• Rikudou_Sage@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    Criticizing is great, putting it like OP with “they’re the same, democrats just put on a hat” is dishonest and reductionist.

    It’s really not. My favourite example is Roe v. Wade - how long did democrats have to fix it? How long did they use it in their campaigns in the lines of “if you don’t vote democrats, republicans will overturn it”?

    Yeah, they’re the better choice, for sure, but they’re not a good choice.

    • graveyardchickenhunt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      And your own words show exactly what I mean.

      There’s a marked difference between lazy fucks who didn’t properly bring it across the finish line and people actively working to make things worse. Correct my believe if I’m wrong: unless it’s a constitutional amendment, laws are fairly easy to overturn still.

      And to ‘how many years’… How many years did people have to vote for progressive candidates in the lower levels to change the actual base of the party to where they want it to be? How many years have the voters not used to make it the party they want it to be?

      This kinda shit is so fucking often due to progressives wanting things to be a certain way, but not putting in the legwork because “it’s a lost cause anyway”. With the democrats you have a chance to change the party into the progressive direction. Take an example from those maga assholes - it doesn’t take a lot of them to shift the republicans to be even worse.

      • Kentifer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        This argument would be fine if the DNC actually let people select progressive candidates. But they almost never do. The DNC is controlled by committee, not by democracy, ironically.