• citizen@normalcity.life
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    Welcome to 2024, the year the two party system wins the elections again, peasants keep getting exploited and the rich becomes richer

    • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The two-party system winning would suck, but not as much as Trump’s one-party system winning.

    • EatATaco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The two party system winning over trump would truly be the biggest win of our lives.

      • citizen@normalcity.life
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        yeah, a bunch of corrupted fascists and genocide supporters greedy for money who brought humanity to the bring of extinction with their wars and polluting the environment for profits winning again and staying in power would be the biggest win of your lives.

        • EatATaco@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          If we’re including the environment then it’s even more of a no brainer what a massive loss it would be for trump to win, he would undo and block as much as he could. Biden might not be doing enough, but at least we’re going in the right direction. Trump would make sure we go backwards.

      • Sami_Uso@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        Gimme a break. We said the same shit about Bush in 2004.

        “Vote or die” was a huge campaign movement.

        • EatATaco@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Can I ask how old you are? Because it was absolutely nothing like it is now in 2004. The vote or die thing wasn’t literal, it was just an attempt at a making voting cool to get young people out to vote.

          • Sami_Uso@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m 34. There absolutely were people talking about a fascist bush/Cheney regime in 2004. Sure things are different now, but they’re still very much the same.

            • mr_robot@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I’m 34. There absolutely were people talking about a fascist bush/Cheney regime in 2004. Sure things are different now, but they’re still very much the same.

              If you are 34: You were at most 10 years old when Bush won in Nov. 11, 1999, and at most 18 years old when he left office. You were a child. You didn’t vote. You really don’t know if things were “very much the same”.

              • Sami_Uso@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                14
                ·
                1 year ago

                “You could never understand historical events if you weren’t literally alive and a full grown voting adult to see them”

                What a fucking shit take. Have you never commented on a single thing you weren’t alive for? Stop being so reactionary, not every election is “the most important in our country’s history”. Again, gimme a break.

                • ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  I was also an adult in 2004, and mr_robot is correct, “Vote or Die” was just an edgy get-out-the-vote campaign to make voting cool, not a “VOTE OR WE LITERALLY ARE GOING TO DIE” call to arms against Bush. You are free to comment on things you weren’t alive or and adult for, but you have to be correct. You are just wrong here. Let it go.

                  • Sami_Uso@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    The message is the same. Vote or you’ll be subjected to an increasingly authoritarian government bent on making the country worse. Regardless of how edgy you think the campaign was, we’re saying the same shit over and over. You just feel more strongly about it because you understand the context this time.

                • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I would like to note that they only example you’ve provided to equate the two is that p-diddy used s common figurative saying in an attempt to make voting cool.

                  One can certainly understand things, to an extent, that happened when they were young or before they were born. But if this is the meat of your argument, let alone appearing to be the entirety of it, this is not one of those times.

        • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          And you know what? They were right, they were just off on the timing. Bush’s administration (and frankly Clinton’s before him, to a lesser degree) normalized a lot of more-flaunting that’s only just coming to fruition.

          A disdain for the truth. A mistrust of our electoral process. Utilizing consecutive emergencies to hold on to power (also known as the Julius Caesar doctrine). Projecting the appearance of strength at any cost. Never admitting to misconduct. Fighting against (and convincing your supporters to fight against) things that would’ve previously been bipartisan just because it could help the other party politically. Overlooking malfeasance because of party alliance (and overlooking positive qualities because of disloyalty). Showboating for cable news. All of those things led directly to Donald Trump in 2016, because they were torn down piece by piece in 1996-2004.

          This false equivalency doesn’t acknowledge that nations very rarely fall in one swift stroke; it’s a slow but steady erosion of the fabric of decency. And maybe you’re right this time, too; maybe Trump will surprise us all and not do the things he said he would do, like be a dictator on his first day in office or deport non-Christians or pardon convicted criminals who are loyal to him.

          But what about the next guy? The one who sees the promises Trump is making and thinks, “this but unironically”? The guy who sees how far Trump has pushed the envelope and how much he’s disregarded mores and is willing to push it down the field a little bit more? What about the guy in 2032 who thinks Trump’s “first day dictatorship” didn’t go far enough? What’s to stop him?

          It’s not a slippery slope fallacy when we’re actually slipping down the slope.

          And we won’t fix it next time if we won’t fix it now. They’ll just keep moving the Overton Window until they’ve normalized an outright empire.