I'm gonna mute this one
-
"No kid should ever have to sleep on the streets, so we made it borderline impossible for them to physically do so. Hopefully their bootstraps figure out someplace they can sleep, because we sure as hell didn't. You're welcome."
Maybe the populous should have been more specific then
-
We got a figure out a way to remove first past the post.
There are really at least 3 groups, not liberals and conservatives.
There are progressives, neoliberals, and fascists.
Progressives believe the government exists to help all people.
Neoliberals say people should not be descriminated against, but wealth segregation is fine
Fascists are, well, fascists.
wrote last edited by [email protected]there already is a us state without first past the post, it's electors voted for trump.
-
You do realize they’re joking right?
wrote last edited by [email protected]How arrogant for you to believe that I am even in the same stratosphere of stupid as you are. Of course, you are so fucking stupid. You can’t imagine anyone who isn’t as stupid as you are. So I can’t entirely blame you.
You’re still a piece of shit though
-
This is not literally liberalism lmao
Literally means figuratively? What a country!
-
Right. It's just insane.
Obviously you need to ban abortion, but if you arent sacrificing those children to moloch, what is even the point of society?
Like, im all for cutting social services, but you need to follow it up with proper ritual! We aren't even sacrificing enough of the children we have on purpose, and we're just replacing them. Its a fucking insult.
The old yeet ze child into the flames so the crops would grow better.
It's a bold move cotton, how many babies/children to bring back the bee population do you think?
-
The old yeet ze child into the flames so the crops would grow better.
It's a bold move cotton, how many babies/children to bring back the bee population do you think?
into the flames
Well, into the machine.
to bring back the bees
Dunno! Im mostly in this for the solitude filth and ugliness tbh, but im sure there's a number.
-
I won’t defend Schumer's choice here. It was a bad call, and the anger from House Democrats and the base was completely justified. You're right that the party leadership sometimes folds when they should fight. They make strategic decisions that feel disconnected from the urgency the moment demands. And yes, Democrats have corporate-aligned figures who blunt the force of reform, but that is also a reality of our current system that we have to work within.
But, sticking to your example, there is a key difference: when Democrats cave, it’s often to avoid causing harm, like a shutdown that would devastate working people. When Republicans cave, it’s to secure more tax cuts, more deregulation, and more authoritarian power. The intent and the outcome are not the same, even if the compromise leaves a bad taste in everyone’s mouth.
It also matters that Democrats have factions pushing from within. The anger from House Dems, from AOC, from the base, that’s real pressure that can move things. Republicans don’t have that kind of internal accountability. Their party punishes dissent and rewards obstruction.
And while it's easy to say “they always have excuses,” the reality is that even when Democrats had a trifecta in 2021, their margin in the Senate was literally 50-50. One or two bad actors (like Manchin or Sinema) could tank an entire agenda, and did. That's not an excuse. That's a math problem, and the only way around it is bigger, more engaged progressive coalitions.
So yes, Schumer failed in that moment (and many others). Yes, we should be furious. But walking away or writing off the party entirely means handing power back to a movement that’s not just flawed. It’s actively hostile to democracy, human rights, and the planet. That’s not moral purity. That’s surrender.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I agree with you and like to emphasis on one point you already mentioned. The demcrats encompass everything to the left of the GOP. Because the GOP is far right, everything to the left of it includes center right, conservatives, centrist and liberal opinions, as well as a lot, or most of the left wing depending on definitions.
In my opinion this is one of the major reasons why the democrats seem so undecicive, because there already are so many different world views of people that are forced to be in the same party, because effectively, there only are two of them, and the alternative is straight up fascism.
If the democrats ever regain power, changing the voting system to allow for a 3rd or 4th party to actually emerge would be a saving grace, but unfortunately, the above mentioned composition will likely prevent them from it, even when in power. And on top of that they will have their hands full with the debt crisis.
-
Maybe the populous should have been more specific then
I believe populace means the people, whereas populous is an adjective that's a synonym of crowded
-
So, no named ideas? Only deluzean thought-soup?
Is it cool if im super neitzchean about it, since that doesnt end in 'ism'?
What about ideas from stirnerism?
wrote last edited by [email protected]It's stirnerean -doesn't apply
-
Saw a guy sleeping under a bench with a similar design as this one, checkmate.
they probably put spikes on the ground after that
-
I’m frustrated with the reflexive "both sides are equally bad" response that shuts down any meaningful analysis of what's actually happening in our politics.
I'm not naive about the Democratic Party's problems. They struggle with internal divisions, sometimes cave to corporate pressure, and they’ve made compromises that disappointed their base. But when I look at voting records, policy proposals, and legislative priorities, I see meaningful differences that have real consequences for people's lives.
On issues I care about (healthcare access, climate action, voting rights, ext.) one party consistently proposes solutions and votes for them when they have the numbers. The other party doesn’t just oppose these policies, they fight tooth and nail to undermine them, delay them, or dismantle them entirely. That’s not a matter of opinion. That’s a matter of public record.
When Democrats fail to deliver, it’s often because they lack sufficient majorities or face procedural roadblocks. When they do have power, they’ve passed significant legislation on infrastructure, climate investment, and healthcare expansion. Meanwhile, when Republicans have unified control, their priorities have been tax cuts for the wealthy and rolling back environmental protections.
I understand the appeal of cynicism. It can feel sophisticated to dismiss all politicians as equally corrupt. But that cynicism serves the interests of those who benefit from the status quo.
If you can't tell the difference between someone trying to reform a broken system and someone actively working to keep it broken, you're not offering insight. You're providing cover for obstruction.
Does this mean Democrats are perfect? Of course not. Should we hold them accountable when they fall short? Absolutely. But pretending there are no meaningful differences between the parties just because neither is perfect makes it harder to build the coalitions we need to create the change we actually want to see.
The more accurate form of the comment to which you're reacting would be:
Can I have a free beer?
Conservatives: No
Liberals: Points to novelty sign on wall Free Beer Tomorrow winks "so you want a beer today? That'll be $8.99"
The results aren't exactly the same, but the gulf is not meaningful is the problem. Realistically, most people don't actually like either party, they just dislike the other party more. If one day we had a 7 random parties just appear and Rs and Ds vanish, for a solid 20 years, political discourse would be verdant and nuanced in a way rarely seen in the US.
-
I won’t defend Schumer's choice here. It was a bad call, and the anger from House Democrats and the base was completely justified. You're right that the party leadership sometimes folds when they should fight. They make strategic decisions that feel disconnected from the urgency the moment demands. And yes, Democrats have corporate-aligned figures who blunt the force of reform, but that is also a reality of our current system that we have to work within.
But, sticking to your example, there is a key difference: when Democrats cave, it’s often to avoid causing harm, like a shutdown that would devastate working people. When Republicans cave, it’s to secure more tax cuts, more deregulation, and more authoritarian power. The intent and the outcome are not the same, even if the compromise leaves a bad taste in everyone’s mouth.
It also matters that Democrats have factions pushing from within. The anger from House Dems, from AOC, from the base, that’s real pressure that can move things. Republicans don’t have that kind of internal accountability. Their party punishes dissent and rewards obstruction.
And while it's easy to say “they always have excuses,” the reality is that even when Democrats had a trifecta in 2021, their margin in the Senate was literally 50-50. One or two bad actors (like Manchin or Sinema) could tank an entire agenda, and did. That's not an excuse. That's a math problem, and the only way around it is bigger, more engaged progressive coalitions.
So yes, Schumer failed in that moment (and many others). Yes, we should be furious. But walking away or writing off the party entirely means handing power back to a movement that’s not just flawed. It’s actively hostile to democracy, human rights, and the planet. That’s not moral purity. That’s surrender.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Democrats CONTINUE to enforce and support the unpopular, treasonous, ineffectual leadership. We can talk about Schumer's bad choice all day long but it means nothing if he is never ever ever ever ever "held accountable" for it. They literally stuck an old fossil with cancer in the DNC chair versus the clearly obvious choice that gets things done and excites the voters. He literally ran a PRO-TRUMP Democrat to unseat McConnell when all the energy was behind Charles Booker.
Young voters and progressives do not believe in anything you say because there is no will to back it up. They get stabbed in the face over and over and over and over and over again.
As for the good policies that Dems enacted? They're easily dismantled or else undermined by administrative excess, handing power back to the GOP.
Case in point: FEMA and the Lahaina fire relief. FEMA swooped in to help house the displaced; to do this they paid $9000/month in rent to anyone that would help house the victims. All of our rents went up ASTRONOMICALLY because FEMA far exceeded the market rate, leading to more homelessness even for those NOT displaced by the fire. Landlords got RICH AS FUUUUUCK on the taxpayer dime. -
It's stirnerean -doesn't apply
Generally called -ism.
-
The more accurate form of the comment to which you're reacting would be:
Can I have a free beer?
Conservatives: No
Liberals: Points to novelty sign on wall Free Beer Tomorrow winks "so you want a beer today? That'll be $8.99"
The results aren't exactly the same, but the gulf is not meaningful is the problem. Realistically, most people don't actually like either party, they just dislike the other party more. If one day we had a 7 random parties just appear and Rs and Ds vanish, for a solid 20 years, political discourse would be verdant and nuanced in a way rarely seen in the US.
Ooof that fact that you think the "gulf is not meaningful" is insane.
I mean JFC, are you blind or a troll? I don't even have enough time to list the Nazi level illegal and democracy ending shit Trump is doing right now.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Is that just a weird perspective, or is that bench just an inch or two off the ground?
-
I’m frustrated with the reflexive "both sides are equally bad" response that shuts down any meaningful analysis of what's actually happening in our politics.
I'm not naive about the Democratic Party's problems. They struggle with internal divisions, sometimes cave to corporate pressure, and they’ve made compromises that disappointed their base. But when I look at voting records, policy proposals, and legislative priorities, I see meaningful differences that have real consequences for people's lives.
On issues I care about (healthcare access, climate action, voting rights, ext.) one party consistently proposes solutions and votes for them when they have the numbers. The other party doesn’t just oppose these policies, they fight tooth and nail to undermine them, delay them, or dismantle them entirely. That’s not a matter of opinion. That’s a matter of public record.
When Democrats fail to deliver, it’s often because they lack sufficient majorities or face procedural roadblocks. When they do have power, they’ve passed significant legislation on infrastructure, climate investment, and healthcare expansion. Meanwhile, when Republicans have unified control, their priorities have been tax cuts for the wealthy and rolling back environmental protections.
I understand the appeal of cynicism. It can feel sophisticated to dismiss all politicians as equally corrupt. But that cynicism serves the interests of those who benefit from the status quo.
If you can't tell the difference between someone trying to reform a broken system and someone actively working to keep it broken, you're not offering insight. You're providing cover for obstruction.
Does this mean Democrats are perfect? Of course not. Should we hold them accountable when they fall short? Absolutely. But pretending there are no meaningful differences between the parties just because neither is perfect makes it harder to build the coalitions we need to create the change we actually want to see.
From my detached non American (but still a citizen of the planet so likely to get fucked hard by the way Americans vote) point of view, seems like Americans are continually letting perfect be the enemy of least bad. "Well since Democrats are kinda bad in these instances maybe we should just go fully fascist theological doom cult. That will force the Democrats to improve, or kill us all."
-
Holy shit! There’s a bunch of poor homeless kids that are starving!
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
What?! Lemme get outraged and blame the parents, then post some Facebook comments about how outraged I am!
-
Is that just a weird perspective, or is that bench just an inch or two off the ground?
wrote last edited by [email protected]Perspective. You can see the leg on the right side through the bench.
-
I’m frustrated with the reflexive "both sides are equally bad" response that shuts down any meaningful analysis of what's actually happening in our politics.
I'm not naive about the Democratic Party's problems. They struggle with internal divisions, sometimes cave to corporate pressure, and they’ve made compromises that disappointed their base. But when I look at voting records, policy proposals, and legislative priorities, I see meaningful differences that have real consequences for people's lives.
On issues I care about (healthcare access, climate action, voting rights, ext.) one party consistently proposes solutions and votes for them when they have the numbers. The other party doesn’t just oppose these policies, they fight tooth and nail to undermine them, delay them, or dismantle them entirely. That’s not a matter of opinion. That’s a matter of public record.
When Democrats fail to deliver, it’s often because they lack sufficient majorities or face procedural roadblocks. When they do have power, they’ve passed significant legislation on infrastructure, climate investment, and healthcare expansion. Meanwhile, when Republicans have unified control, their priorities have been tax cuts for the wealthy and rolling back environmental protections.
I understand the appeal of cynicism. It can feel sophisticated to dismiss all politicians as equally corrupt. But that cynicism serves the interests of those who benefit from the status quo.
If you can't tell the difference between someone trying to reform a broken system and someone actively working to keep it broken, you're not offering insight. You're providing cover for obstruction.
Does this mean Democrats are perfect? Of course not. Should we hold them accountable when they fall short? Absolutely. But pretending there are no meaningful differences between the parties just because neither is perfect makes it harder to build the coalitions we need to create the change we actually want to see.
wrote last edited by [email protected]shitty children petulantly whining they never get their way.
mind you, "their way" would alienate more than 60% of voters
no party is perfect, but they are wholly deluded and will lash out like spurned tweens denied their crocks. they know conservatives don't give two flying fucks about them, so they have to lash out at dems / liberals / anyone not sufficiently ML to stand up to their purity tests.
it would be hilarious academically, but their bullshit does real world harm.
edit: aw look the shitty petulant children whined and rallied to downvote this! Poor crybabies.
You did this to yourselves, chumps.
-
This post isn't very region specific but I assume you're talking about the USA.
Steps:
-
Vote DNC, Promote DNC, Volunteer DNC
-
DNC ammends constitution to reverse the Citizens United Decision, removing money from politics.
-
DNC ensures fair districting and proportional representation
-
People now have the power to enact real meaningful change
Simultaneously:
-
Promote FairVote, educate people door to door and on the streets, buy ad space if you can
-
Protect local broadcast infrastructure and donate to forums where people discuss these issues to keep them running
-
Utilize Artwork to get people's attention on these issues.
Its unpopular, but its actionable and helps give space to further grow our progressive movement.
Tankies disagree, but don't put forth a real adgenda. Such unserious group.
-
