Tom Morello Clarifies He Votes, But Not For “Corporate Democrats”
8 days ago by ccunning to c/politics
Some people out there seem to be confused, but I always vote in every local and every national election for every office and every ballot initiative since I was 18 years old. Some of my greatest civil rights heroes have fought and died so that we can all vote and I honor their memory in the ballot box every single time.
To some of us, especially those of us like myself who have been scheduling secretaries for US senators, it often seems like a morally reprehensible choice between compromised corporate Democrats and fascist-minded Republicans. Where I live in California, I have the luxury of voting my conscience for president for third-party candidates that better align with my ideas of justice and equality.
But in any and every contested race, as my mom Mary Morello always said, we have to fight the fascist every which way we can, recognizing that even if there's but an inch of difference between two candidates, there are a lot of vulnerable people who could be greatly harmed in that inch. So vote your ass off, but don't just exercise your right to vote. Exercise your right to fight for, organize for, struggle for, and manifest the kind of world you'd like to really see without compromise and without apologies before, during, and after election day. And let's stop the fascists every which way we can. Power the people.
What gets lost in that argument is the fact that the battle is already lost when you nominate the corporate democrats. Kamala lost in July 2024.
The non voters were not incorrect all along, far from it. I speak as someone that still votes democratic to keep republicans out, but my vote is not guaranteed. I will not vote for an Israel hawk at this moment.
What gets lost in the debate is that there's two parts to it:
- If you are voting in a general election, vote for the lesser evil choice
- If you are not working to support better choices BEFORE the general.... BEFORE the primary........ then you are allowing others to make that choice for you
You would vote for the leader of the Ku Klux Klan as long as they supported Medicare for All.
Go fucking research what the two parties have voted for and passed and get the fuck off it yourself, fascism supporter - whether you intend to be or not. Which is not to say establishment Dems don't suck because of course they do. But it still matters.
Thanks god former colonized people and people who formally lived in dictatorship didn't have American mentality and didn't accept the reality. Americans are bunch of cowards
I'm not American. I get what you're saying though. But the quote of Tom Morello in the article, after the bit I quoted with "vote your ass off", then says:
...but don't just exercise your right to vote. Exercise your right to fight for, organize for, struggle for, and manifest the kind of world you'd like to really see...
It honestly seems downright disingenuous, as though the author of the article wanted to make a "both sides" article but then realized Tom isn't a fucking moron.
A bit? Fuckers.
It's like the exact opposite of the article content.
Ready for a warzone in here?
Dude is my personal hero and he's showing why again here.
He's doing exactly the right thing. Voting Democrat when the only alternative is a Repugnican who WILL hurt more people than the Corpocrat, but always, always and with all his power trying to move things to the left of corporate Democrats whenever he can without hurting vulnerable people.
It pains me that the kids these days don't have similar idols. Like Kneecap is righteous, but they're not RATM playing a show on wall street despite being told they cannot play a show on wall street.
Icons.
Weird how "vulnerable people" are used to justify voting for corporate dems, but when members of those actual "vulnerable communities" share their views and their red lines, they're told to sit down, shut the fuck up, and know their place. For so many, Democrats,"vulnerable communities" are just a rhetorical tool.
He's in a blue state. If we didn't have our asinine and backward EC, it'd be a different story.
I'm absolutely exhausted with snowflakes being so very precious and that think they need a specially curated and artisanal candidate to cater to them, most especially to their purity tests, and if they hear one wrong note, they'll stamp their feet, cross their arms, and do absolutely nothing to help. Stay home, vote for some absurdist clown-show bullshit like the Green Party. Even maybe vote for Republicans.
You know, "to send a message". Because everyone needs to listen to THEM, and of course, everyone is going to be able to look at this ridiculous childish behavior and respond according to what these types want, because obviously mind-reading is possible. 🙄
Talk about narcissistic bullshit of the highest fucking order. Hell, we all can remember being late teens/early 20s, but most people grow out of this kind of selfishness.
But I think he's pointing out he's in a safe district and so basically his vote for Kamala would not even matter.
He may be in a blue state, but it would be foolish to think his influence didn't extend beyond the state. People like to forget there are more Republicans in California than Texas and more Democrats in Texas than New York.
If enough people think like that more parts of California will flip Red. It's already spreading before this line of thinking is in play.
And Purity tests? I don't know where you got that with my comment. If anything I was harking on Morello and his dumb purity test. Only thing his stupid purity test carries influence around the country and can lead to more people not voting like idiots.
He explicitly says he's in favor of voting Democrat, even corporate Democrat in EVERY contested race. If people listen to him, they will vote accordingly. If people don't actually listen to him, it doesn't matter what he says.
Sorry, I'm not talking about you and purity tests.
I'm sick of it in general where there is a certain kind of "leftist" / contrarian "independent" that loves to act like they need to be catered to and they often have a purity test or two. They especially love performatively standing on the sidelines and proclaiming how they are so moral because of that. I have the honor of having a few of them in my life (and seeing lots online) and boy, are they precious about it.
Favorite catchphrase: "elections are decided by independents!"
I'm just saying that I don't think Morello is being like that...
He's in California. He could make his voice heard by voting 3rd party, because it was a given that all electoral votes from Cali would go to Harris. Thus, voting 3rd parry sends a signal without endangering vulnerable people by helping Trump.
There's a reason the GOP cancer is slowly spreading in California. If enough people vote third party or don't vote it could eventually flip red with enough propaganda and money.
Protest voting doesn't work with first past the post system.
And if California get's anywhere close to vote parity, he, like many others, will then start to vote democrat. But right now, there is absolutely no danger of a purple California, so why not vote his conscience?
Tom Morello lives in California.
You don't.
Vote strategically, dumbasses.
This is the vital detail. By all means vote your conscience if you live in a safe state. And his criticism of conservative Democrats is entirely justified.
But if you live in a battleground state, please do whatever you can to block Republicans, even if it requires holding your nose.
Even in battleground states, you can vote in primaries, for school boards etc. If the choice comes down to a corporate shill vs. a Nazi, you should always vote against the Nazi, of course, even if the alternative is also unpalatable.
Agreed! And open primaries, while we're at it. These are all simple things that make our democracy more democratic and less prone to corruption and polarization.
Is it the platform that makes the difference for you?
I live in a contested state and voted for the democratic socialist candidate in the primary but I will, of course, vote for the mainstream dem in the general.
As a counterpoint, my uncle lives in a blue state and voted for a third party candidate in that last presidential election. My mom has basically gone no-contact with him over it. I think she’s just about equally as angry that I didn’t vote for the mainstream candidate in the primary but gives me a bit of a pass because I’m her son?
I think you make a good point about Tom having a platform that I hadn’t considered before. Did he use his platform to encourage people not to vote for her?
Maybe don't call them assholes for that.
I am not from tge US but it's so frustrating, we really shouldn't support this infighting. Anyone still supporting Israel IS disgusting, people are rightfully pissed of about this.
I still believe that there is no way forward other than voting Dem but the infighting and namecalling and belitteling of each other is infuriating.
This really just feels like another devide method of the ruling class.
If you want to beat the Rep you need more solidarity in the left wing and this starts by communicating like adults.
If Dem candidates support zionist racism they will lose.
Dont harp on the voters as if they are the problem here. Harris could have won that election by not taking aipac money, but she chose the money. She chose to shout down student protestors. She also chose to parade around stages with Liz cheney talking about prayer and her glock. She made a lot of odd choices, and then she lost every single swing state and every demographic of the dem voting base declined.
The reality here is that many Dem voters will just not vote for crimes against humanity, even if you euphamistically call it "strategic" voting. They do not care what you say, and you cant finger wag your way to convincing them to pull the lever for a genocider. I'm afraid thats the reality we live in, so maybe you should concentrate on pressuring Dem candidates to not lose a third of their base to idiocy.
I can’t believe that this era of extreme Trump bullshit, war on Iran, Trump supporting Israel 100, we still have people acting as if being aligned with Israel is the reason to not vote for a Democrat, despite them being far better on three dozen other issues.
Well here he is applying nuance. He can vote that way thanks to the realities of California. He is trusting the audience to understand that nuance of that stance.
It's a tricky one, since on the one hand he may be overestimating the electorate, but on the other folks inclined to listen to him may internalize the nuance and not get alienated by assumptions that he is selling out. I'm leaning towards the latter since he at least is calling people to vote instead of some blindly anti electoral take, which is fairly prominent in the online discourse.
I’ll be honest, most of the people I see critiquing elections or candidates like Kamala have nuance to their views. Which makes sense, because it takes reflection and thought to break with the normal for most people.
On the other hand, I see tons of binary “any criticism is anti-electoralism and literally fascist” takes online that totally lack nuance. Which also makes sense, because when confronted with a break in normality, most people tend to react emotionally, not logically.
I dont see that at all. Every kamala hater ive seen have nothing but genocide on their minds.
Lol just a couple posts down from yours
Sure, that’s a hard line for many people who vote with their conscious, and probably most protest voters agonized over the decision, knowing that in our system it could help Trump (although, as it turns out, even if every single third party vote went to Kamala, it still would not have been enough for her to win — protest voters are a tiny demographic).
That’s still more nuanced than “Blue no matter who” or “nothing but genocide on their minds.” (As if genocide isn’t a huge fucking thing that should break every politician who supports it, but that’s a separate argument.)
Yes and no? There's a lot of chuds who listen to RATM and somehow don't get their message; but they're not necessarily listening to Tom Morello, and very likely may not even know his name (or Zack, or Tim, or Brad). The people who listen to RATM and know who Tom Morello is, are far more likely to understand the nuance here.
I was downvoted to hell for saying this on the original post.
It is a privilege to be able to “vote with your conscience” when you’re life isn’t literally hanging in the balance of that vote.
Whether we like it or not, we are a two party system at the moment and voting third party in a presidential election is a wasted vote. I don’t care what anyone else says.
As cool as Tom is he still has the privilege of voting as white man, which is a very different experience compared to the rest of us.
he literally talks about not being white in the first post
Honestly, maybe you need some time away. Your post is pretty vitriolic for someone who didn't even address you specifically or say anything in a disparaging way.
If you understood how things worked, I would expect your worldview to be somewhat less disappointing when it comes to delivering tangible results. Yet, here we are, 4 decades later, and we still don't even have a basic right to medical care.
In that society and country, it’s the only approach that can be taken.
It’ll take a while to win that war through the vote if it can be. There’s only one way to win it…progressively change one party from within and with the vote and there’s only one party that could be achieved with.
There is no other peaceful solution, other than a national shutdown large and long enough to bring production to a halt and force the Houses to act.
That’s it. Those two. No others.
This is a pretty good response. I wish there was more focus on that 'inch of space' and who gets harmed, and less on the disappointing sock puppet figureheads.
Yes, too often that inch is getting ignored on principle and to that I can only say: if your principles are so rigid that you sacrifice vulnerable people and minorities, then your principles are a part of the problem.
Most of the Palestinian holocaust happened on Bidens/Harris's watch. Did you notice people were mad at the dems for that? So you cant really make a case that rethuglicans are worse. On war crimes, they are the same. Both parties are bought by rich zionists, and neither will willingly change. Ever. The only way to redeem the US system is to take it apart and reform it into something that honors basic human rights. Until we do that we are just wasting our time and continuing to support crimes against humanity by delaying the burning. We need to take a longer term view of where we are going.
You want to talk about vulnerable people? Don't just bring up our names, actually fucking listen to us.
As a trans person, I encourage you to vote against any transphobic Senate or House candidate, even if they are a Democrat. There are few enough of these sleazeballs now that we can vote against them without risking a major election. But honestly, Democrats going transphobe is a far greater risk to trans people than Democrats ending up with a slightly smaller margin in the House or Senate.
Losing one election just means losing one election. Democrats turning transphobes means that trans rights are dead for a generation.
So listen to vulnerable minorities for once, instead of just citing us as a silent example, treating us how Republicans treat fetuses.
I see it's time to purity test Rage Against the Fucking Machine!
This is straight up conservative hit piece propaganda. The dude is a Harvard educated pol sci master, maybe if he says one single thing you disagree with, listen to what the cunt is saying.
They're trying to just throw whatever little piece of shit they can on him so they can go- "hey, this guy disagrees with you on one point of all the thousand things you are both in FULL agreement of. See? Everything he says is fake."
GTFO of here with this mainstream media psyop diarrhea.
There are reasons that all of this is coming out at the same time Morello is involved in promoting protests against the regime concerts.
Seems reasonable to me. God knows no one in Pennsylvania has been any better off for voting John Fetterman. Play the game as best you can with the cards you have, and fold when that's the right choice, and then work to make the game function better through organizing and other means.
You think Dr. Oz would have been better? I have my doubts.
It's a ridiculous assertion. Dr. Oz would obviously have been worse. As terrible as Fetterman is, Oz would have been in full lockstep with Trump and the Senate would be under even firmer control of the GOP right now. Trump could have been more successful legislatively if they had another Senator to make winning votes easier. If nothing else, it would have provided another seat they could use to let Senators like Collins and Murkowski do their performative BS on more votes so its easier for them to win re-election.
People don't realize that Fetterman votes with Democrats 90% of the time. That's a lot better than having a Trump sycophant in that seat.
This is the answer.
Fetterman makes me want to punch my walls. But still better than something like Oz.
Same way manchin was far better in that wva seat. Now it's that coal baron who doesn't even bother to hide corruption and gleefully votes everything Republican.
It would not have made a difference. It's like asking if you'd rather face the firing squad or face the wall and get shot in the back. Same outcome regardless of "choice", but by choosing Fetterman, the whole democratic party is weakened by the exercise.
Fetterman votes with Democrats 90% of the time. Dr. Oz would have voted with Democrats 0% of the time. That's a big difference.
The context here being that John fetterman votes against his party more often than any other senator, Democrat or Republican. And he breaks with them on larger issues. He breaks with the party pretty often in big ways when it comes to nominations too.
That 90% is including a lot of procedural votes. But still the point sorta stands and he voted in line with the Democrats more often than my gut reaction expected.
That's also not to say that I think dr oz would be better than fetterman but the fact is fetterman being in office is a failure of the dnc.
Is it? Because they still haven't passed or blocked anything meaningful. It's really easy to "Vote with the party" when you know they're going to lose regardless. Your metric may be true, but it's ultimately meaningless.
There is no "folding" in life. There is no walking away. You can abstain from giving specific input, but you are still subject to and share responsibility for the results. What is needed is people that push to have the best possible choice for a given election and will vote for the best choice available. Doing only one is not enough.
No, there's definitely "folding" in life. Or "logging out", or whatever euphemism you can think of.
You just don't get to deal back into the game after you fold.
The problem with fascism is that it will take an interest in you even if you don't take an interest in politics. People that are folding are not able to really opt out.
...not in this context. Unless you got some fashy necrophiliacs, I guess...
There is a point at which the "best possible" is not sufficiently distinct from the worst possible that it becomes irrelevant for the individual in question. There was literally no benefit to Fetterman over Oz for most people. The only option was to work to make sure neither of them ever get another chance and to try to mitigate the harm that was going to be done when either one wins. I want to be clear, I don't think this applies to the party as a whole but this is why (from the perspective of many) it does, because in their specific case the outcome is the same regardless. It's a perfectly rational choice at the scale of the individual, because their interests, aren't even on the ballot.
You and anyone else that doesn't think Oz would have been significantly worse, or thinks it "doesn't affect them", is naive or arguing in bad faith. The better option can suck, but both-sidesing the situation to excuse not voting at all serves nobody but the worse option.
To pull from the quote from the OP:
But in any and every contested race, as my mom Mary Morello always said, we have to fight the fascist every which way we can, recognizing that even if there’s but an inch of difference between two candidates, there are a lot of vulnerable people who could be greatly harmed in that inch. So vote your ass off...
Chomsky said much the same - he has spilled all kinds of ink chronicling how terrible the Democrats have been over the course of multiple decades (in addition to Republicans of course), but he's been quite clear on the fact that there is indeed a difference, and a difference that matters.
Name one bill that Is would have changed the outcome on? Go ahead, I'll wait.
But in any and every contested race, as my mom Mary Morello always said, we have to fight the fascist every which way we can, recognizing that even if there's but an inch of difference between two candidates, there are a lot of vulnerable people who could be greatly harmed in that inch. So vote your ass off, but don't just exercise your right to vote. Exercise your right to fight for, organize for, struggle for, and manifest the kind of world you'd like to really see without compromise and without apologies before, during, and after election day. And let's stop the fascists every which way we can. Power the people.
He did not vote for Harris. He said he was lucky enough to not have to. Then quotes his mother advocating for harm reduction if you do not have that same luck with your vote.
Holy hell, misleading title, JFC.
It is technically the truth, but skips the lede.
He does vote that way, but clarifies California is a place where he can, and if your situation is more competitive, you need to vote with that inch in mind.
Thank you, it annoys me greatly when people don't actually say what they mean. I appreciate the effort you took to point out it. Your comment is much better than just saying something happened without explaining it.
Much better comment than the ones I replied to Eric is pretty useless on its own. It took you and me to make it something worth reading
For one, he says he doesn’t vote for fascists just as much as he says he doesn’t vote for corporate Democrats. But then he goes on to say while he thinks you should vote for third-party candidates who you really would like to see get elected in some elections, sometimes you need to be practical and vote for a candidate that is not ideal, but better, and could actually be elected, for elections where that matters. Which is also what I’ve always said.
I've seen those.
I'm sure I've been called those, but my point is two-fold:
- Act BEFORE the general election to support better candidates
- But when the choice is between lesser-evil and greater-evil, NOT voting for lesser-evil IS VOTING FOR GREATER EVIL. That's not opinion, it's simple math.
If the only thing someone does with politics is refrain from voting in the general election, they absolutely are supporting fascism. If the only thing someone does is vote in the general election, they are not supporting progressive candidates if their only option is between a fascist and an establishment Democrat.
You must act BEFORE the primary to support who you want to SEE in the primary. Vote for the best option. In the general, vote for the least-bad option. Not doing those things supports the greater evil of fascist.
Or, if someone decides to keep being the candidate of the lesser of two evils in a safe, Democrat-voting state, perhaps we could aspire to something more than merely being less of a piece of shit than the other guy? No? I guess you have your answer right there. No matter the time, you people always want to come out of the woodwork to criticize anyone who dare criticizes the Democratic establishment. We wouldn't be in this situation if asshats like yourself spent half as much time fighting Republicans as you did fighting other Democrats that you find "too" liberal.
EDIT: I'm editing my replies to you because all you have done is refuse to read anything I wrote, are vocally supporting fascism, and fucking lying about me, trying to make accusations that are untrue. Fuck anyone who does that shit.
I hope you personally feel the effects of the fascism whose dick you obviously fucking suck. Piss off.
Well it's fine that he didn't vote for shit Democrats but honestly wish he would have been this outspoken DURING the campaign, when it mattered, instead of now.
Notwithstanding but FFS, organize and make the statement during the election for not voting for crappy candidates.
But then you get libs yelling at you cause they think criticizing Dems = supporting fascists. You are only allowed to do so in that 1 year gap between the election ending and the start of the next primaries (whether it be midterms or presidential). Any other time and you're called a Russian bot or psy-op agent.
So? As long as you can live with the decision you made who gives a flying fuck about what they think? Especially in the Internet where everything is made up and the points don't matter.
Anytime a left-wing person talks about being disappointed with their lesser-of-two-evil options, people get all up in arms about the idea that we owe the Democratic Party our fealty.
Nobody owes anyone anything, but when given the choice between a fascist who wouldn't mind seeing me dead vs. an establishment Democrat who doesn't mind if I manage to survive just as long as the oligarchs get their tax breaks, I'll go with the one who doesn't want to actively take away my human rights every time, if for no other reason that it's the better choice at that point.
So what the fuck are you doing BEFORE the general election? Or are you blowing the entire process off and then feeling smug about not voting for the lesser-of-two-evil THEREBY HELPING THE GREATER EVIL WIN.
Or, and I realize this is a big ask for idiots captured by the Democratic machine, you could spend two minutes to read the actual article and realize that he takes into account that he's voting in a state that so reliably swings to the Democrats that his vote is negligible when he says he didn't vote for Kamala. You people would rather twist yourselves into knots rather than realize that you fielded a shit candidate and actually acknowledge that you should do better next time.
No, it's not you who's wrong when your base says they can't vote for you, it's your constituents who must be wrong, no matter the circumstances.
He also addresses the need to take action between presidential elections, for all the dumbasses who just go "He no vote Kamala, downvote the evil person."
EDIT: I'm editing my replies to you because all you have done is refuse to read anything I wrote, are vocally supporting fascism, and fucking lying about me, trying to make accusations that are untrue. Fuck anyone who does that shit.
I hope you personally feel the effects of the fascism whose dick you obviously fucking suck. Piss off.
Don’t even bother, I went through this same rigmarole on the original article that was posted.
Some people on Lemmy are so blinded by their hate for the political system it doesn’t mater to them if said hatred wil cost the life of others.
And I’m gunna be honest, the ones arguing the hardest that were just “democratic mouthpieces” when we call this out, are probably the ones with the least amount to lose regardless of the outcome.
Yeah its definitely not the fault of the people who would harm others. They are innocent, blinded by rage, unable to see reason. Really, it's the voters that are the monsters, pulling the strings.
Good story bro!
I have read what you've written perfectly well. Unfortunately for you, you write shit fascist apologia, and can't seem to accept the existence of anyone who isn't wholeheartedly swallowing your dumb as hell DNC talking points. Get bent, have fun continuing to lose elections because you can't accept that your ideals are dumb as hell to anyone who considers them and happens to have two brain cells to rub together.
I hope when the fascists round you up, they personally rub it in your face how enlightened you thought you were.
All you have done is refuse to read anything I wrote, are vocally supporting fascism, and fucking lying about me, trying to make accusations that are untrue. Fuck anyone who does that shit.
I hope you personally feel the effects of the fascism whose dick you obviously fucking suck. Piss off.
So you'd vote for Hitler as long as he didn't hurt you specifically.
So what the fuck are you doing BEFORE the general election?
Voting in the general election is how you vote in the real primary - the money primary. The money primary is the first real contest of an election. The "primaries" you tell us to focus on really aren't the first contest. The money primary is. And the donors pick candidates they hope can win. And since Kamala lost in 2024, pro-genocide Democrats are going to have a hell of a harder time winning the money primary in 2028 than they did in 2024.
By the time you get to the ballot in the primary, the real contest is already over.
Given the plurality voting system, voting Democrat is the only meaningful way to take power away from the Republican fascists.
You can vote third party all you want in the PRIMARIES. When it comes to the general, you vote Democrat or you're helping the fascists.
Why would someone vote third party in the primaries? Most third parties don't get the funding or support from states to even host primaries. And there's pretty much no reason to withhold a third party vote in noncompetitive states.
Boo hoo you got morals. How dare you vote by your morals if it inconvenience me?
If Kamala Harris would have gotten a primary she would have come last? If Dems had a proper primary instead of panding to a senior buffon there would have been an actual promising candidate. Dems lost not because of people not voting; they lost because they didn't represent anyone, other than the donor class.
The democrats & republicans have been spending the better part of a century making sure voters are too dumb to figure them out. Making sure other options are never picked, making Communism and Socialism are taboo words...
I voted for Kamala Harris but I was originally going to vote Cornel West. I thought Cornel West would've saved this country.
Imagine if instead of supporting two useless people doomed to lose, you had campaigned for an actual progressive with broad appeal?
The electoral process overrides the voice of people anyways. It's all a shit show to keep us all fighting.
He votes against fascism every single time.
That all of California's electoral votes would go against republican fascism was a foregone conclusion. So what he did is use his vote to promote a third solution, one that is not corporate democrat. That's absolutely fine.
Knowingly throwing away a vote on someone that mathematically and realistically cannot win is the same as not voting at all where the outcome is concerned.
Doing this enabled trump to win as it was a vote not counted toward the one that stood a chance to win.
Knowingly throwing away a vote on someone that mathematically and realistically cannot win is the same as not voting at all where the outcome is concerned.
Doing this enabled trump to win as it was a vote not counted toward the one that stood a chance to win.
When your opponent is fascism and you vote for a different fascist, don't be surprised when this does nothing to combat fascism.
"they're all the same" is ignorant, elitist and privileged
You are reading what you want to see and not what I wrote.
They are not the same, but they are idealogically aligned and working towards the same goals.
That's just saying they're the same with extra steps. It's willfully ignorant and childish, a way to participate in politics while being uninformed. The Dunning-Kruger of political discussion participants.
I'll probably get downvoted to hell for saying this, but whatever, it needs to be said. It's just unbearable listening to how all of you defend voting for people you hate and doing nothing about it.
Here's the truth: if you have one party that's neo-fascist, and another party that does nothing, then in reality, your country is a one-party neo-fascist state.
What you need to do about it is fixed the root cause. Throw your constitution in the trash and write a new one that guarantees proportional representation. Sure, PR isn't perfect, but it's better than a single party state.
No, voting in primaries isn't going to fix the problem. Maybe you get a small handful of 10 politicians around the country that make you feel good about yourselves, but there are still thousands more standing in their way preventing any real progress. What have Bernie Sanders or AOC really achieved? Nothing, because there's 500 other people in Congress. What has Mamdani done for more than the tiny fraction of Americans living in NYC? Nothing, because a mayor in NYC is can't do shit for the 90% of people who live in other parts of the country.
Do whatever you want, vote however you want, but real change won't come until you throw out that stinking piece of trash constitution you have and write one that makes the USA a real democracy. Shout it out as loud as you can, because until then, nothing meaningful is ever going to change.
P.S. It's not that people aren't aware of the shitty system, it's the fact that absolutely nobody is talking about the real problem, and there's no movement whatsoever to fix it. Even Canadians are pushing desperately for PR and getting nowhere, but the USA is even more silent about it, and it's fucking infuriating.
A complete lack of specific action suggested. So tired of these "don't even try not even in the primaries" comments. Just some vague wave a wand and have a new system, avoiding precisely how that would happen.
So far whenever pressed the answer tends to be "just wait until this all collapses on it's own, then our "I told you so" will clearly let us take charge once the masses have finally had their eyes opened by a collapse".
A complete lack of specific action suggested. So tired of these “don’t even try not even in the primaries” comments. Just some vague wave a wand and have a new system, avoiding precisely how that would happen.
Run for president on a platform of "I will dissolve the United States." This could actually be done, and it would require no Constitutional amendment whatsoever.
Someone could run for office saying, "I'm going to literally fire everyone the day I'm sworn in. I will not send in the military to prevent states from seceding. I'll effectively be granting all 50 states independence. They can then come back together in whatever new country or countries they want to form."
Throw out your high school civics. Don't try to argue how illegal or unconstitutional this would be, as it wouldn't matter. The original Articles of Confederation weren't legal; they were just done. Same thing here. There's no mechanism to prevent a president from doing this, and once the federal government has been completely unwound and its powers taken over by the states, there's really no putting Humpty Dumpty back together at that point.
You don't actually need to reach the threshold of amending the Constitution in order to blow the whole thing up. You just need a president that will openly announce that he'll let any and all states secede from the Union. That's it. Legality doesn't matter here. What matters is power.
Keep in mind that my frustration stems from this sentiment:
No, voting in primaries isn’t going to fix the problem.
So a scenario that is "first, vote for a president who will..." brings us back to voting, so I'm glad for that, just that many folks are saying don't even bother trying to vote.
But putting that aside, and going with the assertion that a President can unilaterally disband the current system and let everyone collectively 're-roll' a new system, this doesn't really pan out either. The assumption stems from a belief that the current administration demonstrates that an administration can act unilaterally. This isn't actually true, he has the support of congress, even if congress likes to sometimes pretend they don't support him. If you had your hypothetical, he'd be removed by congress immediately and the speaker of the house would replace him. Of course that's ignoring the reality that there's no way you vote someone with that position in without also voting in a lot of congress, but again, this scenario involves a lot of popular support expressed through voting. Not amendment level popular support, but enough popular support as to make the amendments frankly not really needed.
But stepping back a bit further, one could put aside the concept of a president and stick more with the historically demonstrated reality that a system can be taken down with less than it would take to rework the system as it stands. The amount of support to amend the current system would be inconceivable the way it works, but systems can be changed in other ways. Those ways amount to a combination of numbers, conviction, force, and cohesion. I just don't see that, and at least some of the folks on that anti-electoral bent have acknowledged that, and have suggested a hope for a collapse event that will draw numbers and conviction. They assume a cohesion will occur that naturally would align with them, despite not putting in the work because it 'just seems obvious' that they are right.
The reality is that people can look around globally and see that the system fails them more than they would like, but grading on a curve the current system resembles the ones that work more closely than it does in much worse systems. Rerolling the system would be pitting people against each other based on conviction to do physical violence, the resulting fear, and numbers. Very high odds you kick that off and ultimately end with an authoritarian state focused on purity of ethnicity, religion, gender and such because those dudes are way more willing to do harm than others.
There are dozens of ways it could be fixed. Here, I'll do the thinking for you.
First of all, if you read your own constitution, you would see that there are multiple ways to amend the constitution:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.[3]
There are two ideas right off the bat: either start writing amendments and getting them passed through Congress, or have the state legislatures demand a convention be arranged. You don't even need your federal Congress to get involved if you use the second approach. Did you already know that? (And since you think voting is so effective, you can invoke this holy power against the politicians that don't support it.)
See, here's a guy that already tried to start the process, maybe you can jump on board!
In 2010, Lessig began to organize for a national Article V convention.[81] He co-founded Fix Congress First! with Joe Trippi.[82] In a speech in 2011, Lessig revealed that he was disappointed with Barack Obama's performance in office, criticizing it as a "betrayal", and he criticized the president for using "the (Hillary) Clinton playbook".[83] Lessig has called for state governments to call for a national Article V convention,[84] including by supporting Wolf-PAC, a national organization attempting to call an Article V convention to address the problem.[85]
Or maybe you need to find a not-so-legal approach. Your constitution was written because the previous one (Articles of the Confederation) were not so effective. How is your current situation today different from the one then? They figured out a way to get it done, and they were under far less duress then than you are now so... why can't you? You start writing the new one, then ratify it the same way the same way the old one was.
And in case you weren't aware, this happens all the time! Look at France. France is on their Fifth republic, the most recent being established in 1958, according to Wikipedia. And they're not the only ones. There are new constitutions being proposed and voted on all over the world all the time, in the Middle East, in Africa, etc. Read the news and you'll find out more about it. I recommend Deutsche Welle, they have excellent coverage of global affairs.
There you go. Hope you enjoyed a small lesson about civics in your own country from a foreigner. There are plenty of ideas to get you started, and now that you're more in the know, don't complain if voting by the rules doesn't bring about the change you're looking for. Good luck!
And another edit to add: yes, it's hard work, but you have to start talking about real solutions at the very least. You can see very clearly and easily from where we are today that working within the system as it's currently designed isn't working and it probably never will. It's up to you to pick whatever path you think is best, but I think it's obvious that voting in your shitty electoral process just isn't going to work.
Here, I’ll do the thinking for you.
Oh, thank you, obviously I need that. What a shit opening.
either start writing amendments and getting them passed through Congress, or have the state legislatures demand a convention be arranged.
This was supposed to be guidance from the "don't vote" crowd. There's no way that "don't vote" leads to "constitutional amendment".
You start writing the new one, then ratify it the same way the same way the old one was.
At least a bit more closer to direct. Usually there's an acknowledgement that this isn't in the cards, and instead they advocate to vaguely organize and wait for some catastrophe to generate the popular support that is lacking.
don’t complain if voting by the rules doesn’t bring about the change
The whole point was about people who refuse to vote by the rules not bringing about the change.
But such a tremendously condescending tone is pretty asshole way of commenting.
You wrote, "A complete lack of specific action suggested." so I provided some specific action. I don't like being an asshole, but people tend to act like assholes if they think the people they're talking to are also assholes. I'll be more polite if you're willing to do the same.
In any case, what I wrote is, "Do whatever you want, vote however you want, but real change won’t come until you throw out that stinking piece of trash constitution" and somehow, you assumed that it means, "don’t even try not even in the primaries." I have no idea how you made that mental connection. You asked how to fix it, and I told you how to get it done. You wanted a direct example, and I posted several of them. I even found a guy that's already started the process, just go and read the wiki link I posted on Lessig. What more do you want?
And since you think voting is so effective, you can invoke this holy power against the politicians that don't support it.
In the USA we refer to this as "third party support" and it's the crux of this argument.
Anyone backlashing against someone in a deep blue state for not engaging in performative pro-Democratic Party politics that go against their conscience is a moron.
I would agree with this if Trump hadn't won the popular vote in 2024. Even though it doesn't matter for the result, the outcome would still have been slightly less terrible than Trump winning both the Electoral College and the popular vote. From a harm reduction perspective, those deep blue state voters who oppose Trump but failed to vote for Harris still contributed to the outcome in a way that has served to further empower Trump.
And what did winning the popular vote in 2016 do for Clinton? As long as we live in an anti-democratic system where some votes are worth more than others and the electoral college exists, acting like the popular vote is what decides vote (and therefor getting angry at people living in deep blue states for not voting blue) is absolutely asinine.
You also can’t have it both ways; if it’s so important to get every single vote even in deep blue states, then you have to take the concerns of these voters seriously and not just demand they perform for the party’s sake. If their votes are so necessary then they must be earned.
And what did winning the popular vote in 2016 do for Clinton?
Do you not remember "the Resistance"? Have you not noticed the difference between how corporate America behaved following 2016 vs. now? There is this idea of a "mandate" that can help animate the implementation of the new regime, Trump having the popular vote win in 2024 to point at was a significant factor in how things played out after that election. If Trump had only won the Electoral College again he would have been less empowered by the election outcome.
You also can’t have it both ways; if it’s so important to get every single vote even in deep blue states, then you have to take the concerns of these voters seriously and not just demand they perform for the party’s sake. If their votes are so necessary then they must be earned.
I don't understand this, it seems like a non sequitur to the point I was making. I am not arguing any of these things. It's generally not a good use of limited campaign resources or political capital to target these kinds of voters, that would be a bad strategy when that money and effort could be much better spent trying to actually win via the Electoral College.
How DARE he not vote Blue no MATTER who!
-People who voted for INDEPENDENT ANDREW CUOMO!
But in any and every contested race, as my mom Mary Morello always said, we have to fight the fascist every which way we can, recognizing that even if there's but an inch of difference between two candidates, there are a lot of vulnerable people who could be greatly harmed in that inch. So vote your ass off
Despite the misleading title, he is saying "vote blue no matter who" just without the (cringe) soundbite. Sure he's not explicitly specifying what party to vote for but the intent of the two messages is the same - at a certain point in the election process, there are only two people who have any shot at winning. You must vote for one even if you hate them both. Abstaining may as well be a vote for the worst candidate.
if you don't vote straight blue you're part of the problem and can get fucked.
Bullshit!!!! He's been Fenders fuck boy, for like 2 decades. He could not be any more corporate.
I know it's unpopular this month, but fuck Macklemore for not doing and saying as this man does.
In good weather, vote for the good people.
In the heart of the storm, when the volcano threatens to end humanity, and the plague is ravaging the people, vote for the goddamn candidate that didn't RAPE CHILDREN and the candidate with the best chance of winning against the guy who wants to (and fully has successfully) protected his other child rapist friends.
It's not rocket science.
Oh, and the guy who owns the most successful rocket scientists was hired by the rapist, and that guy did a fucking Nazi salute at his inauguration.
But let's all celebrate Macklemore for... ::Checks notes:: opposing genocide? Really? The bar is that low? Fucking hell...
Of the two musicians, Tom Morello is the only who has expressly said that he did not vote for Harris in 2024, which seems inconsistent with your reason for elevating him while judging Macklemore.
"The blood is on your hands, Biden, we can see it all And fuck no, I'm not votin' for you in the fall"
- Macklemore
Regardless of how he may have secretly voted, he told people not to vote for Trump's opposition.
I do appear to have misunderstood this thread here, though... Why is he talking about opposing Nazi's if he didn't vote against Trump? Seems they are both trash... Imagine being so braindead you think the difference between Harris and Trump is "an inch".
Regardless of how he may have secretly voted, he told people not to vote for Trump's opposition.
My contention is with the lack of logic in your reasoning for elevating Tom Morello.
His words are not only at odds with your stated position, but they are at odds with his own words.
I don’t give a fuck about how you feel about Macklemore.
No they aren't. Tom said that he is privileged to be able to vote with his conscience because he lives in California. He also went on to say that those who aren't as lucky should consider that, if there's even an inch of difference between the two choices you realistically have, to consider the people who are harmed by that inch you might be ceding to the opposition.
Yea, I put blue dicks in my ass, but not blue dicks that I have identified as seperate to my identity manifested from the dick-in-ass-illusion complex the Buddha spoke of.
This is what you people sound like.
It's for marketing purposes!
I get the stupidest mother-fuckers to reply to me!
Look how true this statement is boys. I do wanna fuck a really fat bitch. Like, fukken help a bro decimate some cute-faced thuquabdanite sweetling slut tonight, on the Discovery Channel. We filming this shit dawg! Get you a fold of the gelatinous foid! It all festers in this digital hellscape, I tell you boy. Bitch Priest of the normative order! I am Cthulhu for I have forty dicks, ready to go, for all types of cunts! There we go. Now I'm in the mood. You scalp a ho before? Then you ain't in the real world! It a jungle out here! Good gravy!
Where I live in California, I have the luxury of voting my conscience for president for third-party candidates that better align with my ideas of justice and equality.
Which 3rd party candidate is he talking about? Because if he's talking about Jill Stein, then he may as well be voting Republican. 3rd party candidates are just another scam being run on the public. They're nothing more than astroturf laid out by the opposition, intended to lead voters away from one of the two main parties.
A state that is pretty much guaranteed a democratic win is the only place where voting 3rd party isn't a gop spoiler and can actually mean something...
You both have a point. And I agree with you both. If only you could agree with each other. Yes when you're in a blue State like california. You absolutely have the privilege and luxury of voting for someone other than the two major parties. Because your States vote will safely be delivered to one of them consistently. But it was an actual issue on top of the bigger issue of Democrats being professional losers. Because let's not forget that a lot of the loss Biden and Harris fought for hard.
But if I had a dime for every privileged blue stater's vitriolic statements against those of us in red or purple States. Trying to promote some sort of solidarity against Trump. I'd have hundreds of dollars or more. All the condescending holier-than thou bullshit. Bullshit that's ramping up again might I add.
Here in a red state, my vote is meaningless in a statewide election as well. And I might express that in close company of neighbors. National Democrats don't even invest or try here most of the time. But if I am in mixed or unknown company, ie online. I would never attack others for implying otherwise, or stating that the people should show solidarity. (Like many on fedi actively do) They're right. Everyone doesn't have identical circumstances. And as Tom said, in consequential elections we need to stand together. Even if the candidate is imperfect.
I also live in a red state (I guess it used to be purple, but last time it was blue was before I was even born both at the presidential and Congress level). Voting for Dems on any level outside of the couple city districts basically does nothing. It's why I find my vote better spent on third parties at every level. I'd rather be happy my vote went to someone I liked than wasted on someone I don't.
That's 100% valid. I definitely feel the same fairly often here on the outskirts of the city where I'm at. However I would never publicly tell people that they should do that. Especially people I don't know. People whose circumstances I can't be sure of. It's a decision that everyone has to make for themselves. And no one should ridicule anyone for asking for solidarity to stand against fascists. And yet many do.
Ok, so the platform page had: "Stop fueling the war between Russia and Ukraine and lead on negotiating a peaceful end" This was just a stupid statement, acting like Russia didn't just up and unilaterally invade a nation.
She said NATO should be disbanded. She wanted the UN Security Council both to be abolished and yet at the same time wanted the UN Security Council to hold Israel accountable.
Her platform was a lot of Russia's invasion was actually all the fault of the west and the best way forward was to just capitulate to Russian aggression.
She was just a total shit candidate, with a lot of Russian agenda points featured in her campaign.
So, it's ok to promote spoilers, as long as you're in an area where it won't have any impact on the outcome?
You get how that still has the overall effect of legitimizing their role in other areas, right? You're basically doing unpaid advertising for the opposition, and proving that this strategy is effective...while doing literally nothing to benefit your own position.
Which is exactly what 3rd parties are for in the US. At best, they are entirely ineffective. At worse, they help the opposition to maintain power.
At best they're an indication of a demographic that wants a change that isn't the other major party, signalling to the party that they might benefit from pivoting at least a little in that direction. That signal is usually ignored, of course, but we are talking about "at best".
You're assuming they represent a genuine alternative to the two major parties. What I'm saying is that they are a manufactured alternative, intended to dilute the opposition vote.
Jill Stein and several other Green party representatives all but admitted that this was the case during the 2024 election. They knew they had no chance of winning, and their stated intention was only to make sure the Democrats lost.
He looks like he gets down in late night bath house soirees. He's about as corporate as you can get regardless if he says he's not corporate. That alone makes him corporate
Why?
Ah yes, the performative hipster vooter, he's gonna voot, tell you how he voots, and do nothing else but post about it on social media.
Yeah every member of RATM has been doing nothing else for the past 30 years.
Nobody should vote, you can't destroy the system by participating in it,
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
I think this is reasonable. A "corporate Democrat", even if bad, can be better than a Republican in many cases. The Democrat might end up being less bad, for lots of disadvantaged people, than a Republican would be. These aren't ideal choices to make, but you have to deal with reality as it is.
save