Republicans are evil but Democrats are only less evil
Republicans are evil but Democrats are only less evil
Jfc this is how your country got here in the first place. Absolutely relentless bothsidesing. What will it take for you to give up on the idea that they're "basically the same"? Insurrection didn't do it, fascism isn't doing it. What will it take??? Morons
Lol. They think this is edgy. Democrats are human beings, they fuck up. Right now? Absolutely torch them for sitting idly by and not connecting to people in large meaningful ways. But like... Really? Democrats have been the ones fighting to give you universal medicine, lower taxes, cleaner air, higher skilled jobs and higher paying jobs, more housing, and even fucki g protecting the border while not infringung on human rights lol.
Pussy ass bitch
Our country got here by one party continuing to be more and more evil and the only other party following.
You dumbasses are going to bothsides your way into something very, very serious over there. Assuming you haven't already
Yeah this is totally warranted given the recent news. I mean, one side trying to expand medicare, the other gutting it. One side trying to close Guantanamo bay, the other opening concentration camps on it. One side trying to get money out of politics, the other side destroying democracy for want of more money.
Totally helpful, totally warranted, OP. Well done. Way to go. You're so cool and centrist.
Got some citations for those claims? Particularly given Kamala's opposition to expanding Medicare.
The Ratchet effect.
With this current trump slop, the democrats can shift farther right than they've ever been and gain tons of moderates and even conservatives who just feel sour on trump, and obviously they get the liberal moderates, because trump slop.
Republicans shift right by 10, dems shift right by 6 and seem progressive in comparison.
Billionaires continue getting richer, and we all get fucked. Eat, sleep, repeat.
Obama's legacy:
- After winning the Nobel peace prize, he dropped an average of 30k bombs / year (80 per day) during his presidency, mostly on Muslim countries, 2, 3. In 2016 alone, dropped 26,171 bombs in the Middle East and North Africa, up 3000 from the previous year. The countries bombed include Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, and Somalia.
- Began a campaign of drone assassinations in the Middle East and Africa, in which 90% of those killed were not the intended targets, but innocent civilian bystanders, including women, children, and US citizens. 1. Drone strikes are used by the military and the CIA to hunt down and kill people the Obama administration has deemed — through secretive processes, without indictment or trial — worthy of execution. He authorized 10 times more drone strikes than George W Bush, 2. The Obama assassination program is detailed in the drone papers.
Biden's legacy:
The democrats are a brutal, vicious, genocidal party.
Funny given his own acceptance speech…
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.
Given the reality of the world we live in, Dems are the best we have right now.
Obama pulled this country out of the worst economy it’s been in since the 30’s. Brought healthcare to countless Americans (my wife would no longer be with us due to the cancer she had - Medicaid allowed her to be treated). He legalized gay marriage. Allowed gay and lesbian people to openly serve in the military. Gave the order that killed Osama bin Laden. We’ve all seen firsthand cities and towns be fixed up from the stimulus bills he passed in 2009. I could go on and on.
Hard for someone like Biden to follow that up being the next Democrat in line.
Meanwhile Trump has done everything to gut the work that Obama did, and make life worse for Americans in general. The last few weeks have felt like years in some sense with all the garbage he’s pulled. He’s bringing back another set of corporate tax cuts that are gonna fuck over a bunch of middle and lower class families.
They aren’t comparable.
At least we have a fighting chance for change under Democrats. They just need to give the old goons the boot.
Say all you want about us providing aid in conflicts worldwide, but that’s what we’ve always done. We all have it great here in terms of safety because of those decisions. I can count on one hand how many times we’ve had foreign powers attack us on our soil since the revolutionary war. Hamas is a proxy of Iran/Russia, so of course we’re gonna back Israel. Same reason we’re backing Ukraine over Russia.
This meme made sense in 2012, not when the Republican Party has decided to be the Anti-Democratic Party.
Not three months ago Gaza had a death toll well past fifty thousand by the most conservative estimates, not to mention the huge amounts of women and children maimed, malnourished and the wholesale destruction of the entire strip's infrastructure.
Did the republicans do that or did y'all deny reality so much in the pursuit of tHe mOsT iMpOrTanT ElEctiOn oF oUr LiFeTimE that you don't know what fucking color the sky is unless you ask the DNC first.
The republicans are not diametrically opposed to the democrats, they're just the same shit but more brash, and (with Trump at the helm) too fucking incompetent to not say the quiet part out loud, maybe because they know their base is so rabid on American fascism that dogwhistles aren't enough anymore, they need a fucking trumpet.
I’m honestly looking for work in the EU. If I can land a job, I’ll get established and then bring my family over.
Get in before the backlash - "bloody Americans, coming over here, taking our jobs..."
Oh my fucking god, the comments in here are so bad. Nobody is saying "both sides bad". This is not a centrist meme. This is a case of observing that Republicans are far-right fascists and Democrats are center-right conservatives.
It's like saying one is pure diarrhea and the other tastes like brocoli. Comparing them is insane. There is only one choice.
I don't understand why people who think this don't advocate for ranked choice voting. Seems like it would solve this issue, right?
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.
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..."
I imagine it wouldn't be difficult at least at the primary level. The same party has the power and they can get rid of less desirable candidates like Fetterman.
They won't allow it because they'll lose power with ranked choice.
You have a few options for enacting ranked choice voting at the national level:
-
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.
-
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.
-
Overthrow the entire US government in a much bloodier national coup and set up whatever government you want.
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.
-
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.
Even though RCV improves representation by only like 3%-6%. it's still an improvement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RepresentWomen#Ranked_Choice_Voting
I do advocate for it, I'm a proud member of the Forward Party.
This “both sides are the same” lie is just as tiring as Trump’s lie about winning.
@AbsoluteChicagoDog Don't give your voice to the Genocidal Regimes of America. Instead use your actual voice fully. Don't let yourself be compromized by the machine.
Relative to the other fully developed countries, a mainstream Democrat is a homeopathic liberal.
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?
If you don't choose, then someone else chooses for you
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.
More like
One offers to shoot you in the head and kill your loved ones.
One offers to shoot you in the head and kill a bunch of strangers.
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.
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
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?
Seems OG Lemmy hardcore dems have been overrun by critically thinking individuals.
The OG lemmings are Marxist-Leninists. The surge of centrist Dems came from the Reddit exodus.
vote libertarian!
If you read the project 2025 document you'll see a section on the federal reserve, we seem to already be on the way there with Trump surprisingly. Which the document suggests capital punishment and a border wall, its not a document by the Fraser institute its a document crafted by Trump, you're an fool if you cant see that.
https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf
Without inflation, when you require raising taxes to actually pay for things, you'll see how much people are willing to spend for their DEI institutes and doing plays for other countries to cringe at.
If the vast majority of Americans believed the Democrats to be less evil, the Democrats would have 90% of the vote. If that were the case, the Republicans would move ever further left, perhaps even overtaking the Democrats, until they get a chance at winning again.
The reason the parties are right wing is because the voters are right wing.
That's why we need a communist revolution where everyone will be a happy little comrade
The reason that people don't vote Democrats is the same reason that people won't join your revolution.
If you found enough people to support a revolution, that'd mean you have enough people to change the system by simple voting.
That's not actually how electoral politics works. The two major parties are right wing because that's what the bourgeoisie allows the US to pick from, not because those policies are genuinely popular. Bernie, for example, had policies more supported by both republican and democrat voters than either other candidate. Policies like Medicare for All are overwhelmingly popular.
Revolution isn't won at the ballot box because the electoral system is designed from the outset to only allow pre-approved candidates and parties. Revolution comes from organizing, hence why in areas with stronger union presence government policy is usually more pro-worker, they must capitulate.
Revolution, ie the overthrow of the state, has happened many times before throughout the world and will happen many times more as long as it remains the only actual vector for change.
If left wing policies were truly more popular, why didn't the Democrats win? The voters didn't get Bernie, so if you can't get your ideal option, you instead take the worse of the two remaining ones? Even if voters were only voting for damage reduction, they'd still vote Democrat in that case.
But the Democrats didn't win. The voters don't want damage reduction. The voters want damage.
The system will never give us the tools needed to dismantle it my dude
