It's amazing how frequently *just enough* Democrats cross the aisle to keep Democrat legislation from passing. From Lieberman to Manchen to Fetterman and now Golden : notvoting

[–] theparadox@lemmy.world 19 points 1 month ago (3 children)

First, I don't think the "both sides, illusion of 2 parties" narrative is at all accurate or helpful. Republicans want to implement psychotic policies that will fuck over most of the country. They are happy to do whatever they need to do so long as they get to be in power and make their money. They have the backing of insanely rich bastards and are corrupt to the core. Many of them are racist shit-stains or, at least, are more than willing to pander to racist shit-stains and incite violence against minorities to further their influence and power.

Since we have a two-party system, everyone else basically becomes a Democrat. There are a number of DINOs that are Democrats in conservative districts or states because it lets them leverage their position, like Manchin. There are many Democrats that have become dependent on a broken system of Super PACs, self-serving lobbyists, and rich/corporate donors. However, the majority of them are not racist shit-stains or corrupt sociopaths. Too many of them are or are misled, ignorant of reality, sheltered, or otherwise motivated to vote against the interests of their constituents. There always seems to be enough to halt or defang any decent legislation and it drains the party's morale.

That does not make the whole of both parties the same.

[–] stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net 10 points 1 month ago (2 children)

The purpose of a system is what it does.

The Republicans move America to the right.

The Democrats block movement to the left.

The people of America aren't all the same. But both parties serve the same billionaire masters. The billionaires want a government that serves the rich and keeps the working class in their place, and both parties are doing their best to give it to them.

How many more decades of hearing "we just need more and better Democrats, you just need to donate more and vote harder" will it take before you realize it's a fucking lie?

If you bother voting at all, you may as well vote Republican. It ends up the same either way.

[–] theparadox@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I get the frustration - really, I do. There are many Democrats I fucking loathe.

The purpose of a system is what it does.

You know this phrase doesn't mean "It don't work right so fuck it". Systems don't exist in a vacuum. The system does what it does because greedy, rich fucks keep pushing it to work that way. We need to push back.

The Republicans move America to the right.

Yep.

The Democrats block movement to the left.

When the Democratic party is poised to change things, key Democrats do sometimes block movement to the left on particular issues. I'd guess there is a small but solid minority of Democrats that pretend to favor all leftist policies publicly but quietly sabotage certain ones that they don't like when push comes to shove. In recent years, congressional leadership has been particularly bad about ignoring if not rewarding this.

However, the Democratic party has their moments. Biden had many flaws and was an unwavering supporter of Israel's genocide. However, his administration moved things left far more than most people give him credit for and would have done even more if it weren't for that previously mentioned minority of saboteurs. He was refreshingly pro labor and Lina Khan was amazing.

We need to fix this broken system and until then the parties are absolutely, emphatically, not the same.

But both parties serve the same billionaire masters. The billionaires want a government that serves the rich and keeps the working class in their place, and both parties are doing their best to give it to them.

The system has been corrupted by billionaires. Unfortunately, many Democrats have conceded some power to them as those billionaires are their donors. This is not the same as the entire Republican party's submission to billionaires and grifters.

How many more decades of hearing "we just need more and better Democrats, you just need to donate more and vote harder" will it take before you realize it's a fucking lie?

We don't just need more and better Democrats, but that would certainly help.

Donate and vote harder? Be really careful who you are donating to and voting for - primaries are how the game is played, at least until the syatem is fixed. You still need to vote. We got this way because we were complacent and not paying attention. We're not getting out of it by remaining complacent.

If you bother voting at all, you may as well vote Republican. It ends up the same either way.

Nope. Democrats as a whole are a mixed bag but Republicans are, at their core, authoritarian and fascistic. Are you a fucking accelerationist or something?

[–] stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

So the thing about accelerationism, when it comes to voting, is: in order to deliberately vote to make things worse, you have to believe your vote matters.

I don't believe my vote matters.

I'm not an accelerationist. I don't think it's a good idea to deliberately drive the United States into the ground, hoping to trigger collapse and revolution, in the belief that something better might rise from the ashes. The history of revolutions is ugly and bloody and very rarely beneficial to the majority of human beings involved.

But frankly? I think a collapse and a revolution is coming. I think if we avoid it, it'll be because the American government employs tools of repression, surveillance, and social control more extensive than any in previous history. I think both of those options are horrible. I think our billionaire masters are going to decide whether to impose a universal authoritarian surveillance state, or allow the United States to collapse and incorporate the survivors into a neo-feudal, post-democratic society, based on which nightmarish future society eill give their descendants the greatest chance of maintaining their wealth and power and control. And I don't think my vote, or my political activity, is going to make one damn bit of difference to what our billionaire masters decide.

[–] theparadox@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I don't believe my vote matters.

I've felt that way at times, but ultimately we disagree on that.

I don't think it's a good idea to deliberately drive the United States into the ground, hoping to trigger collapse and revolution, in the belief that something better might rise from the ashes.

How about deliberately sitting on the sidelines and encouraging other people to stop trying and join you? Sounds kinda like what you are doing.

But frankly? I think a collapse and a revolution is coming.

We agree on this. I'm just hoping that we can minimize the damage by making sure that the rich and powerful have as little control as possible if shit goes down. One party is unquestionably handing the country over to the rich and powerful. The other is a mixed bag. I'd rather try to filter the mixed bag than pretend they are the same thing and do nothing. I'm also hoping the system itself can be altered so that it is more resilient to this bullshit. Preferably something other than two parties and a broken election system.

I think if we avoid it, it'll be because the American government employs tools of repression, surveillance, and social control more extensive than any in previous history. I think both of those options are horrible.

I have the same concerns. Again, I'd like to filter out the mixed bag and try to reverse course - avoid both options or at least hamstring the powers that would most abuse the population under either option.

And I don't think anything I do is going to make one damn bit of difference to the outcome.

Then either find some motivation or, kindly, sit down and shut the fuck up. I truly feel very close to what you are feeling. I even feel the same sometimes, as the last as far as the hopelessness goes. However, doing nothing but screaming "doom" and most importantly telling everyone they can't do anything to fix things isn't helping.

[–] stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Here's the thing. If you read what I rant about, you'll know I suggest plenty of positive shit. Depending on my mood, okay, I'm not perfect 😆

Frankly, I believe that surviving and thriving in the future of the West is going to mean building community networks, building mutual aid groups, building resilient non-governmental structures to meet people's needs in the absence, neglect, or open hostility, of government structures.

I believe everyone's time and energy is best spent on that work.

I believe every dollar and every minute spent on trying to reform government through the electoral process is wasted time and money at best and actively contributing to the collapse of civil society at worst.

And I think every driven, passionate activist, every person who sees the problems with society and tries to fix them by putting the right candidates in office, could do so much more good for the people around them by unionizing workplaces, or fundraising for community organizations, or a hundred other things - hell, if I walked out and picked up one piece of litter off the street, I'd have more of an impact on my community than every vote you've ever cast in your life put together has had on yours.

And honestly, I know a lot of those people, and it hurts to see all these amazing people pissing their time and energy away trying to help one billionaire win a popularity contest against another.

Trying to reform democracy from within is like walking into a crooked casino and imagining you can win if you pick the right machine to play and spend enough money playing it. All the machines are rigged. The only winner is the house.

And that's completely independent of my moral objections to a system based on, essentially, the tyranny of the majority.

So yeah, I'm going to come here, to a community called "notvoting", and talk about not voting and what people could do instead. Because it hurts to see so many good people's efforts go to waste.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

However, the majority of them are not racist shit-stains or corrupt sociopaths. Too many of them are or are misled, ignorant of reality, sheltered, or otherwise motivated to vote against the interests of their constituents.

And... what proof do you have of that? Because it sure as hell can't be their actions. Also downvoted for completely sidestepping the point of the OP.

[–] theparadox@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

And... what proof do you have of that?

Proof of what?

in any case willful ignorance is practically and morally indistinguishable from deliberate malice.

My statement literally said I didn't think it was usually willful. Misled, ignorant, sheltered, etc.

Also downvoted for completely sidestepping the point of the OP.

I mostly agree with the post. I am confident that a small minority of the party are corrupt and lie about their values. Schumer and Jeffries both need to go ASAP. However the last fucking statement was...

Breaking the illusion of 2 parties

THAT sentiment is what I was addressing.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Proof of what?

That they're just misled, ignorant, etc. Why should I or anyone else believe they don't more or less know what they're doing?

My statement literally said I didn't think it was usually willful. Misled, ignorant, sheltered, etc.

Except what happens when they're confronted about that ignorance? Because if what we're looking at isn't willful ignorance, then it's downright delusion. There's more than enough information out there for anyone looking for that truth to find it. So I repeat, what's your proof that the segment of the DNC who's actively malicious/willfully ignorant is only a small minority? Almost nothing that institution has done in the last 50 years warrants any kind of faith.

THAT sentiment is what I was addressing.

Sure, but you didn't address their proof of that sentiment (you know, the guy in the OP literally voting against his own bill).

[–] theparadox@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The DNC or the larger population of representatives in the democratic party? DNC and congressional Leadership has been mostly atrocious recently.

You don't have proof that they are doing it all fully aware and intentionally, and I don't have proof to the contrary. I'm convinced it's not a conspiracy of the majority of the party members because of Hanlon's Razor.

I am, and I assume you are, looking from the outside in. We're not insiders. What I see from my perspective is a broken system, resulting from corrupt inputs (many of them money, fed by the rich, making greed a major factor). Those corrupting the system want to alter the system to do what they want it to do. If they are even aware of reality, the corruptors would want thoseninside the system to see their own ignorance. There are likely many arguments that have convinced them to act as they are acting. Maybe they want to ensure the Republicans look as bad as possible because some campaign consultant told them it will get them a bigger majority during the midterms.

Sure, but you didn't address their proof of that sentiment (you know, the guy in the OP literally voting against his own bill).

That's proof of something specific occuring. It doesn't prove why it occurred, or more accurately the motivations behind the action. If there were proof of the motivations, it wouldn't be proof of a widespread conspiracy.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The DNC or the larger population of representatives in the democratic party?

The latter.

You don't have proof that they are doing it all fully aware and intentionally, and I don't have proof to the contrary.

Sure, but it's almost impossible to actually 100% prove anything the way you're implying, especially as it applies to a group of people that large. What we can do is notice that take the null hypothesis (the idea that most Democratic federal and state-level politicians aren't actively malicious) and see how well it explains their actions. The answer is: It absolutely doesn't. You know it doesn't, which is why you feel the need to present alternative explanations and what-ifs for why they're acting the way they're acting. The fact of the matter is that while we can't be 100% certain, we can make an educated guess that's acceptable until evidence emerges to the contrary. This, not what you're doing, is how scientists tackle these sorts of questions.

There are likely many arguments that have convinced them to act as they are acting. Maybe they want to ensure the Republicans look as bad as possible because some campaign consultant told them it will get them a bigger majority during the midterms.

Okay pardon my French, but why the fuck should I or anyone else care about that? Ultimately the important thing about politicians is what they do, not what they believe. Also if what you said is actually the logic they're working under then they're pieces of shit who shouldn't be allowed within five miles of political power, so that's not the defense you think it is..

That's proof of something specific occuring. It doesn't prove why it occurred, or more accurately the motivations behind the action. If there were proof of the motivations, it wouldn't be proof of a widespread conspiracy.

You say that, but you don't provide any compelling explanation (with evidence to back it up) other than a conspiracy. Do you just expect people to give every individual Democratic politician the benefit of the doubt? That's like saying "oh all those cigarettes were bad, but you don't know for sure all cigarettes give cancer." In essence, your argument boils down to telling us to have faith just because.

[–] theparadox@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Okay pardon my French, but why the fuck should I or anyone else care about that?

Literally, literally, your point is that they are actively malicious and purposely working with the specific intent to harm the power and rights of the population in order to serve billionaire masters. I literally gave you a potential reason (one that I think is immoral, personally) I've heard as Democratic strategy from Democratic strategists. Make the people feel the pain brought by Republicans fresh just before an election, so that they'll get votes. That's an alternative theory, like you asked for.

[–] FluorideMind@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago

Both parties are the same. The end goal is the same. Total power over the serfs. Republicans are just usually more overt about it.

[–] Alexstarfire@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (3 children)

TBF to Fetterman, didn't he have an accident or something? I was under the impression he came out a different person. Though, he's not my representative so I don't keep up with him.

[–] Dogiedog64@lemmy.world 20 points 1 month ago (1 children)

He had a stroke, but he was weird even before it.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 11 points 1 month ago

he was pretty racist before, chasing down black people with a shotgun.

[–] IronBird@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

he was compromised from the beginning

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

AIPAC finally got thier hooks in him, and turned on a dime.

[–] IronBird@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

nah, he was a piece of shit grifter even before going national

[–] Confused_Emus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I mean yeah, but that just means we’ve got someone in the Senate that we know for a fact is brain damaged. Dude should not be one of the people running the country.

Then again, I guess even a brain damaged Senator is still peanuts compared to the rest of the bullshit going on in our government at the moment.

[–] wildncrazyguy138@fedia.io 3 points 1 month ago

I saw him on Bill Maher the other day, and I felt very sad for him, and very angry for the country.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 3 points 1 month ago

those are DINOS, they were never true democrats, Tulsi is one of the OG ones from hawaii, she was designed to undermine Hawaii LEGISLATURE from within, shortly abandoning her "camoflauge to peddle for foreign actors.

[–] punkisundead@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I am happy that you post here @stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net and at the same time I dont want this community to have such a strong US politics focus. Because electoralism isnt just an US based problem and the discourse should be more global

[–] stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I'm in the United States. I'm not going to bullshit about politics in other countries when I don't know the facts on the ground on more than a surface level.

Should I quit posting until someone comes along who can knowledgeably post about other countries?

Or confine myself to discussions about electoralism in theory instead of ranting about the examples that I know and hate in practice?

Not being sarcastic. These are not rhetorical questions. I can rant about political bullshit anywhere - you're the host here and it's polite to follow your rules. What do you want me to do to make this community more like what you want it to be?

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 1 points 1 month ago

yeah and just like when they have large majorities the same slim margins crossing the line does not prevent the legislation. mmmm. tough to see the lesson here.

[–] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Why shows Democrats are not here for us. They write bill they know want pass and if looks like it will pass then they suddenly vote against their own bill. Case in point. Fuck both parties.

Unfortunately we have no way to fix that on a large scale but we can locally. So only vote third party and lets filp cities and towns across America. And if we can do that (I feel almost to late) then we can tear down the two party system on large scale. Regardless it needs to go.

[–] majster@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 month ago

I don't follow your internal politics too closely but it's visible from afar that there isn't much anti-war sentiment going on. Same shit for decades. Internal political muscle flexing while bombs are flying and various proxies get arms.

Something similar could have easily be done under different leadership and EU would cover for it. FDL, Merz, Meloni, Starmer were visibly approving the strikes, they just disliked not being told about it.

Not voting (in your election)