4 ms·

when will the dems learn that the dnc is just republican lite we need completely new thought to unseat "both" sides of the US government and return it to washi

by LocalH 6mo ago

when will the dems learn that the dnc is just republican lite we need completely new thought to unseat "both" sides of the US government and return it to washington's ideal of "political parties fucking suck" (paraphrased)

nozzlegear 6mo ago
> when will the dems learn that the dnc is just republican lite When will "when will the dems learn that the dnc is just republican lite" enjoyers learn that there's an ocean of difference between dems and republicans, and that most Americans aren't going to throw that away over votes on issues that they're either fine with or, at best, indifferent to? Like it or not, this is unlikely to rank in most people's top five most important issues come November.
- LocalH 6mo ago
  "far right" or "slightly left of far right" is a shitty choice, especially when "left vs right" is different comparing the US to the rest of the world even the smallest-c conservative in the US is probably more right-wing than the furthest of the right in Europe (although they're trying really hard to prove that false) the ocean you speak of is but a tiny puddle when you look at the whole of human political history when is the dnc going to come out against genocide? oh, they're not? well then i don't care i do agree, the complacency of US voters is the true root of the problem, one that the duopoly of politics strongly capitalizes on i am not advocating violence, but i'm looking at history when i say that this is why revolutions happen
  - deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]
  - nozzlegear 6mo ago
    > "far right" or "slightly left of far right" is a shitty choice, especially when "left vs right" is different comparing the US to the rest of the world > even the smallest-c conservative in the US is probably more right-wing than the furthest of the right in Europe (although they're trying really hard to prove that false) This is just more of the same "Bernie would've been right of center in Europe" tripe that Reddit has been repeating since 2015 – it's a tired argument that doesn't take into account things like immigration policies, gender identity, racial justice, stances on abortion, and so on. > when is the dnc going to come out against genocide? oh, they're not? well then i don't care This is a non-sequitur. I'm not interested in debating Israel, Gaza and genocide on the internet, or watching you use them as a blanket justification for disengagement.
    - Tanoc 6mo ago
      >This is just more of the same "Bernie would've been right of center in Europe" tripe that Reddit has been repeating since 2015 – it's a tired argument that doesn't take into account things like immigration policies, gender identity, racial justice, stances on abortion, and so on. When you look at the actual negotiations and implementation of policies that have happened, the Democrats now have a much smaller gap between themselves and the Republicans on the world stage. There are a handful of distinct issues that they are polar opposites on, but in terms of actual governance the leadership of the two parties don't stray too far from the same direction compared to Western Europe and South America. While in relative terms they were very divergent from eachother in the 1920s and the 1960s, they've once again moved closer together and we have not yet hit another divergence point. There is a stagnation and regression that appear very similar because public sentiment has rapidly changed and progressed since 2012. It's very visible in the way many of the same Democrats are around now as in 2008 (and some from even 1996) and still act like they're from that era where we were at "the end of history", while the Republicans have many newer members that have jumped in since 2016 that act like they're from the earlier era of the 1950s and 1960s when concepts like civil rights and second wave feminism were still widely contentious. Regular Americans just sort of view the period from 1968 to 2001 as a relatively uniform era politically because there weren't events that up-ended entire hemispheres in a U.S.-centric way the way World War II, The Cuban Missile Crisis, and 9/11 had. Yet between 2001 and 2012 there were several up-ending events such as the 9/11, the '08 financial crisis, and the rapid adoption of the smartphone and thus instant global communication starting in 2010. Since the normal public have that view what has happened since 2012 makes the stances the Democrats have retained from before that monumental shift appear not only outdated, but harmfully backwards, especially as more people who were not alive during that "end of history" era come to be of voting age. That means the two major parties can seem to be the same face wearing two masks right now because neither have kept up with left wing public sentiment.
      - nozzlegear 6mo ago
        You'll have to articulate what you believe those stances actually are. I think there are huge differences between the two parties: expanding immigration, availability of healthcare, widening the social safety nets, racial justice and DEI, fighting climate change, protecting the environment, protecting and restoring reproductive rights for women, trans rights, lgbtq+ rights – the list goes on. These are all things that republicans simply can't touch without getting canceled and primaried. You're claiming that their governance has stagnated, but this is only evidence of hyperpartisan gridlock increasing since 2008, not evidence that they've become so similar the Dems have nothing left to do when they're in office. Our country's entire culture war is built on these differences, it's not a small gap or friendly disagreement between gentlemen. > "the end of history" Fukuyama wasn't wrong, he was just early.
  - will4274 6mo ago
    > when you look at the whole of human political history When you look at the whole of human political history, the vast majority of politican systems have been authoritarian. Anybody who supports a system of government where average people get to vote (as both the Republicans and Democrats do) is part of the super ultra far left. Do you not see how silly this is?
- gnerd00 6mo ago
  > Like it or not the exact words used by Hillary for President people, with utter sincerity !
  - nozzlegear 6mo ago
    Hillary would've been an excellent president, and I say that with utter sincerity. > My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere. – Hillary Clinton That's the kind of person I want in the Oval Office.
    - jst1fthsdys 6mo ago
      "We came. We Saw. He died." Not the kind I do, personally. But most of our presidents have been war criminals. So she would have been a great one, yes.
      - nozzlegear 6mo ago
        Everyone agrees that Libya was a boondoggle, and that what you've quoted was a poorly judged gaffe. > But most of our presidents have been war criminals. Hyperbole poisons debate.
    - krapp 6mo ago
      Yeah right now the "clearly superior candidate" is (checking notes) crashing the global economy with a holy war against Iran to distract from his criminal conspiracy to hide his complicity in sex trafficking and abuse, posting AI images of himself as Jesus to spite the Pope, sending armed thugs into blue states to harass people and shoot them dead in the street, destroyed America's research and science infrastructure, his cabinet is full of conspiracy theorists, nazis and fascists, he's deranged, senile, definitely bought by Russia... and has in the space of a few months utterly ruined America's reputation and credibility throughout the world. And yet people still insist Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris were "the worst candidates ever," and that there was simply no choice. They want to turn all of the chaos and stupidity of the current administration into some kind of referendum on how bad the other side is, and they'll even claim that there would be absolutely no difference regardless of who was in charge. Yet even if that were the case, somehow, Trump is still better. For reasons I guess. Other than not being a woman. Trump literally made a meme of himself lounging at the resort he planned to build on the ruins of Gaza but we couldn't vote for Kamala because she was the Zionist. People really do get the government they deserve.
- JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
  > When will "when will the dems learn that the dnc is just republican lite" enjoyers learn On the bright side, these folks tend to be civically and electoral uninvolved. So they aren’t having any net effect on policy, other than slightly endorsing the status quo.
  - LocalH 6mo ago
    when the people who endorse the "status quo" (which is itself rapidly shifting if you track the US political sphere before the modern day) number in the millions, it's a bit more than slightly normalize supporting a proper civics test before the right to vote is granted. you don't have to agree with any political topics, but you have to understand how politics actually work before you can cast a vote
    - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
      > it's a bit more than slightly I've voted in New York and Wyoming. In a general election, my Presidential vote does not practically count. As a result, I can typically throw it for a third party as a messaging vote. (If New York or Wyoming are turning out to be contested, the fight was won elesewhere.) If you're in a swing state and you don't vote, you're about as important for the Presdiential general-election campaign you would not have voted for if you bothered to show up as an actual opposition voter. (Depressing turnout among unlikely voters who might vote for the other candidate is a real, precedented, cosultants-who-specialise-in-this-exclusively social-media-advertising turnout strategy.)
      - LocalH 6mo ago
        and if everyone who hates both the Rs and the Ds in the non-swing states voted third-party, and could manage to get behind the same party (that's the hard part), then suddenly the swing states would be much less important. the point is, we need completely new thought in government to get out of the two-party duopoly that's currently eating the US from the inside. george washington hated political parties. we should strive to think like him a bit more
  - 6mo ago
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]

by LocalH 6mo ago

nozzlegear 6mo ago

> when will the dems learn that the dnc is just republican lite When will "when will the dems learn that the dnc is just republican lite" enjoyers learn that there's an ocean of difference between dems and republicans, and that most Americans aren't going to throw that away over votes on issues that they're either fine with or, at best, indifferent to? Like it or not, this is unlikely to rank in most people's top five most important issues come November.

LocalH 6mo ago
"far right" or "slightly left of far right" is a shitty choice, especially when "left vs right" is different comparing the US to the rest of the world even the smallest-c conservative in the US is probably more right-wing than the furthest of the right in Europe (although they're trying really hard to prove that false) the ocean you speak of is but a tiny puddle when you look at the whole of human political history when is the dnc going to come out against genocide? oh, they're not? well then i don't care i do agree, the complacency of US voters is the true root of the problem, one that the duopoly of politics strongly capitalizes on i am not advocating violence, but i'm looking at history when i say that this is why revolutions happen
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- nozzlegear 6mo ago
  > "far right" or "slightly left of far right" is a shitty choice, especially when "left vs right" is different comparing the US to the rest of the world > even the smallest-c conservative in the US is probably more right-wing than the furthest of the right in Europe (although they're trying really hard to prove that false) This is just more of the same "Bernie would've been right of center in Europe" tripe that Reddit has been repeating since 2015 – it's a tired argument that doesn't take into account things like immigration policies, gender identity, racial justice, stances on abortion, and so on. > when is the dnc going to come out against genocide? oh, they're not? well then i don't care This is a non-sequitur. I'm not interested in debating Israel, Gaza and genocide on the internet, or watching you use them as a blanket justification for disengagement.
  - Tanoc 6mo ago
    >This is just more of the same "Bernie would've been right of center in Europe" tripe that Reddit has been repeating since 2015 – it's a tired argument that doesn't take into account things like immigration policies, gender identity, racial justice, stances on abortion, and so on. When you look at the actual negotiations and implementation of policies that have happened, the Democrats now have a much smaller gap between themselves and the Republicans on the world stage. There are a handful of distinct issues that they are polar opposites on, but in terms of actual governance the leadership of the two parties don't stray too far from the same direction compared to Western Europe and South America. While in relative terms they were very divergent from eachother in the 1920s and the 1960s, they've once again moved closer together and we have not yet hit another divergence point. There is a stagnation and regression that appear very similar because public sentiment has rapidly changed and progressed since 2012. It's very visible in the way many of the same Democrats are around now as in 2008 (and some from even 1996) and still act like they're from that era where we were at "the end of history", while the Republicans have many newer members that have jumped in since 2016 that act like they're from the earlier era of the 1950s and 1960s when concepts like civil rights and second wave feminism were still widely contentious. Regular Americans just sort of view the period from 1968 to 2001 as a relatively uniform era politically because there weren't events that up-ended entire hemispheres in a U.S.-centric way the way World War II, The Cuban Missile Crisis, and 9/11 had. Yet between 2001 and 2012 there were several up-ending events such as the 9/11, the '08 financial crisis, and the rapid adoption of the smartphone and thus instant global communication starting in 2010. Since the normal public have that view what has happened since 2012 makes the stances the Democrats have retained from before that monumental shift appear not only outdated, but harmfully backwards, especially as more people who were not alive during that "end of history" era come to be of voting age. That means the two major parties can seem to be the same face wearing two masks right now because neither have kept up with left wing public sentiment.
    - nozzlegear 6mo ago
      You'll have to articulate what you believe those stances actually are. I think there are huge differences between the two parties: expanding immigration, availability of healthcare, widening the social safety nets, racial justice and DEI, fighting climate change, protecting the environment, protecting and restoring reproductive rights for women, trans rights, lgbtq+ rights – the list goes on. These are all things that republicans simply can't touch without getting canceled and primaried. You're claiming that their governance has stagnated, but this is only evidence of hyperpartisan gridlock increasing since 2008, not evidence that they've become so similar the Dems have nothing left to do when they're in office. Our country's entire culture war is built on these differences, it's not a small gap or friendly disagreement between gentlemen. > "the end of history" Fukuyama wasn't wrong, he was just early.
- will4274 6mo ago
  > when you look at the whole of human political history When you look at the whole of human political history, the vast majority of politican systems have been authoritarian. Anybody who supports a system of government where average people get to vote (as both the Republicans and Democrats do) is part of the super ultra far left. Do you not see how silly this is?
gnerd00 6mo ago
> Like it or not the exact words used by Hillary for President people, with utter sincerity !
- nozzlegear 6mo ago
  Hillary would've been an excellent president, and I say that with utter sincerity. > My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere. – Hillary Clinton That's the kind of person I want in the Oval Office.
  - jst1fthsdys 6mo ago
    "We came. We Saw. He died." Not the kind I do, personally. But most of our presidents have been war criminals. So she would have been a great one, yes.
    - nozzlegear 6mo ago
      Everyone agrees that Libya was a boondoggle, and that what you've quoted was a poorly judged gaffe. > But most of our presidents have been war criminals. Hyperbole poisons debate.
  - krapp 6mo ago
    Yeah right now the "clearly superior candidate" is (checking notes) crashing the global economy with a holy war against Iran to distract from his criminal conspiracy to hide his complicity in sex trafficking and abuse, posting AI images of himself as Jesus to spite the Pope, sending armed thugs into blue states to harass people and shoot them dead in the street, destroyed America's research and science infrastructure, his cabinet is full of conspiracy theorists, nazis and fascists, he's deranged, senile, definitely bought by Russia... and has in the space of a few months utterly ruined America's reputation and credibility throughout the world. And yet people still insist Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris were "the worst candidates ever," and that there was simply no choice. They want to turn all of the chaos and stupidity of the current administration into some kind of referendum on how bad the other side is, and they'll even claim that there would be absolutely no difference regardless of who was in charge. Yet even if that were the case, somehow, Trump is still better. For reasons I guess. Other than not being a woman. Trump literally made a meme of himself lounging at the resort he planned to build on the ruins of Gaza but we couldn't vote for Kamala because she was the Zionist. People really do get the government they deserve.
JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
> When will "when will the dems learn that the dnc is just republican lite" enjoyers learn On the bright side, these folks tend to be civically and electoral uninvolved. So they aren’t having any net effect on policy, other than slightly endorsing the status quo.
- LocalH 6mo ago
  when the people who endorse the "status quo" (which is itself rapidly shifting if you track the US political sphere before the modern day) number in the millions, it's a bit more than slightly normalize supporting a proper civics test before the right to vote is granted. you don't have to agree with any political topics, but you have to understand how politics actually work before you can cast a vote
  - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
    > it's a bit more than slightly I've voted in New York and Wyoming. In a general election, my Presidential vote does not practically count. As a result, I can typically throw it for a third party as a messaging vote. (If New York or Wyoming are turning out to be contested, the fight was won elesewhere.) If you're in a swing state and you don't vote, you're about as important for the Presdiential general-election campaign you would not have voted for if you bothered to show up as an actual opposition voter. (Depressing turnout among unlikely voters who might vote for the other candidate is a real, precedented, cosultants-who-specialise-in-this-exclusively social-media-advertising turnout strategy.)
    - LocalH 6mo ago
      and if everyone who hates both the Rs and the Ds in the non-swing states voted third-party, and could manage to get behind the same party (that's the hard part), then suddenly the swing states would be much less important. the point is, we need completely new thought in government to get out of the two-party duopoly that's currently eating the US from the inside. george washington hated political parties. we should strive to think like him a bit more
- 6mo ago
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]