this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2025
283 points (79.2% liked)

Memes

47396 readers
1370 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 53 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (6 children)

This meme made sense in 2012, not when the Republican Party has decided to be the Anti-Democratic Party.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (3 children)

Not three months ago Gaza had a death toll well past fifty thousand by the most conservative estimates, not to mention the huge amounts of women and children maimed, malnourished and the wholesale destruction of the entire strip's infrastructure.

Did the republicans do that or did y'all deny reality so much in the pursuit of tHe mOsT iMpOrTanT ElEctiOn oF oUr LiFeTimE that you don't know what fucking color the sky is unless you ask the DNC first.

The republicans are not diametrically opposed to the democrats, they're just the same shit but more brash, and (with Trump at the helm) too fucking incompetent to not say the quiet part out loud, maybe because they know their base is so rabid on American fascism that dogwhistles aren't enough anymore, they need a fucking trumpet.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

This is such a bad faith argument you have to be oblivious to everything Trump has said and done to even consider it plausible.

Prior to the election, exactly what did Trump say or do that made you think he was going to inhibit the suffering of the Palestinians or impede Israeli attempts at genocide?

And since he has taken power, how has the situation improved at all due to his foreign policy. Because here in reality he repeatedly said Israel didn't go far enough and that he would increase arm shipments to Israel. And after taking power he un paused the shipments that Biden halted to force Israel to the negotiation table.

There aren't really polite terms that can be used for people who might have voted D in the last few elections but then decided they would protest vote and abstain when their best case scenario was to put Trump and all his corrupt possy. It's like refusing to let your daughter go to prom with her boyfriend cause something about him makes you think he's a dangerous creep, but then instead just letting her go out unsupervised with a known rapist who murdered his last victim.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 62 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

I'd take some less evil, please.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 25 points 16 hours ago (6 children)

I don't understand why people who think this don't advocate for ranked choice voting. Seems like it would solve this issue, right?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

No, RCV wouldn't. The fundamental problem of electoral politics being a game between factions pre-approved by the bourgeoisie won't change, there are even safeguards preventing unwanted change that losing parties and government branches can pull in the rare event a worker party won.

It's the perfect carrot, it won't get passed nor would it change much.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Even if it would, how would it ever get passed when the people who would need to pass it are the ones who are only in office because the system works the way it currently does?

This is just a recurring theme I've found when talking with liberals. They like to think about and suggest all sorts of policy ideas as though all we're missing are some smart ideas nobody has thought of. It's one thing to say we should have this, but it's another to have any idea of how it'd be possible to do. Since they have no actual analysis of the system, they'll just turn around and tell you to vote or call your representative. "We should get money out of politics!" "Yeah, well we checked with the people giving us money and they said no. So..."

[–] [email protected] 20 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

You have a few options for enacting ranked choice voting at the national level:

  1. Win hundreds, possibly thousands, of state-level House and Senate seats with the largest grass roots voter mobilization ever seen in the US to, a) enact legislation in all 50 states or b) ratify an amendment to the constitution, that mandates it.

  2. Kill enough republicans in a national civil war to make sure that when elections happen, there aren't enough republicans left to win an election, then enact the above.

  3. Overthrow the entire US government in a much bloodier national coup and set up whatever government you want.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

Kill enough republicans in a national civil war

And democrats, too. Don't pretend they're not just as responsible for keeping fptp voting, their party depends on it. If you don't believe me, look into how coordinated the GOP and Democrats were when suing PSL and the Green party to keep them off several state ballots (and severely whittle down their grassroots funds with corporate-money lawfare). Spoiler: there was no overlap.

It's one party, two wings.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 14 hours ago

Imma be real as an European, we kinda have the same problem here even with better voting systems. You either vote for "nothing ever happens" parties or literal Russia funded reactionary nazis.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

Relative to the other fully developed countries, a mainstream Democrat is a homeopathic liberal.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (9 children)

Scenario I've been playing with:

Suppose you are kidnapped by two people. They tell you that one of them will shoot you and then let you go, but you get to decide who shoots. Person A says he will shoot you in the head. Person B says he will shoot you in the shoulder. Which do you choose?

The more think about this the more I like it. Both persons are clearly awful and contributed to the situation. Both could offer better choices but refuse. Both are rather similar in outcomes. But one is clearly worse.

Is it rational to choose to be shot at all? Is it rational to not choose the better of two alternatives?

[–] [email protected] 28 points 16 hours ago

If you don't choose, then someone else chooses for you

[–] [email protected] 20 points 15 hours ago

Then the people who claim to love you choose for you and say that getting shot in the head would be better for you. Any attempt to convince them otherwise is met with absolute disbelief.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] -5 points 11 hours ago (13 children)
load more comments (13 replies)
[–] [email protected] -5 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (12 children)

If the vast majority of Americans believed the Democrats to be less evil, the Democrats would have 90% of the vote. If that were the case, the Republicans would move ever further left, perhaps even overtaking the Democrats, until they get a chance at winning again.

The reason the parties are right wing is because the voters are right wing.

That's why we need a communist revolution where everyone will be a happy little comrade

The reason that people don't vote Democrats is the same reason that people won't join your revolution.

If you found enough people to support a revolution, that'd mean you have enough people to change the system by simple voting.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 hours ago

So close...

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 12 hours ago

Seems OG Lemmy hardcore dems have been overrun by critically thinking individuals.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›