Nah, this is some "both sides are bad" bullshit. One side tried to get rid of student loan debt and the other side said no. One side is fighting for equal right for all races/genders/color etc and the other side says no. It goes on and on like this. Give me a break.
Abortion rights were repealed under Democrats, trans rights are being repealed under Democrats, police budgets have increased in response to BLM, and non-stop war is completely bipartisan.
Both sides ARE bad, just because one of them sometimes offers tepid opposition doesn't make them good. Democrats are not on your side either.
In fact Obama campaigned on codifiying abortion rights but when he entered office he admitted its not a priority for his administration.
Obama was peak liberalism. All talk, no show.
Abortion rights were repealed because Trump got 3 partisan supreme court justices appointed.
Then pack the courts, codify abortion rights into federal law, do some executive order bullshit, or fuck it, abolish the supreme court entirely. There's a lot Democrats CAN do but aren't. If we're being very charitable, then they value made-up rules over your human rights. That's the party you want representing you?
Packing the courts sets a precedent the next republican can just pack it the other direction. Before we know it we have hundreds of supreme court justices.
Any law passed by congress can be struck down by the same supreme court as an over reach to state rights. Nevermind democrats barely have a simple majority, and can't get past a filibuster. 3 of their simple majority come from heavily red states (Brown, Manchin, and Tester) and are up for reelection next year. Almost no way they'd vote for it, meaning they'd likely not even get it passed.
Executive order bullshit only goes for the executive branch. Not legislative or judicial. Biden could wind up impeached for over reach at worst, but have it struck down at best, just like student loans were struck down by the supreme court, which was far more closer to the executive than abortion rights.
The supreme court is constitutionally created, and you can't modify the constitution without a 2/3rds of congress and 3/4ths of state legislatures. Democrats barely have a majority in congress, and only 19 state legislatures.
It really is not that simple. If people had not been abstaining because 'both parties are the same' and Trump had never been elected, then we wouldn't be in this mess.
I agree they're not as liberal as they should be, but the people who are voting are conservative. Until more leftists start voting, the politicians will not represent them and fascists will keep getting elected with only 20% of the population voting for them.
So pack the courts and then write laws to set things in stone in their favor. If Democrats don't do it, then they're leaving the door open for Republicans to do it. Or just have hundreds of judges, who cares? What's the worst that could happen, our rights could be taken away? Already happening.
They could also eliminate the filibuster and arguably should have done it ages ago. And they have a majority, why are your expectations so low? Demand more from them while you can.
Biden has already done some executive order bullshit to protect abortion rights and I'm saying that he should do more. The 3 branches of government aren't discrete and there's lots of stuff that he has the power to do but isn't doing, like allowing abortions to be done on federal property.
And the supreme court as it is now isn't constitutional. It was not designed to have judicial supremacy, but has grown over time to effectively become a branch of government in its own right. One that's completely undemocratic and unaccountable to the American people. We can use the same reasoning that was used to overturn Roe v. Wade to strip the supreme court of its power without amending the constitution at all.
I don't think it's fair to pin all the blame for American politics on Trump. Our issues run far deeper than that and he's more of a symptom than a cause. Also, most people DIDN'T vote for him. He LOST the popular vote, but got to be president anyway because this county is rigged when it comes to voting. How can you say that all people need to do is vote when their votes matter so little?
Btw communists define liberalism as the ideology that supports capitalism. Democrats and Republicans are both liberals.
You realize that the Republican party doesn't give a damn about precedent? How can you be such an apologist for that bullshit argument. It's mind-boggling how much leeway you are giving a party that has taken in billions upon billions of dollars from wall street, the pharmaceutical industry, and other lobbyists. Come on man, do you think that somehow isn't influencing every decision they make? It's all just a dance
If the only other real option is the Republican party then 110% yes.
Abort the court!
What an absurdly simplistic view of things. All you're doing with this "both sides" bullshit is encouraging more people to sit out the process which is how we got here in the first place. Shame on you, do fucking better.
That's interesting. After I got done sitting out (in 2016, cause fuck Hilary), I voted for Biden (after Bernie dropped out) to get rid of the orange monster, and now I'm advocating for ranked-choice voting and additional parties. I'm more active than ever. Dems are bad. GOP is worse. I want true Left parties. Your rhetoric shames my desire for more options. Shame on you!
lol you twit. Don’t sit out any elections. Hillary would have been literally infinitely better than Trump.
A pet rock would have been better than trump.
Good luck with RCV, I think it’s probably a good idea, we use it in primaries in NYC and it’s done fuckall that’s been good so far.
But get off your moral high horse and pick the thing that does the least harm if you can’t find any positives.
Hey so I am empathetic to your point, but also have some disagreements.
I voted for Biden, and will again. But both sides are bad. One side is definitely worse, but doesn't change the fact that dems are status quo, pandering, old money pearl clutchers who greatly benefit off of for profit criminal justice, and the suppression of working class. They are not my ally.
I'm really tired of the "perfect is the enemy of good" dnc party line, while we allow good enough to be enemy of better.
Just my thoughts. Also alot of the liberals act like this is sports or some shit. If you browse the conservative communities and the liberal ones, both sides are literally just mirroring eachother, instead of going after the people who put us here in the first place.
I'm a lefty, and american, and the politics here are rigged. I don't really blame the people who sit out tbh. They're up against a power, that quite frankly, will take a fair amount of upheaval to take care of. And no one wants to do that. It's a shitty state of affairs.
I really hope we can get money out of politics, and have viable 3rd parties..but tbh, the dnc would try to stop that, so...they aren't my true ally, just cause the other side is worse.
Our voting system (first past the post, winner take all) is keeping us in the two party system better than anything else the dnc could do. Let’s see them support ranked choice or similar.
That’s an insult to mentally challenged people and demons everywhere!
"Stupidity is the same as evil if you judge by the results"
-Margaret Atwood
Neither side tried to get rid of student loan debt. One side just pretended to try.
They tried metaphysically and still failed.
This is an instance and thread I can get behind.
Ah. How refreshing from the reddit think.
I typically don't downvote but here you are just factually wrong. "to get rid of student loan debt" would mean to abolish and pass legislation that actually ended all student loan debt in present and future. A feeble attempt at a 'one-time only' debt relief with no further policies or plans to eliminate all future educational costs is just a puppet show. I personally would've benefited from the debt relief, but would've preferred them addressing the rising costs and accessibility of higher education (the root of the problem).
Instead we got a repeal of AA and a move that would've benefited loan companies with a side effect that could possibly make getting future loans for under-privileged individuals that much harder (or more dangerous if loan companies decided to give out increasingly worse contracts if they believe the government will step in and pay the horrendous bills). There are better metrics to compare the parties with, "equal rights" is not one of them as they won't ever exist while class disparity is so rampant.
Equal rights isn't a new developing issue, here's a quote from over 60 years ago,
The assistant director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, Hyman Bookbinder, in a frank statement on December 29, 1966, declared that the long-range costs of adequately implementing programs to fight poverty, ignorance and slums will reach one trillion dollars. He was not awed or dismayed by this prospect but instead pointed out that the growth of the gross national product during the same period makes this expenditure comfortably possible. It is, he said, as simple as this: “The poor can stop being poor if the rich are willing to become even richer at a slower rate.” Furthermore, he predicted that unless a “substantial sacrifice is made by the American people,” the nation can expect further deterioration of the cities, increased antagonisms between races and continued disorders in the streets. He asserted that people are not informed enough to give adequate support to anti-poverty programs, and he leveled a share of the blame at the government because it “must do more to get people to understand the size of the problem.” (source, bold by me)
Equal rights "advocates" love to posture and hand-wave historical figures like Dr. King, who rightly pointed out the next step to real equality in his book titled, "Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community?".
One of the central themes of the book's messages is that of hope. King reflects upon the Civil Rights Movement. He discusses the question of what African-Americans should do with their new freedoms found in laws such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He concludes that all Americans must unite in order to fight poverty and create an equality of opportunity. King emphasizes that he is neither a Marxist nor a doctrinaire socialist; he instead advocates for a united social movement that would act within both the Republican and Democratic parties. (synopsis from wiki)
It goes "on and on" like this because it's all a show, the steps and problems have been laid bare for decades in the U.S. with no meaningful impact for the causes and class disparity is only getting worse. If the democrats in charge actually passed legislation that addressed inequality, then they wouldn't have anything to dangle in front of the donkey.
edit: If you're gonna give a downvote (probably who I was replying to), don't be a coward and at least bring some conversation to the table with your viewpoints. I'm just gonna have to assume your feelings were hurt and that's the only recourse you have if not.
This gets at it beautifully. The point is that Dems show a good effort but don't actually create meaningful change. It's theater.
liberals? On our lemmygrad? It’s more likely than you think!
It's not "both sides bad", it's "they're all on the same side". The majority of Amerikans and non-Amerikans realize this. You are shilling for the bourgeoisie against the proletariat.
This both sides is bad argument is scary because it can cause people to become indifferent. It's scary for minorities. One side is actively trying to get rid of minorities or marginalize them.
Yeah I get that in the context of the working class they are both bad but that's not the only way people are categorized. People's lives are literally being ruined due to the abortion ban and the regression in trans rights and it's clear one side is pushing for it way more than the other.
US politics is one big WWE show and you've taken the bait that the democrats actually "tried". When you realize just how much isn't being done that could be done, and then look at all the same big donor lobbyist money they take in every year, it starts to make sense why the democrats are always "sooo close" to radical change. It's deliberate and I'm tired of people thinking it isn't
Nice copium lib.
Don't argue with the tankies. They literally have no moral compass.
Bro your new display name hahaha
because libs like you are sooooo rich in morality, bombing global southern countries to no avail, supporting coups in countries that democratically elected socialists, never actually getting anything done to make peoples' lives less of a hellhole, being racist against russians and chinese people, supporting literal fascists and even outright allying with fascists (spain).
yeah, you guys have suuuuch a rich moral compass. thank you for demonstrating just how morally rich you people are. y'all should look into the mirror and feel fucking ashamed of yourselves.
This is exactly why liberals don't get shit done. You are too focused on optics rather than material reality.
Don’t you dronies have more hospitals to bomb under the name of “freedom and democracy”?
The Clintons had literal slaves. Like, the still-alive Clintons. Fuck you, devil.
Yeah, one is trying to disarm poor people, the other isn't. One is murdering babies, the other isn't.
This is some real peasant-bullshit
Murdering babies is pretty great though, did you know that humanity has been doing it since ancient Mesopotamia? The ancient Romans used so much silphium as an abortifacient that the plant went extinct.
There's no need to be pedantic for no reason. Whilst it's true silphium was used for many things (including cooking), we don't know what percentage of it was used for which aspects, but we do know for certainty that one use was an abortifacient, at huge scale, and that the plant is now extinct.
Ergo, we can surmise that it's widespread use as an abortifacient most likely contributed to its eventually extinction, along with its other use cases. Although I never said in my message that abortion was the sole use, I merely said that they used it for so many abortions it eventually ended up extinct.
Honestly mate, this comment seemed like a superfluous exercise in pedantic narcissism and reminds me why I need to stay far away from Lemmy.
You're right, I'm the cunt and not you, clearly.
Do you have any other pedantic fact corrections about ancient Rome or the Middle Ages you can share?
I don't actually. Will you explain it to me?
Why must people always misinterpret this?
No, leftists are not trying to appeal to homophobic white people with this.
They’re reminding you that Democrats will still oppress the working class irrespective of your race, gender, or orientation.
Though don’t kid yourself, the Democratic Party still oppresses black and queer folks when they think they don’t need black and queer votes.
No, leftists are not trying to appeal to homophobic white people with this
Is that how people interpret this? Wew
The brain worms are so deep, they're tape worms that have made their way up through the host.
There’s a surprising amount of Republicans that talk about the “Uniparty”
Elaborate, please? Not sure I understand what you mean
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/17/steve-bannon-populist-ralph-nader-215839/
It’s a word they use to describe “where the Republicans and Democrats seem to be fusing together.”
Thanks! Well it is only logical, they serve the same interests
Indeed, it’s funny how only the extremes of US politics can recognize that
USA are a capitalist dystopia with two parties, one is a rightwing neo-liberal and the other are Nazis as is
Which is which?
Normally Democrats a right wing and Republicans Nazis, but the differences are not clear defined.
They kinda get confused by all this good-party bad-party dynamic too. Hot take: both are bad co-... ehm, parties
Both are wings of the same bird.
I dunno. I'd say the Nazis are pretty obvious. Dems are center right, but only the fakers appear as Nazis. Then they break and become Indies.
Meh, only one wants to take away my rights and the other one wants to give me free healthcare and cancel student debt. Not saying that the one that wants to protect my rights doesn't have problems, but the 2 parties sure as shit are not the same.
And when would that be? Exactly what year?
They had it during Obama, and they have the presidency now. If they’ll never have enough power to actually do what they always promise, why should we support them anymore? Why should we focus on electoral politics when we can do a lot more good doing mutual aid and staging militant protests on the ground?
Incredible how that's not only not what OP of this thread but also somehow totally naïvely buys into Democrat rhetoric about things they're totally going to do, for sure.
They have done these things.
Have you seen any vote results, to see which party votes for what? I thought not.
I'm hearing crickets from the cracker gallery...
the other one
wants togive me free healthcare and cancel student debt.
More like “runs on obviously popular policy proposals and never carries through because they didn’t care in the first place.” Just like how republicans run on ending wars and bringing down gas prices and end up doing the opposite.
redditors in this thread, go back
no u
nah 
Redditors? Down with them!
I agree. I was a redditor. But now I'm done. Fuck Spez. (Hence why I said "no u". The redditors that are here don't want to go back)
You might want to figure out the politics of the community you've stumbled into, then.
fuck all these liberals appealing to “dems make things better for the working class”. the working class does not start and end at the amerikkkan border motherfucker.
the Dems being for the working class is an old folk tale that just won't die
Important point. From the point of view of 95,5% of humanity USA present nearly uniform face regardless of who is in power. And this goes not only for the victims of US but for their vassals too. Barely anyone outside US gives a shit about the US political theatre, even the analysis of the comprador euro think tanks smells with indifference under the flimsy mask of engagement.
Can confirm.
- Post mentions U.S. political parties
- Post mentions BLM, started in the U.S. in response to the U.S. police murdering a U.S. citizen
- Post has a rose emoji, frequently used by leftists in the U.S.
"Man, why would anyone think we're talking about the U.S.?"
Flattening every conversation about U.S. politics to "you idiot, the U.S. does horrible things to other countries!" is stupid. No one here is arguing with you on that. We have a hundred posts about U.S. crimes abroad, we can talk about what goes on inside the U.S., too.
Did I say Democrats are good?
"Democrats have done a few good things" is not remotely the same as "Democrats are good," especially when I go out of my way a bunch of times to say Democrats are not good.
You know what critical support is? You know what the CPC line on Stalin is (70% good, 30% bad)? Then you know "they've done some things good" is not a blanket endorsement, even if a person has done a whole hell of a lot more good than Democrats ever have.
You're just doing reddit shit. Not engaging the substance of a comment in favor of dumb little quips and nitpicks.
Doing reddit shit like ignoring the many times I've explained that's not remotely what I'm doing.
Oh fuck off. Acknowledging that people/parties/countries do both good and bad things should not be novel to any communist -- look at the CPC's stance on Stalin or Mao.
I'm applying communist thought on a communist forum. You're applying reddit slap fighting and obstinance.
"Democrats are not good but Americans care about whether they can get an abortion" is in no way defending genocide. This is just obnoxious reddit contrarianism.
Not sure what you're on about. The comment is clearly at liberals in this thread trying to appeal to "benefits" for the "working class" without acknowledging many of these "benefits" come at the cost of the exploited global south. Thinking that the working class struggle starts and ends at one nation's borders and is not part of an international struggle is braindead at best, fascist at worst. Not sure why I'm explaining this to someone named MarxMadness.
Thinking that the working class struggle starts and ends at one nation’s borders
No one is saying this. People are seeing the U.S. context and responding to that, then others are ignoring the context to argue with them.
got it, severe case of liberalism. hope it isn't terminal. not sure how/why you signed up for lemmygrad but stick around maybe you'll learn some things.
Bullshit like yours makes this place more like reddit, not less.
Y'all working class libs need to read State and revolution. And reform or revolution.
state and revolution is actually quite short, but still you're asking too much of them
if 1 does look into it, ill be happy
Damn, looks like this post attracted all the liberals.
Most Democrat politicians are neo-liberals, meaning they are conservatives by all global standards.
We need progressives to take over the Dem party. If you are young and progressive, especially if you are in a shitty dead-end job, run for office. Do it. Local or national.
Sign up, go through the process, announce it for fun on social media. If nothing happens, it was a funny, enlightening experience. There is no upper limit to what can be accomplished if you actually start winning races, though.
People who want a 3rd party must not remember the 90s.
That’s okay, we just want a Communist Party. The other parties can go.
The third party approach has been proven ineffective. Party take-overs, however, are so effective that I have witnessed it multiple times in my lifetime. The Republicans have been taken over twice in just the past two decades.
Dominating a party that is not one of the two recognized standard parties will only divide votes and disempower us. Encouraging progressives to form a third party is literally a strategy that has been pushed by conservatives several times. It's important we see the value in taking over the existing juggernaut instead.
Why not take over the republican party rather than or as well as the democrats if these actions are successful. Because so far the democrats are very much hardened against progressives. Look at your AOC and how she's now indistinguishable from Pelosi an activist who supposedly cared about implementing uhc. Also gonna say look at how Bernie who wanted moderate reform had a massively corrupt primary and the media complex come crashing down on him.
Because you'd have to run on a whole lot of bullshit arguments and by the end of it (if you make it there) you're just another brainwashed republican. A takeover is not a sudden process it's slowly boiling the frog and you can't take over the regressive republicans with a progressive argument set. They would laugh you out of the room. Your platform has to be similar enough that they tolerate you.
You wanna take over the republicans only with "I wanna be against dems"? Try it. But what are you gonna tell the antiabortionists, what are you going to tell the rightwing antigovernment people, what are you going to tell the fascists and nazis and what are you going to tell the racist rural white folk and the bible belt? Are you going to support prolifers suddenly, are you suddenly going to rant against the criminal black population? Congrats, you successfully integrated into the republicans and became invisible.
Your commentary is nonsense and easily dismissed. Nice try, though?
Your upset just illustrates how afraid conservatives are that progressives could take over the Democrats. Thank you for that!
Your commentary is nonsense and easily dismissed
Then says nothing to dismiss it or why. Classic lib behavior to simply not engage with what people are saying and just handwave criticisms away.
You cannot fix the Democrat party from the inside. Shit, you cannot fix the USA from the inside. It's not broken, it's working perfectly as designed. You can't vote your way out of this shit. Not if you had 500 years to do it instead of 20.
We had several great progressives running in last years primary and general up near Seattle. All were crushed by incumbents.
Guess folks just like the way things are.
Honestly, once you hit 25 or whatever pick a party and run. Green or libertarian would be easiest. Whatever fits where you live. It gives you a different perspective on elections.
My friend, you are in the wrong space. This is a space for people who are actually interested in studying political economy, not bad faith morons.
You have it flipped, we don’t support NATO’s war of aggression against Russia.
Ukrainian President Yanukovych chose to have closer ties with Russia, which resulted in the Euromaidan coup in 2013-14, which directly caused this war.
I support the people of Ukraine and would like to see peace. The Zelensky government should end the war and cede Russia the land whose people want to return to Russia anyways.
Maybe we should call y’all tankies since y’all keep starting wars everywhere and have no interest in peace
I don't even know what a lot of the stuff means anymore tbh. I just consider myself economically classically liberal and true centrist on social issues
The people focusing hard on the social far left and far right are distracting people from the fact that the government is not helping out the common person economically.
Frankly I think inflation is kind of here to stay for a while as the US painfully weans itself out of China and a world with a bunch of cheap former Soviet raw material inputs, nevermind a global wheat shortage due to the situation in Ukraine.
The fed really does have to slowly jack up rates to create a bigger buffer for the next hard recession. What this means, I my very limited understanding, is that everything just costs more until supply is consolidated back home and nearby places like Canada, Mexico, and some Central American countries
The people focusing hard on the social far left and far right are distracting people from the fact that the government is not helping out the common person economically.
If you’re talking about culture war crap, then sure, I agree. It’s manufactured outrage to distract from class issues.
The fed really does have to slowly jack up rates to create a bigger buffer for the next hard recession.
So you acknowledge the government isn’t helping the working class, and then proceed to support the government not helping? Do you believe in Reaganomics by any chance?
I do wonder about Democrats though. Part of me thinks the “spoilers” that we see like Lieberman, Sinema, and Manchin are there specifically so Democrats can say, “Aww shucks, we tried folks, guess we can’t get that shiny new thing we promised you. Oh well, we’ll just give up on that idea.” Meanwhile Republicans ramming through the most unpopular shit in the world every chance they can get, whereas Dems don’t seem to try hard enough on issues that seem to have plenty of popular support.
It's not that Dems don't try hard enough. They're one faction in the organising committee of the ruling class. They're not trying to work for the working class at all.
Just look at the defense budget every year that easily dwarfs that of other countries (and continues to grow!) It passes with no contest from either party.
Sanders sure seemed to have the right mindset for most important issues. Would have loved to have seen that alternate reality in 2016.
It just shows how much the system is rigged. Less likeable and less popular Hillary sabotaged his campaign allowing trump to win. Even if Bernie did win and started making positive change I wouldn’t be surprised if he got whacked like JFK.
Unfortunately, I don't think that Bernie would have been able to make as much of an impact as he wanted. Congress is more responsible for long term changes than the president and Bernie's ideals are left of most of the Democratic party, so I don't think they would have been as cooperative as he/we would have liked.
Also, if he was elected, we still would have elected the oldest president ever. I'd rather our government wasn't a retirement home.
Unless we get enough legislators that share Sanders' positions, him being president is a waste.
Except that’s not going to happen because the corporate lobbyists that fund most winning campaigns for both parties would never allow it.
This is why Lenin calls liberal democracy the best possible shell for capitalism - a single or small group of people can't change the system. The power is split up enough that capitalism stays in power, but concentrated enough that capital can control it.
At the end of the day, the best thing he can do is give a left alternative in policy proposals and help radicalize people when it doesn’t work because the system is too far gone.
What
Little Debbie really screwed the party with her hard on towards Clinton.
The problems with that party go a lot deeper than one woman.
I’m pretty sure I’ve seen that tweet before, but I can’t remember where
Republicans only accomplishment since taking the house was to block loan forgiveness taking millions out of the working class economy every month to give to banks. But both sides am i right?
Democrats and Republicans came together in a super rare and bipartisan endeavour to shut down the rights of hard working railroad workers trying to strike for sick days and time off in December 2022. The final senate vote was 85 vs 15.
That should be a pretty clear indication that at least when it comes to helping working class people where it counts (money and basic human rights), both parties are identical.
Did you know the Biden administration continued working behind the scenes to get those workers their sick days without the major financial impacts the strike would've had on Americans already struggling with high inflation, and that they ultimately got them? Do you think a Republican president would've done that?
Straight from the union:
https://www.ibew.org/media-center/Articles/23Daily/2306/230620_IBEWandPaid
I actually did know that, but it doesn't invalidate my point whatsoever.
If Democrats were truly supportive of working class people they wouldn't be voting to remove their collective bargaining rights via an act of Congress. Think about that for a second -- they would rather vote to send those workers to jail than allow them to exercise a core right of workers everywhere.
Doesn't matter that Biden stepped in months later, Biden is the president and I'm talking about the general party in Congress, e.g. Democrats en masse.
My point is that strikes are predicated on the bet that the striking workers have a higher pain tolerance than the capitalists and their investors for the pain caused by a strike.
If UAW workers strike, GM makes fewer cars, people buy from competitors, and the capitalist suffers. If Kellogg's workers strike, the same thing happens: capitalist suffers, competitors benefit.
Rail strikes spread that pain to everyone. It's not the rail workers' fault, but a strike would've led to millions of layoffs, a likely recession, and severe food and medicine insecurity. The wealthy would be perfectly happy with this outcome, while millions of Americans suddenly have no income with high inflation. There is some line where the needs of those millions outweigh the needs of the thousands of rail workers. I don't know where that line is, but it exists, and I'm glad I'm not the one who has to decide where it is.
So a small group of workers should suffer because the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?
Those rail workers weren't striking for higher pay, they wanted the basic human dignity of having paid time off and paid sick days.
That’s the point. They should have the right to remind the capitalists how essential they are and how much pain they could cause, so that the capitalists would be forced to provide basic things like paid medical leave.
It’s not the rail workers’ fault, but a strike would’ve led to millions of layoffs, a likely recession, and severe food and medicine insecurity.
Even if that was true, dems (and you) just said that it's ok for haute bourgeoisie to hold entire society hostage instead of doing something with this. Obligatory reminder that nothing of sorts would happen if the workers basic demands were fulfilled, but it seems that again the entire US political establishment coming from the stance of no compromise with the workers.
It's a class war. All workers are implicated. All capitalists are implicated. It's not neat. It's messy. That doesn't mean the organised workers should wait for the unorganised workers to catch up before doing anything. They would have to wait forever. Those other workers should organise with the rail workers to fix things, not complain that the rail workers are having an effective strike.
The line is between the workers and the capitalists. It's not within the working class.
Visible strike breaking does far more to harm the actions of labor. I’ll believe joe brandon’s administration is siding with the working class when they work towards something meaningful like making sympathy strikes legal again
Yes you're right. They're both bad for slightly different reasons.
I completely agree.
They have the same foreign policy, but have different roles to play in keeping domestic policy terrible.
You fail to mention how patriots normalized pussy grabbing and pornstar rawdogging to the point where third-graders are asking their parents and teachers about those family-values activities.
This is about the best summation of the parties that I've seen. Made me chuckle and call my partner to have a look. Well done.
Democrats want universal healh care, child care, to cancel student loan debt, don't want to eliminate the LGBTQ community among other things, and are constantly stymied by the right wing. Then dumbfucks go 'hurr duur, both parties are the same, don't vote' and the same shit happens. The last time Dems ran the show we got the ACA and people who never had a shot at insurance got it, medical bankruptcies went down etc. It was a big win, and you forget that. Fuck your all sides are the same.
Last time they had actual control, they passed Obamacare, like it or not
You know it was 48-50
With that logic it was 0-100
And didn't have enough support to push anything through to the floor that wasn't budgetary or generally popular because of senate rules that would require 60 senators when we had 50, or the override of that rule which a couple senators (Manchin and Sinema,one who recently moved independent) opposed so it wouldn't happen anyway. There are an incredibly small number of republican members of Congress who would support universal health care, but I imagine the vast majority of democrats would. The problem is gerrymandering in the house and the fact that backwoods states like Montana and North Dakota wield as much power in the Senate as places like California.
Bro. Can you read. Do I need to turn it into a picture for you? There are procedural rules in this case the filibuster. If you do not have 60 votes to override the filibuster, it does not pass because all an opposing senator has to do is say Filibuster and you're hit. There are things that can force debate, but you are basically done. That rule change would require the support of Manchin and Sinema, which would not have happened, so democrats were stopped. And they did take the steps for the two years which is why we have the Affordable Care Act so things like pre existing conditions are covered. Maybe you should do some more reading on how our government works before you try to talk with the grownups
They passed the mother fucking affordable care act. Do you not understand how huge of an undertaking that was? They also passed DREAM and limited how credit card companies can charge you. And those are the big ones. Would you call that no action?
You clearly lack any understanding of how the government works beyond what you'd learn in 6th grade civics and have no memory of the 2009 Congress yet try to speak authoritively about it. By comment was definitely rude, and that was intended. But it was not ridiculous, it was a statement of fact.
I bet the families that could finally get health insurance because pre existing conditions were finally forced to be covered feel different. I bet the kid who outgrew their prosthetic legs and couldn't get new ones because they reached their lifetime coverage before they turned 18 feels different. I bet the kids who grew up here but were considered 'illegal' (imagine being illegal just by existing somewhere) felt relief when they didn't have to worry about being sent to a country they never visited or were connected to felt different?
Again, one party wants to protect my LGBTQ friends, wants health care for all, wants to raise taxes on the wealthy to protect and improve social programs, wants to create free education and remove the debt of college from those who have it, and one party doesn't.Cry that I'm a Zionist, but if all other things are the same, I know which party I support. I also find it hilarious that I've proven you factually wrong many times and you make the claim I will look foolish and that I have made no defense.
They couldn't have passed healthcare for all because they didn't have the votes. Remember, they needed 60. So they compromised and moved in the right direction. Also, in 2009 there wasn't such an open hate for the LGBTQ community. States were legalizing gay marriage, and the defense of marriage act was overturned eventually also. It's only the last few years that the hate rhetoric has been turned up. A lot of things changed for a lot of people. And they did raise taxes. Guess what was undone in 2016 by the Republicans who are so the same as the democrats. You're unwilling to see it because you're afraid of admitting you're wrong regardless of how many times I've proven it. All you can do is scream the word Zionist over and over like a play-acting intellectual in between bouts of being demonstrably wrong
Ultimately to get the votes for Obamacare they agreed on a mandate that required people to have health insurance, but part of the negotiation was there could be no public option and they would have to purchase from a private insurance company but the insurance companies could not have exceptions for pre-existing conditions and could not have a maximum lifetime payout. That last sentence is what made it all worth it. And while there were people hostile to LGBTQ people, it was not like it is now. I find it amazing that everytime I come with receipts you just claim that I have nothing, but have offered zero counterpoints.
Yeah. That's it. Not because I proved your nonsense wrong every step of the way. Whatever makes you feel better.
Is there a non-political version of c/memes?
Not everything here is political, but you know you’re on Lemmygrad.ml right?
Ah I see, I wasn't aware, I'm new here. This was the default c/memes I was set up with when I signed up.
No #blm No, but I'll grab your pussy
What's closer (at least domestically) is:
- Republicans: Have you considered genociding the vulnerable? Here, see, we'll let you kill the libs!
- Democrats: We're not going to do a whole lot to protect anyone, but we're at least not as cartoonishly evil as those guys, and maybe you can have some scraps/an occasionally decent thing at the state level.
Dems aren't good by any means, but there's a real difference that produces a material impact on people's lives (again, at least domestically). Dems are not banning abortion and putting bounties on women seeking abortions. Dems are not teaching kids that slavery was actually job training. Dems occasionally do pretty good things at the state level, like marijuana legalization (probably the biggest driver of decarceration) and Minnesota's 2023 legislative session (passing directly pro-worker policies like requiring paid leave, banning noncompete agreements, and universal free school meals).
Ignoring that is not useful, especially when every possible difference is covered exhaustively and when the borders of "legitimate political activity" are drawn at two-party electoralism for most people.
Not only did the US continue to trade with Saudi Arabia during their genocide in Yemen, they sent aircraft and even ground personnel to maintain them in between flights. American hands maintained the machines that brought indiscriminate death to so many Yemenis.
o7. Please break paragraphs.
I'm not saying that Democrats do only good things. They do tons of bad things. I'm saying that if you can't see any difference (from the perspective of the American working class, which seems to be the focus here), you're out of touch with the masses.
Come on, half your comment is "Democrats failed to sufficiently oppose the horrible things Republicans are actively doing." It doesn't address when they have opposed those things (see blue states codifying abortion rights) or when they've done good things on their own (see those legitimately pro-worker improvements in Minnesota).
Those are definitely not drops in the ocean. It's the difference between whether you can get an abortion or not, whether you have paid sick leave or not, whether you can have your life upended for smoking a joint, etc. Those are material things people actually care about.
We agree that these are scraps when compared to what the working class deserves, but most people correctly see that the full meal is not on the table right now. They see scraps vs. someone getting punched in the face. That's a real difference even though both options are bad.
You need to zoom out of the USA for a few seconds and get some perspective.
“Democrats failed to sufficiently oppose the horrible things Republicans are actively doing.”
This suggests democrats do oppose bad things in the first place. When masses of protesters say “defund the police” Democrats say “we’re with BLM, but we interpret “defund the police” to mean “fund the police.” The Alaska pipeline that wasn’t going to happen under trump? Biden makes it happen. Biden campaigned on climate and ended up opening up vast swathes of public land to oil drilling. The democrats said they’d be better on immigration, but they’re worse than trump. Not because trump was good, but that it gets worse every administration whichever party’s in power. They didn’t “insufficiently oppose”Iraq, they were cheerleading bush’s invasion. They don’t “insufficiently oppose” Libya, Syria, or Ukraine, they are the main force behind those wars. Both parties are terrible and it’s absurd to act like dems are “a net good if small” which is exactly the narrative you seem to be promoting. You say blue states having abortion access is a win when that’s a given, but they had the chance to codify roe and chose not to. There is a reason why more people don’t vote than do for either major party.
You're talking about bad things Democrats do. I'm not arguing with any of that. I've said multiple times that Democrats are not good.
What I'm talking about is the few good things Democrats do, and the areas where just being a warm body who's not a Republican makes them better (think not redefining curricula to say slavery was job training). Americans look at that stuff and see a difference between the parties, and to argue otherwise is out of touch.
Imagine two huge piles of shit, but one has a $20 bill in it and the other had a used needle. People here keep saying "they're both piles of shit!," which I agree with. What I disagree with is the idea that both piles are exactly the same. If you really need twenty bucks and you can choose one or the other, the difference is obvious.
No one is saying the few good things Democrats do means they're a good party. You're just picking fights.
Then go be angry in a thread where that's actually happening
The material reality to Americans is that they can get an abortion in California and not Florida because of party control. They have paid sick leave in Minnesota but not Texas for the same reason.
I'm talking about their material reality because the post is about domestic U.S. politics.
Yeah and if you count up all the material things each party does for Americans, Democrats come out ahead. You don't have to walk sixth graders through stuff like this.
Americans look at that stuff and see a difference between the parties, and to argue otherwise is out of touch.
I’m out of touch with the two thirds of Americans that don’t vote democrat?
Most non-voters aren't carefully examining all political options and making a conscientious decision to abstain from mainstream politics. They're not voting for material reasons, like:
- Having to work that day
- Having to find your polling place, stand in line for who knows how long, figure out if you're even registered, etc.
- Being exhausted from work when you clock out
- Having no support for household labor, so you have shit to do when you get off work
So if they were examining all their options voting democrat is what they should do?
Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth?
Nowhere in this thread am I saying anything like "voting for Democrats is the best option." I'm saying (for about the 30th time now) that there are real, material benefits Democrats provide over Republicans. Saying there is no difference between paid sick leave or no paid sick leave, or abortion access or no abortion access, makes us look stupid or out of touch.
I look forward to having to explain for the 30th time that this does not make Democrats good, does not excuse what Democrats support abroad, and these are not even things Democrats universally support. Can't wait to argue over more stuff I'm not even saying.
If there are real material benefits democrats provide over the alternative isn’t the logical conclusion from that that democrats are better than republicans and worth supporting as a “lesser evil?” If there are two groups and one kills 19 people and another kills 20 but gives a couple random people ten dollars do you say “yes both killed people, but the second group made a material difference in some other people’s lives, you’ve got to acknowledge that, stop pretending they’re the same?”
isn’t the logical conclusion from that that democrats are better than republicans and worth supporting as a “lesser evil?”
You know this is a bullshit argument. Do you see how dishonest it is to know it's bullshit and try to pin it on someone who's is not even close to making it?
if you can't see any difference (from the perspective of the American working class, which seems to be the focus here)
Oh no it isn't. That seems to be your fundamental false premise here. A sizeable majority of the working class in America support the Democrats, the most warmongering party in the US. They are owed no solidarity from us for this.
They are owed no solidarity from us for this.
This is not even what I'm talking about, but it's also totally out of step with AES states' approach to the American working class.
You can point out what the average American thinks without arguing we need to tail it and call it correct.
Good thing I'm not doing that
If you’re not doing that then stop being defensive. Based on the positions that you’ve denied we should be in agreement. Just accept what we’re saying and move on. All you seem to be arguing now is that you didn’t say what you implied.
You're supporting genocide!
"I'm not doing anything like that, read what I'm saying"
Why so defensive???
You keep being defensive and saying that we are lying about what you are saying, but since so many of us drew that conclusion it should be clear that your statements could imply that “we need to support democrats because they are slightly better than Republicans.” If that is truly not your position then we have nothing to argue about except how your statements were interpreted. Why don’t you just say “I agree with what you are saying, and I never meant to imply the position you interpreted me to have?”
Suggesting that the Dems align with the interests of the working class
Good thing I didn't do that!
If you don’t want to sound like that then stop defending democrats as slightly better than republicans.
But how much of that is a Democrats vs Republicans thing? I think it's more accurate to describe it as a ruling class granting occasional concessions thing. For example, under Trump federal workers got paid parental leave but I wouldn't say that makes him or his party good.
Also, Democrats had plenty of opportunities to codify abortion rights, but didn't and still don't. Roe v. Wade got overturned during their rule!! So how compliant does a party need to be before they're complicit?
That any Americans think highly of Dems speaks more about the sorry state of politics in this country than it does the virtues of Democrats. And I don't mean to go off on you right now, I agree that lots of people think they're great. I also think those people are dead wrong but y'know.
For example, under Trump federal workers got paid parental leave but I wouldn’t say that makes him or his party good.
And I'm not saying Democrats are good! I'm saying we have to acknowledge that paid parental leave is a material benefit. It's something Americans consider when they look at their political options, and Democrats (for all the horrible things they do) do more of this than Republicans.
Democrats had plenty of opportunities to codify abortion rights, but didn’t and still don’t.
They have in fact done this in multiple states. Again, this does not make Democrats good! But it is a real, material thing that Americans point to when choosing Democrats over Republicans. To say there is no difference at all -- in the eyes of Americans, which is the context of this post -- is bad analysis.
What I'm saying is that if Americans care about politics, then they should not settle for Democrats. It makes sense to prefer them over Republicans, but it's absurd to support them in their own right.
I interpreted the meme as saying that the differences between these parties are minimal and oftentimes merely aesthetic. The BLM part is a joke about how even places under Democratic control sided with cops over people.
From what I've read in this thread, no one disagrees with any of that. No one is saying Democrats are good or anyone should settle for them. The pushback is against "both parties are the same," because "it makes sense to prefer [Democrats] over Republicans," at least for Americans.
Yeah people are exaggerating but imo not by much. A person would have to be very America-brained to think they're substantially different, or even opposed. The cure to that isn't to agree with them though, it's to broaden their understanding of politics.
If you want to broaden people's understanding of politics you're not going to get very far with "both parties are the same." Communists, anarchists, libertarians, and edgy 15-year-olds have tried that for decades with nothing to show for it. Whatever the merits of it, it does not work.
Argue that Dems are not doing nearly enough, or aren't moving fast enough, or are corrupt, or agree with Republicans on some of the worst things the U.S. does. What's the defense to that? The defense to "both sides are the same" is "I can get an abortion in California but not Florida, what are you talking about?"
I see your point, that's fair. I'll be more mindful of how I might be misinterpreted or how my rhetoric could backfire. Thanks for responding despite all the flak you've gotten from everyone else
Fascism is when liberalism has to go mask off to keep the system from falling.
So Isiah is republican, did I get it guys?
I see why everyone has this instance blocked now.
Good thing more people are realizing this and doing the best they can do: post on a shitty social media site. Have fun whining til then end!
It's at least as useful as commenting to say that it's whining. Liberal complaints are for liberals. Marxists are interested in radical critique. With that radical critique—leading to the conclusion that electoralism is worse than a dead end—shows the way to something that might work.
Working Class: Help Us Please
Republicans: Shut up you whiny cucks. Heil Trump!
Democrats: We tried to give you $100 dollars to cover your rent and groceries for the month, but Republicans wouldn't let it pass unless we whittled the number down to $5.
Liberals: We'd love to give you universal healthcare and universal basic income and free you from oppressive medical and student loan debt. Oh and we can do all this well stopping climate change, and strengthening the economy.
Working Class: interesting... We've heard you all, and we've chosen to split our votes between the Republicans and the Democrats. Again.
Liberals: What the actual fuck.
Republicans: Oh good. To celebrate we're going to open-mouth cough on you, then throw a dart at The Constitution to see which right we want to take away from you next.
Oh my sweet summer child
There's reddit in my lemmygrad!
You can't paint with this broad of brush. Clearly some Democratic politicians actually give a shit (especially as you get down to state and local levels) -- total cynicism about politics is reactionary. And of course a ton of lib activists (who are not getting paid, or who are even sacrificing earnings for political purposes) actually give a shit.
The goal is to separate these folks from the opportunists and then convince them that we have a better way to improve things.
It doesn't matter if there's a handful of low-ranking Dems who might want to do more for the working class. The system is set up in a way such that they'll never be able to make any meaningful changes. If it were possible to vote in a better system, it would've happened already.
I'm not suggesting that we can vote our way to socialism. I'm pointing out that extreme cynicism about politics is reactionary ("there is no society", "I'm from the government and I'm here to help", and all that) and not accurate.
To get people on our side we have to describe the world as it actually is (accurate) and show a path to something better (not reactionary).
Who cares if some dems have good intentions? They’re bourgeois tools either way. Is our prime revolutionary demographic career politicians? No. Do we accept the logic that it’s just a few bad apples in policing? No, we say ACAB because they all uphold the same system whether or not they’re in the majority that do extra heinous shit. Just because regular working class people vote democrat doesn’t mean they’re worth supporting.
What are the 'liberals' in your fanfic? They promised something to the working class, so I'll assume they are another bourgeois political party and got no votes.
Bernie Sanders? AOC? Elizabeth Warren?
They are liberals. So is Trump, though. So were Reagan and Thatcher. Liberalism is the [main] ideology of capitalism. The westerners who pretend that liberalism is progressive have either been asleep since the late 1600s or are charlatans.
No they're democrats
You are still only thinking within an enshrined binary, within the confines of bourgeois "democracy". You are so caught in the mind-trap that the ruling class has meticulously laid for you and others like you that not only are you unable to think outside of bourgeois democracy entirely, but you don't even mention voting third party! It's vote blue or you're a Republican!
How do y'all not see the prison bars so firmly planted in front of your very fucking eyes? It has not always been like this. It will not always be like this. It is time, now, for an alternative. It is time now for a people's state, a worker's state.
Unless you believe we can flip-flop between blatant fascists and not-so-blatant fascists without climate catastrophe destroying the world. It's socialism or barbarism. Quit letting the barbarians do your thinking for you.
🏅
Holy shit. Can you imagine believing that Democrats are helpful to the working class? Can you imagine believing voting is helpful to the working class? Fucking hell.
Sounds like a heckin republican tacticerino
What is the hope…?
That people realise electoralism is a dead end and start to organise, organise, organise. (No the Dems do not represent the organisation of workers.)