ballots that the vote tabulation machines had missed. The Bush campaign immediately asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the decision and halt the recount. Justice Antonin Scalia, convinced that all the manual recounts being performed in Florida’s counties were illegitimate, urged his colleagues to grant the stay immediately.[1] On December 9, the five conservative justices on the Court granted the stay, with Scalia citing “irreparable harm” that could befall Bush, as the recounts would cast “a needless and unjustified cloud” over Bush’s legitimacy. In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that “counting every legally cast vote cannot constitute irreparable harm.”[1]

        Why do you feel the need to lie about this?

        • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
          81·
          4 months ago

          2000 was like this, the Supreme Court literally passed a law to get Bush to win the presidency.

          Did you miss the part about being more than happy to cheat, or did you ignore it?

          Why do you feel the need to lie about this?

          Oh, sorry, you’re correct, we haven’t had real elections since 2000.

          • whoreticulture@lemmy.world
            53·
            4 months ago

            You don’t think cheating in an election, discounting votes, counts as being a threat to democracy? Using the Supreme Court to make a ruling for the sole purpose of making Bush president? That’s more than a threat, that’s a headshot.

            If you think that we haven’t had real elections since 2000, why do you say things are different now? This has been ongoing. I don’t see why you feel the need to make a narrative that this is all new.

            • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
              71·
              4 months ago

              I think dismantling the ability of the opposition to acquire office or remove the ruling party from office is a existential threat to democracy.

              Playing legal games to go against the popular vote and stall a region’s vote is a violation of democracy. Not an existential threat to it.

              So unless you’d like to tell me how we haven’t had elections since, I stick by what I said.

              • whoreticulture@lemmy.world
                52·
                4 months ago

                There is now legal precedent to do that at any given moment. I’m literally so confused about why you are trying to die on this hill? Republicans have been eating away at voting rights for a long time. If only some people have their votes counted, that’s not a democracy.

                Edit: not to mention the persistence of the electoral college, which has already fundamentally destroyed the idea of democracy.

                • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
                  41·
                  4 months ago

                  There is now legal precedent to do that at any given moment.

                  Funny enough, one of the most outrageous parts of that case was that it explicitly did not establish legal precedent for it.

                  If only some people have their votes counted, that’s not a democracy.

                  So have we ever been a democracy, in your eyes?

                  It’s real funny that you’re trying to normalize Trump’s behavior by casting it as just another Republican administration.

                  Not ha-ha funny.

                  • whoreticulture@lemmy.world
                    14·
                    4 months ago

                    If it happened before, what is stopping it from happening again? Why can’t the Supreme Court do it again and also say “yeah but it’s not a precedent”?

                    Why do you feel the need to pretend the US is suddenly becoming undemocratic? And why have you ignored that question? I am actually curious here?