966
submitted 1 day ago by alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml to c/memes@lemmy.ml
all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] itsralC@lemm.ee 10 points 8 hours ago

I always like to point out how there's art of these two characters fucking by the same author

[-] Opisek@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago

Make love not war?

[-] taxiiiii@lemmy.world 18 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

I mean, I was super curious what Sanders could've done if he had the chance. Instead, we got the opposite experiment.

If democrats in the US vote for stuff like Biden, then they're not voting for any radical change. Trump isn't comparable to that.

[-] Zagorath@aussie.zone 8 points 8 hours ago

If democrats in the US vote for stuff like Biden, then they’re not voting for any radical change

I don't exactly know the details, but weren't there accusations of meddling from the DNC that stoppered Sanders' chance of securing the nomination, and a belief among some that he might have won the nomination if it had been a free and fair primary process?

In other words, it's possible (though by no means certain) that your sentence above works if "democrats" means "the DNC and the establishment of the Democratic Party", but not if it means "people who by-and-large support the Democratic Party".

[-] Grapho@lemmy.ml 7 points 7 hours ago

The Dems did some delegate fuckery where all candidates endorsed Biden because ~~Bernie~~ Trump had to be stopped at all cost, and their delegates went to Biden even if he hadn't been voted for. Kamala contributed all of her 0 delegates and got VP for being ~~a cop~~ the first to drop out iirc.

[-] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 16 points 11 hours ago

Americans voted for Biden because the primary system heavily favored Biden and Americans were told Biden was "more electable" than Bernie, even though every one of Bernie's policies and his messaging polled better.

If the DNC didn't put their thumbs on the scale, Bernie would have won in 2016 (or 2020), and guaranteed a democratic victory in the next election because nobody receiving free healthcare is going to vote to go back to the current system.

Bernie isn't radical, he's a social democrat, he just looks radical because the democrats are right of George W Bush right now.

[-] taxiiiii@lemmy.world 3 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

I get it and I don't disagree, but- Well, I for one wouldn't mind some radical change. Just not in the direction that it is going right now. Radical in itself is nothing bad, when the status quo is as bad as it is.

[-] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 3 points 9 hours ago

Still nothing

Courts wouldn’t even let Biden offer student loan relief

[-] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 3 points 8 hours ago

They were only able to because of the way he went about it. He could have simply ordered the Department of Education to immediately forgive the loans and erase any record of the debt, and dared the SCOTUS to order him to create new debts (which he could simply ignore).

[-] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 hours ago

Part of not being a dictator is not acting like it, you aren’t going to find a good person acting that way

[-] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

You're not going to find a good person who puts following rules written to benefit the capitalist class above freeing people from crippling debt.

[-] taxiiiii@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago

Probably, but I'd only believe that there is really nothing to be done once I see someone actually left-leaning attempt everything in their toolbox.

I believe Sanders would have tried to change as much as possible in the US. I also believe that he would have failed regarding a lot of things. Would have really liked to see him try though.

[-] dessalines@lemmy.ml 24 points 14 hours ago
[-] fatur0000new@lemmy.ml 32 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

"You have to understand there's only so much I can do in this position"

Meanwhile, one of their former members named Huey Long: "Now I dynamite 'em out of my path"

[-] roguetrick@lemmy.world 62 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Really though, beyond the Dems doing something legislatively, could you imagine if the party actually utilized it's network for direct action campaigns. Not that their donors or upper middle class members would be copacetic to any actual economic disruption. I mean christ, the Senate leader doesn't even want to let the Republicans shut down the government while they're busy dismantling it. Their current strategy is to appeal by saying they can bring back business as usual. Unfortunately they don't seem to understand that appearing ineffectual turns centrists off even more than appearing radical does.

[-] eldavi@lemmy.ml 21 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Unfortunately they don’t seem to understand that appearing ineffectual turns centrists off even more than appearing radical does.

Does it though?

Look at how much .world or reddit downvote and deride posts critical of Democrat behavior since the beginning on the election and the only takeaway you can get is that they're in onboard with it no matter how much they hate it simply because Republicans are worse.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

Okay, let me spell it out, yet again, since people still apparently don't get it: making a tactical decision to avoid expressing criticism during an election is not the same thing as being perfectly happy with what the party is doing. It's harm reduction, not agreement.

[-] eldavi@lemmy.ml 5 points 9 hours ago

Harm reduction had led is to our first openly fascist President.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago

No, in terms of proximate causes, failure to perform harm reduction did that.

If you wanted to actually fix the Democrats' neoliberal bullshit, the time for that was in 2021-early 2024, not fucking October! Screeching about third-parties in October was purely pro-fascist concern trolling.

[-] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 2 points 9 hours ago

That "tactical decision" enabled the democrats to sleepwalk into oblivion.

The only way the democrats could have won the last election is if they stopped trying to be "reasonable republicans" and instead used every tool available to accomplish what their constituents want. Like what the republicans are doing, but for good things like women's healthcare and not drowning migrant children in the Rio.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago

And there was exactly 0% chance of screeching "don't vote for Kamala" in October accomplishing that, and everyone knew it. The only motivation for continuing to screech at that point was to concern troll in favor of Trump.

[-] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 4 points 8 hours ago

Nobody was screeching "don't vote for Kamala", we were telling Kamala what she needed to do to win. Instead she listened to the same campaign that killed Biden's shot and we all lost because of it.

Nothing I could have done would have made genocide popular. Nothing I could have done would have made Kamala pledging to build the wall and get tough on crime look like anything but an admission that Trump was right the whole time.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago

we were telling Kamala what she needed to do to win

No, you weren't. Gaza was not the reason she lost.

[-] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 hours ago

Facilitating genocide and calling all the politically-activated college students who would have been making up the dem's ground game if not at least phonebanking, antisemites for whom free speech doesn't apply were just a few of dozens of decisions the dems chose, knowing they would decrease turnout.

The dems lost because they thought they didn't have to listen to their constituents to win.

[-] AppleTea@lemmy.zip 12 points 1 day ago

Ok, but that's a select group of people who choose to spend their free time typing about politics online. If you look at the actual election results, it would appear to back up the claim you're quoting.

[-] newfie@lemmy.ml 3 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

that's a select group of people

Analyzing your query: It is indeed challenging to accurately verify if responses on Reddit originate from authentic human participants or sophisticated algorithmic entities. Therefore, the reliability of Reddit discourse as representative data remains uncertain.

[-] newfie@lemmy.ml 2 points 17 hours ago

Look at how much .world or reddit downvote and deride posts critical of Democrat behavior since the beginning on the election

Agreed, but why should we still presume that upvotes reflect genuine user opinion as opposed to astroturfing?

It seems that lib-aligned groups use Reddit to manufacture approval for their clients. Given this, why should we view Reddit as a credible window into popular opinion? The entire site is an infomercial at this point

[-] eldavi@lemmy.ml 2 points 15 hours ago

reddit: definately, but lemmy: not so much

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

They're on board because the party moved to the right for them.

[-] roguetrick@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

I mean I usually post in world and not ml and I don't get generally get downvoted for these opinions by anybody but pugjesus.

[-] eldavi@lemmy.ml 4 points 22 hours ago

How do you know they're down voting you?

[-] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 4 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

I'm not exactly sure, but from what I've heard you make your own instance and you can see who voted how with admin tools.

[-] roguetrick@lemmy.world 2 points 17 hours ago

You can also do so from some mbin instances. It was a default feature for all users on kbin.

[-] eldavi@lemmy.ml 2 points 17 hours ago

i'm aware of this and it only makes me wonder at why the admins seemingly don't bother to keep to track.

[-] roguetrick@lemmy.world 3 points 17 hours ago

Some do. You see some communities ban users that do nothing but downvote the communities posts from the all feed instead of just blocking them.

[-] roguetrick@lemmy.world 3 points 18 hours ago

In those conversations it's because each downvote is closely associated with a reply though there are ways to see I don't actually use them. And I was mostly joking.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] venusaur@lemmy.world 30 points 1 day ago

Yall been taking the bait for years. Dems succeed on your fears. Why would they eliminate them?

[-] easily3667@lemmus.org 9 points 1 day ago

What a bizarrely stupid take.

[-] eldavi@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Yes, Democrats are bizarre and stupid so any take inspired by them is precisely that; but it needs to be said for the fools who agree w them to serve as a mirror.

[-] Skullgrid@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago

ChEcKs AnD bAlAnCeS

this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2025
966 points (100.0% liked)

Memes

48322 readers
2888 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS