• MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    90
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    1 month ago

    “They have to do that stuff first to earn my vote! I don’t care if they never had the power to do so!”

    -Morons

              • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 month ago

                No, it just means there’s more people pulling things to the right. Next you gotta convince people to pull with you.

                The absolute top tier play for Leftists now is to show up in DROVES this election, hand Kamala a landslide. And then put up a ton of candidates in the next primary. Show the DNC that you are a force which can win elections, and then put the fear of being primaried in them. That’s dragging things to the left.

                • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  Considering every election makes me feel more like an outsider in my own country I think it will be less frustrating just to feel like I lose every election.

                  Unless you have some tips on breaking Americans of their patriotism.

  • FinishingDutch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    73
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Decisions are made by those who show up, it’s as simple as that.

    You may hate it, but the Republicans are definitely better at getting people in line, both literally and figuratively. They turn up and vote even if they don’t like the candidate because… that’s their party. And it’s the only one that they feel represents them.

    Meanwhile a lot of Democrats stay home because the candidate isn’t the one they wanted, doesn’t support everything they want, is too old/young, etc. There’s this attitude of ‘if I can’t have my perfect candidate, I’m staying home out of protest.’

    I get it. Every voter wants a perfect candidate. But perfect is the enemy of good, as the saying goes.

    I always look at it like this: if I vote, I might not always get the outcome that I want, but at the very least I’m nullifying the vote of a person on the other side.

    If the other guy shows up and you don’t? That’s how you lose rights.

    Be someone who shows the fuck up.

    • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      I show up every time and it feels like people still make decisions for me.

      What keeps me voting is realizing that real life is disappointing and I’ll never be happy.

  • RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    73
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Don’t believe the naysayers. No matter which state you are in, your vote is important. Extreme Conservatives have been taking over school boards and imposing their agenda on kids.

    Offices like Sheriff, Coroner, Secretary of State, Lt Governor, State Representatives, City and County Councils etc. are all important.

    Every Vote Counts!!!

    Edit: Many important local races will be decided by less votes than updoots I received for this comment.

    • MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      1 month ago

      Offices like Sheriff, Coroner, Secretary of State, Lt Governor, State Representatives, City and County Councils etc. are all important.

      Not only are they important, it’s exactly how the freaks running the GOP took control of the party. They’ve been grinding 2 things consistently for decades: down ballot races and the judiciary. It’s been wildly successful for them. We are going to have to match if not duplicate that effort.

  • someguy3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Every time the Dems lose, they go to the center to find voters. Want them to stop going to the center? Then give them overwhelming and consistent victories.

    If you think you can change their platform by not voting or voting 3rd party, you’re dead wrong. They will just go to the center voter even more. This is not a Mexican standoff that you can win, because they have an out which is worth double (a center voter is both a vote for them and vote taken away from the other party).

    • SupraMario@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      The reality is the majority of the USA is in the center. It’s why we usually don’t have run away elections.

      • krashmo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        I would argue that most Americans are apathetic and easily swayed by rhetoric calling reasonable progressive policies “extreme”. That’s not exactly the same as being in the center, although it does lead to pretty much the same outcomes.

      • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        This is the answer. Us weirdos on a weird social network made by literal communists are not the majority and should stop acting like we are.

        Every time I see a campaign ad for Harris I feel like I’m worthless to her because it’s all “yay America” and I know too much history to feel that way.

        • SupraMario@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          It’s bad that I want her to win… because she’s not trump and she’s not going to hand Ukraine over to putin…

  • Allonzee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    I’m voting Democrat like I always do. I remember being the only non-right wing senior citizen looking person at my polling place for Hilary Clinton when no one showed up. Not with any hope, just so I can say I voted against gleeful hatred.

    I’m just pissed that I will never, ever get a vote against market capitalism, as it controls both parties on economic policy and we only get a vote on how to manage the social issue symptoms it causes.

    • Noodle07@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      If you keep the left in power your can steer them left, if the right gets in power you reset your progress to 0

      • wpb@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Could you walk me through steering them left when they’re in power? Over the years the democrats seem to only get more right wing. The thing is, I always thought that you steer politicians through your vote, and if I guarantee my vote to you regardless of what you have done in the past or are currently doing, what incentive do you have to change course in a way that I like?

        • d00phy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          It works the same way the Republicans have been steered further right while not in power. When Democrats have to worry about moderates, they move to the right. If they only have to worry about liberals, they can support and back more progressive positions. If they don’t, they are more likely to be primaried.

          See also: the Tea Party takeover of the GOP which pushed them further down the path to the current fascism.

          • eatCasserole@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            There’s a lot of this assumption that democrats get more votes by going for moderates. Meanwhile they’ve alienated the entire left, and (I know, not a representative sample) but my Lemmy feed is jam packed with arguments about “you have to vote blue to stop fascism” vs “I really don’t don’t want to vote in favor of genocide”. No one seems to actually like the democrats, they’re whole appeal is basically “not fascist”.

            Bernie Sanders got people excited, and while not exactly a leftist, he did represent a move toward the left. But they couldn’t let Bernie happen, he was too radical, apparently. You’ve heard the term “Bernie bro”, but where are the Biden bros? They aren’t, because Joe is boring.

            So I don’t think they “have to worry about moderates”. The post here claims that if they could motivate people to go vote, they’d win. So offer something fresh. Present a real alternative to the inexorable right wing decline of all of US politics. Do you not think that would work? Why are they 0% willing to consider it?

            • d00phy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              You’re not at all wrong, except democrats absolutely do have to worry about moderates at the moment. A large portion of the GOP base is retired people who definitely will vote. After that are Trump diehards who also definitely will vote. Look at the last election. Biden is about as centrist as they come, and Trump still racked up record breaking support at the polls!

              You’re right that Bernie whipped up a lot of excitement, but he also lost that primary. And others who have tried to do something similar (like Beto) have also come up short.

              I think someone else said this, or maybe it was a comment on another post, but republicans took over 40-years to shift the country right and overturn Roe. Countering that won’t happen overnight, and probably has the best chance at succeeding if it’s done within the current political landscape.

            • d00phy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              Adding that both things need to happen for the country to reverse the rightward shift. More liberals need to vote, AND the party needs to recognize, or be shown in primary elections, that they can publicly embrace more liberal stances. On or the other and we wind up with the status quo.

          • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            The criticism of the democrats is that they think they are on the left but they aren’t. They do represent a lot of Americans, but they don’t represent the true left very well at all.

            • d00phy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              You’re absolutely right about the current Democratic Party, but that party’s been pulled to the right by moderates and former moderate republicans. If the country really is more liberal than our representation would indicate, as put forth by the meme, then a more progressive voting populace will eventually result in more progressive liberal party. Right now everything is skewed to the right because of the oversized influence of moderates and moderate conservatives who don’t want to vote for fascism.

              • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 month ago

                I think its the social shaming from democrats and republicans to third party voters. It reminds me of some of the stuff church cults do to prevent people leaving the group. Let people vote how they want to, or at the very least attempt to win them over with discussions and policy rather than throwing them under a bus.

        • daltotron@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 month ago

          The actual incentive that they have should ideally be actual political activism that exercises some real and material form of leverage against their power. Seeing as these movements have all been totally deconstructed, mostly by the federal government, instead, you’ll find that the way you’re supposed to change the party is just by voting harder for them, and then just kind of hoping that they somehow naturally decide to swing left, after you’ve already handed them the keys to the kingdom. It’s pure cope, basically.

        • someguy3@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          The Dems need all 3 of presidency, house of reps, and Senate to do anything. And they’ve only had that for 4 of the last 24 years. Or 6 of the last 32 years. Or 6 of the last 44 years. That’s why they keep going to the center to find voters, because they need all 3 and basically never get it. So how do you get them to go left? By giving them consistent and overwhelming victories.

          • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            You realize this all happened with Gore and Bush, and then Obama and Hilary and so on. The story has been the same every time. End of a democracy, republicans will destroy the country, blah blah blah.

            You know what else happens? The democrats talk a huge game before the election, and do fuck all with it while in office. Even if you take something like obamacare, it wouldnt have gotten passed if there wasnt money in it for the wealthy.

            And just the non stop war crimes and global terrorism. You know its literally been my whole life that this country has done this and its never mattered who was in office. Military expansion in this day and age is absurd, and its harder and harder to hide the truth that most of our wealth is stolen.

            Its like a mafia family that can’t hide that their protection racket is actually what’s causing the danger in the first place. Apparently we don’t need a godfather sequel because its here in real life on a national scale.

  • PugJesus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    God, I hate fighting people just to get them to vote in a way that makes mathematic and strategic sense.

  • Godric@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 month ago

    This thread is a shitshow.

    American democracy ends in a month if things go poorly. It’s done, over, gone. A Mein Kampf reader will no longer have any restraints, no adults at the table to say “no, that’s wrong” if he wins again.

    DEMOCRACY. WILL. BE. OVER.

    Bitch, whine, fuck you bringing this up in thread last 30 days, I live here. So do my fucking friends and family. I don’t want to see them or I put in camps to be “deported” for having the wrong skin color, lover, gender, or religion/lack thereof.

    Fuck you, vote.

  • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Actual analyses done on this topic by Pew, Breugel, and National Affairs suggest this effect is largely not true. When considering the entire electorate, a significant number of non-voters lean Republican or are politically unaffiliated and would not support the democratic party.

    Further research indicates that, despite popular belief, higher voter turnout does not consistently benefit either party across the board. Over the past 70 years, there has been no strong correlation between increases in turnout and the Democratic vote share in presidential or midterm elections. This suggests that while higher turnout could marginally favor Democrats, it might not drastically alter outcomes.

    Democrats could gain some advantage from 100% turnout due to the inclusion of historically underrepresented groups, but the overall impact would likely be less substantial than expected, as the partisan balance among non-voters is more evenly distributed than commonly thought.

    The notion that 100% voter turnout would deliver sweeping political control for Democrats is just a comforting illusion—one that feeds into the fantasy that everyone secretly agrees with you. Both parties indulge in this kind of wishful thinking, convinced that non-voters would tip the scales in their favor if only they showed up.

    The truth is that America is fiercely divided, and non-voters are just as politically varied as regular voters. Believing otherwise is just a way to avoid confronting how split the country really is.

      • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        I listed the sources. If you can’t manage the independent volition to do a simple Google search, than I’m afraid you’re simply going to have to remain ignorant.

        • LustyArgonian@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Where? I do not see a single source. I see you referencing that such sources exist somewhere, but I fail to see any titles, authors, or web links to actually provide a specific source.

          • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            The author and agencies are listed. It’s not my responsibility to do the labor of educating you further than I already have. If you need to be hand fed links, then you’re going to remain exactly as you are. I’ve already put enough time into the post. This is close enough to sealioning in my estimation for me to block you. Good luck.

            • LustyArgonian@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              Actual analyses done on this topic by Pew, Breugel, and National Affairs suggest this effect is largely not true. When considering the entire electorate, a significant number of non-voters lean Republican or are politically unaffiliated and would not support the democratic party.

              Further research indicates that, despite popular belief, higher voter turnout does not consistently benefit either party across the board. Over the past 70 years, there has been no strong correlation between increases in turnout and the Democratic vote share in presidential or midterm elections.

              I am not sure how to find this. I actually already looked at a Pew article earliee today and didn’t happen to see it there.

              https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/07/12/voter-turnout-2018-2022/

              I’ll link it again and look through it again to see if it’s there.

              Further, your second point is lacking any source including an author.

              Last, whatever source you’re quoting specifically important because I’m highly curious what the verbiage actually is. There is a world of difference between someone who “leans” Republican versus someone who will never vote Democrat.

              Eta, from above Pew source:

              Adults who voted in at least one election during the period divide evenly between Democrats and independents who lean toward the Democratic Party or Republicans and Republican-leaning independents in their current party affiliation (48% each). The subset who voted in all three elections are similarly divided (49% Democrats, 50% Republicans). Citizens who did not vote in any of the three tilt Republican by 46% to 41%.

              Reflecting these patterns, Republicans won a majority of votes among those who said they voted in person on Election Day, 60% to 38%. Democrats won – by an identical margin – voters who said they voted by mail or absentee ballot. Those who said they voted in person before Election Day were divided: 53% supported Republican candidates, while 46% voted for Democratic candidates.

              Perhaps if Dems were able to pass easier mail in voting or better legislation generally, people would be more likely to vote for them

    • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 month ago

      The government keeps fucking everyone but the democrats blame the republicans for it, and the republicans the democrats for it, not realizing they are talking about the exact same group of people.

      I’m shocked either party can maintain the illusion at this point but thats just my perspective.

      • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        If you don’t see a difference between the current political parties, that seems like a you problem.

        • Ajen@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          That’s a strawman argument. Pointing out that one of them is worse than the other ignores the real problem - the system is broken.

          • theparadox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            And comparing the two parties like they are both the same within this broken system is counterproductive. One party is openly planning an authoritarian coup, and the other is far too beholden to the capitalist class. Voting third party or abstaining (same thing) is a vote to end whatever shreds of democracy we still have.

            Vote for the lesser evil and make a scene about whatever you don’t like but don’t pretend the two parties are the same. It kills morale and it’s bullshit to boot.

              • theparadox@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 month ago

                Then your values are flawed.

                You are watching a victim forced to give a gun to either

                1. sleazeball or

                2. a psychopath who has an explicitly outlined plan to use the gun to get more guns and kill as many people as possible.

                Instead of urging the victim to choose the lesser evil you are doing… nothing? Bravely doing nothing so that next time… the sleazeball will make better choices or arguments? Or maybe so that next time the victim will learn their lesson and find a third option?

                • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  Well I wouldnt tell that person to go on message boards and shit on every single person who shows the slightest bit of hesitance to vote democrat.

                  I also wouldnt use false equivalencies to prove my point either.

                  It might come as a shock to you, but there are more than just two scenarios that exist. You can bark at me all you want but you care more about predicting who wins than affecting change, so we aren’t even talking about the same things.

          • Knightfox@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            It’s not really a strawman argument, it’s closer to an ad hominem. In fact, the argument you are making is closer to a strawman.

            “A straw man fallacy is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.” -Wikipedia

            Saying that “if you can’t tell the difference between the two parties is a you problem” is attacking the person not the issue. Saying that the difference between the two parties isn’t the problem (when that’s what is being argued) and instead it’s the system is by definition a strawman. Using the strawman to make the discussion about the futility of voting in a flawed system just goes to show how much of a strawman it is.

            • Ajen@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 month ago

              It’s a strawman because they’re trying to shift the focus from one thing (the system is broken) to another (Republicans are bad)

              • Knightfox@lemmy.one
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                Nope, the thread they were responding is this one (https://lemmy.one/comment/13175909) which is about the two parties (specifically whether higher turnout would benefit one party or the other). Someone else replied saying that it’s about the system being broken (itself a strawman). This guy made an attack on the person, but was still focused on the two party system. Then you made a strawman as well.

  • TORFdot0@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 month ago

    “I’m not going to vote because democrats aren’t communist which makes them basically republicans” - average Lemmy.ml user

    Jk it’s actually something more like “I’m not going to vote because I’m European”

    • hexabs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Eastern European specifically.

      Even more specific?

      As east as you can get in Europe :)

      • prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        So you’re gonna do nothing about it. Cool.

        Both sides support Israel, one side has advocated and has vocal members who advocate against the genocide. The other side is for the genocide and thinks they should go further.

        But you’re right, both sides, etc etc, Sit out.

        • wpb@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          Who says I’m doing nothing about it? All you know about it is that I refuse to vote in favor of genocidal regimes. Besides, refusing to vote for someone who’s actively committing a genocide is doing something. It’s exercising your right to vote in a meaningful way by showing that there are lines you do not cross. I wouldn’t vote for Hitler when that was an option, and I won’t vote for Harris (or Trump) now.

          • theparadox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            Make sure to pat yourself on the back for doing something when the christofascists take over, applaud Israels “tough” stance on “terrorism”, and kill or chase out every Palestinian that doesn’t lick IDF boots and ask for seconds.

            • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 month ago

              And you are so sure thats not happening now? How exactly could trump accelerate any of that. Israel literally does what it wants. It doesnt give two shits.

              At least bring up the right ally we would be screwing over which is Ukraine, but oh look the democrats are fucking them over too. Interesting that.

              • theparadox@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                While it may be said that Trump is not necessarily the most Israel friendly president, he is undoubtedly the most Netanyahu friendly president (the leader of the Israeli regime perpetuating the genocide in Gaza and the West Bank).

                Trump brags he gave Israel the Golan Heights, part of Syria that Israel has been occupying for decades, by formally recognizing Israeli sovereignty over it.

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

                Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital is Israel and moved its embassy there from Tel Aviv. The status of Jerusalem is considered a key part of Israel-Palestine negotiations.

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

                Trump’s son in law, Jared Kushner, mentions that Israel should remove the civilian population in Gaza and clean it up, stating it would be valuable waterfront property.

                https://apnews.com/article/jared-kushner-trump-israel-waterfront-property-901895eeafee867e69d0c4582a4deb47

                Trump killed the “Iran Nuclear Deal”, which was vehemently opposed by Netanyahu. When Netanyahu spoke in front of congress opposing the deal in 2015 he was invited by a Republican and Democrats walked out of his speech in protest.

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

                Politicians that criticise Israel, or even want conditions on their “military aid”, risk being targeted by the pro-Israel groups. Jamal Bowman had his position more or less publically butchered to set an example and warn others not to oppose Israel. While some others survived massive spending against them by the pro-Israel lobby, AIPAC and other groups are effective in making sure most politicians avoid thr topic of Israel, at least publicly.

                https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/20/nyregion/aipac-bowman-latimer.html

                Netanyahu was clearly displeased with his meeting with Harris. His repeated escalation of violence is increasing tensions in the Middle East and angering a large subset of the US Democratic base. More and more people are under the impression that he is trying to harm the Democratic ticket and/or lock the US in conflict so that, of Democrats still win the presidency, they will have no choice but to continue to back Israel and Netanyahu’s regime.

                • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  All of these things are happening or heading towards happening now, under Democrat leadership.

                  Explain to me how either the republicans would make it worse, or the democrats would make it better.

  • PunnyName@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 month ago

    Which is why Reps are the ones constantly vying for various “voter security” measures (voter suppression).

    Vote like your life depends on it. Because it does.

  • lorty@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    1 month ago

    I remember when dems had the presidency and both houses and did nothing stated here.

    • MonkRome@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      That’s more complicated than a simple meme. If you have a party with 1/4 far left, 1/2 moderately left, and 1/4 basically moderate conservatives, it doesn’t matter that you have a majority, those moderate conservatives will still hold up any progress, but that’s not the fault of the other 3/4 of the party.

  • Ignotum@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 month ago

    kids are force fed the bible

    Well that can’t be true
    Republicans are strongly against feeding children after all

    • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      Buy our new Trump Bible Mk.39! This new edition features pages made out of pork rinds so your constituents can taste the word of our lord!

  • daltotron@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 month ago

    Time is a flat circle, except the cycle comes back around again every second. The same conversations over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. Had at such frequency, with such vitriol, it is totally indistinguishable from pure noise. It’s like a root canal for your brain.

    Someone brings up wanting to not vote, on some principle. Could be Gaza, could be them not so slowly capitulating to the right on every issue since FDR got out of office, to the point that we’re now running george dubya 2 as president. Then someone says, ah, well, you should vote democrat anyways, because they’re better than republicans. Then we get one of two answers, we either get, ah, well, no they aren’t, or, they aren’t better on this one particular issue that I care about, so fuck it, right. Which is not a super convincing counterargument. Or, we get the real argument, we get the deeper dive into the actual political process, which we all collectively understand to be completely fucked as to basically be unrecoverable, and yet still, somehow, this is a source of constant disagreement. Usually because people who don’t know any alternative have deluded themselves into cynically caping for the same broken system as some form of what is basically escapism.

    Ah, not in a swing state? You live in a population center? Seems like your vote doesn’t matter, better luck next time. Ahh, you don’t live in one of like, twelve counties in those swing states? Ahh, well, seems like your vote doesn’t matter, either, because of gerrymandering, so, sucks to suck for you. Ahh, well, guess the electorate decided to pick someone different than what you voted for, so, better luck next time. The democrats lost? Ahh, well, if only the left had turned up to vote. You just gotta vote, and then we’ll be granted such an overwhelming victory that we will be able to implement all of the milquetoast reforms you’ve ever wanted! The democrats win? Ahh, well, time to pull to the right twelve more degrees, since we’ve won the race, and now whatever the voters care about doesn’t fucking matter at all. The democrats win, but then the supreme court decides to veto the recount because the voting system in a single state was so totally and completely fucked? Ahh, well, looks like we gotta go kill a million fucking people in iraq for oil money, champ, sorry about that.

    It’s especially fucking insane because the idea of voting for them in the first place is an acknowledgement that we live in a FPTP system where you cynically have to vote for the lesser evil. Every other qualification and quality that the system has, which makes it worse? That shit doesn’t exist. We’re taking the most simplified, common idiot stance, here. It is so insane that I struggle to think that it’s not just bad faith drudgery. Out of the 350 million, only like 5% of that are people who even approach mattering, and, as we also know, it’s kind of dubious even then. So, if those are the only people whose votes matter, and we all FUCKING know that, then why the hell am I inundated with constant removed and moaning and whining about how I just simple NEED to vote democrat or else nooo nooo we’re going to be plunged into literally a hitlerian dystopia like handmaid’s tail? Look around you, look at what is currently happening.

    Oh no! Another democratic senator has decided to stand in opposition to this bill, narrowly swinging the votes around and keeping us deadlocked into an eternal hell where nothing except bipartisan things like border spending, foreign policy, spending on the military industrial complex, banning shit like tiktok, and the basic foundational elements of neoliberal economic policy ever get done. Whatever shall we do? Guess the answer is just to vote harder!

    If the democrats did actually get an overwhelming victory, you wouldn’t get FDR again. They’ve been very clear about exactly what their policies are, and they’ve calculated that position as a way to push the buck as far in favor of their corporate sponsors and themselves as they can get away with, while both winning, and also presenting a constant war to the public where it’s a struggle to get anything done. The narrowest margin of victory is actually a boon, in that circumstance. It means they can both run on unpopular policy and they can make it look as though they’re trying to get things done and oops whoops they’re just narrowly failing. If they somehow got a massive win on that platform, probably through some absolutely massive unforced error by republicans. I don’t even know what that would look like, at this point. They would probably all have to collectively catch a disease and die simultaneously, and I think that would probably also spell chaos for the nation. You wouldn’t see the dems suddenly run to the left, after that, because the left would have basically no leverage over them, no bargaining power, no hand in their win. You especially wouldn’t see them drift to the left because THAT’S NOT WHAT THEY’RE FUCKING CAMPAIGNING ON. SO THAT CAN’T BE WHY THEY GOT ELECTED. The only way they would get that majority in the first place is basically through them moving to the left to begin with, which as previously described, they will never do, or, worse off, and what they are currently trying to happen, is if like, 40 - 50% of the population suddenly drifted super rightward and became neocons.

    No democratic party politician is some secret communist that, ah, once they get an 80% majority, after enough election engineering, enough rightward drift, enough calculations that they can get into power unilaterally, then, suddenly then they’ll become a communist. The most you might see is that republicans, after losing so badly, might make a better run at implementation of actually populist policies, but then that’s kind of obviously a nonstarter for them because they’re ALSO owned by corporate entities and they’re ALSO doing this same exact gambit. The idea of getting a huge win somehow also relies on the utter delusion that you can outflank the republican party from the right, or, outflank them with your competence at right-wing policy. You could maybe outflank them in competence, but that’s both not a good thing, obviously, and it also wouldn’t matter to their core base of delusional evangelical suburban whites that have an outsized amount of voting power and oil money.

    The reason some people think this, if they even do, and aren’t just assuming whatever cynical position they have to in order to push things around, is because they’re idealistic and totally delusional about the incentives the system naturally produces. How people in power go through many filters that all but guarantee they’ll be acting in their own self-interest by the time they reach the top. There’s no secret leftist that is going to reach a presidential level of power and then suddenly come down and save us all. I’d love to be proven wrong there, but it’s not fucking happening.

    And you know what’s the worst about all this shit? Every election cycle, every single time, at the one time when there is the most political interest flaring up in the population, we are met with this fucking insanely dumb conversation that we have over and over and over and over and over again. It eats up space that could otherwise be reserved for actual serious conversations about strategic voting, how to look into local policies and politicians and how to vote for them, where those resources are, how to organize, how to gain political leverage, how to unionize your workplace, how to stage a protest, participate in a protest, when a protest should even be done and what amount of political leverage such an act might buy you. None of that ever gets talked about. Instead we need like a year out of every four where the only political conversations anyone is capable of having is this repetitive overly simplified bullshit. This ideological poison which totally stymies any serious dialogue. And then turn around and wonder why nobody except the dumbest and most aggressive sacks of shit on the planet, that are obviously just taking out their anger issues actually want to talk to you about this shit, sacks of shit like me. It’s insane. I don’t understand how we keep falling down the stairs. I don’t understand how this keeps happening.