Yes, remember when blue team was kidnapping people, trafficking them to foreign blacksites and refusing the return them even when proven wrong? Remember when they removed elected officials from government briefings by force? Remember when democrats organised a military parade for the dear leader’s birthday?
-
Yes but, I guess they at least weren’t residents I guess. To be fair prison for a lotta people isn’t much better. Lots of democrats have been “tough on crime” before.
-
No they’re more interested in shitting on the few fellow democrats that actually have leftist beliefs, or even a spine.
-
I’ll give you this one. Americas military fetish has always been bad, but that was exceptionally pathetic.
I don’t think they’re the same thing, but they’re part of the same systematic ratcheting over to the right. They’re the ratchet, and MAGAts are the gear, cranking along to the right.
Not the same thing, but working in unison to accomplish the same outcome. Whether or not its intended.
So when people say they’re the same, its not that democrats causing the issues, its that they’re seemingly doing very little to stop it. Because they’re willing to throw people into the meat grinder in the hopes they don’t get thrown in too.
They’re the same in that no party is willing to address or fix the systematic issues of late stage capitalism, outside of a few tokens viewed as “niche”, kept to be laughed at and to keep those paying attention quiet.
That’s what people mean when they say that.
A ratchet without a gear is just a lever.
-
Voting is necessary civil engagement: but it is insufficient. Both parties agree on the two-party system. Both parties agree on first past the post voting. Both parties agree on taking money from “good” billionaires (i.e., legal bribery). Both parties agree on insider trading. Both parties agree on government bailouts. Both parties agree on proxy wars. And so on. In a two-party system, who do we vote for to address these issues?
Of course there are meaningful differences between the parties. But they use social issues (e.g., immigration) to divide the American people so they do not notice just how much both parties agree on. We need deeper systemic changes to this system that literally will never happen through voting.
Rather than complaining that both parties are the same, try voting in congressional primaries. They see less than 15% turnout. You know who always votes? Retirees, and they have very different needs than the working class.
Again, there is too much overlap on the Venn Diagram. The source of these problem is the two-party system itself, which means it will never change through voting. We effectively have a democratic voice for things that the parties disagree on, but do not have a voice for anything that both parties agree on.
So if the two-party system is the problem, how do you think continuing to avoid participation will change something? Try something different and vote in primaries.
I’ve endorsed voting five times already in this thread and yet I still get the same response. It’s like Americans think civil engagement begins and ends at voting. Ironically, the point of this post is to call that very line of thinking into question.
They’re not even voting. That’s my point. Less than 15% attendance in congressional primaries is the reason nothing changes. We need people to actually vote before we can say voting doesn’t do anything.
“I’ve tried nothing but complaining, and I’m all out of options.”
Let me guess: Democrats are completely innocent in our present state of this affairs, right? If we just get more Democrats in all three branches of government, they will fix all our problems. Is that it?
I don’t blame you: I used to think the same. But what does it take to see this is a bipartisan problem? We have President Biden and Bernie Sanders both warning about the oligarchy, and you people think they’re just talking about Republicans. For fucks sake…
You want to point fingers but we all play a part. The electorate are complacent, lazy, moronic, consumers, who think civics is a car made in japan.
Agreed, but I can’t be too critical of the American people. Most of us are kept in a perpetual state of “getting by”.
Im Canadian, i can’t count how many times it feels like we’ve held our nose and voted for a liberal we didn’t love, to stop a right wing nut job from being elected. I think that’s one thing I resent about my American friends right now, they couldn’t just oppose trump. This was not the election to take that stand, especially when you take a stand based on what’s going on in other countries as opposed to what’s festering in your own. You want change in the democrats, well get in there at the bottom level from school boards to local government to primaries, you can’t change it from the top. You have to do it before the federal election.
At least you have more than two options. We literally cannot vote against anything that two political parties agree on. What’s more, anti-establishment forces like Bernie Sanders and AOC are either sidelined or used to redirect voter dissatisfaction into votes for establishment candidates. So while I agree with the need to effect change locally, its doubtful that we can enact meaningful change at the federal level.
It both parties agree on an issue then why make it an election deciding issue? You won’t get anywhere. You deal with that in primaries or after you’ve elected a person who cares what voters think, unlike trump. Everyone here complains but how many people here are actually registered as democrats and taking part in voting for and assisting people like AOC get on the ballot? You can’t expect change if you’re not out there volunteering and helping the party change, you won’t change it from the outside.
You can’t complain during the federal election about things that should have been dealt with before that point. Also it’s wild to me and everyone outside the US that even now after everything, people are still insisting that Harris and Trump are the same, that’s just beyond comprehension.
Nobody “makes” it an “election deciding issue” - those are simply issues that are important to a large portion of the electorate.
If both parties refuse to address it, then those people who care a lot about it are less likely to vote, period, and the more of those issues stack, the less likely they are to vote. It’s infuriating listening to libs whinge about non voters, because they simply do not understand how much apathy their own party is creating.
Just look at the current party approval ratings and tell me that it matters to anyone that the Republicans are ‘objectively’ worse.
Fact is that when the left became team America world police. They think they own the Middle East. I guess it’s easier I criticize and go after a country and conflict across the planet, than it is to fix your own dumpster fire of a country.
I don’t even know who or what issue you’re specifically referring to, but it doesn’t mean anything to moralize about the issues voters are responding to. It doesn’t even really matter what specific issue that does it - if voters lose faith in democracy serving their interests, they just aren’t going to bother working within that system. They’ll either become completely apathetic or become radicalized against it.
This is what a failure of democracy looks like - not a military coup or an armed rebellion, but a slow, gangrenous rotting of trust in democratic institutions.
Lets say i’m a right wing Millionaire. One of the ways i would have to win is to go to left leaning places and tell them “your vote does not count, and they are the same either way, stay home”.
Vote in primaries, find and fundraise better candidates, and so on. It’s not going to do much in the short term, but parties have major platform changes every generation.
Like what happened with Bernie Sanders? Like how things would be different with Obama?
There’s more than one position in government, and you’re not going to get more progressive presidential candidates if you can’t even be bothered to vote in more progressive house reps in the primaries…
I’ve already agreed that we should vote. But it’s not enough.
Progressive ideas have effectively been taken off the table since the Cold War. Even if we can get more progressives in Congress, the establishment dems sideline them. It’s easier for both parties to move to the right because this does not threaten the wealth and privileges of the oligarchy.
Any progressive running for president is, for that reason, fighting against the odds. And when they lose, they take the energy behind their campaign and redirect it to support “centrist” democrats. That’s it, two political parties and we call ourselves a democracy.
Why do those establishment Dems exist? Because people vote for them. You want to jump to progressive Presidency and leadership but don’t want to take the preliminary steps. As others said yes you need to vote in lower primaries to replace establishment Dems from the ground up.
More importantly you have to convince the rest of America of your ideals with feet on the ground and conversations with real people. I’m not seeing any of this. Just a load of whining that the government isn’t the way you like it but you’re going to put in zero work to change it.
You have to not only get out and vote. You have to convince the people who are voting for establishment Dems or Republicans to change their votes. Instead you bitch about them, complain about “liberals” and further the divide with them.
Get off Lemmy. It’s not the real world. You’re in an echo chamber here and talk to the people out there who don’t agree with your ideas and convince them.
Why do those establishment Dems exist? Because people vote for them… More importantly you have to convince the rest of America of your ideals with feet on the ground and conversations with real people.
This much is true, but leftist ideas have been intentionally made taboo since the Cold War/Red Scare. Average Americans recognize their quality of life decreasing but would rather vote in a strong-man than address capitalism itself. Unfortunately, this country is closer to authoritarianism than it is to prioritizing the well-being of its citizens.
Instead you bitch about them,
During the election, it was the wrong time to criticize democrats. Now the election has passed and it is still the wrong time to criticize democrats. When are we supposed to remark on our lack of a voice in the two-party system?
…complain about “liberals” and further the divide with them.
I also criticize Republicans on here but that is preaching to the choir. The more that I read about the history of this country and the present-day agenda of furthering the privileges of the wealthy, the harder it is to care about your party’s unity.
on the ground and conversations with real people. I’m not seeing any of this.
…And so it isn’t happening?
Get off Lemmy. It’s not the real world
Posting a meme is not activism. But you would be mistaken to assume my political engagement ends there.
Spoiler alert:
Bernie did not get more votes in the primary than Hillary.
Bernie did not get more votes, so Bernie did not win.
If you wanted Bernie to win, you needed to vote for him.
Why is this so fucking hard for people to understand.
You could make the same argument about any third party candidate, which would ignore their tremendous disadvantage in our current system. The DNC tilted support in Clinton’s favour from the beginning:
- Court Concedes DNC Had the Right to Rig Primaries Against Sanders
- WikiLeaks emails showing Clinton received debate questions ahead of time
Also, consider Obama. Obama did get more votes than Hillary. Obama had a majority in Congress. Obama literally ran on hope and change. And yet he continued in the same problematic behaviours. Government bailouts for the rich, drone strikes, holding prisoners in Guantanamo Bay for years without due process, persecuting whistleblowers, the list goes on.
Even when we find “better candidates” they either work for the system or fail to change it.
I think people would do well to let go of the idea that the parties as a whole have an ideology. George W. Bush and Donald Trump are not remotely the same. Bernie and Manchin are not the same.
Yes there’s a good bit of overlap in the venn diagram of their supporters, but MAGA was functionally a hostile takeover of the GOP. The old guard was made to get on board or find a new job.
If Bernie had been elected in 2016 the outcome for the DNC would likely have been just as dramatic. If you want the Democratic party to be a leftist party, go make it one. We’ve literally seen a major party pushed to fascism. You know know change is possible.
The enduring ideology of the political establishment is the promotion and protection of the ruling class’ interests–invariably at the expense of the working class. Both parties serve the same master, and because there are only two, the voters don’t have much say in the matter. Progressives, like Bernie, who call out the billionaire donors are the exception to the rule. (More on him later.)
Seen from the leftist perspective, the overlap in the Venn Diagram is a consistent commitment from our politicians to put profits over people. It is why both George Bush and Barack Obama bailed out Wall Street (to give just one example of corporate welfare). It is why SCOTUS declared corporations “people” and campaign donations “free speech”. It’s why the U.S. has engaged in neo-imperialism over the land, labour, natural resources, and markets of developing nations. It’s why the CIA assassinated democratically elected leaders in South America and Asia. It’s why we’ve had decades of stock market growth while wages continue to stagnate. This is not accidental: the system is working as intended.
If Bernie had been elected in 2016 the outcome for the DNC would likely have been just as dramatic. If you want the Democratic party to be a leftist party, go make it one. We’ve literally seen a major party pushed to fascism. You know know change is possible.
I wrote this in another comment but I’ll reiterate here. Bernie did not get a fair chance at the presidency. The DNC limited the number of debates (not allowing their favourite to be taken to task), they gave Hillary debate questions ahead of time, gave Trump/Clinton all the media coverage, etc. It is damn near impossible to succeed as a third-party candidate (sorry, Jill Stein) so a self-proclaimed socialist has to run as a Democrat and play by their rule book. And they don’t even have to play by their own rules! (Court Concedes DNC Had the Right to Rig Primaries Against Sanders.) When AOC runs, they’ll do the same thing and then she will spend her time in Congress backing establishment democrats. Please realize that the political elite would much rather shift to the right than to the left. The far left-wing actually threatens the profits of the wealthy.
While the RNC is not nearly as rigged as the DNC, They absolutely stacked the deck against Trump in 2016.
Mega donors poured money into his opposition throughout the primary. Hit pieces ran left and right. There was a “Never Trump” movement on the right during the general. He was staunchly opposed by some of the biggest names in right-wing media (Glen Beck and Mark Levin).
But he won anyway.
The left may never get a fair shake but it is incumbent upon us to win anyway. If you put a true leftist economic populist in the White House for just one term you will see dramatic change across the political landscape. But no one’s just going to give it to you.
It took decades of planning and learning hard lessons to truly turn this country fascist. If right-wing extremists had thrown in the towel when Barry Goldwater got washed we wouldn’t have Trump today.
Lol then start running for office
Then spoil a ballot, write in a nonsensical candidate name, or vote third-party. If you refuse to vote your action is literally indistinguishable from someone who has no opinion at all.
Spoiling a ballot is just non-voting with extra steps.
No, because the spoiled ballots are, in many cases, actually counted. This is what people did in Hong Kong when the Government imposed electoral reform designed to prevent pro-democracy and localist groups from winning. Since it was illegal to tell people to not vote (pro-democracy groups had urged a boycott), people showed up to cast spoiled ballots. That election had among the highest numbers of spoiled ballots in the region’s history.
Ah yes. Hong Kong, such a famous victory for democracy.
I’m trying my best not to call you names here, but the point of that exercise was not to exert democratic power but to cause embarrassment for the Government. The Government tried their hardest to make it look like a legitimate election but got utterly humiliated instead with low turnout and large numbers of spoiled ballots.
Not sure why you want to call me names. My guess is we probably agree on more than we don’t.
I was just (admittedly, sarcastically) pointing out that perhaps copying methods that have WORKED might be better than copying methods that… Maybe slightly annoyed a couple of CCP officials? I’m sure everyone in China still thinks the election was legitimate, and pretty much everyone outside of China didn’t need any sort of protest vote to tell them it wasn’t.
In the US we have been non-voting for decades. That’s exactly how we got into this mess. Non-voting isn’t going to make anything better.
I agree with that generally, but what “methods that work” do you suggest?
Edit: To add, the protest spoilt ballots and low turnout in Hong Kong did exactly what they were supposed to do. It convinced other Hongkongers that the elected Legislative Council is not legitimate and was installed, not elected. This is particularly troublesome for the Government, because Hongkongers have a famous tendency to protest, and sometimes rather intensely.
What if my choice of third party is being hunted down by the government?
To clarify: I endorse voting because it takes, maybe, an hour of your time every year. (We should have a national voting day, but that’s another discussion.) Great, that disclaimer is now out of the way.
The two parties are playing good-cop/bad-cop for the oligarchy. Republicans push the ruling class’ agenda and the Democrats pretend to stop them.
Meanwhile, income inequality has been exploding for almost 50 years. The cost of housing, groceries, healthcare, college, child care, insurance, debt are increasing as money is systematically SIPHONED from the lower classes. Productivity increases, the rich get richer, and the bottom of the pyramid (i.e., those who have wages instead of assets) are forced to live on the edge of financial ruin. One missed paycheck or one medical emergency away from homelessness.
The implication of this post is the need for civic engagement in addition to voting. We’re going to need grassroots organization. Mass protests, boycotts, strikes, and civil disobedience are all required to take the country back from the oligarchy.
