• NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      If you choose to do anything but sacrifice your children to Moloch then you are by extension choosing to sacrifice your children Baal!

  • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Oh, you’re seriously gonna pretend that moloch is better than baal is??? The hellfire demons eating civilians at random would be soo much worse if moloch were running things.

    • Voting third party (i don’t care if jesus promised to end the hellfire demons, his party won’t win, and is just a spoiler for the baal vote) - a vote for moloch.
    • Not prefacing a criticism of baal’s administration (cmon, we all know he realistically can’t stop the hellfire demons) without first saying you’ll vote for him? Also a vote for moloch.
    • Not voting - a vote for moloch.
    • Going to the bathroom? Believe it or not, also a vote for moloch.

    /s

      • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        3 months ago

        Even on the minor, basest of chances it gains enough traction to make a tangible difference despite both parties working against it, how could a Socialist party make meaningful change without the other apparatus of the State like the military and legislative branches getting in the way?

        Allende taught us what relying on electoralism will get you, even if you win.

        • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          3 months ago

          Those are called checks and balances, and are there to make sure power is distributed. It’s good that you need buy in from lots of different people.

          You don’t want to make a system where a few people can go drastically against the will of most people. So you’d first need to build wide support across the majority of the country or state. That’s the whole point of democracy.

          • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Those are called checks and balances, and are there to make sure power is distributed. It’s good that you need buy in from lots of different people.

            Not quite. They are designed so that any genuine threat to Capitalist profits can be stalled out.

            You don’t want to make a system where a few people can go drastically against the will of most people.

            That’s what America already is and has been since its inception.

            So you’d first need to build wide support across the majority of the country or state. That’s the whole point of democracy.

            America is not a functional democracy, and needs to be overthrown and replaced with a functional democracy. The State needs to be entirely smashed and a new one built on top of the ashes.

            • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              3 months ago

              One of the features of a functioning democracy would be ranked choice voting, or something like it, right? So I’d hope we could agree that that would be a good place to start.

              As for other factors, what other sort of inherent structural issues to the system do you see, other than that the people currently in those balancing positions don’t agree with you?

              • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                3 months ago

                One of the features of a functioning democracy would be ranked choice voting, or something like it, right? So I’d hope we could agree that that would be a good place to start.

                We have very little chance of getting that just by trying to vibe it into existence, and even if we got it it wouldn’t suddenly mean that parties would cease accountability to the ultra-wealthy donors.

                As for other factors, what other sort of inherent structural issues to the system do you see, other than that the people currently in those balancing positions don’t agree with you?

                Outside of the fact that Capitalism will always mean the interests of Capital, not people, are going to be represented, there exists no real direct line from the workplace to the region to parliament, the will of the masses is not upheld because the masses do not have democratic participation that matters outside of local elections. The entire system needs to be restructured.

                • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  interests of Capital, not people, are going to be represented

                  Though campaign donations for advertising? Or bribery?

                  no real direct line from the workplace to the region to parliament

                  Why do you think voting in national elections doesn’t matter?

  • geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    As a lifelong Baal voter I am now voting for Moloch. How can anyone with a conscience still vote for Baal after he was convicted of sacrificing adults?

    • linkhidalgogato@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      to “both sides” something there first have to be 2 different sides, not two right wings of the fucking bird in nazi insignias.