1325
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Feb 2024
1325 points (96.4% liked)
Lord of the memes
7831 readers
1054 users here now
The Lord of the rings memes communitiy on Lemmy. Share memes about Lord of the rings and be respectful.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
But the DNC will also never change, if their actions have no consequences.
If they can perpetually get away with "Well our candidate is not aspiring to be a second Putin", all that does is push the political spectrum further and further to the right, until the DNC will give you a Putin and the Republicans will give you a Mussolini.
And so, to make the DNC face concequences, let's make them lose to the candidate that's aspiring to be a second Mussolini immediately! When he does the Day of the Rope, all those trans people who get hanged will appreciate that we made sure the DNC had concequences!
I understand your concern. You should ask yourself though, if the Dems would actually stand up for trans rights, if they had to. So far my impression was, that they are happy to throw any minority under the bus, if it serves them opportunistically.
And they think they can do that, because they hold each minority hostage with the lie of "we are the best you can expect"
So I say that you're proposing to throw away trans lives for the principle of the thing, and your response is that Dems might throw away trans lives for some kind of ephemeral opportunity that hasn't come around in the last ~15 years or so. If, and I do mean if, they did throw away trans lives for whatever it is you're fear mongering about here, at least that's more than the nothing we'd get under your plan of "split the vote to make sure Rs win, then the DNC would learn something for the next election that will be canceled by the Rs." Even in your defense you laid out the question is would I rather have something or nothing? I'd rather have something. And I don't think they would either way.
Show me where the republicans advocate for genociding trans people?
Because right now Biden is supporting a genocide.
Also why is it that anyone deems it acceptable policy, that either party on the ballot supports some form of murdering minorities?
So you don't understand my concern at all. You should probably pay attention to the rhetoric and policies pushed by conservative politicians and media before you say democrats are just as bad as them.
What consequences do you propose?
Voting for a progressive third party, to show them that they have to offer the best e.g. most agreeable position, that is more progressive of the republican reactionarism.
Also if people would organize to do so, it could become an existential threat to them, and ideally bring on a new party that is not corrupted by capitalism and imperialism like the Dems are.
Voting for a third party is voting for the major-party candidate you like least.
It's how the system works, and encouraging people to vote 3rd party over Biden right now only makes sense if you're wanting Trump to win.
No, voting for a third party is voting for a third party. If that party gains enough track to become the second most elected, that party can be the winning party the year after.
Also in about every other democracy the concept of coalitions exist, where parties agree to form a coalition by negotiating a compromise between their policies.
The issue is that the US politics are made to be the same as stock market companys. Only ever think to the next term. Never think further. Never try to bring positive change over a longer time. Always just fight the next battle of existential dread and prepare the country for the next battle being even more dreadful, while the people suffer more and more.
This mindset of mainting this toxic status quo is part of the reasons, why Trump could win in 2016 in the first place. He understood that all he needs to do, is being an entertaining asshole, that claims to not be part of the establishment. And you saw, how quick some of the Reps, and many "conservatives" were to dump Trump, after the sentiment turned against him a bit after the fallout of Jan 6. /r/conservative was hilarious for this, as all of a sudden everyone was talking about how they always were wary of Trump and how it is good that the Reps would get back to being the party of reason. (With people like Ted Cruz being endorsed as reasonable, lmfao) But the Trumpists stood out the backlash and now all the Reps are sucking up to him again.
It will not become better, if Trump won't win this time, or if he ends his second term. He is only one head of a Hydra of what is wrong with the US. And the Dems are guarding the neck whenever the head is severed, so two new heads can grow.
Yeah, our politics are fucked.
How will voting in a method statistically certain to benefit a literal fascist help?
Were voting against Trump because he is a threat to democracy. Bush, McCain, and Romney were not.
The only way to accomplish what you propose is to switch our elections to ranked choice voting.
Otherwise, I'm sorry but you're stuck with the two major party choices.
You're calling the DNC the party of no change?
They will not change on the issues of supporting neoliberal capitalism that is literally killing the people in the US, as well as genocidial imperialism that is killing the people outside of the US.
Just look at the history of the past twenty years. First came Obama, who was a black president and as such a token of progress, but at the same time accompanied by Biden, who was somewhere between conservative and reactionary. Obama failed to deliver on progressive promises like closing Guantanamo, while launching a deadly program of extrajudicial killings, read cold blooded assassinations by drones. After Obama, the DNC pushed for Hillary Clinton, who as a secretary of state under Bush was coorchestrating the Iraq invasion, that not only was just as illegal us Putins invasion of Ukraine, and founded on equally absurd lies, it also killed a million people and led to the rise of ISIS. Meanwhile Saudi Arabia was palliated, despite clear connections between Saudi Arabia and 9/11.
So Clinton became the candidate. What did she advocate for? For starting a war with Iran, setting all of the Middle East ablaze. If you think the war against Iraq was bad, with a million people killed, imagine ten times that many people killed. That was Hillary Clintons idea of American foreign policy.
And who did we get afterwards? Joe Biden, who has been on the reactionary side for the msot part of his long lasting history as senator. He was already a geriatric at the time of the campaigning in 2018-2020. But the DNC would rather create the conditions under which Democracy will be abolished, than ever dare as much as bring an actually progressive candidate. A candidate where the only progress expected would be to not kill the poor in the US, through devastating economic policy and to not kill people abroad through illegal invasions and US white supremacy.
Why should anyone listen to you when it's obvious you have no clue what you're talking about. Hillary was SOS under Obama, not Bush, and she had absolutely nothing to do with the Iraq invasion. But, hey, why let a little thing like facts get in the way of your vitriol.
Im sorry,i mixed it up. She was SOS under Obama, but she voted for the Iraq invasion and was war hawky at every opportunity.
Yes. There are problems with the DNC. I don't think there's any democrat on here who is 100% happy with how the party is run.
But we're not the party of one great leader. Not everyone who is a democrat blindly follows the person in charge. But every democrat wants change, that's why we vote blue regardless. Or else at best we stay stagnant under republican rule.