OurstReal Nazis
One side has real Nazis
And the other side seeks to compromise with them.
OK, we fucking know, so? We should let the Nazi’s win because the Democrats are spineless capitalists?
The point is that we can’t count on neo-liberals to do the right thing, they’re complicit in all this. So the Dems as a whole aren’t a party we can rely on until we primary them out.
Oh damn you right we should’ve voted for the magical third party that definitely would’ve won
“Oh damn, we should continue to just suffer in this system and not demand better about it because can’t change it!” - That’s what you sound like right now.
I’m in favor of changing the system but I’m not going to let the idea of a better system delude me into thinking that we’re in that improved system already. We absolutely should change the system, but when you look at the system we had at the time of the election, who else were people going to vote for if they didn’t want trump to win? We didn’t have ranked choice, we didn’t even get a primary for the Democrats.
Blaming the Democrats for not winning is taking away the blame and attention away from the people everyone should be mad at, the Republicans. Dems fucked up, but that’s not holding Republicans accountable for what they are doing right now.
We should demand that it be better, but shooting ourselves in the foot while doing it is only going to give us a shot foot
We’re already shooting ourselves in the foot. The Dems, even when they had a trifecta in 2008, were still dropping the ball. They don’t elect effective people, just people who keep ensuring payments go up and not down.
Continue to delude yourself that neo-liberals are your friend. I’m tired of making the same arguments to closed minded individuals.
I probably don’t agree with @[email protected] but he said primary them, not vote third party.
If by common logic voting is power, we need to organize and vote people into office that better represent us. Not just resign ourselves to this fate. I just don’t understand this desire to not put up any fight at all. It seems counter intuitive to survival.
I just don’t understand this desire to not put up any fight at all. It seems counter intuitive to survival.
Bitter and deep spite. Disgust. Self destructive stubborn catharsis in ruining people who you hate even if it destroys you as well.
Just as the campists who actively live in “amerikkka” as I do for US citizen non-voters now.
I’ve voted in primaries for better candidates for the Dems since I could vote, for more progressive people so we have good representation. As much as I hate establishment Dems I’m not going to stop trying if for it. I’m disenfranchised by them more often than not and that makes me angry to want to do something, not be spiteful.
I’ll probably still vote for dems for logical self preservation and personal gain if you must know. IDK. We’ll see. My sense of self preservation is in a fight with my resentment and its basically a stalemate.
I see those stupid fucking “earth destroying comet for president” bumper stickers and think “Yeah sure that’d be unironically good.” now instead of just rolling my eyes.
I’ve grown up just being resentful or rolling over and seen how little it helps, how much it hurts you overtime. I have had to fight to just survive, being a little bit off or weird in a highly conservative society is often a social death sentence if not a physical one. I refuse to ever be a helpless victim again, and I’ll find others who refuse that as well.
I was mostly responding to the first part but yeah, definitely primary the fuckers out.
DarkFutureYeah, but you can’t primary the Dems thoroughly enough before 26 or 28.
So the only VIABLE option in the near term to STOP FASCISM is voting Dem.
But I’m sure a bunch of fools will still do the 3rd party thing come 28.
Normally I’d be fine with them voting 3rd party in midterms, but in case anyone hasn’t noticed, things are getting pretty dark here. This is not the time to fuck around with a 3rd party, even for midterms.
Vote 3rd party in local/state elections AFTER Americans stop getting executed in the street by masked federal goons. And don’t vote 3rd party for president until a 3rd party can actually win the presidency.
Matty RosesNormally I’d be fine with them voting 3rd party
Wake up babe, it’s the most important election f our lifetime again.
Democratic apologists have literally been saying this for 26 years. Your strategy of Vote Blue No Matter Who is what brought you to this point.
You want to just have the problems go away without any struggle. And it’s not gonna happen.
UltraGiGaGiganticIts almost like democrats should have fixed the source of the spoiler effect by replacing First-past-the-post voting in states they control.
They could have won, people like you harassing others is part of the reason they didn’t. Go ahead and keep acting like the smartest guy in the room, you just look like a petulant child trying to force others to agree with you.
Blaming the Democrats for what the Republicans are doing is like blaming the guy who opened the door for the serial killer to get into the house. Yeah, you shouldn’t have done that, yeah, you fucked up, yeah, you knew what would happen, but that’s not the same level of bad as the actual serial killer stabbing people. It’s even shifting blame away from the serial killer and holding the killer less accountable.
No third party candidate could have lost as bad as Kamala did. Presidency and both Houses.
ALL third party candidates in the last 50 years have always lost everything. Also, Kamala wasn’t running for house or senate.
She was running for Presidency. And lost. Badly. As her party lost both houses.
Pick any third party, they won just as much as Kamala did - and didn’t spend a billion and a half to do so.
What, so you and I are as successful at federal elections as any third party?
I mean - okay. But some idiots gave them $200 Million for that. We did it for free, apparently.
I’m saying they’re an unworkable idea at almost any price.
I mean, yeah, I’ve won as many delegates as Kamala ever has, so . . .
Can I have some of your $200 million? Or were you one of those low-effort third parties.
That’s the point - my candidate didn’t need $200 million to do just as well as Kamala did in results.
Well it’s one of those technically true things that’s not really true.
Your candidate has no name recognition, got no press, made no waves, and had no chance. As in baseball, at the end of the season all teams lose. Except one.
But it’s not baseball.
Meanwhile Kamala had all the press, and made no waves and had no chance, losing even the popular vote to an insane game show host and disgraced former president.
She did manage to grab and waste the space of opposition, ensuring the GOP victory was complete.
No, it’s not baseball. In baseball, when you fuck up this bad, people don’t die. Here, they do. And you hogs are chomping at the bit to do it again.
Me, I’m personally fine - I saw the way this wind was blowing when Biden won the primary in 2020, and started making plans to leave the US then. Which I’ve already done.
Objectively wrong because there were third party candidates already on the ballot! How could you say they would’ve won when they already were running and lost?! “Oh they would’ve won if they were there” They were there! [These are they!](Third-party and independent candidates for the 2024 United States presidential election - Wikipedia share.google/xcOuOQvNZvwLprps9)
I didn’t say they would’ve won, stop moving goal posts.
I said they couldn’t have lost more than Kamala did. Because it was a binary thing on three counts?
Did she win the Presidency? No.
Did she keep the Senate? No.
Did she win the House? No.
No matter what you think of Claudia De La Cruz or Jill Stein, it’s just a simple fact neither one of them could have given a worse outcome than that one. And given the resources Kamala had, that’s particularly pathetic.
So are you saying that the third party candidates would’ve won given her resources and backing?
I’m saying it’s literally impossible for them to have performed worse.
So talking about how third party candidates “can’t win” is nonsense, since the Democrats apparently can’t win either.
Ok so with a winner takes all election, a loser is a loser no matter how many votes they get. Sure. I get that.
But there’s still more nuance to that. If you got to choose between something that has 49% of a chance of winning or .01% chance of winning, you’d go with the 49%, right? That’s a better chance of keeping the Republicans from winning.
Don’t get me wrong, Democrats suck ass, and are spineless cowards. But with the system we have now, and had at the last election, they had a better chance of defeating Republicans than the socialist party of America or the Green party.
They didn’t have a better chance though - they lost to a historically bad candidate. Multiple times.
The Democrats are a problem precisely because they occupy the line of resistance to the GOP. You want to stop the GOP, you’ve got to stop their enablers first.
Well yeah, you do. The problem is that takes a lot of time, and will take massive voting reform, which no one in power has a vested interest in doing.
But we’re not talking about future plans, we’re talking about what happened in the past. Since there wasn’t that voting reform in the past, there was no way for a third party candidate to win.
And again, you’re pretending that the Democrats didn’t lose as well. If there was no way for a third party candidate to win (because they didn’t) there was also no way for the Democrats to win with how they ran.
Way to miss my point but ok.
You’re point is you want to claim people that don’t vote for the Democrats are stupid, because you think that’s the best way to stop the GOP.
The problem is the whole Vote Blew No Matter Hoo strategy has been failing for 25 years. It’s what brought you here, and yet you don’t want to accept that.
I’m not accepting it, but what I am accepting is that it’s going to take changes in phases to work. We’re going to have to do local voting reform, make ranked choice the standard, push for third party candidates, get rid of gerrymandering, etc.
I’m also accepting the facts of how things were, and are now, before those reforms. Those changes we need to make to fix this haven’t been implemented yet. They certainly didn’t exist in the last election.
Would it have been rad if everyone voted third party last election out of nowhere? Yeah. Might’ve even worked if there was a way to get everyone on board for that.
But we don’t live in the might’ve world, we live in the world of what is.
So yeah, until the system is fixed, it sucks, but the Democrats are what we have to work with to fight the Republicans. I don’t like it, but they are the ones who have that leverage, much more than the green party or whatever.
But we don’t live in the might’ve world, we live in the world of what is.
Yes, and the current world - with an unrestrained GOP bringing open fascism without resistance from the supposed opposition party - is exactly the product of the strategy you’re advocating continuing. That’s the issue. This didn’t come out of nowhere.
So your strategy last election was to, what, not vote for Kamala? How’d that work out?
Considering I’m registered in NY, my vote for De La Cruz was the best possible use of it.
Weird, that’s not the president.
Look, the system is fucked up but also you gotta do the good you can even in a broken system.
Yup. So my vote showed that I wouldn’t vote for genocide and Republican policies. Yours for Kamala showed you would, and Trump won regardless.
Like I said, mine was the best possible use of my vote.
Yeah you sure showed him. He’s sad in the oval office over it. Good job, you helped get him elected.
That’s a shit fucking point. A better point: fascists won and they did not need to.
Neo-liberals are not fascists. They’re greedy, nihilistic, empty husks. But they are not frothing at the mouth for killing gay’s and gassing brown people. Neo-liberals can actually be relied upon to be capitalistic and not give a shit about nationalism or “traditional values” and are generally easier to fight because they don’t operate a cult (or at least not like the fascists do).
Some non-voter’s justification of “they’re both the same” is pants on head regarded.
gallopingsnailThis is the single dumbest meme I’ve ever seen in my life and you should be ashamed because I cannot be ashamed enough for the both of us that you posted this.
Dial 911 and ask the operator to help you get back in school.
Must be your first day on the Internet.
Are you wearily representing yourself in Bart or mocking people like Bart?
The first one.
See, I need to know then how serious that perspective is because for me, blurring the lines between ideologies (even bad ones) is largely just an emotional manipulation tactic.
You call a neo-liberal a fascist and they’ll get really upset. You call a fascist a liberal of any kind… they’ll also get really upset. So if that’s the goal that makes sense. But then leftists will say it to other leftists like its actually true, particularly campists, auth-left, and marxist-leninists will do this and this just seems dumb to me. They are different threats and should be treated differently.
I think you misunderstand the origins and meaning of the saying. The saying itself is based on historical context, where liberals in places like Italy and Germany chose to support growing fascist movements in the name of maintaining some sort of stability and perceived normalcy, instead of combatting those movements alongside communists and socialists. As an example, in my opinion we are seeing the same history play out again in the modern United States as various corporations, universities, and state governments, etc are following along with certain policies of the Trump administration in order to maintain normalcy instead of choosing to resist those policies and cause an upset. The saying “scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds” is based on the historical kowtowing of moderates and liberals to fascist movements instead of choosing to resist.
I’m not misunderstanding. The meaning is explicitly laid out in the phrase itself. Its a memetic phrase and repeated as a point of propaganda, as your previous post alludes to. People who spot memes in the wild are going to interpret them at face value and the person posting the meme knows this. Neither party is going going to reflect on its historical meaning, they’ll just think “oh libs are fash”.
I also don’t think refusing to resist makes someone equivalent to fascist if they did everything they could to prevent a fascist take over already. If you think the blame lies at least partially on people refusing to vote or you think they are people purposefully hoping to drag you into violent conflict when this was all avoidable you don’t owe those people shit.
In fact, it just means you are surrounded by pieces of shit. Bad people OK with throwing countless others under the bus for a chance for their own well being or gain. Am I wrong?
There are very few US citizens who made it out morally clean from the 2024 US election. Efforts to help them means helping bad people get what they wanted. Its rewarding them for making everything worse through their horrifically selfish gambit.
Make no mistake, I do not like liberals or their worship of private property. Liberals vary from awful people to at best morally flawed people. However, I think if they voted against Trump or canvassed for Harris, etc they’re better people than protesting vote-abstaining lefties.
So the Dems as a whole aren’t a party we can rely on until we primary them out.
Not happening before 26 or 28.
So your solution?
And please don’t say 3rd party. It’s obvious to anyone that pays attention that no 3rd party is viable and won’t be for a long, long time, if ever. No 3rd party has made themselves a household name. No 3rd party even has a SINGLE member in Congress. In the 2024 election the most popular 3rd party candidate only got 0.5% of the total votes cast.
Not happening.
So…
There’s some primaries left for 2026 to vote in, work from there. The neo-liberal dems are bad but they’re not worm brained at least. Just hope they don’t put fucking Newsom up for 2028 otherwise it’ll be same as it ever was with him.