1251
One party deserves criticism for being insufficient. One party deserves nothing but scorn and opposition.
(lemmy.world)
this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2025
1251 points (96.9% liked)
Political Memes
7852 readers
3577 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes 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 misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Well, I’d argue Nancy is more representative of wealthy American neo-liberals, which most of us are not.
I’d even argue is Nancy even a dem at this point she’s more of a centrist parading around as a dem.
And that perfectly represents the party as a whole.
Sounds like you don't know what a Dem is
Yes which is much closer to who the Dems are representing as a whole
No, based upon the popularity of policies, AOC is FAR closer to representing normal people than more conservative democrats like Pelosi are?
There is a reason people hate centrist corporate democrats, it is because they don't even pretend to push policies people desperately need.
Then why do we keep electing them in primaries?
That’s fair I’d agree with it.
While Nancy's actual politics may be more centrists than dem, shes still one of the old guards that must go away for any actual change in the party.
The Dems are centrists. They always have been.
Dems are centrists.
Dems are a far right party that only look centrist if you squint looking at them from inside fascist crazy town.
To basically anyone in the developed world, of which we are not, Luigi murdered a mass murderer, to any fascist or neoliberal here, we have to let murderers for profit let the free market decide who gets life saving healthcare, as just 1 of innumerable examples.
Neoliberals don't squee like little girls at the hello kitty store when people suffer and die needlessly when it facilitates private profit as the Fascists do, but they don't see it as the social fabric betrayal and atrocity it is either. "free market forces, mr dying homeless person, but I support your right to die in the gutter of hunger and exposure as any identity you choose!" Because it's free to, but people need their basic survival met first, and that takes resources that go to them and not the robber barons that pay off both parties.
agreed. In context, they're centrists for the States. Bernie is only barely left of center to the rest of the world but considered extreme here by corporate media and the other government clowns.
When people say dumbass shit like this it makes me wonder what part of the world they are talking about.
All of Africa: right wing compared to America
Most of South America: right wing compared to America
Pretty much all of Asia: right wing compared to America
Middle East: lmao
Russia: lmao
Europe: about 70% right wing or similar to America with a handful of countries that might be considered left wing maybe but are sliding right as well.
The British Commonwealth: about the same as America except for the healthcare aspect.
Maybe you consider Antarctica left wing? Maybe the Oceans? Maybe the only part of the world that exists to these idiots are uber white Aryan nordic countries only? Or maybe you live in a fantasy dimension and are somehow communicating to us through a wormhole via Lemmy.
Europe is absolutely not as you describe. That's what the media feeds you in North America.
Oh so Hungary is left wing?
https://www.newsweek.com/europe-france-germany-elections-far-right-map-1910280
https://www.politico.eu/article/mapped-europe-far-right-government-power-politics-eu-italy-finalnd-hungary-parties-elections-polling/
https://eupoliticalbarometer.uc3m.es/dashboard/ideology
https://www.indy100.com/politics/map-europe-far-right-government
Even if you claim Europe is more left wing than America (which is obviously debatable at this point) it still doesn't change the fact that Europe isn't "the rest of the world".
Spoken like someone who cannot speak a single language outside of American English, who has never met a Western European. We are not a monoculture.
Quite a lot of assumptions you have there and still not one real refutation of any of my points. Lol.
You make one point, over and over. So, I refuted it, with a single point. If you don't understand, that, well.... think of it like this.
There's no value in explaining spark plugs to my dog, but she can still hang out in the garage with me while I change them.
Your 'refutation' (if you can call it that) amounted to "no u".
Come back when you learn to understand basic logic and evidence honey bun.
I swear to gawd not all yanks are as twisted as that cat. Tho i and most do only speak yankity hahaha
You having a stroke?
You made a meme just for lil 'ol me? How sweet.
I totally agree with you she must go, she’s part of the let’s maintain the status quo dems.
You know "centrist" is not a political party, right? Fuckin kids these days, what are they teaching you...
Literally nothing considering I’m an adult these days. But how’s being a smug ass hat been going for ya?
Better than not being one, I guess
That's a funny take. The former speaker of the house who hand selected her replacement and was the leader of the Democratic caucus for more than a decade, and you're basically calling them a DINO
MAGA regularly calls Mitch McConnell a RINO. Why should we handle Nancy any differently?
Right, lol. I guess the other user thought they had me in some sort of gotcha moment.
You guys are so right, maga does it, that means it's correct
/S
It means that a true Democrat or Republican is one who represents the views of their constituents. Not who holds the reins of power in their respective parties. This is a valid definition.
I don't believe that is a valid definition. A good politician is someone who represents the views of their constituents. A true Democrat (or whatever party) is someone who represents the views of the party. The views of the party may be influenced by party candidates on behalf of their constituents, but those views are decided upon by a group of people that aren't elected by a public ballot and have no obligation to democratic voters. If you don't like the platform of the party, you're supposed to go join a different party (but we're kinda fucked with that right now). If you're talking about who represents the views of the democratic party, it's difficult to find someone who represents them better than Pelosi.
Instead of valid definition I should have said a "good definition". There is no real definition of a "true Democrat" or vice versa for Republicans. Both your definition and my definition are valid definitions.
The other option is to slowly replace the members of the party in positions of power. Why do you think AOC is encouraging young people to run for office? She has the right idea.
The fact of the matter is that the US has a two party political system. This isn't changing unless one of the parties gains power and essentially gives it up to implement a new system.
Another fact is that young people aren't running for office so all of our politicians are part of the gerontocracy and all hold particular views from having been born in a generation most of us no longer relate with.
The only way to change things is to get young people into office at the lower levels and work their way up by building political careers until they are the ones in the positions of power in the DNC.
The ones who will hold the reins and make change happen are the ones who actually decide to run for office. This is the system of the United States that allows it's citizens to control what happens in the higher echelons of government.
Yes voting is a part of it but it sounds like you are unhappy with the choices you are given to vote for and that's purely because the people you would like to vote for are not running for office and winning. If they are running and not winning that is because they are not popular with the public which is another conversation but I think the majority of you are getting stuck in the "not feeling like doing anything but protesting" phase and not actually running for office.
I still don't think your definition is valid or good and I didn't really see any argument that said otherwise. Immediately after the part you quoted I did say "(but we're kinda fucked with that right now)" which was in reference to our 2 party system, so yes I understand that part.
Statements like these reveal why the definition I stated is more accurate. That there's a party line that politicians in that party are expected to follow. You use those statements to argue that we should be trying to change what that party line is, which I take no issue with and seems to be a goal of AOC and some others. But we're talking about who is a better example of a Democrat which has zero meaning without the democratic party. And Pelosi is an excellent example of what the party is while AOC is an example of what you would like the party to be. You do need to recognize where the party is before you can figure out how to steer it in the direction you're hoping for.
And you're right about this being a different conversation but I still want to say a little something about
Because this seems like a pretty naive sentiment. First because a large percentage of the public simply doesn't vote. Also the current tribalism of our 2 party system is the most important thing for many if not most of those that do vote. But most importantly, having good and popular ideas or even saying good and popular things is not what gets you elected in this country. Our political system relies on the advertising model. If you package it right and put it in front of enough people, it doesn't actually matter what is being said. That's how someone like Trump gets elected. Which I guess is a form of being popular, but I don't think that's what you meant by it.
Here's an incongruity that applies to both conversations. A supermajority of democratic voters support government run healthcare, but it's nowhere to be seen in the DNC platform.
My argument for why either definition works is that "true Democrat" is a value judgement and different individuals will have different values. MAGA calls McConnell a RINO because he doesn't align with their values of perceiving Trump as infallible. Now they might be wrong in their belief but they have the right to define who they want as a RINO just as constituents of the Democrat party have the right to label who they please as a DINO if they don't meet their criteria of a "true Democrat".
There is no such thing as a "true Democrat" or "true Republican" since both of these are contrived things.
So when you are arguing over what is the correct definition, it's a waste of time because there is no true definition.
You can support your argument with what you believe are good supportive evidence but again there is no such thing as an empirical "true -insert-party-here-".
I may respond to the rest of your post later but I'm in the middle of my workday so please excuse me at least until this afternoon for a more in depth response.
My point is that calling anyone a Democrat doesn't make sense without the relation to the democratic party, it's not an ideology. Whether or not they align with your values is irrelevant. Being a Democrat at all means being a member of the party, and a good member is one who defends the party platform. By your logic you might call Bernie a good Democrat even though he is, by his own admission, not a Democrat.
He sometimes considers himself a Democrat. You are correct that being a Democrat means being a member of the party but the party platform can and has changed, usually to meet the views of its constituents. And even so, Democrats like Nancy are notoriously bad at defending the party platform. That's one of the problems. They promise certain things they don't always deliver. By your definition that makes her a bad democrat.
When it's impossible to make whatever happen while being an independent because of the choke hold the 2 party system has. And yes I brought up changing the platform, what about the incongruity I brought up in that comment? And I didn't say they have to defend the platform well. Though that weak defense is more due to the secret platform of appeasing the biggest donors to the party. That's why I bring up understanding what the party is vs what you want it to be. Right now all the voting members of the democratic party are upper class serving the interests of the even wealthier class.