this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2025
796 points (98.4% liked)

Leopards Ate My Face

5123 readers
1149 users here now

Rules:

Also feel free to check out !leopardsatemyface@lemm.ee (also active).

Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

What era in time do these people think R's are trying to conserve to, after or before civil rights?

(page 3) 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago

Absolute dumbass. Even now he cannot face reality.

[–] ScoobyDope@lemm.ee 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I feel little pity for anyone who has so little knowledge of history that they don’t know the Republican Party has run on anti-out groups since before I was born.

[–] heavydust@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

this will only push me and other people like me out!

That's the whole point.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 6 points 1 day ago

Useful idiot is close to figuring out they're a useful idiot.

[–] kn0wmad1c@programming.dev 6 points 1 day ago

I think Jordan Ramsey needs some more critical thinking skills and a quick look at what the republican agenda always was, and will continue to be (under Project 2025) before he decides that he will "never be a Democrat"

[–] collapse_already@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 day ago

I feel like someone needs to tell Justice Thomas that he can just divorce his wife before he reverses Loving v. Virginia to get rid of her.

[–] BananaTrifleViolin@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

This is what you get when you have such a polarised electoral system. People treat the parties like sport teams and support them no matter what. So they vote against their own interests because they believe they should never vote for the other side.

1/3 of people dont even vote in the US because there is no real choice.

Its amazing how often you see people aggressively defending the democrats purely on the basis that they're not the republicans. Even criticising the dems is framed as being pro Republican which is crazy. Both parties are shit, both have sewn up the US electoral system between them and keep everyone else out at all levels.

And during elections that opinion gets shut down and people become complicit with the system. "Voting for a 3rd party is a wasted vote" etc.

The idea that voters should be registered as democrat PR Republican is also crazy - it's like supporting a party is part of someone identity which is weird.

The only way out is wholesale reform of the system and I don't see either party offering that. A 3rd party could try and build from the bottom up and dismantle the two parties powerbase but it doesn't seem to be happening.

So maybe it'll be revolution when a party pushes people too far? Though Americans seem willing to tolerate an awful lot of shit without doing anything at all.

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

A 3rd party could try and build from the bottom up and dismantle the two parties powerbase but it doesn’t seem to be happening.

Not really. The FPTP system makes that incredibly difficult. You can't get votes without taking some amount away from the closest party.

So existing parties are encouraged to shut down and absorb new parties. And new parties will struggle to get a majority of the old party, let alone a majority of the entire election.

We need a system that doesn't have these nonstarter problems, and that's star + approval voting.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

There are several countries that have FPTP voting, but they're not as entrenched at everywhere into two parties the way the US is. The UK, for example, has several regions where one of the two major parties is mostly fighting against a regional party, and the other major party has little to no voting base there.

Not only that, but several southern states have used instant runoff voting since the end of Reconstruction (or not long after). If you look at the makeup of their legislatures over the past 100+ years, you'll see that they are just as filled with Democrats and Republicans as everywhere else.

Point is, FPTP is not the only thing at play.

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

There are several countries that have FPTP voting, but they’re not as entrenched at everywhere into two parties the way the US is.

Sure, that's because there are other factors at play. But FPTP is one of the biggest factors, and in other countries with FPTP it is always the case where there are two dominant parties. Your own example, the UK, has that problem with the conservative & labour parties being the biggest. They always dominate the seats in parliament.

regional party, and the other major party has little to no voting base there.

Sure, but a part of why FPTP is so bad is because it gets worse the bigger the election. A small regional election may only have two candidates to begin with, which means any system of voting is esentially equal.

National elections are almost guaranteed to have at least 3 candidates running for a seat, often 4 or 5 if its a seat like the presidency. And that's where you see third parties suffering most.

The fewer the seats there are, and the more national the election is, the worse FPTP gets.

you look at the makeup of their legislatures over the past 100+ years, you’ll see that they are just as filled with Democrats and Republicans as everywhere else.

That's because the two parties are so entrenched everywhere else. It's in their interest to dominate and push out 3rd parties in those elections as well.

Point is, FPTP is not the only thing at play.

Agreed, though it is clearly one of the biggest factors in 3rd parties failing. We need reprentational government, and this ain't it.

[–] hanrahan@slrpnk.net 1 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

Sure, that's because there are other factors at play. But FPTP is one of the biggest factors, a

I don't agree Australia has "ranked choice" and we have two big parties dominant. It's not a FPTP, it's voters.

Paraphrasing Susan Sontag, 10% of voters are good, 10% evil and 80% can be swayed either way, of that 80% many of us are stupid (in the Cippola sense).

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

1/3 of people dont even vote in the US because there is no real choice.

If you're not conviced by the last . . . eight weeks . . . that that's absolutely not true, I don't know what to tell you. If you're under 24 then that's because the adulting hasn't kicked in full-time, but other than that, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[–] mholiv@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago

Exactly. People who genuinely say there is no difference are either so privileged that they genuinely feel no difference, or are too young to experience the differences.

This being said I suspect that a good amount of people who say there is no difference are accelerationist bad actors who just have no empathy.

[–] Cargon@lemmy.ml 0 points 14 hours ago

Would be a real shame if he got lynched by his own people, lmao

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 3 points 1 day ago
[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It basically could have been written by an Aaron Sorkin character.

[–] kibiz0r@midwest.social 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Yeah that's what I'm referencing. It's one of his favorite character archetypes. I think he used it in three different shows.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This is what happens when Dems refuse to do anything to help...

Idiots vote Republican because things will change. Almost never changes for the better (gotta go back to like Lincoln lol) but shit does change with a Republican.

If Dems who wanted to help could make it past the neoliberals in the primaries, all of these people would still be voting D.

Luckily Ken Martin hasn't been the type to stand in the way of the type of candidates dem voters want. He's the whole reason Minnesota is blue, let alone progressive.

Nearly four months into the legislative session, Democrats in the state have already tackled protecting abortion rights, legalizing recreational marijuana and restricting gun access — and they have signaled their plans to take on issues like expanding paid family leave and providing legal refuge to trans youths whose access to gender-affirming and other medical care has been restricted elsewhere.

“These [policies] are things that have a direct and clear impact on improving people’s lives,” U.S. Sen. Tina Smith, D-Minn, said. “And that’s what Minnesotans are looking for. They’re looking for evidence — just as voters are nationally — that the government that they elect can deliver results for them.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/minnesota-becoming-laboratory-progressive-policy-rcna79816

Compare that to "Dem stronghold" states where most voters hate their incumbents, and the incumbents are routinely more conservative than the Dem party platform.

[–] Pr0x1mo@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This is like blaming people for watching a lynching instead of blaming the KKK directly.

Not having courage to stop something is one thing but its not equally as incriminating as the crime itself.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Oh I'm sorry...

I thought this was a reasonable discussion about what the Dem party could do to stop people from voting for trump...

You clearly want to keep doing the same stuff that's not working and just screech at people.

That does the opposite, but I won't waste more time explaining

Edit:

A 14 hour account too, wonder how many accounts of yours I've blocked for advocating for the absolute worst strategy Dems can use moving forward....

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›