• umbrella@lemmy.ml
      8·
      10 hours ago

      im continually hearing rumours about their exquisite taste and superb potential for nourishment and satiation of the irate proletariat, when consumed.

  • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.mlEnglish
    377·
    1 day ago

    When will the democrats drop gun control from their platform given recent history?

    “Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary”

    • Karl Marx
    • umbrella@lemmy.ml
      121·
      23 hours ago

      democrats are right wing. slightly left than republicans, but still right wing.

    • Snapz@lemmy.world
      64·
      18 hours ago

      What are you talking about? The Democrats actual platform around gun safety is very bland and common sense reforms with wide bipartisan support.

      Your question is actually, “When will the Democrats stop doing the things that they aren’t actually doing that Republicans told me they were doing as a boogeyman!!!”

    • Feathercrown@lemmy.worldEnglish
      85·
      1 day ago

      ~50% of an armed populace will fight for an oppressive regime. It’s not an effective way to deter governmental takeover.

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        121·
        1 day ago

        And that number is based on what, exactly? Vibes? Revolution only succeeds when there is broad support.

        • Feathercrown@lemmy.worldEnglish
          22·
          22 hours ago

          Based on how people voted

          Revolution only succeeds when there is broad support.

          That’s exactly what I’m saying

          • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
            8·
            22 hours ago

            The US Electoral system is not a representation of political views, but constraints within what the Bourgeoisie indicates as “acceptable.” Support for Luigi is widespread among the Proletariat, regardless of how they voted. Your error is in assuming the DNC and GOP parties represent the people.

      • PyroNeurosis@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        3·
        24 hours ago

        This assumes that either the populace that would fight for a freer regime is in the permanent minority or that there exists no part of the populace that would simply not fight for either regime.

        I seem to recall that ~40% is the magic number of strong supporters (not necessarily militant supporters) that the regime would need to effectively suppress dissent through violent and non-violent means, but that’s a half-remembered number that I cannot source.

        • Feathercrown@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          20 hours ago

          Yeah, I meant ~50% of people who fight, not 50% of all people.

          40% seems pretty high for that effect. I suspect it would depend on how desparate people are for change.

      • WagyuSneakers@lemm.eeEnglish
        11·
        18 hours ago

        That’s not how power works.

        An armed population is just ensuring their rights through threat of force just like the government doesn’t. The government has to take that into consideration when deciding if they’re going to choke more social support in favor of giving more to the keys of power.

    • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.mlEnglish
      184·
      1 day ago

      Maybe pass electoral reform in your state so we can be free to vote for who best represents us without a spoiler effect.

      • umbrella@lemmy.ml
        10·
        22 hours ago

        i don’t think your overlords would let that happen if it meant it would actually represent your interests. people will only get what they want if they take a bit of power, not beg the rich to lend a bit of theirs.

          • umbrella@lemmy.ml
            2·
            14 hours ago

            my country has mandatory voting. we still get far right populists every time. the voting system in and of itself aint the issue.

      • GraniteM@lemmy.world
        2·
        21 hours ago

        It’s worth pointing out that in Maine, which has instant runoff voting, it was the Republicans who most aggressively opposed its implementation and sued to try to reverse the results of an instant runoff election that they lost. The voting system needs to be repaired, but even within the system as it exists, there is one party that has a proven track record of actively trying to make it worse.

            • Eugene V. Debs' Ghost@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
              3·
              16 hours ago

              Always odd when my broke ass gets the article but no one else does, sorry about that. Here’s a copy paste as I’m on mobile for the time being, alont with a direct link to the Veto:

              https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/SB-212-Veto-Message.pdf

              To paraphrase Mel Brooks, it’s good to be the governor.

              More than 17 years after San Francisco approved ranked-choice voting over the objections of then-Supervisor Gavin Newsom, California’s first-year governor got a chance for some payback, vetoing a bill that would have allowed more cities, counties and school districts across the state to switch to the voting system.

              The bill, SB212 by state Sen. Ben Allen, D-Santa Monica, was overwhelmingly approved by both the state Senate and the Assembly. An analysis of the bill found no opposition.

              "The cure being proposed is far worse than the disease,” Newsom said as he joined a ballot argument against Proposition A in 2002, which brought ranked-choice elections to San Francisco. “We do not believe that the Board (of Supervisors) should be experimenting with San Franciscans’ hard-fought right to vote. Primaries and runoff elections have served our nation well for most of its history.”

              Sixteen years after San Francisco’s first ranked-choice election, the system is hardly an unknown in California. Oakland, Berkeley and San Leandro have used it since 2010.

              But all those are charter cities, which can make their own election rules, unlike general law cities, counties and school districts, which follow a set of state regulations.

              The bill that Newsom vetoed would have given “local jurisdictions access to solutions that charter cities are already using in California,” Allen, its author, said in a statement. It wouldn’t have imposed ranked choice, but simply provided “communities with more options.”

              That wasn’t good enough for Newsom, who said, “The state would benefit from learning more from charter cities who use ranked choice voting before broadly expanding the system.”

              But would more evidence change the governor’s mind?

              During a campaign bus trip to San Jose last year, a reporter asked Newsom if he planned to take San Francisco’s ranked-choice experience statewide.

              Newsom just rolled his eyes.

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      366·
      2 days ago

      Yes, if we just keep awarding their willful ineptitude with blind loyalty and unquestioning obedience for a couple more decades, they’re SURE to move the bar higher than “mostly not quite as awful as the alternative” of their own volition!

    • yunxiaoli@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      166·
      2 days ago

      You’re not in the neolib safe space so; no, voting dem without ever holding them accountable in over a hundred years on literally anything has caused this situation. Harris would have given you four more years, at most, in the most optimistic circumstances, before this happened. America can’t end any other way than this, and America is approaching it’s end regardless of what you do.