• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    101 year ago

    They aren’t the same. They are bad in different ways. One side are corporate shills who are looking to depress the power of workers the other wants to kill blacks, lgbtqa+, Latinos and turn women into sex slave baby machines.

    One is clearly worse and we should vote against them, but don’t tell me the Democrats aren’t bad.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      211 year ago

      Aren’t republicans also corporate shills who are looking to depress the power of workers? And aren’t they much more open about being so?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        51 year ago

        They absolutely are. My point was, and I apologize if it didn’t come through, republicans are bad in every way Democrats are and beyond. But the Democrats aren’t good.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    3
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Since left wingers tend to be obnoxious assholes to anyone who doesn’t mindlessly parrot whatever rhetoric they think u should already know, I just assume they’re as bad as anyone else be cause I tend to prefer people who actually treat me with respect.

    Edit: I called it and look who comes out of the woodworks to call me names and rude sarcasm.

    A human being would have said “I’m sorry that you’ve dealt with the worst of us but it’s not all of us, or at least not me”. Instead I got a bunch of shit flinging monkeys.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      11 year ago

      I’m sorry that you’ve dealt with the worst of us but it’s not all of us, or at least not me.

      Now for the love of any chance we have remaining to fix this country please vote Biden. We do not have the luxury of stopping Trump by splitting our vote when his minions are all voting together.

    • Sidyctism II.
      link
      fedilink
      21 year ago

      Yeah because if there is one thing right wingers are known for, its an active debateculture that resists everyone stepping in line

      Lol

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        I never said anything about conservatives debating well. I just said just about every liberal I’ve known was like you, an asshole.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      31 year ago

      You want to be treated with respect? What snowflakey whining is this? Need a safe space, liberal crybaby? Fuck your feelings! Real conservatives grab others by the genitals when- and wherever they feel like it (when you’re rich, they let you do it). A cage is good enough when you rip apart families seeking asylum! Get outta here with your communist tree-hugging fascist rules and regulations on how I am to behave.

      Sorry, I was possessed by the spirit of the right wing’s leader slash all of his propaganda mouthpieces there for a minute. What I parroted there wasn’t very respectful. Nobody should ever say that to anybody else.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      141 year ago

      You mean the entire other wing that calls people “snowflakes” when someone asks them to please not be complete self-centered asshats? Those people that treat you with respect when you don’t parrot their rhetoric instead?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          31 year ago

          Nothing is ever THAT equal. And you have the gall to call ME a naive idiot? I won’t be able to convince you, but you need to get a bigger perspective.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    91 year ago

    This is pretty meaningless if it doesn’t include which levels are counted. Is this just congress? Is it the national level? Does this include the state and local levels? Without proper context this turns from an insightful piece of information to propaganda.

    • Cyv_
      link
      fedilink
      751 year ago

      What’s more likely:

      1. A grand conspiracy that’s lasted for 50 years, that somehow has infected every branch of govt, but somehow still doesn’t guarantee victory in elections, presidential and otherwise.

      2. Democrats are less corrupt.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        I was making a silly joke based on the likelihood that most people have committed crimes and gotten away with it. For example, Obama talks openly about smoking pot in his 1995 memoir. He didn’t get caught.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      30
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If the Republicans have been in power more than Democrats, why haven’t they investigated all the Democrats and sued them? Are you saying that the Republicans are incompetent? Tell me this also, which party holds the majority in Supreme Court right now?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      81 year ago

      So even if what you’re insinuating were true: do you really want to vote for the corrupt and stupid rather than the corrupt and smart? I’d at least trust the corrupt and smart people to run the country in a way that doesn’t lead to catastrophic failure.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    191 year ago

    They’re not the same, but they do work together to thwart the will and prosperity of the people. The game wouldn’t work if they were exactly the same.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    101 year ago

    They both serve the rich first and foremost which is a critical issue for them to be “both sides” on. Yes, republicans are worse, but that doesn’t make democrats good.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      2
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      No party that “served the rich” would’ve even let people like Bernie into the party, let alone give them committee assignments and let them run for president on their ticket.

      There’s no point in arguing that the Democratic Party is entirely controlled by the rich other than to encourage political nihilism. It has always been possible and always will be possible to beat wins out of (or even change/become) the party establishment through concerted effort and activism, as happened in the 30s, the Civil Rights Era, and the purging of the Blue Dogs after the Civil Rights era.

      Bernie’s losses were disheartening, but abandoning any effort to sway the democrats and writing them off as “servants of the rich” when the decade before 2016 had been one of growing progressivism within the party and when Bernie unfortunately never even beat Hillary in a Dem Primary Poll, is the political equivalent of taking your ball and going home.

      Bash on the DNC and NDC all you want, but until we replace them with progressives like was done to the segregationist dems or lose doing so, there’s no point in writing off the Democratic Party.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        4
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        That they fought harder to stop Bernie from getting the nomination twice than they ever fought against trump speaks volumes. Just because they allow progressives to do a few minimal things, doesn’t mean the party does not serve the rich first and foremost. This is like how freedom of speech is allowed until it becomes a threat to the establishment (see pro-Palestinian protests that were shut down with bullshit excuses). When the possibility arose that Bernie could make actual significant change, the party threw a shitfit.

        The democratic party will never be replaced with progressives because their donors won’t allow it.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          21 year ago

          That they fought harder to stop Bernie from getting the nomination twice than they ever fought against trump speaks volumes.

          I don’t remember almost every single Democrat bashing Bernie publicly every single time they had the chance like most democrats did with Trump for the last 8 years. Are you not remembering the firestorm of statements from elected officials anytime Trump did something horrific?

          The democratic party will never be replaced with progressives because their donors won’t allow it.

          I bet Malcom X and the Segregationist Democrats would’ve felt the exact same, and yet that last set of reactionary Dems has been completely purged from the party since the 60s.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            41 year ago

            Democrats bashed trump while helping him behind the scenes: https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/

            Speaking of which, they love funding fascists in general: https://www.vox.com/23274469/democrats-extremist-republicans-mastriano-cox-bailey

            Meanwhile they actively attacked Bernie calling him old (which is funny to think about now) and mocking his supporters as “Bernie bros” as they pulled all the stops to prevent Bernie from getting the nomination. Democrats may call trump “dangerous” and his supporters “deplorable” but they do nothing to actually try to stop trump. They just offer up the most milquetoast of candidates as opposition, then shrug their shoulders with “at least he’s not trump”. It’s like a bad wrestling skit.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              11 year ago

              Meanwhile they actively attacked Bernie calling him old (which is funny to think about now) and mocking his supporters as “Bernie bros” as they pulled all the stops to prevent Bernie from getting the nomination.

              This is what a couple media pundits said yes, I don’t think this is evidence that liberals secretly would rather have fascism however, for the same reason as I stated before, they spent almost every day of his presidency condemning him.

              Democrats bashed trump while helping him behind the scenes: https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/

              Speaking of which, they love funding fascists in general: https://www.vox.com/23274469/democrats-extremist-republicans-mastriano-cox-bailey

              Again, a few instances of some Democrats making stupid decisions and making a stupid tactical electoral decision, is not evidence that they prefer Trump to Bernie, or that they fought Bernie harder.

              For every article you can provide of an out of touch media pundit saying something about Bernie, or a party strategist making a dumb decision around Trump, I can find 10 times that amount of Democrats condemning something Trump did.

              The vast majority of liberal democrats criticizing Bernie cake during the two primaries, during which they were still criticizing Trump, and the majority of the non-primary time this past 8 years has been spent attacking Trump. Again, that doesn’t sound like more effort against Bernie than Trump to me.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    221 year ago

    As a non-american just watching the democratic shitshow I can’t believe why on earth there are only two parties. If the parties are fucked up, build a new one. That’s what democracy is made for.

    Macrons party in France was fresh up from the ground at his first election.

    PS. I’m aware that France is a bad example actually, but the fact about his party is still true.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      15
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      First past the post elections. If we had ranked choice or runoff elections, more parties would appear.

      Instead, in FPTP, every vote that is not for one of the two highest-polling candidates is objectively a wasted vote. Game theory dictates that the only rational choice is a vote for one of those two candidates, since the possibility of a third party gaining enough votes to win in any single election is nearly infinitesimal. So instead of many parties, all candidates self-sort into one of the two viable parties. Any candidate that does not is a protest candidate or deluded, but in either case, there is no hope of actually winning.

      So what about primaries? The primary system decides the candidates, but even that is tainted by FPTP, because primary voters have to guess which will perform better in a FPTP general election and often vote against their ideal candidate in the hopes of winning (or, not losing) the general.

      In short, until we structurally reform elections to be ranked/STAR/runoff/etc to remove the punitive effect of voting for your actual ideal candidate, we’re stuck with a prisoner’s dilemma election every time.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      61 year ago

      As a non-american just watching the democratic shitshow I can’t believe why on earth there are only two parties.

      In a lot of cases, there’s only one real functioning party. Smaller states and gerrymandered districts tend to have a single dominant party and a secondary dissident party, with the dominant party controlling all the statewide offices and most of the legislative seats, while the dissident party controls some number of municipal seats where they have a local majority.

      Macrons party in France was fresh up from the ground at his first election.

      Macron spun En Marche out of the collapsed ruin of Hollande’s Socialist Party (*) (for whom he was deputy secretary general until Hollande’s ouster). He was more akin to Lincoln’s Republicans (who emerged from the wrecked carcass of the American Whig Party) or Theodore Roosevelt’s Bull Moose Party (which might as well have been Republicans For Roosevelt Party, given how badly Wilson rocked both him and Taft).

      (*) don’t get too existed. they were pretty thin on actual socialism.

      Le Penn’s National Front has a real foundation (of French fascists) that existed before she started mobilizing the party and will stick around after she’s gone. Similarly the New Popular Front (not to be confused with The People’s Front of Judea rimshot) has a broad coalition of support that transcends any one leader. Both are more in line with a traditional American party.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        Looks like I know shit about French politics, thanks, TIL.

        Btw. maybe it needs a strong movement to create a real third party. A workers union for example, there is a lot of potential if they unite. BLM, too. America had strong movements in the past but none of them went into a political party, sadly.

    • OBJECTION!
      link
      fedilink
      31 year ago

      Americans are near universally convinced that third-parties are a dead end, which becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. I’ve never understood it and I would’ve thought having two obviously non-viable candidates would challenge that assumption, but it doesn’t seem like anything will. The classic Simpsons bit where both candidates get replaced by evil space aliens but still get elected because “what are you going to do, vote third party?” was not an exaggeration in the slightest. Americans just accept anything.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        its because the indivual states entrenched the two parties. It’s really difficult to form another national party. The two main candidates also often run as nominess for smaller state level parties.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    231 year ago

    They are not the same, the republicans are the psychopath shooting up a classroom of kids, and the democrats are the Uvalde cops tasing those that try to stop it.

    • Queue
      link
      fedilink
      31 year ago

      God that’s so perfect I want to nab that and blast it on a megaphone.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    461 year ago

    There’s only one thing the gop loves more than LOUD projection and that’s abusing kids. The party of the grand ol’ pedophiles


    • NOTE: I’m reaching the character limit on Reddit posts, so here’s a website with a list of about 1000 of these republican shit stains on humanity.
      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        Because he’s a firehose of bullshit (gish gallop) and projection supported by a documented surge of foreign troll/bot farms helping plant and reinforce disinformation. As planned through years of gop attacking basic access to education, health care and a livable wage… the American people are either not equipped or don’t have the energy to deal with that - especially from the position of a president or candidate even - we’re trained to need a national father that will protect us if we get over our skis, so we are intimidated by the idea of fully opposing the office and the process, which is why we allow a convicted felon, compulsive liar to stand on stage as some sort of peer with a serving president.

    • shastaxc
      link
      fedilink
      141 year ago

      I’m reaching the character limit on Reddit posts

      Reeeeee

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      21
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Blagojevich maybe? I’m not sure exactly what we’re measuring here.

      Who, by the way, was pardoned. Want to guess who pardoned him?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        51 year ago

        I’m pretty sure IL had more corrupt governors before Blagojevich so I don’t think it’s including them.