Kamala is Much Better Than Joe : usauthoritarianism

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 33 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I remember voting for Sanders a couple different times

Biden did quite a bit for the working class, although quite a lot more would be fuckin fantastic. But I do get your point. I feel like maybe you are confusing “get to vote for” with “get to have on a silver platter without needing to play on the tilted table that is US politics and actually get the dude or dudette elected”. I don’t think there has ever been a country where the ruling class will let go of power and give the people a fair shake just because they stand up and say “better candidates pls I don’t like these ones.”

In other words what’s your alternative, just give up and wait for things to get worse until we all starve or go to the camps?

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 15 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I read it as “waaahhhh politics is hard and/or I don’t know how it works”

Run your candidate, get the votes. N’est-ce pas?

Nothing’s preventing that. If it’s the first time out, maybe a Presidential run isn’t the best idea.

[–] tacticalsugar@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Run your candidate, get the votes. N’est-ce pas?

Out of curiosity, how would you respond to people voting third party instead of for Harris?

In the past day you've attacked people for trying to push for Harris to have more left-leaning policies. So you don't actually want people to do the work to get involved in politics, you want people to just vote for whoever the Democrats run.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Out of curiosity, how would you respond to people voting third party instead of for Harris?

I would simply remind them that third-parties will not win electoral votes, and as this election will be razor-close anyway, a third party vote is a vote for trump.

In the past day you've attacked people for trying to push for Harris to have more left-leaning policies. So you don't actually want people to do the work to get involved in politics, you want people to just vote for whoever the Democrats run.

No. Two things: Firstly, undermining support for a campaign can be done by posing as pushing for more progressive policies. We saw this a lot with “gEnOSiDE jOe = i won’t vote for genocide”. Two - involvement in politics is always a positive thing. But with 87 days til the election, it’s kind of the only time demanding changes from outside the party is super unlikely.

If we survive this election and Harris gets in, I’ll be right there demanding progress. For the next 87 days though, it’s more GOTV than Here’s My List of Demands.

[–] tacticalsugar@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

This entire response is an exercise in mental gymnastics. Leftists are bad for "not doing politics" but also leftists are bad for doing politics.

If we survive this election and Harris gets in, I’ll be right there demanding progress. For the next 87 days though, it’s more GOTV than Here’s My List of Demands.

If I had a penny for every liberal that said that and then didn't actually care, I'd be able to pay the student debt Joe Biden thought I didn't deserve to have forgiven.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

This entire response is an exercise in mental gymnastics. Leftists are bad for "not doing politics" but also leftists are bad for doing politics.

"Controlled burns are good for forests, but unattended raging wildfires are bad? Mental gymnastics!"

Shockingly, the same action has different results in different contexts. Knowing when to take which action for the maximum benefit, and minimum damage, to a cause isn't mental gymnastics, it's just regular thinking.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

If I had a penny for every leftist who understood politics I’d have about $37.50

This entire response is an exercise in mental gymnastics. Leftists are bad for "not doing politics" but also leftists are bad for doing politics.

I don’t know how you mean, but I’m assuming you’re conflating “doing politics” with negative comments about Harris’ perceived lack of woo woo magickal socialistic legislation?

Leftists are bad for limiting the chance to defeat trump - that’s it. That’s my fundamental “leftists are bad for doing” complaint. If leftists want to organize voting, circulate petitions, attend meetings and give opinions, run candidates for local elections or any of the actual boring AF things that actually comprise the core of political effort - I am 100% supportive of them doing that. The chances would be very good that I’d support those efforts or candidates.

But I don’t ever see a lot of evidence that they’ve done that. All I ever see is pointless complaints like “waah liebruls are preventing magickal goodnesses” concentrated around the presidential election cycle - and that’s it. So, yeah, that’s worse than useless, that’s just counterproductive.

It’s not a coincidence that’s what russian influence groups like IRA did in 2016 , 2020, and now. Because creating divisions only helps The Cult. Couldn’t they just go to the trump supporters and do that there? Complain how trump isn’t progressive enough, cause FUD over there and try to bring down their voter base? At least then there’d be a benefit to it.

Facebook sold political ads to fake accounts linked to Russia

Most of the ads didn't specifically mention the election or express support for a particular candidate. But they did appear to "focus on amplifying divisive social and political messages across the ideological spectrum -- touching on topics from LGBT matters to race issues to immigration to gun rights,"

You see how “focusing on amplifying divisive social and political messages” in the run up to an election is a russian influence tactic? That’s why I say right now is the wrong time for “doing politics” on an internet forum. Register voters, knock on doors or text people if you need to do so, but posting “Harris isn’t progressive enough on —-“ right now is not okay. There are three years and seven months to do that. And I guarantee everyone whining about ‘the liberals’ won’t say anything (or, more accurately, do anything) in that time. Why is that, I wonder.

[–] tacticalsugar@lemmy.blahaj.zone -2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

but posting “Harris isn’t progressive enough on —-“ right now is not okay

Trans people are literally just asking for basic human dignity, and you're telling us that isn't okay.

A picture of a bombed out city with 21 speech bubbles saying "stop your bombs" while Kamala Harris in the foreground says "I'm speaking"

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Sorry - how do you mean? Is Harris promoting some horrible thing?

[–] tacticalsugar@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yes.

Leftists are trying to push her left because they want a more progressive president. It's a perfectly "valid" political position to think she's perfect as is and want leftists to stop trying to get her to be more progressive, just own it. You're pushing back against leftists and then pretending you aren't, and that's where you lose any good will or assumptions of good faith. By all means disagree with lefties, just own it.

My problem specifically is that this kind of thing happens any time lefties push for Democrats to be progressive. Exactly 4 years ago I saw leftists being chastised for trying to push Biden left because "he has to win first", then it was "he just won you have to give him time", then it was "we can't worry about distractions like trans rights or antiracism, we need to worry about midterms", then it was "midterms just ended, we need to give them time to get organized", then it was "we can't worry about distractions like trans rights or antiracism or genocide, we need to worry about Trump", and now it's looped back to "she has to win first". In 6 months it'll be "she just won you have to give her time", and a year from now we'll be too busy worrying about midterms.

Do you see the pattern here? There's never an acceptable time for liberals to care about marginalized people. We're not even saying Harris is evil or should lose, we're literally just asking for her to do better. I genuinely hope she wins, nationalizes all the things, fixes racism and transphobia, and we all live happily ever after. I just don't think we'll ever get there without pushing our leaders to do better. You know how the right loves to say "love America or get out"? Leftists are taking the third option of "make it better" and you're pushing back against them for it. You aren't saying it out loud, but you're embodying the "love it or leave it" mentality of the right.

We just want her to be better.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Okay, she did prosecutorial things as a prosecutor. If you want to talk about prosecutorial misconduct - which you’re not arguing because it isn’t- there are a lot of bad prosecutors out there; knowingly making illegal and gray-area decisions all the time. She’s not been accused of that. She made decisions in a system which is mostly all about bad decisions.

Your first link said she prosecuted families as directed under the legislature, which passed a law that kids couldn’t miss more than 10% of the school year without a valid excuse. Your argument is with that idiot law. The Prosecutor doesn’t make the law or make the arrests or do the investigation. So let’s be clear that while she sent a mom to prison, that was literally her job to do. Because everything else was so fucked up to cause it. The parents failing their kids because they’re strung out also get prosecuted and it’s not much better but you can see (1) how the law came to be and (2) that no one’s using that one as an example. And, it has nothing to do with trans people specifically.

Your second link said she was hardest on black and poor families. Yeah. The System itself is. She defended her cases from retrial, and she didn’t reprimand her attorneys for using a jailhouse snitch.

As attorney general, she weaponized technicalities to keep wrongfully convicted people behind bars rather than allow them new trials…

Well, yeah. It sucks. It’s wrong. And it’s what every single prosecutor is told to do and is expected to do. She should have done better, but what she was wasn’t unusual - or illegal, or even “wrong” for a strict reading of what an AG does. The system sucks, yeah. That also has nothing to do with trans people specifically.

Your third link does have to do with trans people specifically. Namely:

In the case of Norsworthy v. Beard, Michelle Norsworthy, a trans woman incarcerated in California state prison, sued the state for denying her medically necessary surgical treatment for her diagnosed gender dysphoria. As attorney general, Harris defended California's denial of treatment.

So. The plaintiff sued the state to give her gender reassignment surgery while she was incarcerated for murder. As the state’s AG, she fought that suit. - She didn’t run in from some other entirely different department and demand to deny this woman surgery. That’s literally her job to defend the state in court against the suit. That’s not an option, that’s not a part of the AG position to “decide to not do that”.

So, really, the one link you provided which does in fact address the transgender community is - nothing.

Your final link says

Harris mocks those on the left who say things like “build schools, not jails” and “put more money into education, not prisons”, suggesting they are naive sloganeers who do not understand crime prevention.

Well, I’m all for schools not jails as both a slogan and an approach. But the thing about slogans is, they don’t actually do the work of apportioning the budget and making things work. If she thought - in this “newly-unearthed clip” from 2019 (which says pretty straightforwardly ‘this is out-of-context’) - if she thought money was going to dance classes instead of job retraining, she might think it was missing the point. I don’t know, and neither do you, without further clarification. And, for the final link: also not to do with transgender issues.

So - she was a prosecutor and the justice system, so-called, is a travesty of nightmarish proportions. Agreed. We agree on that. And she should be better, as we all should, we agree on that.

It's a perfectly "valid" political position to think she's perfect as is and want leftists to stop trying to get her to be more progressive, just own it. You're pushing back against leftists and then pretending you aren't

Well, NO it’s not a “perfectly valid position to think she’s perfect” and no one has ever said or even implied that. I AM pushing back against unreasonable claims that she’s bad for reasons that Do. Not. Hold. Up. Is that what leftists do? If so, then yeah, I’m pushing back against leftists for not making good arguments. Okay? Make better arguments! These suck! If you’re going to be all “She’s so bad to transgender people” and the one example you have is she did her job as AG against a lawsuit - that’s not a good argument.

And by the way where was all the “pushing for Biden to be more progressive” in 2021, 2022, 2023? What did that look like? Was it comments on the interwebs? It was, wasn’t it. Yeah. That’s not - it doesn’t work like that and the 80 days prior to the election is a little too late, while also ironically being too early.

Political change is ridiculously slow, for the most part, because it requires people to do un-fun, boring, and tedious things. Destroying things is pretty quick though, so that’s why right-wingers and a number of leftists like that idea. But it won’t build anything new - or better.

[–] tacticalsugar@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

So yeah, this is the part where you get mad at leftists for asking for any sort of change. It's also pretty transphobic and you spent a lot of time trying to defend some pretty awful shit. This is exactly what I was talking about. You don't want to hear what lefties have to say, but you won't own up to that.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Answer this: What Change?

A law for gender reassignment surgery to be paid for by the state when people are incarcerated for murder? Well then say that.

And how in the name of all that is crispy and delicious is a recap of your accusations about what a prosecutor does transphobic? It’s an awful job! Usually handled by awful people! Transphobic ffs.

[–] tacticalsugar@lemmy.blahaj.zone -2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

A law for gender reassignment surgery to be paid for by the state when people are incarcerated for murder? Well then say that.

That's a horrible misrepresentation of what happened. The issue isn't that there's no "law for gender reassignment surgery to be paid for by the state when people are incarcerated for murder", the issue is that trans prisoners have a law excluding them from receiving healthcare. The state has to pay for the medical care of prisoners. For "some reason" (transphobia) trans people's healthcare is not included in that. Kamala Harris upheld an unjust and transphobic law. "She was just ~~following orders~~ doing her job" isn't the defense you think it is.

Your misrepresentation of the problem is another great example of transphobia. Trans people are asking not to have their medical care excluded. You just think trans medical care isn't necessary but you don't want to say it, so you have to twist the actual problem to make it seem like the trannies are being ridiculous again.

And this is another great example. You don't care about what trans people have to say, you don't want Harris to be better. You want the crazy trannies and commie pinkos to stop whining and vote. You don't want change, you want things to go "back to normal" so you don't have to think about people suffering for the neoliberal regime. Just own it.

[–] BrokenGlepnir@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago

Isn't Walz one of the most working class guys who's been on the ticket for awhile?

[–] tacosanonymous@lemm.ee 8 points 2 months ago

Still think we should say, "Harris."

[–] GraniteM@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

In the primary. And if your candidate gets enough votes there, then in the election. But first in the primary. If you don't get past the primary, then your candidate didn't get enough votes. That's how democracy works.

And I'll be the first to say that First Past the Post is a garbage system that could and should be replaced with any of about a half a dozen better ones, but first you've got to actually win a regular election and get someone in who might actually pass something like Ranked Choice, or get a ballot measure with enough votes.

Oh, and also try running for something like city council first and, you know, eventually work your way up to Congress or the Presidency, once you've established that you're actually serious about governing, and not just out there running vanity campaigns or playing spoiler.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Yeah but I think we learned our mistakes from Obama. Yes, get excited and vote. Then follow it up with leverage.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

You don't get to vote for somebody who represents the working class because the political establishment cannot represent the working class.

It really is that simple.

US Authoritarianism