this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2024
441 points (77.1% liked)
Memes
45901 readers
1433 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The image only works if the right always wins though?
The "lesser evil" won in 2020. We didn't move back to the left.
Pray tell, how is strengthening unions & workers rights, forgiving student loans, not 'left'? SMH
Strikebreaking and photo ops didn't strengthen shit.
Was the only bright spot in his presidency.
Now how was supporting a genocide "left?" I mean, it may be to your left. Maybe you want active participation?
Pray tell, how is genocidal fascism "left"? SMH
Genocide apologist
Ok I'll try this again without calling you a c***: saying that X is is not responsible fo Y does not mean that you think that Y is good. In this case, nearly everyone in the US govt (regardless of party affiliation) has supported arms sales to Israel for as long as they've held the position. The fact that you think me pointing this out is equivalent to excusing or approving it surprises me, but then many single-issue individuals can get irrationally passionate on those issues, so I shouldn't have been as surprised as I was I suppose.
Oh? Provide examples.
Are there more examples of this happening? One event isn't a very good sample size... "IT DIDN'T WORK GUYS, SEE?!", I mean, sure... But there are more circumstances and variables and conditions to an election lol.
How many times do you want to move to the right and not back to the left? How many more times will it take to satisfy you?
I mean, as long as it's a stable ratio, the whole concept in this post falls apart. What are the statistics on left/right leaning presidents throughout history?
Does the rightward shift that has resulted in the "good" party supporting genocide indicate stability to you?
It does not, but this happening for one election doesn't prove an unstable ratio, or rate of change. You have to look at the historical pattern for that.
I don't think this is the problem of some sort of "phenomenon" of a left party becoming the right party because people are voting for the "lesser evil". That makes no sense to begin with. If everyone voted for the lesser evil (the left), the lesser evil would not feel the need to take on some evil from the right to please the American people who are voting with their rectums, dropping straight up doo-doo in their ballot boxes. They would be able to just have sane politics. No? Otherwise, why are they doing some evil? And why is the right doing a shit-ton of evil? It's because they are playing the American people for fools. Exploiting their culture of "protect our land of the fReE" and their "black or white" argumentation and "we vs them", "good versus evil", "no gray areas" small brain mentality.
For one election?
Which of GWB's rightward policies did Obama undo? Which of Reagan/Bush's policies did Clinton undo?
You're defending a rightward shift that has been going on for decades.
I think you're misinterpreting and down voting based on that. I'm not defending anything. I just don't believe this is some kind of theorem. It's just a problem with politics in America.
And I don't know enough to make any claims about the history. I'm merely saying we have to look at the history to make any claims. This type of theorem can't be based on one election. That's all I'm saying.
You seem to know more about policies and shit that I don't know about (I'm European). So that's very insightful, and interesting.
It's a shame the American people are voting right and/or settling for a right-ified left, instead of just forming a better party with better politics. 🤷♂️
How convenient that you only know one election when I bring up the previous two cycles of the phenomenon I described, but up until this moment, you were certain that this one election was a fluke.
I don't think I made any claims that this was a fluke. If so, it wasn't meant to be received as such. I'm merely saying that one election is not enough to go on. "WE NEED TO LOOK AT MORE DATA." And you seem to have more data, so that's great. We're not on opposite sides of an argument there, BTW, just so we're clear. I'm having a conversation with you. Let's not get hostile. 👍
And now that I've cited multiple elections, can we put that "we only have one election" thing to bed?
I thought I already tried to do that but yes, definitely. I still don't think there's proof of this being a verifiable concept as shown in this image though.
Do you suppose genocide has always been something Democrats were so eager to support?
No I do not. I don't think they support genocide either, but they do support a country committing genocide, which is absolutely disgusting too. But I'm perhaps splitting hairs there.
Do you think they support a country committing genocide because people are voting for them? Or vice versa.
I make no distinction between the two, and I consider your hair splitting to be an attempt to downplay it.
I think they support genocide regardless of who voted for them. I think they do so for the sheer love of it. If you support genocide you lose the benefit of the doubt.
Please don't. Me admitting to hair splitting is meant to show how much I despise supporting either one. 👍
So in that case, we agree "voting for the lesser evil" has nothing to do with it, then. 👍
No?
Then please explain how this works. This image isn't doing it for me.
If the republicans win, it goes further right. If the democrats win, it stays where it is. So the only movement is to the right, never left.
That simply explains what's visible in the image, not whatsoever why.
Like, why is this the general assumption?
If this were true, there wouldn't ever have been a democratic president, right? Except maybe once in the beginning?
I think you're taking this a bit more seriously than it's intended to be, but yeah, there have been Democrat presidents, but there still isn't gun control, univseral healthcare (not even for children!), etc.
Politicians are walking a fine line between catering to what the people want and deciding on things that actually benefit the people. It's a difficult thing. Should politicians represent the people, or should they have the mandate to make decisions the people may not agree with but are better for the people.
At the very least, they shouldn't make decisions that benefit only themselves and their rich friends. 💀
I have a hard time taking this as a joke, if it was intended as one, because there were very serious discussions regarding this before and after the election.
What?
😐... where exactly did I lose you? Just asking "What?" doesn't really help me to answer you. What is your actual question, please?