304
submitted 10 months ago by GiddyGap@lemm.ee to c/politics@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 160 points 10 months ago

One guy wants to work on Civil rights, taxes, and social services.

The other guy wants to jail anyone who said mean things about him, suspend the constitution, and immediately apon being sworn in use the military to institute the insurrection act and declare martial law.

Centralists: BuT bOtH sIdEs!!!

[-] KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml 47 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

As someone who was centrist: you can't be centrist when one person is motivated by spite to tear it down. You aren't a centrist anymore. You're an accessory.

[-] hh93@lemm.ee 6 points 10 months ago

Liberals are always the first to fall in line with fascists - the first regional governments of the Nazis in Germany was supported by libertarians and pro-economy-parties, a couple of years ago. 3 years ago the Neo-Liberal party in Thuringia accepted to govern as a minority-government when the only party supporting them was the far-right AfD with a leader that you can legally call a fascist and that is under surveillance by the Verfassungsschutz for being a danger to democracy.

The CDU (moderate-conservative party) in Germany also won't work with either the left party nor the AfD but their local politicians are already getting very close with the AfD.

If someone's claiming "both sides" in a political issue that's usually a sign that they won't oppose the fascists when they try to grab the power

[-] banneryear1868@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

Liberals are always the first to fall in line with fascists

"Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds" is how the saying goes. In the US right now there is no real left political force, despite there being many individual leftists. The one thing the political system has done there above all is remove all impediments for capitalism to flourish. That goes back to the Populist movement and Jim Crow order, Eugene Debs, the Taft-Hartley act, removing any notion of class analysis from academia. Now you have the choice between how you want capitalism to be branded basically, is it Democrat happy everything is fine capitalism, or GOP get rich or die capitalism, but it's bootstrap policy all the way down.

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

At the end of the day, someone who sees both sides as the same is saying they don't care about LGBT people or abortion rights or ethnic minorities. It's impossible to care about them and still believe the two parties are close enough that it won't matter who wins.

Doesn't matter if they're a self described communist or crony capitalist. Scratch them and a fascist will bleed.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] paddirn@lemmy.world 38 points 10 months ago

“Literally can’t tell them apart.”

[-] PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 17 points 10 months ago

also everyone on Hexbear.net

[-] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 9 points 10 months ago

I generally give Republicans more benefit of the doubt than most. I consider myself a liberal libertarian with an open mind to all things. I think there were plenty of valid reasons to vote for Trump the first time around, reasons that much of the country chose to ignore because it was easier than addressing them.

If the GOP nominates Trump again, they deserve to lose as hardcore as possible. I didn't scream and cry when he was elected because I was willing to give him a chance and an open mind. But I think his first term said everything that needed to be said about his suitability as a leader. He talked a big talk of draining the swamp, but then filled his cabinet with alligators and no swamps were drained. If anything, swamps were created as he filled key positions with corrupt people who were loyal to him but had little experience or skill for the job at hand.

Love his policies or hate them, that's just corrupt bad government. And while I don't always agree with Biden's policies, much like Obama, he at least executes the duties of his office in a relatively competent manner.

Same thing if DeSantis gets the nomination. You can't run a platform of jobs creation when you pick a hissy fit with your state's largest employer because they dare voice some mild opposition to a policy of yours (especially when said opposition is essential for said company to maintain credibility on the national level). That speaks volumes about the kind of person, and the kind of leader, that you are. I would rather have someone who's policies I sometimes disagree with, then a childishly vindictive psychophant sitting in the big chair.

Sadly, this all is the very predictable result of the Karl Rove strategy- whip up social conservatives and evangelicals to drum up votes. The result is those groups now have significant power within the GOP, even though their platform of intolerant policies is unappealing to the broader nation to the point of making them unelectable in the eyes of many.

[-] Tavarin@lemmy.ca 11 points 10 months ago

I think there were plenty of valid reasons to vote for Trump the first time around

If you knew anything about Trump you would not have thought this.

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (77 replies)
this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2023
304 points (92.9% liked)

politics

18883 readers
3487 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