Glad they’re taking off the gloves a little, but it’s always been a non-option to just make our lives significantly and irrevocably better like M4A or the PRO act and although they’re good at trying and failing, they never talk about the consequences as dire as they actually are with few exceptions.
US politics is literally Kafkaesque. You have an opposition party who refuse to be an opposition party.
Not really… it’s just your garden variety corruption. They’re both owned by the same ultra-wealthy corporations and individuals, so of course they’re both doing the bidding of their owners.
There havent been more than 48 DNC senators since the 2013-2015 congress, over a decade ago.
It’s quite literally worse. Chauvin faced consequences.
only after world wide pressure, most don’t get that
Took me a minute to get the context of what I was looking at. I was going to ask what the LEO on the left side was doing… Then… Yeah. I don’t even know that motherfuckers name. I also don’t care to. Fuck him.
He’s in prison.
Good. I hope he gets the Epstein treatment.
Bernie is the one with the camera.
Which makes all of us George Floyd.
What, are you going to vote for the guy who will put his knee on your throat and murder you? No, of course not. You should vote for not that, because not that will not do that and if someone else does, they will glare disapprovingly from a safe distance, secretly appreciating that it isn’t them being murdered.
Democrats. We’re not actively evil.
Simpsons in 1994:
Democrats. We’re not actively evil.
That’s an inspiring bumper sticker. NOT.
Unfortunately, it seems to be the entire Democratic strategy since 2000.
Goes way back before that. Carter was unable to get the DNC leadership support for budgets or reforms. And Carter was barely left of center. In fact, Ted Kennedy challenged him for the presidential nomination in 1980, with Kennnedy running as a more liberal candidate. Kennedy lost, of course, and then Carter lost to Reagan.
If it gets really bad, Chuck Schumer will write a stern letter and Cory Booker will, like… stand in one spot for a long time talking about stuff.
Except they are actively evil they don’t just ignore Republican actions it wasn’t like Biden was looking the other way when murder by police officers was reaching record highs and Israel was commiting a genocide with his support or Obama was looking the other way when millions are violently deported and many others blown up at weddings by drone strikes. They commit plenty of active evil themselves.
The real travesty is you only have 2 options, they’re both not very good and the entire country is polarized around one or the other.
I think the Europeans were on to something with MMP. My country adopted it in the 90’s and finally ~30 years later we have a 3 party government (previous max was 2).
It helps with preventing one party gaining absolute power and also gives citizens more realistic options at the polling booth
And yet, if I have a choice to be policed by Chauvin or Thao, there is no question that I choose Thao.
Yes, the ultimate goal is to deprive both of these men of their power. But for that to happen we need Chauvin to take his knee off our neck.
This is barely a metaphor by the way. Since Trump pardoned Chauvin and the Democrats didn’t.Evidently I must have been thinking of another pardon.No you need the guy with the camera to set it down and throw a fucking Molotov.
Become ungovernable. We already live in a police state.
Becoming ungovernable is not incompatible with voting though. And again, will be easier without a knee on your neck.
Tankies here are ultimately the meme they post about the dems preventing a shift back left with how they discourage voting.
Removed by mod
Voting is one part of building our movement and achieving goals. Tankies discourage that and keep us from moving left.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
You know we need to destroy the power of both
Of course. And my belief is that neither voting nor abstaining from voting for anyone is going to achieve that.
However, it may make the task easier or harder.
yeah the other option is revolution, and with that it’s still not guaranteed you end up with what you want when the dust settles. Good chance China or Russia will take advantage and jump in and fill the power vacuum in the US when civil war happens.
There’s another real possibility.
History seems to be repeating itself. Right now the U.S. is in the “Germany in 1933” phase. If we don’t deal with the situation ourselves then it’s possible that a coalition of other countries could do the job for us, in which case “innocent” Americans will be nothing more than collateral damage.
Who knows how much the world’s Nuclear arsenal will change the situation, but if any regime in the last 100 years is stupid and pig headed enough to try and win a thermonuclear war… that’s possibly why he says so many stupid and out of pocket things- to convince people that is definitely an option.
Revolution is so far away in the US I think it’s just an unserious idea at this point, and it has a poor track record in history anyway. Personally, I think political organizing outside of the parties is the best model, then use that organized power to disrupt the status quo and demand concessions. Syndicalism, basically, but it doesn’t need to be only at the workplace. Shut down roads, block police from going anywhere, etc. Anything you can. But there needs to be a large constituency that supports these actions first. How to build that is an important question.
These things have a way of happening suddenly, once the Tipping Point arrives. Nobody foresaw the fall of the Soviet Unions and the Iron Curtain. Sure, it seemed inevitable at some point, but when it happened, the world was shocked by both the suddeness that it happened, and the speed at which it progressed.
NOBODY in the entire world woke up that morning, thinking that the Berlin Wall would come down by the end of the day.
trump hasn’t pardoned chauvin from my research as a note.
He’s garbage and his entire administration is collectively like Darth Vader huffing spray paint.
You’re right I must have been thinking of someone else.
In case you choose Thao you get same course but in slow pace. The whole Trump thingy just accelerated things and showed the real faces of current politicians not only in us but worldwide
If you do nothing other than voting, then maybe. But I’m saying voting is just a small part of a larger overall strategy. And the non-voting actions are how things will get better.
This is largely how we got the new deal. Roosevelt was forced to adopt a lot of these programs by the organized demands of the labor movement.
That’s a nice false dichotomy you made there.
How is it a false equivalency?
False dichotomy, not false equivalency. Two different things.
if I have a choice to be policed by Chauvin or Thao, there is no question that I choose Thao.
Right here is the false dichotomy, considering the context of the comment this was written in reply to (the one by meatbridge) being a metaphor for voting, equating Chauvin to Republicans and Thao to Democrats.
You frame it as if we only had two choices. Which is verifiably wrong.
If we are talking about voting in U.S. federal elections, voters only have two choices. Third party candidates can not win with the current structure. If all states switched to ranked choice voting, and if states divided House seats by percentage of voters per party instead of winner-take-all for each gerrymandered region of a map, THEN there could be more than two options. I would like to see that happen.
You are correct that 3rd parties can’t win. But how is voting for either of the other two options winning? I’ve seen both in power for the last few decades, and it’s a shit-show either way.
You may not like the other options, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t exist.
Removed by mod
Because the goal of voting is to influence governance. It is not an end unto itself. Yes, you can vote for other parties. You can also vote for Donald Duck. It just has no effect.
In terms of which party will govern, there are two options. Choose the one you despise least. And then do whatever you think is necessary to end the duopoly outside of the general election.
Nice story bud. Too bad it’s full of shit.
You are trying to bring emotion to a math fight. Third parties will not be able to win under the current system.
deleted by creator
BoTh SiDeS
Are you saying I’m saying that, or are you mocking people who say that?
Removed by mod
First comment I see today and not a wall of text is a word salad 🥗
The irony of using terrible grammar to complain about word salad
You got the point… That’s all that matters!
Fair point!
Although I was very confused about the “wall of text” part, considering how short the preceding comment was…
Occasionally, you might not understand what someone is saying or satirizing as you aren’t familiar with their style or substance. And that’s fine. So is admitting to it in a comment! But doing it so dismissively is rude, and paints you as an *80’s teen movie bully
Notice they also admitted that they can’t read “walls of text” either so this is just the modern generation of “just put the [THING] in the bag” and “I ain’t readin all that” mentality that spending more than seven seconds of attention on something is “cringe.”
We probably deserve the coming apocalyptic horrors being spawned by man and nature alike.
Makes sense to me, it’s even punctuated accurately and effectively outlines the premise of the meme. It’s just a sentence you have to slow down and turn off your “internet scroller” brain for a moment and use your “communication” brain.
If you can’t understand them, thats on you.
Going to hell for smiling now, 🤦♀️
Also, picking the least shitty option is always better than being ok with the shitty option. If you want better options then go start actively volunteering for a good option.
Or you know reject the false binary being presented and organize the change needed outside of electoral politics.
Shh, you’re telling people to actually do something instead of blindly following the status quo and hoping someone does it for them.
There is nothing false about the two party binary
Other parties exist.
Sure they do. And if you vote for one in a FPTP system, it’s the same as throwing your ballot in the garbage.
Hey, that’s not true!
The real effect is giving an advantage to the main party that the 3rd party is less similar to.
That’s true, but our system leads to two party duopolies.
Because we live in a country of reactionaries who have allowed themselves to be controlled by that system instead of organizing to take back control of it themselves.
No, the design/implementation of the system itself results in two dominant parties. It is possible for new parties to be created, but without a change to the system, that would still result in a two party duopoly, just with different parties.
without a change to the system
That’s the whole point but it won’t change unless we change what we are doing, cause it clearly isn’t working.
Those parties are only dominant because people fall in line. If people stopped falling in line and changed who they gave their support to, those parties would no longer be dominant.
Their power relies on our capitulation. If we want other parties to win, then we have to give our vote to them and hope that others will do the same. If I keep giving up my vote to someone else that’s a guaranteed way for the person I actually want to lose.
Frankly, I believe the entire system of hierarchical, representative democracy is a failed system to begin with and, especially under the influence of a capitalist economy, will inevitably collapse into fascism. Parliamentary democracy is only marginally better. Until we abandon this system and begin governing ourselves in a horizontal structure, it will never change for the better for the working class. Everything else is just spinning wheels, maintaining an inherently oppressive status quo.
Ok, and when they ratfuck the good option and instead give you republican-lite?
start firearms training and put an antifa patch on your denim jacket, join an anarchist reading club and start talking about Mao’s policies at family functions.
Learn what they did and work against it? Strategies change all the time.
Being ok with the republican choice is accelerationism, which always fucks over everybody.
Learning what they did doesn’t help, the only tool we have to make sure ratfucking isn’t an effective way for conservatives to gain power. When progressives get ratfucked, the republican agenda moves forward no matter if a republican or republican-lite who is happy to work with republicans wins.
Establishment ratfuckers and the ratchet effect - name a more iconic duo.
When have they ever done that?
You can’t be serious.
I’ve been asking that question for years and never gotten a good answer.
Some dude actually came close yesterday by linking to somebody else trying to answer it (almost an original thought wow) by citing news articles claiming the DNC supplied Hillary with all of the debate questions ahead of time and planted audience members to ask Bernie weird questions, citing wikileaks emails, but then even their sources point out that the Bernie Sanders Campaign team dispute any such claims that DNC’s Brazile was biased.
It’s all just Hillary’s emails, bruh, Bernie competed in the DNC primary and lost fair and square. Accepting that reality is the way forwards.
I’ve been asking that question for years and never gotten a good answer.
Who have you been asking that question to? Yourself in the mirror? Your Teddy bear late at night? I have an extremely hard time believing that you have spent more than 30 seconds trying to find the answer to this question considering this is all very public knowledge. Despite the mainstream media trying to downplay this issue, the truth isn’t that hard to find.
citing news articles claiming the DNC supplied Hillary with all of the debate questions ahead of time and planted audience members to ask Bernie weird questions, citing wikileaks emails
By ‘claiming’ do you mean that the DNC were caught red handed doing exactly that?
Did the article also happen to mention that the lawyers for the DNC argued to the Judge that the language in the DNC’s charter about being impartial and evenhanded is just “political promise” (aka, a lie) and that they are under no obligation to be impartial? That the DNC has 'every right’ to choose who they want as the candidate? There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that isn’t the way the “Democratic National Committee” operates to this very day.
the Bernie Sanders Campaign team dispute any such claims that DNC’s Brazile was biased.
First of all Bernie is a real one who has class and was more focused on defeating fascism than getting justice for himself. Unlike the Crooked DNC, he puts what’s best for the country ahead of his own interests.
The claim wasn’t that Brazile was biased. It was Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Hilary Clinton, and other higher ups in the DNC that colluded against Bernie. DWS resigned as the Chair of the DNC specifically because the email leaks showed party officials conspiring to sabotage the campaign of Senator Sanders. DNC CEO Amy Dacey, CFO Brad Marshall, and Communications Director Luis Miranda also resigned in the wake of the controversy.
In fact it was Donna Brazile who replaced DWS as interim chair of the DNC that uncovered further evidence of tampering by the Clinton campaign and related that info to Bernie- who took the news like the chad he is.
It’s all just Hillary’s emails, bruh
Of all the liberal hot takes this is the smoothest brained take yet.
First of all you are conflating the Hillary Clinton email controversy the with the 2016 Democratic National Committee email leaks.
Secondly the reason that “But her emails!..” became an ironic refrain was because every time someone would point out something illegal, unethical, or Unamerican the Trump campaign was doing, “Conservatives” would engage in ‘Whataboutism’ by uttering that phrase. Not because Hillary wasn’t caught doing some extremely shady shit- she absolutely was.
Accepting that reality is the way forwards.
Ironic. I’ll make you a deal. Once you learn what the reality of the situation actually is and accept it- we can work on moving forwards from there. How bout that?
It sure would be nice if people like you could learn how to use search engines on your own. I feel like I should get paid to do this for you. I wouldn’t even bother if I didn’t think there were other libs reading this who were likewise confused and might find this info useful.
I believe Bernie Sanders on this one, you’ve got no credility compared to him. And yes, the DNC can choose it’s candidates in the primary, just like they chose Bernie Sanders and if he didn’t lose by 3 Million votes then he would have been the candidate in the general.
3 Million votes. No fraud, no manufactured scandals, just millions of voters choosing Not-Bernie.
Bernie didn’t dispute anything I wrote, and it’s not my word- I linked to all my sources.
Gee it’s no wonder you are still so ill informed about this subject when you flat out refuse to inform yourself when presented with the facts.
It’s supposed to be the Democratic VOTERS who get to choose who wins the primary, not the DNC. He wouldn’t have lost if they hadn’t colluded against him. I feel like I could explain this to a literal kindergartner and they would be able to comprehend it.
Yes fraud, yes scandals- fucking learn to read you ignorant lib.
too bad people wont wake up from that, if it stays the same, maybe a couple of cyle of republican elections, would finally wake people up, because republicans always made sure the ticking time bombs that set in place is always the blame of the dems
Then maybe the Dems should stop building the bombs, and handing them to the Republicans.
What I always appreciate about this meme is that they picked Tou Thao to represent the Dem platform to Chauvin’s Republican. Thao famously denied any wrongdoing up to sentencing and described himself as a human traffic cone. As a result, he got a worse sentence than even other officers who put hands on Mr. Floyd(though not as bad as Chauvin of course). It really gives it layers.
The democrats are more active than that.
look at Harris’ proposal for Medicare for all: co-opting progressive terminology and proposing a system that ultimately keeps our disgustingly fractured system of wasteful and redundant privatized administrative bureaucracy. Only now there would be a two lane system where the rich class have better doctors and care while the poor “technically have insurance”, just with long wait times and shittier doctors and facilities. If you think this wouldn’t be the case literally talk to anyone currently on Medicaid just about finding a provider.
The poor would now technically have Medicare but overall will be bitter about how terrible their experience is, giving ammo to the right to fuel us towards fascism, the democrats get to go on about their “healthcare win”that doesn’t really fix anything of substance for 99% of people, and even more tax dollars are funneled into top donors like Aetna and Cigna. Win win (except for the worker class, once most jobs stop providing insurance to anyone outside of upper management/executives as a perk to cut costs since “you have Medicare now” and material conditions are worsened significantly for 60+% of us).
It’s a more substantial version of the individual mandate from obamacare. Technically everyone gets insurance now, but at increased cost to you, which makes people resentful (especially young people) and accelerates adoption of the right wing politics on a single issue for politically apathetic voters (I never voted but now I’m voting republican bc Obama forced me to buy $200/mo health insurance and then the republicans got rid of that), doesnt actually fix any of the pricing or complexity issues, and funnels tons of cash to key donors (see the “forcing to buy insurance with stuff tax penalties for not doing so” bit). A half baked solution compromised by their inability to do literally anything on behalf of their constituents before their donors
It would be a more accurate depiction if the other cop was like handing the murderer a weapon going “don’t worry, this will help you because then it won’t be as painful, I’m on your side really”
Someone actually talking sense in this sub instead of spouting reactionary tripe. Rare sight.
deleted by creator
Typical to see people unironically advocating against socialized healthcare in this post’s comments. I swear ya’ll Tankies and/or (supposed) Anarchists are just Republicans with extra steps.
Socialized healthcare is absolutely necessary in America. But we have to be honest and we have to be firm: a system that calls itself “socialized medicine” but is ultimately just Obamacare again (Harris’ proposal is basically one step further than the individual mandate, just removes more autonomy) is unacceptable and if anything is poisoning the well against the potential passage of actual socialized healthcare. Words matter and co-opting language to pass along what is basically the current system with an individual mandate that is inescapable will only serve to sour minds on the idea as none of the actual issues with American healthcare will be alleviated and if anything only exacerbated.
You cannot add an individual mandate to subsidize the care of the older population that is significantly more affluent without also reforming the system in such a way that material conditions increase for the younger populations. If healthcare costs went down because they actually addressed the gigantic amounts of waste spending with actual socialized medicine (e.g. removing the option for privatized insurance or highly regulating the system to one coherent standard) then they wouldn’t breed intense resentment that sends young single issue voters straight into the arms of the opposing party.
But they do that because they are either planned opposition at worst, or they are in a position to serve their donors above all else even if it will obviously lead to serving the interests of their opponents in 12-24 months. Malice or apathetic greed is up to you to decide but either way to act like voting for them will save you instead of simply slowing the process of destruction down is foolish
Americans spend 34 percent of medical spending on administrative overhead, in part because there is an excessive of amount of redundancy. Other developed countries spend less than half of this, 10-15%, or less. If we limit the definition to just insurance administration the waste is closer to 10-13% whereas in other countries it is closer to 2-5%.
Our system is overly complex with tens of thousands of billing codes and this complexity is made far worse by a fragmented network of thousands of redundant insurers, all providing the same service, but with different rules and standards. So as a provider I then have to navigate a significant amount of complexity to submit billing and dedicate 20-30% of my time (which could be spent seeing patients) to administrative bullshit because Aetna, Cigna, Oscar, United, Optum (which is United but different), the thousand BC/BS plans, geisinger, Highmark, etc all decided they each have their own verification portal, standards for eft/era, and billing submission practices. Or I can spend that time seeing clients and spend 5-10% of my gross practice income towards staff whose job is solely to deal with this stupid fucking system.
So beyond the inherent unfairness of proposing a two lane system that would once again penalize the poor with substandard care. Doing absolutely nothing to address the real systemic issues of American healthcare, meanwhile expanding privatized Medicare plans by a significant amount and funneling tax dollars into Aetna, Cigna, etc.
A non trivial amount of those tax dollars getting funneled get laundered right back to politicians via lobbying so that any proposal for healthcare reform will be neutered. This way rubes like you will buy it, hook, line, and sinker, keep voting for the party, the insurance industry keeps getting fat stacks, and then 5-10 years later when the insurance situation is still absolutely horrendous because no actual systemic issues were addressed you can then go “how is this the fault of tankies and republicans?? It certainly couldn’t have been my beloved democrats, who would never sell me out for money”.
Removed by mod
typical neolib. Closet conservative that uses hateful, judgmental, and prejudiced language when you encounter debate that frustrates you because deep down you’re a judgmental person. If this were 2006 I bet money you would’ve called me a f*g.
The lack of introspection is why your party consistently loses unless people are truly sick of the republicans too. “Should we stop running the same failing strategies we’ve been playing since 2007? Nah, it’s the voters who are wrong”. Keep eating that shit up and blaming your socioeconomic peers instead of the party leadership that continually utterly fails you, living like modern kings while you slave away for a pittance
You’re literally opposing progressive reform.
You are a conservative.
You are advocating for “progressive reform” that does not progress in any realistic way and only truly serves moneyed interests and eventually reinforcing the conservative movement because of resentment from such a slipshod implementation.
Again, typical neolib. You don’t respond to my many points at all, you resort to name calling when it appears you don’t get your way. It’s no wonder the party can’t capture more young voters with this arrogance and inability to listen. “I will tell you what progressivism is! It is giving lots of money to companies and special treatment to rich people without actually fixing anything of substance! Take it or leave it because the system has created a hostage crisis with your rights and instead of serving you I will exploit that to serve my own interests!”
Saving millions of people from pain suffering, and death isn’t progress to you? I suddenly see where the disconect lies.
You know what they say - it’s not stupid if it works…
It didn’t work for Thao, he actually got much stricter sentencing because he plead innocent and continued to deny wrongdoing up until the end.
Ignoring the fact this meme is complete fiction.
In this world, Leftists would vote for chavuin and then act like theyre the ones trying to make things better.
No, leftists would abstain from voting because both sides have flaws, then lament the resulting slide further into fascism.
No, we would practice harm reduction and vote for the pig that is simply allowing the murder and not the “active” murderer, an then get to spend the next 4 years listening to liberals blame us for the murderer getting elected.
Voter suppression played a much larger role than anyone international abstaining from voting. No need to split the camps.
It’s more like if people voted for Chauvin to do that, and if they simply hadn’t then it wouldn’t happen.
