• JayJay@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    78
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    8 months ago

    I don’t like either candidate, but I’ll be damned if trump is going to be president again and project 2025 comes to fruition.

      • Gormadt@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        8 months ago

        just overthrow the government

        That’s far easier said than done, and honestly even saying that feels like an understatement

          • nxdefiant@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Probably harder now than ever. I think the last time it was tried, roughly 2/5ths of the population wanted it and they failed miserably, and they were still using Muskets then.

      • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        8 months ago

        We could just take out the pharmaceutical manufacturers and the government would expire when they don’t get their meds.

        Sun Tzu

      • JayJay@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        8 months ago

        Sooooo, basically what trump tried, but its somehow okay because you said it?

        • systemglitch@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          8 months ago

          By that logic it’s never okay. Some of th best changes in history grew from overthrowing government.

          • Rinox@feddit.it
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            8 months ago

            Generally speaking what follows a violent revolution is usually a few decades of war, poverty and tyranny.

            It’s quite unlikely that you’ll be better off in the 2-3 following decades than when you started. After that, it’s anyone’s guess. You might be better off or worse off, depending on the ability of the new government

            • frippa@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              By that logic all of America should still be partitioned between the Spanish, British, Portuguese and French.

              I understand this is an hyperbole, but still, let’s take for example the French revolution: sure Napoleon crowned himself emperor and in the end left France in a worst state than before, but he gave the whole world some important advancements that in many (often subtle) ways still reverberate today:

              for example, his monetary policies are the reason we have 1,2,5,10,20,50 of a given currency and the respective cents, and not an arbitrary system of fractions (old European coinage could get absurd, I suggest who’s interested to go on numista.com or a similar site and check for yourself) .

              He helped introducing the concept of separation of church and state to the general public (not much considerated before).

              He helped the nascent industrialist class to emerge and impose itself, gradually stamping out the remains of feudalism from Europe.

              He advanced history in many ways I can’t even start to mention.

              Let’s take another example, you can think what you want of the Soviet Union and I can agree to various criticisms, but living in the Russian empire in the 1900s (even before WW1) was like living 3 centuries in the past. People lived in misery and died young, servitude was abolished only 50 years before.

              The Communists took a country that barely surpassed feudalism (in the cities) and gave basic dignities to its citizens, arriving to compete, militarily and economically, with the strongest superpower in history.

              Can be argued it degenerated after Lenin’s death, but it’s undeniable that, even under stalin’s time, life was magnitudinally better than even 30 years prior (and to be fair that’s an enormously low bar)

              Essù, anche noi abbiamo fatto ben 3 (tre) guerre per ľindipendenza contro ľaustria, evidentemente la gente lo voleva! Concordo che non sempre quando rovesci il governo vai a finire meglio (vedi Hitler, giovani turchi) ma gli Italiani lombardi/veneti/friulani sotto cecco Beppe non se la passano proprio bene… Non che i SaBoia fossero meglio, ma ľautodeterminazione dei popoli è una cosa importante per cui (a mio avviso) vale la pena combattere se si è oppressi.

              • Rinox@feddit.it
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                I didn’t say that all revolutions are bad. It’s usually a mixed bag, some good, some bad.

                What I was saying is that violent revolutions and civil wars, like all wars, usually bring death, destruction and poverty for the normal everyday people. So if you are expecting better living conditions right after a revolution, you are either so poor that anything is better or you better be on the short list of elites that will get to grab power and rebuild the country, otherwise you are going to suffer. Maybe your kids will be better off… Maybe.

                And yes, there are also independence wars, but those are different from civil wars. The US is independent, Americans don’t consider themselves being occupied by a foreign entity.

                • frippa@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  There are cases in which the status quo kills way more in the long term than a revolution would in the short term, I agree with you that a war, expecially a civil war fought expecially on national soil brings misery and destruction to the nation, but it is sometimes a necessary evil in the short term in order to avoid a way bigger evil in the long run. To make another Italian example, the fascist regime killed hundreds of thousands of people, 120.000 innocents died only in Lybia during the deportation of the cyrenaican people, that’s less than all of the deaths in the Italian Civil War!

                  didn’t say that all revolutions are bad. It’s usually a mixed bag, some good, some bad

                  I think we agree on this one, I thought you meant revolution was inherently evil. Better to clarify and argument further nevertheless, For posterity. Peace.

          • JayJay@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            8 months ago

            I would say a peaceful change by vote of the people (not politicians) would be a better way than violent revolution. Violent revolution can be justified, but it will end up hurting many people and destabilizing a country. War from internal and external parties would be garunteed. Peaceful revolution is not an easy nor even plausable outcome, but it would harm far fewer people.

            Im curious: How does not voting show you wish for revolution? My view is that I’d rather vote for someone who is working within the system (corrupt and broken though it may be) than someone who wants to tear it down and install a dictatorship. Not voting just means you’re complicit and signals you don’t prefer one over the other. I don’t like either, but i definitely have a preference.

            • systemglitch@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              Tough question I don’t have an answer for. Both established parties are corrupt beyond measure, pandering to the same group behind closed doors.

          • perishthethought@lemm.eeOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            8 months ago

            Oh OK. So this is just “extremists are extreme”. Gotcha.

            Downvote me all you want, ppl.

            • JayJay@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              8 months ago

              Yeah, it seems so, i personally don’t like our system either, but that would have to come down to a vote from the people to tear it down and start over. People dont get to force the issue like trump and many extremists, and apparently, like this other person wants.

        • 𝕸𝖔𝖘𝖘@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          I think a better analogy would be, “a building has many exits available, but only 2 emergency exits. During an emergency, you ‘must’ use the emergency exits… But do you really?”

          If the USA population decided to ignore the democrats or republicans, as a whole, and focus their votes on one of the remaining four parties, then you lot would see a different party being elected. Easier said than done. I know. And I’m not blaming any of the USA voting population for this dichotomy.

  • istdaslol@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Thank you, I’ll spend the entire day rewatching the series all over again

    FYI they posted all episodes to their YouTube

  • go_go_gadget@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    I sure would love to see some some of these memes leveling criticisms at moderates and liberals for being inflexible.

  • Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    8 months ago

    Remember, vote for the guy doing a genocide to prevent the other guy from doing a genocide.

    • nxdefiant@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      The majority of presidents have been under 60. Obama, Clinton, Bush 2, Jimmy Carter, JFK, both Roosevelts…

      Only Trump and Biden have been over 70. Regan missed it by like 20 days.

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        only one of those have been recent. hillary might’ve been younger but we all know how that went lol. bush 2 electric boogaloo would’ve been pretty close though.

        • pingveno@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          What is recent? W. Bush was four presidents ago, Clinton was only five presidents ago. We’re only on our 46th president since Washington was inaugurated in 1789, 235 years ago. When you go through presidents that slowly, it’s easy to have your sample thrown off if you just include a couple of decades.

          • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            recent as in, 10-20 years. Bush technically counts. Maybe. I didn’t do the math.

            Either way my point here was that it’s absurd that our candidacy choices are between two elderly men.

            • pingveno@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              Just to explain my math point a bit more, let’s take the definition of recent by decade, where all presidents serving within those decades count:

              • 1 decade (2014): 3
              • 2 decades (2004): 4
              • 3 decades (1994): 5
              • 4 decades (1984): 7
              • 5 decades (1974): 10
              • 6 decades (1964): 11
              • 7 decades (1955): 13
              • 8 decades (1945): 15

              Even going back fairly far, we still have a pretty small sample size to draw conclusions for presidents specifically.

              I agree with you on the age issue as a broader problem. There we have a solid sample. We’ve become a gerontocracy at the federal level especially, with the older generations holding onto power far past when they should have moved aside to allow in new people and fresh ideas. People in their 80’s and 90’s holding on to seats clogs the pipelines so that everyone else is prevented from moving up.

              • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                8 months ago

                every so often i remember that there are still probably silent generation members in the government, and that statistically, the vast majority is gen x or older, broadly across the government.

                It really makes you think.

          • nxdefiant@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            Yeah I felt like including anyone older than the 1900’s was cheating considering people back then died in their 60’s from having bad teeth back then, let alone bloodletting.

    • Gormadt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      8 months ago

      It’s an incredibly stupid movement where people are saying that they won’t vote as a protest to not liking either candidate.

      Usually said by people who have little to lose if Republicans win, seem to think revolution is a viable possibility if Republicans win, and/or think that by not voting something good might happen.

      Also people who don’t understand that our system is a First-Past-the-Post system and the only group of people who are trying to get support for not voting in this election are people on the left.

      So I’m not as many words: people trying to guarantee a victory for trump.

      • go_go_gadget@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        I’ll be voting but it won’t be for Biden or Trump. If you want me to vote for him then figure out how to make him listen to the people he’s depending on to get elected.

        • Gormadt@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          8 months ago

          There’s no such thing as the perfect candidate so voting for the person you hate the least is the best option for preventing the person you hate the most from winning.

          I’m not a fan of Biden but he’s way fucking better than trump and his fellow Republicans.

          • go_go_gadget@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            No. I’m not going to continue to reward moderates and liberals for being inflexible. If they’re not willing to do it now they’re never going to be and fascism isn’t just a possibility it’s a guarantee. Let’s get it overwith.

            • Gormadt@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              8 months ago

              And by not voting you’re ensuring that positive change will have a much harder time occuring.

              Local elections are very important and pushing for more progressive local candidates can help to influence policies on the national stage. And if there’s no candidates you like in your locality you can try to run yourself.

              There’s more elections than just the election for president.

              • go_go_gadget@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                And by not voting you’re ensuring that positive change will have a much harder time occuring.

                Liberals and moderates by not materially compromising with leftists and progressives are ensuring that positive change has and will continue to have a much harder time occurring.

                Your judgement cuts both ways you know.

                • Gormadt@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Liberals and moderates by not materially compromising with leftists and progressives

                  They are way more likely to do so than Republicans that’s for sure

                  All you have to do is look at voting records to see that

                  All you have to do is see the break down for who voted for the Respect for Marriage Act for an easy example

      • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        8 months ago

        Again, I haven’t seen anything like that. I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you aren’t dumb enough to be confusing the noncommitted movement of the DNC Primaries with the general election in November. You’re not that dumb, right?

        • Gormadt@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          8 months ago

          Don’t make the mistake of believing that just because you haven’t seen something that it doesn’t exist.

          We all exist in media bubbles and in those bubbles we miss a lot. By seeing this meme you could say that your media bubble has finally bumped into the bubble where people openly talk about not voting.

          Hell there’s comments in this comment section on the note of not voting.

    • Ferrous@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      It’s easy to understand the leftist claim that liberals always ultimately bend to fascism when you see comments like this that explain the US’s turn to fascism is because of leftists(?).

      You comprise one of the two sides who blindly vote according to the principle of “he’s better than the other guy”. I suspect you’d be fine with more genocides in the decades to come only insofar as they’re committed by democrats. Meanwhile, actual leftists will continue to imagine better systems, build mutual aid networks, and arm vulnerable comrades. American electotalism isn’t going to stop the backslide into fascism or the ecocidal intent of the US ruling class.

      • go_go_gadget@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Agreed. And if we look even a decade into the future what happens when leftists and progressives voters suddenly start dominating primaries? Are moderates and liberals going to show up in the general elections then? I think we all know the answer.

        Fascism isn’t a possibility, it’s a guarantee and it will be moderates and liberals who are to blame.

    • tryptaminev 🇵🇸 🇺🇦 🇪🇺@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      This is obviously absurd. If choosing from the legal options in an election is being part of a “conspiracy” then the whole system is already failed and you yourself are a conspirator for not doing anything about it.

      And no, voting one of the same two parties that have brought all this mess in the first place is not doing something. The Reps and Dems are equally responsible for the desolate state of the US democracy. So by your definition of “conspirator” you have conspirated to bring about the conditions in which Trump not only was elected, but has a chance to be reelected.

  • toastal@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    8 months ago

    Both candidates are a joke & without voting reform it’ll stay as a cabal for the donor class, lobbyist, & corporations. It costs about $10 to mail my ballot to my very red-&-ain’t-changin’ domicile… so I’ll just keep my $10 & buy 6 made-to-order meals instead.

    • Gormadt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      Local elections are also very important and really need participation. Like if you wanted that fee for mail-in voting to go away that would likely be a decision made by local politicians.

      And without voting there’s no hope for change for the better

      Congratulations on ensuring our system has a harder time improving

      • toastal@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        I would agree but I spent very little time in my domicile & haven’t set foot within US borders in years. Seeing that I don’t pay (local) taxes or otherwise participate in the local community or economy, I would argue it would be unethical if I did vote in a place that doesn’t represent me & I don’t understand too well—like voting straight ticket without looking into any candidates. Last time I did a mail-in, I only checked State-level boxes since those you can easily research online & are more broad-reaching than the local level where only locals should be casting ballets for their community.

        If I could vote on issues that actually affect me, I absolutely would—like FBAR reforms where you aren’t seen as a criminal for having more that $10k in a foreign bank where you actually have your address, tax reforms that took TurboTax out of the equation as the only ‘affordable’ option that actually lets you file with a non-US address instead of a no-service error, or Medicare/Medicaid reform that allowed vouchers or reimbursement for using services abroad rather than it being a money sinkhole you pay into your whole life, even if you don’t live there, but can’t redeem any care unless on US soil. These are never ballot measures & instead requires, ugh lobbying or a representative willing to champion these topics seen niche despite there being more citizens outside the US than some States in population.

  • jdeath@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    8 months ago

    i’ll vote for nobody. nobody cares! nobody is honest! nobody for prez