1 point

Ah nice, you’re getting a head start on the “blame the voter” strategy for the next election. Good job!

permalink
report
reply
7 points

I’m fairly sure it’s not the voters they’re blaming. It’s the people who didn’t vote.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Ok sorry “electorate”. Debatelord semantics aside, the point remains the same.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

Ah nice, you’re getting a head start on the “blame the voter” strategy for the next election. Good job!

When a vote goes a certain way who else would you blame but the voters?

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

The out of touch political party. Is this not obvious at this point?

permalink
report
parent
reply
26 points

We need a new party for the working class. The democrats are no longer that party and it cannot be saved.

permalink
report
reply
1 point

well, we could have had that but 20 million cucks refused to vote.

now we get fascist dictatorship.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-10 points
*

You’re right. MAGAxMAHA has absorbed the working class and is in the process of shedding the RINOS. Looks like Dems have scooped the RINOS up

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

You can’t tax an economy into prosperity, you can’t regulate a nation into prosperity, and you can’t export your industry and become prosperous.

The Democrats and Republicans since about 1965 have worked in concert to offshore industry, tax and regulate domestic businesses out of profitability, printed more money then you can imagine - driving inflation. And the crowning jewel of all of this was killing to gold standard, with a nice improvement to the display of the crown through implementation of Free trade.

If we had a Fair trade arrangement - that allowed for Tariffs that explicitly were put in place to undermine the value of subsidizing foreign production that is exported to your nation, we would have a very different story. If we had an explicit way or costing up production that is done to the detriment of environmental standards - China and such would have had actual pressure to clean up their environmental standards.

Lets explore something that demonstrates the missunderstanding:

I want to talk about China, It’s National Security concern, and Renewables. And yes - these three things are linked HEAVILY.

A lot of people who are pro Renewables will point to China: They can do it. And sure - they can. But what they entirely miss out on, is that to China Renewable energy is THE ONLY OPTION FOR ENERGY INDEPENDENCE. And Energy independence is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIALLY if you want to be a global power. Energy independence allows the nation to be more aggressive without risk of embargo - for if China were to engage militarily in Taiwan, the shipping lanes in and out of china could be put under blockade, western insurers would basically kill the option to use them to ensure the ships going to/coming from the region - and that would dramatically reduce the amount of oil/gas coming into the nation. It would also limit food entering the nation.

See: A Nation like Canada, or the US, who are each are (or capable of being) food AND energy independent - you can’t exactly siege them. While the last several decades manufacturing in these nations has been lacking, these nations also have tremendous mineral resource availability if they ever choose to start exploiting it at scale again: China has none of this.

Traditionally, this is why China has a strong incentive to facilitate the power of their Empire through Trade (ex. Silk Road). Because they have such need of importing food (especially over the last couple of decades), trade is the only option China has for expanding it’s influence. China CAN NOT use military force without fear of retribution that literally starves out it’s populace of energy, and food. Basically: China is vulnerable to a nation wide siege. And China’s potential greatest Rival: The US, has the absolute means to do this.

So, in order to solve ONE of these problems, China needs Energy Security through renewable. Oddly enough - in the mid term, as China’s populace begins to shrink it will become feasible for China to become food independent as well. Once that occurs, we may very well see China become more aggressive militarily.

Now: Take that same principle and apply it to EVERY SINGLE POLITICAL ISSUE.

When you start to see the agenda’s being pushed - and start ripping down and looking at the underlying motivations which come down to “we don’t want to die” and a couple other core ideas - each of which is very immediate - what we find is both Republicans, and Democrats are prone to ignoring the details in favour of pushing their agenda.

See: Climate change is very much real - the only question is, how much is it human caused? See - the big forest fires in Western Canada/US come down to a couple of things that are piling up over the last 5 or so years. 1. Beavers killed in massive quantities through the 1700’s and 1800’s. 2. Then we have massive fire suppression. 3. Then we have clear cutting of forests. Beavers seems odd - but beavers build damns out of wood, wet wood takes A LONG time to dry, like - from green wood to dry we are talking a year of air drying in near ideal conditions per inch of thickness and the beaver damns are… wet, covered in part by silt, and it’s deep. From the time the water ways start re-routing we are probably talking like 100-150 years for that material to dry out, break down and rot, and otherwise cease helping to maintain moisture in the area. When you suppress fires heavily - underbrush builds up and as it dries, becomes perfect fuel for a forest fire. Then you have the clear cutting which accelerates the drying of the area out. Look at the time lines and: Yep, forest fires will probably remain a problem for another decade or so.

What is going to fix the forests is: Removal of artificial damns (more fish in the water ways), Recovery of Beaver populations (they slow water ways and redirect them - they don’t stop them and control them the same way artificial ones do), and ceasing clear cut in favour of selective cuts and thinning (doing it this way does cost more per log, but - it actually can help the forest grow more lush, and a more limited area of forest support more life as more shrub and such is capable of growing in a way that allows safe spaces for wild life while providing food sources in the form of berries etc).

You know what WILL NOT fix the forest fire situation? Fighting carbon emissions. But that is exactly the argument.

I don’t see republicans, or democrats arguing for sensible long term models for dealing with the problems in a sensible way that can actually solve the problem. I see radical climate denial, and radical human caused arguments - and they aren’t useful, nor helpful but it’s what the media focuses on, it’s what gets spouted, because: It’s easy.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

What?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Don’t mind him. Just his usual incoherent blather.

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

You don’t get to have a “perfect” candidate. Most of the time, your choices are between which choice you dislike the least. And when the choices are between Harris and another 4 years of Donald farking Trump . . . well holy jumping shitballs . . . that should have been the easiest choice in the world.

Fark EVERYONE who made this possible. And enjoy your precious little “protest vote” Dems. This is your fault, too.

permalink
report
reply
4 points

You mistyped a few fucks.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

No its the DNC’s fault. The onus is on them to win votes. I voted for Harris, but i wasnt excited to do so. That lack of excitement kept people home. Harris ran to the right and didnt give a fuck about winning leftists or the working class, banking on Liz Chaney to win her Republican votes. It didnt work. The dems need to focus on being progressive, not being slightly less worse than Republicans in the grand scheme of things.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Your assignment of blame assumes that most people shouldn’t be involved in their democracies at all. But that’s kinda not how democracies are supposed to work. For the people, by the people.

No doubt, the parties and the system share a large degree of the blame and they’re extremely far away from being perfect — but the notion that politicians have to come to you and dazzle you as a citizen is not excusable either.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Harris was literally choosen by the DNC. She’s never won a presidential primary.

permalink
report
parent
reply
26 points

Good news, you’ll all be able to sit out the next one as well!

permalink
report
reply
-2 points

Yes, they’ll have the choice to do so for many, many years to come. :)

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

On a plane being deported or in a cell being detained?

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

You likely won’t get another that isn’t a complete sham like they have in Russia

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points
*

I don’t mind progressives staying home in 2016 to send the message to the DNC that a more progressive candidate was needed.

What I have a problem with is those same progressives showing up for Biden in record numbers in 2020, which sends a conflicting message to the DNC that you do need to put up a white moderate against Trump, and then staying home in 2024 when another moderate is on the ticket.

I hear you Bernie bros, I wish Bernie had been on the ticket in 2016 as well, but we’ll never know whether he would have beat Trump in the general. I would have rather given Trump four more years in 2020, then have to still deal with him now.

If he had just won in 2020, then we wouldn’t have had a violent insurrection that WILL happen again because it was validated by re-electing this guy and failing to hold him accountable.

Now it’s both totally unclear whether a progressive candidate could actually win in the general, and we have to deal with Trump until 2028. If the Democrats put up a progressive candidate like an AOC for 2028 and still lose… Then we’re completely fucked and would have to swing moderate again in 2032… would progressives still stay home out of protest if it’s shown that progressive policies are unpopular in the general election? Or would progressives finally agree to get behind a moderate candidate?

To be clear, I hope the Democratic primaries for 2028 do yield a more progressive candidate, and that they do win the general, but this is a really dangerous gamble. I hope the nation, world and vulnerable groups can hang on while we see if it will pay off.

permalink
report
reply
6 points

I’ve been wondering if would be better off if McCain or Romney had won. Not that they would be better than Obama but questioning if that time-line would have avoided Trump. Fuck that’s depressing.

And I bet Obama has nightmares about that event where he made a joke at Trump’s expense.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

america will never be progressive and elections, while might be held in ‘28 there’s a model out there turnip is already looking to import. why do you think he’s crowing about orban and putin all the time?

permalink
report
parent
reply

Political Memes

!politicalmemes@lemmy.world

Create post

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.

Community stats

  • 13K

    Monthly active users

  • 2.1K

    Posts

  • 61K

    Comments