this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2025
611 points (84.2% liked)
Political Memes
5712 readers
1475 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Politics is rhetoric encoded in law. So yeah, chatter matters because they’re testing the waters to see what voters find agreeable and/or permissible. Trump is an embodiment of that shift, what previously was impermissible speech from a candidate has become normalized by a growing element.
Who enabled it to be a wedge issue? Who permitted the slaughter to continue, meekly finger wagging while quietly green lighting more bomb shipments from our war stocks? Who bypassed internal checks that are meant prevent US arms going to war criminals?
Idk bro I had a hard time explaining away why we need to fund, supply, and protect war crimes at a minimum, or genocide as the boot increasingly fits. I swallowed it and voted for Dem “harm reduction” in my swing state but ironically it looks like Trump may actually be the one to force a ceasefire. Not because he cares, but because he recognizes it’s a loser issue that will quagmire him like it did Joe. I’m under no illusion he’ll improve life there or revert apartheid, but so far he’s willing to make Bibi fold - unlike Joe
And look how that browbeating worked out in the end. “Our economy is strong” while inequality deepens. “Israel has a right to defend itself” while refusing any restraint or inquiry on their conduct. “I am the only one who can beat Trump” after having a cold reboot on national TV. You. Need. To. Listen. To. Feedback. Stop blithely defending this shit, and demand better.
I don’t expect a political buffet of à la carte options in every political scenario, but I’d hope for more than a binary scale from ‘reactionary nativist racism’ to ‘milquetoast liberal’. Especially if the one side is going to loom over the left wing landscape and demand fealty to big-tent centrism, while the other side vacillates between holding back the clock or rabid attack dog.
Again with the circular reasoning, seriously?Structural barriers under FPTP empower the duopoly. Third parties cannot win, except in extremely small districts or as a reaction to duopoly scandal, and so voting 3rd party IS a wasted vote. Winner take all goes brrrrr.
France, coalition governments in 1988, 1993, 1997, 2012, 2022 and present. The historic cause? Voter discontent and partisan scandal causing minority voices to make gains, left and right. Modern cause: failure of neoliberalism heightened by anti-incumbent sentiment.
Germany has had stable coalition governments for so long it’s practically a dynasty, so idk why you think this is a winning argument. AfD is an economic protest vote from the east tempered with populist racism. Again, failure of neoliberalism heightened by anti-incumbent sentiment.
Tbh I’m fairly ignorant of Oz politics, but I’ll note that Australia has STV and instant runoff, which in 2022 gave ‘the teals’ 7 seats, from former rightwing seats via grassroots takeover and policy positions on issues like climate change.
Twenty years of neo-liberalism and failed immigration policy of actual integration, instead abusing il/legal migration to fill ‘undesirable’ and ‘low skill’ jobs in an effort to compensate for an aging and increasingly skilled/educated population, and increase GDP. Again, failure of neoliberalism heightened by anti-incumbent sentiment and supercharged by foreign influence campaigns.
That is what entrenched parties in a FPTP system give you. Sound familiar?
See, they key difference is that I recognize that the Democratic establishment and leadership is actually pretty comfy with our nascent fascism. I am agitating for internal evolution because the old guard has failed, and we need a new strategy to meet the challenges of our new and changing realities. The “Third Way” and Neoliberalism skated by on the long peace and prosperity after the Cold War ended. Globalism is increasingly under threat, and we need to adapt. The right has already tacked toward populism, when are you going to wake up to the reality that you cannot browbeat your way to electoral victory under universal suffrage?
I disagree, but if you define the following, it's possible I might be persuaded to agree (I'm not asking you to per se just saying these are wildly undefined)
An excellent question. There are a number of answers. Let's take "it" and "to be a wedge issue" as givens. That leaves us with "Who" which I think we can agree means any person or organization, and then the trickier "enabled".
Wedge issues exist by virtue of the fact that there are two or more differing opinions. Let's take a different example to explore this: the so-called transgender bathroom issue. If all bathrooms were unisex it wouldn't be an issue. But, due to the fact that others have existed in the world before we got to this very moment in time, that's not the case. Bathrooms in public areas were divided by sex long ago and have largely remained so until the last 40 years, say.
Now I don't know anyone who cares what people do in the bathroom, but I do know someone who is very upset that trans people exist and need to use the bathroom sometimes. In a real-world scenario this would probably never come up, like, ever - at all, because they don't frequent public places and they probably wouldn't actually care in practice anyway. I disagree with them, fwiw.
The fact that we disagree then makes this a potential wedge issue between us. Is that issue "enabled"? If so, how? See, I would argue that the "enabled" part of it, is who's putting it into the conversation constantly? Who's making it accusatory, who's driving the conversation into a quarrelsome direction? Well, in this case, conservative media as usual. Now it's a wedge issue because Fox News and 100 other sewers "enabled" it.
The "genocide joe" stuff began appearing regularly when the election was heating up - exactly at the right time, and with maximum impact. It's not a coincidence.
Don't kid yourself. That's not the case in any way, shape, or form. Bibi let Trump look like that in exchange for not changing a damned thing and in fact increasing arms and money and reducing any oversight whatsoever. And who in the hell on the right is going to protest that genocide? Nikki "kill them all" Haley? No. What we're seeing with this presumptive cease-fire is exactly what was predicted - post-election ceasefire pending trump win that serves the bloody Likud. Ten seconds of quiet is all you're going to get and then they bring in the developers to create beach resorts for the 1%.
Nobody's defending "this shit", but pretending it's a child's toy where you can just push a button and everything magically happens is idiocy. The browbeating was trying to explain some or any details to a disinterested and ignorant crowd of puffed-up sloganistas with hardly a shred of interest in anything much deeper than a meme. Surprise, it didn't go well because they're complete fucking morons. Now we all suffer. Will they learn? Maybe. But it's too late now.
Oof, you and me both. Two words: Tom Daschle. That was where I started to understand how bugfucked the DNC operatives are. As a side note, I'm interested in how the legal system looks at technology and why is it federal judges STILL know jack fucking shit about how computers work? In 2025? Well, however it is, it's the same way the DNC knows jack fucking shit about how to communicate and act for the interests of the people who support them. AOC was just 12 years old then.
Well you're not wrong there. But FPTP in a national election is something completely different to a city or local election. This is where third parties really show their ass. They have zero presence in the lowest levels where FPTP means 100 people . Win those, okay? Start there. Don't start at the national level and be like "OMG it's so haaaarrd the Dems are mean" start local and build. The Greens have 153 people in local offices, that's something. They should go from there to regional, then state. THEN national. That's just how it works. It's not a grand conspiracy, it's the nature of large organizational communication. Learn it, Live it, Know it.
w/r/t European and Australian political coalitions, I can say they're better, but it's not all sunshine and rainbows. And they're not dealing with the same issues we are at the scale we are. Better, yes, we should get to something more like that, but if you think it's some sort of grand leap I'd caution that politics is still very much in play.
I disagree.
Agreed.
Depends on what you mean by "browbeat" and "universal sufferage". Do I think making a rational case for a political position is better than baldface lying and driving giant flags around in trucks? I do. Is that "browbeating"? Because I don't know what to tell you there. Adults need to run things, full stop. What we have with the right is full on prison break batshit frat party smash-n-grab. They're not governing, they can't. It's just horrible things happening for four years while the press looks on.
As to "universal sufferage" if everyone had the vote that'd be great (they don't for reasons) but even then, they stil have to GO DO IT. You can't force someone to change their mind, and if they can't see the immeasurable difference between the currently available choices after making any effort to do so whatsoever, then they have failed. And we all lose.