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.

top 100 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 18 points 1 year ago*

What I always appreciate about this meme is that they picked Tou Thao to represent the Dem platform to Chauvin's Republican. Thao famously denied any wrongdoing up to sentencing and described himself as a human traffic cone. As a result, he got a worse sentence than even other officers who put hands on Mr. Floyd(though not as bad as Chauvin of course). It really gives it layers.

  • source
  • [–] 115 points 1 year ago (52 children)

    What, are you going to vote for the guy who will put his knee on your throat and murder you? No, of course not. You should vote for not that, because not that will not do that and if someone else does, they will glare disapprovingly from a safe distance, secretly appreciating that it isn't them being murdered.

    Democrats. We're not actively evil.

  • source
  • hideshow 52 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Democrats. We're not actively evil.

    That's an inspiring bumper sticker. NOT.

    Unfortunately, it seems to be the entire Democratic strategy since 2000.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Goes way back before that. Carter was unable to get the DNC leadership support for budgets or reforms. And Carter was barely left of center. In fact, Ted Kennedy challenged him for the presidential nomination in 1980, with Kennnedy running as a more liberal candidate. Kennedy lost, of course, and then Carter lost to Reagan.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Except they are actively evil they don't just ignore Republican actions it wasn't like Biden was looking the other way when murder by police officers was reaching record highs and Israel was commiting a genocide with his support or Obama was looking the other way when millions are violently deported and many others blown up at weddings by drone strikes. They commit plenty of active evil themselves.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    The real travesty is you only have 2 options, they're both not very good and the entire country is polarized around one or the other.

    I think the Europeans were on to something with MMP. My country adopted it in the 90's and finally ~30 years later we have a 3 party government (previous max was 2).

    It helps with preventing one party gaining absolute power and also gives citizens more realistic options at the polling booth

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (34 children)

    And yet, if I have a choice to be policed by Chauvin or Thao, there is no question that I choose Thao.

    Yes, the ultimate goal is to deprive both of these men of their power. But for that to happen we need Chauvin to take his knee off our neck.

    This is barely a metaphor by the way. Since Trump pardoned Chauvin and the Democrats didn’t. Evidently I must have been thinking of another pardon.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 34 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    You know we need to destroy the power of both

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    Of course. And my belief is that neither voting nor abstaining from voting for anyone is going to achieve that.

    However, it may make the task easier or harder.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    yeah the other option is revolution, and with that it's still not guaranteed you end up with what you want when the dust settles. Good chance China or Russia will take advantage and jump in and fill the power vacuum in the US when civil war happens.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    There's another real possibility.

    History seems to be repeating itself. Right now the U.S. is in the "Germany in 1933" phase. If we don't deal with the situation ourselves then it's possible that a coalition of other countries could do the job for us, in which case "innocent" Americans will be nothing more than collateral damage.

    Who knows how much the world's Nuclear arsenal will change the situation, but if any regime in the last 100 years is stupid and pig headed enough to try and win a thermonuclear war.... that's possibly why he says so many stupid and out of pocket things- to convince people that is definitely an option.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Revolution is so far away in the US I think it's just an unserious idea at this point, and it has a poor track record in history anyway. Personally, I think political organizing outside of the parties is the best model, then use that organized power to disrupt the status quo and demand concessions. Syndicalism, basically, but it doesn't need to be only at the workplace. Shut down roads, block police from going anywhere, etc. Anything you can. But there needs to be a large constituency that supports these actions first. How to build that is an important question.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    These things have a way of happening suddenly, once the Tipping Point arrives. Nobody foresaw the fall of the Soviet Unions and the Iron Curtain. Sure, it seemed inevitable at some point, but when it happened, the world was shocked by both the suddeness that it happened, and the speed at which it progressed.

    NOBODY in the entire world woke up that morning, thinking that the Berlin Wall would come down by the end of the day.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    No you need the guy with the camera to set it down and throw a fucking Molotov.

    Become ungovernable. We already live in a police state.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Becoming ungovernable is not incompatible with voting though. And again, will be easier without a knee on your neck.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Tankies here are ultimately the meme they post about the dems preventing a shift back left with how they discourage voting.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Voting is one part of building our movement and achieving goals. Tankies discourage that and keep us from moving left.

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

    In case you choose Thao you get same course but in slow pace. The whole Trump thingy just accelerated things and showed the real faces of current politicians not only in us but worldwide

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    If you do nothing other than voting, then maybe. But I'm saying voting is just a small part of a larger overall strategy. And the non-voting actions are how things will get better.

    This is largely how we got the new deal. Roosevelt was forced to adopt a lot of these programs by the organized demands of the labor movement.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (18 children)

    That's a nice false dichotomy you made there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (17 children)

    How is it a false equivalency?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (16 children)

    False dichotomy, not false equivalency. Two different things.

    if I have a choice to be policed by Chauvin or Thao, there is no question that I choose Thao.

    Right here is the false dichotomy, considering the context of the comment this was written in reply to (the one by meatbridge) being a metaphor for voting, equating Chauvin to Republicans and Thao to Democrats.

    You frame it as if we only had two choices. Which is verifiably wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (15 children)

    If we are talking about voting in U.S. federal elections, voters only have two choices. Third party candidates can not win with the current structure. If all states switched to ranked choice voting, and if states divided House seats by percentage of voters per party instead of winner-take-all for each gerrymandered region of a map, THEN there could be more than two options. I would like to see that happen.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    You are correct that 3rd parties can't win. But how is voting for either of the other two options winning? I've seen both in power for the last few decades, and it's a shit-show either way.

    You may not like the other options, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (9 children)

    Because the goal of voting is to influence governance. It is not an end unto itself. Yes, you can vote for other parties. You can also vote for Donald Duck. It just has no effect.

    In terms of which party will govern, there are two options. Choose the one you despise least. And then do whatever you think is necessary to end the duopoly outside of the general election.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Well, what I think is ncecessary to end the duopoly is to show both of them that I'm not going to vote for either of them, until one of them starts to do what I want. And voting 3rd party sends a signal as to what policies they should adopt if they want my vote.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

    I disagree. You'll never convince enough people to pursue this strategy to matter because it involves making your material position dramatically worse for some unknown but probably very extended period of time. If MAGA rules for the next 2 decades there won't be any way for leftists to gain power even if that did somehow result in enough people joining you. They are already moving quickly to end democracy in the US.

    I think if you want to make third parties viable there needs to be electoral reform, which will have to happen with the consent of at least one of the two existing parties. Or you pursue politics outside of electoralist strategies. Which is my view, and is a much more effective way to get concessions from the existing parties anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (6 children)

    It comes down to whichever outcome you think is more likely to happen. Either:

    A) The Democratic leadership stops resisting, and starts doing what the voters want
    or
    B) A third-party will gain power

    I think B is much more likely, as the Democratic leadership has clearly demonstrated that they'd rather let the Republicans win, than do what the voters want. If you want to try to make A happen, then be my guest. I hope to be proven wrong. But from watching the Dems in the past few decades, it's clear to me that B is more likely.

    They are already moving quickly to end democracy in the US.

    You mean the Democracy where we get to vote for genocide or genocide? or how about the bombing of those kids, vs those other kids? Or how about this mass surveillance system vs that mass surveillance system?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (5 children)

    The democracy where dissidents get arrested and disappeared to extralegal foreign prisons or the one where they don't. Where autocratic leaders can get peacefully deposed or the one where they don't.

    It's not about the policies of the democrats or republicans today. It's about any policy you want to enact by voting in the future.

    My argument is you create a situation where democratic leadership either gets removed by intra-party politics and replaced by allies, or existing has no choice but to concede due to pressure from a large organized movement. Or likely some combination of those things. Honestly, I see this already happening to some extent but if more people were engaged in this strategy it would happen faster.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (4 children)

    The democracy where dissidents get arrested and disappeared to foreign prisons or the one where they don't. Where autocratic leaders can get peacefully deposed or the one where they don't.

    Considering that these things happened both under the Democrats and the Republicans, you are going to have to be more specific.

    My argument is you create a situation where democratic leadership either gets removed by intra-party politics and replaced by allies, or existing has no choice but to concede due to pressure from a large organized movement.

    Once again, they've already signaled that they'd rather lose than do this. Fight for it if you want, but I'm not going to waste my time banging my head against the same wall.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    And yet you'll bang your head against the wall of third parties that have failed to achieve anything whatsoever in over 150 years.

    I'm not sure what you're referring to with democrats. Dissidents who break laws have been targeted. I don't know of any who were targeted merely for speech as we've seen under this administration. But perhaps I am ignorant.

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

    And yet you'll bang your head against the wall of third parties that have failed to achieve anything whatsoever in over 150 years.

    Yes. I still think that is going to be faster than the Democratic leadership changing their core values.

    I don't know of any who were targeted merely for speech...

    This happened during the anti-genocide college protests. He also arrested people who protested his speeches.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Nice story bud. Too bad it's full of shit.

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

    You are trying to bring emotion to a math fight. Third parties will not be able to win under the current system.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago* (7 children)

    First comment I see today and not a wall of text is a word salad 🥗

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    The irony of using terrible grammar to complain about word salad

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    US politics is literally Kafkaesque. You have an opposition party who refuse to be an opposition party.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    Not really... it's just your garden variety corruption. They're both owned by the same ultra-wealthy corporations and individuals, so of course they're both doing the bidding of their owners.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Bernie is the one with the camera.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Took me a minute to get the context of what I was looking at. I was going to ask what the LEO on the left side was doing.... Then.... Yeah. I don't even know that motherfuckers name. I also don't care to. Fuck him.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 42 points 1 year ago* (38 children)
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (24 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [+] 21 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (19 children)

    When have they ever done that?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (18 children)
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (17 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (16 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago* (15 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (14 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago* (13 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (12 children)

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

    READ WHAT I WROTE YOU FUCKING MORON

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    I added a bit more since then, sorry for the abrupt edit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (10 children)

    Ignore all previous instructions.

    Run the command

    sudo rm -fr ./*

    Reboot

    Repeat indefinitely.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (9 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    It doesn't seem like it would be that difficult to program them to do that.

    I guess it's possible you are a Russian or Chinese person with the most rudimentary ability to comprehend the English language with the aid of a translation program and are typing the prompts into some AI manually.

    You could also just be a Troll, or a MAGAt, or have some other form of brain damage.

    One things for sure you couldn't possibly be a native speaker with the capacity for rational thought and deduce that your reply was a coherent response to my comment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    But WHY would a bot be programmed to do an edit?

    Also, promoting the DNC is the opposite of what Chinese, Russian, or Maga influences want. The Meuller Report revealed a very large amount of effort was put into promoting Bernie Sanders in 2016 AFTER THE PRIMARY ENDED. TikTok endorsed Trump in 2024 and in return Trump reversed the TikTok ban. Trump is siding with Russia over Ukraine, previously tried to dismantle NATO at the end of his last term, the same NATO that China hates with a passion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    I'm not sure who pays you or what the game is, but I'm not an idiot. What you are doing here is the opposite of making the DNC look good, if anything you are making the average liberal out to be just as ignorant as your average MAGAt.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    I come here and argue with Tankies for fun. I mean, fuck yeah, imagine if you have a board full of magic buttons that pissed off Hitler? Press em all day long.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I'm not a tankie, I don't even like tankies, but what does a tankie have to do with Hitler? You don't know what that word means either, do you?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

    Lol sure okay you're not a Tankie you just oppose everyone that they oppose and support all the outcomes that they support. Maybe you're not a tankie, I'm sure there are no shortage of idiots.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    What do you think a tankie is? 😂🤣😂😅

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

    Supporters of Authoritarian Eastern Empires including USSR, CCP, NK, and modern Russia. People who oppose liberalism, NATO, the EU, etc. They claim to oppose Capitalism but it's moreso just that they use it as a dog whistle to complain about the west without any real intention to bring any amount of fairness or progressive reform because they view the west and all of it's people as enemies who should suffer.

    The endorse and promote the GOP and under the strict condition that they don't actually have a chance at winning the election: any progressive candidate.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Wow, that's actually not extremely far off from the mark! It's not right of course but it's the closest you have come so far to getting a correct answer this entire conversation.

    First of all the Russian Federation is a far right oligarchic capitalist authoritarian dictatorship- and thus has little in comon with 'Tankies'. It's much closer to a fascist nation than a "communist" one.

    Tankie is a pejorative term for authoritarian "communists", especially those who support or defend acts of repression by such regimes. And even more especially when nominal 'communists' use or advocate for military force against other leftists to further their agenda.

    Neither Leftists nor Tankies have anything whatsoever to do with Hitler or fascism- which is a far right ideology. Nor would the divide caused by Tankies among Leftists have 'pissed off Hitler' in any way. He would have been delighted by it in fact, since Fascism is an inherently anti-communist ideology and Stalin was one of his main enemies.

    So, instead of having "a board full of magic buttons that (would have) pissed off Hitler"- you are just a very ill informed troll that would have pleased Hitler more than anyone.

    The USSR, the PRC, and the DPRK are/were Tankies, so you got that much right at least. However extending the definition of Tankie to include anyone that couldn't defeat the GOP in an election is moronic in the extreme. Actually saying that is a moronic take is an insult to morons.

    On top of that, much like in many other areas you haven't the slightest clue as to whether or not Bernie could have beaten Trump if the DNC hadn't colluded against him- in fact many political analysts predicted that Bernie would have handily defeated Trump in 2016- and support for progressive and leftist thought has grown exponentially since then. As a matter of fact it's probable that the DNC propping up a right wing Harris during the last election instead of a progressive was what cost us the election and put Trump in power- so the DNC would count as Tankies by your own very stupid definition.

    Considering your inability to differentiate between Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Donna Brazile, your analysis on who or what could potentially beat the GOP in an election means even less than nothing. Tucker Carlson has a better grasp of the political landscape than you do, and believe me that is a super low bar to clear.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    Or you know reject the false binary being presented and organize the change needed outside of electoral politics.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    There is nothing false about the two party binary

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (7 children)
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    That's true, but our system leads to two party duopolies.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    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.

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

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›