this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2024
689 points (97.0% liked)

People Twitter

5151 readers
2782 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a tweet or similar
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] hannesh93@feddit.org 41 points 1 month ago (18 children)

Too many people see compromise as a weakness and it's destroying democracy which is built on this very principle that all different kinds of people have to come together and make laws to create a common denominator.

But for some reason political parties today catch flak left and right if they compromise on some of their positions in order to achieve at least a bit of progress instead of being unyielding on it but not changing anything since noone else would agree on it.

Imho that's one of the reasons why populist parties today gain so much ground: the very act of compromise is seen as weak by many and they capitalize on that to attack the other parties

[–] drkt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 36 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The fascist says 'Meet me in the middle!'

You take 1 step forward.

The fascist takes 2 steps backwards and says 'Meet me in the middle!'.

[–] huginn@feddit.it 51 points 1 month ago (5 children)

The shifting of the Overton window is real and an important part of the American Republican playbook.

However the above commenter is not talking about American Republicans, they're talking about the purity culture among leftists that prevents them from voting for left leaning liberals.

In the current election the choices are 1 step to the left or 50 yards to the right, and because it's not 2 steps to the left they refuse to vote.

[–] EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I don't disagree, but I think the attitude comes from exhaustion at the Democrats spending 50 years meeting Republicans in the middle and telling more left leaning groups that their desires aren't as important or that they're at fault for Democrats losing because they scared off some mythical right leaning centrist who would have otherwise voted for the Democrats.

Plus, I'm not convinced that a large part of the not voting bloc that you hear online isn't actually just a disenfranchisement campaign.

[–] huginn@feddit.it 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I agree on the not-voting bloc - I'd also add that the zealotry I've seen, the black and white thinking... All of it reminds me more of religious fundamentalist groups than it does of the progressives I know.

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Keep in mind that from state to state the amount of people who would be able to vote but have been restricted ranges from near 0% to 8%.

The three worst states are Alabama, Tennessee, and Mississippi.

It obviously doesnt account for all of the non voters but its still substantial.

[–] huginn@feddit.it 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

In this case when we're talking about "non-voter" it's about the uncommitted movement, not about the deliberately disenfranchised.

The Republican party is thrilled with the uncommitted movement and has done as much as possible to push for their success.

It's not that I disagree with the uncommitted movement in principle: I hope that their push brings about real change. They are useful to the Republican party nonetheless, and if key battleground states like Michigan are lost because of them it will be a major blow to any hope of incremental change.

The Democratic party has to be the big tent party because the Republicans are the party of narrow minded bigotry. That does mean that there will always be leftists dissatisfied with the DNC.

When that dissatisfaction leads to "cutting off your own nose to spite your face" behavior is when the leftist purity culture becomes a problem.

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

Well we do have to respect peoples vote no matter how they use it. Its possible for a small percentage their life won't change no matter who wins, so why not vote for your favorite candidate?

I do think a majority of the uncommitted voter base from last election is no longer uncommitted because Trump is bad for more groups of people this time around.

I just don't think its razor thin enough that people are no longer free to vote their preference. In my opinion trump won't come close to winning.

[–] BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

The options are 50 yards to the right or 5 feet to the right, but fuck me for wanting someone to even look to the left.

Obligatory: I'm voting for the D, at least the VP pick is aware of the left.

[–] AlpacaChariot@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Everyone loves the D

[–] Zyansheep@programming.dev 2 points 1 month ago

Something something political relativity...

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago

and what makes you think we dont vote for left leaning liberals, when its literally the only option?

[–] drkt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

That's fair, I don't live in America. I live in a country where I can vote for "spoiler" parties and it actually does take power away from center parties. The issue seems more generally relevant here.

[–] SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Unfortunately even proportional systems have proven to be vulnerable to this lately

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

Sort of. Vulnerable in that its possible to get a small foothold sometimes. Ebb and flow.

[–] Eldritch@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

If a party is viable they strictly speaking aren't a spoiler. 3rd party wise in the US. 3rd party candidates in local elections are great. In my state there are plenty of offices Republicans run for uncontested. I would vote sight unseen for any non Republican aligned candidate running against them.

National elections....... 3rd parties running here can't help but be spoilers. First there's 50 separate sub elections they have to qualify for in the first place. Most don't even qualify for half that at best. So they've already lost. Then on the off chance they somehow won one.(never really happened in 250 years) There's the EC system and delegates. Some states are winner take all, some proportional. And while they're supposed to vote to represent the states population. Faithless electors are a thing. Meaning 3rd parties just lost harder.

Its something like a .00000001% chance with an over 6 sigma confidence rating. You have better odds of getting struck by lightning multiple times while dancing the Macarena.

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world -4 points 1 month ago

Bahahahahahajah what??? All the Dems and the left have done is compromise and hold their nose to vote for the lesser of 2 evils...

What the fuck are you smoking???

load more comments (16 replies)