top 83 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 66 points 7 months ago (23 children)

There’s a lot of doomerism happening in these comments, so I’m just gonna add in that yes, I do think there’s a chance. A small chance, but a chance nonetheless

Right now shit sucks real bad. People know this. That’s why Trump won the first time. He ran as an anti-establishment everything candidate and people—not just his bigoted cultists—ate it up. But things didn’t get better. So then people voted for Biden bc he was the opposition to Trump who had become the establishment as the sitting president. And Biden won and shit still sucked. So then they went back to Trump bc there was no viable republican or democrat candidate outside of Trump and Biden/Harris. (Yes Bernie should have been the answer but America is currently a two party system and he was robbed of a primary election.)

So now that everything sucks and is getting worse and we’ve tried republicans and democrats and none of it is working and most candidates refuse to talk about real issues like affordability, people are starting to say “fine. I’ll find a different candidate then.”

And that’s how we got Zohran Mamdani, an openly democratic socialist as mayor of New York City. All across the country progressive candidates are using this momentum to primary out establishment dems. Not all are winning, but many of the races are close, like Kat Abughazaleh’s race. Even that helps because it shows dems that if they want to keep their seat as the controlled opposition so they can keep getting their bribes, then they have to change their messaging and priorities. People aren’t satisfied with a campaign to return to pre-Trump business as usual. People want a candidate that works for them

So check who’s on the ballot of your dem primaries (which are happening rn and through the summer depending on where you live) and see if there are any progressive candidates and do what you can to support them. Donate, volunteer, spread the word, and most importantly, show up and vote in the primary and the elections in November. Even local candidates like city council members and judges can have a lot of power if they have enough numbers and the support of the people

I know a lot of people on lemmy say that America is beyond repair and that the only answer at this point is a violent revolution but not only is this not realistic, it’s not helpful. A violent revolution would be devastating and the amount of lives lost would be horrifying. Theres also the fact that most violent revolutions result in a military authority taking power rather than a true democratic rebuilding. It’s much easier to fantasize about a violent revolution than it is to do the slow, tedious work of creating real change from the ground up

There’s no need to jump to the worst case scenario when we have a prime opportunity to make real change and build grassroots movements. Like I said, this is our chance to capitalize on people’s anger and dissatisfaction with the system to build class consciousness and grassroots movements. Do what you can, even if it doesn’t seem like a lot, and stay hopeful. We’ll get through this together by supporting each other

  • source
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago (22 children)

    As someone looking in from the outside, I can’t back this message enough.

    I don’t know if the country will ever go progressive but if it’s going to, this is the only way it will. One of the two major parties has to be infiltrated and overhauled so to speak, by primary.

    Third party voting is not really any good yet, the FPTP system has to be fixed, well, removed, to maximise the minor party usefulness. It would be, though, if enough progressives get in to make those changes (which I imagine would be via the Amendment system? I don’t know) for what you know as ranked choice, which really does build worthwhile third party candidacy.

    But they have to vote and they have to make use of the primary system. That’s your ticket out. The Republicans have already shown the way because that’s how they got to where they are…using those electoral systems and voting as a unit. Voting the letter on the actual day, too.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Ranked choice can be done state by state. Alaska, maine, and New York City elections are ranked choice.

    The electoral college can be nullified by state by state adoption of the popular vote compact.

    That's only a few states short but all the blue states have signed on, so it needs support from red states which is a much heavier lift.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago

    The original setup was basically a ranked choice system already. The top two vote getters were the president and vice president.

    That was changed, ostensibly to "stop assassination" but like all good ideas, it had bad follow on effects.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago (12 children)

    The fptp system was broken not long after it was created. It wasn't always broken like it is now.

    That happened under the guise of making it "safer"

    Used to be, the president didn't have a running mate, the runner up was the VP.

    By removing that, we've made our system into the 2 party monstrosity it is today.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (8 children)

    That barely existed as a system because it didn't work well in practice. It was amended in 1804, there were only 3 presidents elected that way, Jefferson was in office when it was ratified.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago (7 children)

    It was changed, because they were worried that it would increase assassinations as the VPs people wanted the presidency. But they didn't consider the follow-on issues. Basically another knee jerk reaction

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

    There's not really follow on issues from the president and vice president being elected together instead of in opposition. The opposition is supposed to be Congress not a person with only symbolic power.

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

    That's what they thought. But, keep in mind, if there's a tie in the House or Senate, guess who casts the deciding vote? The VP.

    Not the president. The veep.

    The whole thing is set up to make passing new laws difficult. Intentionally.

    We've made it easier and easier over the years. And in the process, we've broken our nation. We turned a nation built on bottom up power, where the majority of power is held by the individual into a top down power where our government has the majority of the power.

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

    That's still not a big deal. The only difference is bills that pass the house and tie in the Senate could become laws instead of vetos. It's a very low possibility.

    The expansion of presidential powers and the willingness of Congress to abdicate their responsibility is a far bigger problem.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (3 children)

    It also makes political change much less stable and more prone to the seesaw affect, as people are no longer voting for a person, but for their party, lest the "others" win.

    Imagine if GW's VP had been Gore. Imagine if Clinton's had been A Republican...

    It would have totally changed the political landscape.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (2 children)

    Imagine what? The vp then lives in their own residence and likely isn't part of policy meetings. Instead it's a nameless faceless advisor.

    There's maybe some minor chaos when the vp becomes active president for a day due to a colonoscopy or something, but that can mostly be undone or planned around.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

    You're missing the entire point. It's not about their governmental powers, it's about their party affiliation, and the ability to shape a public narrative.

    What actual governmental power did any of the VPs in our history have?

    None. But they still had an effect on policy simply by being in the public spotlight.

    Can you imagine if the VICE PRESIDENT came out and started saying the president is wrong?

    It removes an echo chamber. Or at least makes it harder. Quit thinking in terms of what can the government position do, and start thinking in terms of how can politicians influence the rest of the government.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    They had an effect because they were invited to the party. A VP of an opposing party wouldn't be in the room. Instead of VP Cheney orgastrating a war it would be Chief of Policy or secretary of presidential affairs Cheney doing that.

    The VP being a prominent figurehead of workgroups or policies only exists because the president allows it. A non aligned VP wouldn't be any more impactful than a current opposition party leader.

    A president doesn't have to share everything with a VP, famously Truman was never informed about the Manhattan project until he became president. That would likely be the norm in a case where president and VP were opposed.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    by primary.

    The dnc won a court case against Bernie by arguing that they have no obligation to run a fair primary, or even to adhere to the decision of the primary vote, or play by their stated rules. Its an internal process with no legal guarantees whatsoever.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    That time they did. That’s once. The American voter has been doing this shit every time.

    Let’s remember too that Sanders is an independent, not a Democrat, so they aren’t going to fund him willingly.

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

    Bernie has caucused with dems for his entire career and voted with them on nearly all of their bills (95-99% of the time). He's a more reliable dem voter than most dems. The times he hasnt voted with them have been about taking on stand on pro voter causes, or anti war.

    But they treated him like an enemy and did him dirty. Thats the Dem centrists for you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (2 children)

    republicans also had propaganda and rigging the election places , and voter suppression on thier side, DNC are pretty bad at propaganda, and also afraid to call out election rigging. the DNC benefits from it, at leas the dinos do

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    At the end of the day, their people still act and vote as a unit regardless of what noise is outside.

    That’s the difference. Yes, there’s a lot of noise but sooner or later progressive voters or anyone who wants something decent is going to have to stand. That includes dealing with the voter suppression, one way or the other.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 12 points 6 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 10 points 7 months ago

    Won't happen until both the Republican and Democratic parties are dead and buried. As we've seen over the last decade, they're more than happy to work together if it means keeping progressives out of office.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 7 months ago

    Yes, we elected progressive presidents in the early 20th century. A century ago.

    Then we decided in the 70s to stop being progressive.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago

    If america can ever return to a normal parliamentary democracy instead of only giving it's people the choice between two parties, maybe

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    You'll have trouble finding someone worse than trump, but if you do I'm sure he'll win with a landslide.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago

    We had FDR once 😭

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

    center right is as far as america goes, and its the most conservative western country. Besides the DNC prevents any viable progressive from running ever.

    they only allow AOC, AND BERNIE in congress solely to take attention off from themselves. like how schumer had a slew of dems to take the fall for ending the shutdown, in order to shield the other dems from being primaried.

    more or less both parties make back-door deals with each other not privy to the voters.

    at the time of bernie and obama, yea it was possible, as soon as trump got elected, it went out the window. as the DNC had not come up with a candidate as good as bernie or OBAMA since, just milquetoast AIPAC supporting candidates.

  • source
  • [–] 22 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    at this point it's hard to say if we'll even have an election in general

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago*

    I hope so. I hope the country remembers or realises the importance of it this time.

    After this it may not carry the international weight it does. That vote used to carry a lot of weight and privilege, worldwide and many people gave their lives to try and get the right to do it. Each citizen should have been proud to step up and take it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 10 points 7 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago*

    Exactly.

    People asking this question have their own definition, which is why "isms" are tools to drive wedges between people.

    Additionally, focusing on the president is excusing congress from doing their fucking job.

    For the last 30/40 years they've basically sat back and said "let the president do whatever - he'll take the heat and not us".

    So for OP - there are 500 assholes in Congress not doing their fucking job, so maybe focus on getting your rep/senator out and someone in who will do their job.

    Until the apathy of congress changes, nothing will change.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago

    For which office? You guys already have elected progressives in some offices

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

    We might be able to get a progressive to run as an independent in the general. If they try to go through the democratic party they will be backstabbed, while also inheriting all the DNC's baggage and idiocy.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    It’ll be the progressive that gets elected to preside over the decline. Once we’ve been bled dry and the other nation(s) take the world lead, like China.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 4 points 7 months ago (7 children)
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago (5 children)

    They will be fucked for exactly 2 election cycles. 2026 and 2028. 2030 will be a red wave year. Calling it now.

    Voters have memories worse than goldfish. Dems will be a shoe for the white house in 28 but will be lucky to hold it in 32 unless something historically tragic in the scale 9-11 or COVID happens in 31.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Liberals here just enable the fascists. I think OP was asking if we'd get something that isn't just fascist enablement, if we'd ever have a situation where we broke out of this cycle you're referring to with effective liberal policy instead of half-measures that just give the fascists an excuse to call liberals incompetent.

    (I don't think so)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago*

    well most dems arnt liberal at all, around me people are more center right even in a deep blue area, have alot of conservative beliefs, especially with young men. i think actual liberal population is quite small.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

    some people have speculated it would be better if people felt gop for more than 2 terms, maybe some of them will finally WAKE up. because the gop always expects the dems to fix things next term. schumers banking on the midterms winning in his favor thats why ended the shutdown early.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago*

    Not for a while, but that door is going to swing back the other way so hard it'll damn near come off the hinges. Then back the other way it'll go. The 1% thrives on our division.

    We're in the grip of corporate control and we're not seeing light till that's resolved. I think eventually it'll happen though, whether it is through regulation or by the way of the green plumber is unclear.

    E: then again, this was the next post: https://sfstandard.com/2026/04/12/sam-altman-s-home-targeted-second-attack/

    And I hear there were 6 more warehouse fires, but I can't back that up. Media isn't covering it.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 7 months ago

    Elections 2028:

    90y old republican with dementia, salivating to the microphone

    Vs

    88y old democrat on wheelchair, suffering terminal cancer, taking painkillers directly to the bloodstream.

    Unfortunately during the debate, republican saliva shorted out cables in the microphone, while Democrat fell into coma.

    Elections are won by the republican, democrats are weeping on bluesky, wondering why people voted for a shitty president again.

    The End.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago

    It's gonna take a big crowbar, or some other tool, to oust the billionaires from power.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    It would take another age of enlightenment, otherwise people are just too conservative here.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    clinton and obama were not that old.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    They were also not progressive.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    compared to what historical president?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago

    Not in my lifetime or the lifetimes of my youngest family members. Bernie is a centrist and he's seen as too radical left.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Progressive Americans have to defeat the mini-boss (DNC) before they can on the main-boss (GOP).

    There's a chance the GOP can crack open for a Progressive popout but the MTGs and such already got there years ago so I wager thats about at 0% odds now.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago*

    DNC and GOP often collude together, so basically 2 main bossess. given how they reacted with Zohrans election. and they make alot of backdoor deals behind the doors, where they both benefit, like with the tax cuts, MIC support, israeli funding. thats what they dont want voters of both sides to investigate, hence the culture war bs.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago

    The Puritans were elder dipshits.

    Sure the founding father's were progressive for their time (minus the misogyny, classism, and slave owning), but the Puritans never went away.

    They just became the Know Nothing's, the Confederates, the Dixiecrats, the moral majority, the tea party, and now MAGA.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

    America is going to collapse. Start having faith in self and building a community that has a foundation that isn't using and abusing you.

    This is more of a thought and a note to myself. It started out as sarcasm but I don't think it really is. The more I detox from American pop culture the more real authentic and honest life seems to be. It's like I have been lied to my entire life about truth and freedom.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    Firstly, pray America has a future. You are currently becoming dumbfuckistan.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    It's about to be do-or-die I feel..

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago

    Yes. If you look at the last couple of elections and when they were born you’ll notice an outlier that got that vote because they promised something different.

    It’s doable, but it seems like the current voters like people born at the tail end of WW2.

  • source
  • Once we kill every billionaire, yes. A chance.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago
    [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    Yes but it will be after a catastrophe that devastates the economy like another great depression, civil war or world war.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    not anytime soon though because the Democrats won't let any of them win

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    Yes.

    But we will probably watch them die on tv.

    But it's possible.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    Nothing is impossible. Might be improbable, but definitely possible!

  • source
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    I'm going with a third option: who the fuck cares?

    America appears to be the batshit landscape the rest of the world knew it was but we were always getting drowned out from the noise of your soft power via hollywood and manipulative political/economic orgs. If you're having issues, has it been considered that you might wanna contain that shit instead of plaster it all over the world news? It's exhausting to continually see headlines about what nutty thing that wouldn't occur anywhere else happened today in Jesus land. And then have to suffer through the trivial machinations of moaning and hand wringing so that citizens can relieve themselves of responsibility and go back to their Netflix and video games.

    America is cooked all the way through because it fosters a culture that takes away the compact mirror and hands a megaphone to kids when they're born. That's not gonna be cured in one or three or five years via election cycles. You have a terminal infection of culture and the sooner you come to grips with that, the better for everyone.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

    I agree with most of this but I would like to point to "living on stolen land" as the primary source of this "terminal infection", and it's a social phenomenon you can witness not just here but any time that people feel justified in stealing someone else's home throughout history.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    South Africa ranks pretty high on that list but it's already gone through the discernment phase where the collevtive majority went "huh. This isn't quite working out the way we'd planned. Let's try something else". And now the people who don't like the results of "doing something else" are now fleeing to america, because the discernment phase hasn't happened there yet.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago

    dont worry, kamala is running again

  • source
  • [–] -1 points 6 months ago* (3 children)

    Remember that guy before Trump? Dunno about progressive, but he was young.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 6 months ago

    Better old than young, can't stay in power too long. Putin was young, he is still the president. Orban was young and was in power for 16 years. Gadafi was 27 I think.

  • source