• Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    93
    arrow-down
    32
    ·
    7 months ago

    Imagine you live in a world where major voices of a political party is clearly expressing that their current guy will run down the world and thinks that it is a w, because the other guy is worse.

    Thanks Dems, you fail the USA and the world at large! Literally ruining the only accessable livable planet. But w for not being trump!

    • exanime@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      7 months ago

      I don’t really understand this stance… I mean, yes I get what you are saying and that is exceedingly shitty you have to choose between bad and worse; but is there really “no difference”?

      I mean, if you have to choose between leaving your loving family vs having your loving family killed… is it really the “same” choice?

      • Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        I am not saying it makes no difference. I am saying how could she think it is a win for them. This is literally going to your gf and telling her that you fucked a girl raw, nutted inside of her, don’t intend to stop but hey you didn’t get her pregnant. Like yeah, the last part matters but wtf are you proud for? Shame on you. And how could you possibly think that your girlfriend ignores everything else, just because you didn’t get the woman pregnant?

        If you think this is the same as “no difference”, you are mistaken. I would vote for bad over worse, it makes a difference. But don’t be proud of it. Don’t post it as a win. Be ashamed. Do better. And at least, intend to stop.

        • exanime@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          I am saying how could she think it is a win for them.

          Where does it say it’s a “win” for Dems?.. that is all in your head… it simply shows less carbon emissions, that’s it, that’s all

          If you think this is the same as “no difference”, you are mistaken. I would vote for bad over worse, it makes a difference. But don’t be proud of it. Don’t post it as a win. Be ashamed. Do better. And at least, intend to stop.

          Again, you are fighting demons in your head bud… I never even insinuated to be proud or celebrating… and honestly, neither did Hillary (as bad as she totally is) in her Xhitter message… simply implied Trump would be worse

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        7 months ago

        If the “target” matters in a real way, then this graph shows a situation of no difference.

        • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          This graph is made to show the difference. It isn’t the difference we want but it is still a difference.

          • exanime@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            7 months ago

            And it is an actual difference… not the “make the difference, recycle that plastic container that will end up in the same landfill but we are pretending it’s helping”

        • exanime@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          7 months ago

          Of course it matters, climate change and global warming are not binary… It’s not like if we go past x it’s game over and the Earth will stop spinning, it’s more like if we past x we can now expect shittier and shittier conditions and outcomes

          Therefore, if we pass x by a bit, it’ll be shitty but we may make it… If we pass x by a mile and keep going, then all hope is lost

        • kungen@feddit.nu
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          7 months ago

          My friend and I have you locked in a basement. We both have decided your skin will be flayed off. I’m meek, so I’ll be using a foot file, whereas my friend is crazier: he’s going to be using a belt sander.

          It’s understandable that you don’t want to get flayed whatsoever, but our basement is soundproofed. As mentioned, I’m meek, so my friend will take over the task if you scream after someone to save you.

          Either way, you’re going to suffer and eventually die, but wouldn’t you rather take the chance that something else happens before the deeper parts of your dermis is reached? But nah, the choice is the same because the end result is the same?

    • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      7 months ago

      Kinda disingenuous to blame the democrats when the system has been flawed for decades and should’ve been fixed a long time ago. Democrats are to blame, republicans are to blame and Americans in general are to blame for their shitty political system.

      • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        7 months ago

        Capitalism is to blame, not the American people. The Political Parties ultimately gain influence and power by courting the ruling class to secure funding, thus it is unreasonable to expect either the Democrats or the Republicans to actually represent the will of the people.

        • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          Except European countries don’t have the exact same problem that the US has, which mean that specific issue isn’t caused by capitalism.

          • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            16
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            7 months ago

            They have similar problems, resulting from Capitalism, but of course having a different electoral structure results in different issues. That doesn’t mean their issues don’t also stem from Capitalism, it’s Capitalism with a different structure.

            At the end of the day, a wildfire in a forest and a wildfire in a prairie face different issues still caused by wildfire.

              • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                11
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                Socialist countries face different issues that are not the result of Capitalism.

                States ultimately serve the class in power, if the class in power is the Proletariat, then the majority is in power. If the class in power is the Bourgeoisie, then the minority is in power.

                In any system where a small group of people control the vast majority of wealth, resources, and Capital, the dominant political parties will court these people and represent their interests over the people that do not control the majority of wealth, resources, and Capital.

                • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  We have historical example of the USSR where despite being a “socialist” country it was a one party system that did not represent everyone.

                  You can do socialism and still get the politics wrong. That means capitalism or socialism is not the cause of every political problem. The same problem with the US can still happen even if the US was a socialist country. Similarly you can be a capitalist country and not have the problem US has, because the problem in the US is how the political system is built up not how capitalists use the system to their benefit.

                  • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    Having one party isn’t necessarily worse than having 2, what matters is how accountable the parties you have are. The USSR was corrupt, but still had democratic measures in place.

                    The same problem the US faces, ie the 2 dominant parties representing the Capitalist class that weilds an incredibly outsized amount of power, would not exist in a Socialist country where Capitalists are suppressed or even nonexistant.

                    The dominant class will use power to influence the state regardless of form the state takes.

                  • Aceticon@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    “It could’ve been worse” (a.k.a. the North Korea “defense”) isn’t a counter-argument to “This is shit and here is why”.

                    It’s at best whataboutism.

                    As for the Soviet Union and similar, it’s still an elite in power doing what’s best for themselves. In Capitalism the selection to the elite is by Money (and no, it mainly doesn’t come about by merit but by being born in the right family and not giving a shit about one’s fellow human beings) whilst in the so-called implementations of Communism/Socialism by working your way up within the Ruling Party (ditto in Fascism, by the way) which is a mix of smoozing and knifing others on the back.

                    Both systems put sociopaths in control, both consist of a elite minority in power and using it to serve themselves, and most people will neither be in it nor me served by it.

                    Neither option is good so we need something else.

                    So far, the best we have is a little bit of Capitalism tightly controlled by Social Democracy, IMHO.

      • melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        7 months ago

        yeah but they’re bludgeoning us with it and claiming to be the good guys, when there are no good guys here (that would be the yellow line)

        so it needs pointing out. abd repetition, because fucking biden cultists are the most annoying shit I fucking swear.

        • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          7 months ago

          Let me give you a hypothetical. First of all “good guys” is entirely subjective, but since you’re unhappy with democrats and republicans let’s say any party on the left side of the right-left political spectrum are the “good guys”. Now, let’s imagine democrats are left/center-left party and republicans are a far-left party. Since all parties on the left are good guys your choices are now all good guys. But in the context of the system one party is still more of a good guy then the other, one is more left than the other.

          That means in the context of the system the good guys are designated by the options given within the system. When the options are corporate bootlickers vs batshit insane corporate bootlickers one of them is clearly better than the other. It doesn’t matter that in the wider picture both are bad because those are the options the system presents.

          • melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            okay but genocide is genocide. theres a moral event horizon issue here. and on the other side, everyone needs to die, and arguing how badly they need to die is pointless. the harm is inexcusable, and I will not legitimize it.

            me being killed is me being killed-the biden government won’t stop it, and if he’s in power; his supporters will not step in to help; they’ll beg daddy-daddy doesn’t care, and if he did all he’d do is send cops, who will already be there hooded and ready if he’s not, maybe we’ll get resistance libs, and they at least won’t snich if they find me in their attic.

            and the climate apocalypse; they both stand in the way. I guess biden is less in the way? dead is still dead. trumps a little faster, but I like my gallows humor, so it about breaks even in my book.

            and then theres the fact of legitimizing it. I live in California; my vote does not count for decision making. it will bestatistically fucked into oblivion. I don’t want to look like I legitimized a system that does that, that enforces abortion bans anf private insurance and illegal plants and all the other shit that upwards of 60% of Americans, a statistically shocking majority would rather it not, then calls it democracy. I don’t want things nobody wanted and nobody voted for shoved down my throat and told its my voice, and if you want me to participate in that, you’d better be offering something I fucking want.

      • hark@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        Democrats and republicans are the system and the system is working as they intend it. The system will not change while the duopoly exists.

        • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          7 months ago

          Voters are a part of that system. Who decides who comes into power? The voters. If literally nobody votes for democrats or republicans neither could come into power. The people have kept the system in place as much as the two parties.

          • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            If literally nobody votes for democrats or republicans neither could come into power.

            C’mon guys, let’s do this. I believe in us.

            • AlDente@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              We’ve done it before. You don’t see the Whig party on the ballot anymore. It may be a two-party system, but that doesn’t mean a party or both can’t be replaced from time to time.

            • Chr0nos1@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              Though I agree with you, no one will vote third party, because they are convinced a third party can’t win, making it a self fulfilling prophecy. If you don’t vote for them, of course they can’t win. While I acknowledge that the system is broken here in the US, and that ranked voting is a much better system, I’d like to remind people that its still important to vote for who you like, and not against who you don’t like. I don’t like either of the main candidates for President, so I’m voting third party. Will my person win? Who knows, probably not, but I won’t vote for either of the main candidates because I dislike them both for different reasons, and think they’re both awful. Is one worse than the other? Yep, sure is, but I’d still rather vote for someone I like. If people weren’t so obsessed with only voting for the major parties, third party candidates could win. It’s happened in the past. No one ran for president as a Republican until 1856, and they didn’t get their first Republican president until Lincoln in 1860, which means that even though they are a major party now, they were a third party back then. Third parties CAN win, but not with the current mindset of the average American voter today. If people who say they want a change, actually want a change, then they need to do something different to get the change. If you keep doing the same thing, nothing will change. If you’re sick of the major parties, and hate the candidates they’re putting forth, show them how bad they are by voting third party. Change is hard, but possible. To see change, you need to be change.

              • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                And who convinced them?

                The Democrats and Republicans. Because they want to keep the power between themselves.

                That doesn’t change the fact that one candidate is clearly worse than the other.

          • hark@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            If your choices are limited to the two party duopoly then you don’t really have a choice. Technically you can vote for another party, but that’s just throwing your vote away. If you don’t vote then there are millions of others who vote anyway (voting with your wallet when buying products doesn’t work for similar reasons).

            The people had the system forced on them and are extremely limited in what they can do in it. Let’s say by some miracle that another party emerges victorious, that’ll just become the new target for bribery lobbyists who will bend the party to their will anyway.

            • AA5B@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              7 months ago

              If your choices are limited to the two party duopoly then you don’t really have a choice

              It’s just slower than you want. If you consistently vote for “one side”, every election, the center will move toward that side as the candidates differentiate themselves (but not too much). Isn’t this the entire problem? Too many people have been voting Conservative for too many years, digging themselves a hole that will take a similar number of years to dig out of?

              Currently the “middle” is way to the right. Are you voting to move that middle line yet farther right or are you voting to start moving it back toward the left?

              • hark@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                I’ve voted for the democratic party straight down the ballot every election for as long as I can vote. A major part of the problem is that the two party system guarantees that at some point republicans will get power and when they do, they drag the window to the right rapidly. When democrats get power, they’re comfortable with leaving the window where it is for the most part, insisting that we “work with republicans” while republicans never do the same. Compare eight years of Obama with four years of Trump.

            • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              7 months ago

              Your options are limited because the overall system is shit. You won’t get more options until the entire political system is reformed and that’s why I’m saying everyone is to blame, because the signs have been there for a long time.

              Right now blaming the democrats does nothing because you still have to vote democrat, the alternative is a fascist who will try to completely break down the democratic apparatus. After the election Americans should start constantly demanding a reformation of the system because it no longer serves the people.

            • Ultragigagigantic@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              Let’s say by some miracle that another party emerges victorious, that’ll just become the new target for bribery lobbyists who will bend the party to their will anyway.

              This is why reforming capitalism is a waste of time. Reforms only delay end stage, not prevent it entirely. The solution (IMO) is to diffuse the wealth and the power that comes with it into the population through worker co-ops.

              Maybe that isn’t the solution, who the fuck cares if I’m right or not? But we won’t ever work towards that better way of life if we let the status quo lord over us all our whole lives?

              I’m sure people thought feudalism was going to be forever to back in the day, much like capitalism now. Capitalism isn’t thousands of years old like feudalism was. (Still is in select parts of the world)

          • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            7 months ago

            Voters decide which evil comes into power, usually by selecting the lesser evil out of 2 options. The ruling class picks which options voters can pick between, because parties secure funding and influence by courting the ruling class.

            It is in this manner that change is extremely difficult electorally.

          • Blackmist@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            More people didn’t vote at all than voted for Trump. It’s possible it was also more than voted for Biden as well (both on around 81 million, exact figures for none voters don’t seem to be available).

            Yet the system continues anyway.

            They both like it if you don’t vote. It means they have to spend less money influencing people.

          • in4aPenny@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            I mean I can agree with the idea that if Americans did a Gaddafi on Republicans and Democrats then things would be different, hell, things would change tomorrow if Americans really wanted it, these people have names and addresses. Where I disagree is that calls for violence is bad but only because we’re supposed to say violence is the wrong approach. Maybe elections played by their rules will work in our favor someday (lol).

            • tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              The political establishment has been killing and robbing the people for centuries, it shouldn’t be controversial to say we need to fight back more fiercely.

      • Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        My problem lies within the fact that she posts that proudly.

        Dems might aren’t to blame for the system and might aren’t to blame for the climate issues… But that they think this is a win??? Crazy! Who is posting the “win”? A dem.

        • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          That’s just Hillary being unable to read the room, it shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone.

          • Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            Of course that is the issue which should give everyone a pause. This is a impressive level of illiteracy. “If you look at this graph, at the current rate, we murder millions and destroy the chance of the survival of the human race, so we are planning to do it a little slower. Aren’t we amazing?”

            Dear Hillary, at least use some propaganda skills when you want to sell us the slowing down of the baby grinder as a win. At least, tell us that with the currently planned action this is the projection but you are working hard to find additional ways to improve the situation and that decisive measures need to be well planned and executed which is unfortunately a timely process.

            This is just poor politics.

    • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      I have a prediction: Now that the USA people are waking up, the voting ratio on this comment (which wound up at currently a surprising-to-me 43:9 while most of them were asleep) will start to shift in the direction of many more downvotes, although it will continue to attract a trickle of upvotes.

      Why is that, I wonder?

      (I could try to disagree with the logic of saying “well now that we changed firefighters the amount of fire in the building is going down, BUT IT’S NOT OUT YET WTF ISN’T THAT CONVENIENT WHY DID WE EVEN BRING THESE GUYS INSTEAD OF THE GUYS WHO JUST START MORE FIRES,” but I think looking into why this has such an unnatural pattern of voting is a little more interesting.)

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        My controversial comments tend to follow this pattern as well. Initial upvotes, followed by a flood of downvotes and a trickle of upvotes.

        This is why it’s important to use a lemmy client that shows both ups and downs, not just the total.

        When a comment goes deep into the negative in total score, it can seem like nobody got reached.

      • CancerMancer@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Why do more than you need to occupy the seat that gives you the power to assign taxpayer money to people and projects you prefer?

        Just being marginally better than the other scum isn’t going to cut it anymore, as evidenced by all the local and state governments that are making moves regardless of what the feds are doing.

        To be fair it’s not like this administration has done nothing of value, but many of the processes that have begun have yet to bear fruit like the discussions around Right to Repair, unionization, and breaking up the monopolies and oligopolies. Actually follow through with some of that, get a few wins, and then you can claim to be the virtuous ones.