Thanks to NS for hitting this nail on the head. We must achieve a semblance of stability and then secure the elections with open source tabulation software. Then we can rebuild and hopefully avoid other unelected regimes
No, Norman Solomon, you cannot elect Joe Biden without including Joe Biden. We have no option to elect Schroedinger’s president, and proposition is hard to discuss without sounding silly.
So here goes.
- I have no way to vote for a non-Biden Biden; only the Biden Biden will be on the ballot.
- I cannot support democracy by supporting Biden without Biden supporting democracy–with a respectful tip of the cap to Dr. West.
- If Biden supports democracy, what relation has that to his participation in primary rigging and regime change coups abroad?
This is no purity thing. Trump is horrible and the Republicans are horrible generally, or I would just let this sort of discussion drop. I would take a compromise candidate in a shot. Hey, I’d vote for my dental hygienist or the local librarian if I could make that viable. What Biden-related reason makes you think Biden qualifies as a compromise in any way, shape, or form?
Please, feel free to call the election a goat rodeo or a cascading manure revue or a shotgun wedding or whatever, but take a shot at an explanation that does involve the candidate that you just did in body and soul espouse.
The bar is at a low, but you still have to take a jump. Be thankful no one’s asking you to limbo.
Whatever the state of “our movements” that Solomon supposes “are starting to win,” that cannot be helped by a non-Biden Biden because no such anti-Biden exists. So using this as a rationale to vote for Biden or to support a Biden-producing party still requires the Biden referred to on the actual ballot to be in some way favorable to such movements. If that is so, somebody ought to spill the news.
If we are to concern ourselves with democracy–and why would we not?–we had better start by talking about the well documented rigging of the Democratic nomination in '16, in which the Party successfully argued that it did not need to follow its own rules. We need to talk about the misappropriation of votes in Iowa by the vote-counting machines that were still afterwards, and also the decision to not redo that primary. I think that we ought to get some discussion about the choreography between MSM entities and the DNC in both '16 and 20.
Discuss that, please, and give me a reason to believe that a Joe Biden claim to be preventing the utter loss of democracy in the States is in some regard less absurd than the similar claim by Donald Trump. Provide some reason to believe that this is not another of his regime change operations, only with a different nation as the target.
Hey! Number one answer so far! Congrats.
Granted it is difficult to make an argument for voting for someone you find unacceptable, as Solomon appears to be trying to do here, without the argument’s sounding like a “lesser of two evils” pitch.
In my judgement, there is little to choose between if the lesser evil is the deciding quality.
With no joy at all — with great anger — I will vote for Biden as the person less likely to destroy constitutional democracy while organizing goes forward for state and local elections in 2022 and 2024, and for a person to support in 2024 who could actually be expected to begin undoing the evils of the last many years.
Technically you’d be voting for Harris, the candidate who didn’t win a single state primary or delegate during the primary season. Biden will be in depends in the first year, if he’s not already, and staring at the ceiling. The dementia drugs can only do so much.
It’s the rehash. Gives me indigestion.
That’s exactly what my kid sister says about Biden…and she’s a diehard Trump fan.
Yeah, it frustrates me, too, honestly. I am not yet up to just scrolling on by yet, but you might find it more pleasant, and I sure wouldn’t blame you.
And if Biden does not move, which is the very probable position, what then?
If a person lacks all semblance of a reasoned response to her interlocutor, that person should probably refrain from responding. On the other hand, that person could at least try to address her interlocutor’s arguments. Remember, dialogue and mutual growth of understanding can occur only if participants use reason and logic.
Then we must write “sternly worded letters” to the White House. And we must “bemoan the lack of civility” in Washington.
Oh, please. Where’s the logic in rehashing the 2016 election ad nauseum?
“2020 is a time when people have the decisive opportunity to prevent the consolidation of illegitimate power by an authoritarian regime.”
Sorry. Been there, done that. We are living in an illegitimate authoritarian regime. The existence of this ridiculous article is proof positive of that fact - please vote for this worthless pile of human waste because the other worthless pile of human waste is even worse???
Vote progressive and dem for all down ticket items on the ballot. The best outcome for progressives will be a lame duck presidency with both houses controlled by progressive/democratic reps.
You have to stop voting for the lesser of 2 evils - there will never be any other option if you don’t stop voting for them.
The logic of Norm Solomon:
The key to “working to upend an unacceptable status quo” is to vote for the unacceptable status quo.
But then Ernestine couldn’t make her belching and fart noises.
Yeah, really, who’d want to learn from their mistakes?
and we would all be devastated at the loss of the scintillating logic contained therein.
Learning is one thing. Putting that knowledge to use is another.