you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 5 months ago (43 children)

and the Democrats having no such thing

And instead of asking yourself why Democratic politicians are failing to inspire loyalty you blame the voters of a democracy?

Hot take bud.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 43 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (30 children)

    Democracy means you have the freedom to elect a fascist government if you want to, and that's exactly what the American people have done. They exercised their freedom to choose Trump over Harris.

    American people don't get very many freedoms. They don't get the freedom to vote third party. They don't get the freedom to vote "neither of the above". They don't get the freedom to use the popular vote. But they do get the freedom to choose between the two big candidates, and that's the freedom they exercised.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 30 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (28 children)

    Democracy means you have the freedom to elect a fascist government if you want to,

    If that's all democracy is then it's benefits have been vastly overstated and I see no reason to protect it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (17 children)

    Okay, sure. You can let the fascists turn America into a monarchy and find out if a communist revolution is easier in a monarchy than a neoliberal capitalist democracy. That's clearly what you want to happen.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (16 children)

    find out if a communist revolution is easier in a monarchy than a neoliberal capitalist democracy

    I don't think it is but people like you set yourself in opposition to any radical change so long as you live in the comfort of a neoliberal capitalist democracy. See the problem?

    For example, I was in full favor of the rail strike back in 2022. Sure it's no revolution, but shutting down railways certainly would have been radical and led to some powerful concessions being made by oligarchs to American workers. And let me guess, you opposed the strike and supported Joe Biden, 44 Democratic senators and 36 Republican senators who decided to block it right?

    So it's not me who's choosing revolution under monarchy instead of neoliberal capitalist democracy.

    It's you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    Nah, you're way off. I was actually pretty furious with AOC for voting to force an end to the strike.

    Your problem is, you see everyone else as an enemy, and assume all kinds of nonsense about them out of fear.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child)

    I was actually pretty furious with AOC for voting to force an end to the strike.

    Hold on.

    I haven't seen you say you were furious with Biden, Schumer or any Democratic Senators.

    This is the first time you say you were furious with a Democratic politician and you choose AOC. Seems suspicious you call out a progressive of all people. Where's your fury at Biden or the 44 Democratic senators who voted to block the rail strike?

    Comes off like you're happy to talk about being furious at a progressive because you don't care if people vote for her. But you want people to vote for strike blocking, genocide supporting trash like Biden so you conveniently never express your fury at him.

    Prove me wrong. Talk about how furious you are at Biden for blocking the rail strike. Talk about how furious you are at Schumer for blocking the rail strike.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] -3 points 5 months ago (12 children)

    Why is that relevant? To the concentration camps and death squads we are dealing with today?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Do you understand cause and effect? I'm pointing out there were cracks in the supposed strategy to keep Trump out of office. Some of those cracks were instances where Joe Biden went against the sentiments of his own voters and sabotaged his own chances at reelection.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Why are you telling me, a voter this? What am I supposed to do with that information?

    That information for for democrat electeds and their consultants.

    Voters decide among the options presented. They don't decide how the campaigns are run. Are you suggesting I start a new political party?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (8 children)

    Because the other poster wasn't explicitly furious with Biden over rail workers or some nonsense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    They went out of their way to express they were furious at AOC for her part in blocking the rail strike but not Joe Biden, the president of the United States. You don't think that's odd?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Why would that be odd? We expect better of AOC. Biden blocking the strike was disappointing, of course, but not really unexpected for a corporate Dem.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    Hard to get worked up of this when the competition is trying to enact a new halocaust and only failing due to incompetence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    The competition is back in power because Joe Biden sabotaged his own chances at re-election by making voters he was depending on furious with him.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    What do you think voters should do about that?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    Depends on what kind of voters they are.

    If they stay home during the Democratic primaries they should show up to Democratic primaries to vote for a candidate who doesn't block strikes and doesn't support genocide.

    If they show up to Democratic primaries and vote for a candidate who doesn't block strikes and doesn't support genocide they should keep doing that.

    If they show up to the Democratic primaries and vote for candidates who block strikes and support genocide they should stop doing that and instead vote for a candidate who doesn't block strikes and doesn't support genocide.

    Tell me, do you plan on showing up to the Democratic primaries to vote for a candidate who doesn't block strikes and doesn't support genocide?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago (9 children)

    Where did they say that's all it was?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (8 children)

    Then tell me what benefits I'm supposed to enjoy. Because representation apparently isn't on the table.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (7 children)

    That's because you have to show up and show up in numbers. Too many on the left cry about not having a perfect candidate, don't show up, and then wonder why the Dems keep going right when the left doesn't show up. Then, surprise, they have no representation and throw away 20 years of progress.

    I don't care for Biden or trump, but I wasn't dumb enough not to see where we are right now before the vote was cast, so I showed up. So many stayed home that trump got elected with the popular vote despite not getting many more votes than he did last time.

    But hey, we didn't vote in the woman who had some bad policies and could be worked with because one bad policy was worth throwing everything away. So we got the country we collectively voted (or sat out) for

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (6 children)

    That’s because you have to show up and show up in numbers.

    We do though. We were roughly a third of the voters in the 2020 Democratic primaries and that number has probably gone up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    We do though. We're roughly a third of the voters in primaries.

    You don't show up in the general, so primary participation is a participation trophy. Trump wasn't on the ballot, so that's pretty much meaningless in the concept of defensive voting or the actual subject of the conversation. When Trump was in the ballot, the left was comparatively absent. 6.25M fewer people showed up, so objectively they didn't show up.

    I'm not knocking participating in the primary, I do it every time I can. But if that's the extent of 'showing up, you're not doing much more than telling yourself you participated so you don't feel guilty about it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    You don’t show up in the general

    That would mean Biden won the 2020 general election without us.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 5 months ago* (3 children)

    Gee, I guess showing up once makes up for the election on either side.

    I guess the better statement is you only show up when convenient. Which is the same compliment I hear from the left about the Dems lol

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago* (2 children)

    I'm not following you. First you said we have to show up in numbers and I told you we do show up in numbers in the primary. Then you said we have to show up in the general election and I pointed out we did. Now you're saying that's not good enough. Either you're moving goalposts or you're doing a shit job of explaining yourself.

    Spell it out for me plainly. Tell me exactly what we would have had to do since 2008 in order to be represented.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

    Nah, I'm sick of filling in every possible edge case in your argument. You say you show up, but you're making a point to point to specific/conditional situations yet ignore the blindingly obvious answers of why you don't have the representation you want.

    Show up and vote consistently and change can happen. As it is, I tire of listening to people complain about lack of representation when they choose not to vote for a viable candidate in the general when they had the opportunity to do so because they didn't line up 100%.

    If that's not clear enough for you, you're beyond my help.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago*

    As it is, I tire of listening to people complain about lack of representation when they choose not to vote for a viable candidate in the general when they had the opportunity to do so because they didn’t line up 100%.

    But as we've already established, we did vote for a viable candidate in the 2020 general election. Do you think we lined up with Biden 100% back in 2020? It really seems like you're the one missing the blindingly obvious answer.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 5 months ago (7 children)

    Republicans, are by nature, essentially a mono culture. Conservativism demmands conformity. Hate taxes, Hate foreigners, hate "the gays", hate science and edumacashun.

    Democrats, while not Progressive, pick up everyone else, which includes progressives. Progressives, tend to be open and accepting of what is different.

    Except increasingly, they are not. Just with the last election, because every Democrat didn't 100% say "Fuck Israel, Free Palestine", then now all Democrats are evil and should never be supported.

    Ya'll are single issue voting just as bad as the shitty Republicans will single issue vote on say, No Abortion.

    The Democrats aren't great, but they exist as the compromise based system our Government SHOULD BE.

    And maybe they would run more Progressive types and shift back Left but why should they bother right now? They could run some hyper progressive trans candidate who hatees Israel, but that candidate says one "wrong" thing on one issue and the mob turns on them and says "SeE, aLl DeMoCrAts aRe bAd."

    That said, I am still not entirely convinced that a lot of the "All Dems Suck" rhetoric isn't the Left side version of bad foreign actors that have turned the GOP into the MAGA Nazi party.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    And maybe they would run more Progressive types and shift back Left but why should they bother right now?

    Because they're losing without us.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    Because you will never be happy anyway. May as well shift right and try to push towards the perfect Nqzi candidates like MAGA.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    Because you will never be happy anyway.

    How do you know?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 5 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Help me understand your comment. Are you suggesting if we voiced disagreement with more than one issue with Democratic politicians then the claim that we "will never be happy anyway" would be unfounded?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 5 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

    No, I saw you ask why RamenJunkie would believe that progressives are single issue voters

    Then your reading comprehension is trash. I asked him how he knows we "will never be happy anyway".

    My whole comment is 11 words and you couldn't bother to read it correctly.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    "Loyalty" to a party is not a good thing, for one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

    “Loyalty” to a party is not a good thing, for one.

    That's pretty rich coming from someone arguing we are morally obligated to vote for Democratic politicians. You can't get any more loyal than that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments