this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2025

611 points (84.2% liked)

Political Memes

5712 readers

1507 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 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

611

They're been quiet for seventy days now. (lemmy.world)

submitted 4 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

576 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Can’t believe I’m again spending time to give citations and actual arguments when you retort with snark and vibes, peak pigeon rhetoric.

You have to prove you’re right, as you made the ridiculous unsupportable claim. I’ve already proven it, you refuse to admit it. Let’s move on.

I make a point about electoral reform and that the duopoly is not a requirement
You refute that point
I point out how weak your links are, and offer more substantive details that your argument is circular
I say that a cursory search showed them, and if I were to fuck with enshittified google enough l'd find many more examples.

Still waiting boss. Or are you going to hang your hat on the big bad tech overlords and your low effort initial retort?

If we applied anti-trust scrutiny to the parties, there would be forced breakups and structural barriers to them entrenching their grip.

Uh, sure. Or we could apply RuPaul’s Drag Race scrutiny to the parties and put tape on their doors to make sure they’re not sneaking out. They’re not businesses with products and markets. There’s a fundamental reason we don’t treat them like businesses (although the analogies are admittedly obvious).

So uhhh, which is it? My anti-trust argument is tortured and worthy of derision without dissection, or you agree that the business analogy works?

It’s because your scrappy, revolutionary Pokémon Go party deserves to meet, advocate, advertise, and run for office without being audited by the Shithole State Assessor and OSHA.

What is the FEC and the various thresholds for matching funding, campaigning restrictions, funding disclosure, etc etc before we even get to state level laws? What are ballot access laws and hostile legislation that protects the two-party system:

“The Republican Party seemed to have a "lock" on the presidency after the Civil War; it won eleven presidential elections 1860-1908, whereas it lost only two. It was precisely the "factionalism" of 1912 (ex-Republican Theodore Roosevelt bolting that party and forming the Progressive Party) which gave the Democrats a chance to win the White House”

So yeah. Not a great defense of an entrenched two-party system if you actually want change.

The resulting duopoly - a foregone conclusion - means boo Democrats bad? What’s your point.

A structural barrier exists.
Group R benefits from it and messages against reform, holding the line internally for decades under big-tent conservatism, but can’t stop the leakage - sometimes co-opting it, but now resulting in multiple internal palace and mob coups when the group and their support structures don’t reflect the voters they claim.
Group D also benefits from it, but kinda sorta doesn’t like it. But Group D definitely doesn’t want to dealmake internally (because that’s work and means compromise), and so doesn’t really do shit about the structural barriers.
Group D leadership is mute, but permits criticism of the structural barriers whilst not expending meaningful or sustained effort to change said structural barriers.

EC is mandated duopoly. Let’s get rid of it and whatever your point might be can be rendered mercifully moot.

So again. Am I dumb and wrong, or do you actually agree?

I’m not jazzed about the coalitions only because I think it’s another porkbarrel trap and I don’t have a good sense of how it would work, but, yes.

Politics under our brand of capitalism is transactional, from donors, voters, senators, and intra-party life.

“Vote for me and I’ll bring jobs”
“Donate to me to and I’ll fight green legislation”
“Support my bill and then I’ll vote for your pet project in committee, and get it a first reading in the House”

Why wouldn’t you want more diverse representation? I’m not advocating for Tammany Hall style spoils system, but you cannot deny how the political wings and minority voter blocs get forgotten or taken for granted - see the generational divide between black voters. Those who lived during the civil rights era and saw a concerted fight for their dignity, overwhelmingly vote Dem. The younger ones who grew up in the lore, but watching Dem disunity during Ferguson/BLM/Floyd/etc whilst Dem pollsters clutched to the suburban voter - instead of fighting for better - are abandoning the party.

I’m OOTL since Nov. so not sure what this [bipartisan consensus on foreign policy] is in reference to, but if existing officeholders can hold trump to anything I’m not necessarily against it.

Obama is a great example of this. A DC outsider, campaigning on change, economic recovery, and criticism of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. But then empowers Hillary as SecDef whilst cranking up drone strikes and cross-border/foreign raids.

Yes, you can’t unwind the hundreds of US military bases and installations in a four year term - there’s security treaties, realpolitik to deal with, and state/non-state actors to be concerned with as the global police, but there’s always a place for empowering and relying on locals to fulfill their own security concerns. But then, we’re the global superpower with UN veto and economic muscle, so we play by a different rule book. Apparently.

And it was a huge win we wouldn’t have otherwise had. Clinton spent all his first term capital on H4A and the rest of his initiatives were bought-and-paid for with more cops and less welfare or some other political extortion. Obama got it done. It’s better. It’s not possible from any other party, period. Some good. You’re welcome. Thanks for hating the people who did the good.

What’s the fucking point of having supermajority power if you’re not going to wield it to make long lasting change that would benefit the country, not just reelection funds? And I’m not even talking M4A, even just having a genuine government healthcare option to compete with private insurance would have done so much, in non-competitive markets where people are mono-sourced either by employers or providers, providing a “baseline but decent” care option for the poor and vulnerable so you aren’t bankrupted for daring to get cancer or need long term care, or stronger restrictions on vertical integration of providers and insurers, or…

You’re cool with “better” and want me to be thankful? We just saw a vigilante murder the UHC CEO, and the bipartisan response is “meh” to”fuckem” due to decades of common discontent - but you’re happy with the status quo?

Yeah the [abortion] protection was honored by all branches so let’s definitely lose the 80’s & 90’s to conservatives by repeatedly running on that.

No it wasn’t honored in the legislature, we’ve had ‘trigger laws’ on the books in deeply Republican states for decades. They’re at the “find out” stage after giving the religious right that performative act.
No it wasn’t honored in the courts, Casey nibbled away the ‘strict scrutiny’ protection which opened the door to a patchwork of state level fuckery, and Webster which let a fence grow around state provision and funding, making Planned Parenthood a key provider in some states. Even Anthony Scalia openly talked about how he felt Roe was wrongly decided, and it needed primary legislation to avoid judicial re-interpretation and instability.
The religious fruitcakes who scream the loudest do not represent the country. Like I said: baseline protection. The GOP is lowkey fighting a political insurgency trying to intra-message this one after Dobbs because some level of protected access enjoys supermajority support, and the polling for a 100% ban has never peaked above 22% since Roe. Your revisionist history is filtered through chickenshit leadership who failed to stand tall and do something.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

I constantly see establishment Dems point to X as why we cannot change the voting/election structures, but rarely to never see the same voices agitate to change those same structures.

That's your claim.

I make a point about electoral reform and that the duopoly is not a requirement

NOPE. You SAID: "I constantly see establishment Dems point to X as why we cannot change the voting/election structures, but rarely to never see the same voices agitate to change those same structures."

You see how you started with "I constantly see establishment Dems" blah blah blah? Okay? Not "republicans and democrats" not "the duopoly of modern politics" but "establishment Dems" and how they never say anything about changing that duopolistic structure. I threw a flag on that play and called bullshit. As there were recent examples I was able to retrieve them quickly. You pouted, "These aren't good enough".

I point out how weak your links are, and offer more substantive details that your argument is circular

The UI of Lemmy that I"m using is such that I can't have that comment side-by-side so I'm going off memory alone here, but: no, you didn't. Make a convincing counter-argument.

Still waiting boss. Or are you going to hang your hat on the big bad tech overlords and your low effort initial retort?

My good dude, if you need me to pull up a history of "agitation" within the Democratic party towards institutional change and the political structure of these United States, the answer is, again, no. You doubt it? Okay. I guess we'll never know - OR - you could just look it up. Here - tell you what since you're still on the ol' pins & needles: make a post about it, we'll slug it out there. Lay out your position statement as it stands in your above quote that begins this reply, define your terms, and we'll get academic.

And since, as predicted already, you won't be satisified with that and you also don't want to let it go, here's what I'll add as a coda: "the Dems" make up; everyone registered as a Democrat in their state, everyone who is sympathetic to Democratic causes, and the 450 people who comprise the actual Democratic National Committee, depending on context. From the context of your quote, I interpreted it to be the former. There are many people since 1848 who have been Democrats who have argued for a change in the way voting is carried out and the structure of the voting systems. I have NO fucking idea what you mean by "agitate" but let's say the communicate their positions directly to allow for written communication (BECAUSE YOU CAN'T WRITE LOUDLY). Given the first part (who) and the second part (what) I totally disagree with you. If you want to continue to make the case that all registered Democats are super duper into a duopoly, go for it.

So uhhh, which is it? My anti-trust argument is tortured and worthy of derision without dissection, or you agree that the business analogy works?

I said (iirc) the analogies are there. I do NOT think the "analogy works" though for the reasons stated. Two major political parties can be likened to a monopoly. It can be likened to two large ostriches in a field of chickens. However - ostriches can't vote, and a political party is not a business under the law. The analogy is not the problem. The problem is you think because they're analagous that must equal the conclusion you draw (parties should be broken up). It does not.

It’s because your scrappy, revolutionary Pokémon Go party deserves to meet, advocate, advertise, and run for office without being audited by the Shithole State Assessor and OSHA.

What is the FEC and the various thresholds for matching funding, campaigning restrictions, funding disclosure, etc etc before we even get to state level laws? What are ballot access laws and hostile legislation that protects the two-party system:

What is the FEC? It's the Federal Election Commission. If you'd like to know more, check out their wikipedia article. You want me to summarize it for you? Okay: they set the policies and procedures by which candiates are allowed to campaign, votes to be cast, and votes transported and counted. I hope that helps.

What is matching funding? Matching funding says if your party raises X amount of dollars, the federal government will give you money to run your campaign. In 2024, that amount was One HUNDRED thousand dollars, total, split to at least 5,000 per 20 states. It is not restrictive for a national campaign, indeed it is intended to foster competition by providing those funds for viable campaigns. Believe it or not even Jill Stein received matching funds in 2024.

What are Campaigning restrictions? Well, aach state has some form of restriction on political activities near polling places when voting is taking place, such as limiting the display of signs, handing out campaign literature or soliciting votes within a pre-determined area such as not screaming right in the voters face as they are filling in their ballot. This is a well known tactic of third parties which is why the evil duopoly instituted them.

A lot of those are state level laws, too, fwiw.

What are ballot access laws? Wow these are really good questions. Well, ballot access laws are state laws that determine who will be eligible to appear on the ballot. For example in, Kansas, ballot access laws require presidential candidates to meet specific filing requirements, including obtaining signatures from at least 5,000 qualified voters for independent candidates. These laws mean that Deez Nuts, sadly, did not appear on the Kansas ballot for President in 2024. Clearly, this is a gross violation of the Constitutional right to Deez Nuts.

And just for fun, here's an article on ballot access laws in russia which the Democrats are also responsible for somehow.

the "factionalism" of 1912

What? What does that have to do with the fact that political parties are not legislated as for-profit businesses? You do love a good point, I'll give you that.

A structural barrier exists.

Granted. Groups R and D benefit from it and also have their own problems with it and neither has made a specific party platform plank of addressing the need for more parties. Well reasoned.

EC is mandated duopoly. Let’s get rid of it and whatever your point might be can be rendered mercifully moot.

So again. Am I dumb and wrong, or do you actually agree?

Absolutely. (heh, no, I mean Yes I agree the EC should be abolished) Sadly the DNC has not approached me to draft this part of the 2028 platform as yet. Hopefully they will have learned their lessons by then.

Why wouldn’t you want more diverse representation?

Well, if party A is going to represent 60% of my interests, and party B is going to represent 80% of my interests, and party C is going to represent 100% of my interests, I wouldn't need parties D, E, F, and G because I'm already voting party C. Diverse representation should already be happening.

As this is in the context of coalitions, think of it this way: in today's duopoly if you want to pass a law to give all public school kids free lunch you need to get your party on board - that's one thing. Then you have to get a certain number of opposite party members on board, likely. That's pretty rare as-is. If you also had to get three other parties on board, my question is: why do we need five parties to give school kids free lunch?

The younger ones who grew up in the lore, but watching Dem disunity during Ferguson/BLM/Floyd/etc whilst Dem pollsters clutched to the suburban voter - instead of fighting for better - are abandoning the party.

Yeah the Dems should have done a lot more in the Ferguson/BLM/Floyd areas and they did not. Polling itself though is a huge clusterfuck of wrong. Let's please not get started on polling, I have opinions about polling, so to speak.

I’m OOTL since Nov. so not sure what this [bipartisan consensus on foreign policy] is in reference to.

I didn't get that explanation exactly - you're saying the bipartisan consensus on foreign policy is where D & R officeholders agree regarding other countries and it's something the voters don't have a say in because there's not a third (or more) parties there to weigh in?

(cont'd)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago

What’s the fucking point of having supermajority power if you’re not going to wield it to make long lasting change that would benefit the country, not just reelection funds?

That's an excellent question. I suppose we could ask Joe Lieberman - oh wait he dead. Anyway, yeah I dunno. There's an "inside baseball" level to national politics that probably explained how all that went down, presumably in book form, but I don't know.

Fwiw I don't think they got any huge bounce in election funds but I do know people who didn't have any ability to see a doctor and then got one. So. Y'know. Like I say, "some good." Not ALL the good, just some. It's almost always the only thing we can get. And that's after lots of scrapping.

You’re cool with “better” and want me to be thankful? We just saw a vigilante murder the UHC CEO, and the bipartisan response is “meh” to”fuckem” due to decades of common discontent - but you’re happy with the status quo?

Hold up there Cletus, that's two whole different things there. I am, in fact, cool with "better". Better is gooder. More gooder is better. Do I want you to be thankful? Fuck, I don't care - I'm saying you got something out of a huge effort which had been in the works for years and was a hair away from imploding yet again with grave consequences for the people trying to make things better. If you're not thankful, that's for you to chew on, not me.

As to the status quo- fuck no. The two are not related in any way. The status quo is for shit. BUT: at least people who don't have anything can get something. In this hellish area of politics, that's fucking huge. And to be clear the hell part of it is all thanks to the republiQans. Who created and perpetuated this bullshit. ACA was all we could get because Obama had one big ticket item they were willing to give for five seconds and that's what he picked. Even now they keep trying to kill it and reduce it and all the shithole states reject ACA money anyway. Was it a glorious victory? In a couple of ways, YES. Did it make everything super awesome? NO. Those are two different questions.

No it wasn’t honored in the legislature, we’ve had ‘trigger laws’ on the books in deeply Republican states for decades.

I think you misunderstood what I meant there. Passing a bad-faith law that had no validity and praying to jeezus that trump would win and appoint crooked ass fascists is not what I meant. Even then that was not decades. Find me the first instance of an anti-abortion trigger law. Is it before 2019? I'll be surprised.

No it wasn’t honored in the courts

Did someone go to jail for having an abortion under Roe? Okay then if not honored, "respected as law"? "Not acted against with impunity"?

Your revisionist history is filtered through chickenshit leadership who failed to stand tall and do something.

Yeah but now you're here with all the answers and a magical third-party wand. I'm sure there's nothing you need to know, so get in there! Get 'er done! I'll vote for it.