I'm gonna mute this one
-
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.
-
-
I believe populace means the people, whereas populous is an adjective that's a synonym of crowded
I suppose "populous" could be contextually nounified in niche circumstances.
-
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.
Attacking the commenter personally is not helpful. Obviously the whole destruction-of-American-Democracy thing is very different. But let's look at some salient issues.
As far as the war in Gaza, Biden/ establishment Democrats still stood behind Netanyahu in the wake of Oct 7th. There was only slight functional differences in Biden's America's stance on Israel in Gaza and Trump's.
Less salient, adding a cap on mortgage interest deductions on taxes. Republicans under Trump I did it to punish wealthy coastal (high home value) residents who rented to vote blue. Democrats left it in place because they approved of people who have more home value paying more taxes.
It goes on. Both Democrats and Republicans failed to close Guantanamo, advance voting reform, advance marijuana legalization, end the war in Afghanistan, or take ANY action about climate change for decades, etc.
It's not every issue mind you, but Democrats are frustratingly adherent to the status quo while the United States has needed meaningful reform for decades.
-
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.
It's called controlled opposition. The Democratic party has a lot of passionate, honest people, who want to make the world a better place. But they're funded and directed at the highest levels of leadership by a group that secretly wants to make the world a worse place.
And the way they accomplish that is making sure the passionate honest people lose. Kamala Harris was bragging about drilling for oil and staying quiet about Gaza because either she or the people giving her advice wanted her to lose.
"Both sides bad" is the party's intended messaging strategy. And it's a lie. But it's a lie people are falling for and repeating.
-
I agree with you that the parties are not the same. The GOP are outright evil puppets of the billionaire class. The Democrats are ineffectual cowards who've made careers out of paying lip service to the right thing, and every now and then doing something helpful if it's convenient for them and doesn't piss off their billionaire donors. A lot of the time that ends up translating to the same results for most people.
I don't buy the "sorry, our hands are tied" line we always get from the left. Dems throw up their hands even when they do have majorities. The first meaningful opportunity the Democrats had to obstruct Trump's agenda, after the left base had been screaming for weeks for their representatives to do something, Schumer rolled over immediately. I can't take this party seriously anymore.
You've fallen for Democrat propaganda. They want you to think they can't be taken seriously. They want to lose.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I'm a side sleeper. I can sleep on this bench. Given the other half of the government would get rid of the bench altogether, this is a good compromise. Now if you want to get rid of the divider altogether, the fascist side of the government needs to be thoroughly and consistently beaten. That's just the system. You can make an argument that the "ideal" left is incompetent too for always losing.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I'm a side sleeper. I can sleep on this bench. Given the other half of the government would get rid of the bench altogether, this is a good compromise. Now if you want to get rid of the divider altogether, the fascist side of the government needs to be thoroughly and consistently beaten. That's just the system. You can make an argument that the "ideal" left is incompetent too for always losing.
-
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."
American here....I think it's actually more the opposite. Everyone is being told to vote for the lessor evil and no one is getting what they want. That's what caused all this to begin with imo... The Magas torched their party trying to get something different to happen politically (not to excuse them or anyone). This is all on the 2 party system, if we make it out of this I think ending that system is one major change that will need to take place to avoid repeating the cycle. Basically, we lost our Republic a long time ago when Congress stopped representing us and became owned by billionaires.
-
This post did not contain any content.
So leftism is about wanting more comfortable public benches for the homeless to sleep on, while liberalism is about not wanting people to be homeless at all?
Do you ever get tired of needing to be outraged by everything all of the time and just want to be in a society where people actually work to improve things rather than just expressing impotent outrage? Ah but that would require doing work and leftists don't want to do any work or they might be screamed at by other leftists for being "liberal."
-
Working class: "Can we have meaningful reform?"
Conservatives: "No."
Liberals: "No
"wrote last edited by [email protected]Most of the Democrats in Congress are hardly liberal
-
This post did not contain any content.
Ok, but the people at Covenant House aren't the ones who decided to put the anti-homeless architecture in place.
-
Most of the Democrats in Congress are hardly liberal
Leftist. Liberalism is a right wing ideology.
-
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.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Lol, I have two degrees in studying this, and I'm old enough to have seen the full cycle play out a few times for both sides. I'm not trolling, I'm jaded AF. And I'm taking about what either party does as a party line. Orange Bully is obviously different, but it's an individual thing, nothing the party itself has accomplished or done.
Look, if the difference was so vast, ask yourself why Schumer and all the other 70+ year old Dems seem hellbent on laying low and doing nothing but maintain their own power? Maybe get a couple seats in 2026? That's not resistance. That's capitulation. Not even strategic capitulation, simply consent and wishes for crumbs. The same thing the alt-right does because TACO boy always chickens out when it comes to a "crossing the Rubicon" style move.
Political parties only exist to enrich and entrench politicians in the party. They are unions for politicians, with no benefits passed to the voters unless it first benefits the politicians. Open your eyes. If you think either party is so noble and steadfast and true, ask yourself where, in a time of need, they are.
Edit: I'm a privacy advocate, and so you have shit like this: https://lemmy.today/post/31901334. While on the other side, journalist Taylor Lorenz has repeatedly mentioned that during a social media influencer event the Biden White House held, they pushed for the idea of "unmasking internet trolls," which by default means knowing who everyone is online. (The most recent episode of Power User mentions it again) This, the slow deterioration from a few Senators in 2017-18 trying for an internet bill of rights, down to not a bill but...principles, down to privacy as a consumer right, down to F it we need tech bro money too so scrap it all and let's support Digital IDs now (https://www.meritalk.com/articles/congress-warms-to-digital-ids-as-fraud-privacy-concerns-grow/)
Plenty of examples of both parties having incredibly similar implementations of two different sounding policy goals. Which is fascinating to read about, but a terrifying place in which to live.
-
Ok, but the people at Covenant House aren't the ones who decided to put the anti-homeless architecture in place.
Anti-homeless architecture is meant to encourage homeless people to actually go to homeless shelters where they might get help finding affordable housing, not to mention help for whatever issues they have going on in their lives. It’s meant to combat the problem of some homeless people choosing to avoid getting help and continue to bury themselves in drugs/alcohol and sleep on things like public benches, where they prevent other people from using them for their intended purpose.
There’s nothing wrong with wanting people to get the help they need and stop being an inconvenience for the rest of their community. Are you against homeless outreach programs too? Do you think people should just be allowed to set up shack wherever they please in public spaces? I’m not trying to pretend that the lack of affordable housing isn’t at the core of the problem, but even if we had enough of that, there’d still be mentally ill people and drug addicts that would prefer to live on the street, just to avoid social workers pressuring them to address their problems.
-
Anti-homeless architecture is meant to encourage homeless people to actually go to homeless shelters where they might get help finding affordable housing, not to mention help for whatever issues they have going on in their lives. It’s meant to combat the problem of some homeless people choosing to avoid getting help and continue to bury themselves in drugs/alcohol and sleep on things like public benches, where they prevent other people from using them for their intended purpose.
There’s nothing wrong with wanting people to get the help they need and stop being an inconvenience for the rest of their community. Are you against homeless outreach programs too? Do you think people should just be allowed to set up shack wherever they please in public spaces? I’m not trying to pretend that the lack of affordable housing isn’t at the core of the problem, but even if we had enough of that, there’d still be mentally ill people and drug addicts that would prefer to live on the street, just to avoid social workers pressuring them to address their problems.
but even if we had enough of that, there’d still be mentally ill people and drug addicts that would prefer to live on the street
How about we get there first and then you can hand wring about any of these supposed people who are left?
-
Anti-homeless architecture is meant to encourage homeless people to actually go to homeless shelters where they might get help finding affordable housing, not to mention help for whatever issues they have going on in their lives. It’s meant to combat the problem of some homeless people choosing to avoid getting help and continue to bury themselves in drugs/alcohol and sleep on things like public benches, where they prevent other people from using them for their intended purpose.
There’s nothing wrong with wanting people to get the help they need and stop being an inconvenience for the rest of their community. Are you against homeless outreach programs too? Do you think people should just be allowed to set up shack wherever they please in public spaces? I’m not trying to pretend that the lack of affordable housing isn’t at the core of the problem, but even if we had enough of that, there’d still be mentally ill people and drug addicts that would prefer to live on the street, just to avoid social workers pressuring them to address their problems.
That may be true in some cases but most of the time anti homeless street furniture is just made to get homeless people to not hang around that particular area.
-
Anti-homeless architecture is meant to encourage homeless people to actually go to homeless shelters where they might get help finding affordable housing, not to mention help for whatever issues they have going on in their lives. It’s meant to combat the problem of some homeless people choosing to avoid getting help and continue to bury themselves in drugs/alcohol and sleep on things like public benches, where they prevent other people from using them for their intended purpose.
There’s nothing wrong with wanting people to get the help they need and stop being an inconvenience for the rest of their community. Are you against homeless outreach programs too? Do you think people should just be allowed to set up shack wherever they please in public spaces? I’m not trying to pretend that the lack of affordable housing isn’t at the core of the problem, but even if we had enough of that, there’d still be mentally ill people and drug addicts that would prefer to live on the street, just to avoid social workers pressuring them to address their problems.
Fuck you.
-
So leftism is about wanting more comfortable public benches for the homeless to sleep on, while liberalism is about not wanting people to be homeless at all?
Do you ever get tired of needing to be outraged by everything all of the time and just want to be in a society where people actually work to improve things rather than just expressing impotent outrage? Ah but that would require doing work and leftists don't want to do any work or they might be screamed at by other leftists for being "liberal."
Fuck you.
-
This is not literally liberalism lmao
Every "liberal" city that I've lived in has had these, or a variant. So I'd have to say yes, it is liberalism in action
-
Anti-homeless architecture is meant to encourage homeless people to actually go to homeless shelters where they might get help finding affordable housing, not to mention help for whatever issues they have going on in their lives. It’s meant to combat the problem of some homeless people choosing to avoid getting help and continue to bury themselves in drugs/alcohol and sleep on things like public benches, where they prevent other people from using them for their intended purpose.
There’s nothing wrong with wanting people to get the help they need and stop being an inconvenience for the rest of their community. Are you against homeless outreach programs too? Do you think people should just be allowed to set up shack wherever they please in public spaces? I’m not trying to pretend that the lack of affordable housing isn’t at the core of the problem, but even if we had enough of that, there’d still be mentally ill people and drug addicts that would prefer to live on the street, just to avoid social workers pressuring them to address their problems.
Anti-homeless architecture is meant to encourage homeless people to actually go to homeless shelters
Umm no… anti-homeless architecture isn’t meant to encourage people to go to homeless shelters, it’s meant to make it inconvenient to be homeless where “rich people” might have to see and acknowledge you. Its goal is to make the problem easier to ignore not drive people to get help.
