top 57 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 45 points 9 months ago (5 children)

He's right. Establishment dems have shown themselves repeatedly to not be capable of opposing a fascist agenda, and recent elections have shown that its not even the safe bet anymore. An establishment candidate is just doom at this point, might as well vote 3rd party and have a tiny shot

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -11 points 9 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] [S] 21 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Not at all. Democrats literally did not hold a primary in 2024 because the establishment would be crushed by non establishment candidates and they knew it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 9 months ago* (1 child)

    No, they didn't hold a primary because they had the incumbent advantage. You don't weaken your own incumbent candidate by running people against them in the primary. That's basic electoral politics.

    Same reason they didn't have a primary in 2012.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -8 points 9 months ago*

    Exactly. Terminally online leftists who believe they're a far more powerful and influential bloc than they are (especially since they never fucking vote in primaries and only start whining during general elections) think that Democrats need to pander to them 100% of the time, and they lose when they do not.

    They have no fucking idea how politics in the real world actually works.

    Had the Democratic party courted their votes the way they demand, the Democrats would have received fewer votes. I'm confident of this.

    Not only would so many of these people still stayed home because it's never perfect enough for them, they would have lost a shit ton of centrist voters.

    AIPAC is powerful for a reason. Unfortunately, there are tons of people in this country that are only just now beginning to come around on Israel.

    And those people vote every fucking time.

    Millions of people that voted D would have stayed home had Harris came out strong against Israel, and hardly any leftists would be convinced to get off their ass or vote for anyone but third party.

    Sucks that this is how it is, but this is first past the post in a nation full of politically illiterate morons

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 29 points 9 months ago (12 children)

    If your reaction to this is outrage, you're politically juvenile. It's early 2026, this is exactly the time to be doing this kind of politics. If you already now signal to the Democratic Party establishment your capitulation, why should your concerns even be taken into account. Piker is putting the gun on the table at exactly the right time. Grow up.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [+] -15 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (12 children)
  • [–] 16 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (11 children)

    What a bizarre response. Nowhere did I claim that he's an organizer. Public political speech by a prominent political broadcast commentator (yea that's what "viral streaming influencer" used to be called in the 1900s) is ...not nothing. Saying he isn't doing anything is like saying that political speech doesn't do anything.

    Edit: you added the champagne socialist bit. Do I look like I care about this guy personally? He's an influential political commentator that made a good point. In this thread it drew reactions from the "blu no matter whu" crowd and I called that out. That's it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [+] -17 points 9 months ago* (11 children)
  • [–] 17 points 9 months ago (10 children)

    My sibling in christ, even virtue signaling is a kind of politics.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] -12 points 9 months ago (10 children)
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago (9 children)

    You're judging his internal state of mind and disposition. I don't give a flipping fuck about it right now. Even if he is just a champagne socialist virtue signaling, the objectively observable thing is "popular influencer is putting a political blackmail of the dem establishment in the discourse agenda". Even under your set of assumptions his champaign socialist virtue signaling is not without real political impact.

    I mean fuck, an even shallower piece of nothing is sitting in the white house and his vapid brainfarts are for sure creating political impacts.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 9 months ago (9 children)
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago (8 children)

    The passive aggressive "explains much" angle you have now repeated twice is kind of weird.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago (7 children)

    There's a weird cult around hating this one guy specifically, and people just cannot help but tell on themselves whenever he's mentioned. It's pathetic.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 9 months ago (7 children)
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago* (3 children)

    Hate the guy all you like. I'm not a fan either. But that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about the political point he made. You turned it into a debate about his character, and with the weird "explains much" shit, into a debate about my character. You could have said "that guy's a douche" and I'd have responded with "yup but the douche is making a good point". Instead you chose toxicity and vitriol. Maybe chill a bit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 9 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago* (2 children)

    See that's the problem. You've poisoned the space between us, I have no patience to engage with you further and have this discussion on the actual merits of the fucking political point which I would have liked to have in the first place. Do better by our community next time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 9 months ago* (2 children)
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago* (1 child)

    Poisoned by repeatedly using the "explains a lot" dismissive and rude passive aggression, since your very first response to me.

    We're done.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    I guarantee that he does far more to push for progressive causes in a single year than you'll do in your entire lifetime.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 9 months ago (2 children)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 42 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    What is going on? Do you want change? Well establishment dems showed thier belly and don't care to fight trump. Hasan is right. A third party socialist "im gonna prosecute the previous administration" candidate. Is infinitly better than the jackass establishment democrats we have now

    O you wanna vote for Gavin Newsome because he "owned trump on twitter" give me a fucking break.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 26 points 9 months ago (10 children)

    I forgot that this is still a Lemmy.world community where somehow it is never the right time to try and get the Democratic party to try or care to earn their votes.
    Always to close to an election or to far from one, or not worth it to make them fear for their win instead of blind support.

    We can't try something new because what we have been trying doesnt work and we have to make it work before we are allowed to change strategy.
    What an insane take.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] [S] 9 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    It is interesting that Democrats are already in Blue MAGA mode while we are still 2 years away from the election. Last time they pretended to care about Dems running a non corrupt candidate up until 6 months before the election.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago

    Is it? They don't like anyone questioning their rich assholes. Never have and they never will. To use your 1st amendment rights means you're actually a Russian troll, or a Tankie, or whatever their favorite talking head told them to not question but accept blindly.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (4 children)

    The time to criticize Democratic party is when you run, support, canvas for a better candidate, (better candidate in the framework of Democratic party, since US is a two-party system at the moment). If you're doing nothing for a year and just start shitting on the party when it's close to elections, you're a willing on unwilling conservative supporter, it's simple as that.
    If you believe that you will be able to just get third party going, not only you're braindead, you actually don't care about lives of other people, and optics are more important than people to you, which makes you a bad person with bad morals.
    If you just sit around, waiting for a good candidate to materialise before your eyes, you're just braindead.
    That's why Dems only run establishment boring candidates and don't want to change anything, because their support is steady and consistent.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (3 children)

    Your lack of awareness does not extend to everyone else and you seem to be waiting for others to do enough work to give you an easy candidate that already has everything figured out.

    Well we are trying so you can stop complaining and ignore us till we do then. I do not need nor care for your input or lack of effort.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    My lack of awareness about your effort shows that your effort sucks and you didn't achieve shit. So the same way you criticize Democrats of not listening to you, I can criticize you for not being loud enough so they can hear you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (1 child)

    You are responding right now. The conversation is being had. You hear plenty.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 0 points 8 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    No, its that people like you that don't want to know anything else still are hearing about a fraction of the efforts.
    The fact that despite your best efforts of being ignorant you, and people like you are being clued into the conversation even if just to try to troll it down means it is at least reaching the basement dwellers. And that implies a pretty long reach.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] -4 points 9 months ago* (2 children)

    It's a trait of liberal politics in the States, I guess.

    Republicans and Republican voters gravitate towards "loyalty" to popular leaders. We could dissect that all day (especially the ties to U.S. Christianity and the media environment), but that's just how its been; Trump only made it more apparent. He's basically Jesus now.

    Democrats and Democrat voters, on the other hand, seem to fracture, dump their leaders, and cling to more personal ideologies at the drop of a hat. Everyone fails each other's political purity tests and becomes the enemy. Hence when this inevitably comes up, Democrafts can't actually get any unity around reform, and the corpo money wins.

    In a healthier system, I'd argue this is a good thing (as worshipping idols is problematic), but its a huge political disadvantage right now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

    That's not really true at all. Republican voters are the ones who wanted - and demanded - to have Trump as the nominee. Many establishment figures in the RNC did not want him. However, if they had taken steps to deny him the nomination, there's a very real chance that he would have run third party and split the vote, which he threatened to do several times. Hell, his supporters showed up to the 2016 convention armed and in numbers, in part in case the establishment tried something last minute.

    On the Democrats' side, the DNC have basically hand-picked establishment candidates for the past three elections, and they do it because they expect people to bend the knee and fall in line behind the lesser evil. Bernie was never going to run third party, and his supporters were never going to show up with guns at the convention. He actively campaigned for Hilary and they still blamed him, even though the number of Bernie-Trump voters was much smaller than the number of Clinton-McCain ones, and Clinton sure as hell didn't stump for Barack.

    If Republicans are more loyal to the Republican party, it's because the party responded to what they wanted. And the reason that they did so is because the "my way or the highway" mentality is so much more prevalent on the right. Liberals cannot ever shut up about the "lesser evil" and making the "rational" choice, while Conservatives don't give a fuck about that shit. Conservatives don't masturbate over how they're so rational that they'll humbly accept things they find morally abhorrent in order to prevent a greater evil the way liberals do, they say, "You can take my guns out of my cold dead hands," and their politicians listen to those red lines, at least to a degree.

    Meanwhile, establishment Democrats have an actively hostile relationship with the left, and liberals still demand that we support them unconditionally.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago

    I disagree. Not about the party loyalty to republicans but to the idea that people drop leaders for some perceived purity test.
    I think it is a useful myth that excuses the behavior without looking into it more.

    People want leaders that support and help them the individual. We are focusing on social ideology instead of financial which is the primary driving factor for Republican voters too. They are just more communal and expect members of their perceived community to be helpful to them and are taught to leave it to a higher power to solve.

    Anyways, the Democratic party is not picking policy that is big tent. They are picking stuff that is hyper specific sub groups based on cultural aspects and invites awareness of whether you are in or not. It makes it appear fractured cause we are rallied as sub cultures under a fiscal conservative umbrella. If the policies were pushed as supporting the financially underserved it would be easier to recognize yourself as belonging but it would impact the financial support of billionaires which the party actually courts.

    It appears we can't win cause we are trying to play the same policies the republicans do under a guise of social structures need to be fixed instead of financial ones. Push for policies that are big tent and makes it easy to the average person to see them belonging in (poor) and thr support will come but the policies will need to change to. So which comes first?
    It needs to be politicians cause no one will trust to elect the other way around.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago (8 children)

    I'm not opposed to it, but unless he (or others) can get a mass movement behind a third party candidate and we still don't have rank choice, I'm probably voting for the ticket that is least likely to give Republicans power.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] [S] 14 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    Those things will not happen so the only leverage you have against Democrats is demanding them to fulfill your demands in exchange for your vote.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    Demanding things is not what is being discussed here. Actions with consequence are being discussed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Trump will not even go to jail for pedophilia that's how shitty the USA is. If there was consequences Biden, Trump, Obama , Bush would all rot in pridon or being executed for war crimes

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago

    Im not talking about positive consequemces. Were so far from those right now. Im talking about minimizing and trying to stop the burning. Triage minimal sustainable checks and balances. Some form of turn from insanity. That is where we are rigbt now

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 5 points 9 months ago* (1 child)

    What is being discussed here is demands. The demand for Democrats to listen to their voters, or once again take a massive L because they prefer glazing their donors to beating Republicans.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 9 months ago

    Hes not asking them to listen hes saying fuck off. The only question of relevance is will you vote for trump or against him in a first past the post election. Knowing you could have lessened damage and chose not to.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    As somebody who has viewed Hasan Piker's stream from time to time for years...I feel that even though he says this, and will likely continue to say it for two and a half years, he will "pull the lever" for whoever the D candidate is on Nov 7. 2028. This assumes that the Dem party and mainstream media don't just stand by and let the GOP suspend elections in 2028.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    Oh yeah. I forgot about 3rd parties. Everyone arguing to vote for them have since stopped caring I guess.

    Until there is a loud, constant demand from a broad base that persists well beyond voting periods this 3rd party BS is just 2 parties trying to waste your vote. I want 3rd parties to come in and give the establishment competition. We'll never see it happen at this rate.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›