• StinkySocialist@lemmy.mlEnglish
    0·
    4 months ago

    Sure. They both benefit from the same situation. Both benefit from the weird electoral system the states have and they both benefit by being one of only two parties. Infact they are almost completely dependent on each other. Once Republican Democrat politicians realized they could get elected by getting people afraid of the opposition instead of excited for their candidate they’ve had this country voting for the lesser of two evils ever since. 🤷

    Both options suck, but the Democrats are slightly better than the Republicans. They both get paid by the same people and they both push forward the same agenda. For example, probably the most left-wing policy we’ve had come out of our countries. Federal government in a long time is Obamacare. But Obamacare was actually thought up by a right-wing think tank called the heritage foundation. It’s a Republican idea that works as bad as other Republican ideas but because it was put forward by a Democrat because who’s going to defend it? The real solution is single-payer universal healthcare like any other non-backwards ass country has. But the Democrats being controlled opposition put Obamacare there instead.

    Hope that helps you understand where other people are coming from. 👈😎 I find the short form memes like that used to strip away. Nuance and “trigger” those who disagree with you to be a very trumpet esque style of memeing.

    • madcaesar@lemmy.world
      0·
      4 months ago

      You see the problem is that in a system where you only get two choices, you don’t get to say both choices suck, because that is literarily helping the shitter side.

      If you want to fix the system I’m all for it, but today, here, now, we are required to make a choice and the choice is crystal clear, one side is infinitely better than the other.

      It’s not close, it’s not they both are not perfect, this shitty system we have requires us, as adults to vote for one or the other and the Republicans are batshit insane people that literally want to kill women and queer people.

      This is not a matter of coke VS Pepsi, this is a brocoli VS steaming diarrhea.

      • StinkySocialist@lemmy.mlEnglish
        0·
        4 months ago

        I’m not going to vote for Trump. If my state were a swing state, I’d vote for Biden. I’m going to work on getting us a third option with my vote since im not in a swing state.

        !you don’t get to say both choices suck,!<

        What’s the point of this whole democracy thing if I can’t even say my piece? Like what are we defending if we’re just going to get in line and shut up anyway?

        Anyways the two parties are still basically the same. We deserve an actual left wing party.

    • puppy@lemmy.world
      0·
      4 months ago

      If the Republicans have been in power more than Democrats, why haven’t they investigated all the Democrats and sued them? Are you saying that the Republicans are incompetent? Tell me this also, which party holds the majority in Supreme Court right now?

    • Cyv_@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      0·
      4 months ago

      What’s more likely:

      1. A grand conspiracy that’s lasted for 50 years, that somehow has infected every branch of govt, but somehow still doesn’t guarantee victory in elections, presidential and otherwise.

      2. Democrats are less corrupt.

      • nul42@lemmy.ca
        0·
        4 months ago

        I was making a silly joke based on the likelihood that most people have committed crimes and gotten away with it. For example, Obama talks openly about smoking pot in his 1995 memoir. He didn’t get caught.

    • Killing_Spark@feddit.de
      0·
      4 months ago

      So even if what you’re insinuating were true: do you really want to vote for the corrupt and stupid rather than the corrupt and smart? I’d at least trust the corrupt and smart people to run the country in a way that doesn’t lead to catastrophic failure.

  • retrospectology@lemmy.world
    0·
    4 months ago

    They’re not the same, but they do work together to thwart the will and prosperity of the people. The game wouldn’t work if they were exactly the same.

  • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
    0·
    4 months ago

    Outcomes, mostly, regarding fascism.

    The consistent argument has been despite the siimilar trajectory the rate is different.

    I guess this comparison sort of demonstrates whether it’ll be a legal or illegal implementation.

  • Samsy@lemmy.ml
    0·
    4 months ago

    As a non-american just watching the democratic shitshow I can’t believe why on earth there are only two parties. If the parties are fucked up, build a new one. That’s what democracy is made for.

    Macrons party in France was fresh up from the ground at his first election.

    PS. I’m aware that France is a bad example actually, but the fact about his party is still true.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      0·
      4 months ago

      As a non-american just watching the democratic shitshow I can’t believe why on earth there are only two parties.

      In a lot of cases, there’s only one real functioning party. Smaller states and gerrymandered districts tend to have a single dominant party and a secondary dissident party, with the dominant party controlling all the statewide offices and most of the legislative seats, while the dissident party controls some number of municipal seats where they have a local majority.

      Macrons party in France was fresh up from the ground at his first election.

      Macron spun En Marche out of the collapsed ruin of Hollande’s Socialist Party (*) (for whom he was deputy secretary general until Hollande’s ouster). He was more akin to Lincoln’s Republicans (who emerged from the wrecked carcass of the American Whig Party) or Theodore Roosevelt’s Bull Moose Party (which might as well have been Republicans For Roosevelt Party, given how badly Wilson rocked both him and Taft).

      (*) don’t get too existed. they were pretty thin on actual socialism.

      Le Penn’s National Front has a real foundation (of French fascists) that existed before she started mobilizing the party and will stick around after she’s gone. Similarly the New Popular Front (not to be confused with The People’s Front of Judea rimshot) has a broad coalition of support that transcends any one leader. Both are more in line with a traditional American party.

      • Samsy@lemmy.ml
        0·
        4 months ago

        Looks like I know shit about French politics, thanks, TIL.

        Btw. maybe it needs a strong movement to create a real third party. A workers union for example, there is a lot of potential if they unite. BLM, too. America had strong movements in the past but none of them went into a political party, sadly.

    • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
      0·
      4 months ago

      Americans are near universally convinced that third-parties are a dead end, which becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. I’ve never understood it and I would’ve thought having two obviously non-viable candidates would challenge that assumption, but it doesn’t seem like anything will. The classic Simpsons bit where both candidates get replaced by evil space aliens but still get elected because “what are you going to do, vote third party?” was not an exaggeration in the slightest. Americans just accept anything.

      • John_McMurray@lemmy.world
        0·
        4 months ago

        its because the indivual states entrenched the two parties. It’s really difficult to form another national party. The two main candidates also often run as nominess for smaller state level parties.

    • ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
      0·
      4 months ago

      First past the post elections. If we had ranked choice or runoff elections, more parties would appear.

      Instead, in FPTP, every vote that is not for one of the two highest-polling candidates is objectively a wasted vote. Game theory dictates that the only rational choice is a vote for one of those two candidates, since the possibility of a third party gaining enough votes to win in any single election nearly infinitesimal. So instead of many parties, all candidates self-sort into one of the two viable parties. Any candidate that does not is a protest candidate or deluded, but in either case, there is no hope of actually winning.

      So what about primaries? The primary system decides the candidates, but even that is tainted by FPTP, because primary voters have to guess which will perform better in a FPTP general election and often vote against their ideal candidate in the hopes of winning (or, not losing) the general.

      In short, until we structurally reform elections to be ranked/STAR/runoff/etc to remove the punitive effect of voting for your actual ideal candidate, we’re stuck with a prisoner’s dilemma election every time.

  • johny@feddit.orgEnglish
    0·
    4 months ago

    They are not the same, the republicans are the psychopath shooting up a classroom of kids, and the democrats are the Uvalde cops tasing those that try to stop it.

  • Phegan@lemmy.world
    0·
    4 months ago

    They aren’t the same. They are bad in different ways. One side are corporate shills who are looking to depress the power of workers the other wants to kill blacks, lgbtqa+, Latinos and turn women into sex slave baby machines.

    One is clearly worse and we should vote against them, but don’t tell me the Democrats aren’t bad.

    • ATPA9@feddit.de
      0·
      4 months ago

      Aren’t republicans also corporate shills who are looking to depress the power of workers? And aren’t they much more open about being so?

      • Phegan@lemmy.world
        0·
        4 months ago

        They absolutely are. My point was, and I apologize if it didn’t come through, republicans are bad in every way Democrats are and beyond. But the Democrats aren’t good.

  • hark@lemmy.world
    0·
    4 months ago

    They both serve the rich first and foremost which is a critical issue for them to be “both sides” on. Yes, republicans are worse, but that doesn’t make democrats good.

    • Bernie_Sandals@lemmy.world
      0·
      4 months ago

      No party that “served the rich” would’ve even let people like Bernie into the party, let alone give them committee assignments and let them run for president on their ticket.

      There’s no point in arguing that the Democratic Party is entirely controlled by the rich other than to encourage political nihilism. It has always been possible and always will be possible to beat wins out of (or even change/become) the party establishment through concerted effort and activism, as happened in the 30s, the Civil Rights Era, and the purging of the Blue Dogs after the Civil Rights era.

      Bernie’s losses were disheartening, but abandoning any effort to sway the democrats and writing them off as “servants of the rich” when the decade before 2016 had been one of growing progressivism within the party and when Bernie unfortunately never even beat Hillary in a Dem Primary Poll, is the political equivalent of taking your ball and going home.

      Bash on the DNC and NDC all you want, but until we replace them with progressives like was done to the segregationist dems or lose doing so, there’s no point in writing off the Democratic Party.

      • hark@lemmy.world
        0·
        4 months ago

        That they fought harder to stop Bernie from getting the nomination twice than they ever fought against trump speaks volumes. Just because they allow progressives to do a few minimal things, doesn’t mean the party does not serve the rich first and foremost. This is like how freedom of speech is allowed until it becomes a threat to the establishment (see pro-Palestinian protests that were shut down with bullshit excuses). When the possibility arose that Bernie could make actual significant change, the party threw a shitfit.

        The democratic party will never be replaced with progressives because their donors won’t allow it.

        • Bernie_Sandals@lemmy.world
          0·
          4 months ago

          That they fought harder to stop Bernie from getting the nomination twice than they ever fought against trump speaks volumes.

          I don’t remember almost every single Democrat bashing Bernie publicly every single time they had the chance like most democrats did with Trump for the last 8 years. Are you not remembering the firestorm of statements from elected officials anytime Trump did something horrific?

          The democratic party will never be replaced with progressives because their donors won’t allow it.

          I bet Malcom X and the Segregationist Democrats would’ve felt the exact same, and yet that last set of reactionary Dems has been completely purged from the party since the 60s.