2157
"Both parties are the same!"
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2023
2157 points (100.0% liked)
Political Memes
5424 readers
1428 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It's voting for less evil. And staying home is an extra vote for more evil.
But I promise, get the frustration. We live in a fucked up system that filters out good candidates.
That's not how American voting works, if everyone voted for who they think is absolute best, the group with the most unity wins, which is exactly why political parties exist.
Yes, Unity. That is what I'm referring to. It just seems voters are only worried about being on the "winning" side and that is their Unity - winning and not what is best for them.
If you could rephrase this that would be great
Sorry, I'm just saying that if people all voted for a 3rd party candidate that wanted govt out of their pockets and personal life things would be so much better than just voting to win or voting for the lesser of two evils. Does that make sense? Not sure if I'm articulating my thought well enough.
The problem is everyone voting for a third party candidate at the national level is pratically impossible, including the fact that you have to convince people that the candidate is popular enough to even be worth voting for.
It's and endless and unfortunately unavoidable cycle.
You vote to win in almost all cases. That's how US elections work.
Sounds like sad and defeated outlook on voting. I think all that we can do is try and inform voters on third party options and hopefully things will change.
Unfortunately, this is how Trump wins. However, one could argue letting the dnc lose could also result in them bringing on more candidates that appeal to younger and much more progressive voters.
All I can do is vote with my conscience and let the chips fall where they may. I also try to spread the information on 3rd parties when I can.
A plan that depends on everyone spontaneously deciding to do what you think is best is no plan at all.
I just think that most people would like to have Government out of their wallet and personal lives. If those people all voted for a candidate who wanted the same, then change could happen.
Most people aren't libertarians.
And there's little to no historical precedent for people spontaneously uniting around a third party candidate. There is, OTOH, precedent for the spoiler effect causing an unpopular candidate to win.
Most people do not realize they are Libertarian.
You obviously don't understand basic game theory.
I just think if people would look at what they value, find a matching candidate, vote for said candidate; things would be less of a shits show.
Exactly; you don't understand basic game theory. The options you lay out are not in fact part of the equation. If we're playing a game in which you have only two choices, opting for a third make-believe alternative is going to result in a losing outcome every time.
Bold of you to assume everyone shares your values.
Oh no, not MY values. Their OWN values.
Then it seems to me that if their own values are fascistic, you do have to worry about evil.
I think that the majority of people have a fair moral compass or at least feel that they want less Government meddling in their life?
The fact that Republicans are not winning many elections lately suggests otherwise. Most people want things like social security and medicare. Many of us want a stronger IRS to go after tax fraud. Many more of us want universal healthcare. All of that is government "meddling."
Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. Why would you need a stronger IRS if people were allowed to decided where to invest their own money? The return on the money put in to SS is minuscule compare to a standard safe investment. You wouldn't need Universal Healthcare if you could afford things on your own, you could decide on a better insurance, because there would be competition, prices would be driven down and not up. Things only get more expensive when Government gets involved.
Your opinions are noted. However, that doesn't mean most people share your views like you seem to think. Again, if they did, a lot more Republicans would be elected.
I think people don't know there is any other option that the two party. I also think that a lot of that stems from BS Media. I do not understand the correlation you are making between my views and more elected Republicans?
Do you have any evidence that people don't know any other options? Could it be that they just don't like the option you like? Not knowing any other options doesn't change the fact that there are only two viable options right now anyway.
And if you don't understand what 'small government' and Republicans have to do with one another, it's weird that you just spouted a bunch of their talking points (like the lie that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme).
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2023/may/05/ron-johnson/sen-ron-johnson-again-says-social-security-is-a-po/
https://billmoyers.com/story/resurrecting-another-big-lie-myth-social-security-ponzi-scheme/
https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/cruz-social-security-ponzi-scheme/
(I'm guessing you won't read those links or will dismiss them because they will challenge your Republican talking point.)
Oh, and if universal healthcare is more expensive than our current capitalist insurance-based system, please explain:
I do not believe Republicans want a small Government, maybe that was the original idea, but they have strayed far from it. R's and D's are the same party, just with different talking points. My viewpoints are from a Libertarian standpoint. US spends twice because of the Government involvement. I think it's just really crazy to believe that people would not want control over their own lives and money.
What you do not believe is noted. Feel free to demonstrate that Republicans do not want small government. Also, please provide evidence that the U.S. spends far more than Canada, which has universal healthcare, because of government involvement. You do know Canada's healthcare system is government-run, I take it.
Believe it or not, just declaring things doesn't make them true.
I agree on the "just declaring" statement. Instead of trying to convince you of maybe just taking a look at the Libertarian party, I digress. I do not need to spend the time or effort on charts, pulling articles, debating viewpoints, etc. Please continue on the current path that we all see is benefitting everyone so well. Good Day, I apologize for any upsets.
I know all about the Libertarian party. They run in every election. They lose in every election by a vast amount. Which suggests that most people don't agree with them. You have no evidence to the contrary and you didn't back up your spurious healthcare claim or, as I suspected, respond to the links I gave you about your false Republican talking point, and it is a Republican talking point, that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. What you should be apologizing for is being so discourteous that you won't even acknowledge I provided you with evidence to counter your claim.
I'm only apologizing due to the fact I'm engaging with someone who truly believes they are on the correct path and there is no convincing otherwise. I do not need to re-read charts, articles, etc to know that we are headed in the wrong direction.
You're "apologizing" without acknowledge I provided you with evidence to counter your claim. Three different links.
False apology not accepted.
Wow, why did you delete your original reply? I read it before you changed it to this reply. I agree, you do not have to accept any apology. Good Day.
I deleted it because I did not say what I wanted to say. I also deleted it within seconds of writing it. It's not my fault you hit refresh that often.
And I would be happy to accept a sincere apology. You know, one where you actually acknowledge the fact that you pretended I didn't provide you with any links to counter your claim.
But I suppose that's too honest for you, so you're running away instead.
I don't really know how I saw it that fast to be honest. Yes, you provided links. I've read many of the same. I realized I was only ruffling your feathers and this was going to go nowhere. And instead of continual agitation, I decided its not worth it. I'm not try to argue, I just think there is another way than the path we are on.
Weird that it's taken you this long to acknowledge it even though I've pointed out that you haven't multiple times.
And yet you did not do anything to support your claim that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. This is because it is not a Ponzi scheme.
Ah, so you're a troll. Noted. Flagging.
Ok.
You're right.
Right about...?
Whatever it is to make you feel like you've won this disagreement.
I don't even know what you mean by "won" and I doubt you'll define it for me since you won't do another simple thing I've requested of you without me asking multiple times.
Are your values based around helping the worst of two evils get in power? Because it sure sounds like it.
There it is. Fear Voting.