• FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    94
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    they always have, if we’re honest. Corpo Dems think the working class needs shepherding. they like to pretend they’re benevolent while their benefactors fuck us slowly. They’re benevolence is only incomparison to the party of “Saying the Quiet Part out Loud”.

    No, this isn’t a both-sides argument. This is a “just because one side is objectively worse doesn’t mean the Corpo Dems don’t also really suck.” argument.

    • njm1314@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Liberals have always and will always be the natural enemy of the Left and the working class. That’s been true for almost 400 years and it isn’t changing now.

          • TigrisMorte@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            false.

            adjective
            adjective: liberal; adjective: Liberal

            1.
            willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.
                (in a political context) favoring policies that are socially progressive and promote social welfare.
                h
                Similar:
                progressive
            
            

            forward-looking
            forward-thinking
            progressivist
            go-ahead
            enlightened
            reformist
            radical
            freethinking
            left-wing
            leftist
            politically correct
            PC
            woke
            right-on
            h
            Opposite:
            conservative

            reactionary
            Theology
            regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change.
            
            

            relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.

            noun
            noun: liberal; plural noun: liberals; noun: Liberal; plural noun: Liberals

            1.
            a supporter of policies that are socially progressive and promote social welfare.
            "she dissented from the decision, joined by the court's liberals"
            2.
            a supporter of a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.
            
            
        • null_@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          If you don’t know the difference between leftist and liberal you should probably crack open wikipedia before you try to crack a witty retort.

          • Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            1 year ago

            “Leftists” as you like to call them don’t exist in the US. Leftists in the US are Democrats aka neolibs. Literally the left wing of Congress. The leftists you’re thinking of are a rounding error, they effectively don’t exist.

            But in any case what few leftists there are in the US are working with the neolibs against the regressive neocon fascist bastards trying to take over our country. Fascists are the natural enemy of the working class, and anyone with a brain. Picking libs over fascists is such an obvious take anyone arguing differently is a moron or a boot licker.

    • ImFresh3x@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      They didn’t even mention anyone not being able to vote because of race. They mentioned in court that certain areas that happen to have older voters, poorer voters, and black voters could be potentially undermined by ranked choice. And it’s proven to be true. As shown in previous elections time and time again. It is called undervoting.

      See:

      https://archive.ph/rWKVm

      None of these commenters read the fucking article. You read the headlines and then jump straight to the hot takes, to spew about unrelated agendas.

      The Democratic Party officials in DC are like 90% black.

      Here are literally the actual people who made the argument in court. You. can see their pictures:

      https://www.leadersofcolor.net/team/victor-horton

      Just to be clear: I’m for ranked choice. Their concern is not racist. And saying it is in this case means you didn’t read the article.

      Here’s Charles Wilson - The leader of the DC democrats, who personally argued in court, as mentioned in the article you all didn’t read:

      https://static.wixstatic.com/media/5256c4_b5db7b16ba72415dba2c031483b0588b~mv2_d_1291_1291_s_2.jpeg/v1/fill/w_524,h_512,al_c,q_80,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,enc_auto/156623072117857016 (2).jpeg

      All I had to do was read the article to not come to the same conclusion as half the people in this thread. Community fail. This thread proves some people can’t be bothered to read. And that’s what the argument made in court was about - confusion.

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        You didn’t read the article. I did. You also apparently didn’t read the TLDR bullet points. I did. Let me get the excerpts for you:

        They argued in a lawsuit that low-income and Black voters would be confused by the system.

        In a lawsuit filed earlier this month seeking to block ranked choice voting in Washington, DC, the local Democratic Party argued that implementing the system would be particularly confusing for voters in predominantly Black areas.

        The lawsuit notes that in elections for at-large seats on the DC city council — where voters can currently choose two candidates — voters in Wards 7 and 8 are less likely to cast a second vote, a phenomenon known as “undervoting.” “Many of those voters report their confusion about selecting more than one candidate for what appears to be the same office,” said Wilson in the lawsuit, arguing that implementing ranked-choice voting “would introduce an additional layer of confusion to the electorate.” // “I have a similar concern for seniors and persons with disabilities,” Wilson added.

        They’re explicitly saying these minorities are more likely to be confused.

        About your point about “they can’t be racist because they’re black”… yes they absolutely fucking can. There is zero need to call on race here. “Our constituents report confusion leading to under voting” is all that needed to be said. Tying it to race is…. Racist. Tying it to age is ageist.

        • rbhfd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          What if you read it as

          Undervoting is a problem that, due to socio-economic issues, disproportionately affects people of color

          So they’re actively trying to prevent black people from being disenfranchised (if undervoting counts as such).

          However, using this as an argument to oppose ranked choice voting, instead of informing the voters better, is definitely wrong.

          • rambaroo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You can read anything any way you want if you literally rewrite like you just did. That’s a straight up Trump-style move.

            They don’t care about disenfranchising anyone and you damn well know it. This is solely about Democrats worrying about competing against independent progressives in DC elections where they stand a very real chance of losing power if the voting system stops favoring them.

        • ImFresh3x@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          They are progressive black local leaders representing their community. Not racists. Not “corpo dems” haha.

          And they are saying minorities, the elderly, and the poor are more likely to be undermined because of lack of resources to be made aware of said changes. They did it last year, and many people in those districts didn’t make a second vote. Which means their vote counted less than others.

          Under voting isn’t a theory. It’s something that’s demonstrably occurred in these specific districts. They can see how people vote and notice that it is happening.

          Saying one demographic is more likely to be left unaware of said changes, after looking at the data, and noting the negative impact, is not the same as saying “black people are stupid.” That’s where your mind went for some odd reason, though.

          The local dem chapters in these types of districts aren’t Hilary Clinton, bro. They’re the opposite.

          Nice try. You’re disingenuous and desperate AF.

          There’s people who hate nuance, and there’s people who have a clear agenda. And they’re typically the same people. And that’s why you jumped straight to the “they’re racist corpos” when it’s objectively the opposite.

          Just to be clear: I am generally for ranked choice. And I’m generally for calling out corporate dems. But I’m not cool with disingenuousness, even/especially from people I otherwise stand in agreement with on issues in general.

          Calling these particular people racists is exactly what Trumpers would do. Btw. Same shitty playbook.

          • rambaroo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Lmao. DC Dems are 100% corporate. You act like someone can’t be black and a corporate shill at the same time, which of course is racist.

            This is solely about suppressing competition from independents and third party candidates. They’ll use any argument they can to maintain the monopoly on power they have in DC. You’re falling for it.

            • ImFresh3x@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Because you say so. And these black people who live in these districts are racist against themselves too. Sure, buddy. Quite apt.

              People who use words like shill whenever they have nothing else to say are funny. You probably believe in pizzagate.

          • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Saying one demographic is more likely to be left unaware of said changes, after looking at the data, and noting the negative impact, is not the same as saying “black people are stupid.” That’s where your mind went for some odd reason, though.

            except that they didn’t need to tie it to race at all. you’re right. they have polling data. “These wards were severely undervoting in the last election because of a lack of awareness; ranked choice disenfranchises our constituents” is really all that needed to be said. Unless you think race is actually the contributing factor and not - just here me out here- adequate resrouces spent on awareness campaigns in those wards prior to the vote and in the polling stations day of.

            But awareness campaigns and extra pollworkers to make things go smoothly… don’t help keep status quo with democrats and republicans sharing power by agreement because ranked choice (among other reforms,) absolutely would weaken their power. as out outsider looking in and only knowing this… they really don’t seem all that progressive, here.

            Nice try. You’re disingenuous and desperate AF. There’s people who hate nuance, and there’s people who have a clear agenda. And they’re typically the same people. And that’s why you jumped straight to the “they’re racist corpos” when it’s objectively the opposite.
            You’re missing my point. People who tend to miss points tend to be… well just read you’re own quote back.

            I do appologize for the assumptions. being anti-rank-choice tends to be a corpo-dem position; not a progressive one. Because it makes… you know… progressives… easier to elect. (more broadly, 3rd party.)

            once again. the point is there’s zero need at all to tie this to racism, which they very much did. IMO, “its confusing” is not a valid argument for not doing something new. people can learn and get through it- particularly with help. “its confusing” is a very good argument for taking steps to clear up the confusion. which of these two options do you think supports their constituents better?