Yes, but when one side is blatantly bad you should completely vote to other option, then that side will either vanish and new party will appear, or they'll course correct and put someone better. If they always get half the vote whatever they do, then you don't get a change.
If you call it unrealistic, look at Nepal's election results this week (look into what led into the election too if you want more info).
I'm guessing you do not know the election thing I'm talking about, in Nepal the new election results (after the protest) basically gave >60% seats to a completely new party, while old powerful parties now have barely any representation, and it's not even a two party system. If it was two party system the new one would have gotten almost 80-90%.
So if something similar happened here, given people believe "both evil", third party would get overwhelming votes, if not at least the "more evil" would barely get any votes. The excuse of "we only have less evil to choose from" does not work if majority of the people still voted the "more evil", why would a party change if they keep getting votes based on what they are doing.
Edit: To add to this, even the registered and active members of the old parties voted for the new one. They even took campaign money to campaign for old parties, went to the people and told them to vote for the new party lol.
This kinda of results comes from not having your whole identity about a political party, which I don't see it here, and the strong individualism, where people say "well he gave us money last time, I'll vote him"
No, it's people who don't vote or won't vote for the lesser or 2 evils that are part of the problem. Change is incremental and people rather not vote if they can't get what they want immediately. My hair stylist still hasn't registered to vote and she's 30yo.
Oh no, don't get wrong. Dems are only ever slightly better but I'd vote for Bernie if they, you know, did the whole actually-caring-about-voters-humans thing.
Both Democrats and Republicans serve capitalism, run by oligarchic pedophilic billionaires. We all need to go farther left than our corrupt two-party system.
it's both of them, despite what the cultist fanboys of one side have to say.
They either start/prepare the war or continue it.
Endless wars, suppport for the genocider state, multinationals, billionaires are bipartisan.
And if they can't see that, which they obviously can't (42/2 upvote ratio) , they deserve what they get.
bunch of suckers.
hope your dumb violent shithole destroys itself ASAP
Wow that’s relatively benevolent compared to the scale of the crimes of later Republican presidents. Nixon really was the least evil republican president of the last 60 years.
Ah you're right, I'm just a dumbass. I'd like to say that it was just cropped in my app, but I'm almost positive I saw it and then the image was just completely wiped out of my mind as soon as I started reading the comments.
ROFL There is a pattern, that Republican leadership is often flawed, their short term solutions will enrich their donors...Only for so long before it causes long term damage for everyone else.
I mean, yeah, it means people are spending more money instead of hoarding it in, say, retirement funds, emergency savings, for a down payment, for some long-term dream... They can save up while we can pin it on the other guys, then we drain it all and call that economy!
What do you mean, that's not how it works? Line go up!
43 Comments
NichEherVielleicht@feddit.org · 117 pts · 176d
umbrella@lemmy.ml · 12 pts · 176d
Bloomcole@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 176d
Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world · 100 pts · 176d
If Americans could sense a pattern we wouldn't be in this mess.
minorkeys@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 176d
You assume they don't like the pattern.
Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 176d
True. People are the worst.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 176d
heh democracy go boom
prenatal_confusion@feddit.org · 16 pts · 176d
Yeah, nobody else has that problem. Look at Germany! They got rid of facism and are not looking back.
Right?
MissGoldenSocks@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 42 pts · 176d
No, it's the Dems. Let me present you with a whole chart, manifesto and a dozen podcasts pulled fresh out of my ass.
ameancow@lemmy.world · 25 pts · 176d
thevoidzero@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 176d
Yes, but when one side is blatantly bad you should completely vote to other option, then that side will either vanish and new party will appear, or they'll course correct and put someone better. If they always get half the vote whatever they do, then you don't get a change.
If you call it unrealistic, look at Nepal's election results this week (look into what led into the election too if you want more info).
ameancow@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 176d
thevoidzero@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 174d
I'm guessing you do not know the election thing I'm talking about, in Nepal the new election results (after the protest) basically gave >60% seats to a completely new party, while old powerful parties now have barely any representation, and it's not even a two party system. If it was two party system the new one would have gotten almost 80-90%.
So if something similar happened here, given people believe "both evil", third party would get overwhelming votes, if not at least the "more evil" would barely get any votes. The excuse of "we only have less evil to choose from" does not work if majority of the people still voted the "more evil", why would a party change if they keep getting votes based on what they are doing.
Edit: To add to this, even the registered and active members of the old parties voted for the new one. They even took campaign money to campaign for old parties, went to the people and told them to vote for the new party lol.
This kinda of results comes from not having your whole identity about a political party, which I don't see it here, and the strong individualism, where people say "well he gave us money last time, I'll vote him"
CovertGogurt@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 172d
No, it's people who don't vote or won't vote for the lesser or 2 evils that are part of the problem. Change is incremental and people rather not vote if they can't get what they want immediately. My hair stylist still hasn't registered to vote and she's 30yo.
MissGoldenSocks@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 5 pts · 175d
Oh no, don't get wrong. Dems are only ever slightly better but I'd vote for Bernie if they, you know, did the whole actually-caring-about-
voters-humans thing.NichEherVielleicht@feddit.org · 15 pts · 176d
balderdash9@lemmy.zip · 7 pts · 175d
Both Democrats and Republicans serve capitalism, run by oligarchic pedophilic billionaires. We all need to go farther left than our corrupt two-party system.
MissGoldenSocks@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 175d
I'm for Social Democracy.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 176d
ooo, i love ass manifestos
resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 176d
Tell me Chuck didn’t pop Champagne a few weeks ago.
Bloomcole@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 176d
it's both of them, despite what the cultist fanboys of one side have to say.
They either start/prepare the war or continue it.
Endless wars, suppport for the genocider state, multinationals, billionaires are bipartisan.
And if they can't see that, which they obviously can't (42/2 upvote ratio) , they deserve what they get.
bunch of suckers.
hope your dumb violent shithole destroys itself ASAP
NatakuNox@lemmy.world · 36 pts · 176d
The US be like
Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works · 22 pts · 176d
Yeah but the one before bush was good right?
::: spoiler Tap for spoiler It was Reagan :::
NichEherVielleicht@feddit.org · 21 pts · 176d
SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 176d
Wow that’s relatively benevolent compared to the scale of the crimes of later Republican presidents. Nixon really was the least evil republican president of the last 60 years.
real_squids@sopuli.xyz · 12 pts · 176d
"He's dead and his bullshit is still trickling down my face"
WhyIHateTheInternet@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 176d
See, it works.
zikzak025@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 176d
The one before Bush was H. W. Bush, unless we're just counting both Bushes as a single amalgamation of evil.
Edit: ignore me, I'm just dumb.
invertedspear@lemmy.zip · 8 pts · 176d
HW is already in the pic though that’s who they were referring to by just saying bush.
zikzak025@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 176d
Ah you're right, I'm just a dumbass. I'd like to say that it was just cropped in my app, but I'm almost positive I saw it and then the image was just completely wiped out of my mind as soon as I started reading the comments.
invertedspear@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 176d
We all make mistakes. No judgment.
hopesdead@startrek.website · 18 pts · 176d
Are you suggesting Donald is related to the Bush family?
NichEherVielleicht@feddit.org · 7 pts · 176d
Wouldn't wonder about a family circle...
JigglySackles@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 174d
He's a secret bush baby
LostWanderer@fedia.io · 17 pts · 176d
ROFL There is a pattern, that Republican leadership is often flawed, their short term solutions will enrich their donors...Only for so long before it causes long term damage for everyone else.
Thorry@feddit.org · 14 pts · 176d
Yeah but what about that tan suit tho? I mean...
NichEherVielleicht@feddit.org · 8 pts · 176d
Tigeroovy@lemmy.ca · 13 pts · 176d
But all the right wingers keep saying the economy is going great!
I dunno where they get that info but they sure keep saying it!
Good economy means prices go through the roof, right?
luciferofastora@feddit.org · 4 pts · 175d
I mean, yeah, it means people are spending more money instead of hoarding it in, say, retirement funds, emergency savings, for a down payment, for some long-term dream... They can save up while we can pin it on the other guys, then we drain it all and call that economy!
What do you mean, that's not how it works? Line go up!
Beetschnapps@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 176d
No no itt was all Biden’s fault!
HiLlArY iS gEnOciDe!
Democrats are the Republicans!!!
Pricklesthemagicfish@reddthat.com · -2 pts · 176d
If you don't think the democrats are coconspirators at this point in history with all the data available to you, I give up on you.
CovertGogurt@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 172d
If We OnLy hAD BeRniE!
Lushed_Lungfish@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 176d
How about ol' Reagan?
hardcoreufo@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 176d
Missing Regean. Sure he didn't crash the economy during his presidency directly, but he set it up to fail in the future.
WorldieBoi@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 175d
fine by me if it means the death of chat gpt and high ram prices
BennyTheExplorer@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 175d
It won't. Just look at what the 2008 crisis did. It will just mean that you loose and the gain more.