When i vote R, i didn't think voting for conservatism would conserve to a time before gay marriage
What era in time do these people think R's are trying to conserve to, after or before civil rights?
1033
Comments189View original on lemmy.world
What era in time do these people think R's are trying to conserve to, after or before civil rights?
"Dear Republicans. When I voted to have people's rights stripped away and their lives ruined, I didn't think it included me!"
Eat shit, asshole.
and should gulp it down with a warm jug of piss for good measure.
Dear Trump, I wrote you, but you still ain't callin', I left my cell, my pager, and my home phone at the bottom
Notice how the author justifies himself. He's pro-life, 2nd, ect...
This screams "I'm one of the good ones", and implies that he has internalized homophobia. Anyway, it's some next level "pick me" shit.
A "pick me" wanker.
I know very little about gay rights history in the US but in a quick search I learned that the supreme court case that made same sex marriage legal was put forth by a Democrat.
Another thing is that I'm under the impression that the Replublican party is very much a Religeous party that does not reconize anything outside Men-Women relations. I'm always confused to hear about gay Republicans.
"one day I'll be that boot!"
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say you can't be half as confused as they must be... 🤣😂 I mean, maybe I'm misremembering things here, but I feel like the GOP-at-large just recently (like within the last decade?) stopped publicly referring to homosexuality/homosexuals as 'an abomination,' which even then kinda felt like a begrudgingly made concession of necessity at best... No?
I'm not gonna lie, I'm more than a little shocked at this point everytime Trump mentions someone being "BL-A-ack." I keep waiting for him to shift into full Dementia Don mode and just drop some hard Rs
They almost immediately switched to attacking trans people. They must be able to focus on some external group as being The Enemy, but they took a sudden loss on gay rights and they saw how deeply unpopular their position really was. Immediate switch to talking about bathroom bans and women's sports. They even peeled off a section of the gay/lesbian community over this.
And some of these people just completely failed to see the similarities.
Like, some of the transphobic caricatures that have gone around over the years should've rung alarm bells in the minds of even people who don't like us. They look like cartoons by A Wyatt Mann or other openly nazi cartoonists.
I'd like people to like us and believe us to be valuable members of their communities and societies. But I'll settle for an understanding that opposing us hinders everyone's freedoms and that some of those who stand against us wouldn't like the people next to them
The issues with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log_Cabin_Republicans seem similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_German_National_Jews, being gay isn't a character trait, it's a sexuality and its stands to reason that lots (although a minority) of gay people are generally conservative when it comes to every other issue than gay rights. And they deceive themselves into the idea that they can be "one of the good ones" and either that the party has already, or that they will move the party towards an accepting attitude.
They threw the gays and lesbians into mental institutions until around 1970.
Just one man's opinion, but I'd rather have the picture and discussion here than a link to reddit.
What an idiot...
Quite likely a troll account.
Edit: meaning the source of the screenshot, not who I was replying to.
Did the picture not show up for you here? I'm using old.lemmy.world so i can see it on my end
I don't know why octopus posted that or how it has the most votes, because you didn't post a reddit link. I am using the Voyager app and I can see the image.
I had to click through to reddit though. (And FWIW it did not link to old.reddit)
Not giving you a hard time though, just grumpy about reddit because reddit. :D
In any case it looks like you edited it and it loads fine now... 🙂
Talking to Republican acquaintances who have lost their jobs to musk, they all say similar ideas. "I'm team Republican, so I voted R. Couldn't let the Ds win. They are the like our division rivals". Its literally a game to them, and election day is their Superbowl.
the greatest con ever played on the public was convincing tens of millions of Americans that their civil rights were a game to them. Normalizing an attitude of “we might loose, but they won’t win either”.
Us vs Them isn’t red vs blue, it’s the rich donors vs their productive workers. The vast majority of Republicans and Democrats are actually on the same “side.”
Developing class consciousness is one of the few ways out of this mess.
i agree wholeheartedly. there ain’t no warfare but class warfare. look at iraq, do you really think we would have gone in if they were just another dirt poor country? naw.
“So why’re you so mad? Y’all won! Think of it this way: you now have all day, everyday to celebrate!”
Most hilarious example of this is Alex Jones, who now has everything he screamed for for 30+ years and now doesnt know what to do with his show. He is now forced to support every idea that he preached was reprehensible all that time.
I have listened to many hours of Knowledge Fight and you are correct. Wild to go back and listen from the first episodes like I've done recently
I am pro second amendment. I believe the constitution explicitly grants the states the right to regulate militias.
It's because he's a convicted felon. The rape thing was in civil court.
Not just before bullets and rifling, but firearms were single shot muzzle loaded.
What's the relevance? There were also cannons...
Cannons that were massive and while they could deal a great deal of damage in a single firing, everyone would see it coming. Cannon required a lot of support or else their crew would get wiped out by enemy foot soldiers. You couldn't just pop out, surprise, fire a cannon before anyone notices.
The writers of the amendment wouldn't have conceived of small arms that would allow a single person to rapidly take down dozens of people at significant distance without any warning or support. Melee weapons were the only viable weapons for a prolonged single person fight, with small arms requiring a long reload activity between shots where the wielder was vulnerable and big weapons being huge, slow, and similarly vulnerable before even the first shot. All of the firearms of the time had the projectile go vaguely in the direction of firing, so at range it was essentially useless for a person by themself without a bunch of others firing balls chaotically in the same direction in hopes of hitting their target.
Im pro 2ndA Democrat as well but this who thing is pretty damning proof that there is no need for guns because we Wouldn't use them anyways.
But damn guns are fun to shoot... But im not sure the pros outweigh the cons anymore since the biggest pro seems to be a lie and the biggest con is how many of us die needlessly to them.
Yeah so I'm not using my guns to enact violent revolution. But if the neo-SS comes to take me to a slave camp, they're going to have a bad day.
“It doesn’t matter until it affects me” - republicans who thought “winning” would just hurt those they disagreed with.
A bit hard to take the threat seriously when you already admitted it would never happen.
Back to the mouth-breathing times....
This isn’t real, right? Because if it is I’d like to know the piece and origin
Thanks!
People need to stop treating this like team sports. If a party does not represent you then don't vote for them. It's really that simple.
The Democrats don't represent most of the people who vote for them, either. They're just not nearly as bad as Republicans.
Which is why, while I do vote democrat, I am not a democrat. Their interests are more aligned with mine than the republicans, even though they might as well both be on the god damn moon.
People identifying so strongly with some political party like this is so weird and disgusting, regardless of party.
Yup. We need to move theoverton window back
In Europe, where there's typically way more choice, the candidate I usually end up voting for isn't necessarily the greatest. It's the least bad realistic choice available. Because that's how democracy works, there aren't great candidates anyway. Just vaguely better choices.
At least Europe has actual left-wing parties. Here it's right-wing or full-on nazi.
That's the next level. First we need to get people to stop voting against themselves.
It’s everywhere. Portuguese here and I tell you, I can’t remember the last election I voted for who I actually wanted. Now is just the neo nazis pushing and people like me voting for the lesser evil because if we don’t we are screwed.
This is everything. When I go to my local pizza joint, I'm picking the least bad option. What I really want is to fly to Sicily and get the same one I had there before, but that's not an option.
Oh yeah? Well you say that because your team is shit!My team is a multiple-time genocide winner, and went several times in the finals for racism and segregation and is probably still one of the best for transphoby, homophoby and misogyny. Go fascists!
Vote your interests not your pride.
That’s… that’s kinda a damning statement on the democrats as well. But double so in this case
Yeah. The only reason politicians get away with not actually representing us is because we don't demand it.
You're making way to hard for most people out there.
/s <<just incase
Tribalism at its finest
He's not even part of their tribe lol
Typical conservative reasoning: “I don’t mind banning abortion, because I personally will never be affected”
...until you are affected...
A gay republican; or, as they're more commonly known as in the LGBT community, a "bitch-ass traitor".
I mean.... Yeah.... That IS kind of their whole point!?
They really are stupid aren't they.
Many want Trump voters to be this kind of evil villain, but if you know any, they’re dumb, arrogant, fragile assholes.
Never assume malfeasance where plain incompetence will suffice as an explanation.
Where that falls short is just how much of the population that appears to include. I’m all set to believe in plain incompetence, weaponized incompetence, stubborn incompetence …. But 50% of voters?
Deep in human history, staying in good graces with our tribe was more important to survival than having beliefs be factual. We are genetically hardwired to pull whatever mental gymnastics are required to maintain membership in the tribe, because our ancestors who failed at that died before passing on their genes. It's not really stupidity or incompetence, it's an operating system property.
It's obviously not an absolutism, though I think we'd be surprised how many people it covers. Propaganda runs deep in this country and the distorted funhouse mirror that they view the world through is pretty effective. Certainly there are bad actors, but it's a small part of the whole. Even those on "the left" (in truth they are mostly center right) have a skewed and highly misinformed view of politics. Many people's hearts are in the right place but their brains are mush and the Overton window is so far right that they can't tell their asses from a hole in the ground. Generational trauma has created a country of Stockholm Syndrome victims who identify with their captors (the rich). To paraphrase Warren Buffet "It's a class war and the rich are winning". Working class unity and class consciousness are the only thing that might save us. I'm not convinced that THAT will happen though, given what I see going on and the response. I really hope I'm wrong.
They're disgusting Traitors, every last one of them. When this is over, we should shun every last one of them from society.
If this is ever done, you'll find that nobody ever liked that Trump guy anyway. Just like how nobody in Germany voted for Hitler.
It’s pretty obvious who voted for Hitler, it’s the same whack-a-doodle Christians that voted for Trump. It’s always the religious weirdos who can’t keep it to themselves and feel the need to censor anyone who doesn’t think like them. Anytime I saw a church in Germany I assumed it was much like America: a fascist stomping ground under the watch of perpetually tortured dude who did nothing wrong. So fucking wierd.
"I'll never leave this party that hates me"
Why?
Because Democrats are icky. They have emotions and feelings and empathy and stuff. Not like real men. /S
Pity they won't realize until is too late.
Likely not even then
I don't understand how he missed the part that Republicans are largely anti-lgbtq.
Everyone who supports authoritarianism thinks they're going to be the exception. They can see other people who their politics denigrates as outsiders easily, but they could never be outsiders because they're them and they buy into the bullying. They think signalling that they're on board with mistreating other people will protect them from being mistreated, but all it does in reality is create a society where no one is safe.
Even the powerful people who buy into this thinking will find that it bites them in the ass eventually. They may be late on the list, but they're still on the list. Eventually either the ever-shrinking circle of "insiders" will exclude them, or they'll be in the last in-group once they've alienated the rest of society and put their own safety at risk. Every dictator is terrified of this, because they've seen how it plays out. They're just gambling that it won't happen to them, but eventually the mob will come. The best they can hope for is to delay it as long as possible.
But queer Republicans? Republicans of color? Disabled Republicans? Republican women even? They're on the chopping block from the start and are only surrounding themselves with the people who want to diminish them while alienating anyone who might genuinely want to help.
All the more reason they can't look directly at it. They think if they don't make eye contact or try to fight back or run, the predator won't come for them. They couldn't be more wrong.
White gay man doesn't believe he's part of the LGBTQ+ community anymore because he sees people like him on TV... He's just now realizing that his buddies would rather not see people like him on TV.
He does not seem to be realizing it. He makes it sound like a new trend of only a few people
What a useful fucking idiot of a dumpster fire. You’re gay and vote for the guy who wants you to lose rights? Either you’re a complete fucking idiot, or you’re a psychopath who’s also a complete fucking idiot.
So many “gays” were pro trump over at askgaybros. Now they post in gay conservative and gaslight each other.
It's a tale as old as time. They don't see themselves as the 'bad' gays or Jews or whatever that their leaders and other Republicans/Torys/Religions etc hate. They think they'll be spared because they're special. All the way to the camps they believe this.
Imagine having your head so far up your ass you think Trump is friendly to the gays. HO-LY SHIT! Jesus Americans are so fucking dumb...
USA / UK moron population is undefeated
Oh hey I've met these guys. They're not well liked by their fellow gays
I think that probably would've sufficed. Even the Republicans shun gay Republicans because they don't want them to exist. Gay Republicans are like the most baffling thing to me. Like a Jewish Nazi.
There were always Jewish Nazis, or at least enablers. They're called Kapo, which is one of the most insulting words a Jew can call another. When Bergen-Belsen was liberated, the prisoners turned on the Kapos, and lynched 170 of them on the spot.
One of HitlerPig's closest and most loyal advisors is one: Kapo Stephen "PeeWee Himmler" Miller.
Perhaps we should extend the meaning to include gay Republicans, or at least gay MAGAs.
"But im a good Jew, I'll happily walk to my death voluntarily"
That's the point. Next, to the camps for you.
Education is really lacking. LGBT+ Republicans are some of the stupidest, most selfish, and downright deplorable people in conservative circles. They post these goofy ass posts like this as if they should be immune from the issues everyone else in our community is fighting to protect. "New" Conservative movement my ass that would defeat the point of conservatives.
Acting like these people aren't trying to destroy the efforts of progressives from the last 50+ years because that is the "Great" in MAGA would be hilarious if it wasn't pathetic. I get that these people are emotional and political masochists but they need to take it home.
"When i vote R, i didn't think" sums it up nicely.
When I was younger, I thought conservativism was just for people who are like "literally don't change anything, keep everything like how it is" I have realized that this is not true, it's all about regressing, they're all regressionists.
This fucktard doesn't realize that they're only allowing him to be a part of the club because for now, he's useful to them, perhaps influencing right leaning minorities and queers to join in and help their own slaughter.
These guys are no different from the Jews for Hitler party
Being a republican is about easy solutions and never accepting responsibility. Everything is someone else's fault and the solution to any infinitely complex problem is super easy, tax cuts.
Fantasies.
"If conservatives were in charge, everything would be easy."
None of them understand economics, civics, or science and they don't care to.
Conservative chucklefucks ain't got two brain wrinkles between the lot of them.
These are Cipolla's five fundamental laws of stupidity:
1.Always and inevitably, everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.
2.The probability that a certain person (will) be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.
3.A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses
4.Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In particular, non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places, and under any circumstances, to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake.
5.A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.
The cool thing about Trump is how easy it has become to spot the stupid people.
Look at this guy botch numbered lists by missing the space. Is this a meta comment? 😉
I’d upvote that - why does markup need to be so complex and brittle?
I don't think writing lists & punctuation in the conventional way is expecting too much. No spaces after periods? Crazy.
That’s the problem, isn’t it: whose convention? It never works in the way I conventionally do ot, and takes way too much troubleshooting to make it work. I also have no idea how to do formatting other than lists so would have to look it up. There’s a reason most posts on Lemmy are unformatted, it’s too much effort to get it to work.
Before you say that’s a me problem: the list conventions I write with work fine everywhere else. Plus I haven’t had to look up formatting syntax since LaTEX
Standard convention taught in every school and observed in every print we read?
I've never seen a convention in English where a space doesn't separate a period and whatever follows: no instance considered correct where
See how jarring that looks? Obscene.
Though if you've seen a practice like that in active production out in the field, then I'd welcome to see it. That'd be new.
Yet lists can be special
markup is way over sensitive
So even if I use period then space as a delimiter
Maybe I spaced it out
Which works everywhere else
What's interesting is that Democratic and Republican voters look at these two parties and somehow, after the last 40 years of wealth transferring upward, manage not to notice the billionaires behind both of them.
No one cares about your unique social characteristics or what demographics you fall into. They care about finding that sweet spot where you will work yourself to death but not come up behind them on a NYC street and communicate your displeasure with a bullet.
You are an ant underneath their boot.
Of course they do, they make great lines to create schisms to prevent people from really grasping the rest of what you wrote.
In that context, you're right.
It's ironic that the gay community was making so much more progress forward back when everyone was just 'gay' and way less intent on subdividing themselves.
They claimed to accept black people way before you, and they didn't (look at the sieg heils and white supremacy claims). They only pretended to accept gay people recently, and you thought this was serious?
Time to break out ol' trusty.
Sucks to suck bro.
Sucking your bro is the point, bro.
But sucking bros sucks bro if you suck the R instead of the D bro.
If you want to suck the R instead of the D, are you even gay?
No, you're just a sub.
This whole thread was ducking scary LMAO
Its Regression not conservatism. Quit calling it that. There is nothing wrong with a conservative outlook. The maga don't have a conservative outlook. They have a regressive one.
When you're living in comfort and you benefit from the status quo and you prize stability over the perceived benefits of change, there's an argument for a conservative outlook.
But I've been living under Conservative governance in my home state of Texas for forty years. The pattern of police enforced racial castes, privatization of public institutions, and ecologically unsustainable consumption has been ongoing for my entire life. This is what conservatives are fighting to defend. Misogyny. Supremacy. Homogeneity. A wild imbalance in economic opportunity. Its too late to try and rebrand this as "bad" conservatism.
Trump's policies are more extreme than what came before, but the impulses remain the same. It is the composition of American elites that has changed.
The Red Hats are the children of Goldwater/Reagan and they are shepherding Paleoconservative Libertarianism to its logical end game. They were raised to believe in Galt's Gulch and Friedman's free market fetishism. They were raised to believe in Evangelical Christianity and Christian Dominionism. They were raised to believe in winning the Cold War at all costs.
And what they're doing has plenty of historic parallels - from Nixon's War on Crime to Eisenhower's Operation Wetback to McKinley's Jim Crow. They're White Nationalists embracing White Nationalism, on the belief that the Peace Dividend they reaped in the 90s was a Heavenly Mandate to Do As Thou Wilt. If you carve off all the QAnon cultism and bigotry, what you've got are a bunch of Gen X and Y folks who are fighting to preserve the segregation and the implicit international hegemony they enjoyed when the Iron Curtain fell and America was the uncontested global superpower.
It is conservatism in root and branch. A philosophy flailing in the face of a diminished empire to preserve the icons of prosperity their elders once enjoyed.
They don't know they're the same picture
Real question, how can someone be conservative while still supporting progress? Doesn't the entire ideology hinge on things never changing?
Conservatism is as broad of a term as liberalism. That said, there is a brand of conservatism that do support progress, but wants to do so in an incrementalist way, which is basically the Democratic Party now that I think about it.
There's a continuum between nothing ever changes ever, and through away everything and start again from scratch. In practice, actual little-c conservatives are often called incrementalists, because no one is all the way to one end of the spectrum.
The point here is that Conversatism is not actually a conservative ideology. They actually want to change a lot. In fact, the current administration might be the least conservative one we've had. They are much more in the "move fast and break things" camp, which is at the opposite end of the spectrum.
I think what happened with conservative movements, is they tend to adopt genuinely conservative positions. But then as the world changes around them they are conservative in updateing their positions, so end up having a collection of regressive positions.
The actual conservatives in America's current political environment is the conservative wing of the Democratic party.
If someone becomes a conservative in 1995, they want to conserve the current state of society, no? Since society has progressed to a different state in those 30 years, does that not mean this person would want to regress back to the 1995 version? Conservativism is just delayed regressivism.
Same sex marriage was such a good example of democracy working. MA stood alone, defiant and proud, for years. Then some of the neighboring states went "You know what? They didn't get smote with fire and brimstone. Maybe I can do that too."
Only 10 years after Massachusetts took the first step, it was growing past the recently blue states as voters came around to accepting it, and if it had another 5 years, we would've been taking would-be holdouts like Texas.
That process was cut short, but I haven't seen any polling that suggests we're not still collectively sliding that direction, so even if the supreme court reverses Obergefell v. Hodges, I don't think there's popular support for bans this time.
But they already exist. My state constitution has a prohibition on recognition of gay marriages. These laws won't stay nullified and have to be reestablished. And much like we see with abortion they're going to next go for a nationwide ban.
This asshole will be trying to explain to the guards that he voted for Trump and not like these groomers as he's loaded onto the next bus headed for the camps.
That's the whole point.
Useful idiot is close to figuring out they're a useful idiot.
This will be the first guy to leave Republicans for being anti-gay. Alone in a sea of sieg-heiling nazis that shaved their heads because of feminist criticism of videogames.
Absolute dumbass. Even now he cannot face reality.
That Jordan guy is a real idiot
I can't believe face eating leopards eat faces...
[Scene opens on a wide, desolate savanna at dusk. The camera slowly pans over a leopard lying under a tree, its large body barely able to move. The sun is setting, casting a cold, dim light over the scene. Soft wind rustles through the dry grass. The leopard’s eyes are dull, its breathing labored.]
Narrator (soft, somber voice): In the wild, leopards are meant to stalk, to hunt, to climb. But for some, this is no longer possible. These are the leopards of the forgotten savanna... the ones who can no longer live the life they were born to lead.
[Cut to a close-up of another leopard, this one lying next to a watering hole, panting heavily. The camera lingers on its enormous, bloated body, its paws barely able to reach the ground. The leopard’s eyes seem vacant, devoid of the wild spark they once had.]
Narrator: Overfed and unable to move, these leopards have been left to a slow, painful existence. They can no longer hunt their prey, no longer climb the trees to escape danger, no longer feel the thrill of the chase. They are trapped in their own bodies.
[Cue the soft, mournful opening chords of "Angel" by Sarah McLachlan. The camera slowly pans over a third leopard, sluggishly trying to rise, but its massive weight prevents it from standing. It lets out a heavy sigh, its once-strong legs buckling beneath it.]
Narrator: They are the forgotten victims of a world that has abandoned them. Too fat to run, too weak to fight... These leopards are slowly fading, one breath at a time. They need your help.
[Cut to a shot of a leopard staring out over the savanna. The camera lingers on its face, eyes half-closed, its expression one of quiet resignation.]
Narrator: For just $3 a day, you can provide the care and support these leopards so desperately need. A donation will help give them the chance to live a life of dignity. Help them find their way back to the wild they were meant to roam.
[The music swells as the camera fades to black, and the words "Your donation can make a difference" appear in white text on the screen.]
Narrator (whispering): Please, don’t let them suffer in silence. The time to act is now.
[The music fades out, and the SPCA logo appears in the corner, along with a toll-free number and website for donations.]
Shaking laughing. ty.
Leopards, remember to stop after just the face and leave the rest if you don't want to become like these pathetic creatures. Even then, be careful.
Conservatism has become quite the unfitting term. Retrogressivism might be more suitable.
I've been using Regressive for a while.
Take America Back ... to the Stone Age
"It's not the same republican party it used to be, get over it!"
It has always been that party, idiot.
This is what you get when you have such a polarised electoral system. People treat the parties like sport teams and support them no matter what. So they vote against their own interests because they believe they should never vote for the other side.
1/3 of people dont even vote in the US because there is no real choice.
Its amazing how often you see people aggressively defending the democrats purely on the basis that they're not the republicans. Even criticising the dems is framed as being pro Republican which is crazy. Both parties are shit, both have sewn up the US electoral system between them and keep everyone else out at all levels.
And during elections that opinion gets shut down and people become complicit with the system. "Voting for a 3rd party is a wasted vote" etc.
The idea that voters should be registered as democrat PR Republican is also crazy - it's like supporting a party is part of someone identity which is weird.
The only way out is wholesale reform of the system and I don't see either party offering that. A 3rd party could try and build from the bottom up and dismantle the two parties powerbase but it doesn't seem to be happening.
So maybe it'll be revolution when a party pushes people too far? Though Americans seem willing to tolerate an awful lot of shit without doing anything at all.
If you're not conviced by the last . . . eight weeks . . . that that's absolutely not true, I don't know what to tell you. If you're under 24 then that's because the adulting hasn't kicked in full-time, but other than that, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Exactly. People who genuinely say there is no difference are either so privileged that they genuinely feel no difference, or are too young to experience the differences.
This being said I suspect that a good amount of people who say there is no difference are accelerationist bad actors who just have no empathy.
South Park centrism is definitely something I had to grow out of, but it took a lot of additional reading and growing on my part that I’m guessing most people don’t bother with. Why try to figure out the better of two imperfect options when it’s easier to just say both suck?
Not really. The FPTP system makes that incredibly difficult. You can't get votes without taking some amount away from the closest party.
So existing parties are encouraged to shut down and absorb new parties. And new parties will struggle to get a majority of the old party, let alone a majority of the entire election.
We need a system that doesn't have these nonstarter problems, and that's star + approval voting.
There are several countries that have FPTP voting, but they're not as entrenched at everywhere into two parties the way the US is. The UK, for example, has several regions where one of the two major parties is mostly fighting against a regional party, and the other major party has little to no voting base there.
Not only that, but several southern states have used instant runoff voting since the end of Reconstruction (or not long after). If you look at the makeup of their legislatures over the past 100+ years, you'll see that they are just as filled with Democrats and Republicans as everywhere else.
Point is, FPTP is not the only thing at play.
Sure, that's because there are other factors at play. But FPTP is one of the biggest factors, and in other countries with FPTP it is always the case where there are two dominant parties. Your own example, the UK, has that problem with the conservative & labour parties being the biggest. They always dominate the seats in parliament.
Sure, but a part of why FPTP is so bad is because it gets worse the bigger the election. A small regional election may only have two candidates to begin with, which means any system of voting is esentially equal.
National elections are almost guaranteed to have at least 3 candidates running for a seat, often 4 or 5 if its a seat like the presidency. And that's where you see third parties suffering most.
The fewer the seats there are, and the more national the election is, the worse FPTP gets.
That's because the two parties are so entrenched everywhere else. It's in their interest to dominate and push out 3rd parties in those elections as well.
Agreed, though it is clearly one of the biggest factors in 3rd parties failing. We need reprentational government, and this ain't it.
I don't agree Australia has "ranked choice" and we have two big parties dominant. It's not a FPTP, it's voters.
Paraphrasing Susan Sontag, 10% of voters are good, 10% evil and 80% can be swayed either way, of that 80% many of us are stupid (in the Cippola sense).
Ranked choice is basically FPTP with simulated rounds. It's not much better than FPTP. Switching from one bad voting system to a marginally better one isn't going to fix things.
Just use the word republicans, it pisses everyone off
What a dumb ass. What world was he living in… I can tell you it wasn’t reality.
What a fucking moron.
In german we have a word for it: Tja
Which is hard to acuratly translate. Something like:
Well, i told you/them / that was obvious, but nothing you/they can do about it now.
You mean "oh well"
yeah maybe, not sure if it hits the exact conotation
I guess it does
They voted for HATE.
That HATE applies to all vulnerable groups including them.
Staggering that Maga voters didn't understand that and are now surprised that they are the targets.
I wonder if any Jews thought Hitler was worth supporting.
https://www.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%206254.pdf
What a ridiculous level of privilege coming from this completely oblivious meal for the leopards
I find it interesting that the basic premise of his argument is that all current legislature is correct and good. He just wants any future rules about unlegislated concepts to be reactionary.
I think Jordan Ramsey needs some more critical thinking skills and a quick look at what the republican agenda always was, and will continue to be (under Project 2025) before he decides that he will "never be a Democrat"
I feel little pity for anyone who has so little knowledge of history that they don’t know the Republican Party has run on anti-out groups since before I was born.
First they came for the communists and I didnt complain because I wasnt a communist...
So, a married gay man who is conservative, a gay man who I presume to be a cis man, who call himself pro life… I’m not an expert or anything of sorts but I don’t think he should be having an opinion of abortion, because let’s say, his opinion of abortion is so well informed and backed by science as his voting choices… everyone capable of getting pregnant is seriously screwed.
I feel like someone needs to tell Justice Thomas that he can just divorce his wife before he reverses Loving v. Virginia to get rid of her.
Hard r voters when they realise where their party wants to go back to
My partner just said “it sounds like it was written by Joe Exotic” and not a truer statement has ever been said.
The thing about tokens, they get spent. First: Roe overturn. Completed Second: Obergefell overturn. In process. Third: Lawrence overturn. In process. Fourth: Griswald overturn. In process. Soon: Loving overturn. Coming.
What are those? I only know Roe is for abortion.
Obergefell v. Hodges: Same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry.
Lawrence v. Texas: Anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional.
Griswold v. Connecticut: Opposite-sex couples have a Constitutional right to privacy and contraception.
Loving v. Virginia: Bans on interracial marriage are unconstitutional.
Obergefell is same-sex marriage, Lawrence overturned sodomy laws making gay sex legal, Griswold was legalizing contraception, and Loving was interracial marriage.
Obergefell allowed gay marriage. Obergefell v. Hodges 2015 https://www.wlns.com/news/resolution-introduced-to-overturn-obergefell-v-hodges/ Lawrence is sodomy laws are unconstitutional. Lawrence v. Texas 2003 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/thomas-wants-supreme-court-overturn-landmark-rulings-legalized-contrac-rcna35228 Griswold is right to use contraception. Griswold v. Connecticut 1965 Loving got rid of anti-miscegenation laws. Loving v. Virginia 1967 https://pwperspective.com/republican-senator-suggests-supreme-court-should-reconsider-loving-v-virginia/
The One Rule: Be a white, straight man.
If you are part of the One Rule, the conservatives are coming after you and all the civil rights you have.
If you think you're an exception, see the One Rule.
People like this need to get bit by reality. Hard.
If America isn't stuck in their own Orwellian version of language suppression (Americans only think with binary terms "liberal/Democrats" and "conservative/Republicans") and have a multiparty ranked choice voting, the person screenshoted would be able to articulate his thoughts and say he is a conservative supporting the centre right party that is the Democratic Party. I met people from different countries who are gay, but have no problem identifying as conservative or right.
"We" lol
I wonder if Jordan Ramsey is good at cooking.
No fucking way this is real
Think about it, if I was gay, voted republican and sees this regression to pre gay times , I would sure as shit be too embarrassed to say anything and there’s no way I’d post about it
IT'S FUCKING R!
Brain damage
Chanting 1776 wasn't a dead giveaway?!
It basically could have been written by an Aaron Sorkin character.
Pretty much already was
Yeah that's what I'm referencing. It's one of his favorite character archetypes. I think he used it in three different shows.
Jordan is a dumbshit
There aren’t words to describe how much I love this for him.
conservatives vs reactionists
Eat shit fuckin loser
Would be a real shame if he got lynched by his own people, lmao
This is what happens when Dems refuse to do anything to help...
Idiots vote Republican because things will change. Almost never changes for the better (gotta go back to like Lincoln lol) but shit does change with a Republican.
If Dems who wanted to help could make it past the neoliberals in the primaries, all of these people would still be voting D.
Luckily Ken Martin hasn't been the type to stand in the way of the type of candidates dem voters want. He's the whole reason Minnesota is blue, let alone progressive.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/minnesota-becoming-laboratory-progressive-policy-rcna79816
Compare that to "Dem stronghold" states where most voters hate their incumbents, and the incumbents are routinely more conservative than the Dem party platform.
This is like blaming people for watching a lynching instead of blaming the KKK directly.
Not having courage to stop something is one thing but its not equally as incriminating as the crime itself.
Oh I'm sorry...
I thought this was a reasonable discussion about what the Dem party could do to stop people from voting for trump...
You clearly want to keep doing the same stuff that's not working and just screech at people.
That does the opposite, but I won't waste more time explaining
Edit:
A 14 hour account too, wonder how many accounts of yours I've blocked for advocating for the absolute worst strategy Dems can use moving forward....
whats funny to me is this guy is gay and is openly admitting to being pro life and in favor of the 2nd amendment. making him fully 100% liberal. yet he doesn't like liberals lmao. it always amazes me that people don't know the literal definition of what a liberal is.
Wouldn't a liberal be pro choice ?
generally yes...but a liberal has the freedom to be open about whatever they want. they aren't forced to feel one way or the other. Like. "if you are pro choice then you will go to jail" and someone saying "im pro life because i dont want to go to jail" that is not being liberal, that is following a structure