this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2025
479 points (95.1% liked)

Liberty Hub

459 readers
93 users here now

  1. No Discrimination, this includes usage of slurs or other language intended to promote bigotry
  2. No defending oppressive systems or organizations
  3. No uncivil or rude comments to other users
  4. Discussion, not debate. This community is exclusively for genuine logical debate, any comments using whataboutism or similar will be removed.
  5. No genocide denial or support for genocidal entities. Anyone that supports the mass murder of civilians will be banned.

These guidelines are meant to allow open discussion and ensure leftists and post-leftists can have a voice. If you are here to learn, then welcome! Just remember that if you're not a part of the left (Liberals don't count) then you are a visitor, please do not speak over our members.

Matrix server: https://matrix.to/#/#libertyhub:matrix.org

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone
Cassa@lemmy.blahaj.zone
TwiddleTwaddle@lemmy.blahaj.zone
LinkOpensChest_wav@lemmy.blahaj.zone
479
Controlled opposistion. (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 1 week ago by eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/libertyhub@lemmy.blahaj.zone
19 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

For a long time, I thought the Democrats were fighting valiantly but just overwhelmed by the oligarchy and the Republicans. Then I saw that the Democrats keep losing fights they should win and figured they must be just weak and ineffectual. Then I kept seeing them backing off without putting up a fight at all and decided they were gutless cowards. Finally I noticed that enough of them keep voting with the Republicans to always make sure the Republicans more or less win almost every fight, and that they keep starting from a Center position and bargaining to the Right, and eventually after enough of that it became impossible to ignore the only conclusion that actually fits the facts: The Democrats are not over matched, they aren’t weak, they aren’t cowards…they’re complicit.

all 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Rob200@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 days ago

In the u.s, the main parties are the republicans and the democrats. 3rd parties don't receive much news coverage because, one or the other main parties, also dominate the news media in the u.s. Not many people know that there were attempts for a socialist party in the u.s, because the news will not cover them as much as they will cover "their hatred for trump."

average people in the u.s generally (they aren't people who study a lot of literature, just general people.) They even understand that both sides aren't perfect. They know.

the issue is.

When it comes to one political party vs the other, guess where people are going to always flock to. If it isn't one, it's the other, because to them, it's only that other one that might have a chance of making the change they want. 3rd party political parties have a hard time gaining traction.

[–] burgerpocalyse@lemmy.world 9 points 6 days ago

blowing up a hundred years of institutional structure with no regard is different than maintaining one

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 77 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Frankly, seeing them literally enable shit that he’s doing now convinced me of a thing I fought HARD against in the general: the DNC is fully dead at this point. There is no rescuing it as a political party. It is completely insensitive to the needs and wishes of the American people, and that is specifically why it lost. A new party is required. Before, I thought the more dangerous option was to fracture the vote. I’ve come to understand that this is just a sunk-cost fallacy. I didn’t think the DNC would be as absolutely feckless as it was - I thought there were still some actual, intelligent, well-meaning people still in the room, but there weren’t, and there aren’t. Even considering the crazy hurdles that are put in place to enforce two-party rule, I genuinely no longer see any real benefit to staying with the party.

[–] zea_64@lemmy.blahaj.zone 31 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I used to think we should vote for slowing down the badness (voting Democrat instead of letting Republicans win), but after seeing them do almost nothing in the face of obvious fascism and rule-breaking (the Democrats love being bound by rules), maybe it's better to burn everything down faster. Stalling might have just been boiling the frog that is the US citizenry.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 week ago

I mean, I see it with a bit more nuance than that.

I voted D before across the board last election because I saw it as a brake on the course towards fascism. The fact that Democratic leadership across the board is too fucking limpdick to do anything other than set up deals that will OBVIOUSLY be dropped on the floor the second the fascists get what they want is just the final object lesson that they’re not fit for purpose. They’ve taken away the whole “we’re fighting against fascism” thing, and that was the only reason I so fervently pushed to line up support behind any Democrats I could. So whereas before, the disincentive for a 3p vote was “it will probably help the fascists win”… that logic no longer works, because the fascists have won.

So, fuck you, DNC. I will go 3p, or even just write shit in if you don’t give me a compelling candidate now. You negotiated your way into complete irrelevance, and sold us down the river while you were at it. Good fucking job.

[–] Doctor_Satan@lemm.ee 45 points 1 week ago (3 children)

I agree with everything you've written, but the meme is garbage. I don't want people in power who will "blow through all the barriers", regardless of what their intentions are. I want better barriers that allow for meaningful change while preventing idiots from being elected and selling our country out to foreign billionaires and corporations.

Unfortunately, the genie is out of the bottle now, and the only way to fight back is to blow through barriers, and hope that whoever ends up in charge creates better ones. Because if this is going to be the new norm, where we just disregard the rules forever, then we are done for.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

This is how I feel. I would not vote for the dems if this is how they did things.

[–] Doctor_Satan@lemm.ee 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Most people wouldn't, which is why this argument is a non-starter for me. When people say Dems should've played dirty to stop the Republicans, I just roll my eyes. It would never work, because the majority of people who vote Dem would never support that kind of politicking under normal circumstances. But now we're at the precipice, and we are slowly finding out that even the most milquetoast Dem voters are willing to support the dirtiest tricks just to get out from under the grip of this techno-fascist bullshit.

I just hope we can find our way back to some kind of sanity once the dust settles.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Supporting dirty tricks won't get us back to sanity though. Either our system runs following its own laws which desperately need to be modified to shore up civil liberties and restrict corporations and money in politics or people lay down their lives. We can't get out of this pit by digging deeper.

[–] Doctor_Satan@lemm.ee 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I don't see any legal or legislative way out of the mess we're in when the current government (and about a third of the country) doesn't believe in the law or the rules of legislation, and the so-called "opposition" party is weak and feckless at best, and complicit at worst. We either either get our hands dirty or have a civil war. I'm open to ideas that don't involve wither one. but I can't think of any.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

oh civil war is an option that may or may not work but dirty tricks won't get us to a system based on rules and law it will just be based on who dirtiest the most tricks. I see a legislative and legal way out. impeach trump for breaking the law, reversing like a ton of the crappiest laws of the last 30 years. More laws and amendments to enshrine civil liberties and to clearly limit executive power. laws to limit money in politics and make clear that coporations are not persons. stuff like that. its still possible it can be done but unlikely. dirty tricks for good though is impossible to fix the system.

[–] Doctor_Satan@lemm.ee 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I see a legislative and legal way out. impeach trump for breaking the law

Sorry, I should've been more clear. I meant a legal or legislative way out that's realistic. Even when we had the numbers to impeach Trump twice, we still didn't have the numbers (two thirds) to convict him and remove him from office. The Schumer-Pelosi gang of octogenarian Dems isn't going to control Congress with those numbers ever again. It'll be at least a generation before the Democratic party has that kind of power (if it ever happens), and Trump will be long in the ground by then.

More laws and amendments to enshrine civil liberties and to clearly limit executive power. laws to limit money in politics and make clear that coporations are not persons. stuff like that.

There are two ways to ratify a Constitutional amendment. The first way is to get two thirds of both the House and Senate to vote in favor of the amendment, and then to ratify it you need three quarters of all state legislatures to approve it without changing the wording, otherwise the whole process starts over. The second way is to have two thirds of all states petition Congress for a Constitutional convention (34 states), and again have three quarters of all states approve of the amendment word-for-word (38 states). No amendment has ever been approved by the second method.

For perspective, in the 111th Congress of 2009 following Obama's historic crushing win against McCain, the House was 255-D and 179-R, and the Senate was 57-D, 41-R, and 2-I (who caucused with Dems). This was the strongest the Dems had been since the 90s. To get a Constitutional amendment passed and ratified in 2009, Democrats would've had to convince 33 Republican Representatives and 9 Republican Senators to vote in favor of an amendment, and then assuming that every single Democratic state legislature is 100% on board, they'd have to pray that all 8 split legislature states and at least 3 Republican state legislatures approve it for ratification without changing a single word.**

For even more historical perspective, the last time Democrats controlled enough of Congress and state legislatures to theoretically pass and ratify a Constitutional amendment without any Republican support was between 1937 and 1939, and they still didn't do it (though they did get a ton of New Deal stuff done).

Nothing would make me happier than for the midterms to turn into an alcoholic moment of clarity for the American working class, where "we the people" finally sober up and vote every one of these feckless do-nothing weakling scumbags out, and elect people who will impeach and convict Trump and all his cronies, and amend or straight up rewrite the Constitution to enshrine laws in favor of the people, instead of the monied class. It's just not realistic.

dirty tricks for good though is impossible to fix the system.

I agree. You can't fix the system with dirty tricks. But you can crush Fascists with dirty tricks. It's not ideal, but it may be the only way to get them out. But like I said, coming back from that is the hard part. Once people in power get used to playing dirty, they never willingly stop. They have to be stopped.

**someone check my numbers in this paragraph, it's 4am and I may not be mathing properly

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 1 points 5 days ago

Crushing fascists with dirty tricks may stop one fascist but only by replacing it with another. I think its less likely to work than legal or legislative methods in the long run and similarly revolutions have a very small chance of working. Unfortunately we don't have any good realistic, slam dunk options but we do not we cannot let facism just waltz in so Im guessing it will be a bit of everything and we each have to prepare for what we might have to do. For my part im trying to come to peace with taking a bullet if the guns are trained on me for resistance rather than live in a non democracy.

[–] CitizenKong@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I mean at this point the best the US can hope for is something similar to Germany post WW II: a new constitution that perserves what was good about the old one while installing new saveguards against fascism.

[–] Doctor_Satan@lemm.ee 11 points 6 days ago

I can tell you right now, there won't be a legal route to a new constitution without a civil war. There is no way that enough people in power would support rewriting that document.

[–] notfromhere@lemmy.one 37 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It’s the ratchet effect. Right pulls us right and left refuses to budge left. Net effect, slow but steady moment to the right.

[–] Wilco@lemm.ee 7 points 1 week ago

Damn this is a good analogy. It is exactly what happened.

My only worry is that it is purposeful.

[–] untorquer@lemmy.world 26 points 1 week ago

I feel like both parties financially and logistically enabling a genocide should radicalize you a little more but yeah. If this does it for you all the better.