• Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    5 months ago

    Dem majorities rarely do either, tbh.

    The Dem leadership consider compromise for the sake of compromise the highest virtue and refuse to adjust that belief to the realities that

    A) The GOP is now a literal fascist party,

    B) The fascist GOP does not ever negotiate in good faith, and thus

    C) any compromise with them will be unacceptable concessions in exchange for little to nothing.

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        Democratic majorities are rare

        Because the Dem leadership is obsessed with appealing to an increasingly tiny portion of the electorate, alienating everyone to the left of Reagan who isn’t in the “Blue No Matter Who” cult of settling for second worst.

        The last time Democrats had control of Congress we got the ACA and DACA

        Which are both extremely watered down versions of what they initially promised. This due to the efforts of the very right wing Democrats the leadership keeps pushing over more progressive candidates whose policy positions are more in line with those of the population in general rather than the rich people, corporations and management side industry groups who donate a shitload of money to both Republicans and conservative Democrats.

          • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            Nope. That’s both a strawman and a false dichotomy.

            I’m saying that the Dems aren’t good enough.

            “Slightly better than literal fascists” is not a high enough bar and demanding more isn’t the same thing as endorsing the fascists.

            If that’s still too hard to understand, let me put it this way: in spite of having done nothing to deserve it, you’re being given the choice between being kicked in the head or stabbed in the liver.

            Objecting to the lesser assault is NOT a request to be stabbed.

            • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              That’s an imperfect analogy. It’s more like defending yourself. You may still get stabbed, but you have a better chance of stopping the attacker than doing nothing.

              • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                That’s an imperfect analogy

                Of course it’s imperfect. It was dumbed down for you to be able to understand it. Unsuccessfully, alas.

                It’s more like defending yourself

                No it’s not. Saying that everyone being kicked in the head should stop complaining about the assault and in stead thank the assailants for not being the other, worse, assailants is NOT defending anyone.

                You may still get stabbed

                Yeah, that’s the other thing I didn’t cover: sometimes the kicking assailants will just straight up let you be stabbed anyway even if you elected enough of them.

                They’re being paid much more by the steel toe boot association and the combat knife manufacturers than anyone trying to make the assaults stop, after all…

                you have a better chance of stopping the attacker than doing nothing

                Protesting inaction in the face of fascism isn’t nothing.

                Advocating for the rotten status quo that allowed the rise of fascism, though? THAT’S doing nothing.

                Going so far as shaming dissenting opinions, lumping everyone who’s not satisfied with negative peace (the absence of disorder) in with the fascists? That’s WORSE than doing nothing.

        • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Because the Dem leadership is obsessed with appealing to an increasingly tiny portion of the electorate, alienating everyone to the left of Reagan who isn’t in the “Blue No Matter Who” cult of settling for second worst.

          No, because land area determines the legislature and not population. The Republican Senate hasn’t represented more than half the population in the US since 1996, but had control for most of that time. Every Democratic majority is a short-lived thing after massive uphill battle, because America leans hard to the right we value land area more than people.

          In short: This is the best our government can do, because it’s structurally deficient and Americans are pretty dumb.

          • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            No, because land area determines the legislature and not population

            That’s a big part of the reason too, yes.

            America American law leans hard to the right we it values land area more than people

            Fixed it for you. And guess who’s had ample opportunity to do something, ANYTHING, about that throughout the decades and have hardly even tried beyond empty campaign ad sound bites? Starts with a D…

            This is the best our government can do

            Ridiculous defeatism.

            because it’s structurally deficient

            Which SOME people have the power to do something about but actively avoid addressing outside of fundraising appeals.

            Americans are pretty dumb.

            Some are, but NOWHERE near the majority. For example, the largest share of the population that ever voted for Trump was 20%.