So Biden-Haters: why Trump over Biden?

[Buyetyen]

I know exactly what I’m saying, this framing of “anyone but Trump” is an insincere powergrab by DNC officials who just want to line their own pockets at my expense. To make myself and the people I care about suffer for their profit rather than Trump’s profit. If our leaders are so cowardly and insignificant that they need me to win despite loathing me, then why in the world should they be in charge? No matter the outcome between these two chucklefucks, this country will be led by goblin fucking children until someone says stop to their petty games of violence and farce, and Biden is mentally, morally, and physically incapable of that.

Those are some nice ideals. Unfortunately, reality has a way of forcing you to work with what you have.

I am aware of who you were talking about. I was teasing.

They perhaps won't make a meaningful statement, but make no mistake. It is not they that have resigned, for they still hope for change. The ones that have resigned are they that will take any candidate, no matter his baggage or past, as long as they attempt to beat Trump. True resignation is accepting the status quo as is and deciding it cannot be changed. It can. It is unlikely it will, because most people have either resigned to the status quo, aren't affected enough to care to make a stand of any sort, or are the upper middle class sort, who want Trump to go away (as he is abomidable even to them) without changing their comfortable lives. But unless some sort of attempt at change is made, then so things shall remain.

I repeat, those are some very nice ideals. The situation on the ground is less than ideal and I would prefer to get through this with the least amount of human suffering considering the circumstances. Being pissed is one thing, but allowing your pride to get in the way of addressing actual emergencies is another.

The way the US election system is currently set up, you're not going to change dick at the federal level unless you start seeding actual progressive candidates in the down-ticket races. Fight at the federal level, yes, but not at the expense of nurturing an actual movement. I want change as much as you do. Angry gets shit done. Less so however when you have no plan. If you only intend to protest vote, that's not much of a plan.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Those are some nice ideals. Unfortunately, reality has a way of forcing you to work with what you have.



I repeat, those are some very nice ideals. The situation on the ground is less than ideal and I would prefer to get through this with the least amount of human suffering considering the circumstances. Being pissed is one thing, but allowing your pride to get in the way of addressing actual emergencies is another.

The way the US election system is currently set up, you're not going to change dick at the federal level unless you start seeding actual progressive candidates in the down-ticket races. Fight at the federal level, yes, but not at the expense of nurturing an actual movement. I want change as much as you do. Angry gets shit done. Less so however when you have no plan. If you only intend to protest vote, that's not much of a plan.

Also gonna point out, with a bit over 5 months until the election, I don't see how we can realistically expect another better candidate at the moment given the situation. Would much rather say, if you dislike the current ones, well sucks but they're what we have and next time around we can try for something different and that's the time it's realistic to have hope for something else.

 

[Revnak]

Imagine me not knowing about your city.

Anyways, do you actually wanna talk or make little jabs about me being ignorant of your city's problems and saying roundabout non-communicative things about AR buyback without explaining what your point about it is?

I don’t want to talk within the dull, brain rotting framework of liberal electoralism. I want to point out the utter absurdity of believing that we are in a binary reality where the choices are two rapists who will kill all of us to please a South African billionaire. I’d rather hold them accountable by refusing to support either, among other activities of varying degrees of legality.

 

[Revnak]

Those are some nice ideals. Unfortunately, reality has a way of forcing you to work with what you have.

Calling me an idealist is a hilarious insult to every human dictionary of the English language.

 

[Buyetyen]

Also gonna point out, with a bit over 5 months until the election, I don't see how we can realistically expect another better candidate at the moment given the situation. Would much rather say, if you dislike the current ones, well sucks but they're what we have and next time around we can try for something different and that's the time it's realistic to have hope for something else.

True. It's a bullshit system, but it's what we have to work with for this election cycle. There's nothing glorious about placing vanity over plausability.

Calling me an idealist is a hilarious insult to every human dictionary of the English language.

You burn too hot to be a cynic. A cynic is just a mentally lazy individual who can't be bothered to give a fuck or do the right thing. You have a lot of fucks to give as indicated by your ire. And I'll take you at your word on the, "activities of varying degrees of legality." And if that's what you think it has to come to... well, you first.

 

[MrCalavera]

Talking as an outsider here, that mostly consumes bits of american politics through internet osmosis and friends.

From the accelerationist angle - one man clown disaster that Trump is, continuously lowers public trust in american two party system. Which, if you believe that its one of the reasons for POTUS Trump being possible in first place, might be a good thing. Letting Trump sour politics for the citizenry, might just be what's needed for a long delayed revolution(in a very broad meaning - not necessarily 1917 or guillotines etc.), that will allow for a meaningful change to the system, in place of continously putting band-aids on it. In theory.
In practice you can't be sure of the effects, and so far i rather witnessed ongoing polarization of the public, and people splintering into more and more echo chambers.

From an, let's say, internationally conscious angle - Trump turning USA into an unreliable ally and weakening the foreign policy muscle of the US govt. is a net gain. As it's also damping some of the negative aspects of the american influence over the world. Harder to form an US lead military coalition, with someone like him at the helm, for example.
OTOH USA being further distanced from International community might bring different results. Looking at dubious effects of ostracizing Russia on the international arena.

But that's the international outlook, and i've been told it's very much an afterthought during american electoral campaigns.

Going back to Biden: I do think he's a very weak candidate, and i absolutely understand why progressivists have qualms about voting for him, but... Does the whole "vote blue" shtick even matter for voters that don't live in swing states?

 

[Revnak]

You burn too hot to be a cynic. A cynic is just a mentally lazy individual who can't be bothered to give a fuck or do the right thing. You have a lot of fucks to give as indicated by your ire. And I'll take you at your word on the, "activities of varying degrees of legality." And if that's what you think it has to come to... well, you first.

I am a man formed of materialist anger. I have fucks to give because I am alive, not because I am dreaming of some fantasy beyond our mortal realm. Some of us get more angry over our empty bellies than we do over spectres of our collective imaginations.

 

[Neuromancer]

Okay, that *sounds* fine and all. But in the immediate future, do we have another alternative? You can talk about hope etc and status quo, but this is feeling like saying we could take a third road as we're speeding 70 mph between two other choices with the other option way behind for the immediate moment.

Ah, but that is the trap, is it not? It's always about the *immediate* moment. Never mind every moment that came before it.

But to use your example. You are not driving anything. In voting for whomever is passed to you, you have relinquished the keys to your car and are going on a ride with whoever the keys end up with, even if it's the creepy gropey senile uncle. You could have, at any point in the past four years, taken the car and left and found other people to work with and build a car movement and collectively drive down that alternative back when that choice was the immediate future.

I repeat, those are some very nice ideals. The situation on the ground is less than ideal and I would prefer to get through this with the least amount of human suffering considering the circumstances. Being pissed is one thing, but allowing your pride to get in the way of addressing actual emergencies is another.

For many people on the edge of poverty a Biden election will not change things enough for their lives to change for the better. A friend of mine has a wife and four year old daughter, and they are both working two jobs to barely pull through. That was a reality under Obama years as well. The way to decrease suffering is not sitting on our arse and voting once every four years, but through direct action. Protest, mutual aid, cooperatives, building communities that look out for their members. Too many people, and I should make the disclaimer that I am not necessarily referring to you as I do not know what you do with your life, talk about caring for human life while only ever engaging in a binary choice every four years. Complacency to such a system brought this point.

 

[Neuromancer]

Talking as an outsider here, that mostly consumes bits of american politics through internet osmosis and friends.

From the accelerationist angle - one man clown disaster that Trump is, continuously lowers public trust in current american (two party)system. Which, if you believe that the system is *fucked* and stands as one of the reasons for POTUS Trump being possible in first place, might be a good thing. Letting Trump sour politics for the citizenry, might just be what's needed for a long delayed revolution(in a very broad meaning - not necessarily 1917 or guillotines etc.), that will allow for a meaningful change to the system, in place of continously putting band-aids on it. In theory.
In practice you can't be sure of the effects, and so far i rather witnessed ongoing polarization of the public, and people splintering into more and m żeore echo chambers.

From an, let's say, internationally conscious angle - Trump turning USA into an unreliable ally and weakening the foreign policy muscle of the US govt. is a net gain. As it's also damping some of the negative aspects of the american influence over the world. Harder to form an US lead military coalition, with someone like him at the helm, for example.
OTOH USA being further distanced from International community might bring different results. Looking at dubious effects of ostracizing Russia on the international arena.

But that's international angle, and i've been told it's very much an afterthought during american electoral campaigns.

The US has never been a trustworthy ally. It has triggered and supported brutal regimes in its allied nations (the Greek military junta comes to mind), threatened allies with nuclear retaliation (Britain and jet engine tech, for example), and continues to spy on its allies (being caught spying on Germany under the Obama adminstration). It has always been strong-arming other nations in line.

 

[Buyetyen]

I am a man formed of materialist anger. I have fucks to give because I am alive, not because I am dreaming of some fantasy beyond our mortal realm. Some of us get more angry over our empty bellies than we do over specters of our collective imaginations.

For a man who claims to reject dreamers, you certainly do tend toward the melodramatic.

You could have, at any point in the past four years, taken the car and left and found other people to work with and build a car movement and collectively drive down that alternative back when that choice was the immediate future.

And what does that look like in praxis other than protest votes?

Protest, mutual aid, cooperatives, building communities that look out for their members. Too many people, and I should make the disclaimer that I am not necessarily referring to you as I do not know what you do with your life, talk about caring for human life while only ever engaging in a binary choice every four years. Complacency to such a system brought this point.

But do you have a plan other than protest voting?

 

[Revnak]

For a man who claims to reject dreamers, you certainly do tend toward the melodramatic.

What can I say, I like to paint word pictures.

 

[lil devils x]

Are you expecting the GOP to flip the house, or just to lose less than 4 seats in the Senate?

Because if the GOP fails to flip the House (likely) and loses 4 or more seats in Senate (possible, but not guaranteed) there is literally nothing preventing the Dems from pushing their agenda through as completely as they want. That "as they want" is key there. They won't do nearly as much as their supporters hope, and will pretend that's because they are unable to do so. As usual.

You act as if there are not conservatives in both parties. The republicans are 100% conservatives. The democrats have BOTH conservatives and progressives, but are the only party that has any progressives at all here. The progressives do not have enough seats in the house or the senate to pass an entirely progressive agenda, and for democrats to even gain the majority needed in the Senate they have to take seats in conservative districts WITH conservative democrats winning those seats. Democrats have to maintain their hold on the house take the seats in the senate and win the white house to pass ANY expansion at all, let alone one that is not supported by the majority members of congress due to the makeup of the voters in the districts that are required to have a majority in the first place. When you look through the districts Democrats have to win to be able to pass anything at all, you can see from the congressional seats thread, that they are not progressive districts.

Our current situation is that it takes conservative democrats, progressive democrats and middle of the road democrats ALL banding together for the democrats to have enough votes to pass anything EVEN when they have a majority, otherwise we lose what we have already in addition to not making any gains if they fail to compromise and work together.

They are not pretending they are unable to do so, they are actually unable to do so because they have to have all factions with different positions agreeing to band together and agree on a solution that will be acceptable to all of them. If you make your solution too progressive, you lose the votes required to pass anything. That is why they make smaller steps rather than huge leaps. The alternative though is that we lose the current medicaid, medicare , unemployment benefits and low income assistance we currently have as republicans ARE in agreement that they want to eliminate those programs instead of make incremental gains. That is the difference here. Due to the US system being designed to elect more republicans, they gain ground every time all the other groups do not band together to defeat them. It literally takes all of the other groups who are not republicans putting aside their differences and banding together to beat republicans at all. If they fail to do so, they lose any gains they made previously in addition to not making new ones and the republicans put obstacles in place to make it extremely difficult if not impossible for them to make gains once they take office. Trump has put into place 193 judges on the bench that will rule medicare, medicaid, and welfare unconstitutional. How can we expand any of that when the judges will now throw it out? The only way to really change that now is via constitutional amendment.

 

[Neuromancer]

But do you have a plan other than protest voting?

I cannot speak for everyone, but as someone that has been participating in direct action for the better part of the past 20 years, yes. There are multiple plans concerning anything from building squats for the homeless, providing food, medicine and clothing, coordinating with relevant non-profit organizations (such as ones that help drug addicts) and reaching out to other such communities, whether it is to request assistance or, if things are well, provide it. Demonstrate against injustices like police brutality. Educate and agitate. There has been a cross-country cooperation network in helping refugees by providing them shelter or helping them find the means to move towards where they want to go, or helping them set up a new life here.

 

[lil devils x]

Just gonna say again, the ACA was passed without any Republican support, only Dems supported it and it was still trash. This is why I don't trust Democrats, you can give them everything and they'll still fuck it up because voting for Republican (D) does not work, they will not do what you think they will, we've seen it happen. Hell, Biden was in the White House when the White House determined to not even have a public option, Dems don't know how to bargain, or rather they're bargaining on behalf of other people, not citizens.

Fact Check: Joe Biden Has Advocated Cutting Social Security for 40 Years

“I tried with Senator Grassley back in the 1980s to freeze all government spending, including Social Security, including everything,” Biden said in 1995.

theintercept.com

Biden Announces Deal with Hospitals to Cut Medicare, Medicaid Payments by $155 Billion

Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. announced an agreement in which three associations representing the hospital industry agreed to Medicare and Medicaid cuts totaling $155 billion over 10 years as part of a health overhaul that assumes coverage of 95 percent of the American people.

www.commonwealthfund.org

Biden vs. Sanders on Social Security and Medicare - FactCheck.org

Sen. Bernie Sanders says former Vice President Joe Biden has a long history of supporting cuts to Social Security. Biden says the opposite is true. We sort through some of the competing claims.

www.factcheck.org

Joe Biden Tried to Cut Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare for 40 Years

Joe Biden was once a New Deal Democrat. Then he “evolved” and starting backing decades of Republican plans to cut Medicare and Social Security.

www.jacobinmag.com

No, expanding safety net programs is deeply against his electoral history as well. If the platform includes debt forgiveness, that'd be against his history too.

As for the party reneging, I do believe they generally would because they have before.

The Democratic Party's deceitful game

They are willing to bravely support any progressive bill as long as there's no chance it can pass

www.salon.com

Isn't one of the oldest rules in politics to not just blindly believe campaign promises? Isn't that the domain of suckers?



Oh no, how dare I use a forum as a forum.



I'm saying if you want to fix the problems Trump represents, voting to continue those problems is counter-productive.



ThinkingEmoji.jpg

Hmm yes, it's definitely not the person calling progressive voters Republican plants who is doing this.

You do realize that the democrats are not some unified party like the republicans are right? You have to understand how this works for you to be able to do anything at all here.
Republicans are 100% conservative and united around cutting and/or eliminating welfare, medicaid, medicare and unemployment benefits. It takes EVERYONE else in congress putting their differences aside and banding together with bribes, begging pleading and blackmailing in order to stop the republican agenda at all.
Democrats have progressives, middle of the road and conservatives that all have to work together to get anything done at all. They are not 100% progressive, but they are the ONLY one of the two parties that have ANY progressives at all. If you want to change that you have to convince the people in conservative districts to vote for progressives when they are the same ones who are spreading the Bernie is a Nazi socialist memes and Obama was a gay muslim prostitute. As it is, it is still very difficult for democrats to flip republicans districts, EVEN with a conservative democrat due to the sheer amount of GOP propaganda. It would be great to have more progressive seats, but look at the congressional seat thread, those districts will not elect progressives, at best we can hope for a conservative democrat in those seats or we have no possible way to get a majority at all. In order to get anything done we have to have a clear path to be able to do it. If we do not have a path forward it will not happen. Ever.

No one said the ACA had republicans votes, they still needed conservative democrat votes or they could not pass it or anything else. Taking the "my way or the highway" approach only guarantees you lose what gains you already made and any possible future gains due to the obstacles being placed when republicans swoop in and take everything away that we already had and make sure the courts rule our existing medicare, medicaid and welfare unconstitutional. That is why Trump has already placed 193 federal judges who will rule that way and is trying to get as many as he possibly can in before he leaves so that it doesn't matter who is elected after he leaves, it will take constitutional amendments to pass ANY progressive agenda within our lifetimes. All that falsely claiming " both parties are the same " does is help Trump, because it doesn't make changes to district makeup of seats democrats need , it only weakens the gains made by the progressives within the party.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

You do realize that the democrats are not some unified party like the republicans are right? You have to understand how this works for you to be able to do anything at all here.
Republicans are 100% conservative and united around cutting and/or eliminating welfare, medicaid, medicare and unemployment benefits. It takes EVERYONE else in congress putting their differences aside and banding together with bribes, begging pleading and blackmailing in order to stop the republican agenda at all.
Democrats have progressives, middle of the road and conservatives that all have to work together to get anything done at all. They are not 100% progressive, but they are the ONLY one of the two parties that have ANY progressives at all. If you want to change that you have to convince the people in conservative districts to vote for progressives when they are the same ones who are spreading the Bernie is a Nazi socialist memes and Obama was a gay muslim prostitute. As it is, it is still very difficult for democrats to flip republicans districts, EVEN with a conservative democrat due to the sheer amount of GOP propaganda. It would be great to have more progressive seats, but look at the congressional seat thread, those districts will not elect progressives, at best we can hope for a conservative democrat in those seats or we have no possible way to get a majority at all. In order to get anything done we have to have a clear path to be able to do it. If we do not have a path forward it will not happen. Ever.

No one said the ACA had republicans votes, they still needed conservative democrat votes or they could not pass it or anything else. Taking the "my way or the highway" approach only guarantees you lose what gains you already made and any possible future gains due to the obstacles being placed when republicans swoop in and take everything away that we already had and make sure the courts rule our existing medicare, medicaid and welfare unconstitutional. That is why Trump has already placed 193 federal judges who will rule that way and is trying to get as many as he possibly can in before he leaves so that it doesn't matter who is elected after he leaves, it will take constitutional amendments to pass ANY progressive agenda within our lifetimes.

Then back to the eternal question.

WHY THE FUCK WOULD I VOTE FOR A CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRAT?!

If they're useless, they don't get votes. Ez-pz. If they won't vote on progressive policies, then they aren't useful to have. Period. You have said absolutely nothing to change my mind on this, you've only agreed with me entirely up to the point where I don't want to empower them anymore and you do. I have no idea why you would do this.

We gave the Dems all the power that was possible in 2008, they squandered it, they showed why they shouldn't be given power unconditionally. They have to work for their power now. If they won't legislate usefully, they won't legislate at all.

 

[lil devils x]

I cannot speak for everyone, but as someone that has been participating in direct action for the better part of the past 20 years, yes. There are multiple plans concerning anything from building squats for the homeless, providing food, medicine and clothing, coordinating with relevant non-profit organizations (such as ones that help drug addicts) and reaching out to other such communities, whether it is to request assistance or, if things are well, provide it. Demonstrate against injustices like police brutality. Educate and agitate. There has been a cross-country cooperation network in helping refugees by providing them shelter or helping them find the means to move towards where they want to go, or helping them set up a new life here.

Building " squats" isn't really helping. We have to address permanent, safe, long term housing, nutrition, medical care and transportation or we just create more problems to have to deal with later. The issues of people being raped, beaten and killed in the temporary housing "squats" isn't providing a safe environment and not changing the overall outcome here so I see those as causing more problems than they solve. Having personally treated homeless women who have been raped and brutalized in those areas, for one would rather they not waste their time of money on squats and instead work on real solutions to the problems here. I see the temporary shelters and unsafe housing as part of the problem rather than the solution here.

 

[Buyetyen]

I cannot speak for everyone, but as someone that has been participating in direct action for the better part of the past 20 years, yes. There are multiple plans concerning anything from building squats for the homeless, providing food, medicine and clothing, coordinating with relevant non-profit organizations (such as ones that help drug addicts) and reaching out to other such communities, whether it is to request assistance or, if things are well, provide it. Demonstrate against injustices like police brutality. Educate and agitate. There has been a cross-country cooperation network in helping refugees by providing them shelter or helping them find the means to move towards where they want to go, or helping them set up a new life here.

Leaving the issues lil devils brought up aside, I actually find this sort of commitment incongruous with protest voting. Of course, human beings are complicated in general.

I'll just say the last of what I want to and move on. My problem with protest votes is that they don't accomplish what they think they do specifically because that's how the system is rigged. If the intent of a protest vote is to hold the establishment accountable, it doesn't have a great success record.

 

[Revnak]

Building " squats" isn't really helping. We have to address permanent, safe, long term housing, nutrition, medical care and transportation or we just create more problems to have to deal with later. The issues of people being raped, beaten and killed in the temporary housing "squats" isn't providing a safe environment and not changing the overall outcome here so I see those as causing more problems than they solve. Having personally treated homeless women who have been raped and brutalized in those areas, for one would rather they not waste their time of money on squats and instead work on real solutions to the problems here. I see the temporary shelters and unsafe housing as part of the problem rather than the solution here.

Elect a rapist to end rape, it’s the only realistic option. Working outside an unjust system is for losers, as is trying to change that unjust system in any vaguely effective way. We must play by our enemy’s rules until they surrender.
Edit- Because I can add here easily, better Biden’s cages than an anarchist squat. Better reliance on the Nation that will deport them for the slightest grievance as it is an abominable fiction than dependence on their neighbors. Because it is the hogs, the human that must be feared, and the clean, sublime spectacle of Nation and government that must be revered.
Edit2- Because there’s even more that can sensibly be added, in what insane reality is Biden a permanent solution? He is a senile chameleon, there is little structure left to the man at this point. Four years and he’ll be dead or replaced by some far more insane heir to Trumpian reaction, or perhaps some more blatantly fascist leader. Biden is dramatically more impermanent than any anarchist squat or homeless camp.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Realistically, what do you expect would happen because of an assassination?

"Anyone but Trump"?

Corrected on the voting bit, but it does raise an eyebrow that you just come to the conclusion others must not be that sincere because they haven't assassinated anyone.

Trump is a Russian agent guilty of treason, or so we are led to believe. You do know what the penalty for treason is, right?

Honestly, the fact that Trump has had no attempts on his life does suggest a huge difference between rhetoric and actual belief. Of course, there are even better indicators of that, like the fact that the Democratic House of Representatives keeps passing his bills, bills which among other things expand the surveillance powers of the executive branch and enrich Donald Trump's base of wealthy campaign contributors.

 

[Neuromancer]

Building " squats" isn't really helping. We have to address permanent, safe, long term housing, nutrition, medical care and transportation or we just create more problems to have to deal with later. The issues of people being raped, beaten and killed in the temporary housing "squats" isn't providing a safe environment and not changing the overall outcome here so I see those as causing more problems than they solve. Having personally treated homeless women who have been raped and brutalized in those areas, for one would rather they not waste their time of money on squats and instead work on real solutions to the problems here. I see the temporary shelters and unsafe housing as part of the problem rather than the solution here.

You are clueless as to what I am talking about

Those squats are not built with a plan in mind and form out of homeless people walking into empty buildings and gathering up together. The squats that I've worked in have people actively work into helping the homeless, organizing the squat while providing .The ones you are talking about have no actual group coherency or problem solving and de-escalation. There's a radical difference between the squats you refer to and the ones I do, and do not mistake them as the same.

As for anything concerning permanent solutions, I don't see why I should repeat myself, we already have a long-working system of mutual aid that has been consistently providing people in need food, clothes and medicine for more than a decade. We have helped addicts receive help and detox. Victims of abuse get psychological help. We have bought, after years of gathering, property to transform into shelters.

You are welcome to work on your permanent solutions, and I will welcome them if the are beneficial. But until then I'm getting people off the streets during winter and making sure they don't die from hypothermia or malnourishment.