that just means we're done with the GOP
Sadly the GOP isn’t done with us.
"in Soviet america, you don't vote for GOP, GOP votes for you!"
that's what THEY think, son
They've already tried their shit in a small town. Got hit by a chair, and someone swam in from two counties over to beat their asses. Didn't need guns or weapons, just a wholesome ass beating.
Been that way for a while now
while I get and in many ways agree with the sentiment, it is truthful to assert that there was a time when if the Republican Party lost elections, they would actually change their platform and try to win back voters. As American popular culture has shifted more and more to the left, however, now that it's pretty much unthinkable for the electoral map of 1984 to happen again, and they see it as an existential threat.
Absolutely. Anyone under 30-40 pretty much only knows the GOP as the party of "Obama is a MMUSL1M!1!!!", but like, it was the Nixon Administration that created the EPA. It's also difficult because much of the economic issues we've experienced from 2008 onwards are because of the Clinton Administration, so the "both parties are the same" argument can be pretty compelling. You could definitely make the argument that in the 90s, they were, but Beau of the Fifth Column on YouTube put it well:
You walk into a bar to find an ATM while on a road trip with your very visibly-queer friend. The bar is full of MAGA hats. Do you feel comfortable leaving your friend out front while you look for the ATM, and maybe take a leak? Now imagine the bar is full of "Vote Blue no Matter Who" shirts.
Judge Cannon watches Fox News? That's quite the surprise
Don't fall for it. Conservatives have been beating the It's a republic, not a democracy for many years now. They are too dumb to realize representative democracy is a form of democracy. We should have a direct democracy in electing the President. And I have no problem with Representatives voting on all the other stuff. Then again, a lot of times that means shit doesn't even come up for a vote because the controlling party will say some bullshit like "We don't have the votes to vote on it". I'm not sure how to fix that, aside from electing better reps, but humans sure like the incumbent, no matter how ineffectual they have been.
Let's say you had s choice between two schools.
School A makes an attempt to teach things that are true. Some teachers make less of an attempt than others and will make mistakes. Some will outright promote propaganda but are generally frowned upon by the others.
School B has teachers that lie almost exclusively. Teachers who don't are being drummed out of the school as traitors to the school.
Given how extremely similar these schools must appear to you, which do you pick?
You just described actual schools, public schools are being controlled and stifled from teaching certain things via book bans now though, or new teaching restrictions. Meanwhile your school B example sounds like the now publicly funded private schools that just teach via indoctrination.
A little close to home tbh..
Like the "slaves had it good" bullshit from pragerU that Florida just approved for classrooms? Oh wait I'm sorry it's from PragerKids... cause they have a whole wing to target children in exactly the ways Republicans claim without evidence that Democrats do.
From Republicans, every accusation is a confession. Just look at child marriage laws and the expansion they are trying to do to see how badly they want be able to own and fuck children.
Indoctrination to have more control down the road, exactly.
Hey, asshole. Why don't YOU change MY mind?! Cuz the last time I checked there was only one party that is willing to get in bed with antisemites, LGBTQ hate groups, fascists, white supremacists, and...uh...oh yeah, rich billionaires.
Seems to me one party is a little more desperate to control the general population, and it certainly looks like that party doesn't care who they have to get into bed with to accomplish their nightmarish goals.
So why don't you do the hard work for once and YOU change MY mind?
Not that what you say is incorrect, but you should be very wary of believing that a party's name is a good indicator for its actual policies. I know the US only has two parties with very generic names, but in other countries with more parties, names can be deceiving.
Green parties be like:
You mean to tell me the Rhinoceros Party wasn't really about rhinoceroses‽
National Socialist
Oooh! Oooooh! ☝🏻🤓 Le both sides bad!! LMAO I'M SO EDUCATED 🤣🤣🤣
Okay, Crowder. Don't you have a podcast to blather on?
I certainly am in favor of a popular vote for president. The only reason anyone would want the president elected by a convoluted system whereby our votes don't directly count toward who we want to represent us all is because the system is currently benefiting their side disproportionately. The only reasons the electoral college exists at this point are to give some states an outsized weight on the end result and to override the will of the people in the form of faithless electors. But electors could've prevented the disastrous Trump presidency and chose not to, so if they're going to rubber stamp an unpopular and unqualified candidate, they are not fulfilling their original purpose.
The only way I'm in favor of keeping the electoral college is if we uncap the size of the House of Representatives (which I think we should do anyway). The House no longer represents the makeup of the entire American public because it's now unnaturally skewed conservative and each representative represents over 700,000 constituents. If we'd kept expanding the House about the same rate we used to (and should), we'd have almost 700 representatives. This system is increasingly unfair and undemocratic.
I would go further and cap the representatives at 250,000 citizens rather than 500,000, thereby expanding the house to over 1300 representatives. This would allow third party blocks to form, and potentially gain enough traction to have more than one third party senator.
Athenian democracy didn't even exist in Athens. Representation has always been part of democracy. They're not mutually exclusive or even distinct. Democratic governance requires government. Stop fucking this particular chicken.
Democratic governance for whom?
A privileged few, elected by a similarly privileged citizenry, wielded political authority through a monopoly on the force of violence. Ancient Athens for the poor, for women, and for non-Greeks was a dictatorship.
We cannot change that which you do not possess.
That's nice, but we're talking about the GOP right now.
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
save