725
cats can't vote in the primaries
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Feb 2024
725 points (98.3% liked)
Antique Memes Roadshow
6016 readers
1 users here now
Giving you the backstory and appraisals of vintage memes!
Submissions should be vintage memes or commentary about vintage memes. Commenters are advised to appraise the internet value and provenance meme antiquities.
Rules:
- Posts should be old memes or about old memes.
- Don’t be a jerk. Be excellent to each other.
- Keep it safe for work.
- Follow global .world instance rules outlined here
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
We could have had Bernie. I can't even imagine how different so many things would have been...
We weren't allowed to have him, some rich people would have slightly less money.
Who do I vote for so rich people can have a lot less money?
That's the fun part. You can't. They have had studies since the '70s that show that if they'd pay everyone a thriving wage, they'd be even richer than they are. Funny thing, when the working class has disposable income we buy shit. They are no longer interested in their net worth. The new high score is how many people they can kill with needless suffering before we realize that scarcity actually disappeared in the '70s, and everyone should be living their best life, and we decide to kill them back.
Claudia De la Cruz
:(
I think rfk is running on that
Lol. Lmao even.
his website says he will increase wealth for all.
Ohhh fuck thats right I forgot my oligarchal overloads for a minute
They'd actually have more money. They've had studies since the mid '70s that proved that if they'd just pay everyone a thriving wage, they would be richer than they are. This makes perfect sense when you realize that the entire system is designed to funnel money up to them.
Cruelty is the point. They aren't going for the high score of net worth, or bank account numbers. They are going for a literal body count. They're intentionally causing needless suffering, because they know we passed the point of scarcity in the '70s, so once we finally fix this shit no human, or animal that we interact with, will needlessly suffer ever again. They are intentionally trying to destroy the climate so they can keep their power, and continue needless human suffering.
You're right in the first part, but their motivation is power. Money is just a very good way to obtain power. Cruelty isn't the point, it's just the fastest way to get money and thus power.
I don't know about that, there isn't much of a point to it. I understand the idea of keeping the poors poor so they need to work. I get the idea of greed blinding them to the concept that higher wages = more money to buy their products, but I never understand the argument of evil for the sake of evil.
Those people exist, but not in any number that should have a visible affect on our society. I think it's more about blind greed and power hungry people.
There are only ≈2000 billionaires. That's a small enough percentage of the population. Maybe not all of them are straight up evil, but enough are that they have set up the system to perpetuate needless suffering. We also have studies that prove that one harmful billionaire will cause more damage than 10 beneficent billionaires can clean up.
Sanders lost by over 1000 delegates or around ~3,700,000 out of ~30,000,000 total voters.
He lost pretty heavily in most populous states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2016_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries
I'm aware of the results. Are you aware of super delegates and how they skewed the reporting? Many people were discouraged from even voting because the polls showed Hillary with a commanding lead before the public voting even began. The DNC pushed Hillary through because they felt it was "her turn". Idk about anyone else but I felt completely disenfranchised by their actions during those primaries.
They also fought pretty hard against giving Bernie any screen time or any attention to keep it all on Hillary. I felt that the DNC decided who it was going to be before he even had a chance.
What do you mean?? Don't you remember as soon as he seemed to have a lead every supposed "lIbErAl MeDiA" propaganda outlet ran with "Bernie loves Castro!" "Bernie said a nice thing about Cuba! Communism!! Communism!!! Beeee afraiddddd!!"
I'd be feeding my cat so much more salami.
Never let your cat forget that a better world is possible. ✊🥲
I voted for Sanders in the 2016 primary, but at this point I think he would have been destroyed, McGovern-style, if he'd been the nominee either time. He never had to face a truly negative campaign in the primaries and there's no telling how he would have fared if Republicans (and some Democrats!) really twisted the knife with stuff like "the rape essay", his employment history, his association with socialism, etc. We made out so much better with a moderate-seeming guy like Biden who managed to secure most of what Sanders would have been realistically able to pass while giving it a nice centrist sheen.
The polls at the time showed him doing better against Trump than Hillary, given that he would bring out the progressive vote along with the usual dem vote. Which is why him getting railroaded out by the "her turn" group was such a blatant travesty. And why I blame them for Trump getting elected.
People forget that there was a sizable "Bernie or Trump" crowd as well. Essentially people that just want ANY change from the permanent status-quo we've had for the last 30-40 years.
There were a couple of people who loudly said that before the election, but afterwards it turned out to be a negligible number of people who actually meant it.
... the same progressive votes that got him to be the nominee? Wait... He won my state. Doesn't mean shit if others weren't on board.
I think the UN should get called in to monitor the Den voting process. They might be slightly worse than Nigeria.
Could've lost the middle ground undecideds.
Oh well. They get constant catering by dems and they're really just Republicans anyway considering how far to the right "the middle" is around here.
I mean looking at how elections have gone in the US, the undecided between the two parties often decide the elections. It's a fairly important group to cater to if you're all about winning.
Just getting the people who would vote to the polls would be a better use of time and energy IMO. Didn't vote is still the winning candidate in most elections.
They probably consider it a wasted effort or very unsure to benefit them as much as going to those undecideds who are going to vote.
Nah, Bernie could have been great
It probably would have gone like in the UK where the Labour party smeared Jeremy Corbyn and rather destroyed itself.