The constant "there's a dang Cheeto in the white house!" comes with the implication that anyone who wasn't "the Cheeto" would be meaningfully different in the role.

Particularly in 2016 - 2020 the implication was Hillary, now it's Harris, as that's who he ran against.

Edit: It's a focus on the individual in the role rather than the system itself, despite vast evidence that the problems are long term and systemic. Whether the intention or not, it's undeniably a liberal defense of the broader system itself.

[–] constnt@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Then say that.

Op says, 'I hate coke" and we respond "Pepsi is also bad" . This doesn't ever even imply that soda just sucks. It just shuts down discussion, makes us sound contrarian.

[–] Grapho@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You're literally defending Harris in the next thread. Don't play coy.

[–] constnt@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Please show me. Cuz Ive only posted in a MMORPG sub before this. Oh and a post about mold at one point.

[–] m532@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 1 day ago

Your comment further down in this very thread: "A Harris presidency wouldn’t be threatening nuclear action."

Liar, coward, imperialist

[–] PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Then insert your own politician. Same analysis applies. The issue is the existence of the system, not the identity of the figurehead running it.

[–] constnt@lemmy.world -3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

A Harris presidency wouldn't be threatening nuclear action. But I totally agree. The entire system needs tossed. And if that's what you mean then say that. All this "Harris is the same" just promotes apathy at best, and derision between the left and liberals at worst at a time where unity is needed and doesn't even hint at "the system is broken".

[–] PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

A Harris presidency wouldn't be threatening nuclear action.

Sure they would. They'd just keep it out of the public eye. Otherwise, we'd dismantle all our nukes. Keeping them is a threat enough.

The entire system needs tossed. And if that's what you mean then say that.

I did, and I say that all the time. I'm openly an anarchist 🏴🏴🏴.

All this "Harris is the same" just promotes apathy at best, and derision between the left and liberals at worst at a time where unity is needed and doesn't even hint at "the system is broken".

Yes you absolutely should be apathetic to the circus of two-party politics. Of course we shouldn't be apathetic to the brutal realities of capitalism, but both parties already are, and following the "circus" at all directs attention away from the reality of capitalism because that's what it's designed to do.

And do not get me started on liberals and their derision. It literally does not matter how nice and flowery leftists make our ideas, liberals will always shit on them and side with the fash until they stop being liberals, because liberals are creatures of the right. So at some point, we gotta put our feet down and say "This is what we stand for, and if you're against that, you're against us." I'm willing to make "supporting one of the genocidaires is bad and should not be done" one of those things.

[–] veganbtw@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 day ago

LOL Harris would be threatening a nuclear option. The President of the US doesn't dictate the national priorities or politics of the empire. It is a dog and pony show for suckers who believe in it like you. FYI Santa isn't real either, neither is the tooth fairy.