this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2025
611 points (84.3% liked)
Political Memes
5711 readers
1236 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Stop. Being. Wrong.
Democratic senators want to amend Constitution to abolish Electoral College
Electoral College ‘needs to go,’ Walz says. Other Democratic candidates have agreed
Democratic voting bill would make biggest changes in decades
It’s usually a good idea to read the sources you’re citing, instead of picking links after a cursory web search:
So glad we’re making performative amendment suggestions AFTER they lost control of all branches of government. They know this is not going to pass in the current Congress, but “we tried” right? Why is it suddenly a priority after a crushing loss, instead of taken care of during the Obama supermajorities or tacked onto a NDAA or similar ‘must pass’ bill? 🧐
C’mon dude, at least browse to the third paragraph…
Voting rights and curbing money is admirable, but not part of what I meant. Reform voting systems, not just eligibility and access
Do these articles NOT show you Dems “agitating” to change those structures? Including the VP nom? I say that a cursory search showed them, and if I were to fuck with enshittified google enough I’d find many more examples.
Would you admit you were wrong then? Perhaps mistaken? Doubt.
So yeah I didn’t finish my doctoral thesis on easily disprovable lies to enable a foregone conclusion, only to illustrate that the huge leaps you made were wrong. I haven’t personally interviewed the 450 members of the DNC either, so your pronouncement that they like and defend the duopoly may be so - but I doubt it.
Defend it with what. Are they preventing third parties from forming? The 53 that are said to exist today must have thwarted them, then. Defending it in seekrit underground caves, hand-in-hand with “christian” nationalists, chanting in latin or lovecraftian? Is there even a NY Post article about it?
Did they refuse to let a russian stooge share the debate stage to continue her bad-faith campaign to throw the election to trump? Yeah they did, and so they should - fuck that bullshit.
Speaking of defending, what about your vaunted third party advocates stating plainly and openly their determination to throw the election to trump? Need a cite for that?
You can falsely categorize the Dems as status-quo mongers but (a) that’s false, (b) some good is better than all bad, (c} you can affect change by participating with them, and (d) third-parties have got nothing, and in four years everyone gets to trip over themselves to have this exact same russian argument again.
Name one third party that has any shot at being elected to national office in four years. Cite your sources, less than a thousand words, papers under your desk, #2 only.
Establishment Democrats forcefully pushing no, not really. Dick Durbin meets that bar as the Senate whip but I can’t find a text of their proposal to see who/how many cosponsors they have - or if it even exists beyond a press release. Waltz is a DC outsider plucked from the Midwest to play the role of VP - be everything the president is not. And like your own linked article quoted, the campaign cut his feet out beneath him immediately and repeatedly.
You have to convince me I’m wrong, not get huffy and claim superiority in an attempt to bully complicity. Your retort is lacking in convincing argument, but is oozing condescension and assumption that I’m bad-faith greeenie/russian bot/.ml tankie spoiler position.
“We have a robust free market, look see? There’s dozens of competitors who all fight for the bottom 5% of the total” what a libertarian ass argument. If we applied anti-trust scrutiny to the parties, there would be forced breakups and structural barriers to them entrenching their grip. There used to be more than two parties that got EC votes in the US, evolving going through schisms and mergers as they react to electoral realities. As a natural reaction to FPTP though, those who failed to combine into an 800lb gorilla, get mauled by the one that did.
Stein is controlled opposition, yes. But you’re swinging at ghosts - I want STV/ranked choice/etc and third party coalitions in Congress, not a token protest vote without a meaningful platform or experience.
AOC just got blocked by Pelosi herself from the exact kind of ‘change from within’ you argue for.
Voters (and spoilers) organized and ran a massive protest and advocacy campaign over Palestine and routinely got told to shove it, from the DNC stage, abandoned support on campuses, shunned and removed from rallies, and generally shunned.
Unless you’re a donor or regular attendee at $3k-$500k per head fundraiser, or are one of the vanishing small intersectional group of voters who get microadvertised to death with focus tested messaging, you don’t matter to them. Your vote is already counted in, because what other option is there? Ooooops.
Circular reasoning. After Citizens United money is what runs elections, and the Democrats insist on looming over the left wing political landscape and beating minority challengers, reinforcing the “losing prospect” narrative for third parties. Europeans manage to build actual coalitions all the time and govern effectively, listening to coalition parties (and thus voters who elected that strand of politician) whilst still managing to run an effective government.
America can legitimately be better, but you have to dare to hope for it, not resign yourself to the lesser evil every cycle, and then shout down everyone else who isn’t. Massively cut election donations and establish universal FEC funding, and ditch winner takes all voting. Otherwise we will continue to see the ratchet click rightward, while the lesser evil just slows the metastasizing fascism - are you okay with that future?
AOC voted to protect the rail corporation from a union strike. We deserve better representation.
Agree, but I’m not going to crucify her while she’s still wearing a D and under the party whip. She’s still playing the insider game, but after Pelosis latest backstabbing that may yet change.
You have to prove you’re right, as you made the ridiculous unsupportable claim. I’ve already proven it, you refuse to admit it. Let’s move on.
Uh, sure. Or we could apply RuPaul’s Drag Race scrutiny to the parties and put tape on their doors to make sure they’re not sneaking out. They’re not businesses with products and markets. There’s a fundamental reason we don’t treat them like businesses (although the analogies are admittedly obvious). It’s because your scrappy, revolutionary Pokémon Go party deserves to meet, advocate, advertise, and run for office without being audited by the Shithole State Assessor and OSHA.
So, again, no.
. . . Agree? And? The resulting duopoly - a foregone conclusion - means boo Democrats bad? What’s your point. EC is mandated duopoly. Let’s get rid of it and whatever your point might be can be rendered mercifully moot.
Well, we’re in agreement there. I’m not jazzed about the coalitions only because I think it’s another porkbarrel trap and I don’t have a good sense of how it would work, but, yes.
DoMA was an insult to humanity and all supporting Democrats should have been defenestrated from office. Ironically, the legal challenge was also from Democrats, so. I dunno. Politics.
I’m OOTL since Nov. so not sure what this is in reference to, but if existing officeholders can hold trump to anything I’m not necessarily against it.
Yes. And it was a huge win we wouldn’t have otherwise had. Clinton spent all his first term capital on H4A and the rest of his initiatives were bought-and-paid for with more cops and less welfare or some other political extortion. Obama got it done. It’s better. It’s not possible from any other party, period. Some good. You’re welcome. Thanks for hating the people who did the good.
Yeah the protection was honored by all branches so let’s definitely lose the 80’s & 90’s to conservatives by repeatedly running on that. All you need to do is roll back other progress and find the career politicians willing to be sacrificed. Oh, the party is all-powerful, and can just make them do it? Lol.
Look at this shit - abortion is illegal and these fuckers STILL won. You want them to spend everything on a constitutional amendment to support what was already legal - and fail - to prove they’re genuine? That’s stupid. Yes they should have done everything to protect that right, they failed. AND THEN lost again. I realize it sucks. Politics sucks, what a revelation. Compromise is less fulfilling than heroic purity. Huzzah we’ve cracked it. Please.
Fuck “chatter”. We’ll get boatloads of chatter daily in the next four years. I’m out this time.
Yeah. Which was bullshit. Pelosi needed to go awhile ago. AOC is young. And by the by, your wildly successful third parties are not chairing House Oversight anytime this century. So. You just wanna lay down in the road and die? Okay, but that is a super weird strategy for change. Good luck? I guess.
Yeah. Voters and spoilers. Demanding action, instant change. Spoilers. And voters. What a fantastic wedge. Worked a treat. And now, Palestine is well and truly fucked. Nice work, voters and spoilers.
I suppose we keep on with the camps and so on and hope the trump admin is more receptive? Heh. Oh well. We tried to explain this a hundred ways but it was not a discussion. No one was interested in understanding anything except now, today, immediately. Well. Anyway. You got what you wanted there. Why, I don’t know. It’s the opposite of good, but you demanded it. Okay then, now it’s here.
No. Being active locally is free. They do listen. If you want to cut all ties with Israel and you are upset that haranguing the Poughkeepsie chair of the DNC isn’t getting it done, I’d suggest you reset your expectations of how national politics works. Coincidentally, that applies to third parties too. It’s hard fucking work if you’re not relying on corrupt racists and batshit evangelicals.
Yeah. It’s a republiQan tactic and Democrats want to change it. Third parties should be helping.
You mean they win elections? Why, if it only takes money? Couldn’t Jill Stein or literally any and/or all of the 52 other parties cobble together enough for a freaking House seat or, god, Sheriff of Bumfuck or something? No. They can’t. The “losing prospect” is a chimera. Quit believing in it.
Do they? Well good for them, that’s nice. Except the ones that don’t amirite? England, France, Germany, Australia - all having a little bit of a time with the relative conservative elements aren’t they? Hey howabout that Brexit, huh? Goddamn.
And with Mississippi having a larger GDP than Germany, and a lot of challenges Germany doesn’t have, let’s just say it’s possible an EU style governance may take more than one election cycle from naked authoritarianism.
Very often it means hoping and resigning. The shouting down is an attempt to recognize we’re in serious jeopardy, but alas the idiots, thieves, and newly enlightened have eschewed knowledge, understanding, or responsibility and we are utterly fucked because of it. As to the OP, where are they now.
Agreed. And if it ever happens, in the history of this country as we know it, it will be a Democratic initiative. A mythical Congress of strong, independent, national third parties working together for common good in the next four years is more than a joke, it’s a fucking lie. You can DO - right now, today, as a Democrat, or you can NOT DO today or at any other time in the next at-least-twenty years, as a third party.
Politics is rhetoric encoded in law. So yeah, chatter matters because they’re testing the waters to see what voters find agreeable and/or permissible. Trump is an embodiment of that shift, what previously was impermissible speech from a candidate has become normalized by a growing element.
Who enabled it to be a wedge issue? Who permitted the slaughter to continue, meekly finger wagging while quietly green lighting more bomb shipments from our war stocks? Who bypassed internal checks that are meant prevent US arms going to war criminals?
Idk bro I had a hard time explaining away why we need to fund, supply, and protect war crimes at a minimum, or genocide as the boot increasingly fits. I swallowed it and voted for Dem “harm reduction” in my swing state but ironically it looks like Trump may actually be the one to force a ceasefire. Not because he cares, but because he recognizes it’s a loser issue that will quagmire him like it did Joe. I’m under no illusion he’ll improve life there or revert apartheid, but so far he’s willing to make Bibi fold - unlike Joe
And look how that browbeating worked out in the end. “Our economy is strong” while inequality deepens. “Israel has a right to defend itself” while refusing any restraint or inquiry on their conduct. “I am the only one who can beat Trump” after having a cold reboot on national TV. You. Need. To. Listen. To. Feedback. Stop blithely defending this shit, and demand better.
I don’t expect a political buffet of à la carte options in every political scenario, but I’d hope for more than a binary scale from ‘reactionary nativist racism’ to ‘milquetoast liberal’. Especially if the one side is going to loom over the left wing landscape and demand fealty to big-tent centrism, while the other side vacillates between holding back the clock or rabid attack dog.
Again with the circular reasoning, seriously?Structural barriers under FPTP empower the duopoly. Third parties cannot win, except in extremely small districts or as a reaction to duopoly scandal, and so voting 3rd party IS a wasted vote. Winner take all goes brrrrr.
France, coalition governments in 1988, 1993, 1997, 2012, 2022 and present. The historic cause? Voter discontent and partisan scandal causing minority voices to make gains, left and right. Modern cause: failure of neoliberalism heightened by anti-incumbent sentiment.
Germany has had stable coalition governments for so long it’s practically a dynasty, so idk why you think this is a winning argument. AfD is an economic protest vote from the east tempered with populist racism. Again, failure of neoliberalism heightened by anti-incumbent sentiment.
Tbh I’m fairly ignorant of Oz politics, but I’ll note that Australia has STV and instant runoff, which in 2022 gave ‘the teals’ 7 seats, from former rightwing seats via grassroots takeover and policy positions on issues like climate change.
Twenty years of neo-liberalism and failed immigration policy of actual integration, instead abusing il/legal migration to fill ‘undesirable’ and ‘low skill’ jobs in an effort to compensate for an aging and increasingly skilled/educated population, and increase GDP. Again, failure of neoliberalism heightened by anti-incumbent sentiment and supercharged by foreign influence campaigns.
That is what entrenched parties in a FPTP system give you. Sound familiar?
See, they key difference is that I recognize that the Democratic establishment and leadership is actually pretty comfy with our nascent fascism. I am agitating for internal evolution because the old guard has failed, and we need a new strategy to meet the challenges of our new and changing realities. The “Third Way” and Neoliberalism skated by on the long peace and prosperity after the Cold War ended. Globalism is increasingly under threat, and we need to adapt. The right has already tacked toward populism, when are you going to wake up to the reality that you cannot browbeat your way to electoral victory under universal suffrage?
Can’t believe I’m again spending time to give citations and actual arguments when you retort with snark and vibes, peak pigeon rhetoric.
Still waiting boss. Or are you going to hang your hat on the big bad tech overlords and your low effort initial retort?
So uhhh, which is it? My anti-trust argument is tortured and worthy of derision without dissection, or you agree that the business analogy works?
What is the FEC and the various thresholds for matching funding, campaigning restrictions, funding disclosure, etc etc before we even get to state level laws? What are ballot access laws and hostile legislation that protects the two-party system:
“The Republican Party seemed to have a "lock" on the presidency after the Civil War; it won eleven presidential elections 1860-1908, whereas it lost only two. It was precisely the "factionalism" of 1912 (ex-Republican Theodore Roosevelt bolting that party and forming the Progressive Party) which gave the Democrats a chance to win the White House”
So yeah. Not a great defense of an entrenched two-party system if you actually want change.
So again. Am I dumb and wrong, or do you actually agree?
Politics under our brand of capitalism is transactional, from donors, voters, senators, and intra-party life.
Why wouldn’t you want more diverse representation? I’m not advocating for Tammany Hall style spoils system, but you cannot deny how the political wings and minority voter blocs get forgotten or taken for granted - see the generational divide between black voters. Those who lived during the civil rights era and saw a concerted fight for their dignity, overwhelmingly vote Dem. The younger ones who grew up in the lore, but watching Dem disunity during Ferguson/BLM/Floyd/etc whilst Dem pollsters clutched to the suburban voter - instead of fighting for better - are abandoning the party.
Obama is a great example of this. A DC outsider, campaigning on change, economic recovery, and criticism of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. But then empowers Hillary as SecDef whilst cranking up drone strikes and cross-border/foreign raids.
Yes, you can’t unwind the hundreds of US military bases and installations in a four year term - there’s security treaties, realpolitik to deal with, and state/non-state actors to be concerned with as the global police, but there’s always a place for empowering and relying on locals to fulfill their own security concerns. But then, we’re the global superpower with UN veto and economic muscle, so we play by a different rule book. Apparently.
What’s the fucking point of having supermajority power if you’re not going to wield it to make long lasting change that would benefit the country, not just reelection funds? And I’m not even talking M4A, even just having a genuine government healthcare option to compete with private insurance would have done so much, in non-competitive markets where people are mono-sourced either by employers or providers, providing a “baseline but decent” care option for the poor and vulnerable so you aren’t bankrupted for daring to get cancer or need long term care, or stronger restrictions on vertical integration of providers and insurers, or…
You’re cool with “better” and want me to be thankful? We just saw a vigilante murder the UHC CEO, and the bipartisan response is “meh” to”fuckem” due to decades of common discontent - but you’re happy with the status quo?
No it wasn’t honored in the legislature, we’ve had ‘trigger laws’ on the books in deeply Republican states for decades. They’re at the “find out” stage after giving the religious right that performative act.
No it wasn’t honored in the courts, Casey nibbled away the ‘strict scrutiny’ protection which opened the door to a patchwork of state level fuckery, and Webster which let a fence grow around state provision and funding, making Planned Parenthood a key provider in some states. Even Anthony Scalia openly talked about how he felt Roe was wrongly decided, and it needed primary legislation to avoid judicial re-interpretation and instability.
The religious fruitcakes who scream the loudest do not represent the country. Like I said: baseline protection. The GOP is lowkey fighting a political insurgency trying to intra-message this one after Dobbs because some level of protected access enjoys supermajority support, and the polling for a 100% ban has never peaked above 22% since Roe. Your revisionist history is filtered through chickenshit leadership who failed to stand tall and do something.