this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2025
257 points (79.0% liked)

Memes

47375 readers
1363 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 11 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Obama's legacy:

Biden's legacy:

The democrats are a brutal, vicious, genocidal party.

So, going through that website almost every time I tried to look at the source it said 404 file missing.

Also, what's up with the color scheme? If the information is damning enough already, stop with all the theatrics.

[–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 52 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (6 children)

This meme made sense in 2012, not when the Republican Party has decided to be the Anti-Democratic Party.

[–] AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee 8 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

If anything Democrats have moved further to the right recently

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Pilferjinx@lemmy.world 60 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

I'd take some less evil, please.

[–] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 0 points 1 hour ago

Sorry. The Democrats sued less evil off the ballot.

[–] Sibshops@lemm.ee 25 points 15 hours ago (6 children)

I don't understand why people who think this don't advocate for ranked choice voting. Seems like it would solve this issue, right?

[–] AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee 1 points 8 minutes ago

I do advocate for it, I'm a proud member of the Forward Party.

[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 10 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

It doesn't. There are plenty of bourgeois democracies that don't use FPTP for all their voting: Japan, Australia, South Korea for some of their elections. Doesn't make a difference (except it might make the bribery a bit more expensive, since you have to buy off more political parties than just two).

The fundamental problem is capital standing above political power. If it does so, then no amount of alternative voting systems can fix the issue. Socialism is the only answer.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

No, RCV wouldn't. The fundamental problem of electoral politics being a game between factions pre-approved by the bourgeoisie won't change, there are even safeguards preventing unwanted change that losing parties and government branches can pull in the rare event a worker party won.

It's the perfect carrot, it won't get passed nor would it change much.

[–] darthelmet@lemmy.world 24 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Even if it would, how would it ever get passed when the people who would need to pass it are the ones who are only in office because the system works the way it currently does?

This is just a recurring theme I've found when talking with liberals. They like to think about and suggest all sorts of policy ideas as though all we're missing are some smart ideas nobody has thought of. It's one thing to say we should have this, but it's another to have any idea of how it'd be possible to do. Since they have no actual analysis of the system, they'll just turn around and tell you to vote or call your representative. "We should get money out of politics!" "Yeah, well we checked with the people giving us money and they said no. So..."

[–] Grapho@lemmy.ml 17 points 13 hours ago
[–] _stranger_@lemmy.world 17 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

You have a few options for enacting ranked choice voting at the national level:

  1. Win hundreds, possibly thousands, of state-level House and Senate seats with the largest grass roots voter mobilization ever seen in the US to, a) enact legislation in all 50 states or b) ratify an amendment to the constitution, that mandates it.

  2. Kill enough republicans in a national civil war to make sure that when elections happen, there aren't enough republicans left to win an election, then enact the above.

  3. Overthrow the entire US government in a much bloodier national coup and set up whatever government you want.

[–] Grapho@lemmy.ml 20 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

Kill enough republicans in a national civil war

And democrats, too. Don't pretend they're not just as responsible for keeping fptp voting, their party depends on it. If you don't believe me, look into how coordinated the GOP and Democrats were when suing PSL and the Green party to keep them off several state ballots (and severely whittle down their grassroots funds with corporate-money lawfare). Spoiler: there was no overlap.

It's one party, two wings.

[–] _stranger_@lemmy.world -2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

It isn't, but I suppose if you hang out in an echo chamber long enough you'll believe anything.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 4 hours ago

What echo chamber are you talking about? Existing on the English-speaking internet at all is to be in a pro-US echo chamber, Leftists carving out little enclaves for themselves to discuss topics with other leftists doesn't insulate them from the overwhelming majority of their existence.

[–] Commiunism@beehaw.org 7 points 12 hours ago

Imma be real as an European, we kinda have the same problem here even with better voting systems. You either vote for "nothing ever happens" parties or literal Russia funded reactionary nazis.

[–] esc27@lemmy.world 11 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (4 children)

Scenario I've been playing with:

Suppose you are kidnapped by two people. They tell you that one of them will shoot you and then let you go, but you get to decide who shoots. Person A says he will shoot you in the head. Person B says he will shoot you in the shoulder. Which do you choose?

The more think about this the more I like it. Both persons are clearly awful and contributed to the situation. Both could offer better choices but refuse. Both are rather similar in outcomes. But one is clearly worse.

Is it rational to choose to be shot at all? Is it rational to not choose the better of two alternatives?

[–] Sludgeyy@lemmy.world 5 points 4 hours ago

Bank robber. Get away driver.

Would be a good analogy.

Yes, the bank robber shot and killed the clerk.

But they are both bank robbers

Who is more evil? The one that does the act or the one that enables it?

[–] djsoren19@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

This is a false dichotomy though. I'd argue the fact that "escape" doesn't even cross your mind in this hypothetical scenario is damning.

[–] UrPartnerInCrime@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Yes, we would all love to escape. That would be amazing

We are literally stuck with the 2 currently. No amount of posting on here is going to change. There is literally not enough people who care in this country right now to change it fully.

You can either have the 2 options

That's literally the only options in the US.

Yes we would love ranked voting

Yes we would love better options

Yes we would love for a magical solution to come and save us

It's not like that. Trump fans would literally never let that happen right now. And because democrats couldn't get the votes by not being perfect it may never happen.

Wanting "to escape" is leaving the fucking country. And you're free to fucking leave. But if you actually wanted to help, you needed to choose democrate to hopefully get the change you wanted in.

Now the only way you'll get change is when everything crumbles, and who knows how many die

[–] vfreire85@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

how about campaigning for other, more radical, revolutionary parties? just admit that you guys somehow grew to like being dipped in sht because who stuck you in this sht barrel told you guys there's acid outside of it.

[–] UrPartnerInCrime@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Campaigning for a better person left us with the shitty person. This is actually real life, not just the internet where we can hope it gets better

[–] Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world 28 points 14 hours ago

If you don't choose, then someone else chooses for you

[–] PineRune@lemmy.world 22 points 14 hours ago

Then the people who claim to love you choose for you and say that getting shot in the head would be better for you. Any attempt to convince them otherwise is met with absolute disbelief.

load more comments
view more: next ›