1578
Like surely you must have acquired a clue by now.
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
1578 points (94.7% liked)
Microblog Memes
5793 readers
988 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
If they're wealthy they usually vote Tory, that's one reason for sure.
We'll get the conservatives out of government soon, but I don't think Labour are much better, just two sides of the same coin, unfortunately.
You'll still be stuck with Keir "I agree with my friends across the aisle but wish they'd go further" Starmer. Labor was completely hollowed out after Corbyn. It's just careerist flaks and corporate shills, with anyone who defies the leadership getting punted off the ticket.
Who could have guessed that if the party systematically annihilates anyone and anything who dislikes the status quo you'd be left with Tories with red paint.
Corbyn was the worst thing that could've happened to Labour. The man just did not understand the role of Party Leader and could not prioritise party or country over his own nostaligia-tinged ideological pet causes
Oh Jeremy Corbyn! Why did Labour Party membership soar after the 2015 general election?
If you're in the U.S or a lot of places, both sides of the government are conservative. There is literally no left option. Not sure what Labour is like in the UK.
The current leader has been whipping his MPs to vote with conservative policy and is generally in agreement with them. They've been some of the weakest opposition I've ever seen. The Scottish national party (SNP) has been the only genuine left wing party with any significant presence in Westminster. The Labour party leader recently threatened the speaker (who is labour but is supposed to be impartial) to stop a SNP debate day when they wanted to pass a recognition of genocide in Gaza.
They're selling point is they are more competent and less cruel than the conservatives. The keep on dropping their more progressive policies. Recently they've dropped their reform of the house of lords, an unelected chamber that currently places religious leaders and Russians with KGB ties in unaccountable legislative roles for life.
Sounds like they've been bought then. Usually when a party starts throwing their weight around for morality policy (which shouldn't be a thing in politics anyway) it means rich people are paying the bills.
Labour in Scotland kicked out their previous leader because the party donors didn't like him. The farther of the current labour leader also donates significant amount of money to Labour, and basically bought his sons seat as an MSP in the first place.
That's the thing with a republic - those who vote Democrat in NYC or LA have to compromise with those who vote Democrat in other places like Virginia and Oregon, for the type of median representation they get in federal government.
Democrats used to have the South they could count on, and eventually the nation got FDR for four consecutive terms and the New Deal.
Then the LBJ administration - from Texas, of all places - and Congress passed the Civil Rights Act, and Democrats lost that electoral advantage they had in the South.
All the ingrained racist simpletons in society shifted towards the other side - "That republican fellow might screw me over, but at least he's one of ours, a good patriotic christian (read: white) American that talks to me in MY (racist dog whistle) language!"
What so many people don't seem to ever get is that permanent changes in Washington work through inertia and take voting in every election, because the safer any party can feel in office, the bolder they can afford to be in that slow-moving, change-resistant place.
Democrats did it before because they had the South they could rely on, including Texas. Now Democrats don't have the South.
FDR was a fluke for the Democratic Party up until that point. That's why his cousin ran on the Republican ticket in 1912.
But it still happened, and the opportunity for it to happen could only have been in the Democrat Party. Try and brush it off as much as you try, it's still an undeniable event, fact and history, and proof that both parties are NOT the same.
By the same token of your argument, LBJ and Congress passing the Civil Rights Act was a fluke, because it only happened once? They knowingly sacrificed the entire electoral south for several generations and to this day, to do the right thing. "Yeah, but it doesn't count." Oh give me a break.
Throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, there are shining examples of Democrats attempting to do the right thing in a complex and changing, overwhelming world, while with republicans at the same time it has been all about endless avarice and appetite, with the snarl of bigotry facing in all directions.
That wasn't my point. My point is that the parties switched, or more accurately The Republicans went from being left of Democrats to the far right sometime between 1912 and 1945-1960
This is a really big part of the problem, I think. Politicians on the "left" tend to be actually just more moderate right wingers, or unable to accomplish much of anything meaningful.
It's much the same in Canada too, our Liberal party is supposed to be the mainstream "left" option but they're just doing moderate right politics with pride flags.
Then there's the NDP which actually has some leftist elements, and I'm grateful to have a meaningful 3rd party, but they've still never formed government at the federal level.
And we've ingested so much cold war propaganda that if you just say "socialist" people start getting freaked out.