this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2024
50 points (79.8% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35822 readers
982 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

For example, let’s say Bernie Sanders was the nominee in 2024 against Trump. A lot of people on the internet seem to like him, even some conservatives. But would liberals fall in line and vote for him enough to beat Trump?

Bernie’s supporters always seem to attack the Democrats liberal base, do you think they’d sit home if Bernie or any leftist was the nominee.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] LavenderDay3544@lemmy.world 4 points 35 minutes ago

No. They would be morons and vote against socialism even if it's good for them.

[–] doggle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 hours ago

Probably. People tend to vote for their team - regardless of the actual underlying policy

No promises, though.

[–] angstylittlecatboy@reddthat.com 4 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Yes, but that's keeping in mind that, contrary to popular belief among the types that go on Lemmy, most people aren't ideological. They don't care that Democrat A is this and Democrat B is that, they care about who they think will help their lives, ideology be damned. So, a lot of the people that socialists would call "libs" would vote for Bernie, BUT, most of those people think of Sanders primarily as "more liberal."

People who are actively aware of the difference between neoliberalism and social democracy, I'm not sure. But I honestly think they're a rounding error in US politics.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 2 points 3 hours ago

Socialists are very, very aware that the oppressed masses of people that don't know what words mean love socialist policies when they don't know they're socialist.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 3 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

Yes. Democrats voted for Obama in 2008 and he presented himself as more progressive than Hilary.

[–] CurlyWurlies4All@slrpnk.net 30 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

No. And they've said as much.

"Clinton would not pledge to support Sanders if he won the 2020 Democratic nomination."

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-sen-bernie-sanders-likes/story?id=68424746

“However – I do reject socialism as a economic system. If people have that view, that’s their view. That is not the view of the Democratic Party.” - Pelosi

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/15/politics/nancy-pelosi-socialism/index.html

[–] doggle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 hours ago

I'm not sure how much these endorsements actually matter... Lord knows Liz Cheney's endorsing Kamala didn't tip the scales.

Would establishment libs support a leftist? Maybe not. But that doesn't mean that voters would necessarily follow suit.

[–] volvoxvsmarla@lemm.ee 10 points 15 hours ago

It's so sad to see this, especially knowing that while you can like or dislike Clinton and Pelosi, I doubt they are unware that Sanders is not proposing socialism. Socialism and social democracy are two very, vastly different things. And they for sure know this very well.

I sincerely hope that Sanders will found a new party soon, it will have 4 years to gain momentum. Will it win in the next election cycle? No, but it might actually get enough votes to win in 8 or 12 years. Just do it.

[–] OprahsedCreature@lemmy.ml 18 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

No. Liberals have always been closer to fascists than socialists. Look which way liberals in Weimar Germany went.

[–] CitizenKong@lemmy.world 15 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

The word "liberals" means something else in Germany than in the US. The closes analogy would be Democrats=SPD and Republicans=CDU, which are the two biggest parties. When Hitler took over, the CDU fell in line while the SPD resisted. The SPD then was also a lot more leftist than it is now. It's pretty much centrist now and only slightly more to the left than the conservative CDU.

[–] GhiLA@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (4 children)

My headcanon:

Leftist: One who supports the general ideas of the Democratic party and supports the people at the head and their usual goings-on, voted Harris, enjoy the color blue.

Liberal: A Leftist, but they don't think their party speaks for them enough, or aren't extreme enough on certain issues they don't think are represented enough, so they think the party has abandoned or doesn't speak for them. These can be anyone from lgbtq+ activists to worker unions to Bernie Sanders. The idea that the left has left you, or whatever you stand for, and you are the liberal left.

Liberal(2nd definition): Someone who's into traditionalist communist ideals, Lemmy calls them "tankies". These tend to... not be what most people are talking about when they say liberal, despite arguments to the contrary.

Correct me if I'm wrong, this is in the context of the USA.

[–] Dragonstaff@leminal.space 1 points 2 hours ago

I don't at all understand how you got your definition of "liberal". I think anyone who could conceivably be called a "tankie" would bristle at being called liberal.

Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property and equality before the law.[1][2] Liberals espouse various and often mutually warring views depending on their understanding of these principles but generally support private property, market economies, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion.[3] Liberalism is frequently cited as the dominant ideology of modern history.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Both of our American parties are liberals. However, most Americans use the word to mean "progressive".

I think "Leftist" starts at anti-capitalism and goes from there. I half jokingly say a progressive is someone who thinks the system is broken and must be fixed. A Leftist is someone who thinks the system is working exactly as intended and must be destroyed.

[–] BadmanDan@lemmy.world 6 points 7 hours ago

You got liberals and leftist mixed up

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 2 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

To throw one more into the mix:

“Left” and “Right” came from the UK parliamentary system where the representatives of the two major parties sat on the left and right side of the speaker of the house in the House of Commons.

It just so happened that the ones on the right had conservative values (keep things as they are, don’t spend what we don’t have, local economy first, preserve traditional values) while those seated on the left had liberal values (let’s make things even better, spend for the future, improve the global economy, make life better for all our constituents).

That was the starting point for what it’s all morphed into today.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_political_spectrum#Western_Europe

The left–right political spectrum is a system of classifying political positions, ideologies and parties, with emphasis placed upon issues of social equality and social hierarchy. In addition to positions on the left and on the right, there are centrist and moderate positions, which are not strongly aligned with either end of the spectrum. It originated during the French Revolution based on the seating in the French National Assembly.

You damn Brits can't have that one for the National Museum!

[–] CitizenKong@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

In the context of Germany, "liberal" means being for capitalism unbridled by the state but still generally progressive policies culturally, with more rights for minorities and such. The corresponding party is FDP. So in some ways it's the exact opposite of the US idea of "liberal".

Someone considered "left" would be for more social policies and government control of capitalism (traditionally SPD), extreme left would be following tenants of communism, opposed to the US and friendly with Russia (The party The Left and the new Sarah Wagenknecht party)

Someone considered conservative or "right" would be against social policies and try to reduce control of capitalism (CDU) extreme right would be plain fascists (AfD), ironically also aligned with Russia now.

The Greens are a special case, since they were originally a single issue party concerned with environmentalism, but since the SPD has largely vacated their social policies since Schröder was chancellor, they have become more and more the new "social" party.

There are also a huge number of smaller parties that are unable to reach more than five percent, which is necessary to be included in the govenmental body of the Bundestag. Most of those are single issue parties (there is even a beer party). The FDP has become so unpopular that it might also share that fate soon.

To come back to your original point, there were no "liberals" when Hitler was elected. There were conservatives, socialists and communists. The conservatives aligned themselves with the fascists and the socialists and communists were outlawed and thrown into jail/executed.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 37 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

The DNC will never let a leftist get past the primaries. They'd sooner lose, as they've shown us for the last 3 elections.

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 4 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

A lot of people don't know the difference between establishment Democrats and liberals.

[–] Notyou@sopuli.xyz -1 points 11 hours ago

I know there is a difference, but......if the purpose of a system is it's end result then is there a difference?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Jumpingspiderman@lemmy.world 32 points 19 hours ago

We know the answer to that from how Bernie was treated

[–] JusticeForPorygon@lemmy.world 17 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Assuming Bernie could get on the ticket, I absolutely believe people would have voted for him.

The problem is of course getting him on the ticket.

[–] BadmanDan@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

You think liberals would vote for him?

[–] JusticeForPorygon@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

I think if he made the democratic nomination in 2016 he'd be finishing his second term right now.

[–] wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works 52 points 23 hours ago (3 children)

Let me put it this way... Here's the 2020 DNC primary donations:

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 34 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

You know when conservatives post pictures of counties being all one color thus showing significant voting support most people speak up about how land doesn't vote and explain why those maps are kind of useless. Just food for thought.

[–] PmMeFrogMemes@lemmy.world 13 points 18 hours ago

my thought immediately when seeing this. interesting to see the geographic spread but misleading to frame it as more area = more popular

[–] Schmoo@slrpnk.net 16 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

This is not colorblind friendly at all.

[–] tiredofsametab@fedia.io 7 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

Yeah, that's terrible color choice (I'm assuming, anyway, since Pete and sanders are presumably meant to be different colors)

[–] Tagger@lemmy.world 5 points 16 hours ago

It also lacks a key

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Chozo@fedia.io 21 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

Liberals already tried to get Bernie on the ticket in 2016, but the DNC fucked us on that.

[–] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 10 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

I think Liberals kept him off the ticket.

[–] Chozo@fedia.io 10 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Liberal voters wanted Bernie. The DNC did not.

[–] WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 11 hours ago

People are using liberal in two different ways here. Most Americans call anything to the left of Republican liberal. Most of Lemmy considers liberal to be center-right and leftist to be Bernie style liberal.

In this case, they were saying that the Democratic elites (liberals) didn’t want Bernie to win, while the true progressive left (leftists) did.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Rottcodd@lemmy.world 18 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

I sincerely have no idea.

The narrative that a leftist couldn't win is repeated so predictably and so often and by so many people that the whole idea has become sort of detached from reality, and there's no telling what would happen if it was actually a possibility.

And particularly since the one thing I'd pretty much guarantee is that the concerted efforts on the part of the ruling class to prevent a leftist from running would be as nothing compared to what they'd do and say in order to prevent one from winning.

[–] Notyou@sopuli.xyz 3 points 11 hours ago

I read somewhere on Lemmy, the idea of running as a 'Radical Republican' and push leftist policies. Just focus on working class issues and nepo-wealth corruption in the business world. That might help win over the same disenfranchised that helped trump win.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 8 points 20 hours ago

I don’t know, we should do this and find out.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 19 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (5 children)

I think democrats would, for the most part. Perhaps less enthusiastically, but since they hate Trump, I think it would not be a major issue.

The question is, how would low-information unaffiliated voters respond to having a socialist in the ballot? This is a difficult question to answer. Traditionally socialism is a bad word in US politics, albeit less so with younger voters.

Personally I don’t really buy the “Bernie would have won” stuff but there’s really only one way to find out.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] WrenFeathers@lemmy.world 4 points 17 hours ago

If they had believable policies, and realistic paths to achieve them, absolutely I would.

No question.

[–] adarza@lemmy.ca 8 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

the haters, the racists, the sexists, the homophobes, the gun fondlers, the diesel fume huffers, and the bible thumpers vote repulbican every. single. time.

too many democrats jump ship and stay home, vote for the no chance party, or republican if a candidate doesn't support every little policy and issue they want or who supports something they don't. even if the fate of the nation and democracy is at stake, they'll abandon reason.

[–] Zacpod@lemmy.world 4 points 18 hours ago

Yup. Idiots incapable of compromise, so they get nothing.

[–] Nemo@slrpnk.net 5 points 22 hours ago

Sanders? Probably.

Someone else? Depends on their policies and what you mean by "liberals". If you mean general center-left / Democrat base types, probably they vote for the DNC nominee. If you mean people devoted to Enlightenment Liberalism, it depends on how authoritarian the the candidate is.

[–] jeffw@lemmy.world 6 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

No. When you leave social media echo chambers like Lemmy, you hear liberals and others right of center talking about how Kamala was too liberal.

[–] Badeendje@lemmy.world 5 points 16 hours ago

That's just the dishonest pundets though.. and the people ratcheting the Dems right. Kamala ran on a Y2K republican program and got annihilated because Y2K republicans are now maga and there are no moderate republicans.

load more comments
view more: next ›