• 0 Posts
  • 538 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: August 21st, 2023

help-circle



  • This meme is astroturf propaganda to try to discourage the working class. There are plenty of stories of insurance companies reversing their decisions and approving procedures that they had denied the day before, or not going through with plans to reduce coverage.

    That is what happens when the 1% are reminded that they are outnumbered 99 times, and that those with nothing to lose have nothing to fear.









  • Supreme Court justices are nominated by the president and then the house and Senate approve or deny the nomination. The current justices were nominated by Democrat majorities.

    It’s the Senate that approves nominations to the supreme Court.

    Of the Supreme Court Justices that voted to overturn Roe v Wade:

    Amy Coney Barrett was approved by a Republican controlled Senate.

    Samuel A. Alito was approved in 2006 by a Republican controlled Senate.

    Brett Kavanaugh was approved in 2018 by a Republican controlled Senate.

    Neil M. Gorsuch was approved in 2017 by a Republican controlled Senate.

    Clarence Thomas was approved in 1991 by a Democratic controlled Senate.

    4 out of 5 of the Supreme Court justices that voted to overturn Roe v Wade were approved by Republican majorities. Two of which happened after the Republicans used their majority to block Obama from being able to nominate anyone to the Supreme Court. The one approved by Democrats happened 33 years ago when American Politics were significantly less partisan.

    This is why I pushed you to stop speaking in metaphor and say something factual, because once you did you proved you were not speaking about actual reality.

    Republicans abuse power to push through their agenda, and your response to that is to allow Republicans to continue to have enough power to continue to abuse the system while you blame Democrats for not stopping them. Your arguments make no sense in reality so you have to hide them behind metaphor.

    “Why didn’t Democrats stop them”? Because they did not have the seats to do so. Refusing to give them seats won’t allow them to stop Republicans from overturning the next civil right while they continue to turn back the clock on progress.





  • You’re saying if a party strays too far that another party can steal some of its voters, the party can “return to its roots” and get all those voters back.

    You’re also saying if a party strays too far it can’t just “return to its roots” and get those voters back because they don’t trust them.

    You are contradicting yourself. If Republicans suddenly become a rational party they’ll be trusted by rational people as much as if Democrats suddenly became a leftist party.

    You’re also telling yourself: there’s no reason for the Democrats to move left because you’re not going to trust them anyway. If Kamala came out tomorrow and promised everything you were wanting to say you wouldn’t believe her or vote for her.

    The fact is Republicans are going full Fascist, and there are people with conservative ideologies who don’t want fascism. That is why they will vote for a Democratic Party shifting to the right instead of the “original right wing party”.

    Sure, creating a vacuum on the left increases the viability of a third party, but that’s not going to be viable this election so they don’t have to worry about it.




  • It’s not by chance that in Europe even whilst becoming full-on Neoliberal parties, Center-Left parties maintained a leftwing discourse and would throw a bone to the Left once in a while (say, minimum wage raises) when in government.

    Are you talking about nations with better electoral systems that can support more than 2 parties?

    Yes, in a 3+ party system Party A moving closer to Party B to take 1000 votes from them but losing 1500 votes to Party C in the process is a bad play.

    In a “Winner takes all” 2 party system where the only thing that matters is having 1 more vote than your opponent to have 100% of the power, Party A moving closer to Party B to take 1000 votes from them is a better position even if it causes them to lose 1900 votes from people who now won’t vote for either party. Moving further away from Party B to get 1000 votes from people who are refusing to vote is a losing position if it causes them to lose 501 votes to Party B.

    In a 2 party system chasing the people who are actually voting will always be twice as good than chasing the people who aren’t voting.