• Supervisor194@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Democrats sit here and use memes to beat themselves up over being such a shit bunch of losers and Republicans would have claimed victory even if Trump lost and very likely would have had their followers shooting guns about it. Yeah there’s a disconnect somewhere.

    • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Idk, rightwingers made the argument that they are under no commitment to certify if they think there was funny business.

    • TwoBeeSan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      55
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Someone like AOC and Bernie will never be allowed anywhere near actual power. God damn money.

      • алсааас [she/they]@lemmy.dbzer0.comM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        44
        ·
        11 hours ago

        and even if they did get in power, they’d still support NATO and imperialism in general, still support capitalist exploitation, and still would only pay lip service to or fight symptoms of systemic issues instead of ripping the cause that is capitalism out by it’s root

            • Fushuan [he/him]@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              2 hours ago

              Theoretically, but having an actionable idea means to have an idea that you have a plan to put in action. So as always, where is it?

              • latenightnoir@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                30 minutes ago

                … revolution. That is the idea. We are talking about two completely different things, you expect run-down people to think logically and clearly about something as complex as an alternative*(edit) societal system while actively existing in some of the worst social contexts we’ve seen in decades, while we are talking about acting in such a manner as to free up the cognitive bandwidth necessary to determine what you demand.

                It’s like any other toxic relationship, you can’t begin to heal until you’ve exited said relationship.

                To clarify, by any means necessary. Start demanding, start opposing, start rallying. Spread the word, keep the reality of things alive in people’s awareness, because the natural instinct is to retreat and deny in order to protect oneself, but that’s exactly the trap the Right sets and then springs for a massive boost in support from downtrodden, desperate people.

                Edit to add: the Right and Capitalism, because they both infiltrate and exist by solving problems they themselves create, thus garnering support through necessity.

              • алсааас [she/they]@lemmy.dbzer0.comM
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                31 minutes ago

                You can look up the answer to your question by yourself: leftist theory, often in the form of books (or even just watching video essays, listening to podcasts etc. etc.)

                You can start over on here https://www.marxists.org/

                One could argue that there are too many different socialist approaches to revolution or rather that it’s not all that easy finding the correct one to your situation

                • latenightnoir@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  25 minutes ago

                  Additionally, check out the previous revolutions from around the world! Most of them didn’t happen on a basis of theory, but of people determined to change their condition.

                  Take Romania, for example. Sure, that’s an example of a revolution which ended up replacing one disaster with another, but even that holds a lesson for us: word-of-mouth is king, don’t give into desperation when figuring out the next attempt.

  • bad_news@lemmy.billiam.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    11 hours ago

    They don’t care about winning. They care about being cool at the right DC cocktail parties,which they have achieved by extracting their own base from the party in favor of a war criminal who left office with 13% approval.

  • sit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    45
    ·
    11 hours ago

    And this is when you vote for a third party. IMO the mentality of “having to vote one of these two” is toxic for a democratic system.

    It’s a trap and these two parties massively profit off of it.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      edit-2
      9 hours ago

      Its the fundamental death of democracy. There is only ever one “correct” choice on the ballot. No real decision except to show up and vote straight ticket or suffer guilt or derision from your peers.

      This works just as well on Republicans as Democrats. You don’t see any dark horse Buchanans or Perots on the ballot anymore. Conservatives know any vote for someone other than Trump will be seen as a vote for the Democrat, just like Liberals know the opposite. And when the top of the ticket sucks (as with Hilary in 2016 or Romney in 2012), turnout sags and upsets happen.

      The bitter truth Dems can’t face is that they ran bad candidates on weak platforms after disappointing terms in office. And this is what drove down turnout. Not insidious Arabs or nefarious Jill Stein voters or Russia. If they’d had a candidate as appealing to voters as Trump, running on the left side of the ticket, they could have won. Instead, they shed 15M votes chasing the Liz Cheney endorsement.

    • DashboTreeFrog@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 hours ago

      I hate that you’re not wrong. Gotta get rid of the current “winner take all” electoral system first though…

    • ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      8 hours ago

      And this is when you vote for a third party. IMO the mentality of “having to vote one of these two” is toxic for a democratic system.

      So close, and yet so far.

      The third party isn’t going to save you from the toxic system, nor stand a chance to fix it.

      You can’t reform the system, nor fix it from within no matter how hard you participate. It must be completely eradicated from the root.

    • acargitz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 hours ago

      My understanding is that for third parties to become viable at the presidential they have to have first become viable in other levels of government. A third party presidential candidate should be the culmination of bottom up building, not a once every 4 years thing.

  • UsernameHere@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    25
    ·
    edit-2
    11 hours ago

    The right won. They had more votes because many who voted democrat in 2020 voted red. How does going further left change that outcome?

    If voters wanted politicians that are further left then wouldn’t they have voted for the politician that is furthest left?

    I think most people just voted republican because they experienced inflation under Biden and dont understand why.