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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
…And so it isn’t happening?
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:
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.