You put the picture of Mussolini upside down.
🙃
I don’t get it, because he’s an ass?
No, it’s probably refering to what happened after his death: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Benito_Mussolini#Piazzale_Loreto
Omg that picture of his corpse doesn’t even look like a human being anymore until you notice the ear
Yeah I regret seeing that picture.
deleted by creator
The only downside of pissing on Margaret Thatcher’s grave is that eventually you run out of piss.
That’s why God invented beer. It’s like reloading your bladder.
i skipped a history lesson, what did she do?
Thatcher had more in common with Reagan era conservative politics than what the DNC wants you to believe do these days. The Dems want to tax the rich, fund social programs, and not privatizing everything. Problem is, they need functional majorities in Congress to reverse a lot of the Reaganomics / neoliberalism crap from the last 40 years.
The DNC does not want to tax the rich and fund social programs, otherwise they would actually do it when they have functional majorities like a good portion of Obama’s tenure. They would whip people like Manchin and Sinema. They might campaign on some of these ideals but they do the exact opposite once in power. All they have going for them is a thin veneer of respectability. The exact point this meme is making.
Liberal Hypocrisy is Fueling American Inequality.
In the wise words of Phil Ochs Love Me, Love Me, I’m a Liberal.
The dems basically had 2 years, with a razor thin senate majority, to prevent a second Great Recession, and they passed massive healthcare reform for the uninsured.
And yes, they did sneak in some taxes for the rich during that. They killed Bush’s tax cuts and snuck some stuff in the ACA for high earners.
How is that hypocritical at all?
Actually the “massive health care reform” only further cemented private for profit health care instead of actually moving forward with a real solution: single payer. Sure it helped some people now, but it made the problem worst in the long run. It’s shortsighted at best, and malicious at worst.
Single payer was never going pass in 2008. Not enough dems to break the filibuster, and they needed 9 republicans to jump across the aisle to get to 60 votes.
If people voted in more dems, they’d be getting the healthcare plans that the rest of the modern world has.
I appreciate somebody in the comments actually knows how our government functions. The Dems have a lot of stuff to make up for and there’s more than a few really shitty corpo stooges but they’ve legitimately done a lot of good with what they had to work with. If we get another election like this past midterm we should see great things. Thank you again, Gen Z. You really turned out this past election cycle.
These comments feel like a lot of people falling for the lie that “they’re all the same.” No, they’re not.
It just take more than putting in the minimum effort for a general election and then checking out.
The first person to truly float insurance reform was a republican. Romney Care. The DEMs literally went no further than Republicans. That tells you how much they truly tried. Not a lot.
Insurance reform pushes are older than that. The democratic and republican healthcare reform plans from the Clinton era famously both had insurance reform as an element of the reform plans.
The ACA does have similarities to the old Massachusetts plan, but it does go farther in a number of places. Employer mandates are a good example of that. That was an element taken from the old Clinton plan. Most in the GOP never liked that mandate.
Given that most in the GOP moved pretty far to the right in the 15 years between the last national healthcare push, and the dems needed 9 GOP votes to get to 60 in the senate, what was the alternative? Most of the national GOP were basically for the “let the uninsured go bankrupt and die” plan.
And you can thank the Republicans and Joe Lieberman for that. When Obama was elected he walked a very middle line, since he was the first black man to be president, he didn’t want to be viewed as the ABM (Angry Black Man). So when the first draft of the ACA was introduced (as single payer) he welcomed his GOP “colleagues” to help amend the bill and pass a bipartian bill, showing that he can work with those he disagreed with. Hence the ample time of 2 years. Some of their suggestions were actually added and modified to show goodwill and was still light years better than what we had before. However two unforseen catastrophies happened during that time.
-
Ted Kennedy died and his seat when to a Republican in a heavy/historically blue district which shocked many and made the Senate vote even more razor thin.
-
Joe Lieberman decided to go “independent” and worked with the GOP to gut most of the things that would have made the ACA great for citizens (like forcing insurance companies to compete against themselves). Because now his vote was the difference between it passing and failing.
So when complaining on much better it COULD have been look no further than the GOP and people like Joe Lieberman. Granted I wish Obama just said fuck y’all here’s what we’re passing but hindsight is always 20/20 especially in politics.
-
Binyamin Appelbaum (of “you worked for a company that was fixing bread prices” fame) wrote a book all about how liberals ushered conservative economics into our financial system. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdhUPzrJ1A8&t=2s
Great piece, thank you!
First off, the Democrats only had a majority for two years during Obama’s 8 years. Second, they have zero leverage over Sinema who’s not even running as a Democrat in the next election. Third, the liberal and progressive majority of the party hasn’t had a majority in congress for over a decade. The democrats are a big tent party that currently has to appeal to all non fascists, so of course there are conservatives in the party.
There’s a solid grain of truth to your assessment, as far too many Democrats aren’t willing to do what is necessary to prevent fascism from taking over. They make numerous mistakes. However, to paint all liberals as being against raising taxes on the rich and funding social programs is inaccurate. Some do believe social programs are necessary to maintain the government, capitalism, or liberal democracy. It’s not great, but it is better than neoliberalism.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=hNDgcjVGHIw
https://piped.video/watch?v=3cdqQ2BdgOA
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
I mean… the DNC is solely responsible for the rise of neoliberalism, so…
How many RINOs out there can you count on to block GOP bullshit the way Sinema and Manchin cockblock the D caucus?
DNC tolerates way too much conservatism. They only do it, though, in order to turn spots on the map blue. It’s about winning, not about policy.
the DNC is solely responsible for the rise of neoliberalism
Neoliberalism is commonly associated with conservatism and the economic policies of America’s right, not the left. Although presidents like Clinton were fairly big on neoliberal economics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
The term “neoliberalism” can be kind of confusing because it contains “liberal” in it. Socially liberal and economically liberal are pretty different things.
Keep going, you’re almost there!
okay… so… remind me what party Clinton was?
Remind me what party still props up Clintonians? As recently as 2016?
Remind me what party steadfastly pushes neoliberals and ostrazices progressives?
Yeah, I stand by my statement 💯
You said the DNC “solely” pushed neoliberalism. I’m saying that most of the pushing has been from the GOP. The 90’s DNC was pretty into it (looking at NAFTA), but over the past 40 years, most of the push for small government and deregulation has come from the GOP, not the DNC.
I don’t think saying that is particularly controversial. Every single republican candidate is proud of that.
Who started gutting unions before Regan using the Thaft-Hartley act? Yeah that’s right, Carter. This isn’t new. Taxes cuts for the rich in the DNC date back from the Kennedy era.
Damn Liberals!
Yup. I never said it was all or nothing. Just saying that neoliberalism is pushed much more by America’s right.
And I would argue that, now that the parties have polarized, the DNC is less neoliberal than in the past, and the GOP is hyper neoliberal these days.
Yeah, the DNC’s 2016 candidate was definitely not a neoliberal amirite
What was their name again?
Are we saying Joe Biden, who has supported every neoliberal globalist economic policy that came across his congressional desk, is not a neoliberal? And that his nomination was a sign of a post-80s DNC economic policy sea change?
(X) Doubt
deleted by creator
It was backed by both parties for a reason.
You’re almost there!
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Manchin isn’t a great example of where the party has opportunities to move left. Manchin js about as far left as you’re ever going to get out of West Virginia, a state where Trump won 68% of the vote.
A more liberal candidate in WV would almost certainly lose and someone more waaay more conservative would win.
I have no idea what you think solely means.
You’re right, I forgot about UK Labour.
You’re telling me Republicans are out here pushing neoliberalism? Or are we talking more Libertarians?
A good exercise here is to think of a prominent neoliberal, and then think of what party they’re in.
Reagan and Thatcher were both neoliberals, and notably not from Labour or the Democratic party. I’m not claiming the Democrats didn’t embrace neoliberalism in the Clinton years. The Republicans pushed it, and the Democrats went along with it.
There are still Republicans who push more neoliberal policies, and they disagree with the populist wing of the party. Trump and his ilk were a departure from some neoliberal policies, but not in a good way.
I get what you’re trying to do by saying all parties are bad because they’re capitalist, and that’s a reasonable point of view. However, it’s no good to just say something that isn’t true. Republicans and Tories were always more neoliberal than the Democrats or Labour, and they were the ones that pushed it.
Need ranked choice voting. Two parties is practically inevitable with first past the post.
But it’s the same picture?
If you look carefully the one on the right is far more inclusive!
“MuH bOtH sIdEs!”
Why do they have to pick between a hanging salami and a gender neutral bathroom, I don’t get it
Because “First Past the Post” voting is the current method, which is highly flawed.
And it’d be played as “Bipartisan working man Benito Mussolini vs evil radical leftist Margaret Thatcher”
I’m happy to say I don’t know who either of these people are 😃
Not knowing who Mussolini is isn’t something to brag about
My country’s already had its fair share of dictators. Why would I care about an Italian one?
Because Mussolini wasn’t just some tinpot dictator. He was the founder of modern fascism. He changed the entire world. Hundreds of millions of people died, empires crumbled, and history was written because of what he did. He wasn’t just “an Italian one.”
Why should I not fail to learn from history?
I thought that was Joe Rogan for a sec
don’t know neither
So you know who they both are?
fuck
Grammar nazis are just nazis. We don’t want you here. Go back to r*ddit
I wish all nazis were just grammar ones.
Sure, but beware of the beginning. There is a pipeline from “you are wrong because the dictionary says so” to “you are wrong because the state says so”.
There is a reason that most dictionaries are first published in 1984. Actually there isn’t because it’s a made up fact but you get the point.
Did you know that AntiGraFa are actually grammar Nazis themselves
I have never heard the name but I totally believe you. What are they?
Edit: I guess I found them. You are talking about “The Anti-Fascist Guide to Grammar” facebook group, right? This is scary and dumb. Pointing out spelling mistakes instead of flaws in their logic, spreads their narrative without putting a counter narrative beside it.
deleted by creator
Ignorance is bliss 🤷
One is it*lian, the other prevented my country to expand it’s borders :(
Why is it that there are actually only two parties in the U.S.?
because of our voting system. if you vote for 3rd party you have to take away a vote for the president of choice, so there’s a chance of getting a plurality. so everyone just votes for the 2 most likely candidates and 3rd party gets no attention
what’s the problem with a plurality? in other countries this happens all the time and parties need to work together (i think this is called a coalition) to reach a majority
There’s no problem with it, but the US has been tricked into believing there is a problem with it to perpetuate the supremecy of the main two parties. That’s my POV at least ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Because it’s widely considered “throwing your vote away”, people don’t do it, and it never happens. Plus I believe since the president is voted for as an individual, then it’s first past the post. You can’t have a coalition president. The whole system is setup to create a false dichotomy.
Wait till you hear about the enormous number of people that don’t vote at all. I believe if “nobody” was an option, and the non-voters were considered, then nobody would’ve won at all in the last couple of elections. People know the system doesn’t care about them. It’s functionally not a democracy.
