this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2024
516 points (98.1% liked)
Not The Onion
12368 readers
417 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
well, show me who you can vote for, that actually has a reasonable chance of getting in, who isn't supporting Israel.
America currently has the choice of literal fascist takeover, or just milk-toast "liberal" policy.
Just so you're aware, it's milquetoast.
I agree with everything you say.
I'm not so sure about that, it often comes on the side with a big milksteak boiled over hard.
Well it depends on how you like your jellybeans with it.
no, i mean something so bland and white mayo would seem spicy, toast soaked in milk
To your first point, there are none unless you're willing to vote third party.
To your second point, I disagree. Fascism isn't some specter on the horizon. It's already here, and the only choice is between the flavors that have been forced upon us.
In the US, milque-toast liberal policy is fascist. Look at the costs of health care and education, the astronomical spending on war, the patronage of the big banks and exemptions they receive for their crimes, and the deliberate and escalated impoverishment of the poor and milddle class. (Not to mention the continued and escalated militarization of the police.)
To be abundantly clear, with the system as designed in the US, third party (presidential) candidates do not have any chance of "getting in" this election, let alone a "reasonable" chance (in certain areas, some options may exist for lesser political appointments).
Voting third party is at best a weak attempt to signal preference for future elections, but at worst a gift to whichever party or candidate you consider to be "most bad".
By all means, protest vote in the primaries, campaign for candidates you believe in, and most importantly, discuss the issues that are important to you to help bolster public awareness, but please, PLEASE, don't fall for the con that is voting 3rd party in the election.
I don't know who your third party favorite is, but do yourself a favor and look at who is donating to their campaign, and what other campaigns those donors support - a lot of money is thrown at 3rd party candidates to draw votes away from credible political opponents.
I don't have any illusions about this or any presidential election.
The person who wins will do the bidding of the billionaire class, and that's how it's been since the 60's. (Though the wealth disparity has increased exponentially since Reagan's presidency.)
We haven't had a president who did anything meaningful for the poor and middle class since LBJ.
No president has ever been or will ever be perfect, but we've had some good steps since LBJ:
Clinton's increased taxes on the rich, defense spending cuts, etc, got us our first and last government surplus years since '69, and made a little progress on welfare, but that was largely hampered by a Republican takeover of the House in '94
Obama passed the ACA, which was pretty meaningful to the middle class. Again, further progress got hampered by Republicans in congress in the later years of his presidency
Biden has passed the Inflation Reduction Act, which has lots of progressive incentives that benefit middle class families, including tax breaks for home efficiency improvements, renewable energy, and electric vehicles. He has also helped wipe away billions of dollars in student loan debts, benefiting middle class families (but again, you can thank Republicans for that not moving further or quicker)
You'll note the constant tend though - since the president doesn't write the laws, without congressional support, progressive ambitions get killed.
Also, sorry I had to edit my other reply a zillion times. My Internet's being spotty this evening.
He famously cut welfare, and did a great service to furthering fascism via the '94 crime bill and 'Don't Ask Don't Tell'. He also used the the White House has his own personal pleasure house and gave out nights in the Lincoln bedroom in exchange for campaign donations, when he wasn't taking trips on Jeffrey Epstein's plane.
The ACA only matters if you have the money to withstand being price-gouged. Most people don't, sadly. What's even worse is Obama had the power in Congress to make real change, but opted against single-payer in return for lobbyist contributions. Obama made big promises and then pretended to be powerless, but the rich were rewarded beyond measure while the rest of us lived through the foreclosure crisis.
The Trump Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and the Affordable Care Act were passed with simple majorities. It stands to reason that when the president has Congress, they can do what they want if they're actually willing to make change.
That is why I don't have any hope for the future of this country. The two previous Democratic presidents both had Congress for half of their terms, and the poor and middle classes got poorer.
True but the definition of 'imperfect' has changed vastly over the last 50 years, which is why fascism is a reality rather than the specter most Americans seem to think it is.
Two weeks ago 99% of the country was arguing with each other in support of two candidates in clear cognitive decline, and it took a very public cognitive meltdown to change that.
You are so fucking on-point. Thanks for your truths. Keep speaking up. ✊🏼
Trump would personally push the button to exterminate the Gazans. That's what we're up against. I suggest you put your energy into defeating him, then we put Kamala's feet to the fire so she listens, as she has already signalled her intention to do so.
I will believe that Biden/Harris would differentiate themselves from Trump in that way when they actually do something meaningful to stop the flow of money and weapons to Israel.
Trump would personally push it and Biden/Harris will personally prevent anyone from stopping Israel from pushing it. We know this because this is what they are literally doing. And there needs to be a way to make them understand this is unacceptable to voters.
But alas, the freedom of voters to oppose the bad actions of their candidates is a BIG FAT NO NO this days because it "threatens democracy" and will be a big fat no no until further notice.
Democracy is dying in the US but the people who try to shut up anyone criticizing the current administration's policy just because "TRUMP BAD" are the ones getting the casket ready.
So tell me, people who are about to downvote me, how do you suggest we make Biden/Harris stop supporting a genocide without ever being able to criticise them publicly without getting mobbed online?
Not saying anyone should vote Trump. Just stating the fact.
Nothing in their policy decisions would support your hypothesis here.
... But this has been happening.
the democrats are for moderate de-escalation, the republicans are for hyper genocide now!
The Democrats say they're for moderate de-escalation, but then sign off on my money and weapons shipments, thereby demonstrating what they say means very little.
The democratic system in America is broken... what is democracy if you just constantly converge onto a two party system?
This is the kind of comment that prisoners of the two party system, Lemmy.world smug libs downvote.
Keep speaking the truth regardless of the brigading.
That's unregulated capitalism. You're describing capitalism, not fascism.
I mean, you could argue that we're missing a dictator, but the billionaire class that actually owns this government feels sufficiently dictatorial to me.
The only upside in all this is that economic disparity has gotten so bad that it's forced labor unions to get stronger by necessity.
Reliably, the “both-sides-are-the-same” poster.
What did I say that's factually incorrect?
The positions of the Democrats and Republicans are literally the same on the issue of Israel. (And others, if we're going off their record.)
For instance, Joe Biden has been a vocal supporter of militarized police. He even mocked the Defund movement in his first SOTU speech.
The democratic party is not particularly good on Israel, but you're deeply deeply ignorant if you can't see how much worse the Republicans are.
On the issue of Israel they're exactly the same. They make sure Israel gets our money and weapons no matter the extent of the horrors they unleash.
ok, so here's the difference, democrats are sort of locked into the whole "our only ally in the m.east" bit, republicans want us to step up weapons deliveries and just send our own troops to help cleans gaza, a bit of a difference.
There is no difference in policy though, and that's what matters in the end.
But have Democrats not been quitting Biden's admin?
If they have, then that's to their credit. Sadly, it hasn't been enough.
I think a decent amount of people have quit. It hasn't been enough because the pushback from Biden's administration in ignoring them is pretty stubborn and strong. I think both parties have divided on this but I feel like a larger portion of Democrats, when compared to Republicans, are pro-Palestinian or at least were opposed enough to the bloodshed to quit their posts. The views of these two groups should not be expected to be generalizable at such a critical and decisive time.
I'm looking not at the personal stand some have taken, but the effects of the party's action in whole.
It's just no different from Republicans. Democrats say they oppose Israeli genocide, but they make sure the money and weapons flow into it, so to me, the words and symbolic actiosn ring hollow.
Yeah sure but my point is again: you cannot generalize the party as a whole at this time. You can't just call any difference in opinion within the party as a "personal stand". It's not personal, it's a political statement.
After this last primary, I certainly can.
I seriously think this is a bad way to go about life, generalizing in general. Makes you see things in black and white. I realize this in itself is a generalization but I think you get the point.
In some ways, yes, but look at this objectively. The people who vote Democrat could have voted for Marianne Williamson, a person is actively against genocide, and also has other positive views like support for a living wage.
Those same voters have watched Joe Biden enable genocide and apartheid, and it was only an embarrassing incident on national TV that finally got them to admit that, maybe, they were wrong, not the genocide.
This generalization is well-earned. I'd feel differently if Williamson had gotten even handful of delegates, but nope.