It’s undoubtedly made of some kind of fantasy metal like mithril, orichalcum, or adamantium. So it weighs less than a pen and can cut through solid blocks of steel. It’s not getting stuck in anything let alone something like human bones.

The Democratic party caters to power. They want to stay in power. If enough people vote green who previously voted Democrat, they know there’s something that moved them that way, and they’ll know that some of those voters can be recaptured.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/388988/political-ideology-steady-conservatives-moderates-tie.aspx

Republicans’ right-leaning stance held firm last year, with 74% identifying as conservative, 22% as moderate and just 4% as liberal.

If progressives won’t vote for Democrats, then Democrats will find new voters. The Democrats can move further to the right, stop fighting Republicans on some social issues and capture the moderate voters that make up 22% of the Republican party. This would be much easier than trying to please progressives. The Democratic Party did this before with Clinton in 1992 with economic issues and they will happily do it again in 2028 with social issues.

Progressives have a crucial opportunity in this election to forward a progressive agenda and shift the Democratic Party further to the left. Missing this opportunity and allowing the Democratic party to shift further to the right would set us back decades. The only way for anything to be done to help the Palestinians and enact socialist policies at home is to change the Democratic Party through voting. Progressives engaging in the democratic process is the tried and true method of improving things in this country.

Progressives have to be willing to fight for what they believe in if they want to see change. That means doing the bare minimum of voting blue at the very least. Performative gestures of voting for a third party wont be registered on the Democrats’ radar. The Democratic Party is going to see who voted for mainstream political parties in 2024 and plan accordingly for 2026 and 2028. Progressives need to be among those who voted blue in 2024 to see a more progressive Democratic Party in 2028.

A shift to the left means adopting progressive policies. There is more than one progressive policy. As Democrats shift to the left they will adopt some progressive policies. It would take multiple elections for the Democratic Party, currently a center right party, to move to even center left on the political spectrum, let alone left on the political spectrum. Although there are a finite number of progressive policies, it would still take multiple elections for the Democrats to adopt them all.

Democrats will not respond to a feedback loop that involves progressives not voting for them now, to get a more progressive Democratic Party later. Especially when this loop would take multiple elections to adopt all progressive policies. Democrats want to win elections. The Democratic Party is not going to spend even one election cycle, let alone multiple elections cycles, chasing progressive voters who didn’t vote blue because those progressive voters didn’t get everything they wanted.

The Democratic Party caters to mainstream voters and people who vote for them. Since progressives aren’t the former they are going to want to be the latter. Progressives repeatedly turning out for the Democratic Party will cause them to shift to the left, ie adopt progressive policies.

The feedback loop spoiler idea only works if there are literally no material goals, only an idealist goal to move towards progressivism. This isn’t how reality works.

A shift to the left for the Democratic Party means adopting progressive policies, ie material goals. It is not about an idealist movement to progressivism.

hat happened as a direct result of the endorsement of Israel by the Biden administration.

Moving away from supporting Israel is a policy which would go against seventy years of US policy for either Republicans or Democrats. Biden’s initial response was inline with standing US policy. So for starters, the fact Biden has moved as far to the left on this issue as he has in response to the Uncommitted Movement is phenomenal. I think we still have further to go, but it’s a good sign so far.

You claim that leftists have some idealist goal to just move Democrats to the left, so a refusal to engage with these leftists is the only option Democrats have

No, like any voting block progressives want Democrats to enact progressive policies, which would be a shift to the left. Opposing Israel’s genocide would be one such policy. My point is that Democrats will respond to progressives voting for them by shifting to the left. They will not shift to the left or in any direction on the political spectrum because of third party voter turn out, as they are not incentivized to do so.

socialists are materialists and fascists are idealists.

Socialism and fascism are not constrained by concepts like materialism and idealism. Both socialism and fascism hold ideals about what they envision for society. These ideals vary wildly between those two groups and I would argue that a fascist’s idea of an ideal is nightmarish to say the least. A socialist ideal would be equality. In the workplace sure, but in general as well. A fascist ideal would be harkening to an imagined past or believing in a pretend purity of a bloodline or a system of nonsensical skull measurements. Both socialism and fascism have materialistic goals as well. Socialists would like to see corporations owned collectively by workers as opposed to share holders or a single individual. Fascists want to see workers of minority groups discriminated against and ousted from the workforce by employers, forced to live on the street by landlords, and then sent to die in death camps for homeless people by the federal government.

Either way, it’s worth getting more educated, the extreme left does not function the same way the extreme right does, and you seem to think it does.

I recommend Ken Rudin’s Political Junky.

https://www.krpoliticaljunkie.com/

Also, Vaush.

https://www.youtube.com/@Vaush

Recommendations aside, I would say in terms of how typical mainstream political parties work, the strategy for all voting blocks is the same. If a voting block wants to drive a typical mainstream political party in their direction on the political spectrum all they need to do is vote for that party. The political party will see that the voting block is voting for them and enact policies that reflect the voting block’s political ideology.

they are willing to vote Democrat in some circumstances

It tells the Democratic Party that the voter voted for Democrats in the past. They get the same information from someone who voted for Democrats in 2020 and then did not vote in 2024.

they prefer far left policies

It’s not just far left policies, it’s further left than the Democrats are currently offering. And more to the point, it’s different policies than what the Democrats are currently offering. That’s true of any vote for any third party or nonvoting. It’s not useful information to the Democrats, because the Democrats want to chase mainstream voters and people who vote for them. They have no interest in being a fringe party for fringe voters who they have to chase by surrendering a larger block of voters that they need to win. If progressives want to be catered to by the Democratic Party, a typical mainstream political party, they need to vote for them. That’s what typical mainstream political party’s do. They choose policies based on their constituents views.

no matter how many words you write to overcomplicate the issue

There is a lot more to write on this issue than a few words. However, comments are deceptive in their length on the screen. My last comment takes a little over three minutes to read out loud, based on what I timed with my computer. Given this topic, I think that’s a fair length to read. But, I don’t exactly cover a lot of ground, although I do attempt to tie my argument in my last comment to my central point. I take the time to elaborate on my position, not to over complicate the issue, but to provide clarity on what I mean. I’ve attempted to address what I think are natural counter arguments based on our discussion.

For example, the implication that your argument keeps trying to raise is that, by progressives voting green, Democrats would see there are progressive voters, who are move progressive than the Democratic Party is currently. The idea being that Democrats could then choose to move to the left to capture those votes. This reasoning is flawed and this becomes apparent when we continue to look ahead at future elections. My argument in my previous comment covers this so I’m going to repost it here.

Not voting for the Democratic Party because they weren’t progressive enough isn’t a feedback loop the Democrats are going to want to engage with. The Democrats could be more progressive in 2028, but they still weren’t progressive enough, so progressives still won’t vote for them. Progressives didn’t vote for the Democrats in 2024 and then the Democrats became more progressive in 2028, so why should progressives ever vote for Democrats? It’s an optimal stopping problem of when to stop not voting for Democrats. The loop has no optimal stopping point because progressives keep getting rewarded by not voting for the Democratic Party so the optimal strategy for progressives would be to never vote Democrat forever.

In short, if progressives are rewarded with a more progressive Democratic Party later by not voting for Democrats now, progressives should never vote for Democrats in order to keep driving the Democratic Party to the left. The Democrats are not incentivized to engage with this feedback loop because they never get any votes from progressives. So, if progressives want the Democratic Party to be more progressive, they need to vote for Democrats. The Democrats will see progressives voted for them and adjust their policies accordingly. This will undoubtedly attract more progressive voters, which is a feedback loop that both progressive voters and the Democratic Party benefits from. Since this feedback loop creates the proper incentives it is what the Democratic Party will engage with.

The Green Party has no chance of winning. There is no difference between a vote for a third party and not voting for the purposes of counting votes between Biden and Trump. So, the Democrats will not see the difference between a progressive who voted for Biden in 2020 and then voted Green Party in 2024, and a progressive who voted for Biden in 2020 and then didn’t vote in 2024. As far as the Democrats are concerned, both voters threw their vote away, because the votes didn’t go to a candidate who had a chance at winning. As long a we have first-past-the-post voting, American elections will be a zero-sum game between Republicans and Democrats.

If progressives vote Green Party in November they will still be out numbered by moderates. The Democratic party is going to look at the larger group of moderate voters and the smaller group of progressive voters. They will decide it’s not worth risking the larger group for a smaller group who may never vote for them no matter how progressive they are.

Not voting for the Democratic Party because they weren’t progressive enough isn’t a feedback loop the Democrats are going to want to engage with. The Democrats could be more progressive in 2028, but they still weren’t progressive enough, so progressives still won’t vote for them. Progressives didn’t vote for the Democrats in 2024 and then the Democrats became more progressive in 2028, so why should progressives ever vote for Democrats? It’s an optimal stopping problem of when to stop not voting for Democrats. The loop has no optimal stopping point because progressives keep getting rewarded by not voting for the Democratic Party so the optimal strategy for progressives would be to never vote Democrat forever.

The Democratic Party doesn’t want to be a progressive party or a conservative party, it wants to be the party that wins by representing the largest group of voters possible. If progressives want the Democratic party to be a progressive party, then progressives have to vote for them in the general election. That will prove there is a block of progressive voters that the Democrats can cater to if they move to the left.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/388988/political-ideology-steady-conservatives-moderates-tie.aspx

Conservatives and moderates still tied as largest ideological groups

Liberals remain the smallest group at 25%

Republicans’ and Democrats’ ideological identification unchanged

Interestingly, the Democratic Party specifically has about a fifty-fifty split between moderates and liberals. It’s not clear what percentage of liberals would consider themselves progressives. But based on how the word liberal is throw around here on Lemmy among progressives it would seem to indicate that being a progressive and identifying as a liberal is not a 1:1 match.

https://www.vanderbilt.edu/unity/2023/04/07/first-ever-vanderbilt-unity-poll-reveals-52-of-maga-republicans-believe-vladimir-putin-is-a-better-president-than-joe-biden/

Only about 18 percent of the American public (and 38 percent of all Republicans) identify as MAGAites.

This number could definitely have gone up a bit, since last year. I would assume it has yet to reach a majority of conservatives identifying as MAGAites.

People throwing their votes away to third parties isn’t how political parties judge where to move on the political spectrum. The Republican Party looks at the MAGA voting block, that do no make up a majority of conservatives but keeps voting for Trump, and they move further into fascism in response. This is true whether Trumps wins or loses, by the way. Trump lost in 2020, but Mitch McConnell endorsed Trump this year because Mitch is a coward and the MAGA voters keeping voting for Trump.

This should be true for Biden as well. Even if Biden loses, but their is a high voter turnout among progressives for Biden, Democrats should see that a core part of their voter base is progressives. The Democrats should want to cater to progressives in that case, where progressive voter turnout is high for Democrats. Are the Democrats bad at communicating this? They sure are, because back in 2016 and now in 2024 people are accusing the Democrats of thinking their entitled to votes. If MAGA voters can drag the Republican party to the right despite being not being a majority of the Republican voter base, then progressive voters can drag Democrats to the left despite not being a majority of the Democratic voter base.

The message Democrats hear from someone who voted Democrat in 2020 and Green in 2024 is that that person will never vote Democrat?

If progressives refuse to vote for the most progressive president we have ever had then the Democratic Party will conclude that they will not be able to win progressive votes in future elections. They will shift to the right in an attempt to capture more conservative voters.

Your position is becoming incoherent and exhausting. Stop arguing in bad faith. Your entire fucking comment is just endless shit like this, so I’m going to take it even slower and walk you through all this shit. Address the above paragraph, then we’ll move on to the next point, and hopefully after we’re through 3 or 4 of your nonsense points you’ll reconsider your position without me handholding you through it.

My argument has a consistent position. Trump winning in 2024 would be disastrous for progressive causes. My argument refuted your argument’s central point. Now all that is left in your argument is ad hominem attacks. edit: typo

Exit polling does not signal the same thing, again you’re just repeating your incredibly naive point.

If progressives vote for another party, the additional message that the Democratic party hears is, we will never be able to win these people’s votes. This is the same message they hear when progressives do not vote at all.

As you admit, money is in politics, and you hand wave away that fact even though it’s a massive point.

It has no bearing on this discussion. How much impact we have relative to corporations does not change the fact we have impact. Not to mention corporations wouldn’t be trying to get rid of our impact if we didn’t have any.

I’m going to keep this comment short because you keep hand waving or ignoring 80% of my point with non sequiturs, so I’m going to take this way slower so you can hopefully keep up.

These are not substantive points nor, I would assume, a core part of your argument, so I did not spend significant time in my argument addressing them. However they were there, so I wrote a response in my argument.

With corporate interests in play, constituent preferences have had literally 0 impact on policy in Gaza. I’m not questioning the ability to gather the data, but you’re conflating the ability to gather data with the want to listen to preferences. Again, naive. This isn’t how the world works. Democrats don’t just listen to their constituents, they actually rarely do.

Cynicism isn’t an argument. Biden has delivered on numerous policies people want. The Build Back Better bill is one such achievement. However this sentiment in your argument flies in the face of the fact that policies are determined by what voters want. There is no doubt that corporations have an outside influence in our elections since Regan’s presidency. That trend is directly responsible for the rise of fascism today. However, pretending we have little to no impact when we do is exactly what corporations want and it would be inherently self defeating to disempower ourselves for no reason.

This gets us back to the topic at hand, whether or not progressives would be better off allowing Trump to win. This is what we are discussing and what your argument in your last comment attempts to distract from. We are decidedly worse off in 2028 if we choose to silence ourselves now out of fear that Biden is an inadequate candidate for delivering a progressive agenda. By making ourselves heard, in a meaningful and impactful way, by voting Democrat, we are acting in the most optimal way to advance progressive causes.

In order to have more progressive candidates in 2028 we must drive the Democrat Party to the left. To drive the Democrat Party to the left, we must demonstrate that a substantive voter block exists on that end of the political spectrum. By not voting, Democrats will determine Biden was too progressive. They will respond with a more conservative candidate. This feedback loop will continue until Democrats win an election and believe they have reached the American Overton window.

As an example, after two terms of Regan and a term of Bush Senior, Bill Clinton and the Democrats decided to stop fighting Republicans on economic issues. They decided to embrace neoliberalism because they believed it was within the American Overton window. If we want to counteract this, the Democratic Party needs to see that there is a path to victory by courting progressive voters. In other words, if we want a more progressive Democratic candidate in 2028, we must vote for the most progressive Democratic candidate we have now in 2024. edit: typo

thinking that exit polling signals the same thing that voting far left does

Exit polling does signal the same thing. We have the technology to identify progressive voters who vote Democrat. This is a nonissue.

Constituents aren’t the only interest group politicians listen to, we actually have hard data that for the purposes of at least law making they entirely ignore us, and we have very little influence even beyond that.

This is not relevant to the discussion for the purposes of voting. We need to get corporate and billionaire money out of politics. We have a better chance of doing that with Democrats than Republicans.

The miniscule amount of influence we do have is the ability to remove one party from power. Exit polls come absolutely no where near this in terms of influence.

We also have the ability to put a party, the Republicans or Democrats, in power by voting for them. This has a much greater impact and influence than not voting.

If we actually funnel this clearly into a signal that we will essentially sacrifice our wellbeing (e.g put Trump in power) just to draw the line that genocide support is unacceptable, we might actually see an anti-genocide Democrat for once.

We are not simply sacrificing our well being by allowing Trump to win but our lives. Trump has already promised to ethnically cleanse immigrants starting on day 1. He wants to round them up in camps and deport them. It seems unlikely to me that there will be no causalities from such an endeavor. The Supreme Court is going to hear a case that could determine if homeless people can be fined and/or arrested for being homeless. They may also find themselves in camps.

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/city-of-grants-pass-oregon-v-johnson/

Trans people are being erased from public life, which is a nice way of saying trans people will be homeless, which may soon be a nice way of saying trans people will be put in camps.

American fascists want the government to commit genocide here in the United States. They want to jail Democratic politicians. It’s going to be harder to run a progressive candidate in 2028 if Trump wins in 2024 because progressive voters will be dead and/or in camps. Republicans are going to do everything in their power to entrench themselves in power, even if they do hold an election in 2028. Republicans are already trying to remove Democrats from the voter rolls, with little success, in order to disenfranchise Democratic voters now. Republicans will be much more successful if they are in power.

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-voter-rolls/

But as Joe Biden said best, if Israel did not exist in the middle east, the U.S would have to invent an Israel to protect American interests abroad.

A two state solution is possible. There is no reason why a state of Palestine and a state of Israel cannot coexist. The current State of Israel will need to fundamentally change to no longer be an apartheid state. Also, Biden’s views on Palestine and Israel are severely outdated and do not represent the rest of the Democratic Party. Biden seems to be shifting his stance on Palestine and Israel. Trump is doubling down.

Preferences will be ignored without consequences for those in power, and if you think otherwise, again, you’re being naive.

If progressives vote for Democrats in 2024, Democrats will notice and move to the left to capture these voters in future elections. Biden may personally learn a lesson from a loss in 2024 but it is unlikely he will be able to act on it from a prison cell in 2028. The Democratic Party however will not learn the lesson. They will look at who voted in the election for the two parties that have a chance at winning and determine that the Overton window has again shifted to the right.

The information gained would be we’re refusing to vote for genocide supporters.

The Uncommitted Movement is effectively doing this in the primaries, hopefully without the downside of Biden losing in November. Trump winning would still be catastrophic for the Palestinians, even if there is an election 2028. Trump will green light Israel’s genocide and millions of people will be killed or displaced in that region of the world alone. The Republican party will kill any hope of a Palestinian state happening, as they will undoubtedly support the settler movement. Biden has at least put sanctions on at least 30 Israeli settlers. There is at least of chance of Democrats working to stop the settlers and supporting a Palestinian state.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/04/israel-settler-violence-sanctions

If everyone behaves that way, the democratic party doesn’t have to change. They can keep pushing moderate fiscal conservatives like Biden, over and over again, and Democrats will permanently retain power.

MAGA supporters are going to keep voting for Trump or an equivalent as long as that is an option. They are driving the Republican Party further right, by consistently voting that way. We could do the same with the Democratic Party to drive it to the left. We need to collectively do the work to support potential progressive candidates for future elections, but Biden is the most progressive option we have right now for this election who has any chance to win.

If they lose the general election by less than the third party vote, they know there are voters to the left that are voting that they could focus on capturing instead of catering to cultish fascists.

Exit polling data can break down the ideological differences between Democratic voters. The Democrats will be able to figure out what kind of voters voted for them, without needing progressives to vote third party.

There’s a very clear strategy for future Democrats to move left to win the election. It’s either purposeful ignorance or genuine stupidity to say the above is EXACTLY THE SAME as:

I’m saying it’s the same as:

Republican: 50%

Democrat: 48.91%

Other: 1.09%

Where progressives simply do not vote. Since in both cases Republicans win the presidency. The Democrats are only going to cater to people who vote for them in general elections. edit: capitalization

A comment I received with 9 upvotes: “You may actually have brain damage”.

In this thread? I’m searching on the words in the quote and I’m not seeing it. Maybe a Mod removed it. I’m not referring to any comment that resorts to ad hominem attacks.

I didn’t say withhold your vote, go vote for Jill Stein.

Jill Stein has no chance of winning. She is a spoiler for Joe Biden and so voting for her is, for the purpose of counting the difference in votes between Trump and Biden, the same as not voting. We have a two party, first-past-the-post, political system where Republicans benefit from low voter turnout. So Trump benefits from anyone not voting for Biden.

It’s sad that you have to resort to a strawman to make a coherent argument against me.

A strawman is an argument that argues against a different, usually weaker, position rather than the other argument’s actual position. However if the two positions are in fact equivalent, such as not voting and voting for third party spoiler candidates, then the argument is not a strawman.

If 8% of the vote goes to someone who has been openly anti-Israel and pro-Palestine, while crowds are chanting against genocide Joe, it’ll send a pretty clear signal to Democrats what they need to do.

100,000 people already voted uncommitted in the Michigan Democrat primary, with more in other Democrat primaries undoubtedly on the way. The point has been made and no new information will be gained from any third party voter turnout in November. There is no reason why the Democrats cannot change course on Palestine and Israel right now. This would be much more beneficial, to the Palestinians, than waiting through a Trump presidency to finally get help to them in 2028.

Hoping you’ll apologize for the unnecessary strawman honestly,

My argument is that letting Trump win is not only unacceptable, but is counterproductive to the progressive causes your argument claims will benefit from such a scenario. The Democrats will respond to low voter turnout from progressives by shifting to the right to capture more conservative voters. This is a refutation of you argument’s central point.

it’s needlessly exhausting to have to deal with all the inane shit everyone is throwing my way

There were nothing but solid replies to your comment. I implore you to reconsider.

Politicians cater to the people who vote. If Democrats lose this November and there is an election 2028 they are going to look at the people who voted in 2024 and 2026 and try to get those people’s votes. If progressives don’t vote in the general election this year Democrats won’t waste time on them and will instead focus on conservative voters. Not voting will drive the Democratic party further to the right.

Withholding our votes doesn’t lead to better election outcomes. Voting should be a simple mechanical choice to pick the lesser evil. If people want better candidates then they need to do the work between elections. Refusing to vote and trying to lower voter turnout sets us back. Losing in 2024 will mean America becomes a fascist dictatorship. There is no value in letting the Republicans win.

Political neuroscience is an interesting field. I remember hearing about similar studies years ago on podcasts. A quick google revealed the field has had numerous studies done in the last year alone.

I don’t feel that this section inherently contradicts what I am trying to say and perhaps is intended to be supporting evidence. The fact that the differences between conservatives and liberals can be measured means that the disagreements stem from a real place. However, the article mentions that this does not mean agreement is impossible. It means that the two groups need to be approached differently with the same information.

Andrea Kuszewski, a researcher who has written about political neuroscience, would rather put a positive spin on what it could mean for politics. She says this kind of knowledge could help open up communication, or at least ease hostility between the country’s two major political parties.

“Each side is going to have to recognize that not everyone thinks like them, processes information like them, or values the same types of things,” she wrote last week. “With the state our country is in right now, I don’t think we have any choice but to cowboy up and do whatever needs to be done in order to reach some common ground.”

Do you mind elaborating on the intention of sharing the quoted section of the linked article? I don’t want to assume and I want to engage with what you mean.

Head of State + Commander in Chief “Prime Congressman” who is nominated by the house and approved by the senate.

Republicans are overrepresented in the House of Representatives because of the cap on members being set to 435 and in the Senate which gives unequal representation to low population states. We would be stuck under Republican rule if we did it this way. Why not just elect this Prime Congressman with a popular vote?

Thanks for sharing your stories and experiences. I’ll tell you a bit about myself. I am a single trans woman. I do not have kids. I have not undergone any surgery or used any medicine in order to transition. I knew I was a girl when I was three years old. I am sure your friends knew their genders at a young age as well.

Hormone blockers are a safe and effective way to delay puberty. It is completely reversible because a person can stop taking the medication at any time to begin puberty. This is something that a child of the ages ten to eleven can understand and consent to. Hormone blockers are not equivalent to sex which is something only adults can consent to. None of the medical treatments prescribed to trans people are forced on anyone. And only people with a history of gender dysphoria are given access to these treatments.

If you don’t like Mayo Clinic, I can give you another source with the same information.

https://www.medicinenet.com/at_what_age_does_gender_identity_develop/article.htm

https://www.stlouischildrens.org/conditions-treatments/transgender-center/puberty-blockers

It seem like the health and well being of young people is important to you. I would recommend reading this article on gender-affirming care. I think it will address many of your concerns. For some trans people, medical transition is not even necessary.

https://www.columbiapsychiatry.org/news/gender-affirming-care-saves-lives

No, it was sunny. I paid extra too, because the person who delivered didn’t bring change for a twenty. I think it was the cheese they used.

It depends on the Lemmy instance.

While i do believe it is possible that there maybe Trans people in existence that knew since a young age that they would want to transition

Most children know their gender by age 3.

The second fact is, children simply cannot make an informed decision let alone give informed consent to any hormones, pills, “binding” or transitionary intervention.

Here some facts about puberty blockers.

Here are some facts about what age a person can get HRT.

Here are some facts about binding and also packing and tucking.

Here is more on binding specifically.

It is possible for a person to learn about these topics. It is also possible for people of the appropriate ages, in some cases kids depending on what we are talking about, for example puberty blockers, to give informed consent.

A lot of trans people are fucked up, because they were denied the ability to express their gender like cis people. What’s changing is that trans people are finally able to open up about their experiences. The las time this happened was right before World War II.

It sounds like you would happy to know they were shot.