Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.
Rules (Subject to Change)
--Be a Decent Human Being
--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title
--Posts must have something to do with the topic
--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.
--No NSFW content
--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world
“To all those growing skeptical of this party’s strategies and overall agenda, let me just say we hear you loud and clear. Rest assured we will be doing everything short of interpreting that sound into words and responding to those words in any way shape or form.”
The best line in the whole article
sounds a lot like the same thing they said in 2016 and now that we know that they're doubling down on their stubbornness here and in other examples; we should expect a repeat of 2016 & 2024 in 2028.
I think after 4 years of Trump, if there are still elections in 2028, we'll see a Democrat elected president simply because of the fact that how bad it is under Trump will be right in people's faces. In 2032, however, we'll definitely see the Dems lose to somebody even worse than Trump for exactly why they lost in 2016 and 2024.
The Dems don't learn anything and lose, then 4 years later they win because the Republicans made things worse, and then they learn nothing, double down, and lose again, starting the cycle all over again.
Democrats: "Moving right a little didn't work this time. Next time let's try moving a little more to the right."
"Clearly we didn't move right far enough. We should have moved right further. It is what the voter wanted".
No way to prevent this, says only party where this regularly happens.
No will to prevent this. The DNC would like you to quietly believe that they are a progressive party. They wear the costume (and have a few truly progressive players), but the party is not as progressive as they’d have you believe. Their elite are beholden to lobbying, grift, and self enrichment just like the republicans. Progressive democratic socialist policies always hurt someone’s profits, so the DNC can’t move too far left. They can’t move too far right either without alienating their base. So they attempt to do very little.
This is why they purposely fucked Bernie out of his nomination.
The Democratic party isn't a viable alternative to the Republican party. They're too friendly to corporations, not doing enough to show teeth or enthusiasm, and definitely not explaining why Republicans are the worst option. Let's assume that D is politically bankrupt after taking right wing medias beating for the last 40 years. SO HOW DO WE FIND A NEW ALTERNATIVE TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY? And how do we get everyone to migrate?
First get rid of FPTP.
THEN and only then can we form a new progressive party.
Or, and hear me out - stop desperately trying to reform an unreformable system and ignoring that it is working exactly as it was designed to, abolish it, and build something better instead.
I think we'd all love to. The constitution is fundamentally broken and should be completely rewritten. It's founded on ideas that just aren't true now, if they ever were. The idea that the states are more like countries than counties is the biggest one. The idea that we can and should protect ourselves from the tyrrany of the majority by having independent branches of government and countless ways to stop and stall things is another huge one.
But here's the biggest problem, not enough of the country agrees that the system is broken, and even smaller portion of those who do can agree on how it's broken or what changes to make. So no, we can't just abolish it. We can either (1) fix it enough to get to the point that we may be able to have the stability it would require to safely transition to a new constitution or (2) see things get so bad that enough of the country is on board for revolution. Both options suck, but option (2) has a pretty bad record compared to option (1) in my view.
And if neither party supports that reform, do we just keep voting Democrat until the end of time?
Unlike prior revolutions in which the new regime was established after the old, we should write a new constitution in advance.
Start with a framework. Maybe take the Constitution of the United States and make some no-brainer changes (getting rid of the EC, say. Or election by ranked choice)
And then, we develop it. Run clauses by legal scholars, hold town halls. Get it on the web. Debate about the benefits of competing clause versions.
So that when there is a movement, a resistance (and there will be) an organized rebellion, the people will not just have an enemy to fight against but something to fight for.
Maybe take the Constitution of the United States and make some no-brainer changes
Or take one that already works well for centuries. Scandinavian countries, Austria, Swiss, are generally good at this.
Sure!
So my original fantasy (during the Obama era) was to create what would start as an wiki of all^†^ the constitutions of all nations of the world, translated to all^†^ languages.
Then there'd be a workshop section where amateur legal experts could take known clauses and tweak them so that they'd be better (say, revising all the US federal elections so that they're ranked choice, and fixing all the instances of two-party procedure so that they accommodate any number of parties. Or, for another example, fixing UK Parliament so that it is appointed by sortition from all qualifying citizens.)
The point of all this when the world isn't on the precipice of despair is twofold:
1) It provides a resource for new societies to look at what other constitutions look like, so they can pull from what works, which means that coups d'etat are more likely to result in something other than a provisional dictatorship that accidentally becomes permanent. Because we have new states rising from the ashes of the old frequently. And...
2) It provides a place to crowdsource amendments to constitutions already in place (or to change current non-foundational ordinances). Right now, here in the US, we depend on our legislators to write laws, and they rely on their staffers who often have corporate allegiances, when they don't receive bill text directly from corporate or special interest lobbyists directly. So it would create a place for the public to talk about it and have its own input.
Such a website was a no-brainer to me, so much so that I had assumed that it existed somewhere online. But no, no-one has made it.
I don't have the skill it takes to start what might eventually become a sizeable project with lots of political enemies, like Wikipedia or Wikileaks. But maybe here on Lemmy creating an interested team would be easier.
For now it's a pie-in-the-sky idea, as I wouldn't have any idea how to begin it.
† This is the internet definition of all, id est as many as we could crowdsource.
The DNC often deals with this, because the nature of federal politics in the US requires them to appeal to the general public, which has left-leaning interests, and then businesses and oligarchs for sponsorship which have right-leaning interests.
Remember they made the Democratic Party primaries less democratic after Carter was elected because he was too left wing. And they've only been able to nominate neoliberals since.
So no, those of us on the left have no candidates. And since its a two-party FPTP system, we only can vote against the worse popular guy by voting for the slightly better other popular guy.
In this case, assuming the election went down as it appeared, the majority of the US voted for the racist autocratic dictator rather than another neolib. (Granted, Biden went further left than we expected and I had hope Harris would as well. Walz certainly seems to understand the US public, but none of them are without ties to industrial interests. We'd still only be able to expect a couple of scraps.)
What this tells me is that most Americans don't get it. They think they have a choice. And now they're going to endure the consequences of their folly.
Remember they made the Democratic Party primaries less democratic after Carter was elected because he was too left wing. And they’ve only been able to nominate neoliberals since.
It's amazing that a naval officer/peanut entrepreneur/devout Christian was "too left wing", especially since he got beat by a Hollywood union boss from California.
Mind you, we just had an anti-elite rebellion led by a thrice-divorced billionaire failson of a New York City real estate magnate.
This is a satirical source. Haven't seen one comment that didn't take it seriously.
Bernie Sanders reflected on it stating that it was the Democrats failing the working class that won Trump the election, and people in the Democratic Party denounced him for it.
It's The Onion all the way down
Democrats are afraid of there not being elections in 2028. What they should be afraid of is the DNC moving even further right as they are planning to do right now.
While I'm mostly sure it parody, its gotten really hard to tell lately.
I think they just got stuck in a rut. They have been dealing with an all-obstructionist Republican party for nearly 16 years now, ever since Obama was elected, if not before.
They stopped promising the moon because they became policy wonks and focused on what was realistically achievable, only making promises they thought they could turn into reality with an obstructionist party blocking them.
They stopped being dreamers, started being policy wonks, and were unwilling to make promises they didn't think they could keep. Think about the amount of messaging in the last few elections about how progressives were asking too much because we have to be realistic about what we can pass with only a sliver of a majority. People rightly view that as starting from a point of compromise and thus as weak.
Trump promised to smash norms and ignore laws to get his promises done, which people wrongly view as strong. When Republicans like Trump make promises, they are completely unburdened by whether they can accomplish them or not: make the promise, follow through be damned.
Nobody wants a policy wonk telling them they need to wait until their kids are middle aged for things to get better for their family, and the Democrats somehow failed to realize this in 16 years.
Obama was the last Democrat to run on change in the system. Everyone else has been Bush-era-style "Stay the course" status-quo enabling.
Obama was the last Democrat to run on change in the system
And, even then, he enacted a shockingly small amount of actual change.
He had the majority long enough that he could have codified Roe V. Wade, and increased the minimum wage, and done UHC and all sorts of shit, but he wanted to policy wonk both-sides across the aisle cooperation shit, and well, ended up passing the Republican version of UHC and bailing out billionaires, which really doesn't exactly reflect hope and/or change.
I'm not saying he didn't have problems, or that he had an endless mandate, or that he did nothing, but mostly that the "best" democratic president in damn near 30 years who had the biggest mandate you're probably going to find in modern politics still did a shockingly little amount of anything to improve or harden the government against clear nutters - the Tea Party was showing up, so it was or should have been blindingly obvious where that was going to end up eventually going.
I don't buy the (R) "do nothing democrats" line, but boy, they certainly make it hard to refute that claim in any form that's not a 1000 word essay which is why it plays so very well on TV/news/Twitter.
you’re right, they make an outlandish promise (build a wall, mexico to pay) and then blame the other side when it doesn’t happen. The agenda-setting aspect you’re mentioning is also something that caused everyone in the democratic party to snipe Bernie since his whole thing was talking about what must happen and not getting bogged down in the endless details (though I think he could have also done that at that level too).
Yeah, the presidential election is a circus and only a performer can be an effective candidate. Ever since 2016, the DNC just runs these duds who focus more on extending an olive branch to the GOP than championing solutions to anything voters actually care about, no matter how realistic. Whether the solutions can actually be achieved is irrelevant; what matters is that you’re willing to shoot for the moon on important issues and not weaken your position before you’ve even started negotiating. Without that, how can you possibly expect voters (particularly, typical low-information voters) to show up for you?
Honestly, Tim Walz would have been a better presidential candidate. At least he has a personality.
This article is a parody but it’s also on the nose
Lest we all forget, Trump took the well considered Romney post mortem, threw it in the trash, pissed on it, then gradually built a coalition of, checks notes... White women and men of color. For fucks sake.
I'm kind of amazed that more politicians don't just promise to try to implement all the highest polling ideas. (Spoiler: Most are progressive and socialist policies.) Especially presidential candidates running against potentially catastrophic fascists.
Because they exist to protect their corporate benefactors and popular policies don’t allow for that
It all depends on what our biggest corporate donors want
Saying the silent part loud.
I love the hard times. All yall ate the onion lol
"Rest assured we will be doing everything short of interpreting that sound into words and responding to those words in any way shape or form.”
Wait, is this satire? I only noticed 3/4 through the article.
The Hard Times is a very real punk news site that you should not question. Just absorb the information as truth and move on. The historic satire site was founded in December 1976. It’s made by a group of punk and hardcore kids from all the different sub-genres of the DIY hardcore scene. Any resemblance to actual persons or band names is coincidental.
We will find out when they pick a house and senate minority. If they are older that 38 in the house and 45 in the senate, then they learned nothing.
I'm surprised at how many Gen z kids are trump fanatics, I didn't expect the level of support from that base. So I don't know how much age is in play here now.
Future prospects for those kids aren't great and there are right-wing grifters targeting the disenfranchised youth. Fascism is a tempting ideology for those who are scared about the future and feel they deserve better opportunities in life. Also being an edgy teen is a right of passage. I've also seen that many many gen z kids care about Palestine, and Kamala told them to fuck off so they did. The ones that see a genocide and don't care tend to lean right.
If the democrats could show a plan to fight climate change, reduce wealth inequality, and stop arming genocide, youth support would slam left like a screen door in the wind. With a broad brush, the older members of the caucus don't see that or don't care.
Young men in particular are annoyed with all the "wokeness" and to be honest, so am I. Not because I disagree with what's being said but because Democrats let Republicans control the narrative every time they engage in it. Republicans bitch about trans people in boxing matches and instead of redirecting to an actually important topic like healthcare or income inequality they just start debating about testosterone levels and in so doing legitimize the complaint.
I've got nothing against trans boxers but let's have some perspective. I doubt anyone reading this even knows a trans boxer. Stop getting lost in the weeds and focus on the stuff that matters to everyone. That trans boxer is having trouble affording their healthcare too. Let's deal with that first. I bet you'll find people willing to listen if you'll talk about stuff that actually makes a difference in their lives.