• zbyte64@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Okay, one still should vote for a Democrat president. Because why would you vote for a more hostile government? Unless of course you want everything go-to shit but you should lead with your intention.

    • kreskin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      8 hours ago

      You claim to be a socialist in your other posts but you sure sound like a DNC centrist all the time.

      • zbyte64@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        6 hours ago

        I see you’re the one that responded with a page of why Dems suck when I said the Dems wield power differently but not against Capitalism. Maybe you live in a part of the world where there is no material difference between the two parties but that is not the lived reality for myself or my neighbors. This is not a centrist saying “well actually the Dems don’t suck as much as you say”, it is a Marxist saying you cannot build a coalition while ignoring the material conditions people are experiencing.

        • kreskin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 hours ago

          I see you’re the one that responded with a page of why Dems suck

          I listed a super long list of dems in congress collaborating with republicans lately. You’re the one saying they suck.

        • Genius@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          To a lot of Marxists, “materialism” means only believing in physical things, and pretending the mathematics of electoral systems don’t exist because maths is abstract.

    • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Okay, one still should vote for a Democrat president.

      LOL, the last Democratic nominee saw tens of millions of voters saying ‘hey, we’d like to be able to afford food and rent’, and their response was ‘just be joyful about how poor you are’.

      If Dems want votes, they need to do more than make promises.

      • sobchak@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 hours ago

        She campaigned on fairly substantial changes, such as $25k downpayment assistance, $10k tax credit to first-time home buyers, and a lot of other housing reforms and subsidies. Not that I particularly liked her, but she did campaign on that kind of stuff (which people/media mostly ignored, IIRC).

        • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          11 hours ago

          Not that I particularly liked her, but she did campaign on that kind of stuff (which people/media mostly ignored, IIRC).

          That’ll happen when your record and that of your predecessors shows that your promises are worthless.

          Also she probably shouldn’t have spent three months telling people to be joyful about how poor they were before dreaming up her policy positions.

          • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            10 hours ago

            Biden and Obama were also pretty good on these issues.

            Biden heralded the American Rescue Plan which set aside billions for housing, and also oversaw housing assistance given to 8 Million renters and 500k homeowners.

            Obama Stimulus was so much that Republicans have been screeching about the federal deficit to this day.

        • Genius@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 hours ago

          If Dems got votes, they might win, and then their corporate donors would be very upset