this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2024
123 points (100.0% liked)

Political Memes

5091 readers
2467 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 23 points 2 months ago (6 children)

This is all Hillary and the DNC's fault and I will never fucking forgive them.

[–] EdyBolos@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (3 children)

European here. I'm curious, what did Hillary and the DNC do exactly that is unforgivable?

[–] maniii@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago

Not-an-American, but what I heard was that BOTH DNC and RNC do not choose the more "popular" candidate. The parties choose the candidate that their "donors" actually want. In RNC I think they straight-up just rig the process and push their choice.

But in the case of the DNC I believe the DNC "promises" to choose the candidate that is the most popular. BUT DNC "donors" have what is known as "super-delegates" or some bullshit ( Extra Votes for Money ? ) Soooooo Hillary went around ALL the states "buying" up all the super-delegate votes........ so in-effect Bernie lost even before the voting had even started! And on top of all that I think that so many candidates ran at the same time that it split most of Bernies votes down the middle which might have been the strategy engineered by DWS and the DNC.

Those are not the only problems with the DNC..... I believe that Hillary and DWS and DNC ran political ads PROMOTING Drumpf because he would be "easier" for Hillary to beat. So effectively the DNC and Hillary were campaigning for Drumpf! !!!!

I think 'Murica has a lot more serious problems and a lot more roadblocks but breaking the fundamentals of democracy by rigging votes and installing puppets seems almost comical and farcical if it wasnt so damaging and dangerous.

[–] treefrog@lemm.ee 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (5 children)

You can think of it like nepotism in the DNC. Bernie was the more electable candidate. The candidate the liberals and the left preferred. They went with Hillary anyway and they underestimated Trump's electability in the actual presidential race. Essentially giving Trump the presidency in 2016.

You can watch all of their surprised Pikachu faces during Hillary's concession speech. They had a huge glass ceiling they were going to shatter all of this stuff. And it all fizzled out.

[–] AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

From what I understand, the DNC made a Faustian deal with the Clinton Foundation. They were in debt up to their eyeballs during the Obama Administration and the Clinton Foundation offered to pay off their debts in exchange for making Hillary the nominee and replacing key DNC staff with Clinton Foundation personnel.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

DWS. I know it wasn't just her, but I will forever curse the name of Debbie Wasserman Schultz

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago (5 children)

FDR was much closer to being a Social Democrat than a Democratic Socialist. They sound similar but are quite different. Hell I think Bernie is closer to a Social Democrat, too. He praises the Nordic model and they're textbook social democracies.

[–] aski3252@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (6 children)

He wasn't even a social democrat. At the time, social democrats were democratic socialists, the shift away from reformist socialism happened around the 80s (some social democratic parties still hang onto reformist socialism, at least in theory).

He was a smart liberal who realized that in order to save capitalism from collapsing again, some regulations are necessary. In Europe, similar policy was often pushed by social democrats, which sometimes leads to confusion. But actual social democrats at the time went (or at least wanted to go) further, like nationalization and socialization of major industry, worker representation at companies, and increasing worker and union power in general.

Social democrats stated endgoal was a socialist society. FDR's endgoal was to protect and maintain capitalism.

Edit: Also, Bernie is definitely a reformist socialist, I will never understand why people think otherwise. He literally mentions Eugen Debbs, one of the most influencial socialists in American history, as his role model and hero every chance he can.. And he praises the nordic model because the nordic model was literally pushed by reformist democratic socialists.. Here is Olaf Palme, one of the most important figures when it comes to the nordic model and prime minister of Sweden (until he was murdered), explaining why he is a democratic socialist:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=7i2Ws1X5DSA

Just imagine a conservative politican, calling themselves a fascist, keeping a picture of Mussolini on their desk, saying he is their political role model. Would you claim that he isn't really a fascist? It's not even as if Bernie Sanders was dog whistling, he couldn't be any clearer about his believes.. Yet somehow, so many American leftists seem to sonehow doubt his intentions? Why? Because he isn't radical enough? Because he isn't throwing molotov coctails at the police? What does he have to gain from falsely calling himself a socialist??

The man's presidental campaign was giving 20% of major corporations to it's employees and having about half of the board of directors be elected by workers, among other stuff..

if you don't even want to acknowledge his values and his ideology simply because he is playing the politics game and is a reformist, send him to Europe, we would love a genuine leftist like him with so much charisma. I don't think you appreciate him..

Imagine dedicating your life to fight for a better life, involve yourself in the civil rights movement, work in various socialist groups, calling yourself a socialist and calling for major industry to be socialised, being constantly attacked by right wingers for your socialist believes, etc, only for fellow leftists denying that you are a "real socialist"..

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Droggelbecher@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I've always felt that's just pragmatism from Bernie, and in truth he's ideologically a democratic socialist. If it makes any difference this is coming from a democratic socialist who's a member of a social Democrat party.

[–] Bernie_Sandals@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I've always felt that's just pragmatism from Bernie,

If you read his book "It's Okay to Be Angry About Capitalism" it becomes very very obvious that this is the case. From quoting very radical anti-capitalists to tongue and cheek (somewhat) insider jokes such as naming the chapter on his time in mayoral politics "Socialism in one City", it shows he's definitely way more ideologically aligned with socialism than people give him credit for.

[–] aski3252@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

As an European, I have never understood why so many American leftists don't see that, even by simply listening to what he is saying or looking at what he is doing. I mean he literally has a picture of Eugene Debs on his desk and mentions how he is this political role model and hero any chance he gets, that alone should tell you where he stands on an ideological or philosophical level..

And of course, he has been involved in various socialist groups his whole life and literally still calls himself a democratic socialist. Why would he do that if it wasn't true? To gain a political advantage, in America of all places, where calling yourself a socialist would have generally been political suicide?

And then are his policies, where many will focus on healthcare and say "he just wants healthcare" and ignore anything else. But of course, healthcare is a major issue because it makes the working class even more dependend on their employers because they lose tgeir healthcare if they get fired, so it makes sense for him to focus on tgat first. And of course, he also had other policy in his program, like transfering 20% of ownership over major corporations to their employees and having workers electing half of the board of directors.

You can call him a reformer, you can call his participation ineffective, but why deny his political believes?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

Not to be agist, but bernie is rapidly approaching his UBD. Closest we have to him in a viable position is AOC

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Hey, nothing wrong with being agist in this situation, let's be honest. Nobody - not Biden, not Bernie, not Trump - will be as cognitively-sharp when they are 80 as they were when they were 50, 40, 30. We wouldn't want an 80-year-old lifeguard or firefighter, right?

And until an 18-year-old can be president, we're already agist in one direction.

That we think putting geriatrics in the White House to run one of the most stressful jobs that is on-call 24/7 is a good idea... I mean it's absurd. Just look how much Obama aged in 8 years. Forget the fact that the general risk of all-cause mortality is far greater, that's just another risk-factor for running the country.

So yeah unfortunately I agree... Bernie's opportunity was missed. When AOC runs one day, I will campaign as hard as possible for her victory.

[–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 2 points 2 months ago

I would happily see an elderly Bernie in office. Why? Because he would fill the system with younger, capable individuals, and trust their opinions. He would leave the system a better place.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

We have to face that loads of high ranking "moderate" Dems would prefer a Republican to a progressive.

If a Republican gets in office, it makes it easier to get people vote lesser of two evils.

If a progressive gets in office, it's really hard to unseat them. They can barely manage to get House Reps out for moderates even with AIPAC money.

If Bernie had won 2016, he'd have gotten to name the DNC chair, he could of solidly ended in the failed neo liberal experiment.

We were really fucking close to fixing things, but after NH got their delegates stolen, I don't think itll happen.

I honestly think if a real progressive wins a presidential ~~party~~ primary, the standing party might disregard it.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] rayyy@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Bernie ain't the first one that the corporate Democrats blocked either.

[–] Asidonhopo@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Wasn't the McGovern/Humphrey dem primary done similarly to Sanders/Clinton too? I think I remember my dad saying something like that a long time ago

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I reckon FDR has managed to do as much as he could because he is already wealthy and doesn't have to worry much about funding election campaign. He did not have to beg to rich people and businesses for funding in exchange for doing favours for them. After all, there is strong correlation with how much campaign funds you have with thei likelihood of winning the election.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

He did not have to beg to rich people and businesses for funding in exchange for doing favours for them.

That's totally untrue. FDR was about as deep in with the military industrial complex and the financial interests as anyone on the Republican side of the aisle. The fundamental difference between FDR and Hoover was that FDR didn't surround himself with the most economically blackpilled advisors. He treated the Great Depression as a subject of scientific inquiry and tried a whole litany of approaches to get us out of it, while Hoover treated it as a test of his convictions and clung stubbornly to the most conservative panacea.

The Roosevelts profited handsomely from both the national rebound and the subsequent war. They profited from America's predominant position as industrial superpower, by the end of the war. But their profiteering came as a consequence of successful economic experimentation and strategy.

By sharp contrast, the Von Mises / Rothbard / Ayn Rand capitalist die-hards repeatedly ruined themselves chasing economic orthodoxy and had to keep coming back to the state and national governments for bailout after bailout.

It was the private sector's continued heavy reliance on public authority that gave FDR a free hand, not FDR's own personal fortune. For the next forty years, private industry struggled to see the kind of enormous returns of the pre-war era. The struggles against an insurgent global anti-colonialism curtailed profits internationally. Strong unions at home curtailed profits domestically. Private industrialists relied enormously on state contracts and federal interest rates to turn even marginal profits.

Not until the Volcker Shock and the decoupling of labor productivity from economic growth could conservative business interests reliably reassert themselves against state control. That unleashed private enterprise from public financing and allowed for the steady re-privatization of the economy under Ford, Carter, Reagan, et al. This is the point at which unfettered freely flowing campaign donations began to eclipse the usefulness of large local party organizations, and the national privatization of politics really took off.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›