Reminder that the Democrats would be considered even further right than the Conservative Party in Canada. And Canada itself is still considered pretty right wing with no big leftist parties (NDP is still center-right at best)
Yeah but Canada been allowing USA to get away with its bullshit around the world for the last 300 years for its own benefit so their hands aren’t quite as clean as you may think.
You’re completely correct and I for one am hoping the recent events finally get Canada to break ties with the US so we stop enabling them. We also have our share of atrocities separate from the US that we need to atone for, namely the treatment of Indigenous peoples and the environment.
From an outsider’s perspective it seems like the Democrats behave like that because the US electorate is genuinely right-wing and need pandered to.
If you’re getting your perspective from billionaire-owned news, (which no fault to you, is most major news-sources) it’s no wonder that you’d think that. By the way, that’s the exact same narrative the “billionaire-bullypulpit” push here in the States, even though it isn’t so.
These politicians and the media have the same lock step lie. They say they’re moving to the right “because their voters are”, but they’re just gaslighting folks as cover for what they were doing anyway; whatever their rich donors tell them.
Nope, when you poll on individual policies, they’re way to the left of the democrats.
The democrats showcase healthcare bill wasn’t “subsidies for employer-based health insurance, that you have no idea what it’s going to cost and have to buy at a specific time of year by going to one of 50 sites provided by your state at a specific time of year and filling out a bunch of forms or face a tax penalty, with a sliding scale based on income, marriage status, and other factors” because that’s more popular than “free healthcare”.
Same if you ask americans about Biden (and Harris’s) policies of “loan forgiveness for PELL grant recipients up to X dollars depending on age, loan repayment status, income, parent’s income, and whether you were born on a prime-numbered date” vs “free college”
The democrats compromise their bills, not because there’s a bunch of “moderates” who are exactly between democrat and republican who will vote for democrats if they promote garbage versions of progressive bills that don’t actually help anyone, but because they know those versions are less likely to pass and be easier to chip away at, and therefore won’t piss off their billionaire patrons.
deleted by creator
So, republicans just piled on the anti-trans hate last election, and democrats responded with either silence or running their own anti-trans hate in their own ads.
Republicans are going to choose republicans, no party stood up for trans people, and the Overton window on trans people moved to the right. democrats not only didn’t say boo, a few of 'em said yay.
Of course the window was gonna shift with no one counteracting the propaganda. The same propaganda you’re boosting.
Our government behaves like that because it formally takes bribes.
If you look at the real issues ~60% want homeless fed and to help people back on their feet, healthcare and school to be affordable to everyone.
~40% want all those things, but they only want them for themselves and their families.
We’re at about 60/40 POS.
I’d say 60/40 is way off provably more like 80/20
That’s where I want it to be. But I’m worried it’s not
Eh if you ask any random person if they’d rather kill or house the homeless people I’m pretty sure they would say they’d prefer the latter
That’s just a strawman, the same goes for killing or raping people.
The people themselves aren’t entirely compassionless, But bathed in the propaganda, they’re told that the homeless or homeless because they’re bad, awful people. Most of the right-wing world view is designed to embrace greed by turning victims into Boogeyman.
You’re buried in propaganda if you think 40% of Americans would rather kill homeless people rather than house them
It really isn’t that right-wing, especially economically, but there’s a lot of factors that make it seem that way. First is that it did go through a large, neoliberal shift in the 80s during the Regan years. When the economy crashed in the early 90s, the Democrats decided that, instead of returning to their New Deal roots, they would also run on neoliberal policies. The Republicans moved further right because of that, especially on social issues, and then the Rachet Effect described in the meme really started to ramp up.
Couple this with a lot of political illiteracy among the public in general, and you get a lot of people who actually don’t know what they believe and default to partisanship. If you poll people if they support gun control, you will get a very negative response, but if you break gun control into individual measures (longer waiting periods, mandatory background checks, magazine capacity limits, etc.) you get much more support. It’s the same on almost every issue; people don’t support a, “big government takeover,” of the healthcare system, but they broadly support Medicare for all. There’s a somewhat famous picture of a guy holding a sign that says something like, “Get Your Government Hands Off My Social Security,” that I think sums up this ignorance pretty well.
This attitude isn’t limited to the right, either. If you asked a Democrat “Who deregulated Wall Street?” they’d probably tell you Regan, Bush, or the other Bush. In actuality, the most significant deregulation, which lead directly to the 2008 financial collapse, was Clinton’s repeal of Glass-Steagal. Liberals think that Obama made significant progress on regulating Wall Street, but what he put in place was nothing compared to the deregulation that proceeded it.
Citizens United and the rise of mega donors also plays a pretty significant role in moving the parties away from policies that the general population want and towards the goals of a few oligarchs, but this reply is already way too long, so TL;DR: the country got pretty right-wing under Regan, both parties became more right-wing as a result, the population has become much more left-leaning since income inequality/cost of living went way up, but the parties are still both right-wing and most people are too ignorant to understand that.
Good comment, but this bugs me:
*Reagan
Regan was Reagan’s chief of staff for his last couple of years in office.
Holy shit, I don’t know when I started misspelling Reagan’s name, but now I feel like I need to go through thousands of replies and figure it out, because this has definitely been going on for months.
Pandering only works if you’re delivering more of what your audience wants than your opponent. It yields no votes from right wingers when they can choose fascists and get more of what they want.
But it does alienate people who would otherwise be your natural allies.
Where do you get your opinion of Americans? The answer doesn’t’ matter because every media outlet, including social media, is owned by billionaires. Lemmy being the possible exception, but don’t tell me you get the impression that Americans are right wing from here.
Doesn’t it seem weird how many think pieces about Trump voters there have been in the past decade? I’ve never seen an article about an Anarchist. Not a single article about someone who didn’t vote. Meanwhile, every algorithm takes you to the furthest right content you’ll accept.
I’m mainly basing my opinion on my experiences living in the UK where everyone complains about “right-wing tabloids” but these newspapers enjoy huge sales figures.
I don’t know much about UK politics, but Murdoch was pushing you right even before us.
I think about tabloids as “Propaganda that pays for itself”. What better way to sow distrust in science than wild stories about nonsense? Repeat a lie enough times and people start to believe it.
Tabloids have comparatively high sales because they’re pap aimed at the lowest common denominator. Young people don’t read print papers, so the tabloids make a business of confirming the worst Boomer fears.
The majority voted for trump, a fascist. Idk.
If you tell me you are a good person, I will require evidence. If you tell me you are a bad person, I will trust your word.
No, the majority of white people and the majority of people who voted voted for Trump. That is a big difference. As much as some liberals want to say “Not voting is the same as voting for Trump”, that is not true.
Weird focus on white people if it adds nothing to your point.
Not voting is certainly not an indication that they didn’t want trump and when dealing with a far right fascist, that is interesting. But we all can have some copium, so that we don’t need to accept that a shocking amount of people are dumb as rocks and that consequently they don’t quite care about stuff like due process, and don’t mind a fascist Leader.
At some point, we need to accept that currently the general public is conservative because they know the old ways and care too little to learn the new ones but get scared of change.
If the shoe fits, wear it. It’s weird that you think my comment “focused” on white people, and also weird that you’re trying to blame all Americans when Republicans are 90% white and the only group that the majority of which ever voted for Republicans.
Republicans are a white problem. There is no other way to put it. Sorry I’m not sorry if you’re unused to being talked about collectively., but not doing so is burying the lede. Every time you said “people”, it would be more accurate if you said “white people”, but you don’t even understand why you don’t do that.
I think it is a weird focus because it was irrelevant to your point, and the discussion at large. I could point out that American christians are far more likely to support trump than non-christians, but why? When we talk about the idea of the us electorate (that you chose to equate to american in your comment to the other guy. So I will say American too)
The collective in question was defined, “why do you think that about Americans?” To move the focus to white Americans is odd in that context. Imagine I would have said, “well republicans are far right”. You would have told me that we don’t talk about republicans but Americans. That I couldn’t and shouldn’t judge a collective by a subgroup. Yet that is what your focus on white Americans does in this conversation. It is not a bad observation, it is just a weird focus in this conversation.
And yes white Americans have voted trump in power, 61% of Americans identify as “white (not mixed)”. 71% of Americans identify as “white”. That is a huge part of the us electorate. If 57% (according to exit polls) of 71% of the us electorate vote for a fascist, of course, that is relevant and it should play a part in how I judge the us electorate.
But in the end of the day, all of that is more complicated than needed to answer the question, why do I believe the us electorate is far right. Trump won the popularity vote. You can break it up. But then we aren’t talking about your initial question, why do you think that about the us electorate? Instead we would talk about e.g. the white us electorate, certainly worth while exploring but not the topic at hand.
If you are unhappy with that, then don’t frame it as you do. I am answering your question precisely. Ask me a different question if you want to talk about a different topic. But don’t dismiss my answer because you don’t like it and claim that your comment didn’t focus onto white Americans and that the majority of the us electorate didn’t vote for trump while blaming white Americans (the absolute majority of the us electorate) for voting for trump.
I am sorry but the us is mostly white and fascist. That is what informs my opinion on us citizens as a collective.
Edit: you also seem very offended by the idea that I judge the us electorate based on a popular vote, saying that not everyone is that way. While happily blaming white Americans based on exit polls, ignoring that not everyone is that way. That is odd. Why can’t I judge the us electorate but you can judge the white us electorate?
About 40% of it is.
Stay outside and stop talking
Neoconservatism ruled the last 40 years but it’s not even a “conservative” doctrine. It’s a bipartisan Zionist foreign policy. Trump is a knee jerk response to Dems alienating people with centrist social opinions, Republicans shipping jobs overseas and both of them sustaining pointless forever wars.
Republicans shipping jobs overseas
I got news for you buddy. Look up who crafted and championed NAFTA
I’m being intentionally simplistic. Of course Dems are in on the grift of hollowing out the country.
Yeah its not just republicans doing that
I’m not American but there’s so many socialists on here refusing to vote for the lesser evil because they don’t offer the right candidates and advocating revolution.
why not take a page from the right’s clearly successful playbook and vote more in local politics and primaries. Maga managed to turn the republicans into exactly what they wanted this way, but the American left just sits there waiting for someone to start a revolution.
well I understand it might be late now and elections might not do much going forward, but jesus it’s like the only option you guys saw is voting for whoever the parties put toward or revolution.
This is a very naive take and calling someone as enthusiastic about genocide as Biden/Kamala “lesser evil” just shows you don’t give a fuck about people in the global south. I voted for the only true harm reduction candidate and that was PSL. Please, respectfully, take one second to think of the people on the other end of the barrel of the gun that is US foreign policy. Or even think about trans people and migrants in the US whom both parties continue to persecute and subjugate. Comments like yours just scream “I’m super privileged and just don’t like this one guy for being so vulgar while doing the same shit as every president before him”.
I just think you should consider not only the ideal outcome of your vote but also the most likely one. what did voting third party actually do here other than make you feel good? Trump has in fact been doing worse than kamala would have on the middle east and is gunning for a war against Iran. in addition but obviously not nearly as bad as the genocide, his tariffs will negatively impact a lot of people in southeast asia.
but more than all that, and I’m not saying you personally do this, I’m tired of people not voting in any election but the presidential and then complaining about the choices they ended up with.
what did voting third party actually do here other than make you feel good?
I’m in california lol my vote means fuck all, so why should I throw it away for Kamala? You liberals really don’t think too hard about things do you?
Also I dislike the assumption that because I don’t participate in the circus of electoral politics that I am not engaged with actual meaningful political projects year round. It shows an incredible lack of imagination or understanding of how real positive change is actually made and how political power is built. But yeah keep voting for people that hate you hoping that things will somehow get better.
I did not assume anything about you, I specifically said I wasn’t saying you personally did this. but you can’t deny there’s a decent proportion of left-leaning voters who do this.
I’m also not a liberal, neither the US usage of the term nor the original usage. But do keep insulting everyone who disagrees with you, I’m sure it will be great for attracting people to your cause
why not take a page from the right’s clearly successful playbook and vote more in local politics and primaries.
I vote in primaries. I also see how, in local races, the party pulls out all the stops to stop progressive challengers to conservative incumbents, an advantage not afforded to progressive incumbents with conservative challengers.
the party pulls out all the stops to stop progressive challengers to conservative incumbents
Progressives have won many local seats in places, so no they are not being stopped. At higher level offices yes of course they struggle to knock out funded, well known incumbents. But it’s the pitiful turnout at these primaries is the real problem. If progressives even marginally increased turnout they’d win a lot more seats.
Like I also don’t get this complaint on some level: Yes they lose to incumbents working against them. The progressive candidates are running against them and trying to take their seat. 90% of the time their rhetoric is antagonistic to the democratic party. Why would they expect a friendly, helping hand from an org they often paint as their opposition?
Progressives have won many local seats in places, so no they are not being stopped.
centrists don’t have to be 100% successful in their efforts to make sure that only republicans and centrists are allowed to run.
At higher level offices yes of course they struggle to knock out funded, well known incumbents.
So how low is the cutoff here? Where’s the line that deliniates “where progressives can win” and “where putting our thumb on the scale against progressives is acceptable”?
But it’s the pitiful turnout at these primaries is the real problem.
Cuellar beat Cisneros by like 500 votes after the party put its full weight behind him. Of course, he was a high enough level to be worth protecting. At the same level, we had Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman, who the party didn’t want to protect because they were progressive incumbents.
Why would they expect a friendly, helping hand from an org they often paint as their opposition?
Because we’ve seen decades of the democratic party offering a friendly helping hand to republicans.
You completely ignored the thrust of my argument. Why should progressives running against democrats while railing against the Democratic Party expect a helping hand from their opponent/the democratic party?
I have worked successful progressive campaigns and let me tell you, that’s not an expectation of winning candidates.
Why should progressives running against democrats while railing against the Democratic Party expect a helping hand from their opponent/the democratic party?
Why should progressives get treated worse by democrats than republicans do? You’re acting like progressives are instigating here.
Where on earth are you getting that idea? They aren’t treated worse because that makes no sense. They are in a primary, they are direct competitors. There are no Republicans in the democratic primaries.
They aren’t treated worse because that makes no sense
The messaging to progressives is “You will shut up and vote as we order you. We will never listen to your concerns and we will blame you for every loss we earn.”
The messaging to republicans is “Ok, who do we have to throw under the bus to get your support, Mr. Cheney, sir?”
Yes, progressives are treated worse. Your gaslighting is predicated on a ridiculous lie and I will not be interacting with someone who insults my intelligence as harshly as you just did.
In my city, we have a barely-there progressive, third party with a presence in the city and county government. It’s all that remains of an attempt to in the 1990’s to launch a Midwestern political party based on an electoral reform called “fusion voting,” which would allow a candidate to get the endorsement of multiple parties, and appear on the ballot multiple times as a candidate under each of those party banners. That way, the candidate would know where their support came from, without the “spoiler effect.” I learned from the Wikipedia page that it was an important tactic in the movement to abolish slavery.
But, in this case, the Democratic Party (technically, the Democratic Farm Labor Party) went to court to shoot down that idea, arguing that it was too confusing to voters. The American left isn’t just sitting here waiting for someone to start a revolution, it has two major political parties actively suppressing it.
Amusingly, one tidbit of information that I just now learned from that Wikipedia article, presented without further comment:
In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, during the heyday of the sewer socialists, the Republican and Democratic parties would agree not to run candidates against each other in some districts, concentrating instead on defeating the socialists. These candidates were usually called non-partisan, but sometimes were termed fusion candidates instead.
Because it doesn’t work. It will never work. There is no amount of voting in America will change the fact that it is and always has been ruled by the rich elites who maintain an socioeconomic system that prevents change.
Your apathy and disillusionment is affecting the rest of the world now.
Is your system broken? Yes. Could it be fixed through slow progress if people cared enough to vote, it likely could have. Bernie would have tried at least. You’re probably too far gone now for this path, but you can still prevent human rights atrocities by voting, that is still within your power.
Your belief in lies and propaganda and participation in a system that keeps you doing nothing while you are raped by the wealthy is affecting the rest of the world. Also the bombs you pay for to drop on my family. Maybe you should stand up and do something besides nothing for once in your life, voting this far has gotten the US a fascist country run by the wealthy which is exactly how it was started. I feel bad for you how deeply you fell for lies and stories for children.
Removed by mod
Naw it’s valid anger in response to “surface civility” i see “pretend intellectuals” use when they speak.
Just… repeating what talking heads say, just deadass parroting some pundit on tv like it’s gospel? Quite rage inducing.
Combined with lil comments assuming superiority? Haha of course OP got pissed. Arrogant + ignorant is a powerful combination
Enough about that.
Let’s talk about you.
You need to tend your own garden. Fascism is on the rise worldwide, including wherever you are from. Stop wagging your finger and pick up a hoe.
Removed by mod
Using ablesist terms makes you look like a douchebag.
Cringe take
Democracy has never done anything, not the creation of the Republican party, the abolition of slavery, the 19th amendment, the new deal, or the civil rights act.
Those were all conspiracies of the elites leadering the population kicking and screaming into modernity.
Edit/s
what
The American left tried very hard to get representation within the Democratic party, and the Democratic party pulled out all the stops to prevent it, in a way they would never do to oppose the Republicans, and that the Republicans would never do to oppose MAGA.
From what I remember, they repeatedly voted against anything left of what they considered centre in the primaries because they followed the theory that only centrists (or those as close to the other party as possible) win elections, by swaying swing voters in the middle. The other party had long abandoned the idea by this point however, because chasing what they considered centre often meant upsetting those finding themselves outside of that centre.
If the people voting in the primaries were more representative of those outside views, perhaps there could have been another outcome. However, not many of those people vote in primaries.
Hard to win primaries when the party itself stacks the deck against you. Or just doesn’t bother to have them at all
True, although I believe things only got so bad after the party elite had became isolated from their base, and the above is how they initially became isolated from them in the first place.
Maybe, but it happened decades ago, before most of the modern left were old enough to intervene.
I suppose you’re right. They’d been shifting for a long time.
Yup, and now they’re at the point of full on fascist genocide, and their base will engage in the most disgusting dishonesty to defend it.
why not take a page from the right’s clearly successful playbook and vote more in local politics and primaries.
Because they’re fucking lazy and would rather shitpost on Lemmy et al instead of doing something. Then they whine about how protests don’t count, voting doesn’t count, writing op eds don’t count. Apparently nothing counts ever and they have some magical solution they refuse to do. Then they vaguely gesticulate to violent solutions as they ask why somebody else doesn’t do it. It’s so fucking predictable. Don’t forget the obligatory mention of how a general strike will somehow solve it all and they’re just - wait for it - waiting for someone else to put it together.
Change takes time and a lot of not-so-glamorous, grinding work. You can’t sit around for 3.5 years waiting for the general with your thumb up your ass then go “wah wah wahhhhhhh no candidate represents me”
Because they’re fucking lazy and would rather shitpost on Lemmy et al instead of doing something.
Liberals, every accusation a confession. It is objectively and demonstrably the coward “lesser evil” voters who are lazy and refuse to do anything of value, patting themselves on the back and thinking they’ve done their “civic duty” by penciling in the bubble endorsing genocide so they can call it a day. Socialists are the ones who realize that actual work has to be done for any material difference to ever be made and you have to constantly fight systemic injustice and materially help marginalized people rather than do a little masturbatory performative nod to the status quo once every couple (or every 4) years. The people you’re calling lazy are the ones who are out there volunteering their labor to provide food and other essentials for unhoused people or people otherwise impoverished by the system of exploitation that both republican and democrat fascists force upon the world. It’s the socialists who are out in the street doing what they can to build parallel power structures that will continue to help actual people while cloistered, privileged, treat-obsessed liberals sit content in their bubble, pretending they spoke truth to power by voting for that same power.
What’s immediately hilarious about your lie is that most socialists did vote (despite knowing how insufficient it is to accomplish literally anything worthwhile) they just didn’t vote for the blue donkey version of the fascists that liberals like you worship, they voted for De La Cruz (or La Riva before her). So saying that it’s socialists who are lazy for not voting is an immediate tell that you’re either painfully ignorant or cynically lying (likely both) since most socialists did do that ineffectual bare minimum thing you foolishly think is so important, they just aren’t stupid cowards like the liberals who pretend they did such hard work by filling out a ballot for fascists. Thanks for outing yourself as being the one guilty of everything you just accused socialists of.
Have you ever experienced a stun grenade? Tear gas? Have you been grabbed by a MAGAt as he screamed “RACE TRAITOR” in your face? Have you had your camera grabbed by a Qultist as he screamed “FUCK YOU FAKE NEWS” in your face? Don’t fucking presume to know me.
That’s right, everybody knows that the left and the right are perfectly equally bad, and the act of voting to stop the bleeding and starting a revolution are mutually exclusive /s
And then after years of this nonsense, people wonder how the poor voter turnout that got the fascist elected happened.
You believe the Democrats are ‘the left’?
who said anything about the left?
You can’t stop the bleeding, liberals are permascratched now
The act of stabbing your artery in order to stop the gangrene you got from repeatedly stabbing your arteries is indeed just as bad as dipping your gangrenous tissue into your open wounds to spread it faster. Neither make you better. Neither is a true stopping point.
Or in other words, Dems are the clutch and reps are the gas. You have no brakes. You might be able to stop without a brake, maybe even stay stopped. But shits going to get worse no matter which you choose since you’re actively ignoring the brakes.
I like the metaphor of a shipwrecked sailor clinging to a piece of flotsam in the cold water a mile from shore. He’s losing body heat, and eventually hypothermia will set in and he will drown. But if he lets go and starts to swim for shore, he’ll lose body heat even faster, use up his energy, and he probably won’t make it. The “harm reduction” argument says that he should reduce his heat loss, and stay clinging to the flotsam. He’s safe right now, while attempting to get to shore is difficult and dangerous.
Of course, by the time that the fallacy of that strategy becomes apparent (*gestures at current events*), he’s too cold and weak to even attempt the swim.
2024 election was second highest turnout in 20 years wasn’t it?
Since Nixon vs. Humphrey vs. Wallace back in 1968.
In 2024 pproximately 59.0% of voting age population voted, which is 63.9% of voting eligible population.
2020 was the only year to surpass with 62.8% VAP/65.3% VEP.
3rd place is 2008 with 58.3% 61.6%.
This fact doesn’t really invalidate the initial statement though.
We would not be experiencing what we are currently experiencing presently if the Dems won. This isn’t an endorsement of the Dems, just reality
I view voting as a means to steer us to possibilities. Revolution and change won’t come through the ballot box but who gets voted in can influence that one way or another.
There’s nothing incorrect about this comment but I get the feeling you’re getting something backwards. Dems weren’t getting anyone closer to revolution, but Trump is. Under the past few Democratic admins, most of the US were complacent and they just put their faith in the imagined progressive forces of the Democratic Party to make things better. Under the Republicans, way more people get radicalized and start to look for solutions outside of electoralism. That does come with the flipside that the Republicans are more brazen about crushing dissent and arresting protesters, but Democrats also happily use the surveillance state and the militarized police against the left (see: Palestine encampment crackdowns last year).
Under the past few Democratic admins, most of the US were complacent and they just put their faith in the imagined progressive forces of the Democratic Party to make things better. Under the Republicans, way more people get radicalized and start to look for solutions outside of electoralism.
If Harris wins, the Democratic base will continue to sleep. You can do anything when the Dems are in the WH. It was under Trump that protesters shut down airport terminals, but under Biden the base sleeps regarding immigration & asylum. That’s what Glenn Greenwald and I learned from the GWB to Obama transition: the Dems sleep when their team is in office. Greenwald “changed” from hero to villain without changing the least bit; the only difference was who was in office. Unlike the Dem-aligned media, he didn’t go to sleep.
You can war as much as you want. You can run a fucking star chamber. You can stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody.
It’s not even a fact.
Conservatives could say the same thing.
The thing about a party that does nothing but maintain the status quo is they will never make things better.
I don’t think it’s healthy to feel morally superior for preventing progress.
But that is literally superior to making things worse. It’s not about feeling anything, it’s about outcomes.
At some point things need to get better.
So we need a party that is interested in change instead of stagnation.
The DNC has been stagnating and rotting my whole life.
Nothing has gotten meaningfully better under their leadership.
I wouldn’t say nothing, but yes your core argument is true. That doesn’t invalidate what I said however.
You shouldn’t make arguments for things to not get better
That is what you are saying when you reject solutions to the problem.
I’m not doing either of those things. I’m pointing out that things staying the same is preferable to them getting worse. Of course positive change is also better than stagnation. Those are both true. It’s a pretty simple scale IMO, progress > stagnation > regress. I don’t see where the misunderstanding is coming from; do you think I wouldn’t prefer progress?
deleted by creator
That’s just another way to admit you’re mainly upset about how it impacts you personally. Many, many people were already on the receiving end of US fascism and violence under Democrats.
What you’re advocating for is your own protection, and pretending it’s concern for others.
Interesting point but you’re trying very hard to twist “I don’t want any more people to get hurt” into a bad thing. I don’t think these sorts of word games or speculation where you hammer someone’s intentions into a mold that you can bash is healthy discussion.
That’s not their argument. If you have to misconstrue, you know you’re wrong.
The “we” in their argument is ambiguous as to the size of the group it’s referring to, so no, I’m not misconstruing anything. But it’s certainly more than one person (themself). Their argument is that the number of people getting hurt expanded when Trump was elected. Saying they don’t want that is therefore equivalent to saying that they don’t want more people getting hurt.
Voting for Dems is not saying ‘I don’t want anyone else to get hurt,’ as you claim they were arguing. If you look at the actual comment, they’re just saying it would be done in a different way. They quite pointedly did not imply Dems would not hurt anyone.
Given the scale of harm is quite different, I don’t think describing it as merely a different type of harm is accurate.
It is dishonest to claim the scale of the harm is different under Democrats than Republicans. Rather, it is the media attention paid to the harm that is most changed.
I am sick of this madness, pretending that a bomb dropped or a service cut or a person deported by a Democrat vs a Republican is in any way ‘harm reduction.’
yeah nice try, not working. deal with the consequences
Before you reply to me directly please understand:
- The US overthrew democracy in the country I am from
- The US installed a fascist king with secret police that terrorized my family
- Once kicked out the US supported a dictator in the neighboring country where the other half of my family lived
- The US funded both sides of a war between my country and the neighboring one that led to mass civilian deaths, one side directly by giving a dictator weapons and cash and the other side clandestinely thru laundering money by selling drugs in Latin America
- Once they lost that war turned on the dictator in the neighboring country and invented reasons to illegally invade. Twice
- Toppled the regime and left a power vacuum that consumed all my family that lived there for literally hundreds of years.
- Created material conditions in the country my family is from that forced them to leave or die
You Americans are not the good guys, your country and government is evil to its core.
There is nothing more cringe than seeing americans debating wheter they’re fascist or not due to X or Y politician rhetoric when they have been dropping bombs abroad for their entire existence.
They really thing that there’s a huge difference between their two mainstream parties.
In the U.K., the two mainstream parties are incredibly similar, but broadly speaking, we are aware of that.
They really thing that there’s a huge difference between their two mainstream parties.
In the U.K., the two mainstream parties are incredibly similar, but broadly speaking, we are aware of that.
I try to remind people that we have no “Leftist” party or even a “Centre left” party anymore. We have Center right and far right now.
The absolute highest priority in American politics should be getting rid of the 2 party system. I’m not going to pretend to know how exactly, but I think a good step in the right direction would be some form of a ranked voting system.
I keep saying this: if Democrats want me to vote for them, they need to run better candidates that represent my interests.
Why does ‘falling in line’ always have to be a one-way street? It’s always the progressives’ fault, never the centrists or neoliberals.
That’s by design, because progressives actually want to reduce the disparity in wealth. The American ‘left’ is filled of greedy, entitled consumerists just like the right. It’s why they want to squabble over the culture war while ignoring the class war.
Republicans aren’t 100% gun ho about trumps recent (and easily foreseen) fuck ups.
If we replace First-past-the-post voting, we could easily see the republican party get replaced with a more reasonable conservative party like the democrats.
Plus, you know, screaming at people unrepresented in government to vote for your preferred political party isn’t actually democracy.
If Alaska can do it, so can your state!
Electoral Reform Videos
First Past The Post voting (What most states use now)
Videos on alternative electoral systems
Alaska is an interesting place, politically. Last I knew, the major parties there were Libertarian Republicans and the Green Party. I’m not surprised they have a different voting system.
Prob because they were once Russian territory, they have Russian pluralism. Or maybe not.
The electoral reforms would certainly help, but you risk the Trudeau effect of a candidate running on them, then getting in office and saying, “Well, it can’t be that broken if I still managed to win.”
The neat part about voting is that even if you do it you can get fascism if the rest of the country are a bunch of fucking idiots.
Everyone is stupid except for me
Everyone is stupid
except for meFTFY
It’s shorter if you just write “I’m stupid”
Here is an example of a successful third party in a 2 party FPTP voting system that people keep insisting is impossible in the US because “muh RCV required”
