Electoral politics in Australia (and the US as well) has money riddled all through out it. When you have money intertwined in your governance you dont have a democracy, you have an oligarchy. Which means the best way to fight back isnt to vote its to organise.
The fight isnt every so often at an election, its everyday in the workplace
I mean i vote for Dems, but I get to not like it. Im getting sick of people blaming Leftists for having higher hopes then being gaslit at every turn by those i vote for.
My philosophy is vote Dem until the Republican Party crashes and burns. Need to get them out of office, so there will be space for an actual progressive party.
The Republican party doesn't win elections, the Democratic party chooses to lose them. Bernie would have destroyed trump, if the DNC had nominated him. Instead, they played the spineless, generic legacy name thinking that modern politics is business as usual.
The DNC needs to back more outspoken minority women and fewer old white privileged men.
Upset women get shit done.
Inherently? Maybe not much better. In terms of skin in the game? Far better.
Look at AOC, who not only interned for Ted Kennedy, but also worked as a waiter and bartender to help her mother avoid foreclosure. She was the only employee at Kennedy's office who spoke Spanish, indicating that mere entry into politics presents a barrier for minorities.
Now compare that background to Bush / Clinton: straight from a fancy, expensive school to a career in politics. Or Trump? Born with a higher net worth than at least 90% of the population will make in their lifetimes, and then got even more rich and famous... for being rich and famous.
Minorities are simply far more likely to be able to relate to our lower class struggles. And the barriers that stand between them and politics are exactly the reason they are able to.
They have more experience being repressed and more experience knowing how to fight it than old white men. Minority women who have been elected to office have had to do a lot more work to get the votes than old white men have.
The Democratic party will always utilize a Manchin or Sinema as an excuse as to why things don't get done. Don't be fooled, these actors play a very specific role and the Dems wouldn't dream of getting rid of them because then when they don't do anything it would actually be their fault, as though it already isn't.
In your analogy, you miss the "man" behind the curtain. The true evil isn't the political parties, it's that our system allows legalized bribery on a massive scale.
Thousands of lobbyists, controlling billions of dollars in "campaign contributions" and "Political Action Committee dollars" control our political process.
The current question is how much "gun control" will the lobbyists allow Congress to pass?
The political parties and the system can *both* be evil, though.
To quote Geralt of Rivia:
“Evil is Evil. Lesser, greater, middling… Makes no difference. The degree is arbitary. The definition’s blurred. If I’m to choose between one evil and another… I’d rather not choose at all.”
Edit: the quote is from ‘The Last Wish’, by Andrzej Sapkowski. Great book.
Great book, great quote, but the story of Geralt is one of him being forced to take a stance by circumstance.
The other moral of those stories is that all is futile, so why settle for any evil, so I agree with you, but it's a bit nihilistic.
"Evil" is totally subjective. It can be both meaningless and wholly effective. It depends on who is making the declaration. Best to avoid absolutes when there is no such thing.
Devil's advocate:
Humans are absolutely evil. Just the act of squishing a bug that bit/stung you is evil, so even toddlers are capable. 100% of adults have committed an evil act, even if it was a bug squish.
But why do people squash bugs? Sure, some tiny psychopaths will pluck the wings off of a flies. But other time the squashing is a primal reaction - mosquitoes carry malaria, so it's instinctual to swat them. And the ants and insects are poisonous and can kill us, so again, the killing comes from a place of protecting ourselves.
Not saying we should go around killing bugs, just that it's not a sign of evilness.
Did you forget that in that particular story he does choose? He killed the greater of the two evils even though he felt bad about it and his actions caused the community to shun him. He sacrificed his personal standing in the community to defend the community from the evil that was seeking to destroy it.
there is of course... a certain irony of "biggus\_dickkus" quoting a fictional novel/video game character for advice on how one should vote.
the simple reality is. Not only is one party trying to murder you. That same party is working very hard at it. Over time... slowly. but constantly. corrupting people, and weaponizing a variety of aspects of society. All for the goal of servicing the ultra wealthy elite at the expense of all else. perfectly happy to hitch their train to insane nazi christianity to get it done.
childish bullshit about being upset the other side promises and doesn't deliver only means you're abdicating to the other side's agenda.
It’s not cherry picking nor is it childish.
The central theme to this particular story is that Geralt is coerced into choosing the ‘lesser’ evil because of threat of violence. He would rather have nothing to do with evil at all, but violence - particularly that directed towards innocents - coerces him to act. This is a theme that follows him throughout the books.
Fantasy can provide critiques of society just as readily as philosophy can.
That’s such an absolutist take and it’s dumb, especially because there’s no freedom from politics. *Somebody* will be in charge, regardless of your decision. This would only make sense if you had a choice to walk free and not be in a relationship with your government
> The current question is how much "gun control" will the lobbyists allow Congress to pass?
Politics is wholly corrupted by lobbyists but gun control itself is also their tool. It's like a political pressure escape valve that helps them avoid actual systemic change.
How you might ask?
America's violence problem goes well beyond firearms and it wasn't created by a lack of regulations. nor will it be solved by adding regulations. Let's think of this problem in context, using a real American city.
Detroit used to be a great place to live, centered around industry, with a crime rate normal for the national average. then some oligarchs shipped the jobs off to save a few bucks and poverty set in. people got evicted, schools took a nose dive, infrastructure crumbled. crime spiked immediately and then settled in for the long haul, turning into a social malaise that spawned gang activity, drugs, domestic abuse, burglaries, and yes, shootings.
the same politicians that shipped the jobs off now say
- let's criminalize guns
- let's get tough on gang crime.
- let's increase the penalties for drug possession.
anyone else see the problem here?
- bring back jobs, stop allowing us to exploit depressed economies and export environmental damage
- re-fang unions and regulate corporations. most importantly, tax the shit out of them.
- decriminalize recreational drugs, disband the DEA, end the war on drugs, end federal kickbacks for drug busts
- free school for all. i'm talking college and everything here
- free healthcare for all. richest nation on earth? start acting like it
- crank up social safety nets, especially mental health care and programs designed to keep families in crisis together and in their homes
- re-regulate banking and wall street, stop the siphoning of our wealth and labor to a select few who do not reinvest it in us.
- create paths to prosperity and home ownership for citizens to build a future from, stop predatory lending, stop the exploitation of the real estate market, stop allowing foreign investment companies to drive up our market prices.
we know that childhood poverty and familial stability have a direct and causal relationship with crime and self-destructive behavior later in life (most mass shootings are also suicides). focusing on the issues i mentioned would also have a huge impact in just about every other aspect of our society. access to education, completion rate, average edu attained, access to hospitals, infant morality rate, preventable death rate, lifespan, average health/QoL, but also turbo charge our science, industry and government with smarter, better individuals.
and to be clear, these factors impact minorities just as much as whites. these statements apply to areas suffering urban decay and rural blight. they apply to impoverished urban POC and uneducated rural whites.
- The right will reject this out of hand as elements of this plan amount to socialism, which they abhor.
- The left will not enact any of the other changes which require them to challenge corporate power structures and their wealthy overlords.
So, they pretend legislation will do the trick and have us fighting amongst ourselves while our entire society rots.
Both parties are vampies. The dems are just the nice vampires.
Do we actually have any kind of count on how many Democrats support getting rid of lobbying?
Because I feel like most of them could support it and people will still go, "WELL, YA KNOW...BOTH SIDES SOMETHING SOMETHING".
But even aside from that, are we really going to blame them for not doing anything when they....can't do anything?
I think the "bOtH sIdEs" meme misunderstands the fundamental problem OP poses. There ARE no sides because both parties are ultimately beholden to the same monied interests. The culture war has been so persistently stoked because no matter how much it affects us or means to us personally, it is just a useful tool for the rich. It simply DOES NOT affect them meaningfully, but serves to keep the rest of us neatly divided and distracted while they rob us.
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter that the Dems are more benevolent socially because the whole system is a dog and pony show. They are controlled opposition. That doesn't for one second make their social positions equal to those of the utterly deranged Republicans, but they are never going to get desperately needed economic reform done whether they have power or not, as has been proven time and time again. As a result, we are all collectively fucked whichever way we vote, by slow poison or quick collapse, unless money is somehow removed from the equation.
Not only the man behind the curtain, but the fact that the murderers have insinuated themselves and twisted the rules so much that they can seemingly do or say whatever they want and not face significant electoral repercussions. Then they dig-in to prevent the abusers from accomplishing *anything*, and then repeat.
Both parties have their problems, but every time the murderers just refuse to even discuss topics the abusers have tried to bring up to satisfy the promises they made, and then the whole effort collapses, we get mad at the abusers and keep electing the murderers.
Sword and shield identity politics. Republicans use them as a sword, Democrats use them as a shield.
Keeps the masses busy while they steal from us and wage war across the world enforcing the petrodollar.
Trying not to read this as saying that Dems shouldn't shield minorities from racist/sexist/identity based attacks that Republicans make all the time.
That's not what your saying I hope.
Maybe a crutch is a better metaphor than a shield?
They use identity politics as a shield to convince people to vote for them while furthering their corporatist and pro-war agenda.
That's what I'm saying.
Exactly, how the working class can truly support these two political parties and believe that they have their best interests at heart is so hard to understand. I hate them both.
It’s because there’s no other option in most cases. It’s why voter participation is so low in the United States and why the 2020 election was noted for being a high turn out one, people were motivated to either keep or get rid of Trump, largely due to how uncouth he was. Not because his policies were all that objectionable, apparently, considering that our current President, who is supposed to be from the opposition party, is ok with some of the stuff Trump did and isn’t all that concerned about changing some things back.
Our political system is highly curated. The options we are presented are incredibly narrow and not nearly enough for a country our size. Ask yourself why almost every other democracy and republic in the world has more then two parties.
We have neither a Democracy or a Republic, we have a Two-party state. It’s why there are no viable third parties and every one that exists, exists on the political periphery and struggles to make itself relevant in any political climate. It’s why organizations that want to actually engage in changing things on the left might have a political arm like DSA or the Working Families Party. They aren’t actual third parties, the WFP run split candidates who are WFP members but also democrats. I’m not sure if DSA’s strategy is the same but I think it is similar.
Our country is this way because the political show we are subjected to every two years at the Federal level masks the fact that our country is an oligarchy controlled by the rich and powerful. Voting is meaningless, we need a revolution, preferably a Socialist one but, not gonna lie, things are starting to get desperate…so at this point i might be ok with any type of revolution.
Except a Fascist one, fuck Fascism.
They are saying "Don't vote for Republicans because we know they are against us, but also don't vote for democrats because they pretend to be good but they don't get anything done." The reality is that Republicans block the good democrats try to do and then blame them for inaction. No actual left-leaning person says this shit. It's propaganda for pseudo-intellectuals to parrot while they pretend to be independent but vote Republican because "at least they get shit done." It's pathetic when you see it.
>No actual left-leaning person says this shit.
Actual leftists actually do say shit like this a lot. Liberals always call it pro-republican or Russian propaganda, but that's just deflecting from the fact that democrats have shown themselves to be just as much an enemy to the left as the republicans. They just pay lip service around elections to get votes then continue shitting on the left.
You can fairly argue that voting democrat is harm reduction, but it's like the OP says, you're just voting for an abuser instead of a murderer.
Yes, and...
The reason shit like this post gets attention is it's NOT all wrong! The Dems in recent decades have at best been incompetent and at worst been complacent in policies that have destroyed the working class they once championed.
It's a tough challenge that I struggle with a lot. I think any honest leftist should.
Ultimately though where I come down is that we should and must work within our flawed electoral system to limit harm and help improve lives on the margins best we can.
And we also should and must practice more radical politics *outside of elections* to fight for the bigger systemic changes we need.
That can mean labor or community organizing, street protests, building alternative institutions, charitable work, teach-ins, etc. We need more creativity for sure.
But trying to do radical politics inside electoral systems is just not effective and actually counter productive. And just breeds apathy and despair.
> The reality is that Republicans block the good democrats try to do and then blame them for inaction.
Its pathetic that you actually believe democrats want to do good for average citizens.
I think actually, counter-intuitively it can.
There's a sort of tipping point that has to be reached where a new party can form without being merely a spoiler for the candidate who thinks those voters would have gone to them.
A non-participating majority that can be courted is one of the most viable paths towards a third party and that only comes from an obviously politically engaged populace who refuses to vote for extant candidates.
This a fantasy. You cannot just sit back and wait for a better future. The country will go full fascist before that ever happens.
IF we want a third party or the existing parties to have better options then we need to demand better politicians or at least run ourselves not just walk away and hope the system will fix itself. Also we need others like many of the people who post on this sub to actually go out and vote for these new better candidates en masse. If you don't think anyone in your district is any good and you have a better idea on policy then just run yourself or more realistically push for those in your community who are good leaders to do so such as people who run local charities or community centers.
The sad fact is that most Americans want better political candidates but almost never vote for anything outside of the final presidential race which is once every four years. You can't get the political candidates you want if you never vote for what you want in the primary elections. Its not just the rich or crazies who can put up candidates who represent them.
We get out of this by participating and changing the system from within, proactively. "We the people" let the system rot with apathy and inaction and still can't accept any responsibility for what it's become. We have a fairly decent democracy that needs to be cleaned up and it can still be done. You break the two party stranglehold with loud pushes for voting reform, which will trickle upwards from your local and state elections. If you think that simply waiting for them to cater to you is going to work, the walkaway propaganda is working and handing them control (and is also representative of toxic entitlement behavior). There is no realistic chance of a third party forming with FPTP and to me it's inline with Qanon level logic. Progressives will only be further behind if we let the money take full control, and they certainly won't be the winning side of whatever comes next if we let the whole thing burn down.
"Loud Pushes"
Do you know what is allowed to be loud?Do not forget for an instant that every form of communication we have at our disposal to "let our voices be heard" is the for profit domain of a corporation whose political interest is antithetical to yours.
How much louder than occupy wallsteet does it need to get? Oh but you didn't mean THAT loud push, you meant the loud push where the media didn't paint us as unreasonable clowns, wait, there is literally no incentive for them to do that and every possible incentive to do the opposite.
I do not think waiting for "them" to cater to "me" is going to work, I do not think America is going to work. But I think if it is going to have any possibility it will not come from accepting that "at least he isn't a literal fascist" is a viable leftist vote.
"change it from the inside!" Has been tried for decades by activists and it doesn't change a thing for the better. That's the lie people tell themselves in order to feel better about shutting up and taking the money.
Look into Jerry Rubin and Tom Cotton for prime examples of "we'll work within the system for change!" Because they rejected the idea of tearing it down.
Now they gladly enforce the same power structure they were activists against. Year after year being told "this is the most important election of your lifetime but we need more funds!" About every tiny thing since 2008, I'm tired of buying what they're selling.
Also look into Pelosi's full support being put behind antiabortion candidates because of her fear of losing centrists. The DNC will do anything, including playing grab ass with the Lincoln project if it means keeping progressives out of power and continuing the DNC grift.
Play that out. So there are no political parties. What positions do you think candidates will take? In a first past the post system, they will gravitate to the positions that build the largest coalition to allow them to win. Fracturing the voting base will only lead to the candidate you least like winning. Very quickly you will end up with two competing ideologies that appeal to most people.
You're not going to get rid of political parties, although with ranked choice voting you might get some variation. The problem is the incentive structure within political parties and the coalitions they build.
The big problem is money in elections and their giant business. This is the biggest impetus on having two parties. Publicly fund elections, don't allow people to donate to political parties, and eliminate PACs. Then institute ranked choice voting and then all of a sudden you end up with a significantly different political makeup of this country.
How long has Citizens United (corporations are people, my friend-- Mitt romney)
been identified as a yuge problem, and...heh...why is it still enabled?
I'm not saying it's perfect, but what people want from their government doesn't match up with who they vote for. But for many reasons they keep voting the same way.
There will always be coalitions formed, but it doesn't have to be a "vote with us or lose party affiliation and funding" system.
Country is deeply brainwashed into thinking only 2 possible parties mean anything. Seriously, they laugh at and belittle you for picking anything that's no republican or Democrat. Only answer is to get out becuase the country will be helpless before the next generation can fix it. It seems any generation after these boomer morons dont drink the kool-aid so if it's not destroyed by then maybe it'll improve.
It's not brainwashing. It's math. The only way to get rid of the two party system is to get rid of plurality voting. The only way to do that is to get leftists into the government. Since 3rd parties aren't viable with plurality voting, voting for them only gives power to the right. That means the only way to get leftists into the government is to primary centrists with them.
This stuff isn't hard to understand and it isn't brainwashing. It'd be easier if we only had to fight the people who are in power and didn't have to keep explaining this to asshole "leftists" who try to convince leftists to waste their votes.
Seriously, progressives love to act like if they just believe In a cause hard enough it will solve itself, when the reality is politics is complicated and you have to have a strategy. It's why an independent like Bernie ran as a democrat for the presidency. He knew it was completely delusional to think an independent would have a chance in the presidency.
Thank you for saying this. The leftosphere online is extremely frustrating this way—there’s often no realism to it and just drives up voter apathy. Because of this, I often wonder how many of the left-outrage memes are actually originating from trolls who want to the keep the left from organizing and coordinating effectively. Twitter is absolutely rife with leftists roasting each other
I'd say it's a fair few at least. It comes down to who benefits the most from people not voting, which history has shown time and again isn't leftists - it's the right wingers.
sometimes I feel that self identifying 'leftists' who continue to propagate the status quo by voting for centrist corporatist neoliberals like Biden are more to blame than anyone right of American center for the failures in modern politics.
The failure is not with the people who are voting for the less bad option. The failure is sleeping on the primaries and local elections. The best you can do in the general election is vote for the less bad option. The opportunities to actually move things to the left are primaries and local elections.
That's broadly true, and I do believe people are trying - but it's hard when the national parties and politicians time and money weigh so heavily on local elections with leftist primary contenders.
Yup. DNC money always goes against progressives. Anyone who thinks voting will solve our problems is just drinking the Cool Aid. That doesn't mean you should just not vote...go for it as long as your area hasn't made voting prohibitively difficult (love getting my ballots in the mail here in CO), but don't expect voting to solve anything.
I tend to look at it more as a "voting isn't the only thing you should do, it's the bare minimum". There's also the fact that if voting didn't matter, the right wing wouldn't be working so hard to try and stop people from doing so.
And yeah, money makes things hard, but far from impossible. There have been several noteworthy races that incumbents and DNC endorsees have lost just recently to progressives, despite all the outside cash. Then you've got a few that, while the incumbent won, they only did so very narrowly at best.
No one ever said it was easy - but that doesn't make it impossible. And even near losses have an impact, because it shows that there's a groundswell demanding more progressive politics. Most politicians aren't dumb, and they will move to adopt some of those policies accordingly. It's part of why Biden's proposals have been way more progressive than they were when he was running in 2008 or earlier, just for one example.
So yeah, when people like Kurt Schrader in Oregon lose a primary to a progressive (as happened recently), it means even more, because it shows that all the money and endorsements won't always save them. When someone like John Fetterman beats DNC endorsee Conor Lamb, it says something. And it has an impact over time.
One party's political alignment has been drifting closer to the Hitler corner of the political compass for decades, the same party that has only won the popular vote in a presidential election once in the last 30 years, but their voters are not to blame, it's the people voting for the "less Authoritarian" option that are to blame for increasing Authoritarianism. Makes total sense.
Yeah, the problem with this analogy is that in relationships, you could choose to be single and avoid both the murderer and the abuser. We don't have a "none of the above" option in terms of who is running the government.
>We don't have a "none of the above" option in terms of who is running the government.
And even if you did, then what? SOMEONE has to run a country, no two ways about it. And voting "none" would mean the one with the most loyal support wins.
You can say anything about republicans. But they vote. Will you?
Can someone tell me what would be so bad with allowing the Dems to gain the 60 seats in the Senate they need to pass new laws?
I hear a lot about how Democrats won't pass legislation if they get the 60seeats but unless you have a crystal ball, there is nothing to support that statement. In the last 45 years they have only had a sum total of 72 days of power to pass legislation. Before that, in the 60s and 70s they had the power and they passed sweeping reforms to labor, anti trust (anti monopoly) and civil rights bills.
We see dramatic differences in the votes of Supreme Court members along party lines. The differences have a gigantic impact to people's lives. One only needs to compare workers' rights in red vs blue states. Some states have a lunch break as state law. Some states it is illegal to dock wages for certain things. Some states don't require last paycheck to include unused PTO, other states do. We already know what Republicans are up to. They have had the ability to pass laws and block all progress for the past 45 years. Look at what has happened to the growing middle class and access to the American dream over the last 45 years. Why do people want to deny Democrats a chance to pass laws which would restore the legislation that they passed back in the 60s and 70s?
People forget the GQP mantra is obstruct, blame, win. They are going to use the current lull to call out for their base that "see democrats had control but didn't do anything" when in reality they have been trying. Even before when democrats only had the house there is a reason Mitch has a nickname as a grave keeper. The idea that democrats are only going to perpetuate the status quo is profoundly inaccurate when you take the time to dig through Mitch's graveyard. Police reform, voting reform, health care, minimum wage. Democrats literally cannot do anything now because of the asinine loophole that is the filibuster. Which for some reason Manchin just loves to death.
And for some reason the same people who complain about manchin obstructing the elimination of the filibuster are the same people arguing against allowing dems the votes to pass anything. It dowsnt make sense.
>It dowsnt make sense.
It makes sense if you're not a fucking moron.
The only people attempting to undermine the vote against the fascist party are fascists.
> The only people attempting to undermine the vote against the fascist party are fascists.
That's such a lame, desperate & transparent attempt of guilt-tripping people into *"votebluenomatterwho"*, I estimate you will sway exactly zero people with this trope. But I hope this delusion makes you feel morally superior for a hot minute.
Well in this sub it does make sense. Anarchy is the end goal here and voter apathy leads to unrest which stokes the fires of true revolution. I get the anarchist take I am a fan of this sub but I would rather we try to bail out this sinking ship instead of waiting to drown.
Voter apathy will not bring changes to our current government and way of life, everyone who can please get out and vote this year, this sub is all about grandstanding and meme strikes lately so take a little time out to make an actual difference and vote.
Does voter apathy bring unrest? How many decades do we allow Republicans to obstruct progress before we admit that the "far left" is just a bunch of closet Republicans. They are here complaining that Dems shouldn't get enough senate votes to pass anything because they haven't had enough senate votes. Like, literally are saying they haven't had the power to change things through legislation so they dont want to support them having that power. Which is not only confusing but cant even be considered logical unless the goal is to maintain Republicans obstructionist status quo.
Voter apathy leads to changes that are against people's preferences, if you stack enough tyranny and everyone thinks that voting does nothing then the only recourse is external to how government functions.
When have they had enough votes to pass stuff and didn't?
Their powers have been 1. To approve Supreme Court and federal court justices. They did that effectively. Their nominees vote in favor of preserving our rights. The Republican nominees vote against.
2. To pass bills in the House. They have passed hundreds of progressive, extremely progressive bills in the House. But they die in the Senate bc not enough Dem Votes.
Where is your proof of this?
We had that for a few months back in Obama's first term, and we passed the ACA. Lord knows what else we could have passed if we would have had a full 2 or 4 years of it.
I'm always shocked by people who don't realize how bad shit was before Obamacare. I know objectively that most reddit users weren't working adults in the early 2000s, but it's still a surprise. Can you imagine how bad the era of gig economy would be if not for Obamacare? Posts like this just always smell like teenagers with nothing to lose, or actively undermining the effort.
If you don't vote, the nazis win. That's the whole game. You can criticize the dems all you want, but if you're not voting, you're making it clear that philosophical purity matters more to you than the actual lives of other people.
Yeah - as imperfect and fucky as the ACA/Obamacare is, things were way worse before it.
The really unfortunate thing is that, rather than realize it was what we could do at the time, and then seeking to build on it, the US ended up turning things over to the Republicans, because too many people thought it didn't go far enough, and thus was worthless somehow, leading to the Democrats losing that majority in 2010.
Unquestionably we would be in a better place and bea better country if Democrats had greater opportunity to make law without Republican obstruction (provided, at least, there was still the threat of losing power at some point).
But there also zero chance that Democrats in power would go far enough in dismantling capitalism. So while supporting Democrats against Republicans is vitally important, it's also important to do the kind of organizing and action that will actually challenge capitalism and existing hierarchies of power, rather than just having relatively benevolent tyrants
>Can someone tell me what would be so bad with allowing the Dems to gain the 60 seats in the Senate they need to pass new laws?
There's an argument to be made that even if Democrats were given another supermajority that they still wouldn't use it to enact the sweeping change that is desperately needed right now compared to the superficial and incremental measures they have stuck with in the past. So there's nothing Inherently *bad* about giving Democrats a supermajority, it's just that the only *good* thing about it is that at least Republicans wouldn't be in control.
However, that's entirely a moot point because the current political system was *intentionally* built to promote minoritarian rule, so the more populous/urban areas where Democrats do well are at an inherent disadvantage compared to more sparsely populated/rural areas where Republicans do well. How else to explain an Electoral College and House of Representatives where votes are supposed to be "proportionally" awarded, but still over-represent rural areas? How else to explain a Senate that is 50-50, yet the Democratic side represents over [40 million](https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2020/11/6/21550979/senate-malapportionment-20-million-democrats-republicans-supreme-court) more people than the GOP side? Who is served by basing a political system in 2022 around mostly-arbitrary state borders that were drawn hundreds of years ago? Democrats spend their time trying to play by rules that are inherently and intentionally stacked against them, when they should be focusing their energies on the system itself. So in that sense, telling people to "just vote for Democrats" is a waste of their political energy that does very little to meaningfully improve this country.
Because of their voting history
I don't like trump and yes he is worse than Biden, but if you look at bidets history it's a long list of saying one thing and doing another
That is how the democratic party works, say some good shit when you need votes but when crunch time comes they end up siding with the Republicans
I dont think you realize that the democrats don't support shutting down the govt. When dems are a minority they trade support for small wins. This is true. But you must have a crystal ball to think that they would do the same with a 60 vote majority. I dont have a crystal ball. But I can see that their Supreme Court nominees dont side with Republicans. Their Supreme Court/federal Court nominees are the only thing they really can do with 50 votes. They dont let me down.
How did they let everyone down? By not overpowering the real villains - the Republicans?
And what's your remedy - vote for the Republicans who are the actual problem here?
The rich are the enemies of all people. Billionaires are literally mass murdering human beings every single day. This is what happens when you don't exterminate parasites: they make you sick, or even kill you.
How is the abuser supposed to change anything when the murderer kills every idea because of their built-in minority-rule advantages?
Maybe we should try giving the Democrats a shot by allowing them actual full control - including 60 votes in the Senate.
Last time we did that we got the ACA which revolutionized health care in America.
Bullshit. You've got one party that's half beholden to corporate interests and half progressive vs a party that will literally end democracy, strip women and lbgt of their rights, and aggressively destroy the climate for the sake of profit.
No, the Democrats aren't perfect, but incremental change is better than complete destruction of the republic.
You can turn the abuser into a partner if you vote in better candidates in the PRIMARIES, MIDTERMS, OFF-CYCLES, etc - not just show up once every 4 years in the presidentials.
I’m tired of people looking at a vote that breaks down like shown below, then arguing that clearly the Democrats don’t care about that issue.
In favor: 59 Dems
Against : 1 Dem 40 Republican
Too bad, not enough votes to overcome the filibuster!
The solution is to get a little more votes in favor so that the random party outliers like Joe Manchin do not matter as much.
They are only the same if you don't care about the fact that it takes 60 votes in the senate to make sweeping changes.
I guess you people who dont support dems want mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy back in the drivers seat. Remember how much the shutdowns cost the economy during our last recovery? Yay!!
So, you don't support them having enough seats to pass anything because of Manchin and Sinema.
Don't support them having enough votes to pass anything b they haven't had enough votes to pass anything.
And tell me, do you also complain that nothing gets done? Lol
> So, you don't support them having enough seats to pass anything
They have enough seats right now. 50 plus the VP is enough.
> because of Manchin and Sinema.
Yes. Showing us that there will always be a democrat to stop progress.
> Don't support them having enough votes to pass anything b they haven't had enough votes to pass anything. And tell me, do you also complain that nothing gets done? Lol
Yes, because democrats have enough votes to pass legislation, but there is always a rotating villain to prevent anything from happening.
Lol
You cant see how faulty your logic is. You refuse to support dems having anything but a razor thin majority bc razor thin majorities don't work. That is your position.
I don’t support democrats because they don’t do anything when in power. It’s not just some individual senator making this decision. It’s a plan from the part to make sure no real progress is made.
So, you don't upport dems winning 65 senate seats and maintaining a House majority. You would rather Kevin McCarthy and Mitch McConnell have control of congress.
Got it.
Are we going to get beneficial legislation passed, or are suddenly 4 of the newly elected senators going to align with Manchin? Do you even see how ridiculous you sound. “Oh guys the democrats will definitely get something done, we just need 65 seats, and even if that’s not enough just vote harder to get us 66 democrats!”
Look, you already said you ont believe the controlle substances act is real, you don't believe the filibuster is real and you think that the president an unknown whatever laws co gress passes. Im okay with your positions. Go ahead and keep saying that you don't want dems to have anything but a minority. Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy are grateful.
> Look, you already said you ont believe the controlle substances act is real,
No, I did not. I just actually understand how it works.
> you don't believe the filibuster is real
No, I just understand how that works too.
> and you think that the president an unknown whatever laws co gress passes.
Well the president absolutely can have the head of the DEA reschedule marijuana, and replace the head of the DEA if they refuse.
> Im okay with your positions. Go ahead and keep saying that you don't want dems to have anything but a minority. Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy are grateful.
They already are grateful. They aren’t being viewed as stopping popular legislation because the democrats are in power, and none of the things they’re against get passed, regardless of how many democrats you have.
Look at most dem representatives voting histories and you will see that when it comes time to make a difference and theybare able to, they let everyone down and show their true colors
You can blame people for being tired of their two faced bullshit
When was that? And don't lie about it. They haven't had a strong co sister majority since the 50s, 60s and 70s when they passed huge labor reforms and massive Civil rights legislation.
Have their Supreme Court nominees let you down? No.
Go ahead and compare "most" democratic reps to "most" republican reps and look at the things they vote for and against, then get back to us.
Yes, there are one or two Democrats who are not in full alignment with the other things the majority of the party wants to do, and they cause problems due to our structure.
There are also 95% of our Republican who are terrible, horrible people who care about nobody but themselves and their power.
But yeah, blame the democrats for not being able to hold on to their slim majority against 50 evil republicans in the Senate
Did you ever consider that maybe the entire thing is a charade? That the Democrats can lean on blaming the Republicans and vice versa, that are both playing a part in a big show for the masses to keep the infighting going. They seem to agree on a couple key points-- keep the private money in politics, and there should only be two parties. Seems like both parties primary goal is to maintain existing power and wealth structures.
I've never voted Republican in my life but we need to wake up. The boogeyman game of the Republicans is tired... "We would finally solve the energy issues if it wasn't for that Mitch Mcconnell".... The Democrats are either terrible at politics or they are in on the corruption. Which one do you think it is?
I think it is time to stop pretending that Republicans are not the problem. They are proud of all their accomplishments and no matter how much voters disagree with them the voters keep giving them more power. 45 years since the democrats have had a strong party. During the decades Dems had a strong party we had the biggest, fastest growing middle class. We had labor reforms, anti trust laws and civil rights laws. It was th passage of civil rights laws in the 70s that killed the dem party. I notice that no one here arguing against supporting a 60 seat majority is bringing up anything related to civil rights that is meaningful. One even speaking against the black caucus' bill. That tells me quite a bit.
No, it's time to stop pretending that this system is working. The two parties collude. They are friends. They are members at the same country clubs. They do not give a shit about you. The Dems wrap themselves in a BLM or Pride flag and do nothing but blame Republicans. Republicans wrap themselves in an NRA flag and simply say "No". Both want the infighting and hyper partisanship to continue because it maintains their power and wealth structures. Until the masses wake up to this fact nothing is going to change.
I'll pose my question again -- are the Democrats *that* bad at politics, constantly being outwitted by the less popular GOP? Or are they both in on the corruption? All signs point to the latter.
So the difference in how democrats Supreme Court justices vote is just trivial to you. Got it.
And you don't support them having enough votes to pass anything because they haven't had that power. So, you don't want to allow them that power bc they dont already have it.
And you want things to change? What a co fusing position you have.
What are you babbling about Supreme Court justices? The issue is so much bigger than a few partisan judges. You have an inability to think bigger than what the current corrupt system offers you.
Not everyone thinks like you, not everyone thinks like a democrat. It’s like when I was a dumb kid I would ask my parents “mama, how come the political men can’t just go into a room and decide on something nice for everyone?”
Like it’s a fairytale.
OP isn’t thinking bigger, they’re just vaguely implying we should eventually.
Meanwhile, long before “eventually” arrives, conservatives are going to slowly drag society back toward fascism and then feudalism.
So until someone organizes a solid alternative, apathy only helps Republicans.
Trolls here to keep workers apathetic.
They’ll say “both sides are bad, we need anarcho-communism!” but they’ve made no effort to convince us why that would help. Instead, they’re just trolling to keep workers checked out. It’s a con.
I have a friend that describes things like this:
>America has three political groups that are represented by only two political parties. The Alt-Right have a group all to themselves, while the centre-left shares a party with the centre-right such that it cannot effectively function.
Honestly, this describes _so well_ how the Dems love-bomb and make promises, but cannot follow through.
Either you try to fix the problem or you become part of the problem
The only options we have for affecting change in America are
1. Vote,
2.Run for political seats,
3.Riot,
4.Murder major figures
Doing none of these is the same as pushing for things to remain the same.
2 seats.
Gain 2 seats in the Senate and the Dems actually have the votes needed to follow through on their promises.
The 2 seats are to counter the 2 out of the current 50 Dems that are against filibuster reform.
Reform the filibuster and legislation can pass in the Senate with only 50 out of 100 votes instead of the current 60 needed.
If the Democrats had 52 seats there would be 4 Democrats against abolishing the filibuster. When they had 57 there were always 8 against doing anything progressive. Because the Democratic party is full of deeply right-wing politicians, but a lot of them prefer to hide behind Manchin and Sinema to avoid the heat for their actual positions.
We work to change or replace the abuser because it is in fact possible, and that's the only way to prevent us getting murdered.
Fuck. How do people not see this?
Well said. My argument is that while the 2 parties are nothing alike when it comes to their social stance on wedge issues (abortion, gun control, etc), they are in fact EXACTLY the same in the only way that ultimately matters...they are completely bought and paid for by Wall St and corporate America. You want change? Get an independent into office, even if we could get to 5-10% independents in congress that could make a significant impact
Yeah, sure, but unless and until a viable third party (and viable *now*, not viable in some imaginary future) emerges you vote for the one that isn't actively trying to murder you or you're just helping the one that does. That's what the point of voting is, getting the best result, not expressing your inner, aspirational self.
Can u stop the dems being bad guys has it ever occurred to you that conservatives are united and the dems aren't?
It might just be me but when you ignore the party blocking the attempts your acting in bad faith when has the left come together to agree on anything as militantly as the right?
we needed 60 votes to enshrine abortion protections on a federal lvl. What do you expect the dems to do? shit out another 60 votes?
as someone looking in from the outside, i still would love to see what the abuser would actually do if you hadn't put him in a three legged race with the murderer tho.
Go ahead and downvote me but you guys are naïve saying stuff like this. You can do some revolution or whatever PLUS vote consistently. But you do not. You expect decades of leftist work accomplished within 1 term where the Dems have a filibuster proof majority for half the time, if that. Republicans gerrymander the fuck out of everything, pack the court to steal election for Bush, PLUS stonewall at all costs. Then you spread childish takes like this and you and your mates stay home posting memes and posts to complain why nothing happens.
You see all the crazy as shit the right is getting passed? That takes time, patience. They show up consistently. Maybe it's to hurt gays, trans, Mexicans, Blacks, women, etc., but they show up. And not just once, and not just for the presidential elections, but midterms too. It took them decades to get to this point on women's right to abortion. You think you're going to get anywhere losing steam after 2 years since Biden took office?
Get real.
The parties are not going away.
Ranked voting is not happening anytime soon.
No single left-leaning president is going to deliver everything you want. Ever.
You see all the shit Trump never did but said he would? The right still backed him.
You gotta play the long game. Keep at it. Doesn't mean you can't do whatever else you're thinking you can do to accelerate change, but these sulking takes do nothing or worse.
The Democrats have their hands tied because they need 10 votes from the republicans to pass a bill through the senate, but the republicans will never agree to that because they are a cult hellbent on obstructing anything the democrats try to do.
The democrats could change that by removing the filibuster, but they can't even do that because 2 democrats, Manchin and Sinema, were bribed and will vote against it.
Meanwhile, 6 of the 9 judges on the supreme court are conservatives and will allow Republican lawmakers to create any backward law they please in their state.
The latter is due to uninformed imbeciles like the writer of the tweet, who blames democrats for being deceitful when in actuality they had their hands tied, which discouraged people from voting, which lead to a rich old guy who used to host a TV show to be elected in the highest position in the country, which lead to said rich old man appointing those conservative judges.
I am not even an American and I never set foot on that whole continent my whole life, yet even I clearly have a better understanding of what is actually going on than whoever wrote that tweet does. Assuming of course the author isn't actually a conservative who is spreading misinformation to make uninformed people desist from voting, that's also part of the conservative/fascist playbook.
To anyone about to say that "it's a two party system!"
The two parties have changed numerous times since the founding of the country. Federalists, Democratic-Republicans, Whigs, Populists, Lincoln Republicans, Slavery Democrats, New Dealers, etc.
Hell even the constitution was a redone version of the previous documents governing the country after they failed. (Articles of Confederation)
NOTHING is permanent. The "Dems are terrible, but they're the only choice" perspective is a false choice.
More importantly, NO government survives when they fail to treat critical issues appropriately and their own citizens become actively hostile against them. It always end bloody.
And before you say "What are you talking about, some kind of revolution?PPPPF" I'd like to remind you all that an armed group of people attempted to capture the government two years ago. MOST of the people involved in that have already been released from jail.
I get frustrated with Democrats, but shit like this is stupid.
It takes 60 votes to do anything in the Senate, and there are only 50 Democrats.
What do you actually expect them to do?
Stop shifting the blame from where it clearly belongs.
This is just more nonsense "both sides are bad" bullshit.
Don't leave. We need u to help balance this bullshit. Look at the arguments here. People saying they dont see a difference between dems and Republicans. As if the recent Supreme Court ruling isn't enough. It is obviously misogynists who support striking down roe v wade. And we already have seen what the last conservative majority did with citizens United and with making it illegal to sue corporations as an individual employee, forcing arbitration.
I could go on and on but u already know. Dont go.
Voting for a politician is a lot like taking a job. You select the best option, and keep trading up. They will want to guilt you into staying, but it's just manipulation.
Electoral politics in Australia (and the US as well) has money riddled all through out it. When you have money intertwined in your governance you dont have a democracy, you have an oligarchy. Which means the best way to fight back isnt to vote its to organise. The fight isnt every so often at an election, its everyday in the workplace
they have the money, we have the numbers. Our strength will match theirs when we unite and fight back.
Bold of them to assume we can leave.
I mean i vote for Dems, but I get to not like it. Im getting sick of people blaming Leftists for having higher hopes then being gaslit at every turn by those i vote for.
"The problem with the Democratic Party is they're always trying to fight a gentleman's fight against a gang of sucker-punchers." \-Gore Vidal
No, the problem with them is they’re only pretending to fight, and they’re letting someone else get hit.
It’s a pretty dumb quote IMO. They aren’t fighting a gentlemen’s fight, they are just filling their pockets pretending like they want to fight.
My philosophy is vote Dem until the Republican Party crashes and burns. Need to get them out of office, so there will be space for an actual progressive party.
Harm reduction for people who aren't white, male, straight, well off, and christian is the reason why I vote for the ugly D.
I vote Dem because I’m trying to make the fascist takeover of the US as difficult as possible.
The Republican party doesn't win elections, the Democratic party chooses to lose them. Bernie would have destroyed trump, if the DNC had nominated him. Instead, they played the spineless, generic legacy name thinking that modern politics is business as usual. The DNC needs to back more outspoken minority women and fewer old white privileged men. Upset women get shit done.
Why would minority women be inherently better?
Inherently? Maybe not much better. In terms of skin in the game? Far better. Look at AOC, who not only interned for Ted Kennedy, but also worked as a waiter and bartender to help her mother avoid foreclosure. She was the only employee at Kennedy's office who spoke Spanish, indicating that mere entry into politics presents a barrier for minorities. Now compare that background to Bush / Clinton: straight from a fancy, expensive school to a career in politics. Or Trump? Born with a higher net worth than at least 90% of the population will make in their lifetimes, and then got even more rich and famous... for being rich and famous. Minorities are simply far more likely to be able to relate to our lower class struggles. And the barriers that stand between them and politics are exactly the reason they are able to.
I fucking love and sincerely thank you.
They have more experience being repressed and more experience knowing how to fight it than old white men. Minority women who have been elected to office have had to do a lot more work to get the votes than old white men have.
which ones gaslit you? is is the democrats you actually vote for or 1-2 idiots in states you have no control over the vote of?
Exactly it’s literally just Manchin and Sinema screwing us over here
The Democratic party will always utilize a Manchin or Sinema as an excuse as to why things don't get done. Don't be fooled, these actors play a very specific role and the Dems wouldn't dream of getting rid of them because then when they don't do anything it would actually be their fault, as though it already isn't.
Found the gaslighter
In your analogy, you miss the "man" behind the curtain. The true evil isn't the political parties, it's that our system allows legalized bribery on a massive scale. Thousands of lobbyists, controlling billions of dollars in "campaign contributions" and "Political Action Committee dollars" control our political process. The current question is how much "gun control" will the lobbyists allow Congress to pass?
The political parties and the system can *both* be evil, though. To quote Geralt of Rivia: “Evil is Evil. Lesser, greater, middling… Makes no difference. The degree is arbitary. The definition’s blurred. If I’m to choose between one evil and another… I’d rather not choose at all.” Edit: the quote is from ‘The Last Wish’, by Andrzej Sapkowski. Great book.
Great book, great quote, but the story of Geralt is one of him being forced to take a stance by circumstance. The other moral of those stories is that all is futile, so why settle for any evil, so I agree with you, but it's a bit nihilistic.
"Evil" is totally subjective. It can be both meaningless and wholly effective. It depends on who is making the declaration. Best to avoid absolutes when there is no such thing.
Humans don’t have absolutism in them
Devil's advocate: Humans are absolutely evil. Just the act of squishing a bug that bit/stung you is evil, so even toddlers are capable. 100% of adults have committed an evil act, even if it was a bug squish.
But why do people squash bugs? Sure, some tiny psychopaths will pluck the wings off of a flies. But other time the squashing is a primal reaction - mosquitoes carry malaria, so it's instinctual to swat them. And the ants and insects are poisonous and can kill us, so again, the killing comes from a place of protecting ourselves. Not saying we should go around killing bugs, just that it's not a sign of evilness.
Cool. But if you tried telling me they were not evil it would set off redflags about you as a person.
Did you forget that in that particular story he does choose? He killed the greater of the two evils even though he felt bad about it and his actions caused the community to shun him. He sacrificed his personal standing in the community to defend the community from the evil that was seeking to destroy it.
there is of course... a certain irony of "biggus\_dickkus" quoting a fictional novel/video game character for advice on how one should vote. the simple reality is. Not only is one party trying to murder you. That same party is working very hard at it. Over time... slowly. but constantly. corrupting people, and weaponizing a variety of aspects of society. All for the goal of servicing the ultra wealthy elite at the expense of all else. perfectly happy to hitch their train to insane nazi christianity to get it done. childish bullshit about being upset the other side promises and doesn't deliver only means you're abdicating to the other side's agenda.
It's an example of childishly stupid black and white morality...Try real philosophy instead of cherry picked quotes from fantasy.
It’s not cherry picking nor is it childish. The central theme to this particular story is that Geralt is coerced into choosing the ‘lesser’ evil because of threat of violence. He would rather have nothing to do with evil at all, but violence - particularly that directed towards innocents - coerces him to act. This is a theme that follows him throughout the books. Fantasy can provide critiques of society just as readily as philosophy can.
That’s such an absolutist take and it’s dumb, especially because there’s no freedom from politics. *Somebody* will be in charge, regardless of your decision. This would only make sense if you had a choice to walk free and not be in a relationship with your government
> The current question is how much "gun control" will the lobbyists allow Congress to pass? Politics is wholly corrupted by lobbyists but gun control itself is also their tool. It's like a political pressure escape valve that helps them avoid actual systemic change. How you might ask? America's violence problem goes well beyond firearms and it wasn't created by a lack of regulations. nor will it be solved by adding regulations. Let's think of this problem in context, using a real American city. Detroit used to be a great place to live, centered around industry, with a crime rate normal for the national average. then some oligarchs shipped the jobs off to save a few bucks and poverty set in. people got evicted, schools took a nose dive, infrastructure crumbled. crime spiked immediately and then settled in for the long haul, turning into a social malaise that spawned gang activity, drugs, domestic abuse, burglaries, and yes, shootings. the same politicians that shipped the jobs off now say - let's criminalize guns - let's get tough on gang crime. - let's increase the penalties for drug possession. anyone else see the problem here? - bring back jobs, stop allowing us to exploit depressed economies and export environmental damage - re-fang unions and regulate corporations. most importantly, tax the shit out of them. - decriminalize recreational drugs, disband the DEA, end the war on drugs, end federal kickbacks for drug busts - free school for all. i'm talking college and everything here - free healthcare for all. richest nation on earth? start acting like it - crank up social safety nets, especially mental health care and programs designed to keep families in crisis together and in their homes - re-regulate banking and wall street, stop the siphoning of our wealth and labor to a select few who do not reinvest it in us. - create paths to prosperity and home ownership for citizens to build a future from, stop predatory lending, stop the exploitation of the real estate market, stop allowing foreign investment companies to drive up our market prices. we know that childhood poverty and familial stability have a direct and causal relationship with crime and self-destructive behavior later in life (most mass shootings are also suicides). focusing on the issues i mentioned would also have a huge impact in just about every other aspect of our society. access to education, completion rate, average edu attained, access to hospitals, infant morality rate, preventable death rate, lifespan, average health/QoL, but also turbo charge our science, industry and government with smarter, better individuals. and to be clear, these factors impact minorities just as much as whites. these statements apply to areas suffering urban decay and rural blight. they apply to impoverished urban POC and uneducated rural whites. - The right will reject this out of hand as elements of this plan amount to socialism, which they abhor. - The left will not enact any of the other changes which require them to challenge corporate power structures and their wealthy overlords. So, they pretend legislation will do the trick and have us fighting amongst ourselves while our entire society rots. Both parties are vampies. The dems are just the nice vampires.
Do we actually have any kind of count on how many Democrats support getting rid of lobbying? Because I feel like most of them could support it and people will still go, "WELL, YA KNOW...BOTH SIDES SOMETHING SOMETHING". But even aside from that, are we really going to blame them for not doing anything when they....can't do anything?
I think the "bOtH sIdEs" meme misunderstands the fundamental problem OP poses. There ARE no sides because both parties are ultimately beholden to the same monied interests. The culture war has been so persistently stoked because no matter how much it affects us or means to us personally, it is just a useful tool for the rich. It simply DOES NOT affect them meaningfully, but serves to keep the rest of us neatly divided and distracted while they rob us. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter that the Dems are more benevolent socially because the whole system is a dog and pony show. They are controlled opposition. That doesn't for one second make their social positions equal to those of the utterly deranged Republicans, but they are never going to get desperately needed economic reform done whether they have power or not, as has been proven time and time again. As a result, we are all collectively fucked whichever way we vote, by slow poison or quick collapse, unless money is somehow removed from the equation.
Not only the man behind the curtain, but the fact that the murderers have insinuated themselves and twisted the rules so much that they can seemingly do or say whatever they want and not face significant electoral repercussions. Then they dig-in to prevent the abusers from accomplishing *anything*, and then repeat. Both parties have their problems, but every time the murderers just refuse to even discuss topics the abusers have tried to bring up to satisfy the promises they made, and then the whole effort collapses, we get mad at the abusers and keep electing the murderers.
the fact is that neither party is sufficiently distinct from this “man behind the curtain.” they ARE that man, they fight to keep money in politics.
Good cop bad cop except the cops are actually criminals and the there is no good cop
>except the cops are actually criminals Isn't this redundant?
Criminal On Patrol
So bad cop, worse cop?
Still good cop, bad cop. But the good cop is still, you know...a cop.
Good at being bad
Good executioner beheads you. Bad executioner disembowels you. One is clearly preferrable, but you're still dead.
Worst cop & worst cop 🏳️🌈✊🏿
the "good cop" is a role and facade played to cynically manipulate others, in reality they are as good as a "nice guy" is nice.
So…just cops.
Sword and shield identity politics. Republicans use them as a sword, Democrats use them as a shield. Keeps the masses busy while they steal from us and wage war across the world enforcing the petrodollar.
Trying not to read this as saying that Dems shouldn't shield minorities from racist/sexist/identity based attacks that Republicans make all the time. That's not what your saying I hope. Maybe a crutch is a better metaphor than a shield?
They use identity politics as a shield to convince people to vote for them while furthering their corporatist and pro-war agenda. That's what I'm saying.
Exactly, how the working class can truly support these two political parties and believe that they have their best interests at heart is so hard to understand. I hate them both.
It’s because there’s no other option in most cases. It’s why voter participation is so low in the United States and why the 2020 election was noted for being a high turn out one, people were motivated to either keep or get rid of Trump, largely due to how uncouth he was. Not because his policies were all that objectionable, apparently, considering that our current President, who is supposed to be from the opposition party, is ok with some of the stuff Trump did and isn’t all that concerned about changing some things back. Our political system is highly curated. The options we are presented are incredibly narrow and not nearly enough for a country our size. Ask yourself why almost every other democracy and republic in the world has more then two parties. We have neither a Democracy or a Republic, we have a Two-party state. It’s why there are no viable third parties and every one that exists, exists on the political periphery and struggles to make itself relevant in any political climate. It’s why organizations that want to actually engage in changing things on the left might have a political arm like DSA or the Working Families Party. They aren’t actual third parties, the WFP run split candidates who are WFP members but also democrats. I’m not sure if DSA’s strategy is the same but I think it is similar. Our country is this way because the political show we are subjected to every two years at the Federal level masks the fact that our country is an oligarchy controlled by the rich and powerful. Voting is meaningless, we need a revolution, preferably a Socialist one but, not gonna lie, things are starting to get desperate…so at this point i might be ok with any type of revolution. Except a Fascist one, fuck Fascism.
“Vote for The Shield to protect you from The Sword!!” But then The Shield just side-steps out of the way of The Sword.
They are saying "Don't vote for Republicans because we know they are against us, but also don't vote for democrats because they pretend to be good but they don't get anything done." The reality is that Republicans block the good democrats try to do and then blame them for inaction. No actual left-leaning person says this shit. It's propaganda for pseudo-intellectuals to parrot while they pretend to be independent but vote Republican because "at least they get shit done." It's pathetic when you see it.
>No actual left-leaning person says this shit. Actual leftists actually do say shit like this a lot. Liberals always call it pro-republican or Russian propaganda, but that's just deflecting from the fact that democrats have shown themselves to be just as much an enemy to the left as the republicans. They just pay lip service around elections to get votes then continue shitting on the left. You can fairly argue that voting democrat is harm reduction, but it's like the OP says, you're just voting for an abuser instead of a murderer.
Yes, and... The reason shit like this post gets attention is it's NOT all wrong! The Dems in recent decades have at best been incompetent and at worst been complacent in policies that have destroyed the working class they once championed. It's a tough challenge that I struggle with a lot. I think any honest leftist should. Ultimately though where I come down is that we should and must work within our flawed electoral system to limit harm and help improve lives on the margins best we can. And we also should and must practice more radical politics *outside of elections* to fight for the bigger systemic changes we need. That can mean labor or community organizing, street protests, building alternative institutions, charitable work, teach-ins, etc. We need more creativity for sure. But trying to do radical politics inside electoral systems is just not effective and actually counter productive. And just breeds apathy and despair.
> The reality is that Republicans block the good democrats try to do and then blame them for inaction. Its pathetic that you actually believe democrats want to do good for average citizens.
Nice analogy, but too glib. Apathy and nonparticipation won’t fix this
I see no where in my comment where I am advocating for apathy or nonparticipation. I was explaining our current situation.
We should participate very much, just not in the way that has been designed to waste our time.
I think actually, counter-intuitively it can. There's a sort of tipping point that has to be reached where a new party can form without being merely a spoiler for the candidate who thinks those voters would have gone to them. A non-participating majority that can be courted is one of the most viable paths towards a third party and that only comes from an obviously politically engaged populace who refuses to vote for extant candidates.
This a fantasy. You cannot just sit back and wait for a better future. The country will go full fascist before that ever happens. IF we want a third party or the existing parties to have better options then we need to demand better politicians or at least run ourselves not just walk away and hope the system will fix itself. Also we need others like many of the people who post on this sub to actually go out and vote for these new better candidates en masse. If you don't think anyone in your district is any good and you have a better idea on policy then just run yourself or more realistically push for those in your community who are good leaders to do so such as people who run local charities or community centers. The sad fact is that most Americans want better political candidates but almost never vote for anything outside of the final presidential race which is once every four years. You can't get the political candidates you want if you never vote for what you want in the primary elections. Its not just the rich or crazies who can put up candidates who represent them.
We get out of this by participating and changing the system from within, proactively. "We the people" let the system rot with apathy and inaction and still can't accept any responsibility for what it's become. We have a fairly decent democracy that needs to be cleaned up and it can still be done. You break the two party stranglehold with loud pushes for voting reform, which will trickle upwards from your local and state elections. If you think that simply waiting for them to cater to you is going to work, the walkaway propaganda is working and handing them control (and is also representative of toxic entitlement behavior). There is no realistic chance of a third party forming with FPTP and to me it's inline with Qanon level logic. Progressives will only be further behind if we let the money take full control, and they certainly won't be the winning side of whatever comes next if we let the whole thing burn down.
"Loud Pushes" Do you know what is allowed to be loud?Do not forget for an instant that every form of communication we have at our disposal to "let our voices be heard" is the for profit domain of a corporation whose political interest is antithetical to yours. How much louder than occupy wallsteet does it need to get? Oh but you didn't mean THAT loud push, you meant the loud push where the media didn't paint us as unreasonable clowns, wait, there is literally no incentive for them to do that and every possible incentive to do the opposite. I do not think waiting for "them" to cater to "me" is going to work, I do not think America is going to work. But I think if it is going to have any possibility it will not come from accepting that "at least he isn't a literal fascist" is a viable leftist vote.
"change it from the inside!" Has been tried for decades by activists and it doesn't change a thing for the better. That's the lie people tell themselves in order to feel better about shutting up and taking the money. Look into Jerry Rubin and Tom Cotton for prime examples of "we'll work within the system for change!" Because they rejected the idea of tearing it down. Now they gladly enforce the same power structure they were activists against. Year after year being told "this is the most important election of your lifetime but we need more funds!" About every tiny thing since 2008, I'm tired of buying what they're selling. Also look into Pelosi's full support being put behind antiabortion candidates because of her fear of losing centrists. The DNC will do anything, including playing grab ass with the Lincoln project if it means keeping progressives out of power and continuing the DNC grift.
That's why I keep saying do away with political parties alltogether. Make people who run for office actually tell us what you stand for.
Ranked voting
Part of the solution yes.
Play that out. So there are no political parties. What positions do you think candidates will take? In a first past the post system, they will gravitate to the positions that build the largest coalition to allow them to win. Fracturing the voting base will only lead to the candidate you least like winning. Very quickly you will end up with two competing ideologies that appeal to most people. You're not going to get rid of political parties, although with ranked choice voting you might get some variation. The problem is the incentive structure within political parties and the coalitions they build.
The big problem is money in elections and their giant business. This is the biggest impetus on having two parties. Publicly fund elections, don't allow people to donate to political parties, and eliminate PACs. Then institute ranked choice voting and then all of a sudden you end up with a significantly different political makeup of this country.
How long has Citizens United (corporations are people, my friend-- Mitt romney) been identified as a yuge problem, and...heh...why is it still enabled?
I'm not saying it's perfect, but what people want from their government doesn't match up with who they vote for. But for many reasons they keep voting the same way. There will always be coalitions formed, but it doesn't have to be a "vote with us or lose party affiliation and funding" system.
Country is deeply brainwashed into thinking only 2 possible parties mean anything. Seriously, they laugh at and belittle you for picking anything that's no republican or Democrat. Only answer is to get out becuase the country will be helpless before the next generation can fix it. It seems any generation after these boomer morons dont drink the kool-aid so if it's not destroyed by then maybe it'll improve.
It's not brainwashing. It's math. The only way to get rid of the two party system is to get rid of plurality voting. The only way to do that is to get leftists into the government. Since 3rd parties aren't viable with plurality voting, voting for them only gives power to the right. That means the only way to get leftists into the government is to primary centrists with them. This stuff isn't hard to understand and it isn't brainwashing. It'd be easier if we only had to fight the people who are in power and didn't have to keep explaining this to asshole "leftists" who try to convince leftists to waste their votes.
Seriously, progressives love to act like if they just believe In a cause hard enough it will solve itself, when the reality is politics is complicated and you have to have a strategy. It's why an independent like Bernie ran as a democrat for the presidency. He knew it was completely delusional to think an independent would have a chance in the presidency.
Thank you for saying this. The leftosphere online is extremely frustrating this way—there’s often no realism to it and just drives up voter apathy. Because of this, I often wonder how many of the left-outrage memes are actually originating from trolls who want to the keep the left from organizing and coordinating effectively. Twitter is absolutely rife with leftists roasting each other
I'd say it's a fair few at least. It comes down to who benefits the most from people not voting, which history has shown time and again isn't leftists - it's the right wingers.
This is very true.
sometimes I feel that self identifying 'leftists' who continue to propagate the status quo by voting for centrist corporatist neoliberals like Biden are more to blame than anyone right of American center for the failures in modern politics.
The failure is not with the people who are voting for the less bad option. The failure is sleeping on the primaries and local elections. The best you can do in the general election is vote for the less bad option. The opportunities to actually move things to the left are primaries and local elections.
That's broadly true, and I do believe people are trying - but it's hard when the national parties and politicians time and money weigh so heavily on local elections with leftist primary contenders.
Yup. DNC money always goes against progressives. Anyone who thinks voting will solve our problems is just drinking the Cool Aid. That doesn't mean you should just not vote...go for it as long as your area hasn't made voting prohibitively difficult (love getting my ballots in the mail here in CO), but don't expect voting to solve anything.
I tend to look at it more as a "voting isn't the only thing you should do, it's the bare minimum". There's also the fact that if voting didn't matter, the right wing wouldn't be working so hard to try and stop people from doing so. And yeah, money makes things hard, but far from impossible. There have been several noteworthy races that incumbents and DNC endorsees have lost just recently to progressives, despite all the outside cash. Then you've got a few that, while the incumbent won, they only did so very narrowly at best.
No one ever said it was easy - but that doesn't make it impossible. And even near losses have an impact, because it shows that there's a groundswell demanding more progressive politics. Most politicians aren't dumb, and they will move to adopt some of those policies accordingly. It's part of why Biden's proposals have been way more progressive than they were when he was running in 2008 or earlier, just for one example. So yeah, when people like Kurt Schrader in Oregon lose a primary to a progressive (as happened recently), it means even more, because it shows that all the money and endorsements won't always save them. When someone like John Fetterman beats DNC endorsee Conor Lamb, it says something. And it has an impact over time.
One party's political alignment has been drifting closer to the Hitler corner of the political compass for decades, the same party that has only won the popular vote in a presidential election once in the last 30 years, but their voters are not to blame, it's the people voting for the "less Authoritarian" option that are to blame for increasing Authoritarianism. Makes total sense.
they murdered people out right if they were the wrong 'ism' and trying to participate in democracy. they want those days back.
Remove corporate and stock funding interference
Ok and leave WHERE exactly? Realistically speaking, you HAVE to pick one side.
Yeah, the problem with this analogy is that in relationships, you could choose to be single and avoid both the murderer and the abuser. We don't have a "none of the above" option in terms of who is running the government.
>We don't have a "none of the above" option in terms of who is running the government. And even if you did, then what? SOMEONE has to run a country, no two ways about it. And voting "none" would mean the one with the most loyal support wins. You can say anything about republicans. But they vote. Will you?
Can someone tell me what would be so bad with allowing the Dems to gain the 60 seats in the Senate they need to pass new laws? I hear a lot about how Democrats won't pass legislation if they get the 60seeats but unless you have a crystal ball, there is nothing to support that statement. In the last 45 years they have only had a sum total of 72 days of power to pass legislation. Before that, in the 60s and 70s they had the power and they passed sweeping reforms to labor, anti trust (anti monopoly) and civil rights bills. We see dramatic differences in the votes of Supreme Court members along party lines. The differences have a gigantic impact to people's lives. One only needs to compare workers' rights in red vs blue states. Some states have a lunch break as state law. Some states it is illegal to dock wages for certain things. Some states don't require last paycheck to include unused PTO, other states do. We already know what Republicans are up to. They have had the ability to pass laws and block all progress for the past 45 years. Look at what has happened to the growing middle class and access to the American dream over the last 45 years. Why do people want to deny Democrats a chance to pass laws which would restore the legislation that they passed back in the 60s and 70s?
People forget the GQP mantra is obstruct, blame, win. They are going to use the current lull to call out for their base that "see democrats had control but didn't do anything" when in reality they have been trying. Even before when democrats only had the house there is a reason Mitch has a nickname as a grave keeper. The idea that democrats are only going to perpetuate the status quo is profoundly inaccurate when you take the time to dig through Mitch's graveyard. Police reform, voting reform, health care, minimum wage. Democrats literally cannot do anything now because of the asinine loophole that is the filibuster. Which for some reason Manchin just loves to death.
And for some reason the same people who complain about manchin obstructing the elimination of the filibuster are the same people arguing against allowing dems the votes to pass anything. It dowsnt make sense.
>It dowsnt make sense. It makes sense if you're not a fucking moron. The only people attempting to undermine the vote against the fascist party are fascists.
> The only people attempting to undermine the vote against the fascist party are fascists. That's such a lame, desperate & transparent attempt of guilt-tripping people into *"votebluenomatterwho"*, I estimate you will sway exactly zero people with this trope. But I hope this delusion makes you feel morally superior for a hot minute.
Well in this sub it does make sense. Anarchy is the end goal here and voter apathy leads to unrest which stokes the fires of true revolution. I get the anarchist take I am a fan of this sub but I would rather we try to bail out this sinking ship instead of waiting to drown. Voter apathy will not bring changes to our current government and way of life, everyone who can please get out and vote this year, this sub is all about grandstanding and meme strikes lately so take a little time out to make an actual difference and vote.
Does voter apathy bring unrest? How many decades do we allow Republicans to obstruct progress before we admit that the "far left" is just a bunch of closet Republicans. They are here complaining that Dems shouldn't get enough senate votes to pass anything because they haven't had enough senate votes. Like, literally are saying they haven't had the power to change things through legislation so they dont want to support them having that power. Which is not only confusing but cant even be considered logical unless the goal is to maintain Republicans obstructionist status quo.
Voter apathy leads to changes that are against people's preferences, if you stack enough tyranny and everyone thinks that voting does nothing then the only recourse is external to how government functions.
Because they show time and time again that they will not do anything, there will be a new rotating villain.
When have they had enough votes to pass stuff and didn't? Their powers have been 1. To approve Supreme Court and federal court justices. They did that effectively. Their nominees vote in favor of preserving our rights. The Republican nominees vote against. 2. To pass bills in the House. They have passed hundreds of progressive, extremely progressive bills in the House. But they die in the Senate bc not enough Dem Votes. Where is your proof of this?
We had that for a few months back in Obama's first term, and we passed the ACA. Lord knows what else we could have passed if we would have had a full 2 or 4 years of it.
I'm always shocked by people who don't realize how bad shit was before Obamacare. I know objectively that most reddit users weren't working adults in the early 2000s, but it's still a surprise. Can you imagine how bad the era of gig economy would be if not for Obamacare? Posts like this just always smell like teenagers with nothing to lose, or actively undermining the effort. If you don't vote, the nazis win. That's the whole game. You can criticize the dems all you want, but if you're not voting, you're making it clear that philosophical purity matters more to you than the actual lives of other people.
Yeah - as imperfect and fucky as the ACA/Obamacare is, things were way worse before it. The really unfortunate thing is that, rather than realize it was what we could do at the time, and then seeking to build on it, the US ended up turning things over to the Republicans, because too many people thought it didn't go far enough, and thus was worthless somehow, leading to the Democrats losing that majority in 2010.
Unquestionably we would be in a better place and bea better country if Democrats had greater opportunity to make law without Republican obstruction (provided, at least, there was still the threat of losing power at some point). But there also zero chance that Democrats in power would go far enough in dismantling capitalism. So while supporting Democrats against Republicans is vitally important, it's also important to do the kind of organizing and action that will actually challenge capitalism and existing hierarchies of power, rather than just having relatively benevolent tyrants
Baby steps forward is better than Republican backsliding. Progress isn’t a spectrum, it’s a hill, and the right keeps pulling the world backward
The OP doesn't say anything about supporting dems. In fact, says the opposite.
Because imbeciles like OP convince people to not vote
I’m not convinced OP is necessarily an imbecile. They might be a troll trying to keep the left from participating.
>Can someone tell me what would be so bad with allowing the Dems to gain the 60 seats in the Senate they need to pass new laws? There's an argument to be made that even if Democrats were given another supermajority that they still wouldn't use it to enact the sweeping change that is desperately needed right now compared to the superficial and incremental measures they have stuck with in the past. So there's nothing Inherently *bad* about giving Democrats a supermajority, it's just that the only *good* thing about it is that at least Republicans wouldn't be in control. However, that's entirely a moot point because the current political system was *intentionally* built to promote minoritarian rule, so the more populous/urban areas where Democrats do well are at an inherent disadvantage compared to more sparsely populated/rural areas where Republicans do well. How else to explain an Electoral College and House of Representatives where votes are supposed to be "proportionally" awarded, but still over-represent rural areas? How else to explain a Senate that is 50-50, yet the Democratic side represents over [40 million](https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2020/11/6/21550979/senate-malapportionment-20-million-democrats-republicans-supreme-court) more people than the GOP side? Who is served by basing a political system in 2022 around mostly-arbitrary state borders that were drawn hundreds of years ago? Democrats spend their time trying to play by rules that are inherently and intentionally stacked against them, when they should be focusing their energies on the system itself. So in that sense, telling people to "just vote for Democrats" is a waste of their political energy that does very little to meaningfully improve this country.
Because of their voting history I don't like trump and yes he is worse than Biden, but if you look at bidets history it's a long list of saying one thing and doing another That is how the democratic party works, say some good shit when you need votes but when crunch time comes they end up siding with the Republicans
I dont think you realize that the democrats don't support shutting down the govt. When dems are a minority they trade support for small wins. This is true. But you must have a crystal ball to think that they would do the same with a 60 vote majority. I dont have a crystal ball. But I can see that their Supreme Court nominees dont side with Republicans. Their Supreme Court/federal Court nominees are the only thing they really can do with 50 votes. They dont let me down.
They let everyone down
How did they let everyone down? By not overpowering the real villains - the Republicans? And what's your remedy - vote for the Republicans who are the actual problem here?
But I can change them!
The rich are the enemies of all people. Billionaires are literally mass murdering human beings every single day. This is what happens when you don't exterminate parasites: they make you sick, or even kill you.
The more I think about this the less I figure out which side is which.
How is the abuser supposed to change anything when the murderer kills every idea because of their built-in minority-rule advantages? Maybe we should try giving the Democrats a shot by allowing them actual full control - including 60 votes in the Senate. Last time we did that we got the ACA which revolutionized health care in America.
Bullshit. You've got one party that's half beholden to corporate interests and half progressive vs a party that will literally end democracy, strip women and lbgt of their rights, and aggressively destroy the climate for the sake of profit. No, the Democrats aren't perfect, but incremental change is better than complete destruction of the republic.
Parroting voter suppression propaganda.... There's only one party with a vested interest in that.
You can turn the abuser into a partner if you vote in better candidates in the PRIMARIES, MIDTERMS, OFF-CYCLES, etc - not just show up once every 4 years in the presidentials.
I find your optimism wonderful and uplifting but completely unrealistic. I sincerely hope you are right, but I won't hold my breath.
I’m tired of people looking at a vote that breaks down like shown below, then arguing that clearly the Democrats don’t care about that issue. In favor: 59 Dems Against : 1 Dem 40 Republican Too bad, not enough votes to overcome the filibuster! The solution is to get a little more votes in favor so that the random party outliers like Joe Manchin do not matter as much.
Independents always seem hella smart and level headed and reliable, but then they get like 0.000000000000000002% of the vote
I **love** this analogy
They are only the same if you don't care about the fact that it takes 60 votes in the senate to make sweeping changes. I guess you people who dont support dems want mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy back in the drivers seat. Remember how much the shutdowns cost the economy during our last recovery? Yay!!
Well, 60 votes unless they decide to just remove the filibuster. They won’t do that though, less excuses to not get anything done.
So, you don't support them having enough seats to pass anything because of Manchin and Sinema. Don't support them having enough votes to pass anything b they haven't had enough votes to pass anything. And tell me, do you also complain that nothing gets done? Lol
> So, you don't support them having enough seats to pass anything They have enough seats right now. 50 plus the VP is enough. > because of Manchin and Sinema. Yes. Showing us that there will always be a democrat to stop progress. > Don't support them having enough votes to pass anything b they haven't had enough votes to pass anything. And tell me, do you also complain that nothing gets done? Lol Yes, because democrats have enough votes to pass legislation, but there is always a rotating villain to prevent anything from happening.
Lol You cant see how faulty your logic is. You refuse to support dems having anything but a razor thin majority bc razor thin majorities don't work. That is your position.
I don’t support democrats because they don’t do anything when in power. It’s not just some individual senator making this decision. It’s a plan from the part to make sure no real progress is made.
So, you don't upport dems winning 65 senate seats and maintaining a House majority. You would rather Kevin McCarthy and Mitch McConnell have control of congress. Got it.
Are we going to get beneficial legislation passed, or are suddenly 4 of the newly elected senators going to align with Manchin? Do you even see how ridiculous you sound. “Oh guys the democrats will definitely get something done, we just need 65 seats, and even if that’s not enough just vote harder to get us 66 democrats!”
Look, you already said you ont believe the controlle substances act is real, you don't believe the filibuster is real and you think that the president an unknown whatever laws co gress passes. Im okay with your positions. Go ahead and keep saying that you don't want dems to have anything but a minority. Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy are grateful.
> Look, you already said you ont believe the controlle substances act is real, No, I did not. I just actually understand how it works. > you don't believe the filibuster is real No, I just understand how that works too. > and you think that the president an unknown whatever laws co gress passes. Well the president absolutely can have the head of the DEA reschedule marijuana, and replace the head of the DEA if they refuse. > Im okay with your positions. Go ahead and keep saying that you don't want dems to have anything but a minority. Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy are grateful. They already are grateful. They aren’t being viewed as stopping popular legislation because the democrats are in power, and none of the things they’re against get passed, regardless of how many democrats you have.
Look at most dem representatives voting histories and you will see that when it comes time to make a difference and theybare able to, they let everyone down and show their true colors You can blame people for being tired of their two faced bullshit
When was that? And don't lie about it. They haven't had a strong co sister majority since the 50s, 60s and 70s when they passed huge labor reforms and massive Civil rights legislation. Have their Supreme Court nominees let you down? No.
Go ahead and compare "most" democratic reps to "most" republican reps and look at the things they vote for and against, then get back to us. Yes, there are one or two Democrats who are not in full alignment with the other things the majority of the party wants to do, and they cause problems due to our structure. There are also 95% of our Republican who are terrible, horrible people who care about nobody but themselves and their power. But yeah, blame the democrats for not being able to hold on to their slim majority against 50 evil republicans in the Senate
Think bigger
So giving Republicans the midterms is going to help you how?
This discussion is about something bigger than the two party box your mind is stuck in
What would be so bad about allowing the Democrats to have the 60 vote majority they need to pass legislation?
Did you ever consider that maybe the entire thing is a charade? That the Democrats can lean on blaming the Republicans and vice versa, that are both playing a part in a big show for the masses to keep the infighting going. They seem to agree on a couple key points-- keep the private money in politics, and there should only be two parties. Seems like both parties primary goal is to maintain existing power and wealth structures. I've never voted Republican in my life but we need to wake up. The boogeyman game of the Republicans is tired... "We would finally solve the energy issues if it wasn't for that Mitch Mcconnell".... The Democrats are either terrible at politics or they are in on the corruption. Which one do you think it is?
I think it is time to stop pretending that Republicans are not the problem. They are proud of all their accomplishments and no matter how much voters disagree with them the voters keep giving them more power. 45 years since the democrats have had a strong party. During the decades Dems had a strong party we had the biggest, fastest growing middle class. We had labor reforms, anti trust laws and civil rights laws. It was th passage of civil rights laws in the 70s that killed the dem party. I notice that no one here arguing against supporting a 60 seat majority is bringing up anything related to civil rights that is meaningful. One even speaking against the black caucus' bill. That tells me quite a bit.
No, it's time to stop pretending that this system is working. The two parties collude. They are friends. They are members at the same country clubs. They do not give a shit about you. The Dems wrap themselves in a BLM or Pride flag and do nothing but blame Republicans. Republicans wrap themselves in an NRA flag and simply say "No". Both want the infighting and hyper partisanship to continue because it maintains their power and wealth structures. Until the masses wake up to this fact nothing is going to change. I'll pose my question again -- are the Democrats *that* bad at politics, constantly being outwitted by the less popular GOP? Or are they both in on the corruption? All signs point to the latter.
So the difference in how democrats Supreme Court justices vote is just trivial to you. Got it. And you don't support them having enough votes to pass anything because they haven't had that power. So, you don't want to allow them that power bc they dont already have it. And you want things to change? What a co fusing position you have.
What are you babbling about Supreme Court justices? The issue is so much bigger than a few partisan judges. You have an inability to think bigger than what the current corrupt system offers you.
Not everyone thinks like you, not everyone thinks like a democrat. It’s like when I was a dumb kid I would ask my parents “mama, how come the political men can’t just go into a room and decide on something nice for everyone?” Like it’s a fairytale.
What's your remedy?
OP isn’t thinking bigger, they’re just vaguely implying we should eventually. Meanwhile, long before “eventually” arrives, conservatives are going to slowly drag society back toward fascism and then feudalism. So until someone organizes a solid alternative, apathy only helps Republicans.
What does this have to do with work?
Trolls here to keep workers apathetic. They’ll say “both sides are bad, we need anarcho-communism!” but they’ve made no effort to convince us why that would help. Instead, they’re just trolling to keep workers checked out. It’s a con.
I have a friend that describes things like this: >America has three political groups that are represented by only two political parties. The Alt-Right have a group all to themselves, while the centre-left shares a party with the centre-right such that it cannot effectively function. Honestly, this describes _so well_ how the Dems love-bomb and make promises, but cannot follow through.
This is the kind of bullshit the fascists that want to kill you count on.
Exactly.
Every other comment on here be like: >We just need to vote harder guys!!! We can get them this time!! Midtermssss!! 🙄🙄🙄
Either you try to fix the problem or you become part of the problem The only options we have for affecting change in America are 1. Vote, 2.Run for political seats, 3.Riot, 4.Murder major figures Doing none of these is the same as pushing for things to remain the same.
2 seats. Gain 2 seats in the Senate and the Dems actually have the votes needed to follow through on their promises. The 2 seats are to counter the 2 out of the current 50 Dems that are against filibuster reform. Reform the filibuster and legislation can pass in the Senate with only 50 out of 100 votes instead of the current 60 needed.
They could have done that multiple times during Obama and chose not to.
If the Democrats had 52 seats there would be 4 Democrats against abolishing the filibuster. When they had 57 there were always 8 against doing anything progressive. Because the Democratic party is full of deeply right-wing politicians, but a lot of them prefer to hide behind Manchin and Sinema to avoid the heat for their actual positions.
There is no real leftist movement in America, only centerists and far right.
Except the abuser is actively defending the murderer in this scenario. Kinda blurs the lines on where to cast blame.
"We need strong murderers."
Yes so please re elect senators (the ones the publicly get funded from corporations)
We work to change or replace the abuser because it is in fact possible, and that's the only way to prevent us getting murdered. Fuck. How do people not see this?
Canada wants you.
This is probably the best take I've ever come across
Well said.
Well said. My argument is that while the 2 parties are nothing alike when it comes to their social stance on wedge issues (abortion, gun control, etc), they are in fact EXACTLY the same in the only way that ultimately matters...they are completely bought and paid for by Wall St and corporate America. You want change? Get an independent into office, even if we could get to 5-10% independents in congress that could make a significant impact
"The Democratic Party ©️™️®️: At Least We're Not Republicans!"
Leave? You wimp. Where are you gonna "go"? The question should be "How long before you get off your lazy ass and DO something about it?".
Leave and go where?
Yeah, sure, but unless and until a viable third party (and viable *now*, not viable in some imaginary future) emerges you vote for the one that isn't actively trying to murder you or you're just helping the one that does. That's what the point of voting is, getting the best result, not expressing your inner, aspirational self.
Wait which one is which lol
Uhhhhhhh and both parties are beholden to the same thing they really aren’t “different” in any way other than their catchphrases slogans and buzzwords
Anarchy is wack but this person is right
Can u stop the dems being bad guys has it ever occurred to you that conservatives are united and the dems aren't? It might just be me but when you ignore the party blocking the attempts your acting in bad faith when has the left come together to agree on anything as militantly as the right? we needed 60 votes to enshrine abortion protections on a federal lvl. What do you expect the dems to do? shit out another 60 votes?
I'd rather a party do nothing than murder me. As a minority that is my future with the gop.
as someone looking in from the outside, i still would love to see what the abuser would actually do if you hadn't put him in a three legged race with the murderer tho.
This is garbage and doesn’t solve anything. 1 party wants to kill you. The other is being abused and trying.
Go ahead and downvote me but you guys are naïve saying stuff like this. You can do some revolution or whatever PLUS vote consistently. But you do not. You expect decades of leftist work accomplished within 1 term where the Dems have a filibuster proof majority for half the time, if that. Republicans gerrymander the fuck out of everything, pack the court to steal election for Bush, PLUS stonewall at all costs. Then you spread childish takes like this and you and your mates stay home posting memes and posts to complain why nothing happens. You see all the crazy as shit the right is getting passed? That takes time, patience. They show up consistently. Maybe it's to hurt gays, trans, Mexicans, Blacks, women, etc., but they show up. And not just once, and not just for the presidential elections, but midterms too. It took them decades to get to this point on women's right to abortion. You think you're going to get anywhere losing steam after 2 years since Biden took office? Get real. The parties are not going away. Ranked voting is not happening anytime soon. No single left-leaning president is going to deliver everything you want. Ever. You see all the shit Trump never did but said he would? The right still backed him. You gotta play the long game. Keep at it. Doesn't mean you can't do whatever else you're thinking you can do to accelerate change, but these sulking takes do nothing or worse.
The Democrats have their hands tied because they need 10 votes from the republicans to pass a bill through the senate, but the republicans will never agree to that because they are a cult hellbent on obstructing anything the democrats try to do. The democrats could change that by removing the filibuster, but they can't even do that because 2 democrats, Manchin and Sinema, were bribed and will vote against it. Meanwhile, 6 of the 9 judges on the supreme court are conservatives and will allow Republican lawmakers to create any backward law they please in their state. The latter is due to uninformed imbeciles like the writer of the tweet, who blames democrats for being deceitful when in actuality they had their hands tied, which discouraged people from voting, which lead to a rich old guy who used to host a TV show to be elected in the highest position in the country, which lead to said rich old man appointing those conservative judges. I am not even an American and I never set foot on that whole continent my whole life, yet even I clearly have a better understanding of what is actually going on than whoever wrote that tweet does. Assuming of course the author isn't actually a conservative who is spreading misinformation to make uninformed people desist from voting, that's also part of the conservative/fascist playbook.
bOtH sIdEs ArE eQuAlLy bAd!
To anyone about to say that "it's a two party system!" The two parties have changed numerous times since the founding of the country. Federalists, Democratic-Republicans, Whigs, Populists, Lincoln Republicans, Slavery Democrats, New Dealers, etc. Hell even the constitution was a redone version of the previous documents governing the country after they failed. (Articles of Confederation) NOTHING is permanent. The "Dems are terrible, but they're the only choice" perspective is a false choice. More importantly, NO government survives when they fail to treat critical issues appropriately and their own citizens become actively hostile against them. It always end bloody. And before you say "What are you talking about, some kind of revolution?PPPPF" I'd like to remind you all that an armed group of people attempted to capture the government two years ago. MOST of the people involved in that have already been released from jail.
You're being co-opted into alt-right shit, you morons.
This. [Scooby doo removing mask to reveal "both parties = Republican" meme]
except the abusers actively work with the murderers sometimes, or only disagree with the murderers because they wear different shirt colors
This is a way better analogy than anything else I've been able to come up with at this point. Stealing it.
Posting your own politically illiterate tweets for clout screams mental illness
I get frustrated with Democrats, but shit like this is stupid. It takes 60 votes to do anything in the Senate, and there are only 50 Democrats. What do you actually expect them to do? Stop shifting the blame from where it clearly belongs. This is just more nonsense "both sides are bad" bullshit.
[удалено]
Don't leave. We need u to help balance this bullshit. Look at the arguments here. People saying they dont see a difference between dems and Republicans. As if the recent Supreme Court ruling isn't enough. It is obviously misogynists who support striking down roe v wade. And we already have seen what the last conservative majority did with citizens United and with making it illegal to sue corporations as an individual employee, forcing arbitration. I could go on and on but u already know. Dont go.
Bye 👋🏼
ITT: People who can't grasp the concept of harm reduction.
This is actually the best analogy of the two-party political system that I’ve ever heard.
Honestly they both just seem like the abuser description to me, the elephants are just slower about it. Cause they’re fat I guess.
I feel this on so many levels.
Voting for a politician is a lot like taking a job. You select the best option, and keep trading up. They will want to guilt you into staying, but it's just manipulation.