Im starting to notice a pattern of stuff you’re posting.
I literally just replied back to one of your posts which was a pro gun advert pretending to be feel good news
Are all of your posts going to be pro GOP posts masquerading as something else
Let’s talk about how Trump is the primary nominee, and he raped a woman and threatens everyone.
There’s literally no reason that Biden can’t be a good leader. He’s demonstrated it over the past few years. And it’s normal for the current president to be given a second shot.
Fairly sure It’s not normal for a president who lost his second term votes to try a 3rd time
The only real objection most people could arguably make for Biden is regarding Israel
At the time of writing, Auzy’s accusation has a score of 10 and your comeback has a score of 3. Three times as many people seem to disbelieve your intentions as believe them.
Were I in your position, this is the sort of thing that would make me question why it is I come off this way. A good starting place would be to actually respond to specific criticisms of this material rather than using memes as thought-terminating cliches.
See, I don’t think you are being deceptive but I am worried that you post articles without thinking of those posts as coming from you just because other people actually wrote the articles. You got accused of being deceptive because you posted articles that are themselves deceptive and then you ran that accusation against your own intentions rather than the material in question. But the truth is that these words become yours when you share them uncritically so you are responsible for their content.
Three times as many people seem to disbelieve your intentions as believe them.
That’s not how Lemmy voting works. “Shooting the messenger” is the phenomenon where people get information that contradicts their desired reality, and are more likely to not only reject it outright, but worse, punish the sources delivering the message. There may also be some in-group vs out-group bias going on here.
@Auzy is the only one who is claiming that the feed the homeless article was “pretending to be feel good news” - that’s obviously not the case. Maybe you should elaborate on why you think a particular article is deceptive, and how you hold other Beeple’s posts to the same standard.
I hold every post to the same standard. The reason I only chose to speak up in this one is because of the way you responded to that criticism. You called Auzy a crazy conspiracy theorist, sharing an image of a guy pointing at a bunch of disconnected details. But there is a connection between all of the articles you post: you posted them.
My goal here is to help you understand that you aren’t “the messenger” that saying refers to. The messenger doesn’t choose what messages they share. You weren’t assigned the task of posting these articles, they aren’t answers to questions you got asked. If you keep denying responsibility, keep making defenses of yourself instead of the words you spread, that’s leading down a road of thoughtless regurgitation.
I’ll take that as an admission that you don’t think my articles are ‘deceptive’
Are you now saying that by accusing me of being ‘pro GOP’ that Auzy is not engaging in conspiracist thinking?
I’m not actually here to discuss the articles so I’m not going to get derailed by detailing my thoughts on them when the subject I’m in here to talk about is you.
And, no, Auzy is not being a conspiracy theorist because the theory being proposed contains no conspiracy: they’re just accusing one individual of lying. And I’ll reiterate that I think they’re wrong because you don’t think of the messages you share as being your own in the first place. What it looks like to me is that you’re just sharing things that were brought to you on other social media platforms that inspired strong feelings in you and inspiring strong feelings regardless of objective reality is what social media entirely and news stories largely exist to do.
Let’s look at how you behaved in the other thread Auzy mentioned, to illustrate this. You were more talkative in that thread so it’s a better illustration of what I’m talking about.
They say it looks like you’re advocating for people buying guns, you respond by citing a history of conservatives trying to take guns away from progressives with the insinuation that this is evidence that it’s correct for progressives to own guns. They say that that response makes it look even more like you’re advocating for people to buy guns, you respond by saying you wish people didn’t need to own guns but reiterating that they totally do need to own guns. They complain that you are continuing to advocate for gun ownership, you respond by posting a photograph of a man with a message written on his guitar that more people should have guns. (I assume from context I was supposed to recognize him as a sort of appeal to authority, of left-wing street cred for promoting gun ownership, but I’m not into music so I don’t know who it is.)
Now in this thread, you refer back to that and say that was evidence of Auzy being a conspiracy theorist on the basis that… you repeatedly affirmed that you did in fact hold the position they said you held. You consider yourself anti-gun on the basis that in your vision of a utopia they wouldn’t be around and thus you call that accusation unfounded but your action is that you promote widespread gun ownership by sharing this article that says the threat of gun violence is the solution to a societal ill.
You deny that it is a feel-good story but the subject is that there is an organization taking care of those in need. There is a long history of news media framing acts of charity like this as evidence that society is a good place because people are taking care of each other when it would be more accurate to frame it as society being in a bad place because charity is the only avenue these people have for getting help. Fake feel-good stories. Auzy says that article is fundamentally a gun advertisement and, indeed, the headline names a specific model of gun; it could have just said “rifles” but instead it name-drops a Colt product.
Does that prove the article is being deceptive, that you are being deceptive? No. Again, I’m not here to have that argument. What I want to point out is that it’s also not at all an unreasonable takeaway to believe those things because, if it was deception on either or both fronts, this is what that would look like.
You should be choosy about what you share, thoughtful about why you’re sharing it and what your feelings about it are, thoughtful about what it means about you that you’re sharing it. Otherwise, you’re just another unwitting mouthpiece for the raw machinations of capitalism.
Here’s a quick summary of some of the more objectionable points you appear to be making in your comment. Let me know if I got any of this wrong.
-
Auzy is accusing me of lying and being a secret GOP supporter. This is not conspiracist thinking, because they’re only accusing one person of lying, and a conspiracy involves multiple people.
-
Auzy is wrong in accusing me of being deceptive, but I am instead an emotional person who can’t rationally comprehend the articles that I share, and am just not capable of preventing myself from being manipulated by deceptive journalists.
-
The article Since Feeding the Homeless Is Illegal, Activists Carry AR-15s to Give Out Food, Supplies is fundamentally an advertisement for guns, in part because it uses the term “AR-15s” in the title, which is a Colt product.
-
In order to make a post, one needs to personally endorse both the source and content, because by sharing the wrong articles that you found interesting that other people might like to discuss here on this forum, you may be promoting capitalism. Sharing unique reports from a small political fringe site like thefreethoughtproject.com that are unreported in other sources is a form of promoting capitalism, while in general sharing journalism from large news corporations like the New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times does not promote capitalism.
-
Are all of your posts going to be pro GOP posts masquerading as something else
Bruh are you real with this one? I am in the crew posting “Biden should step down” posts, and I am as far from the GOP as one can get. Even if you grant that Biden has been a stellar president (and I am a full-throated believer there), the fact remains that critical, swing voters think that he is too old to effectively lead. The GOP has been pumping the airwaves with that message, and then Biden hand-delivered the bow on top with his debate performance. It doesn’t matter if the State of the Union was “firey”, and it doesn’t matter if interviews after showcase that he still has the mind of a 40-year-old (he doesn’t). Biden flubbed it at his most critical moment for this election, and now he is no longer the best candidate to take on Trump. Add-on the fact that corporate price gouging is out of control, and a lot of these swing voters perceive that as “the economy is bad under Joe Biden”. I will vote for whichever Dem is on the ballot in November, and I suspect that @[email protected] will as well. But we’re all rightly terrified that the Dems are bringing a rusty knife to a gun fight.
"Let’s talk about how Trump is the primary nominee, and he raped a woman and threatens everyone. "
Go for it, make another thread about how dumb it is to vote for Trump. You can do that. People do it all the time. We are talking about a different person in a different party.
“There’s literally no reason that Biden can’t be a good leader. He’s demonstrated it over the past few years. And it’s normal for the current president to be given a second shot.”
Not representing a majority in policy and having a super low approval rating isn’t a reason he can’t be a good leader? Is there any reason my neice can’t be a good leader? Also, it is not normal for the president to be this old. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_United_States_by_age The president should be between 45 years old and 65 years old.
“The only real objection most people could arguably make for Biden is regarding Israel”
This is a wild take. The only possible reason that is REAL is this one issue!
court takes away bodily autonomy from 51% of the population
government does nothing to pass a law to fix it after Biden campaigned on fixing it
“There is not a single reason anyone has to be mad at Biden!”
Bro.
Not representing a majority in policy and having a super low approval rating isn’t a reason he can’t be a good leader? Is there any reason my neice can’t be a good leader? Also, it is not normal for the president to be this old.
The approval rating polling is questionable not to mention so many people just blanket disapprove of the guy they didn’t vote for in the current political climate.
Not representing a majority in policy is almost definitely a lie, especially when you consider the wide margin the Democratic platform wins in terms of the popular vote.
Much of what Biden’s admin has actually “done” to the extent that any president really “does anything” is pretty popular in my view, infrastructure investment, domestic manufacturing investment, alliance building, defense of Ukraine, reduction of dependence on foreign energy, debt relief, etc
court takes away bodily autonomy from 51% of the population
government does nothing to pass a law to fix it after Biden campaigned on fixing it
And this is where our civics competency completely fails us. There is very little Biden can do here by himself, we have a Republican controlled house. What is he supposed to do? He has no legal authority to do anything at the federal level.
Yep, nothing he can do. President has no power pack it in.
courts make it so president can assasinate political rivals. Congress has a bill in the works within weeks to change that
Yep, nothing can be done. ಠ_ಠ
Are you actually advocating for the assassination of political rivals as a means to restore abortion rights? That’s a pretty hot take if so.
Or are you just pointing out that congress “does stuff” that congress agrees with (i.e., that presides should not be able to assassinate political rivals? – I haven’t seen news of such a bill FWIW).
That second one. I’m pretty up for the complete distruction of our entire system of life, including the removal of currency. But I’m also against violence. That is why I just keep my head down and try to vote to power what I want. But obviously no political party in America is running on tge platform of, “let’s tear it all down” so tge democrats are usually as left as it gets. It’s just not very left anymore. (With a grain of salt for how actually center-right the dems are)
Incumbent President almost always runs unopposed. That being said, he ran as the adult in the room to get us back from the right, and was NOT expected to run for reelection.
I am still going to vote for the D nominee out of pure spite for the right…but something has to give, there needs to be voting reform before the next general which incluudes ranked choice or at some point the choices will ne worse than this time around.
Incumbent President almost always runs unopposed. That being said, he ran as the adult in the room to get us back from the right, and was NOT expected to run for reelection.
True enough, but I also don’t think during the 2020 election, anybody thought that if Trump lost, at practically 80 years old, he would be the R candidate in the 2024 election as well.
I honestly wish the right wasn’t so regressive, crazy, and having such a hold on half the country. I’d love to vote for someone else for president, but the risk of the right winning is just too damaging.
It was the Dems initiative to get someone else to go but just did nothing but ride the coattails
That being said, he ran as the adult in the room to get us back from the right, and was NOT expected to run for reelection.
I don’t know where this idea started, it’s certainly something I expected him to do.
From his campaign saying it in 2019 and 2022, though he avoided making it a promise (not that a promise would mean anything coming from a politician anyways).
This was explicitly used as an argument to boost him over other younger candidates in the 2020 primary field.
Interesting; granted it seems to be a campaign advisor’s opinion stated as-if it were fact so I’d wager that’s probably more bad reporting than it is a campaign promise.
Yes. Clearly it is undemocratic for the person who won the last presidential election to sit as an incumbent.
🙄
I mean, yes? Just because it’s a precedent here doesn’t make it democratic.
It’s literally a practice that denies or heavily suppresses having a healthy crop of new primary candidates to vote for, which makes the party much less responsive to voter sentiment changes.
8 years is a LONG time, and yeah, a lot of people who felt that a candidate represented them 4 years ago may not feel they do anymore, and they still deserve the same chance to democratically decide who represents them.
Without that happening in the primary, their only options are to get no say in their candidate, withhold their vote, or vote for another party, in the general election.
When you say “literally” it torpedoes your argument. Do you know any other adverbs?
This is Beehaw; argue the issue or topic, but not stuff like this.
Care to explain this? I’m not using “literally” to mean “practically”, I’m using it to mean “literally”.
block and move on, t3rmit3. i think we’re getting trolled.
So 3rd term precedent is up for grabs, or are we just so superbly selective in which policy to ignore? I’m asking because I’ll be real interested in 4 years.
The term limit on presidents is a law.
The incumbent presidents’ campaigns retaining control of the party organizations (DNC and GOP are entirely private entities) during primary season is entirely the self-made rule of the political parties.
The incumbent’s team should be removed from the DNC before the primary begins, have the primary, and then integrate them back in if and when they re-win the nomination.
Honestly, I’m not sure if you are making a joke about how a monarchy can’t be democratic. Or if this is a comment about him legit “deserving” to be president more.
Monarchy… Really…? This is not even remotely close to a monarchy situation.
Monarchy was obviously the wrong word, but I think their underlying point is correct; there is not supposed to be a Right to Rule in America.
No one deserves to be a president any more than anyone else, and treating an incumbent as though they do, without having to go through an open, democratic primary process, is to treat them as more deserving of future authority than other citizens.
No one deserves to be a president any more than anyone else, and treating an incumbent as though they do, without having to go through an open, democratic primary process, is to treat them as more deserving of future authority than other citizens.
There was a primary, and Biden got the most votes/delegates under the rules. Nobody is saying that incumbents should automatically get renomination. Or even that the incumbent should get some sort of rules advantage (like say, the way the defending world champ in chess gets an auto-bid to defend his title against a challenger who has to win a tournament to get there).
The rules are already set up to where any challenger has an equal structural change of winning the primary. They just won’t have the actual popular support. You know, the core principles of democratic elections.
There was a primary
The rules are already set up to where any challenger has an equal structural change of winning the primary.
Man, you’ve got some hilarious jokes. Tell me, during an incumbent primary, who controls the DNC?
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/biden-democratic-primaries-rules/
https://www.vox.com/2023/9/12/23868230/biden-democratic-primary-challenge-polls
Tell me, during an incumbent primary, who controls the DNC?
Same as during a non-incumbent primary. The person who won the most recent nomination tends to have an outsized voice in the selection of party officials (because it’s their pledged delegates who vote on all the other stuff). Yes, that means Biden-affiliated insiders had an inside track in 2020, but that’s also true of Clinton allies in 2016, Obama allies in 2012, Obama allies in 2008, and Kerry allies in 2004.
More than a year ago, the DNC adopted new rules—including a primary calendar that ignored state law in Iowa and New Hampshire and eliminated any primary debates—designed to ensure that Biden’s coronation would proceed untroubled by opposition from any credible Democrat.
Which of those changes in the rules do you think were designed to benefit Biden specifically? De-emphasizing the role of Iowa and New Hampshire? There’s been people clamoring for that for decades, within the party.
There’s basically no set of rules that will ever create a credible challenge to an incumbent who wants to run for reelection. It’s a popularity problem, not a structural problem.
It’s not just about pledged delegates. The incumbent’s campaign remains in control of the party during the primary. And in 2016, Hilary’s campaign was literally in complete control of the DNC even prior to her getting the nomination despite not being an incumbent.
I mean, okay fair enough, this is a longstanding thing that’s happened though. It’s pretty rare for incumbents to be challenged within their own party (and this is normally not a controversial thing).
It’s also less that “nobody could” and more “nobody [with a remote chance of winning] did.”
There’s no “right to rule” here, that’s entirely a retroactive facade that’s contrary to the facts.
(EDIT: Bit more info https://www.vox.com/2023/9/12/23868230/biden-democratic-primary-challenge-polls)
Thanks much! Spot on.
The edge is strong with these trolls, I’m almost positive this is what we’re dealing with here.
Yeah, I literally just stop replying when they trickle in. Rather plant seeds and move on than get bogged down by Putin’s trolls.
not sure about you, but we’re trying to have political discussions in this space. Strolling into a thread a day late, accusing everyone of being Russian trolls, and then ignoring your replies is a terrible way to foster discussion.
Would you say more on this? Specifically the connection between democratic/undemocratic and incumbents.
Its ok for political parties to choose their candidates. The problem is the two party system. No one is confused that the US is not a direct democracy.
Honestly, I think we’d be better off if we got rid of primaries. I do think they tend to lead to more extreme/radical/fringe nominees, since the party candidates try to out compete each other on their party/ideology bona fides. Maybe it is better if go back to the party establishments picking a candidate.
There are other reason as well. One is that parties are private organizations. So why does a government often run them? I know that’s not true all states. In some states, the primaries/caucuses are almost entirely run and organized by the parties. But in others, primaries are done by state and local governments. Do the parties pay the state back for this? Idk. Regardless, still seems strange.
I mean, has there been an instance where someone else within the party snipes the nomination before the second term?
Two that I know of.
Both landslide losses at the polls.
