this post was submitted on 19 Apr 2024
37 points (97.4% liked)
Socialism
2844 readers
55 users here now
Beehaw's community for socialists, communists, anarchists, and non-authoritarian leftists (this means anti-capitalists) of all stripes. A place for all leftist and labor news and discussion, as long as you're nice about it.
Non-socialists are welcome to come to learn, though it's hard to get to in-depth discussions if the community is constantly fighting over the basics. We ask that non-socialists please be respectful and try not to turn this into a "left vs right" debate forum by asking leading questions or by trying to draw others into a fight.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes, but she's not going to be part of this election, for all sorts of reasons both cultural (misogyny, Democratic fear-based-voting pushing people to only unify behind the Party candidate even when they can't win, her anti-doctor statements [1], etc), and structural ones like primary and debate rules being set by the Party to favor its candidates.
Check my post history if you think I'm pro-Biden; I am most assuredly not.
[1] she has insisted she is anti- pharma-industry, which is totally correct to be, but many of her statements are not actually attacking just pharma companies, but doctors for prescribing things like antidepressants. It's one thing to question the influence of pharma in medical decisions, but attacking whole classes of treatments is the same as attacking the doctors doing them, and she's not qualified to be making those kind of statements based on her personal experience with depression.
I mean, you can argue for irrelevance, but it doesn't change the fact that 49% of the voters are likely to look at Genocide Joe, who is facilitating Israeli pogroms, and lie to themselves about the kind of people they are in order to vote for him.