One side is trying to rob the rights of a group of people, the other side is burning down their own cities claiming to be saving the lives of a marginalized group. One side is advocating for guns to stay legal and accessible while children are mass murdered, the other side has members dressing up in all black and assaulting people in their peaceful protests. One side is denying climate change as the world literally crumbles in front of us, the other is advocating for the abolition of all law enforcement officers.
Both sides are so fucking stupid that I’d feel embarrassed to be a part of either. While my principles are more in line with the left, they are so far from an ideal party that I still wince knowing they’re the best choice I have. Centrists are hated by both sides because we aren’t partisan dick suckers but my god try to have an independent thought. You don’t have to completely agree with every shit take your party churns out. You’re allowed to not be happy with them and still vote for them.
Perhaps you’d prefer we reduce reduce the scale of police duties so we can have dedicated public safety responders for different situations? We can fund it by proportionally using money that police no longer need.
I’d prefer to have elected oversight committees that dictate exactly where every dollar of the police budget goes so we stop buying Armored Personal Carriers from military surplus and put it into fucking training so people don’t confuse their tasers with their sidearms. I’d like a perfect police force that doesn’t fuck up and panic leading to people dying unnecessarily, but that doesn’t happen if they have less money for proper training. It doesn’t happen so long as they’re only accountable to themselves.
I’m down to make the police better, to structure the systems in a better way. I’m not down to abolish them and leave a gaping hole where a critical pillar of society should be.
Nobody who is worth listening to ever advocated for abolishing all police and not replacing them with something else. Pretty much everyone agrees that some form of law enforcement is necessary. There are differences in what that law enforcement looks like, but I feel like everyone other than cops can see that police culture and the way that they abuse their power and protect each other is a problem.
The problem with how you look at things is that you’re seeing only the most extreme positions of each group and assuming that each “side” holds those views.
So it doesn’t matter that a dozen buildings were set on fire, looted, and ruined? Doesn’t matter shop owners were beat with planks of wood? So long as we’re under that 15% it’s acceptable, yeah? I’m glad the defense is “Well they didn’t do enough of it so what’s your point?”
Yes and you’re taking the braindead take that for a city to be set fire to it has to reach your arbitrary 15% ratio or it doesn’t count. Shit burned down but for you to acknowledge it, it has to really cripple the whole city huh? Something something goalposts.
Minneapolis. 164 structure fires in three days. 200 buildings affected. Oscar Lee Stewart Jr. died as a result. I didn’t even know that last part. So you kill people to save people, that’s interesting.
Holy fuck you don’t even know what moving the goalposts means. I didn’t realize how fucking awful the left was with the pseudo intellectualism. Call it a strawman next. Oh oh, ad hominem too. Just throw all the terms at the wall and hope to god you sound smart. Here, I’ll help you since you have such a short memory.
Who are the people that allegedly did this and what are their affiliations? Who of any prominence endorses them? You keep bringing this nonsense up as if it has any kind of relevance or traction outside the right wing lying liars’ echo chambers.
"Burning down their own cities claiming to be saving the lives of a marginalized group". Yes, looting happens, things are broken. Things. Property. Because at the end of the day, what our system listens to is the interests of business owners, and they listen to lost money. Stonewall was a riot, and whether or not you think that it's better to go through bureaucracy to stop the oppression of minorities or not, clearly riots are effective. These cities aren't being destroyed, and they get repaired, and sure that sucks for the business owners that have to deal with that... but human lives matter more.
I think the people that you are thinking of, who are dressing up and assaulting peaceful protests are the proud boys. Who are fascists. Most leftists protesters are not attacking people, they are defending themselves. Because cops happily resort to violence first and foremost.
"advocating for the abolition of all law enforcement officers."
Strict punishment and law enforcement doesn't work. In the US we have incredibly high rates of recidivism, and more prisoners than pretty much any other country. Cops solve very few crimes, and are there to protect property rather than people. That's why when protests happen, they go out in armored vehicles and use tear gas to protect businesses, but they would never do that you protect you or your home. Eliminating modern cops doesn't mean that you do nothing to enforce laws and protect your communities, it has to do with how that effort is organized. The profit based power-trip cops we have exist because the system is broken.
The problem with centrism, in general, is that ignorance of nuance. You aren't right just because you picked a point in the middle. One side is fascists, and the other just wants to live.
“The problem with centrism, in general, is that ignorance of nuance.” I love how you preceded this comment illustrating how black and white everything is and after say “one side is fascists and the other isn’t” You do realize nuance would be cascading gray, yes? That it means the right side would also have some level of nuance, yes? Both sides LOVE to jerk themselves off as intellectual juggernauts then contradict themselves because they’re not actually the intellectuals they claim to be, they’re regurgitating what they heard smarter people argue on their behalf. “strict punishment and law enforcement doesn’t work” holy fuck point to a single country, providence, or territory in the world that can operate without law enforcement. You are unironically advocating for anarchy and can’t see how fucking retarded the notion of that is. “it sure sucks business owners have to deal with that but human lives are more important.” So to save lives you destroy other people’s livelihoods? Did it work? Are we done now or are those people out tens of thousands of dollars? Their entire lifes work destroyed because you wanted some fucking attention and did fuck all with it. No, that’s such a shit take that your empty fucking virtue will not save you from.
They dress up in white hoods, you dress up in black beanies. You’re two sides of the same god awful coin and instead of pursuing a change that would disrupt two shit choices, you fully embrace one and denigrate critics. You are just barely less of the monster you claim the right is and you’re so devoid of the nuance you believe to be aware of that you refuse to step back and criticize your own failures. Refuse to improve so that detractors have less to call you out on.
The world is not black and white, of course. But if we're talking about the modern day Republican party and it's voters, it's very clear what's going on. I'm no intellectual, and neither are you, so let's keep this respectful. I'll repeat that eliminating our police force doesn't mean not enforcing laws, but rather is rooted in how that effort is organized. Most crime is a direct result of poverty, if you want to effectively decrease crime, you need to improve people's standards of living. Things like affordable housing projects, raising minimum wages, more paid vacation, better public transportation, cancelling student debt, decriminalization of drug possession and use, etc.
Our police force doesn't want to decrease crime because our prisons are for-profit and they make more of they book more prisoners.
You can point fingers at me if you want. I guess? I haven't participated in looting or rioting. My point was that it's effective regardless of whether you support it.
Also, humanity enforced laws for a long time before our police system was designed.
Hell yeah, deaths don’t matter till we hit at least a million. Cities burning don’t count till the whole thing falls. That’s some awesome standards you’ve got.
“That’s paywalled” - The picture of them reducing a building to ash isn’t. “Or if they did, they rebuilt very quickly” - Here I’ll help you CARRY THOSE GOALPOSTS. Where we putting them down at this time? (That’s how that term is used by the way.) I’m bored of this same song on repeat though, have a good day, please have some independent thoughts.
I live in the twin cities metro, literally 5 minutes from University. There weren’t many buildings that burned down, and the district 3 pig pen burning to the ground is largely regarded as “based as fuck”. There were a few small businesses that burned down due to anarchy tourists, and those businesses are greatly missed. The other buildings that burned were megacorporations, which is also based.
Who did it and who are they affiliated with? Those of us not glued to right wing apology and grievance networks and who do not have the memory of a goldfish might remember The Umbrella Man:
The other thing here is that these people make this implicit leap to assuming it’s somehow some liberals/leftists that did any of the acts of vandalism. Who is endorsing any of that on the left? I mean, someone of actual prominence and viewed with reverence by people on the left?
Burning down their cities? Where the fuck is that happening? I’m so sick of that blatant lie. You aren’t a centrist, you’re a liar, and that’s why people hate you.
Never happened. This is an oft-debunked right wing echochamber strawman and as such, anyone who invokes it is either right wing, an impressionable useful idiot or, most likely, both.
Not even going to adress the rest of your strawmen, false equivalences and irrational conclusions since you’re barely worth the time and effort I’ve already wasted on your rank stupidity.
My brother in Christ Antifa throwing molotovs on video recording is not an echochamber strawman [insert another logical fallacy to sound cool]. Hell they made a lot of noise about Target getting hit too but yeah let’s just sweep those pictures under the rug too, didn’t happen. All those locally owned businesses? Nah, not looted, you said so. An elderly woman beaten with planks of wood for asking rioters not to break her windows? Definitely didn’t happen, just a strawman.
You’re a fucking pseudo intellectual. Don’t reply if you’re going to just jerk yourself off with nothing comments.
I’m pointing out your logical fallacy not to sound cool, but in order to warn anyone else who might be susceptible to being tricked that you’re employing rhetorical trickery to make an invalid claim sound plausible by making a valid counterclaim sound ridiculous.
Just stop it with the faux-edgy centrist histrionic hyperbole already. You’re not fooling anyone.
You’re a fucking pseudo intellectual. Don’t reply if you’re going to just jerk yourself off with nothing comments.
the other is advocating for the abolition of all law enforcement.
This is a non sequitur, and also false beyond fringes.
To be fair, this last one was a slogan explicitly used, at a level where it could be reasonably seen as mainstream depending on how much time you spent on the wrong websites.
Kinda interesting, really— In-group signalling incentives greatly harmed the chances for successful out-group messaging.
And sad, maybe— Could have possibly gotten a good thing going at that point— But I guess “Decrease funding to violent law enforcement in order to reallocate more resources to preventative and constructive community services” just doesn’t have the right ring to it in today’s media environment.
As it was, it was big enough to get serious attention from several major cities, while also being self-defeating enough to thus far have had apparently basically no lasting positive impact whatsoever yet.
Maybe it’s just me, but my default interpretation when I hear about something being “defunded” is more or less synonymous with complete elimination.
Either way, it doesn’t really matter, since everything else that comment was saying was indeed just bunk, and even this funding thing was indeed still at most a relatively fringe messaging failure.
Linking this to just Biden is disingenuous and really buries the lede. This meme just divides us further in service of ignoring that the problem is the entire fucking system and not just one politician or one party.
I agree with you, but still think this is still an overly divisive take. This isn’t all directed at you or your comment - just some general observations that I want to share.
The fact is the damn near all federal politicians and their policies are in favor of their corporate and high-net-worth donors.
Democrats had the full trifecta after the 2020 election, executive branch and both houses of congress. The didn’t raise the minimum wage. Didn’t rollback trump-era tax cuts. At the end of the day, failed to take decisive action to reverse the wealth/income inequality plaguing the US.
The same during Obama administration - which set the stage for one of the biggest upward wealth transfers in history in the post-2008 economy.
Sure, both of these D leaders have made select changes that are against R policies (healthcare and student loan debt). But they aren’t our saviors. They’re undeniably shills for their big donors. Period.
This is why term limits and donor transparency (I.e., legislating against the Citizens United ruling) are necessary changes. We need actual fucking leadership. Ones who aren’t afraid of making moves that will piss off big donors. Ones who only want to be in politics for a few years to actually make the country better and improve lives for the masses. We simply do not have that option right now, outside a few rare examples.
It can happen. We just can’t be complacent with the current shit, no matter which uniform they’re in. We need real change led by real leaders.
Democrats had the full trifecta after the 2020 election, executive branch and both houses of congress.
I used to think this exact same thing. It's false & now a subversive #GOP talking point.
Let's clear that all up, shall we?
Starting January 2009, at the beginning of the 111th Congress, in the month that Barack Obama was inaugurated president, the House of Representatives was made up of 257 Democrats and 178 Republicans. There is no question that Democrats had total control in the House from 2009-2011.
Even with numerous "blue-dog" (allegedly fiscally conservative) Democrats often voting with Republicans.....Speaker Pelosi had little difficulty passing legislation in the House. The House does not have the pernicious filibuster rule which the Senate uses. A majority vote in the House is all that's necessary to pass legislation, except in rare occurrences (treaty ratification, overriding a presidential veto).
Okay, that's the House during the first two years of Barack Obama's presidency. For a lie to prosper, as it were, there needs to be a shred of truth woven inside the lie. It is absolutely true that from 2009-2011, Democrats and President Obama had "total control" of the House of Representatives.
But legislation does not become law without the Senate.
The Senate operates with the 60-vote-requirement filibuster rule. There are 100 Senate seats, and it takes 60 Senate votes for "closure" on a piece of legislation....to bring that piece of legislation to the floor of the Senate for amendments and a final vote....that final vote is decided by a simple majority in most cases. But it takes 60 Senate votes to even have a chance of being voted upon.
"Total control", then, of the Senate requires 60 Democratic or Republican Senators.
On January 20th, 2009, 57 Senate seats were held by Democrats with 2 Independents (Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman) caucusing with the Democrats...which gave Democrats 59 mostly-reliable Democratic votes in the Senate, one shy of filibuster-proof "total control." Republicans held 41 seats.
The 59 number in January, 2009 included Ted Kennedy and Al Franken. Kennedy had a seizure during an Obama inaugural luncheon and never returned to vote in the Senate.....and Al Franken was not officially seated until July 7th, 2009 (hotly contested recount demanded by Norm Coleman.)
The real Democratic Senate seat number in January, 2009 was 55 Democrats plus 2 Independents equaling 57 Senate seats.
An aside....it was during this time that Obama's "stimulus" was passed. No Republicans in the House voted for the stimulus. However, in the Senate.....and because Democrats didn't have "total control" of that chamber.....three Republicans.....Snowe, Collins and Specter, voted to break a filibuster guaranteeing it's passage.
Then in April, 2009, Republican Senator Arlen Specter became a Democrat. Kennedy was still at home, dying, and Al Franken was still not seated. Score in April, 2009....Democratic votes 58.
In May, 2009, Robert Byrd got sick and did not return to the Senate until July 21, 2009. Even though Franken was finally seated July 7, 2009 and Byrd returned on July 21.....Democrats still only had 59 votes in the Senate because Kennedy never returned, dying on August 25, 2009.
Kennedy's empty seat was temporarily filled by Paul Kirk but not until September 24, 2009.
The swearing in of Kirk finally gave Democrats 60 votes (at least potentially) in the Senate. "Total control" of Congress by Democrats lasted all of 4 months. From September 24, 2009 through February 4, 2010...at which point Scott Brown, a Republican, was sworn in to replace Kennedy's Massachusetts seat.
The truth....then....is this: Democrats had "total control" of the House of Representatives from 2009-2011, 2 full years. Democrats, and therefore, Obama, had "total control" of the Senate from September 24, 2009 until February 4, 2010. A grand total of 4 months.
Did President Obama have "total control" of Congress? Yes, for 4 entire months. And it was during that very small time window that Obamacare was passed in the Senate with 60 all-Democratic votes.
Did President Obama have "total control' of Congress during his first two years as president? Absolutely not and any assertions to the contrary.....as you can plainly see in the above chronology....is a lie.
The technical details of that article are valid. A simple majority doesn’t mean you can pass any legislation you want.
But it does mean you hold what’s usually called the trifecta by most who are interested in this sort of thing, and it also means your party should be at basically the peak of its power. Minimizing this fact is looking at the trees and missing the forest.
And even then, this article admits that Obama actually DID have this for 4 months. They could have had bills ready to go and sent them through like wildfire. But they didn’t. To say “it’s not the democrats’ fault” is letting these leaders off way too easily.
The republicans after the 2016 election were able to pass a comprehensive tax bill which greatly benefited the wealthy in exchange for minuscule and temporary benefits to others. They also repealed countless Obama-admin executive actions and fucking STACKED the courts. How? By using their majority powers to put things to a vote and winning over the few opposing votes they needed through bribery.
All without the full 60 seats this article claims is necessary. The democrats when they hold the trifecta should be able to do the same thing.
The democrats are not pulling their weight when they have the chance to. 60 seats or not, having the simple majority and the executive power should be enough to get shit done. They let republicans do it, then fail to do so when they can. Don’t let someone convince you they just haven’t had the chance and they’re your saviors.
And even then, this article admits that Obama actually DID have this for 4 months. They could have had bills ready to go and sent them through like wildfire. But they didn’t. To say “it’s not the democrats’ fault” is letting these leaders off way too easily.
Did President Obama have "total control" of Congress? Yes, for 4 entire months. And it was during that very small time window that Obamacare was passed in the Senate with 60 all-Democratic votes.
You: Why didn't the Democrats 14 years ago do the same thing the Fascists just did in Congress?
That you are thinking this makes me doubt you were even cognizant of politics in 2009.
Obamacare did very little to actually change the insurance or medical industries and is a perfect example of what I’m saying. If you think the democratic leaders are willing to piss off big donors, you’re wrong. It provided more insurance access and subsidized the existing industry. It did NOT tackle the inherent problems with the US healthcare industry in any meaningful way. Was it better than the alternative? Absolutely. Was it the change that’s actually needed? Not at all.
Me: Democrats have held the trifecta TWICE since 2008 and had the executive leadership for all but 4 years. That’s 11 fucking years as the President and 4 of those with majority of both houses on congress. They have had the power, full stop.
Republicans meanwhile held the presidency for 4 of those years, trifecta for 2. And got a massive tax cut, greatly increased control of the courts, and gutted multiple federal agencies and budgets with lasting consequences.
Your personal attacks are a little wild man. You have no idea how old I am or what experience I have. I’ll just leave it at I am extremely well educated, knowledgeable, and experienced in the political, legal, and economic spheres. Not armchair analysis bullshit. Real world understanding and experience of how this whole system works. With multiple degrees and the resume to back it up.
And the only thing I am saying is do not trust current federal leadership to do anything except keep their big donors happy. That’s the system we’re in. Is one party better than the other? Absolutely. Has that party actually made progress in the fight for the people? Fuck no.
If you’re won over by a “but they haven’t had 60 seats!” argument and don’t think we need change that’s more than the current leaders or system offers, that’s pretty short sighted. You should be furious that these leaders aren’t doing more to help.
And what I'm saying is quit fucking spreading #fascist#GOP talking points.
We already know the democrats are a big tent. We already know they should be three separate parties. We also understand math, game theory & how what you want doesn't fucking work at all with First Past the Post voting.
The #fascist#GOP is outlawing other voting methods for that reason.
Pick and support a fucking side, #fascists or everyone else.
You don’t think I can criticize my government? Because someone on the other team says the same thing?
I am absolutely pissed that democratic leaders have done jack shit when they have held so much power since 2008. And I’ll shout that from the top of any mountain.
Absolutely nowhere am I saying R leaders are better. I’m saying we can and should be pissed about this fact of D leaders. You are the one sewing discourse against someone that is calling for progress. Not me.
Pretending one party isn't much more behind that kind of economy than the other is disingenuous as well. Dems at least try to put in benefits to support workers who aren't paid a lot or in some cases have even tried to raise wages (which by itself is only a half step). Republicans are against benefits and against supporting wages.
So you can say one is misguided because they're trying to support both corporate and individual interests. But ignoring that half of the equation is not helpful.
You can't just say both are equally bad as that simply justifies not voting or equating voting for either is bad. Yes, both parties are not "good" but one would be much easier to "fix" than the other.
Furthermore, establishing that the economy is strong is a necessary counterpoint to inevitable GOP talking points of "Of COURSE the rich can't pay you more; the economy, she is vewwy sick right now".
Society is busted - but Biden trying to get the messaging out ahead of the GOP isn't the sinister plot the OP seems to think it is.
While I don’t necessarily disagree with you, it’s important to note that a centerpiece of Biden’s reelection campaign is “Bidenomics”. HE’S the one trying to link the current/future economic trajectory to his presidency here, not us.
That’s just one of the many reasons this message feels so tone-deaf. It reminds me of those ridiculous “I did that!” stickers that people were putting on gas pumps. Only now, it’s the Biden campaign that’s basically saying “yup, we really did do that” but for the entire economy.
Do you know what’s in the “Inflation Reduction Act” that Biden and the Democrats passed? This dude kicked pharma companies in the nuts and it sounds like you have no idea.
Did they now? When will the Pharma part take effect? Are court cases heading to the Supreme Court to overturn that function?
Personally, I don’t think the IRA means anything for Pharma companies. SCOTUS will get their backs and block anything that cuts their profits as unconstitutional. It’s 6-3 and they love love love Pharma companies.
But yeah, totally, us stupid ungrateful American workers who went a couple years without wage growth and are further squeezed out of the possibility of homeownership probably just haven’t read the IRA. Otherwise we’d join all you very well-read geniuses celebrating an inflation-locked price increase specifically for a portion of Medicare Part B and D biologics which lack generics and which doesn’t limit launch prices at all. Oh, and whose non-interference exceptions don’t take effect for another two years and are contingent on a good-faith agreement from a presidential cabinet position which has a very real chance of falling into Republican control. Specifically, the Republican who has already made overtures towards getting rid of drug rebates.
Crazy that some of us are not more excited about the economy. Probably just in our imagination, huh?
And to add to this it’s not only the strength of the economy, but also the effect that the strong economy is having on workers as a plank of his campaign is my biggest gripe. For a good number of people in my region gross wages rose over the last year or two, but nowhere near enough to meet inflation. The base rent alone on non-subsidized units have more than doubled since the pandemic with an anemic response in wages or public assistance. In fact, the wage increases a lot of service sector jobs are seeing has had an unintended consequence of driving people off of public assistance because they’re now over the federal guidelines despite below AMI.
No, believing capitalism must fall, even by revolutionary means, does not make you a tankie.
No, believing that the left is hamstrung and baited by the powers that be does not make you a tankie.
No, opposing US imperialism does not make you a tankie.
No, believing in a planned economy does not make you a tankie.
What makes you a tankie is supporting authoritarian regimes crushing everything a leftist is supposed to stand for, because 'West bad' or 'Critical support for Comrade Xi's concentration camps!'
I definitely am not against unions and the defence of worker’s rights (Specially for the USA, you fuckers have like 19th century working conditions) but there are quite some things in Marxist theory that I disagree with
Like, that part where it’s the amount of work done that adds value to goods. Like, I could literally pick up a diamond meteorite that just fell on my yard and it would be extremely valuable. Scarcity is definitely a bigger factor than work put into goods. There’s also this thing of having no real incentives to be more efficient, but that might be more command economy specific
We could have a long conversation about this, but I think the easiest way would simply be to say that:
Marxism is not the only form of socialism
Command economy is very, VERY specific to the style of Marxism-Leninism that was exported by the Soviet Union. You might find interest in anarcho-syndicalism, mutualism, and market socialism. Not because I think you'll necessarily agree with them, but because they posit very different ideas about how a socialist economy should work.
Don’t assume I didn’t know about those ideas. And don’t assume either that I’d like them. I mentioned Marxism as Marx is considered to be the “father of scientific socialism”
I didn't say that you'd like them, I only brought them up because you included a specific criticism of command economies when asked for your issue with socialism.
Diamonds are literally one of the most artificially inflated gemstone values in existence. They’re also the most abundant. Just pointing that out for when you try to argue your point again.
True. Just for clarity, I think the Marxist socio-economic platform is absolute horseshit and doesn’t survive contact at all with the Information Age, because it necessitates an industrial/agrarian society.
Yes, we get special thugs that protect what’s of each person.
Sure, it’s probably even more violent than a literal mob trying to steal my stuff just because they want to. Well, it was that way in the Neolithic (raiding settlements) and that’s why its inhabitants decided to have some kind of protection by and for the settlement.
It’s literally not that hard to understand: you use force to prevent people from raiding your settlement, then the settlement grows with more safety and that’s literally how we stopped being either nomadic raiders or afraid and impoverished farmers.
Tell me you don’t know the definition of political terms. There’s no such thing as free markets anywhere on Earth. Government regulation exists even in wartorn developing nations.
Setting up some rules to prevent corpos from taking more power than the state is not the same as a fucking command economy where all means of production are nationalised
The kmer Rouge thing is crazy, and I just had my first encounter with it in the wild.
Lately I’ve been feeling alienated from both liberals and the extreme “left”.
The liberals boot lick two party politics and shill for corporations. “Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good” while letting good enough be the enemy of better.
The tankies boot lick shitty individuals and put mere men on pedestals, murdering in the name of “progress”.
Lately I’ve been feeling alienated from both liberals and the extreme “left".
Political ideology isn’t a straight line spectrum though. At the extreme far left, you have people that oppose any form of authoritarian control, people that are in favor of absolute authoritarian control, and people that think that some authoritarian control is necessary for society to function. None of these views are inherently wrong per se, but people that are in favor of one flavor or another are going to see champions of there version as being above criticism. Tankies are generally in favor of state-control, and so they take criticisms of Lenin and Stalin as personal attacks on them.
Indeed. It just very strongly implies being a tankie though.
If I asked them to describe implementing such a thing, Im pretty sure they would describe just about the way every murderous communist regime began.
Every economy is planned. There is a framework in which entities function. That is called capitalism. A sandbox where rules are made to make it geared towards growth.
Even if someone went through with the grandiose plan of setting up a communist regime, they would eventually start simulating capitalism.
Maybe we can get him to stop funding Israel before that, even. But first and foremost, fascism must be stopped, for the same reason that the Western Allies sided with the Soviet Union in WW2. We may despise each other, but there is a worse foe afoot.
I was being charitable, I know you employ it even more often than that.
Oh, how terrible, that we try to fight against fascism more often than that.
removed, you’re the one freaking out about how we teetering at the edge of concentration camps and suspended elections.
We are in danger of fascism. That’s not the same as being more fascist currently. That’s the point of fascism - overthrow of democratic institutions. Do you think a democratic nation in danger of monarchy is more monarchist than ever before? Is that how you think things work? Fucking lmao.
But of course, what do you know about fascism? You couldn’t identify it if it put you in a uniform and a rally, shouting slogans worshiping the Great Leader, so long as it was painted red.
Thanks for not denying that we’re on the edge, btw, really shows how little you care about the destruction of democracy and the murder of minorities. Hell, it almost seems like you’ll be celebrating it.
And this is why you’re fucked. You refuse to listen when leftists tell you that fascism isn’t this weird thing that happens for no reason; it has material causes. We warned you that what you were doing was leading to fascism, and you responded by doubling down and teaming up with those fascists to make sure nobody could stop you.
And now you’re fucked, the consequences of your actions are coming for you; the fascist machine you created and protected is coming up grind you up, and there’s nothing you can do about it.
Not sure why you’re stupid enough to think the people who have already been victimized by it, though no fault of their own, would feel anything but joy to see people like you, who actually deserve it, get the same treatment.
Not sure why you’re stupid enough to think the people who have already been victimized by it, though no fault of their own, would feel anything but joy to see people like you, who actually deserve it, get the same treatment.
Yep, you caught me, by voting Dem to hold off fascism a little longer, I actually deserve genocide for the sin of being a minority. What great Leftist theory they teach wherever you went to uni at! They did things differently at my uni.
Funny how that works… it’s almost like constantly voting for a bunch of rich elites that will reach across the aisle to overt fascists as soon as they are in power has delivered the perfectly predictable outcome.
I wonder how many of the Genocide Joe gaslighters will be showing up when it’s time to actually throw down with nazis and pigs come post-November… my guess is that they will resort to screeching from the sidelines - same as last time.
Not to sound like a Twitter wokescold or whatever, but Shaun does this all the time. A cishet white guy from England who won’t be affected in any way by the outcome of the U.S. election, yet constantly tweets and retweets about how the Democrats and Republicans are totally equally bad and voting makes no difference.
But when we look at what Republicans are doing and saying like…
Trump saying he’ll be a “dictator for one day”
His lawyers arguing that a president killing an opponent should be considered an official act protected by law
The potential Republican vice-candidate bragging about shooting a puppy and other farm animals
Reports that DeSantis enjoyed torturing people at Guantanamo
Multiple Republican politicians and pundits calling for the eradication of trans people
I think this take doesn’t hold up. It’s no coincidence that many of the people with this mentality are also the ones who’ll be minimally affected by a Republican presidency, if at all.
I agree with everything here except giving air to an annoying ass term like “wokescold”. That’s just something invented to try and reverse (completely justified usually) shaming
That is the point of these. There is a high chance these posters are foreign propaganda.
It’s interesting how there is no philosophical difference between certain foreign nations and the American right. They are both threatened by American democracy.
That’s the reason this guy is here, he’s either a Russian or a right winger posing as a concerned progressive trying to bleed away support for Biden. He’s a blatantly obvious bad faith actor, just check his post history.
This same “they’re Russian!” or “it’s a Republican!” line has been used since the 2016 election on me on Reddit. Nothing new and I roll my eyes every time. You’re not allowed to criticize a Republican-lite Dem without being accused of being Russian. I’m actually a leftist gay man in the Los Angeles area but ok…
The hilarious thing is I’m actually telling the truth. I don’t know why some people can’t comprehend that somebody is critical of do nothing politicians.
You can either continue being delusional or find out why Biden’s polling numbers have slipped to record lows. And then canvas, call, volunteer to help the Biden campaign.
If you are living in California (DOUBT), then you have room to be an idiot with your vote since it's not going to go R unless the world is ending anyway. But if you are a Angeleno (DOUBT - what's your favorite donut shop??) then keep your nonsense contained within that state for the rest of us please and thank you.
Simone's is good enough for me that I'll just ask you to keep your counterproductive-to-reality narrative to California. Long Beach is a long, long way from the rest of the country. If you manage to convince 10 or 100 people in California to have a protest vote it will probably be fine, but if we end up with Trump because you convinced even one person in a purple state to stay home, I will come to Simone's and bitch you out endlessly.
People keep making these memes and telling people not to vote like there isn’t a fucking maniac with a much worse plan for the U.S than anything Biden could ever do.
We should keep voting-in democrats and force them to present younger candidates. Letting Trump win is definitely not going to get you what you want, and the democrats aren’t “learning” anything when you don’t vote.
People need to protest after electing these idiots. There has to be a name for how tame America is at protesting things like healthcare and corruption, while instead fighting each other of BLM and other acronyms.
So their too dumb to inact good policies and you think you’ll “make them realize”. Ypi won’t have a democracy left. You force them by protesting while in office, not by whining from your keyboard.
Big issue is that right now, if the GoP wins, they are going to do everything in their power to make any election always go their way
Really the proper solution is guillotines, but that's a bit hard in this day and age, leaving, "Democrats until the GoP is no longer a fascist dictatorial danger" as the only realistic solution
Which the Dems know and is why they won't move left - Because they KNOW that, for now, the option is "A beating or getting your limbs gnawed off by a rat"
democrats aren’t “learning” anything when you don’t vote.
The Democrats will learn that people will vote them in regardless of whether they run a wet sock of a candidate or a true progressive because the alternative is worse.
Nah. If they don’t vote, Democrats will think “oh, that demographic doesn’t vote. They can be ignored, like the youth” and would drift further right in order to attract votes from people who actually vote.
The Vote Blue No Matter Who crowd was very vocal about “Just get Biden elected and then we’ll help push him Left”. Then we got Biden into the White House and the pushing him Left went silent.
I find people who can’t explain concepts on their own and just link other people’s words have no understanding of the subject or they’re just wasting people’s time with no interior have a good faith discussion.
And the MAGA crowd is very vocal about “just get Trump into the white house, by election or by force, and then we’ll help him replace democracy with a fascist dictatorship.” Then they got Trump into the White House and once his term ended they attempted a fucking coup to prevent the peaceful transition of power.
But hey, I guess that’s preferable to a boring, run of the mill president who isn’t quite as left as I’d prefer???
Hubris may have lead to Clinton’s loss but Trump voters made him win. If the powers that be didn’t fully understand the hostility of voters that lead to Trump’s victory then maybe they are not as smart as they think they are but not actively malicious. Trump is actively malicious and surrounds himself with the same. The Democratic Party may have tipped the scales a bit for Hillary but they also must have thought she would get the most votes and was one of the most qualified candidates from either party. I’m not going to defend the two party system but only one is pushing for ranked choice voting, electing by popular vote, and reducing voting restrictions. Not voting or third party isn’t going to make this any better
The issue here is that Bernie was leading polling (among dems,) and killed the NH primary’s popular vote by a landslide and Iowa caucus was the closest margin in Iowa dem history.
Despite this, the NH superdelegates pledged for Hilary. This performance was in spite of the DNC actively taking steps to harm Bernie’s campaign (cutting access to voter databases; fucking around with debate scheduled).
To be blunt, the DNC fucked America by not nominating the best possible candidate in ‘16.
And they’re doing it again. Biden has all the same weaknesses that Hilary has- and some extra besides. Meanwhile Trump has had 4 years to spin and retcon his bullshit to his base; the memories of his term are less fresh.
He’s weak with the millennial vote (and gen z.)
He’s soft on the black vote: (he opposed busing for desegregation in the 70’s, said he didn’t want his kids going to a racial zoo- or however he said it,); and then there’s the condescending bullshit he dropped “if you vote for Trump ya ain’t black”.
Soft on Latino votes; because his border policies also suck. His first two years he could have had motion but now he’s fucked on it.
Soft in Palestinian and Muslim votes. “Genocide Joe” is a far more apt nickname than anything else Trump has called him.
Biden has consistently opposed abortion (flip flopped in his ‘19 campaign for president. historically voting for restrictions on abortions, and voted to block federal funding for abortion providers.), and let’s be honest, if he wanted RvW as law; he could easily have gotten that done in his first two years.)
Biden is historically soft on LGBTQ rights- voting to ban gay marriage.
While improved from Trump; Biden’s economy still objectively sucks for the vast majority of Americans, 60% of whom are living pay check to pay check. (Which is actually up from Trump’s term; even if it is trumps fault, mostly.)
Inflation is still fucking most Americans; who are consistently being told it’s our fault (asking for wages) despite record-setting profits for corporations.
If you’re being honest with yourself, you’d understand a rapist insurrectionist who has proudly declared he wants to be a dictator is the only candidate that Biden could realistically defeat.
Not voting or third party isn’t going to make this any better
I made this post because of bullshit ass assumptions like this. I voted for fucking Clinton with gritted teeth and the same for fucking Biden. I know the fucking stakes, I vote for fucking Democrats, but even in the response to this meme I’ve got chucklefucks assuming they know what’s on my mind or what I’m arguing here.
What do you assholes want from us, a pound of fucking flesh? You already have our fucking votes!
I’m an old, I’d been aware of Trump for a long time. I wasn’t willing to risk him trying to become a dictator, the guy had been a suck-up to dictators long before his run in 2016.
Being willing to critique the party for failing to match the wits of a fucking orange idiot didn’t set well with a lot of folks.
The conversations weren’t changing my opinions either, they were just frustrating and eye-rolling, just as they are now.
Usually, that's the accusation leveled towards "Vote Blue no matter who" types, not the far-left types who deny that Democrats have ever done anything that has improved anyone's life.
The DNC completely restructured their convention process after this happened. Sanders and his supporters fought hard for this change, at least try to pay attention:
Adoption of superdelegate reform (2018)
On August 25, 2018, the DNC approved a plan to reduce the influence of superdelegates by barring them from voting on the first ballot at the Democratic National Convention, allowing them to vote only in a contested convention (i.e., if a Democratic National Convention did not choose the nominee on the first ballot, because no candidate received an absolute majority (more than 50%) of the pledged delegates elected from the outcome of primaries and caucuses). This does not preclude superdelegates from publicly endorsing a candidate of their choosing before the convention.
this has nothing to do with how they structured the primary, favoring hilary with party resources. they chose hilary long before the first superdelegate vote.
2 is kinda irrelevant in the context of the election though. If you think Biden supports them too much wait until you see the alternative. Trump doesn’t strike me as the kind of guy to say “Palestinians need our help”. He strikes me as the guy who’ll say “See? This is why I’m writing a new Muslim ban”
I’m no fan of Biden (though I did and will vote for him) but that’s not what happened. He did not bust the unions, the 12 unions still exist. He broke a strike, which is the intended purpose of the Railway Labor Act of 1926.
The law he put before congress to force a resolution to the three year negotiation deadlock would have guaranteed the workers 7 days of sick leave per year (they wanted 15). It passed the House but the Senate knocked it down to 1 day, with a 14% immediate pay increase and an additional 25% over the next five years.
Biden continued negotiate for the unions to get the sick days. They don’t all have them yet, but at this point 61% of the workers do have 4 short notice paid sick days with the option to trade three personal days for an additional 3 short notice sick days. Negotiations are still happening, the Biden administration is still part of them.
The Ohio derailment disaster was not a result of worker error (or lack of sick days) but lack of maintenance regulations, which was not something that was being negotiated at that time.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't his Administration forced to continue those by SCotUS?
Some, but he's also put some effort of his own on being seen as 'tough on the border' due to increased migration.
A stupid decision, but a predictable one considering the hand-wringing our population goes through every fucking time there's a bump in scary furriners coming in to this land which our ancestors were born i-oh, wait
Agree, but that looks like it’s starting to turn as well
Honest question, where have you seen this?
All I’ve seen is talk about possibly maybe telling them to stop genociding. Other than that it’s business as usual. The whole siding with Israel at the ICJ trial isn’t a great look
In international politics, there are very few unscripted statements. What is said is an important reflection of a country's concerns, and behind-the-scenes demands. There is a distinct contrast between statements from before the current crisis and statements since, especially compared to the unconditional bootlicking normally offered by the US State Department to Israel.
We are at a point where support for the current course is wavering, and there is the possibility of change in our Israel policy, depending on how the opinions of the electorate continue to develop on the issue.
Remember when Kamalla Harris said during her speach at COP28 something about the US putting pressure on Israel and then not a week later the US vetoed the resolution for a Cease Fire at the UN Security Council?!
It’s wasn’t even that long ago that this happenned.
There really is no reason at all to believe that the Biden Administration has finally given up on their practice of trying to sway voters their way by nothing more than “talking the talk” whilst completelly refusing to “walk the walk” (at times, quite the contrary)
I think the DNC finally discovered Lemmy. There’s been a huge uptick of VBNMW and “how dare anyone question Biden” posts. Voters can be critical of Biden and the Dems and still vote for them to “stop Trump”. Even though Trump is merely a symptom of the crappy system we have.
Edit: also, calling the far left nut jobs isn’t going to win any of them over.
Wolfenstein The New Order: Nice! Killing knot-zees like it’s 1992!!
Wolfenstein II The New Collosus: what is this woke anti American shit/why can’t we play as the real “good” guys
Gee. Somewhere between the release of these two games public opinion changed. The first came out in 2014, btw. The second’s ad campaign had “Make America Nazi Free Again” as a slogan, something that id thought we’d all agree. Nazis were in that safe group of “enemies we can slaughter without guilt” alongside aliens, zombies and robots.
It can only piss off Nazi sympathizers tbh. I mean If you believed that America was going downhill and wanted to make it “great again” surely making it Nazi Free would be part of that goal right?
I got banned from reddit for saying: Wolfenstein The New Order is one of if not the best game of all time, the only good nazi is a dead nazi. GET HYPED!
I mean, I'm happy they had an implosion, but it should have been because of the nazi sympathy, not because of their api.
Well one cost “the right people” more money than they were willing to give and one didn’t. It’s almost like money doesn’t matter until it matters to the gawd, it sounds crazy to say it, it’s so dystopian, shadow governments’ corporate overlords. Lives otoh… shudder
AND he only did so after the “proper channel” for whistle blowing, his internal superiors, told him to shut the fuck up.
I feel this always needs to be said. The United States has a lot of slogans and posters about integrity and ethics for a nation that has neither in practice.
It’s all about making us ‘feel good inside’ for saying things. But doing them? Naw, that’s too hard. Not in my backyard, no, can’t do that. Typical America.
Thanks for reiterating this and posting a source. Every time I see an article on Snowden year over year, someone brings up the tired old “argument” that because he is now trapped in Russia, that somehow makes everything he did “wrong”, and invalidates everything he exposed the government for doing. The media campaign against him was apparently quite effective, and these soundbites are ever ready to jump out of people’s mouths without any research or critical thinking.
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.” ― Anatole France
It very much is, if the offense is egregious. And the NSA spying on everyone and their employees trading nudes the NSA collected very much is egregious. And to make it sound like he just dumped the raw leaks does not make your argument seem more credible.
Except it’s exactly what David Grusch did, with no proof, and yet we have multiple oversight hearings and amendments to the defense authorization, and he made international news
The UFO guy? Really? You think the government is a little less concerned when they don’t have much to cover up? You can’t seriously compare the USA admits to not being able to identify everything in the sky to it spending billions illegally and unconstitutionally spying on literally every citizen
What about it was illegal? Rights were violated? Genuinely send me an article I’ve not cared about that whole situation since hearing him talk about Mussolini and seeing the videos that were released
I think we can all agree that Greenwald is an idiot.
IMO Snowden probably chose him because a. he wrote for The Guardian, b. he was publically critical of the Iraq war and c. he is politically on the right.
The security breach was the NSA letting anyone fiddle with the data. They should be thankful Snowden leaked them instead of a foreign intelligence service listening in for years unnoticed.
…Leaked to a reputable member of the fourth estate to decide what was safe to report. Do you disagree with the founders of the United States about the importance of the fourth estate’s role in keeping leadership honest?
The only other steps short of that would have been to either quit and shut the fuck up or continue participating and shut the fuck up.
Sounds like you just wanted him to shut the fuck up about your freedoms being eroded by the government that’s supposed to protect them.
I don’t believe willful ignorance is a defensible position, ever.
We’ve been telling you libs that you were enabling fascism for decades, but you just kept on simping for fascism anyway. Yet suddenly when you realize that you might be on the receiving end of it, suddenly you start to whine.
Yes, you’re right. When given a binary choice it’s always worse to choose the side that will bring more fascism. I’m glad you recognized that at one point. Hopefully you can come back around to it.
I love when PEOPLE on lemmy act like THEY tried to warn everyone so THEY'RE not responsible. How many election cycles have you participated in? You haven't done shit and will continue not doing shit, congratulations.
Out of the three choices available to me it’s brought the least fascism one can muster through the voting process. Not voting is a way to bring about marginally more fascism (I especially hope you are voting locally right?) There are 3 years and 364 other days to do political action. Please use those. I don’t see voting as anything but an awful way to choose the lesser of two evils and as a miniscule but necessary part of mine and your capacity for political action.
I wholeheartedly encourage you to spend your time advocating for socialism and trying to revive the movement, hell, I’ve spent time canvasing for local socialist candidates. You know what that didn’t stop me from doing? Spending 20 minutes walking to my polling place once every 4 years to vote for the least fascist out of 2 shitty candidates.
Of course. I hate the system I exist in. Not voting for either fascist is saying you’re ok with either one winning, and you’re fine with the more fascist one winning, not somehow ascending yourself out of the system.
At the end of the day one of only two candidates will win and enact their favored policies. As I said, please for the love of God be politically active in favor of socialism the other 3 years and 364 days that exist, we need to change the system.
unsurprisingly, “yeah he’s a fascist, but” is not a convincing answer. I’m voting for the PSL. I won’t be holding my nose to vote for this octogenarian zionist again , fuck that lmao
I mean, that’s fine. You’ve convinced yourself that both candidates are equally bad to placate yourself. That is so clearly not true but if you’re holding on to that totem there’s not a lot I can do about that.
You have rationalized yourself into voting for fascism, as if it’s the only moral option. Nothing you could say would ever make me take you or your opinions seriously. You are not someone I would take advice from, nor someone whose thoughts would ever affect my own, in any form.
Liberals have systematically destroyed all serious attempts at left wing organization, and put structures in place to make it impossible for them to reemerge. And they did this with a hundred times more gusto then they ever put towards stopping the rise of fascism.
If there was a serious revolutionary effort here, you would call them Russian/Chinese backed authoritarian terrorists and beg the government to drown them in white phosphorus
If there was a serious revolution here you would still stay home coming up with three new excuses an hour for why it isn’t your exact vintage of preferred revolution and why nothing will really change because of it.
Just a reminder: voting for the lesser of two evils has not ever resulted in the Democratic party stopping their march to the extreme right right alongside the GOP, to the point now that in order to vote for the Democratic nominee one must accept that their vote goes to supporting a genocide.
No one had to tell me it, it is self-evident. He’s the representative you choose and he’s going to absolutely 100% take your vote for him as vindication that supporting genocide is politically viable, which means Dems will keep fielding zionists and taking AIPAC money.
That’s the consequences of your choice. You need to accept that, not try to pretend you still get to have sone kind of moral high ground.
Well, I don’t support either one of them but it’s very clear that Trump is the worse of the two options in the two party system. I did not choose him. I really think it’s moronic for randos on the internet to try to tell me what I support. It’s not a moral issue for me, it’s a logical one.
Again, voting for Biden is not supporting him. I’ll acknowledge that he is one of two shitty options, but my brain works well enough to recognize that in a two party system, we’re not going to have more than two options. That’s just math.
My memory works well enough to remember the Trump regime and its lasting impacts on our country. Not voting for Biden is an endorsement for further rollbacks to bodily autonomy, a greater division in wealth, the privatization of public services, religious indoctrination in schools, AND the continued genocide of Palestinians.
It honestly still sounds like cope to me. You’re voting for Biden and the Biden agenda, but somehow think that declaring that you are not supporting him absolves you of enabling him. Take ownership of your actions.
You’re not being honest with yourself because you like to believe you’re a moral person, but it turns out you are willing to cache in your morals out of fear. Which I guess tracks, cowardice and will lead to cowardly actions.
Tell yourself what you need to in order to sleep at night, but your unwillingness to truly resist is why the country continues on the track it has been on, why Democrats keep following the GOP to the right.
The third option being doing nothing at all? Is that the third option or are you going to inform me of a new way to do electoral math?
I am voting for Biden as a vote against Trump. I do not support Biden; I abhor Trump. I am not really sure why this is difficult to process for you.
You keep mentioning morals after I already told you that my decision is not one based in morals; it's based in logic. Keep schilling for the right and you too will no longer need to worry about voting at all.
And I’m voting Uncommitted against Trump as well as zionism and genocide being tolerated in the Democratic party.
You might be ok with Dems being complicit in genocide, I am not and my action reflects that. It doesn’t take a whole lot to get my vote back, just don’t fund genocide. Easy, right?
You keep mentioning morals after I already told you that my decision is not one based in morals; it’s based in logic.
And I repeat the question you side-stepped; logically, how would one discourage Democrats from supporting genocide? Remember now, I’m not talking about Republicans, I know that they’re difficult to distinguish these days but I’m asking about Democrats. How, logically, does one stop Democrats from funding genocide and accepting AIPAC money?
In my state, we're not even having a primary. Again, tell me more about how to do the electoral math.
And I repeat the question you side-stepped; logically, how would one discourage Democrats ftom supporting genocide? Remember now, I’m not talking about Republicans, I know that they’re difficult to distinguish these days but I’m asking about Democrats. How, logically, does one stop Democrats from funding genocide and accepting AIPAC money?
Show up to the meetings in your county. Get the phone numbers of the local party leaders that you can actually speak with. Engage with them. Tell them what they need to support. I'm tired of being the youngest person in the room as a 40 year old, it doesn't bode well. All politics is local.
1.) I did not say to contact your representatives. I said to get in touch with your local party leaders. That means the people running the either weekly or monthly meetings that happen in your county. Depending on where you live, that might be your neighbor, or it might be someone down the street, but either way; it's going to be someone that you have a possible chance of encountering at a store in your area.
2.) Based on how you responded, I can infer that you haven't tried contacting your representatives either. So tell me again... what have you tried other than just doing nothing?
Ok, so the party leaders and representatives and your local city council or whoever else say "Nah, we like supporting genocide and taking AIPAC money, we’re going to keep doing that” what then?
What’s the next step, logically, if those in power aren’t listening or interested in changing their behavior?
Perhaps... but you also have to realize the timeline involved in such an endeavor. In the meantime, you have a two party system. Vote for the better option.
You’re just circling back around to alluding to Republicans again. I didn’t ask about how to stop Republicans. I asked how to stop right-wing extremist Democrats from directing the party.
You admit on one hand that getting people to vote against a genocide-supporting candidate is ultimately the way you influence the Democratic party’s support of genocide when those in power won’t listen, but then still end up at the conclusion that we should vote for the genocide-supporting candidate.
I fail to see how this will effect the Democrats future behavior. Why wouldn’t they just continue their strategy of propping up extremist right-wing opponents to make their genocide-supporting candidates the lesser of two evils?
What do you think, logically, I should infer then about your claim that you’re a logical decision maker?
What does "alluding to Republicans" even mean? I need an explanation of that statement because I can't process that.
I told you exactly what to do. If you missed it, scroll back up. It doesn't mean change is going to happen next week. It takes time and you've literally done nothing other than asking a bunch of questions and schilling for the right. Ask all the questions you want, and I'll answer them but you need to get off your ass and go be politically active within your community.
If you'd like me to figure out how to do this for you, let me know your county and state, and I'll be happy to get you pointed in the right direction.
While I’m so disaffected that I’ve had to have my fire rekindled to vote for the “least damaging option” yet again, and while I’ll be dragging my feet to the booth in November, I feel from key words in this conversation that their mastery of English is surprising to the point of suspect when I consider the errors they’re committing.
I’d advise saving your energy for a less disingenuous conversation.
I’m pointing out that in the end you still just invoke them as boogiemen. You still fall back to “Well, the reason you vote for the problematic Dems this time is…(because Republicans).” Which is what you’ll say next election and the next and the next.
It is the exact feedback loop I’m asking how to not participate in reinforcing since that very strategy has objectively failed for decades and only moved the nation further to the right. Yet it repeats because every election cycle morons come out and vote based on fear.
I’m explicitly not asking about kicking the can down the road again.
I told you exactly what to do. If you missed it, scroll back up.
You suggest asking nicely and then, if that doesn’t work, voting in local elections and hoping some day in some indeterminate future, that trickles up and effects the party leadership somehow.
I’m looking to destroy or disable the entrenched power structure in the DNC, not continue to indefinitely play a rigged game they themselves run. I’m not looking to help them continue playing grab-ass with the other flavor of fascists, do you understand?
I am 100% uninterested in waiting for the general public to wake up on their own, they can wake up from the slap across the face that is Donald Trump if thats what it takes to get them to actually move their dumbasses into gear. Because if that doesn’t do it then the general public will simply acclimate to the slow boil of fascism that we are currently experiencing, and that’s when things are truly done for good.
If someone is outnumbered by ineffectual morons with lots of money and entrenched political support and voting with the morons changes nothing, but voting against them disrupts their pattern of stupidity because they need your vote to move forward, then doing the latter is a legitimate choice to make. That is being politically active.
It’s the difference between getting on the idiot wagon or laying down in front of it.
It doesn’t mean change is going to happen next week.
Right, and how long do we continue empowering the lesser of two evils? How many generations before that cycle is spontaneously disrupted by “talking to your local party leadership”?
Fear-based “Later” politics are idiotic and cowardly. I’m opting out of that.
Just a reminder: voting for the lesser of two evils has not ever resulted in the Democratic party stopping their march to the extreme right right alongside the GOP, to the point now that in order to vote for the Democratic nominee one must accept that their vote goes to supporting a genocide.
“Their march to the extreme far right”
Tell me you don’t know history, or remember even 10 years ago, without telling me you don’t know history or remember 10 years ago.
Ten years, why not twenty? I wonder how Biden voted on the Iraq war and invasion of Afghanistan?
How long have we been voting for the technically less evil for now? And where are we at this exact moment? How many times were we all promised “Just vote fascist lite onnnnne more time and next election cycle will be better.”?
Well, how right-wing is genocide compared to starting an unjustfied war?
Do you actually think that somehow you’re going to convince people that we are both on the precipice of fascism but also the Democrats have gotten better at resisting fascism?
Yes there was a massive Lurch right in the 90s. Since then the Democrats have waffled extremely hard. Flirting with moving back left slightly but often retracting back to their '90s positions. But there have been a few solid moves to the left in the last 20 years. Nowhere near enough of course. But some is always better than none.
politicalmemes
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.