this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2024
-79 points (13.8% liked)

Progressive Politics

1071 readers
464 users here now

Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)

(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
-79
Standards (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 months ago by Linkerbaan@lemmy.world to c/progressivepolitics@lemmy.world
58 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TheAlbatross@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

Yah, if perpetuating systemic racism, imperialism and oppression is a deal breaker on a candidate, there is and will not be an American presidential candidate that it is appropriate to vote for. None.

But as Lenin said, we must participate in bourgeois elections, though we can't expect them to bring results, lest they be dominated entirely by the bourgeoisie.

[–] ccunning@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It sucks, but we need a functioning democracy if we want to make progress.

Make sure your mask is secure before helping others.

[–] TheAlbatross@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 months ago

I think the trajectory of things are generally positive, but glacially slow, especially considering all the harm that gets perpetuated while waiting for that slow progress.

I think that can be gut wretchingly frustrating for the newly radicalized. So I sympathize with the people who say it's abhorrent and not enough. Because it is abhorrent. And it's not enough. But we must be pragmatic in our actions. America simply doesn't have the class consciousness necessary for sweeping overnight change, yet.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

For Lenin, elections had two major functions. One was the opportunity to make propaganda for socialism: to put across arguments and ideas that could win adherents. This was a vision of elections and election campaigns as a platform. The other function was elections as a means of ‘counting our forces’, i.e. gauging levels of support for socialist ideas and assessing political progress. This could in turn influence what tactics to adopt in a range of areas of political work. Furthermore, if Bolsheviks were actually elected (which did happen) their role was to champion radical socialist ideas and demands. It was to use parliament, which was very limited in actual powers, as a megaphone; not to believe falsely that parliament would in fact bring about significant change. source

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

Jill Stein is a proper presidential candidate

[–] TheAlbatross@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

She has absolutely zero chance of winning because of first past the post.

You know that, right?

She also supports ongoing US imperialism, oppression and genocide, just not in Palestine. You realize that, right?

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

Many claims no truth. Impressive.

[–] TheAlbatross@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Her policies say she will remove most US bases, not all. We still need some imperialism after all.

Her platform mentioned ending forced prison labor but not revoking the 13th.

She says she will support land back initiatives, but does that mean returning Manhattan? Absolutely not.

Stein's policies are very progressive, but she still exists within America and it's inherent imperialist and colonialist nature.

She also has zero chance of winning. Do you see a path to victory for Stein? Can you outline it?

Let's imagine for a moment that there is no Jill Stein. Do you think there is a materialistic difference between a Harris and Trump presidency? Do you think one is preferable to the other?

[–] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Imperialism is when base on place people want you out.

Stein wins when people stop supporting Genocide. Let's have faith in humanity.

I literally don't consider people supporting Genocide as candidates.

[–] TheAlbatross@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Do you see a path to victory for Stein? Can you outline it? Consider first past the post and polling numbers.

Let's imagine for a moment that there is no Jill Stein. Do you think there is a materialistic difference between a Harris and Trump presidency? Do you think one is preferable to the other?

[–] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Harris flops so hard in the debate that everyone realizes she cannot beat Trump and then everyone unites behind Jil Stein to not support Genocode. The end.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

And other outrageously remote fantasies you can tell yourself in staunch disregard of all evidence

[–] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Say the people fully convinced that Biden was the best candidate to run against Trump because of his "incumbency advantage"

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Explain to me how big donors pressuring the Democratic campaign to move the established Vice Presidential candidate to the top of the ticket is in any way logistically similar to the entire Democratic voting base spontaneously deciding to vote third party?

This nonsense support behind third party candidates in the Presidential elections is plain ridiculous. With the exception of Trump, every single US President has been a member of Congress, state governor, high ranking military officer, or high ranking federal employee in a leadership position. They have proven themselves in positions of political leadership.

What is Jill Stein's highest office? Why should half of America trust that she is capable of the job?

[–] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

The other two have proven not to be capable for the job.

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

No one is "capable for" the job, it's not a realistic responsibility. But at least the other two have approximated suitability. Trump, as poorly as he did and terrible as he is, at least has experience now. In terms of tangible evidence, they both have considerably more experience in high ranking leadership roles than Stein.

Trump got in without experience because he had a huge cult of personality and Russian help. Kamala has held numerous high offices. What has Jill Stein done? Policy positions are nice and all, but without any record of implementation that's useless. Why do all of these this party candidates shoot straight for President? It almost seems like they're intentionally spoiling the vote to help Trump.