all 64 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 125 points 6 months ago (1 child)

Democrats also love fossil fuel money.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 25 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    These people are cartoon villains.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 6 months ago

    Don't you dare hurt my favorite little fossil fuel companies!!!!

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 6 months ago

    If only they weren't shareholders...

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 6 months ago

    The dose of medicine that anyone who thinks this is a good idea needs is a 50 bmg.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago

    dems say something? why? they profit too.

  • source
  • [–] 62 points 6 months ago (43 children)

    Shouldnt the ficking population of the US do something about it? Why is it up to the democrats? Are the us population inept?

  • source
  • hideshow 43 child comments
  • [–] [S] 67 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (9 children)

    Why is it up to the democrats?

    Because they're the only ones imbued with the power to defeat legislation on behalf of the people who are not themselves members of the fascist cult, though most of them are so deeply in the pocket of fossil fuel interests that they need snorkels to breathe.

    Are the us population inept?

    Yes, and no. The people in charge of doing things the legal ways are REALLY into stopping people from threatening their power and revenue streams by any means necessary or unnecessary up to and including mass murder.

    Even peacefully protesting against oil pipelines is illegal in most jurisdictions and considered TERRORISM in some.

    Ever tried to attack a tank battalion armed with just whatever rocks you are able to pick up from the ground, Gaza style?

    That's about the power balance between regular people and powerful people in the US when the courts aren't available. Often even when they are.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago

    If they're removing the people's only legal means of action/recourse, then the people will eventually resort to other means.

    You're totally right about the power imbalance, though. So many keyboard warriors conveniently ignore that...

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -16 points 6 months ago (6 children)

    The second amendment imbues the people, us, the power to defeat legislation, on behalf of ourselves, from the Nazis in power.

    Literally, the Constitution gives us the power to kill the fascists currently in power, which is what will be required to get our country back, unless we just want to sit back and watch it fall, which appears to be the case.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] [S] 38 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    The second amendment imbues the people, us, the power to defeat legislation, on behalf of ourselves, from the Nazis in power.

    Literally, the Constitution gives us the power to kill the fascists currently in power

    Nope. It was intended to facilitate national defense as an alternative to a standing army (which the founders were against having on principle), not defense AGAINST the government.

    Even if that WAS the intention, anything that civilians are allowed to own is styrofoam pebbles compared to the armaments of most local police departments, let alone the most overfunded military in the history of mankind.

    which is what will be required to get our country back, unless we just want to sit back and watch it fall, which appears to be the case.

    Nope. That's a false dichotomy. It's simply not true that firing handguns at the grotesque might of the US government is the only alternative to doing literally nothing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago*

    I had never quite realized just how much the second amendment was basically: we might need an army at a moments notice, certainly allowances of weaponry would be appropriate, even the organization of militias. And I don't know if the founding fathers or anyone back then could have imagined what the human population would grow to in a few centuries. This rule could never have accounted for a population of over 300 million, without even accounting for cultural and psychosocial alterations of time and technology. Back then maybe a militia could have effected a coup, but today it would be hopeless even if a large number organized they would be caught in surveillance dragnet and/or egregiously overmatched. Makes me feel like it should be harped on more that the second amendment in present context is too often misrepresented.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -8 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Nope. It was intended to facilitate national defense as an alternative to a standing army (which the founders were against having on principle), not defense AGAINST the government.

    Stop skipping over the part where it says "being necessary to the security of a free State". If the government infringes on our freedoms, like it currently is, the second amendment absolutely applies. It's a deterrent to threats both foreign and domestic.

    Nope. That's a false dichotomy. It's simply not true that firing handguns at the grotesque might of the US government is the only alternative to doing literally nothing.

    Yet again, you're wrong. You can't just vote out the corruption. As seen in how many decades, where the corruption has become more and more rampant, and unchecked?

    You should maybe learn about the civil war and the American revolution, where we literally fought and killed for the betterment of our country.

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

    When at least 30% of the population actively like what's going on, 30% hate it and 40% don't care either way then you have some serious issues that might not be solvable by diplomatic means, especially when everyone seems to have lost the tenants of statesmanship and it's developed into a shit-slinging match.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 35 points 6 months ago (16 children)

    Assuming you're not a US-ian, you might not know: the US doesn't have any concept of a recall or no-confidence vote like other countries do. Once the election is over, there's nothing the population can legally do about it except protest (which a decent chunk are doing). It's up to the Democrats because they're the ones that were elected by the population to provide a check to the Republicans.

    Look, the US is running on a pre-alpha build of representative democracy. We should've updated the system centuries ago, but at this point memory leaks are so out of control and a ton of the cache is mis-addressed, so there's serious questions about whether the thing needs to just be shut down and rebooted in safe mode.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [+] -26 points 6 months ago (15 children)

    You guys weren't even the first modern democracy please shut the fuck up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 6 months ago

    I didn't say we were. I said we were running pre-alpha software. Not because that's all that was available at the time, but because we chose to believe that we were exceptional enough to handle writing our own constitution without learning from those who came before.

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

    What country implemented democracy before 1776?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 6 months ago (7 children)

    Switzerland, Iceland, the Iroquois Confederacy, polish-lithiuanian Commonwealth, san marino

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 6 months ago

    In 1776 Switzerland was not even called Switzerland, it was The Old Swiss Confederacy, and not even a single unified country. They didn't abandon the sovereignty of the individual cantons until 1848 when they adopted their constitution. I wouldn't call the canton situation a modern democracy.

    I'll give you The Six Nations.

    I don't know enough about the others to say specifically, but I suspect that much like Switzerland, they didn't reform their governments from a fuedal state to a modern state until the mid to late 1800s much like the rest of Europe.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago* (5 children)

    Iceland has one of the oldest parliaments. It didn't become a democracy until 1944. San Marino vested sovereignty in the people (the definition of democracy) in 1974.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    Ok. By that definition the us isn't a democracy either. If you don't count imperfect democracies and then only count your own imperfect democracy as a democracy then yeah. You're the first. Congrats.

    Who votes for president again?

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

    C'mon, now, Iceland was under the Danish king until 1944. That's clearly a monarchy. As for San Marino, the point is that they were tweaking bedrock fundamentals of their system as recently as 1974. It's not been the same one in use for hundreds of years.

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

    That's not clear to me at all. Canada, Australia, the UK, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Lichtenstein, the Netherlands, Belgium, and more are all currently monarchies still today. Are they not democracies?

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

    I would say that they are democracies today, but the closest thing to a clear binary distinction between democracy and not is where sovereignty is vested. I'm most familiar with the history of the UK; nobody would say that it became a democracy once King John signed the Magna Carta, and agreed to share sovereignty with the aristocracy, but we would call it a democracy today. It is technically a hybrid system, in which sovereignty is split between the king and the people. The king approves all acts of Parliament, but it's a formality, and the king approves whatever acts the popularly-elected Parliament passes. It was a bit-by-bit transformation from monarchy to democracy. (And it is continuing its transformation in 2026 with the abolition of the last hereditary seats in the House of Lords.)

    I get that it's righteous to shit on the United States — because we mostly deserve it — but in this case it really was the first modern nation-state explicitly founded on pure, popular sovereignty. (As in, no monarch or aristocracy, not that everybody could vote.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 6 months ago* (1 child)

    Greece. Republic of Rome, to name just two.

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

    Neither of those were modern democrocies. Hell, one could argue that the word democracy doesn't actually apply to modern democracies since we are not using the Greek definition of the word.

    We are technically using the Six Nations definition of the word.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 27 points 6 months ago* (8 children)

    What?

    I am an American citizen, this is a democratic republic, the thing I’m supposed to be doing about this is voting, which I’ve done religiously since my 18th birthday 22 years ago. It’s up to the democrats because that’s what we voted for them to do! It’s their literal job!! When you’re the opposition party it’s your job to fight for me, the person who elected you, that’s how this works! The rule of law is far more powerful than I could ever be, that’s why we vote, it’s a proxy for literal fighting. I’m “inept” at literally fighting because that’s not my, or anyone’s role in society I’m very capable of doing my job as a citizen of a democratic republic however, I vote, I write letters, I fundraise, I organize, I used to caucus until my state stoped doing that… my job is to be a citizen not a brawler. I’m doing my job, the Dems need to do theirs.

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

    Just because you want that to be their job doesn't mean it is. Maybe in theory they work for you. In reality they don't though they work for the monied nterests that ACTUALLY get them elected. So what are you going to do now? Nothing?

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

    What would you suggest they do?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    Oh yes how dare I suggest someone do more than vote and then absolve themselves of any further responsibility

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -12 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    because that’s what we voted for them to do!

    No, we really didn't.

    This could be stopped with the President, with the House of Representatives, with the Senate, or with the Supreme Court.

    Which one of those should Democrats use to fight this?

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

    Downvoted for facts. The truth is more people cared to vote for the Republicans in charge or not at all. Deal with it.

    Acting like the Democrats can do anything here is stupid AF and only exists to further depress turnout.

    Notice how these people never really seem to direct their ire at the people actually responsible- Republicans and non voters.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -14 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    The American population is composed almost entirely of petulant idiots.

    Half of them think is just maga hats and the maga hates think it's the non-maga hats. Each is only half wrong.

    The one time both sides truely applied here. None of them can admit it's also them. The proof is in the extreme emotional reactions that occur when they are called out.

    People who post this type of trash and those who agree with it are exactly the type of people I am referring to. Those who question it are not and are also laughed at by both sides. Further proof that I speak truth.

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

    The irony of calling Americans idiots when you can't even form a coherent sentence.

    Half of them think is just maga hats and the maga hates think it's the non-maga hats. Each is only half wrong.

    The one time both sides truely applied here. None of them can admit it's also them.

    Woof dude, proofread your shit.

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

    Excellent example of attacking the messenger without addressing the message.

    Bravo.

    Thank you for providing the example behavior I didn't ask for but knew someone couldn't resist providing.

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

    The woman looks like Catherine O’Hara playing an incompetent villain

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

    Making something like that illegal sounds like an acceleration of revolution. They REALLY want to use their guns.

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

    What ought the Democrats do when they are a minority? Can you like... Give an example? I'm genuinely curious

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    Democrats are in the minority so they can't even say anything.

    It's certainly not because they don't want to

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 9 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Democrats are in the minority so they can't even say anything.

    That's not how it works. Their job isn't just to vote on legislation. It's also to advocate for what's best for their constituents.

    Saying nothing in the face of colossally blatant corruption is dereliction of duty by anyone elected to represent the people. Especially ones who pretend to represent everyone with opinions left of fascism.

    It's certainly not because they don't want to

    Sure looks like it, based on checks notes their words, actions, and lack of both for decades, including when they were in the majority.

    Hell, even the bill they hailed as the "biggest climate change bill ever" made any expansion of renewable energy contingent on a dramatic increase in leases of government land for the purpose of fossil fuel extraction.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • 111 comments in c/climate@slrpnk.net view that post
    15 comments in c/boycottus@lemmy.ca view that post
    2 comments in c/libjerk@anarchist.nexus view that post