It’s because scams work, people are morons. Especially us Americans
There’s a simple explanation for that: It’s just because of how it is.
You can tell, because of the way that it is!
(If ya don’t know)
The missile knows where it is, because it knows where it isnt.
I specifically asked for Aspen trees in my nature tattoo because of this
They don’t think it be like it is, but it do
Except when you expect it to, then it don’t be.
Calling out scams is easy; fixing them is where true leadership lies.
😺😺😺
That’s a good way of putting it. Things are surreal for several reasons anymore.
Ron Howard: “It is.”
You can tell by the way it is. Neat!
Now showing the true face of one third of our registered voters. Untied Scams of Ambivalence with beloved shill, Pump and Dump Rump. The bloated corrupt personification of everything that is wrong with us. Step right up!
Dyslexia havers of the world, UNTIE!
On Right !
63 million inconvenienced grifters.
Leaves 100 million unhappy griftees
I kinda feel like Rorschach in the prison we’re stuck in here with the crazy.
You’re not wrong about that.
Because it is.
We live in a hyper-consumerist, scam society.
It’s gotten so bad most people don’t even realize the problems when they see it. Unfortunately, I think AOC was defending paying $>10 on a single meal, so she’s part of the problem.
She always wears very nice suits.
OMG, don’t tell me, were some of them beige, khaki, buff, or <gasp> tan?
They are expensive, and that’s all that matters.
Purity testing political leaders based on the way they dress is self-sabotage. If you think someone can’t be a real ally if they wear nice suits then you’ll find few allies in life. The reverse is also true, John Fetterman isn’t an ally of the working class just because he wears a hoodie to congress, for example.
That’s not true. They’re supporting a system that exists to pass a bunch of money around at the top. Each one that wears an expensive suit is guilty of this.
John Fetterman isn’t an ally of the working class just because he wears a hoodie to congress, for example.
I’m glad we’re at least on the same page here. I don’t keep up with Fetterman, but isn’t he also an ally of the working class? Again, I’m glad we can see eye to eye on what I’m referring to. Bringing up Fetterman is a great example.
They’re supporting a system that exists to pass a bunch of money around at the top.
By… wearing a suit? You’re gonna have to go into more detail here to get your point across.
I’m glad we’re at least on the same page here.
I’d like to get there, but I’m really not sure that we are yet.
I don’t keep up with Fetterman, but isn’t he also an ally of the working class?
Fetterman ran as a progressive and presented himself as an unpretentious ally of blue-collar workers, then after getting elected he made a hard right turn starting with support for Israel’s genocide and eventually going back on every progressive stance he ever held, even claiming he never held them to begin with. He’s now just a conservative - registered Democrat. A turn-coat who claims “I didn’t leave the left, the left left me.” Many such cases these days, unfortunately.
If you’re arguing that AOC is the same, I really don’t see it. I don’t agree with everything she does, of course, but for someone working within the system she’s as radical as it gets.
By… wearing a suit? You’re gonna have to go into more detail here to get your point across.
Yes. It contributes to a culture where we need to pay into the suit industry in order to be successful. It’s a complete waste of money and only serves to continue passing it around at the top. Every dollar wasted on nice suits could’ve been spent improving the lives of people who can’t afford nice suits.
I’d like to get there, but I’m really not sure that we are yet.
Maybe your reading comprehension isn’t that good, but I was referring to how you mentioned John Fetterman in contrast to AOC and the other suit-wearers.
but for someone working within the system she’s as radical as it gets.
Kind of. “For someone working within the system” is the key point.
Alright, I understand your position. Personally, I disagree with it because it’s unrealistic to expect perfection from everyone who fights for a cause. I feel that it’s important to have some baseline tolerance for hypocrisy because it’s counterproductive to police your allies on every small thing.
I agree that tailored suits should not be a precondition for success, and choosing not to wear them in congress is absolutely a statement to that end, but I’m not going to discount AOC as a potential ally because she chose not to fight that particular battle. In the same vein, I’m also not going allow John Fetterman’s choice to fight that particular battle convince me that he’s a working class ally in more important ways.
When you allow yourself to get hung up on the appearance of hypocrisy you make yourself vulnerable to exactly the type of manipulation that Fetterman engages in. Look past the surface and consider the bigger picture. You don’t have to be someone who works within the system, I’m not that type of person either, but don’t write people off for choosing that path. Everyone has a part to play.
That includes the democratic party.
We agree. We have about 3 years until the next presidential election cycle, maybe, and we either need to challenge the Democratic party, or improve it.
Instead of pessimism, do you have any ideas?
I have ideas about a targeted solution that would leave about 99.5% of the population better off, and provide the other 0.5% a peace they prove constantly on no uncertain terms by how they live they would never be capable of attaining in any other way.
I wish I was allowed to say it.
The gallows funniest bit about this whole situation is that the ones perpuating it aren’t happy either, even in victory. They could have 50 quadrillion dollars and their own space station mansion, and they still wouldn’t be satisfied, because our civilization rewards a very specific kind of dangerous mental illness.
They should be getting care in secure mental health facilities to keep society safe from their avarice, the kind they defunded for tax cuts through captured government.
Primaries are a good time to improve it.
1000%, let’s encourage people to vote in democratic primaries anytime we see this “both sides” sentiment. Thank you!
Let’s encourage progressives to actually run.
Are suggesting that there were no progressives that ran in the last Democrat Primary?
-I ask because I voted for one, but I was only allowed to after the presidential candidate had been selected.
Not at all. I just mean we need to flood local politics with progressive candidates. When that happens, there’s not enough eyes on all the political posts so chances are greater that we can affect change.
im 100% onboard to get rid of the democrats but only once the republicans are gone or insignificant. If an alternative party starts winning elections I will take that into account to but right now and pretty much since 2000 not having republicans is my main focus as well as democratic primaries. One thing is I don’t think its good to vote for the democrat that can win. I vote the primaries based on who I actually want in the roll.
I agree on every point, though I do feel like alternative parties to the Democrats can be successful in local and state elections, much like how the tea party has found some successes in more local politics. And I would say if locally people start successfully voting in more progressive alternatives, it will result in irrefutable proof that progressive policies are the winning move.
But, that starts local. It starts small, not big. And it starts where politicians impact you the most, your local community.
These plans and ideas sound eerily similar to the ones I hear or read every election cycle. What about them would be significantly different this next time around?
Unfortunately, not much given that this is the framework of the American democratic process. But, I think talking about it, openly and inviting new ideas to the mix, and encouraging people to vote in every election is a needed part of the process, while pessimism without solutions serves nobody and hinders progress.
It’s appropriate to be frustrated, but eventually we have to channel that frustration into action or it will disincentive everyone else from even trying.
Personally, I wish we had the economic freedom and class consciousness necessary to effectively protest. Eventually our economic troubles might be bad enough to completely override our “gotta make ends meet” inertia, but I hope we can improve things before that happens.
Do you have any ideas as to what we could do differently or more efficiently? We joke about it, but even revolution isnt out of the question if you can get enough support, the problem as always is that broad support.
I actually did this more before but the republicans have just infiltrated to much so even with local I have to vote anti republican. I live in a liberal state but a sorta conservative area (old school conservatives that are aghast at maga so its pretty much swung democrat but its risky to vote 3rd party. successfully fought of maga crazies trying to get into school boards and such.)
I think that’s appropriately cautious. It may be more safe and feasible in solidly blue cities/towns/districts, and it will have to get a lot more support than the tea party did for it to have any hope at spreading to “battleground” elections without serious risk.
Small donations only.
Absolutely. Political funding is broken thanks in large part to citizens United. Campaign finance reform certainly should be a campaign item for any progressive candidate.
We’ve been telling them to move further left than further center for years, and yet they wonder why they keep losing elections.
There’s a lot of reasons they’re losing election. One of the least of which is that they are too far right.
Full disclosure I am anarchist/anarco communist. Yes democrats should move left. But it isn’t some sort of Panacea that would see them suddenly start winning elections regularly. Democrats moving left would see a lot of the party’s funding evaporated. Which on one hand would be good. Because a lot of that funding is coming from some of the worst people. But on the other hand. Campaigns have been made very expensive. It would put Democrats at a distinct disadvantage, and see them losing just as much if not more than they already are. Without that money. Yet it is still the lazy go to answer.
The truth is Democrats don’t even need to move left one iota to start winning again. All it needs to happen is for us to stop leaving everything to National leadership. Which is bought and owned. Completely disconnected from all constituency other than the donors. We need to revitalize state democratic parties. Have them take leadership back.
We have a year and a half to reform the Democrats before the midterm elections. If they win then just because of pure backlash without reform, they’ll take it as a neoliberal status quo mandate and use it as an excuse to sleepwalk into entrenched fascism even more.
In this thread I’ve had two separate people mention the major problem with campaign finance or money in politics. And I think I have to agree, part of the reason that the Democrats are so disappointing because they serve the same masters.
Maybe that could be a concentrated goal and and the rallying cry for the Democrats approaching the midterms, that you shouldn’t even try to run on the Democratic ticket unless you’re going to push for campaign finance reform that ends citizens united. That might be a big enough change to start improving our democratic system.
bOtH sIdEs
