this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2024
1329 points (94.7% liked)
Political Memes
5414 readers
4307 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Imagine you live in a world where major voices of a political party is clearly expressing that their current guy will run down the world and thinks that it is a w, because the other guy is worse.
Thanks Dems, you fail the USA and the world at large! Literally ruining the only accessable livable planet. But w for not being trump!
Failure by design, not by accident.
I don't really understand this stance... I mean, yes I get what you are saying and that is exceedingly shitty you have to choose between bad and worse; but is there really "no difference"?
I mean, if you have to choose between leaving your loving family vs having your loving family killed... is it really the "same" choice?
— actual quote of GP
Kinda disingenuous to blame the democrats when the system has been flawed for decades and should've been fixed a long time ago. Democrats are to blame, republicans are to blame and Americans in general are to blame for their shitty political system.
Capitalism is to blame, not the American people. The Political Parties ultimately gain influence and power by courting the ruling class to secure funding, thus it is unreasonable to expect either the Democrats or the Republicans to actually represent the will of the people.
Except European countries don't have the exact same problem that the US has, which mean that specific issue isn't caused by capitalism.
They have similar problems, resulting from Capitalism, but of course having a different electoral structure results in different issues. That doesn't mean their issues don't also stem from Capitalism, it's Capitalism with a different structure.
At the end of the day, a wildfire in a forest and a wildfire in a prairie face different issues still caused by wildfire.
So in a socialist country this could never happen?
Socialist countries face different issues that are not the result of Capitalism.
States ultimately serve the class in power, if the class in power is the Proletariat, then the majority is in power. If the class in power is the Bourgeoisie, then the minority is in power.
In any system where a small group of people control the vast majority of wealth, resources, and Capital, the dominant political parties will court these people and represent their interests over the people that do not control the majority of wealth, resources, and Capital.
We have historical example of the USSR where despite being a "socialist" country it was a one party system that did not represent everyone.
You can do socialism and still get the politics wrong. That means capitalism or socialism is not the cause of every political problem. The same problem with the US can still happen even if the US was a socialist country. Similarly you can be a capitalist country and not have the problem US has, because the problem in the US is how the political system is built up not how capitalists use the system to their benefit.
Having one party isn't necessarily worse than having 2, what matters is how accountable the parties you have are. The USSR was corrupt, but still had democratic measures in place.
The same problem the US faces, ie the 2 dominant parties representing the Capitalist class that weilds an incredibly outsized amount of power, would not exist in a Socialist country where Capitalists are suppressed or even nonexistant.
The dominant class will use power to influence the state regardless of form the state takes.
Though it pretty much universally is.
I was unaware that being incarcerated in Siberia for disagreeing with the party was a democratic accountability measure.
The overall view of Soviet Russia is interesting. Socially, economically. Politically however, they're as bad or worse than the capitalists they hate. Power corrupts. And yet people keep repeating their mistakes. Outlawing and squashing dissent, concentrating power and wealth at the top. Throwing a few scraps to the proletariat till the parties mistakes come home to roost. Then the wheels fall off. Those in the party and upper ranks refuse to sacrifice. Instead grinding the proletariat in to dust and disillusionment. It's happened to every time with that style of government everywhere has ever been tried.
I think the only remote exception to that being cuba. But that's largely because of its isolation and rather small size.
When the Kim family or Xi start holding elections. Maybe then we might actually believe there's any democracy. When the party leaders and the upper party echelon start living in the same block houses and paying themselves the same wage as the average citizen. Maybe then we might believe the rhetoric is anything more than empty and meaningless. Only meant to pacify the proletariat as long as possible.
When you have good policy there's no need for crushing social oppression or outlawing other parties. Nor is there any need for armies, guns, or tanks to convince people.
What democratic measures USSR had in place?
And what would've prevented USSR from creating a second party, similarly to the US, to make it seem like the communist party was what people wanted?
Yeah, it is only worse if you aren't their main demographic
yeah but they're bludgeoning us with it and claiming to be the good guys, when there are no good guys here (that would be the yellow line)
so it needs pointing out. abd repetition, because fucking biden cultists are the most annoying shit I fucking swear.
Democrats and republicans are the system and the system is working as they intend it. The system will not change while the duopoly exists.
Voters are a part of that system. Who decides who comes into power? The voters. If literally nobody votes for democrats or republicans neither could come into power. The people have kept the system in place as much as the two parties.
C'mon guys, let's do this. I believe in us.
We've done it before. You don't see the Whig party on the ballot anymore. It may be a two-party system, but that doesn't mean a party or both can't be replaced from time to time.
We just need to have a civil war to do it.
Not really. The Whig party collapsed in the mid 1850s and the Civil War was in the 60s. People just need to vote for who they truly want, even if it's a third party.
Though I agree with you, no one will vote third party, because they are convinced a third party can't win, making it a self fulfilling prophecy. If you don't vote for them, of course they can't win. While I acknowledge that the system is broken here in the US, and that ranked voting is a much better system, I'd like to remind people that its still important to vote for who you like, and not against who you don't like. I don't like either of the main candidates for President, so I'm voting third party. Will my person win? Who knows, probably not, but I won't vote for either of the main candidates because I dislike them both for different reasons, and think they're both awful. Is one worse than the other? Yep, sure is, but I'd still rather vote for someone I like. If people weren't so obsessed with only voting for the major parties, third party candidates could win. It's happened in the past. No one ran for president as a Republican until 1856, and they didn't get their first Republican president until Lincoln in 1860, which means that even though they are a major party now, they were a third party back then. Third parties CAN win, but not with the current mindset of the average American voter today. If people who say they want a change, actually want a change, then they need to do something different to get the change. If you keep doing the same thing, nothing will change. If you're sick of the major parties, and hate the candidates they're putting forth, show them how bad they are by voting third party. Change is hard, but possible. To see change, you need to be change.
And who convinced them?
The Democrats and Republicans. Because they want to keep the power between themselves.
That doesn't change the fact that one candidate is clearly worse than the other.
If your choices are limited to the two party duopoly then you don't really have a choice. Technically you can vote for another party, but that's just throwing your vote away. If you don't vote then there are millions of others who vote anyway (voting with your wallet when buying products doesn't work for similar reasons).
The people had the system forced on them and are extremely limited in what they can do in it. Let's say by some miracle that another party emerges victorious, that'll just become the new target for ~~bribery~~ lobbyists who will bend the party to their will anyway.
It’s just slower than you want. If you consistently vote for “one side”, every election, the center will move toward that side as the candidates differentiate themselves (but not too much). Isn’t this the entire problem? Too many people have been voting Conservative for too many years, digging themselves a hole that will take a similar number of years to dig out of?
Currently the “middle” is way to the right. Are you voting to move that middle line yet farther right or are you voting to start moving it back toward the left?
I've voted for the democratic party straight down the ballot every election for as long as I can vote. A major part of the problem is that the two party system guarantees that at some point republicans will get power and when they do, they drag the window to the right rapidly. When democrats get power, they're comfortable with leaving the window where it is for the most part, insisting that we "work with republicans" while republicans never do the same. Compare eight years of Obama with four years of Trump.
Your options are limited because the overall system is shit. You won't get more options until the entire political system is reformed and that's why I'm saying everyone is to blame, because the signs have been there for a long time.
Right now blaming the democrats does nothing because you still have to vote democrat, the alternative is a fascist who will try to completely break down the democratic apparatus. After the election Americans should start constantly demanding a reformation of the system because it no longer serves the people.
This is why reforming capitalism is a waste of time. Reforms only delay end stage, not prevent it entirely. The solution (IMO) is to diffuse the wealth and the power that comes with it into the population through worker co-ops.
Maybe that isn't the solution, who the fuck cares if I'm right or not? But we won't ever work towards that better way of life if we let the status quo lord over us all our whole lives?
I'm sure people thought feudalism was going to be forever to back in the day, much like capitalism now. Capitalism isn't thousands of years old like feudalism was. (Still is in select parts of the world)
Voters decide which evil comes into power, usually by selecting the lesser evil out of 2 options. The ruling class picks which options voters can pick between, because parties secure funding and influence by courting the ruling class.
It is in this manner that change is extremely difficult electorally.
More people didn't vote at all than voted for Trump. It's possible it was also more than voted for Biden as well (both on around 81 million, exact figures for none voters don't seem to be available).
Yet the system continues anyway.
They both like it if you don't vote. It means they have to spend less money influencing people.
Who decides who comes into power? Strictly speaking, the party officials in charge of primaries in the US.
I mean I can agree with the idea that if Americans did a Gaddafi on Republicans and Democrats then things would be different, hell, things would change tomorrow if Americans really wanted it, these people have names and addresses. Where I disagree is that calls for violence is bad but only because we're supposed to say violence is the wrong approach. Maybe elections played by their rules will work in our favor someday (lol).
The political establishment has been killing and robbing the people for centuries, it shouldn't be controversial to say we need to fight back more fiercely.
My problem lies within the fact that she posts that proudly.
Dems might aren't to blame for the system and might aren't to blame for the climate issues... But that they think this is a win??? Crazy! Who is posting the "win"? A dem.
That's just Hillary being unable to read the room, it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.
Of course that is the issue which should give everyone a pause. This is a impressive level of illiteracy. "If you look at this graph, at the current rate, we murder millions and destroy the chance of the survival of the human race, so we are planning to do it a little slower. Aren't we amazing?"
Dear Hillary, at least use some propaganda skills when you want to sell us the slowing down of the baby grinder as a win. At least, tell us that with the currently planned action this is the projection but you are working hard to find additional ways to improve the situation and that decisive measures need to be well planned and executed which is unfortunately a timely process.
This is just poor politics.
We can always go back to hollow earth and live as Kaiju food or something if the surface gets destroyed
I have a prediction: Now that the USA people are waking up, the voting ratio on this comment (which wound up at currently a surprising-to-me 43:9 while most of them were asleep) will start to shift in the direction of many more downvotes, although it will continue to attract a trickle of upvotes.
Why is that, I wonder?
(I could try to disagree with the logic of saying "well now that we changed firefighters the amount of fire in the building is going down, BUT IT'S NOT OUT YET WTF ISN'T THAT CONVENIENT WHY DID WE EVEN BRING THESE GUYS INSTEAD OF THE GUYS WHO JUST START MORE FIRES," but I think looking into why this has such an unnatural pattern of voting is a little more interesting.)
My controversial comments tend to follow this pattern as well. Initial upvotes, followed by a flood of downvotes and a trickle of upvotes.
This is why it’s important to use a lemmy client that shows both ups and downs, not just the total.
When a comment goes deep into the negative in total score, it can seem like nobody got reached.