• Cleverdawny@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    ITT tankies pretend they don’t know that legal arguments are meant for court and are made to argue from every angle.

    No, this isn’t an admission that the primaries were rigged. They weren’t. It’s a hypothetical argument meant to progress a legal case to summary judgment, where the lawyer argued that even if everything the plaintiff said was correct, the DNC would still win the case.

    Essentially, what the lawyers for the Democrats were doing was “if I grant everything you claim for the sake of argument, you would still lose, and here’s why.” That doesn’t admit anything. OP knows it, but since he’s a literal Stalin-humping fascist who just wants to see anyone who wishes for a better world fail, he doesn’t care.

    • beteljuice@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It may not have been an admission that the primaries were rigged, and I know nothing about the OP, but nevertheless, the primaries were rigged.

      • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Which means you got actual evidence right? And this isn’t some sort of assumption based on the stats not choosing the candidate of your choice, right?

        Unless you mean gerrymandering, but everyone knows that is rigged.

        • Cleverdawny@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          The primaries weren’t gerrymandered, that only applies to the US house general election.

        • beteljuice@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Did you not watch the Iowa primary? It was all out in the opem. They didn’t expect Sanders to make a strong showing so they dragged the vote count out for days. There were videos of districts choosing candidates with a coin flip, and visibly turning the coin over if Sanders was chosen. Their cronies at MSNBC and CNN were announcing a landslide against Sanders to sway public opinion even though it hadn’t happened. They set up the districts so that even though Sanders had the overall vote count, Buttigieg still won the delegate count.

          And this isn’t even getting into the super rigged element of superdelegates.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OI1ubnuB_Y

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pqbf1J3CDw

            • beteljuice@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m not really a fan of Sanders, so I watched it objectively, and he was clearly shafted.

              But go on with the attitude of treating important elections like highschool insult contests.

              • Cleverdawny@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                He clearly wasn’t. The Buttigieg campaign focuses on turnout in areas the Sanders campaign ignored and won the contest because of the rules of the Iowa caucus, which allocate delegates to each individual precinct not based on their turnout but on their overall population. Sanders did well in highly attended precincts, Buttigieg beat him by outperforming him in less well attended precincts.

                It’s the way the rules were. Bernie could have employed the same strategy, but he didn’t.

                • beteljuice@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  So you’ve nothing to say about the strange extended vote count and the switched coin tosses.

    • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I do see value in harm reduction, TBH. Dems are shit but, statistically, anti-electoralism is functionally equivalent to voting for the far-right. So, I see it as a way to at least make it take some work for politicians to pretend that the tenets of neoliberalism and fascism are supported by as wide a group as claimed and attempt to reduce their influence in local elections (ex. the coordinated efforts to subvert school boards and have [further] right-wing propaganda taught as fact).

      Don’t mistake this as actually thinking that Libs are going to help unless forced, though. They’re absolutely Lucy in the picture.

      • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I do see value in harm reduction

        Categorically, regarding the still-open concentration camps across the southern border, the murderously neglectful lack of a meaningful covid response, the expanded oil drilling and permissive retention of the previous regime’s planet-burning deregulation policies and the tax cuts and kickbacks to the rick being maintained, harm is not being reduced at this point.

        • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Relatively speaking, it really still is. It can always get worse. And it would currently be much worse for LGBTQ+ people under a further right-wing government.

          • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It can always get worse.

            The more you milk that, the less milk you will get out of it when things are getting worse even after they do what you say.

  • xerazal@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Unfortunately in the two party duopoly, they’re the best we’ve got.

      • xerazal@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Fully aware, but it’s either that or allow the other party, which has become increasingly more fascist, back into power.

        • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The differences between them are getting less and less apparent over time.

          Biden rolled back next to nothing of his predecessor’s policies and executive orders. The border concentration camps are still open for business. brump

          • xerazal@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Bruh Republicans are open about backing trump even if he goes to jail. Trump has openly talked about how he wants to get rid of the constitution. They could have prevented him from running again after his failed coup attempt and they let him off the hook.

            At least some good has come from the Biden presidency, which tbh I didn’t expect at all. Some progress is better than no progress. 15 min wage for federal contract workers, an NLRB that is more pro-union than ever in my lifetime, an actual attempt at student loan debt reduction (which he should just nix via executive order but I digress), a 15% minimum corporate tax rate, bring back microchip manufacturing, and there’s more that I can’t list off the top of my head.

            Babysteps sure, but it’s better than nothing and way better than the backwards trajectory we got during the trump presidency and beyond the trump presidency due to his SC appointments.

            Perfect? Hell no. But something. We need to take the wins we can get while still hammering him from the left to do more.

            • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Bruh

              bruh yourself.

              But something.

              Your “harm reduction” president has not reduced much harm at all, no matter how you scramble in the dirt to try to hold up shiny things to wave at me.

              It’s just cope

              We need to take the wins we can get

              The last three years, especially with covid and climate change, were not wins. Even the pretense of slowing the damage down is weak to false now.

              • xerazal@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Jesus Christ might as well just give up on everything with your attitude lol

                • commiewithoutorgans [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  10
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  We came to the conclusions because we want to avoid giving up. Once you realize that settling for “harm reduction” is also a form of giving up, you learn to think strategically and read people who think strategically about these things for real improvement. Like Lenin.

    • AntiOutsideAktion [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      We don’t ‘got’ them. They’re the enemy. This is a post about them showing you that they’re explicitly hostile to you, your politics, and the concept of democracy.

  • Tankiedesantski [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’ve been trying to come up with a term to describe this phenomenon for a while now. Privatewashing, maybe?

    Westerners are programmed to not accept certain things if done by the government directly. Publishing propaganda? Bad. Laundering government propaganda through private media outlets? Not a problem. Interfering with a foreign election? Bad. Sponsoring a “Private NGO” to do it? Totally fine. Foreign government influencing domestic policy? Bad. Multinational companies paying lobby groups to do the same? Democracy.

    In this case, the government telling people that their votes don’t count and that rules don’t have to be followed would be flagrantly undemocratic. A private organization doing that though? Well we can’t do anything about it even if it’s directly relevant to the outcome of elections and national policy.

  • LimitedDuck@septic.win
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Not American, but isn’t voting in the primaries for the presidential candidate just restricted to those registered with a declared affiliation? As in “Democrats want their candidate determined by declared Democrats.” I thought it was also the same with Republicans.

  • squiblet@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well, yeah. If I started the Dickweed Party and decided I’d be the candidate, I wouldn’t have to let someone else take the nomination if I didn’t want to.

  • DerKriegs@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ok, I get this, but let’s take a closer look:

    Have you ever seen such a high resolution Pikachu meme? Such a shame it’s been wasted on more political rhetoric that no one asked for. More pixels in the damn quotes text, how wild!