Glad they’re taking off the gloves a little, but it’s always been a non-option to just make our lives significantly and irrevocably better like M4A or the PRO act and although they’re good at trying and failing, they never talk about the consequences as dire as they actually are with few exceptions.

  • Pearl@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Going to hell for smiling now, 🤦‍♀️

    Also, picking the least shitty option is always better than being ok with the shitty option. If you want better options then go start actively volunteering for a good option.

      • Doc_Crankenstein@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        Shh, you’re telling people to actually do something instead of blindly following the status quo and hoping someone does it for them.

          • blockheadjt@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            2 days ago

            Sure they do. And if you vote for one in a FPTP system, it’s the same as throwing your ballot in the garbage.

            • abbotsbury@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 day ago

              Hey, that’s not true!

              The real effect is giving an advantage to the main party that the 3rd party is less similar to.

            • Doc_Crankenstein@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              Because we live in a country of reactionaries who have allowed themselves to be controlled by that system instead of organizing to take back control of it themselves.

              • abbotsbury@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 day ago

                No, the design/implementation of the system itself results in two dominant parties. It is possible for new parties to be created, but without a change to the system, that would still result in a two party duopoly, just with different parties.

                • Doc_Crankenstein@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 day ago

                  without a change to the system

                  That’s the whole point but it won’t change unless we change what we are doing, cause it clearly isn’t working.

                  Those parties are only dominant because people fall in line. If people stopped falling in line and changed who they gave their support to, those parties would no longer be dominant.

                  Their power relies on our capitulation. If we want other parties to win, then we have to give our vote to them and hope that others will do the same. If I keep giving up my vote to someone else that’s a guaranteed way for the person I actually want to lose.

                  Frankly, I believe the entire system of hierarchical, representative democracy is a failed system to begin with and, especially under the influence of a capitalist economy, will inevitably collapse into fascism. Parliamentary democracy is only marginally better. Until we abandon this system and begin governing ourselves in a horizontal structure, it will never change for the better for the working class. Everything else is just spinning wheels, maintaining an inherently oppressive status quo.

                  • abbotsbury@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 day ago

                    But you can’t change the system until you win, and in our system the only way to win is to be one of the Big Two. Bull Moose couldn’t even do it with a former president.

    • Corn@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      2 days ago

      Ok, and when they ratfuck the good option and instead give you republican-lite?

      • brendansimms@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        start firearms training and put an antifa patch on your denim jacket, join an anarchist reading club and start talking about Mao’s policies at family functions.

      • Pearl@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        2 days ago

        Learn what they did and work against it? Strategies change all the time.

        Being ok with the republican choice is accelerationism, which always fucks over everybody.

        • Corn@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          2 days ago

          Learning what they did doesn’t help, the only tool we have to make sure ratfucking isn’t an effective way for conservatives to gain power. When progressives get ratfucked, the republican agenda moves forward no matter if a republican or republican-lite who is happy to work with republicans wins.

          • crusa187@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            2 days ago

            Establishment ratfuckers and the ratchet effect - name a more iconic duo.

          • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            2 days ago

            I’ve been asking that question for years and never gotten a good answer.

            Some dude actually came close yesterday by linking to somebody else trying to answer it (almost an original thought wow) by citing news articles claiming the DNC supplied Hillary with all of the debate questions ahead of time and planted audience members to ask Bernie weird questions, citing wikileaks emails, but then even their sources point out that the Bernie Sanders Campaign team dispute any such claims that DNC’s Brazile was biased.

            It’s all just Hillary’s emails, bruh, Bernie competed in the DNC primary and lost fair and square. Accepting that reality is the way forwards.

            • Wolf@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              I’ve been asking that question for years and never gotten a good answer.

              Who have you been asking that question to? Yourself in the mirror? Your Teddy bear late at night? I have an extremely hard time believing that you have spent more than 30 seconds trying to find the answer to this question considering this is all very public knowledge. Despite the mainstream media trying to downplay this issue, the truth isn’t that hard to find.

              citing news articles claiming the DNC supplied Hillary with all of the debate questions ahead of time and planted audience members to ask Bernie weird questions, citing wikileaks emails

              By ‘claiming’ do you mean that the DNC were caught red handed doing exactly that?

              Did the article also happen to mention that the lawyers for the DNC argued to the Judge that the language in the DNC’s charter about being impartial and evenhanded is just “political promise” (aka, a lie) and that they are under no obligation to be impartial? That the DNC has 'every right’ to choose who they want as the candidate? There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that isn’t the way the “Democratic National Committee” operates to this very day.

              the Bernie Sanders Campaign team dispute any such claims that DNC’s Brazile was biased.

              First of all Bernie is a real one who has class and was more focused on defeating fascism than getting justice for himself. Unlike the Crooked DNC, he puts what’s best for the country ahead of his own interests.

              The claim wasn’t that Brazile was biased. It was Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Hilary Clinton, and other higher ups in the DNC that colluded against Bernie. DWS resigned as the Chair of the DNC specifically because the email leaks showed party officials conspiring to sabotage the campaign of Senator Sanders. DNC CEO Amy Dacey, CFO Brad Marshall, and Communications Director Luis Miranda also resigned in the wake of the controversy.

              In fact it was Donna Brazile who replaced DWS as interim chair of the DNC that uncovered further evidence of tampering by the Clinton campaign and related that info to Bernie- who took the news like the chad he is.

              It’s all just Hillary’s emails, bruh

              Of all the liberal hot takes this is the smoothest brained take yet.

              First of all you are conflating the Hillary Clinton email controversy the with the 2016 Democratic National Committee email leaks.

              Secondly the reason that “But her emails!..” became an ironic refrain was because every time someone would point out something illegal, unethical, or Unamerican the Trump campaign was doing, “Conservatives” would engage in ‘Whataboutism’ by uttering that phrase. Not because Hillary wasn’t caught doing some extremely shady shit- she absolutely was.

              Accepting that reality is the way forwards.

              Ironic. I’ll make you a deal. Once you learn what the reality of the situation actually is and accept it- we can work on moving forwards from there. How bout that?

              It sure would be nice if people like you could learn how to use search engines on your own. I feel like I should get paid to do this for you. I wouldn’t even bother if I didn’t think there were other libs reading this who were likewise confused and might find this info useful.

              • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 day ago

                I believe Bernie Sanders on this one, you’ve got no credility compared to him. And yes, the DNC can choose it’s candidates in the primary, just like they chose Bernie Sanders and if he didn’t lose by 3 Million votes then he would have been the candidate in the general.

                3 Million votes. No fraud, no manufactured scandals, just millions of voters choosing Not-Bernie.

                • Wolf@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 day ago

                  Bernie didn’t dispute anything I wrote, and it’s not my word- I linked to all my sources.

                  Gee it’s no wonder you are still so ill informed about this subject when you flat out refuse to inform yourself when presented with the facts.

                  It’s supposed to be the Democratic VOTERS who get to choose who wins the primary, not the DNC. He wouldn’t have lost if they hadn’t colluded against him. I feel like I could explain this to a literal kindergartner and they would be able to comprehend it.

                  Yes fraud, yes scandals- fucking learn to read you ignorant lib.

                  • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 day ago

                    Actually yeah, the Sanders campaign was very clear that Brazile was in contact with all of them and not favoring a candidate.

                    One Sanders’ staff defended Brazile in the wake of the email’s release, separating her from the DNC officials implicated in this summer’s hack.

                    “I can’t speak to what she did or didn’t send to Clinton people. All I can speak to is the relationship our camp had with her,” Symone Sanders, a former Sanders campaign press secretary, wrote to Politico Monday. “During the primary, Donna regular reached out for messaging guidance from us and was very helpful. She was even handed and we all had a great working relationship with her.”

                    You gave a link to “evidence of collusion/corruption” and the article on the other end says Hillary Clinton, longtime member of the DNC, fundraised for the DNC to bring them out of debt to banks and vendors. That’s not corruption, thats what political parties do, they pool funds and promote their candidates. Bernie Sanders didn’t have to do this because, and this might come as a shock to you, Bernie Sanders is not part of the DNC.

    • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      too bad people wont wake up from that, if it stays the same, maybe a couple of cyle of republican elections, would finally wake people up, because republicans always made sure the ticking time bombs that set in place is always the blame of the dems

      • piefood@feddit.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        Then maybe the Dems should stop building the bombs, and handing them to the Republicans.