this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2024
590 points (89.0% liked)

politics

18720 readers
3429 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. 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 another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple 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.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

While rebutting another post here on Lemmy, I ran into this. This says exactly what I want to say.

I am not a friend of Biden's Administration. I think they drug their feet over a variety of things ranging from holding Trump and his goons accountable for January 6th through rulemaking on issues like OTC Birth Control and abortion rights, and yes, I think he's too quick to please big business. But then I remember what the alternative is, and ... well, disappointed in Biden or not, I'm voting for him. Because my wife is a Black bisexual goth woman, four strikes under Team Pepe's tent. And I have my own strikes for marrying her as a White dude, and respecting her right to not have kids since she doesn't want them is another strike against me. And I care about my Non-Christian, Gay, Transgender, and Minority friends, and will never willingly subject them to Team Pepe.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] masquenox@lemmy.world 38 points 4 months ago (6 children)

You're ignoring the big elephant in the room. This whole "lesser evilism" schtick that the bootlicker Dems have been relying on since 2016? It's inevitably going to hit rock-bottom - and soon, too.

[–] Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

The two party system always comes down to who runs the least shittiest candidate.

For me. That's not always who wins.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.world 13 points 4 months ago (1 children)

And as soon as the shittiest one wins, the bar for "least shittiest" drops a whole lot lower - it's a race to the bottom.

Of course, none of this affects policy - the class who benefits from the status quo will get what they want irregardless of who is in the Waffle House.

[–] aberrate_junior_beatnik@midwest.social 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Stop maligning Waffle House by comparing it to the White House.

[–] Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 4 months ago

Right? Say "Huddle House" if you're going to do that!

[–] paf0@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago

"lesser evilism" is the entire system, since nearly the beginning.

[–] jaemo@sh.itjust.works 8 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

Tell me you're not a student of history without telling me you're not a student of history.

[–] Seasm0ke@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Regardless of the two party systems race to the bottom, 2016 saw the formal introduction of the Pied Piper strategy by the DNC during Hillarys campaign. Formally boosting the other parties evil factor by supporting trump and making the "vote for us, we arent them" the whole schtick.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

Thank you... that's what I was referring to. Lots of people on here can't seem to remember even back as recently as Obama's campaign.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It's been lesser-evilism since the country was founded

[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago

Maybe the US but believe it or not there are functioning democracies outside the US.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

This whole “lesser evilism” schtick that the bootlicker Dems have been relying on since 2016?

Since 1948 at least.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

No. Obama didn't have to rely on it to get into the Waffle House. Back then, the Dems could still promise some kind of "progressivism" (even though they never had any intention of delivering it).

Now look at them.

[–] Spaceballstheusername@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I don't think that's true I think they really tried to pass universal healthcare and were basically kneecapped by 1 or 2 democrats.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

and were basically kneecapped by 1 or 2 democrats.

Yeah... it's amazing how that always seems to happen to anything that the rich don't like.

[–] aberrate_junior_beatnik@midwest.social 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

They tried to pass public option, not universal healthcare. Plus, if the rest of the democrats had really wanted it they could have done away with the filibuster and had an 8+ vote margin. But they didn't really want it, and they wanted a convenient excuse for why they couldn't do it, so the filibuster remains in place. And people still buy the flimsy excuse.

[–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 3 points 4 months ago

What kind of alarmism is this? If you want choice, push for ranked choice voting and dismantling of the republican party, then you're free to establish however many new parties you want. Lots of countries manage to have 10+ parties on parliament

[–] braxy29@lemmy.world -3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

let's just embrace the greater evil/demonstrable threat now then, shall we?

(/s)

[–] maryjayjay@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

Let the hate flow through you. Feel the power of the dark side!