I'm gonna mute this one
-
This post did not contain any content.
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.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Revisiting and damn I made a good call to turn off notifications.
My visionary foresight knows no limits
-
Words with the -ism suffix. Like capitalism, authoritarianism, veganism, etc.
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?
-
Saw a guy sleeping under a bench with a similar design as this one, checkmate.
There is so much going on in that image. Layer after layer. It made me kinda dizzy.
I knew the threads would be cha0s. I was hoping someone would comment about the image itself. And wow. Hell of a comment. :] -
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.
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.
-
It's been one of my favorites for decades!
I encountered it reading Worshiping Power by Peter Gelderloos. Never read the original
-
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.
There's a great article written here about how Neo-liberal policy backed up into this corner where neither party can produce meaningful progress.
-
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.
Your defense of the Democrats boils down to "at least we're not the GOP." And you're not wrong. I've done my part by voting against the GOP in every election since I was eligible. The Democrats themselves don't even do that. I wish their effort would at least match mine, seeing as it's their full-time job. And I wish you held your reps as accountable as your fellow voters.
-
This post did not contain any content.
This is not literally liberalism lmao
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
"No kid should ever be able to sleep on the streets"
-
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.
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.
-
-
Your fascist anger nourishes me. Please, tell me more about how angry and miserable I make you.
I live for nothing else
You do realize they’re joking right?
-
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.
Ive always put it in the very crude fashion of "They are both going to fuck us, but one of them spits on it and goes in gentle the other one wants us to struggle."
-
"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.
