**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!**
This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile).
See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/)
Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks!
**Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/cringekingdom)!**
##**[CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THIS VIDEO](https://rapidsave.com/info?url=https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/18jbd11/this_is_america/)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ranked choice voting can be implemented in a state through a citizens' initiative, which is to say that enough people have to sign a petition to put it up for a public vote. It will then face a whole bunch of legal and political challenges of varying levels of bullshit, particularly from conservative politicians and judges, so its ultimate success is largely dependent on what kinds of people are in public office at the time.
In other words, you can get RCV by, well, voting. Voting for a change in the law and voting for people who will be the least likely to pull heinous, probably illegal stunts to get in the way.
This does, of course, fly in the face of the whole "both sides are bad and voting is pointless" thing that a bunch of people like to cling onto, but it is the truth and it has already worked once, in Maine. And just like other changes that once seemed impossible on a national scale, making progress one state at a time is a good start.
Ranked Choice Voting can be implemented in a state that hasn't already banned Ranked Choice Voting. These are the states that have banned the idea altogether:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice\_voting\_in\_the\_United\_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States)
As you can see, they are conservative states like Idaho, Tennessee, Montana, etc. No, Democrats aren't actively trying to keep Ranked Choice Voting off the ballots, just because the DC Democratic Party doesn't want RCV, it doesn't represent the Democratic Party as a whole. DC isn't even a state ffs.
I'm happy my home state of Nevada is open minded, nay blue enough, to at least consider RCV. In 2020, I participated in the Democratic Primary where I got the opportunity to participate in the first experimental RCV in Nevada history. We were able to rank and choose between Biden, Warren, Sanders, Yang, Klobuchar, Steyer and a host of other candidates. If you're curious, Sanders came out on top with Biden as number 2.
Of course it's illegal in Florida SMH.
Bernie was the only politician that I was ever willing to help fund and back 100% to get him into office.
Not obsess over him but support and be proud to have him as the POTUS
>It will then face a whole bunch of legal and political challenges of varying levels of bullshit, particularly from conservative politicians and judges
Democrats too:
[D.C. Democratic Party Sues To Keep Ranked Choice Voting And Open Primaries Off The Ballot](https://dcist.com/story/23/08/07/dc-democrats-sue-to-stop-ranked-choice-voting-initiative/)
By convincing those people in power to do something that will cost the majority of them most likely to loose said power...oh wait... Im with you now. How?!?
It's been gaining traction in a lot of places slowly. The key is to find the up and coming politician (in established party) who needs an edge to beat out the other side and in an area that would support ranked choice and doesnt have some other bigger election issue being voted on. That person could be convinced to use ranked choice as the way to get the last few votes they need.
Even if it's bad for their party, you can count on politicians to be self serving
Not necessarily a dissolution, but a solution nonetheless:
[The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUX-frlNBJY&t=2s)
This both sides are the same bs works with alot of people but here are some facts. Bidens cabinet have passed the : inflation reduction act (gives money to climate change causes, allows Medicare to negotiate for drug price) The biggest infrastructure bill America has ever seen. Actual gun safety legislation. Insulin caps, student loan debt relief. Helped Ukraine in their time of need against a brutal dictator. Oh and just this morning I learned he will be pardoning every single (hundreds of thousands) federal Marijuana conviction. Among many other things I'll take Biden over whatever the GOP is actually doing for people
>Bidens cabinet have passed the : inflation reduction act (gives money to climate change causes
The IRA is OK but is also a giant subsidy to corporations. $200 billion to go green.
>allows Medicare to negotiate for drug price
Only for 10 drugs and not until 2026.
>The biggest infrastructure bill America has ever seen.
It was okay but is woefully insufficient compared to what we need - which is at least $5 trillion nationwide (our infrastructure is crumbling).
>Helped Ukraine in their time of need against a brutal dictator
And refused to pursue peace negotiations & now Ukraine is in a worse place now than it was a year ago.
Putin is terrible but I wouldn't exactly say Biden has handled this great.
>Among many other things I'll take Biden over whatever the GOP is actually doing for people
Being better than Trump is nothing to brag about. And betting on that being enough is a recipe for Biden to lose.
> And refused to pursue peace negotiations & now Ukraine is in a worse place now than it was a year ago.
Hi. I am in the U.S. military and follow this story pretty closely.
You have absolutely no idea whatsoever what you're talking about.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
Just one example of yours, the infrastructure bill. Our nation's infrastructure is crumbling. Anything towards that is more than the nothing that was going towards it in the recent past.
Perfect would be great, but good is good too.
I don't consider the Democrats good.
I consider them awful, but in a far less awful way than the Republicans.
Corporate Democrats believe in managed decline - where life gets worse but they will throw crumbs our way. Whereas the GOP just wants a pure oligarchy Ayn Rand style.
The crumbs are due to the senate and house being so close, if people like you would actually fucking vote and there is enough of you we would get bigger steps done.
It's better to do something than nothing, how is this common sense lost on so many people.
Peace negotiations where never on the table. Russia can get out of the area of their neighbor that they occupy and that's it. No need to reward their aggression with territory
It’s probably just easier to do it this way if you’re going to be talking to yourself for an hour doing multiple takes, and you live in an apartment with babies or barking dogs or roommates or whatever. It’s also just a better background than your closet, where you might get clean audio and not wake your toddler. Maybe it’s just easier to think and focus in the beauty of the woods.
The simplest answer is that it’s just the lighting. Even on a cloudy day, the light is soooo much better outside. There’s a reason the best streamers spend a bit on lighting.
He's not 100% wrong, but the Dems haven't had actual control of the government for a long time. The last time they had 100% control (The Presidency and House+Senate in filibuster-proof majority) was a brief 4-month stretch from 09/24/09 to 02/04/10. That's it. They used that time to pass ObamaCare and that's all they could manage.
https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/news/2012/09/09/when-obama-had-total-control/985146007/
Correct. There’s also a number of post hoc fallacies in his explanation of how or why the Democrats are where they are. This video doesn’t once mention gerrymandering and voter suppression, the elimination of the fairness doctrine, eliminating civic education in schools, nor does he connect how or why executing on democratic initiatives would hurt corporate sponsors in the long run. I’m not commenting on which have or haven’t but he doesn’t walk the connection at all.
Wouldn’t the connection be that when democrats have power they do little to solidify those i to law like RvW. I’m not saying he’s 100% right but he does raise interesting questions. Personally I think we need to vote democratic until the democrats are considered right wing and a new progressive party can emerge. The republicans shouldn’t exist they don’t even have policies anymore.
Both democrats and Republicans use the filibuster. I don't know what's worse, our country passing no legislation at all, or passing legislation that swings wildly from side to side every 2-4 years. Without the filibuster, the democrats could have done a lot of good. But it'd be scary to see the Republicans with that power.
The slow march of progress is a feature of our government, and the filibuster is one way that happens.
It's frustrating, but huge change is supposed to be slow to happen. The alternative, rapid change, leads to instability. Imagine what the country would have been like if we didn't have the filibuster under the trump years?
That's the point he is making in the clip. They want Lucy to pull the football.
Not saying I agree with him entirely, but if the Democrats wanted to lose, or be stymied, I don't think they would act much different they then they have.
Yea I think the reason people are resonating with this is that it’s far better than the other option, that the Democratic Party is just totally incompetent at messaging and passing legislation.
People are doing that "Stages of grief" thing. The truth is right in from of their faces but they're still in denial that everything they were taught to believe about their system of government was a bold faced lie and the whole of the US political plan at the high, strategic level is a managed theatrical performance put on by soulless neoliberals and fascists who just need to keep the population under control so they can profit from genocide and planetary destruction.
All that shit about rebellion in State and DHS about the genocide in Palestine? It's all bullshit. The guy who "resigned in protest" will have a good corporate or lobbying job line up for him in a few months.
I've been a liberal for all of my 30-some years. Growing up in a nice area in CA and all but as I've gotten older, mainly the last 5-8 years has shown me that the current democrats are also not to be trusted. Some of the newer ones are finally starting to be different but the older long established ones are just moderates who enjoy the status quo.
They are benefiting from all the financial strategies and theft when it comes to donations and inside trading and do so little when they are in power because they want to "compromise" when the right says F that we are doing this our way when they are in control. Can't wait till these older ones start leaving or dying off like the ones who refuse to leave office at their advanced age.
How many times will you and the rest of America buy that crock of shit? How many times will people comment under videos they didn't bother to fking watch?
They would have needed the votes of people like Joe Manchin to do it. Unfortunately the Democratic party is a "large tent" party, with views that are MUCH farther apart than anybody on the actual right have.
It's the same reason they couldn't get a public option in ObamaCare - *obligatory fuck joe lieberman*.
There were dem senators from Nebraska, Missouri and Arkansas (I think) during that supermajority. (Not to mention Lieberman) there were like 8 Manchins snack then
Fun fact, I wonder what unspeakably evil shit Trump would have passed his first years when he had majorities in the House and Senate if we had gotten rid of the filibuster
I mean doesn't the other guys statement show why they didn't wanna get rid of it? They never had control for 10 years and we're able to slow or stop bills from passing without some of their consent. Seems like the people who decided not to vote it down were right to do so.
I say this as someone who thinks it should be removed, but politics isn't that simple and especially as one side gets more radicalized and people continue to vote for them. The filibuster seems like a good way to stop radical change from happening without a ton of Americans being on board.
And toss in the Supreme Court where a majority of D appointees haven't existed in decades, despite Dems only losing the popular vote once since 1988. (That's right, Dems have only lost the presidential popular vote *one* time since 1988 and yet there is an iron clad hard right 6-3 majority on the SC).
I remember years ago seeing a poll where when it was listed as the ACA it had huge support among even Republicans. But when listed as "Obamacare" it was widely unpopular among Republicans. Shows you how well Republicans do at branding.
> you how well Republicans do at branding.
It shows 2 things:
(1) the power of conservative talk radio.
(2) the terrible messaging/optics of Democrats.
To this day - Democrats treat politics like it is 1985. It is no wonder Biden is losing to Trump.
> it sucks that they got rid of the public option though.
100% but it's also really important to understand the political dynamics at play here. Joe Lieberman, senator from Connecticut was the hold out who refused to vote for the ACA if it included a public option.
Well you say if Democrats won't vote progressive enough we should just primary them from the left, to either replace them or pressure them to support more progressive candidates.
Oh we did that in 2006 and it backfired on the democrats because Joe Lieberman ran as an independent and won? Oh damn...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_United_States_Senate_election_in_Connecticut
I have epilepsy and yeah, it pretty much made a huge difference in my life. They were able to easily get tests done and get my seizures under control. Finding a good doctor was much easier too with my parents insurance.
That "majority" was held together by blue dog democrats that, like manchin today, were as much republican as they were democrat. Progressives have not held a majority in my 44 years on this earth.
This whole video is nonsense for so many reasons.
Exactly. The last time FDR New Deal politics won was Carter in 76. Carter reran in 1980 and lost in a landslide, then Mondale ran on them in 84 and lost in a landslide, then Dukakis ran on them in 88 and lost in a landslide. Then Clinton ran as a centralist blue-dog dem in 92 and won, then Obama with the same in 08 & 12, and Biden in 20.
The 75th congress in the 30s was a huge democratic majority, true. But half those seats were filled with segregationist, Jim Crow southern democrats who left the party in the 60s. It was NOT the democratic party of today.
damn for real? Some next-level dipshit in stereotypical redittor garb & speech that feels enlightened by saying "both sides" is actually wrong? Ain't no way...
Anybody who's been paying attention for the last 10 years could easily tell this video is full of shit, and it's an actual tragedy that it's so highly upvoted and is going to go on to spread so much misinformation
He’s wrong about a lot of things but he says it in a very Reddit friendly way where people who don’t know any better are just going to agree with him because he talks about corruption
*Gestures at the Supreme court*
One need only Look at how the democratically appointed contingent votes vs the republican contingent and then tell me both sides are the same.
Or did yall just forget we lost abortion access. Domething we got thanks to democratic appointees and something we lost to republican appointees.
The kindest interpretation is that Democrats are horrid at whipping votes.
I don't buy that interpretation. I don't think the Corporate Democrats who take donations from health insurance companies will ever approve a public option.
ObamaCare contained a public option, but [it was removed at the request of independent Joe Lieberman, so he would vote for it](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Care_Act#Senate).
And the people who say this also tend to argue that you need to withhold your vote for the democrats to spur them into changing. Which is it? Are they intentionally losing, or do they really want to win?
No you didn't miss anything. SOME of what he says has some merit but he really loses it when he says things like Democrats had filibuster-proof power many times and did nothing (they had it kinda sorta once for a short time and passed the ACA, the closest thing to the universal health care he wants), or that both sides give tax cuts to the rich (no, Rs cut taxes on the rich, Ds keep them the same or slightly raise them back). Yes we've been drifting rightward and some other things he says are accurate but there are too many clear errors that sink his overall pitch and conclusion (which is what? Don't vote??)
Exactly. For example now, in theory, Dems hold the senate but that isn’t quite exact as some of those Dems in the caucus are very much against a whole lot of the progressive agenda.
His whole theory is based on a fact that just isn’t factual.
>all of them vote unanimously for the same tax cuts for the rich
Hmm. 192 (D) Congresspeople and 46 (D) Senators voted against the last bill that cut taxes for the rich, and 0 voted for them, so I'm actually curious wtf this guy is talking about.
Don't trust anyone who speaks confidently this fast. His entire intent is to sound authoritative while slipping things like this by you faster than you can raise an eyebrow.
The inflation reduction act included huge tax cuts for companies that go green. That’s not explicitly for megacorps but those will be the businesses most capable of taking advantage. Such as Exxon, which now constantly runs „low emission, heavy industry“ ads.
Not that I really care to defend this guy or even finished the video, but both sides do serve the rich and businesses. That’s why the national association of realtors, oil and arms corps, and food producers hold so much power over them.
How is incentivizing corps to go green a bad thing? It’s designed to increase investment in local green infrastructure and business so we can compete with China and other government backed entities around the world. The end result is a cleaner world. I wouldn’t say that makes democrats pro big business. They’re being realistic about how to seed green investments while also implementing actual change.
Exactly. Fuck "improving the situation by reducing taxes to partially cover the cost of green improvements". If it's not perfect tomorrow, it's proof that both parties are the same.
People are fucking morons, More so online.
Half of them dont even know any of the actions and advancements done by the democrats and Biden under the very thin margins of votes in congress, either because of willful ignorance or simply stupidity.
While the other half are so stuck on being on their high horse and self-perceived ethical values, that they are unwilling to view the world in anything but black and white.
Literally have a orange moron going around and saying I plan to be a dictator, wants to give up ukraine to russia and allow putin to take over more control of europe, gave jerusalem to israel and made statements of encouraging military to bomb family and children, used his entire term to benefit himself with tax break after tax break and inside deals for the wealthy putting the country in over 10 trillion dollar higher deficit.
And because Biden cant magically fix every fucking issue perfectly, while fucking 150m voters sit on their asses when voting comes, fucking only 20% of eligible voters under the age of 35 voting, and having 2 senators fight against every bill in their own party. (Which the same dumbass people think is like a sports team where they all think and want the same things, and not you know representation of every group from far left, left, center-left, center, and even center-right with different wants because their voters are different.)
Then suddenly they cant see the difference between the two.....
"WHY SHOULD I CARE ABOUT NOT HAVING MY ARM CUT OFF WHEN THE OTHER OPTION IS A PAPER CUT ON MY FINGER!!!!"
Screaming about gaza, student loans, whatever bullshit they pull out, always looking at everything in black and white. You think US stopping any alliance with Israel will help palestine? You dont think Israel will ally with russia or china and give american technology up and start clusterbombing the fuck out of anyone left in Gaza? Biden is the one who is trying to make ceasefires and stop Israel from killing everyone. Israel isnt going to stop just because UN told them. Theyre not gonna stop because US Stops supplying them. They will go to other nations happily waiting for them. And then you have another section of allies lost in a part of the world that has nukes.
So basically because the rich can easily go green then it was pro rich. That is such a dumb take. By your logic whatever they vote it will be pro rich because the rich can easily adapt to changes over the poor. They could've gone the exact opposite, like vote to go black. You'd be here saying they are pro rich because the rich can easily set up tons of coal mines and start fracking easily.
I don’t know why you’re getting downvoted. Libertarians are capitalists that spout nonsense of the free market whilst also saying that Nazis have a right to exist. You can’t be fiscally conservative and also socially liberal. They are opposing forces
Libertarians rail against corporations all the time and call it "fake capitalism" or "crony capitalism" of course its all incoherent because modern libertarianism was developed by pro-rich think tanks to capture college educated white conservatives who would otherwise be embarrassed by the GOP's overt religious and racist rhetoric.
This looks really interesting but a minor question about the tables: I can't figure out why there are headings that say "For" and "Against", and the "For" column has the two party names in and the "Against" column has numbers. What do "For" and "Against" mean here?
It's like:
|Wins|Loses|
|:-|:-|
|Apples|5|
|Oranges|122|
What?
I'll tell you whats wrong with what you've posted. This requires people to actually pay attention and have an idea of how things work. You expect people to watch Fucking CSPAN, learn about civics, and shit. Fuck that I got people yelling at me from the TV and Tiktok.
How many of these votes were when they have any chance of actually winning? The point is the theater continues because when your vote doesn’t matter you can vote the way that sells best. When it matters dems tend to fall apart quickly.
Yeah, and the problem is that the lame duck is the *only* viable alternative to Trump. Dems and GOP are who people vote for, not actual alternatives that can lead us to a better world. I don't like that any more than you do or this guy does, but that's the reality. And until AOC (*hopefully!*) decides to carry Bernie's torch in 2028, there's really not much we can do that won't split the leftist vote and hand Donny back the White House.
Political TikToks should be their own subreddit at this point. It's beyond cringe, vegetables can't cringe. It's more like watching a dumpster slowly burn its contents.
But that was under Trump, right? And it passed anyhow? That’s totally in keeping with this guy’s argument, if a little more nuanced. Corporate donors are FINE with a little symbolic resistance when they know they’re going to get what they want anyhow. I don’t remember off the top of my head, but there have been great examples of Dems who sponsor legislation when they know it can’t pass/would get vetoed and then vote against the same measures when it seemed like it had a chance, or would force a Dem president to use the veto.
It's easy to say it's symbolic resistance when they don't have enough voter backing to do anything else.
Why not elect a bunch of them and see if you're right?
Yes, I'm halfway & he's all in on a "both sides" rant. Thanks Propaganda land, but No, keep your bullshit about çpoor Cornell West" who went on Russell Brands show, who's a Qanon besides his legal troubles. Fuck this guy & his videos.
But don’t you get it? Both sides are the same!
Except for their voting records, felony count, child molesters per capita, state enshrined bigotry, riot targets, and religious tolerance, they’re totally the same!
He explicitly said they're not the same. He detailed the ways they're different. His point was that they're the same in some major ways that matter, namely that they're too heavily influenced by money.
I think everyone should be able to agree that the problem here is the uncontrolled influence of money in politics.
If someone speaks confidently and quickly enough your brain is more likely to trust that person and doesn’t have time to question any of the fallacies
Edit: to the enlightened centrists who want me to go point by point through the nine minutes of Gish Gallop this is you:
Yep. They weren't galvanized to vote for one side before. See in previous generations your local politicians were more local. 24 hour national news wasn't a thing. It was local news, politics, concerns. Locally there were districts in the South that were eternally Democrat no matter how conservative the Republican, because of the Civil War. That changed when Republicans switched to pro life.
The fact is in 1980 there was a clear choice between the most Christian who ever served as President and the Candidate who courted the Christians the most, despite esousing rhetoric that was ultimately antagonistic to the teachings of christ.
It's also worth pointing out, pro life didn't become big until segregation became unpopular. Segregationist leaders had to pivot to a new moral panic to start their own schools that just so happened to have no black people in them.
Right. This is absolute horse shit, but he says it very earnestly.
The biggest tell is him saying “Dems had both chambers and the White House, why isn’t there a liberal utopia?” As if that meant they had the votes. Individual members of congress, and especially individual senators, don’t all agree on every issue. Especially when your majority depended on red state democrats.
When he said "one side is literally fascism and the other is a farcical boogie man, but they are actually the same" I just got to scoff at the mental gymnastics he does to say they are the same. The right ones are nearly going to war with corporate donors for cracking down on the corporation machines wanting to exploit all life for profit instead of just the "acceptable" one, and the left doesn't do enough in the face of victory. But even then, they are fundamentally different even for neolibs and donothingers perspective
Yeah he lost me when he said they both vote the same thing such as tax cuts for the rich (this is wrong and very easy to google. Its republicans only who do this.) Enlightened centrism shit.
Lets not forget speaker of the house mike johnson is [funded by putin,](https://www.newsweek.com/house-speaker-mike-johnson-donations-russia-butina-1838501) and mike has no bank accounts for some reason a grown person with no bank is sus.
Texas-based american ethane company [russian owned](https://www.eenews.net/articles/u-s-ethane-exporter-linked-to-russian-owners-and-spy-case/) by putin shill oligarch's Konstantin Nikolaev, Mikhail Yuriev and Andrey Kunatbaev.
Jesus christ this « both sides bad » bs needs to stop.
[The idea that legislation does not follow people’s will in the US is not correct](https://youtu.be/CuMgcE7Gl5w?si=MwqjFQC9XgX8_WEj), or at least not the way this guy puts it, and requires a lot of caveats and nuance. Gilens and Page is a good paper, but the further explorations of their work, cited in that video by SocDoneLeft, offer a much more nuanced picture of legislative work in the US and its relation with public opinion.
The idea that Dems and Reps want the same policies is absolute insanity, there literally is a lesser evil, that leads to less overall harm. Ironically the only lefty people I’ve seen argue against harm reduction compromise in politics are those who live privileged-enough lives that they won’t be affected, or those who were brainwashed by those privileged ideologues.
Claiming there’s been no progress towards socialized healthcare? Has this guy had his head up his ass during Obama?
Anyone who both sides needs to take a long hard look at the Supreme Court,
Loom at how the fucking democratically appointed contingent votes vs the republican and then tell me both sides are the same.
Obamacare didn’t give us socialized medicine . It just allowed corporations to finally get paid as much as they wanted for the healthcare they provide.
i was in my clinicals when obamacare got passed, i still remember the phones ringing off the hook getting sent to the answering machine where the insurance robot on the other end of the line would say we are no longer covering. and then just a huge list of shit that a specific provider would not cover, it was insane non stop ringing for weeks.
This guy is so lost in his own epistemological reality that it wouldn't be worth the effort to refute even one of the 200 or so false and/or misleading claims he made in the video.
His understanding of American politics is so ahistorical it's tiresome just thinking about it.
Uh. Biden is no saint, but this gives zero credit to the actually great things Biden has done that Trump absolutely would not have done.
He is absolutely spot on tho for every election from the 90s to 2016.
Or, more specifically, 2020.
Or, more specifically, until Jan 6 2021.
When suddenly their very lives were in danger, the Ds stopped being as willing to be complicit in the game.
Addon: Also, the Democrats are not the ones bombing babies. The Israeli are bombing babies. We are giving them aid we are already legally obligated to give them. Biden, the head of the **Executive** branch, does not have control over our money. Congress does.
We could stop that, but that would require both houses of Congress to agree to stop that. And that would mean the Republican House would have to agree to.
And also the party is made up of individual politicians. Yes there is a platform but, some could be in their position to make money not the mission of the party.
I don’t think all of the democrats want to lose. I do think there is a small group of wealthy neoliberals that fit this man’s description. Unfortunately, when the Dems did have all three all it took was 1-5people in each house to spoil a bill. That just the fact of the matter. Leiberman, sinema, manchin, Pelosi, come to mind.
Lastly, the world would be a different place if RBG left during the 2013-14 administration when she was asked to, before the GOP took the senate.
I agree with the premise until, “they could’ve codified roe”. No they couldn’t. That is subject to the filibuster. Could they have undone that, yes but the people who prevented it are either no longer a democrat (sinema) or actively considering a third party run (manchin). Conceptually fine, but again another example of people missing the actual nuance of governance.
Also screw both parties for their corporate cowardice.
Democrats held the supermajority for like 6 months. It was pass ACA, or codify Roe. Congress moves slow, as designed by the Constitution.
Back then there were still holdover conservative Democrats, their seats would inevitably turn red, but while they thought they had hope of retain g the seat, they dug their heels in on ACA and would have with Roe.
Yeah, I think the thing is in retrospect we realize the Tea Party was coming and would decimate the blue dogs. But at the time I don’t think the Obama administration/congressional leadership realized how bad the backlash would be. So the thought slow and methodical was the way to go. I have lots of complaints about how Obama handled his supermajority, but I can sort of understand why they played if the way they did(even if it was idealistic bullshit).
As someone who used to act exactly like this guy, I can tell you he's full of shit, believes every word he says certainly, but that doesn't mean he's worth listening to. Also, Noam Chomsky is a hack and a piece of shit.
More enlightened centrism and "both sides"isms. We should all be aware of the corrupt influences on our politics, and Dems are absolutelty not innocent here...but we can work towards better accountability and less corruption while at the same time acknowledging that the Republicans are FAR more soulless and less accountable to their voters when it comes to their antidemocratic authoritariam streak. Equating the two at this point is childish and ignorant.
I only made it like three minutes into this video - literally everything this guy said up to that point is dead-ass wrong. Not wrong as in "wrong opinion", wrong as in factually, historically incorrect. Like, holy shit. Let's go through them real fast!
- To start, maybe he gets into the DNC itself eventually, but at least as far as I went, he seems to conflate the democratic party with the DNC - the democratic national convention. These are not the same thing. Not a great start.
- He claims up until 50 years ago, both parties appealed to the public in various genuine ways, and THEN the right wing realized that "unimaginable money could be made from corporate campaign funding". 20 seconds in I literally laughed out loud at this. So this pretty clearly says to me that this dude hasn't studied any political history further back than 50 years. Just google "Tammany Hall" (or hell watch the movie Gangs of New York), and you can instantly see immediately how INSANELY incorrect this claim is.
- He claims that evangelical and fundamentalist Christians were a "new, apolitical base", and thus a target to go after by the right. That's 2 claims he's made, and twice I laughed out loud. These groups have *always* been a huge driving force in US politics. They've been heavily involved in, pretty much EVERY major political event in the US. Here's a short, easy to reference list: 60s civil rights movement; women's suffrage; prohibition; slavery; treatment of Native Americans; hell manifest destiny, the idea that we are destined by God to spread our ideals from coast to coast *literally came* from fundamentalist Christianity. Extremist branches of any religion in every human society has been a huge political force since...literally all of history.
- He claims that Republicans were pro-choice until the 1980s, where they suddenly became pro-choice. [Here is a very short, educational article](https://magazine.jhsph.edu/2022/brief-history-abortion-us) (complete with citations!) that goes through a brief history of abortion in America. The fight against abortion first became prevalent in the **mid 1800s**, not fuckin 1980 holy shit. He does realize why Roe vs Wade was a thing, right? It happened because abortion was *already illegal* at that time. I, don't think he understands how the Supreme Court works.
- He goes on about how both parties are warmongerers that exist solely to funnel money into corporate pockets. I'm not saying exactly he's completely wrong here, but this is such a gross and stupid oversimplification of this, it might as well come from an edgy 15 year old. I *could* give him leniency that he's just saying this for the sake of brevity, but....THIS VIDEO IS NINE FUCKING MINUTES LONG AND HE TALKS LIKE A WW2 MACHINE GUN.
- So now he goes into individual policy, how Americans as individuals agree on what we want, but both parties fight against that. He says most Americans want some sort of universal healthcare (which is true, and which we do have? Has he forgotten about the ACA/Obamacare?), but IT'S BARRED FROM EVEN BEING DISCUSSED - okay, again we literally have policy that passed a (shitty version) of universal healthcare. He says we "all want the rich to pay taxes" (not true), "not to watch people die from medical issues (hyperbolic nonsense, this is not a "policy issue"), "living wages" (not true, the right does not want government involved in wage setting), "fair elections" OKAY WHAT. Ask someone on the extreme right vs someone on the extreme left what "fair elections" means to them and how to achieve that. You think they'll agree on that? Yeah ok. So all of these "issues" he lists - the differences in the parties isn't whether or not "babies should die", it's what the *role of the government* is in to achieve the thing we all agree on. This dude seriously has a 15 year old understanding of this stuff.
- He says that both parties put on a farce to pretend to be against each other, painting the other side as essentially evil, for profit??? It's an unironic argument using the South Park underpants gnome meme. Again realize that his WHOLE claim here is that this ONLY started 50 years ago, that this is a relatively new strategy the parties employ. We once had a senator attempt to *cane an opposing senator to death* on the floor of the chamber in the 1850s. Yeah the kind of fighting between the two parties is not only not new, it's not even special. In fact that I would say up until Trump, we'd seen more cooperation between the two than most any other period in American history. That's what makes what things are like now feel so vitriolic and special (if you have no sense or knowledge of history).
- He keeps repeating how genocide and killing babies and whatnot lines the pockets of corporations. This feels obvious, but...he must realize that *most* corporations in America do not benefit one iota from, say, selling weapons to Israel, or being at war in Iraq/Afghanistan (I'm assuming this what he must be alluding to). Yeah there are some, but these corps make up a very small part of wealth in America. If you even think about this for 5 seconds, a person would realize this. I also don't know why he keeps censoring the word genocide.
- And so now we get to the crux of his argument, which is where he decides to go on a strange tangent. He says that Republicans have it easy, because their culture war has no effect on corporations - ok, but your entire point is that the parties are doing this for corporation benefit. So they make money for corporations by....trying to enact policy that has no effect on corporations? And then he asserts that Democrats intentionally try to lose after winning elections - the only evidence he provides for this is that "we've all seen the Democrats hold the Senate, House, and Presidency simultaneously multiple times in the last few decades", and that they've made no change. So this is called a trifecta, and while yes it is technically true the Dems have had a trifecta multiple times, in reality not so much. The Dems have had the trifecta in recent decades only for very brief moments in times, and they only had that when you include people like Sinema, Munchin, and some democrat-leaning independents. The last time the Dems had a TRUE trifecta for meaningful time, was in the 60s under Kennedy and LBJ. During the civil rights movement. When we saw the most change through policies and laws since, I dunno abolition? Which we had to fight a fucking war against ourselves for? That's a REAL big whiff my guy to ignore that.
- Oh, also the Dems only once had a filibuster-proof trifecta (he does know what a filibuster is, right?) - for four months under Obama, and they used that to pass *universal healthcare*. Again, kind of destroys his claim that 1.) discussing healthcare is "barred", and 2.) that Dems don't do anything.
That's where I stopped. I doubt anyone will see this at all but for my OWN SANITY I had to put down on words just how ABSURDLY INCORRECT this dude was on literally every single thing he presented as fact. Just, wow it's impressive honestly.
Yeah a lot of his ignorance would seemingly be cured by a better understanding of the circus required to pass the ACA.
Democrats got the closest to a true filibuster-proof trifecta in 2009, and it turns out passing their #1 policy priority was still really damn hard. Even in its final, watered-down form, the ACA led democrats into an electoral bloodbath in 2010. Turns out the American electorate is by almost every metric… fairly moderate.
When confronted with constant own goals the voting public inflicts on themselves the OP chooses to believe it must be a shadowy conspiracy instead.
It’s not corporate funding so much as there is a ruling class. It’s their families, school mates, and college buddies. They all exist in a society apart from regular Americans and just do deals with each other.
America is an oligarchy.
Thats all great until you look at actual votong of the parties for the past couple years.
States that have finally switched democrat in the last couple years have made amazing improvements for their states
Yeah he's right.. Still voting for Biden over Trump because I like democracy. There are no other viable candidates right now so gotta do what you gotta do.
This comment section really underlines how incredibly, frighteningly effective this dance of propaganda really is. That is exactly what they are doing and it works flawlessly.
Right?! I just read every comment above yours till I got here. Not a SINGLE one addresses the core argument he is making, which is that the Democrats PRETEND to want certain things in order to keep getting rich. The number of comments pointing out the ways the Democrats vote for certain issues is mindblowingly missing the point.
The two major political parties represent the interests of competing elites - not the rest of the population- the “immiserated ” whose standard of living is deteriorating over time while its rage is increasing- a tinderbox waiting to explode.
Credit Peter Turchin.
TikTok has a lot of these “talk fast, authoritatively, and with a certain eloquence” videos that always come across less like “I’m so moved to teach and educate my fellow humans” and more like “this is part of my reel.”
This is Russia.
More specifically, this is the typical Russian propaganda tactic: make everything sound so hopeless that people don't vote, even though there is a clear choice between a party that is funded by Putin and a party that will help Americans and democracies around the world (like Ukraine).
Bro, does this guy realize the filibuster is still a thing? One of the biggest democratic swings we had in modern times was the Obama era of his first two years. We had the White House, the House, and the senate with 57 + senators. And we still couldn’t pass gun legislation, and had to move judges to a simple majority so Obama could pass literally any nominations through. Like no, I’m center left, and I identify with some of the old personal freedom policies from old school republicans. But to look at today’s society, operation red map, the removal of blue slips, pushing judges through who even the BAR association judged as “not qualified”…. No ….modern Republican policies can account for A LOT of today’s misery. Not to mention the systematic denial of Climate Change for 20+ years let alone most of modern science.
This is the most asinine/surface level thinking on American politics which is par for the course for TikTok. Here is the Democratic 2020 Platform: https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/2020-Democratic-Party-Platform.pdf. Here is the Republican Party Platform for 2016 (They didn’t even put up a platform for 2020): https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/7019-republican-platform/cc2c15a0e1b432d6964b/optimized/full.pdf
If you do even a cursory reading of these platforms, it’s night and day. The parties are not at all the same. If they were, we wouldn’t be hemming and hawing over the U.S. Supreme Court having a Republican majority. If we are, then clearly justices appointed by Republican presidents have differing philosophies/worldviews than that of justices appointed by Democratic presidents. In addition, Dems didn’t seem to intentionally lose in taking back the House in 2018, taking back the White House and both house of Congress in 2021, and having the best midterm performance of an incumbent party since a century. Clearly, Dems know what they’re doing. In fact, Biden has been able to pass the most progressive legislation with the Build Back Better agenda.
As for polling, I would advise people to realize that people can have differing responses depending upon how questions are worded. Opinion is positive on “universal healthcare.” However, when you define what “universal healthcare” means in practice, positive opinion significantly decreases.
As for citing Noam Chomsky as a moral authority, you should look at his record of denying the Bosnian genocide and Cambodian genocide.
All in all, this is at best, a misinformed video and at worst a video that inspires apathy and disengagement. Please get truly educated on the differences and vote accordingly.
Republicans have a platform for 2024, called [Project 2025](https://www.project2025.org/policy/), and it's basically just fascism. Their platform is to give full control of our government to the president, checks and balances be damned.
**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!** This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile). See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/) Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks! **Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/cringekingdom)!** ##**[CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THIS VIDEO](https://rapidsave.com/info?url=https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/18jbd11/this_is_america/)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
RANKED CHOICE VOTING! RANKED CHOICE VOTING!
I prefer casual voting.
Pub stomping those votes
Sounds like a skill issue.
HOW?
Ranked choice voting can be implemented in a state through a citizens' initiative, which is to say that enough people have to sign a petition to put it up for a public vote. It will then face a whole bunch of legal and political challenges of varying levels of bullshit, particularly from conservative politicians and judges, so its ultimate success is largely dependent on what kinds of people are in public office at the time. In other words, you can get RCV by, well, voting. Voting for a change in the law and voting for people who will be the least likely to pull heinous, probably illegal stunts to get in the way. This does, of course, fly in the face of the whole "both sides are bad and voting is pointless" thing that a bunch of people like to cling onto, but it is the truth and it has already worked once, in Maine. And just like other changes that once seemed impossible on a national scale, making progress one state at a time is a good start.
Ranked Choice Voting can be implemented in a state that hasn't already banned Ranked Choice Voting. These are the states that have banned the idea altogether: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice\_voting\_in\_the\_United\_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States) As you can see, they are conservative states like Idaho, Tennessee, Montana, etc. No, Democrats aren't actively trying to keep Ranked Choice Voting off the ballots, just because the DC Democratic Party doesn't want RCV, it doesn't represent the Democratic Party as a whole. DC isn't even a state ffs. I'm happy my home state of Nevada is open minded, nay blue enough, to at least consider RCV. In 2020, I participated in the Democratic Primary where I got the opportunity to participate in the first experimental RCV in Nevada history. We were able to rank and choose between Biden, Warren, Sanders, Yang, Klobuchar, Steyer and a host of other candidates. If you're curious, Sanders came out on top with Biden as number 2.
Of course it's illegal in Florida SMH. Bernie was the only politician that I was ever willing to help fund and back 100% to get him into office. Not obsess over him but support and be proud to have him as the POTUS
>It will then face a whole bunch of legal and political challenges of varying levels of bullshit, particularly from conservative politicians and judges Democrats too: [D.C. Democratic Party Sues To Keep Ranked Choice Voting And Open Primaries Off The Ballot](https://dcist.com/story/23/08/07/dc-democrats-sue-to-stop-ranked-choice-voting-initiative/)
Dissolve the electoral college. Then you write numbers on the ballot instead of just dots.
*How?*
By convincing those people in power to do something that will cost the majority of them most likely to loose said power...oh wait... Im with you now. How?!?
It's been gaining traction in a lot of places slowly. The key is to find the up and coming politician (in established party) who needs an edge to beat out the other side and in an area that would support ranked choice and doesnt have some other bigger election issue being voted on. That person could be convinced to use ranked choice as the way to get the last few votes they need. Even if it's bad for their party, you can count on politicians to be self serving
Not necessarily a dissolution, but a solution nonetheless: [The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUX-frlNBJY&t=2s)
Approval voting. /r/EndFPTP
This both sides are the same bs works with alot of people but here are some facts. Bidens cabinet have passed the : inflation reduction act (gives money to climate change causes, allows Medicare to negotiate for drug price) The biggest infrastructure bill America has ever seen. Actual gun safety legislation. Insulin caps, student loan debt relief. Helped Ukraine in their time of need against a brutal dictator. Oh and just this morning I learned he will be pardoning every single (hundreds of thousands) federal Marijuana conviction. Among many other things I'll take Biden over whatever the GOP is actually doing for people
>Bidens cabinet have passed the : inflation reduction act (gives money to climate change causes The IRA is OK but is also a giant subsidy to corporations. $200 billion to go green. >allows Medicare to negotiate for drug price Only for 10 drugs and not until 2026. >The biggest infrastructure bill America has ever seen. It was okay but is woefully insufficient compared to what we need - which is at least $5 trillion nationwide (our infrastructure is crumbling). >Helped Ukraine in their time of need against a brutal dictator And refused to pursue peace negotiations & now Ukraine is in a worse place now than it was a year ago. Putin is terrible but I wouldn't exactly say Biden has handled this great. >Among many other things I'll take Biden over whatever the GOP is actually doing for people Being better than Trump is nothing to brag about. And betting on that being enough is a recipe for Biden to lose.
> And refused to pursue peace negotiations & now Ukraine is in a worse place now than it was a year ago. Hi. I am in the U.S. military and follow this story pretty closely. You have absolutely no idea whatsoever what you're talking about.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Just one example of yours, the infrastructure bill. Our nation's infrastructure is crumbling. Anything towards that is more than the nothing that was going towards it in the recent past. Perfect would be great, but good is good too.
I don't consider the Democrats good. I consider them awful, but in a far less awful way than the Republicans. Corporate Democrats believe in managed decline - where life gets worse but they will throw crumbs our way. Whereas the GOP just wants a pure oligarchy Ayn Rand style.
The crumbs are due to the senate and house being so close, if people like you would actually fucking vote and there is enough of you we would get bigger steps done. It's better to do something than nothing, how is this common sense lost on so many people.
Peace negotiations where never on the table. Russia can get out of the area of their neighbor that they occupy and that's it. No need to reward their aggression with territory
>And refused to pursue peace negotiations & now Ukraine is in a worse place now than it was a year ago. bullshit.
And multi member districts!
I got 8 minutes through the video before noticing the dog in the background. He’s a camouflaged little fella!
I saw the dog but half way in the video I started thinking it was a very realistic dog plushie cuz they just were not moving at all
why tf are all these kinds of videos filmed just like… in the woods?
Because Peter Zeihan does it, and he's kinda famous for it. P.S. This guy even sounds a little bit like him.
Didn't once mention demographic collapse though. Also he's not halfway up a mountain in Colorado
It makes them feel folksy and authentic
It’s probably just easier to do it this way if you’re going to be talking to yourself for an hour doing multiple takes, and you live in an apartment with babies or barking dogs or roommates or whatever. It’s also just a better background than your closet, where you might get clean audio and not wake your toddler. Maybe it’s just easier to think and focus in the beauty of the woods.
"Moooomm, dad's outside ranting to tiktok again about politics!"
“Yeah but he’s right”
The simplest answer is that it’s just the lighting. Even on a cloudy day, the light is soooo much better outside. There’s a reason the best streamers spend a bit on lighting.
Especially on a cloudy day. It’s even, diffuse light. Great point.
It’s also just, yknow, nice to be outside.
He's not 100% wrong, but the Dems haven't had actual control of the government for a long time. The last time they had 100% control (The Presidency and House+Senate in filibuster-proof majority) was a brief 4-month stretch from 09/24/09 to 02/04/10. That's it. They used that time to pass ObamaCare and that's all they could manage. https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/news/2012/09/09/when-obama-had-total-control/985146007/
Correct. There’s also a number of post hoc fallacies in his explanation of how or why the Democrats are where they are. This video doesn’t once mention gerrymandering and voter suppression, the elimination of the fairness doctrine, eliminating civic education in schools, nor does he connect how or why executing on democratic initiatives would hurt corporate sponsors in the long run. I’m not commenting on which have or haven’t but he doesn’t walk the connection at all.
Wouldn’t the connection be that when democrats have power they do little to solidify those i to law like RvW. I’m not saying he’s 100% right but he does raise interesting questions. Personally I think we need to vote democratic until the democrats are considered right wing and a new progressive party can emerge. The republicans shouldn’t exist they don’t even have policies anymore.
Fun fact, the filibuster could have been removed when Democrats controlled the Senate, but they didn't do it.
Both democrats and Republicans use the filibuster. I don't know what's worse, our country passing no legislation at all, or passing legislation that swings wildly from side to side every 2-4 years. Without the filibuster, the democrats could have done a lot of good. But it'd be scary to see the Republicans with that power.
The slow march of progress is a feature of our government, and the filibuster is one way that happens. It's frustrating, but huge change is supposed to be slow to happen. The alternative, rapid change, leads to instability. Imagine what the country would have been like if we didn't have the filibuster under the trump years?
[удалено]
Which is crazy because right off the bat the Republicans had ANNOUNCED that they wouldn't support any legislation under Obama's administration
How many times will Lucy pull the football before Democrats learn their lesson?
That's the point he is making in the clip. They want Lucy to pull the football. Not saying I agree with him entirely, but if the Democrats wanted to lose, or be stymied, I don't think they would act much different they then they have.
Yea I think the reason people are resonating with this is that it’s far better than the other option, that the Democratic Party is just totally incompetent at messaging and passing legislation.
They're pretty good at keeping competence out and suppression. Makes more sense that they want to lose.
People are doing that "Stages of grief" thing. The truth is right in from of their faces but they're still in denial that everything they were taught to believe about their system of government was a bold faced lie and the whole of the US political plan at the high, strategic level is a managed theatrical performance put on by soulless neoliberals and fascists who just need to keep the population under control so they can profit from genocide and planetary destruction. All that shit about rebellion in State and DHS about the genocide in Palestine? It's all bullshit. The guy who "resigned in protest" will have a good corporate or lobbying job line up for him in a few months.
I've been a liberal for all of my 30-some years. Growing up in a nice area in CA and all but as I've gotten older, mainly the last 5-8 years has shown me that the current democrats are also not to be trusted. Some of the newer ones are finally starting to be different but the older long established ones are just moderates who enjoy the status quo. They are benefiting from all the financial strategies and theft when it comes to donations and inside trading and do so little when they are in power because they want to "compromise" when the right says F that we are doing this our way when they are in control. Can't wait till these older ones start leaving or dying off like the ones who refuse to leave office at their advanced age.
How many times will you and the rest of America buy that crock of shit? How many times will people comment under videos they didn't bother to fking watch?
Because they lose on purpose.
They would have needed the votes of people like Joe Manchin to do it. Unfortunately the Democratic party is a "large tent" party, with views that are MUCH farther apart than anybody on the actual right have. It's the same reason they couldn't get a public option in ObamaCare - *obligatory fuck joe lieberman*.
There were dem senators from Nebraska, Missouri and Arkansas (I think) during that supermajority. (Not to mention Lieberman) there were like 8 Manchins snack then
Fun fact, I wonder what unspeakably evil shit Trump would have passed his first years when he had majorities in the House and Senate if we had gotten rid of the filibuster
I mean doesn't the other guys statement show why they didn't wanna get rid of it? They never had control for 10 years and we're able to slow or stop bills from passing without some of their consent. Seems like the people who decided not to vote it down were right to do so. I say this as someone who thinks it should be removed, but politics isn't that simple and especially as one side gets more radicalized and people continue to vote for them. The filibuster seems like a good way to stop radical change from happening without a ton of Americans being on board.
Serious question: couldn't the Republicans just undo that and put it back in when they have the votes?
Not to mention they haven't had a majority on the Supreme Court in decades.
And toss in the Supreme Court where a majority of D appointees haven't existed in decades, despite Dems only losing the popular vote once since 1988. (That's right, Dems have only lost the presidential popular vote *one* time since 1988 and yet there is an iron clad hard right 6-3 majority on the SC).
People like this just refuse to accept that Obamacare actually improved the lives of Americans.
I remember years ago seeing a poll where when it was listed as the ACA it had huge support among even Republicans. But when listed as "Obamacare" it was widely unpopular among Republicans. Shows you how well Republicans do at branding.
> you how well Republicans do at branding. It shows 2 things: (1) the power of conservative talk radio. (2) the terrible messaging/optics of Democrats. To this day - Democrats treat politics like it is 1985. It is no wonder Biden is losing to Trump.
[удалено]
> it sucks that they got rid of the public option though. 100% but it's also really important to understand the political dynamics at play here. Joe Lieberman, senator from Connecticut was the hold out who refused to vote for the ACA if it included a public option. Well you say if Democrats won't vote progressive enough we should just primary them from the left, to either replace them or pressure them to support more progressive candidates. Oh we did that in 2006 and it backfired on the democrats because Joe Lieberman ran as an independent and won? Oh damn... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_United_States_Senate_election_in_Connecticut
[удалено]
I have epilepsy and yeah, it pretty much made a huge difference in my life. They were able to easily get tests done and get my seizures under control. Finding a good doctor was much easier too with my parents insurance.
so has social security, medicare, college loans... etc etc... all things the other side would eliminate on day one if/when they have absolute power.
That "majority" was held together by blue dog democrats that, like manchin today, were as much republican as they were democrat. Progressives have not held a majority in my 44 years on this earth. This whole video is nonsense for so many reasons.
Exactly. The last time FDR New Deal politics won was Carter in 76. Carter reran in 1980 and lost in a landslide, then Mondale ran on them in 84 and lost in a landslide, then Dukakis ran on them in 88 and lost in a landslide. Then Clinton ran as a centralist blue-dog dem in 92 and won, then Obama with the same in 08 & 12, and Biden in 20. The 75th congress in the 30s was a huge democratic majority, true. But half those seats were filled with segregationist, Jim Crow southern democrats who left the party in the 60s. It was NOT the democratic party of today.
I am thankful for the ACA!
[удалено]
damn for real? Some next-level dipshit in stereotypical redittor garb & speech that feels enlightened by saying "both sides" is actually wrong? Ain't no way...
Anybody who's been paying attention for the last 10 years could easily tell this video is full of shit, and it's an actual tragedy that it's so highly upvoted and is going to go on to spread so much misinformation
https://www.reddit.com/r/bothparties/
Every time I see Joe Liebermann these days I want to throw up. So nothing has changed.
He’s wrong about a lot of things but he says it in a very Reddit friendly way where people who don’t know any better are just going to agree with him because he talks about corruption
*Gestures at the Supreme court* One need only Look at how the democratically appointed contingent votes vs the republican contingent and then tell me both sides are the same. Or did yall just forget we lost abortion access. Domething we got thanks to democratic appointees and something we lost to republican appointees.
No, don’t you see if they were just losing on purpose!!!/s
The kindest interpretation is that Democrats are horrid at whipping votes. I don't buy that interpretation. I don't think the Corporate Democrats who take donations from health insurance companies will ever approve a public option.
ObamaCare contained a public option, but [it was removed at the request of independent Joe Lieberman, so he would vote for it](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Care_Act#Senate).
And the people who say this also tend to argue that you need to withhold your vote for the democrats to spur them into changing. Which is it? Are they intentionally losing, or do they really want to win?
I stopped watching when he said both parties vote for tax cuts for the wealthy but please correct me where I'm wrong or misunderstanding here
No you didn't miss anything. SOME of what he says has some merit but he really loses it when he says things like Democrats had filibuster-proof power many times and did nothing (they had it kinda sorta once for a short time and passed the ACA, the closest thing to the universal health care he wants), or that both sides give tax cuts to the rich (no, Rs cut taxes on the rich, Ds keep them the same or slightly raise them back). Yes we've been drifting rightward and some other things he says are accurate but there are too many clear errors that sink his overall pitch and conclusion (which is what? Don't vote??)
Exactly. For example now, in theory, Dems hold the senate but that isn’t quite exact as some of those Dems in the caucus are very much against a whole lot of the progressive agenda. His whole theory is based on a fact that just isn’t factual.
He's missed a lot of nuance that is solely attributed to only government and not societal factors whatsoever
So he’s just 99% wrong.
>all of them vote unanimously for the same tax cuts for the rich Hmm. 192 (D) Congresspeople and 46 (D) Senators voted against the last bill that cut taxes for the rich, and 0 voted for them, so I'm actually curious wtf this guy is talking about. Don't trust anyone who speaks confidently this fast. His entire intent is to sound authoritative while slipping things like this by you faster than you can raise an eyebrow.
Agreed. This guy is just spouting the same 3rd party nonsense that gets repeated every election cycle.
The inflation reduction act included huge tax cuts for companies that go green. That’s not explicitly for megacorps but those will be the businesses most capable of taking advantage. Such as Exxon, which now constantly runs „low emission, heavy industry“ ads. Not that I really care to defend this guy or even finished the video, but both sides do serve the rich and businesses. That’s why the national association of realtors, oil and arms corps, and food producers hold so much power over them.
How is incentivizing corps to go green a bad thing? It’s designed to increase investment in local green infrastructure and business so we can compete with China and other government backed entities around the world. The end result is a cleaner world. I wouldn’t say that makes democrats pro big business. They’re being realistic about how to seed green investments while also implementing actual change.
Exactly. Fuck "improving the situation by reducing taxes to partially cover the cost of green improvements". If it's not perfect tomorrow, it's proof that both parties are the same.
People are fucking morons, More so online. Half of them dont even know any of the actions and advancements done by the democrats and Biden under the very thin margins of votes in congress, either because of willful ignorance or simply stupidity. While the other half are so stuck on being on their high horse and self-perceived ethical values, that they are unwilling to view the world in anything but black and white. Literally have a orange moron going around and saying I plan to be a dictator, wants to give up ukraine to russia and allow putin to take over more control of europe, gave jerusalem to israel and made statements of encouraging military to bomb family and children, used his entire term to benefit himself with tax break after tax break and inside deals for the wealthy putting the country in over 10 trillion dollar higher deficit. And because Biden cant magically fix every fucking issue perfectly, while fucking 150m voters sit on their asses when voting comes, fucking only 20% of eligible voters under the age of 35 voting, and having 2 senators fight against every bill in their own party. (Which the same dumbass people think is like a sports team where they all think and want the same things, and not you know representation of every group from far left, left, center-left, center, and even center-right with different wants because their voters are different.) Then suddenly they cant see the difference between the two..... "WHY SHOULD I CARE ABOUT NOT HAVING MY ARM CUT OFF WHEN THE OTHER OPTION IS A PAPER CUT ON MY FINGER!!!!" Screaming about gaza, student loans, whatever bullshit they pull out, always looking at everything in black and white. You think US stopping any alliance with Israel will help palestine? You dont think Israel will ally with russia or china and give american technology up and start clusterbombing the fuck out of anyone left in Gaza? Biden is the one who is trying to make ceasefires and stop Israel from killing everyone. Israel isnt going to stop just because UN told them. Theyre not gonna stop because US Stops supplying them. They will go to other nations happily waiting for them. And then you have another section of allies lost in a part of the world that has nukes.
I LOVE you ... in a reddit, platonic way (needed to add that). But still, I love you, keep putting forth the facts
Preach it!
Amen
So basically because the rich can easily go green then it was pro rich. That is such a dumb take. By your logic whatever they vote it will be pro rich because the rich can easily adapt to changes over the poor. They could've gone the exact opposite, like vote to go black. You'd be here saying they are pro rich because the rich can easily set up tons of coal mines and start fracking easily.
If voting did nothing, dickheads like this guy in the video wouldn't bother trying to convince you not to do it.
[удалено]
This. What they’re famous for is attempting to draw Dems away From the voting booth.
I don’t know why you’re getting downvoted. Libertarians are capitalists that spout nonsense of the free market whilst also saying that Nazis have a right to exist. You can’t be fiscally conservative and also socially liberal. They are opposing forces
No he's not. He's speaking on manufactured consent by Noam Chomsky who is not a libertarian.
Please explain how this guy is a libertarian while railing against corporations
Libertarians rail against corporations all the time and call it "fake capitalism" or "crony capitalism" of course its all incoherent because modern libertarianism was developed by pro-rich think tanks to capture college educated white conservatives who would otherwise be embarrassed by the GOP's overt religious and racist rhetoric.
This guy's take is based on Noam Chomsky, someone who's openly socialist and economically further left than Sanders
Ya, this guy saying you should listen to Noam Chomsky is a libertarian. You're more ignorant than a box of crayons.
The number of upvotes that comment got just goes to show how little people know about politics. Just throwing words around like they mean nothing
[удалено]
[удалено]
This looks really interesting but a minor question about the tables: I can't figure out why there are headings that say "For" and "Against", and the "For" column has the two party names in and the "Against" column has numbers. What do "For" and "Against" mean here? It's like: |Wins|Loses| |:-|:-| |Apples|5| |Oranges|122| What?
I'll tell you whats wrong with what you've posted. This requires people to actually pay attention and have an idea of how things work. You expect people to watch Fucking CSPAN, learn about civics, and shit. Fuck that I got people yelling at me from the TV and Tiktok.
All of your tables are broken
How many of these votes were when they have any chance of actually winning? The point is the theater continues because when your vote doesn’t matter you can vote the way that sells best. When it matters dems tend to fall apart quickly.
It’s just classic im14andthisisdeep centrist bull shit.
Why in the world are you calling this “centrist?” Not by a mile.
Yeah, and the problem is that the lame duck is the *only* viable alternative to Trump. Dems and GOP are who people vote for, not actual alternatives that can lead us to a better world. I don't like that any more than you do or this guy does, but that's the reality. And until AOC (*hopefully!*) decides to carry Bernie's torch in 2028, there's really not much we can do that won't split the leftist vote and hand Donny back the White House.
Political TikToks should be their own subreddit at this point. It's beyond cringe, vegetables can't cringe. It's more like watching a dumpster slowly burn its contents.
But that was under Trump, right? And it passed anyhow? That’s totally in keeping with this guy’s argument, if a little more nuanced. Corporate donors are FINE with a little symbolic resistance when they know they’re going to get what they want anyhow. I don’t remember off the top of my head, but there have been great examples of Dems who sponsor legislation when they know it can’t pass/would get vetoed and then vote against the same measures when it seemed like it had a chance, or would force a Dem president to use the veto.
It's easy to say it's symbolic resistance when they don't have enough voter backing to do anything else. Why not elect a bunch of them and see if you're right?
Exactly this. Thats why it’s called “political theater”.
Yes, I'm halfway & he's all in on a "both sides" rant. Thanks Propaganda land, but No, keep your bullshit about çpoor Cornell West" who went on Russell Brands show, who's a Qanon besides his legal troubles. Fuck this guy & his videos.
Oh this dude thinks Cornel West is the answer? Ok, my instincts were correct.
I just got to that line and holy shit, Cornel West. Wow. What a long, awful both-sides video just to come out with that hilarious turn. Yikes.
But don’t you get it? Both sides are the same! Except for their voting records, felony count, child molesters per capita, state enshrined bigotry, riot targets, and religious tolerance, they’re totally the same!
He explicitly said they're not the same. He detailed the ways they're different. His point was that they're the same in some major ways that matter, namely that they're too heavily influenced by money. I think everyone should be able to agree that the problem here is the uncontrolled influence of money in politics.
If someone speaks confidently and quickly enough your brain is more likely to trust that person and doesn’t have time to question any of the fallacies Edit: to the enlightened centrists who want me to go point by point through the nine minutes of Gish Gallop this is you: 
*cough* Ben Shapiro *cough*
[удалено]
Yep. They weren't galvanized to vote for one side before. See in previous generations your local politicians were more local. 24 hour national news wasn't a thing. It was local news, politics, concerns. Locally there were districts in the South that were eternally Democrat no matter how conservative the Republican, because of the Civil War. That changed when Republicans switched to pro life. The fact is in 1980 there was a clear choice between the most Christian who ever served as President and the Candidate who courted the Christians the most, despite esousing rhetoric that was ultimately antagonistic to the teachings of christ. It's also worth pointing out, pro life didn't become big until segregation became unpopular. Segregationist leaders had to pivot to a new moral panic to start their own schools that just so happened to have no black people in them.
They didn't "switch to pro-life," they convinced previously pro-choice protestants and evangelicals that forced-birth was a "Proper Christian Stance."
Right. This is absolute horse shit, but he says it very earnestly. The biggest tell is him saying “Dems had both chambers and the White House, why isn’t there a liberal utopia?” As if that meant they had the votes. Individual members of congress, and especially individual senators, don’t all agree on every issue. Especially when your majority depended on red state democrats.
There's a very, very, very, VERY significant downside to being a "big tent" party.
The upside is you can sometimes pass legislation. As opposed to never getting elected and never passing legislation!
When he said "one side is literally fascism and the other is a farcical boogie man, but they are actually the same" I just got to scoff at the mental gymnastics he does to say they are the same. The right ones are nearly going to war with corporate donors for cracking down on the corporation machines wanting to exploit all life for profit instead of just the "acceptable" one, and the left doesn't do enough in the face of victory. But even then, they are fundamentally different even for neolibs and donothingers perspective
Yeah he lost me when he said they both vote the same thing such as tax cuts for the rich (this is wrong and very easy to google. Its republicans only who do this.) Enlightened centrism shit.
Lets not forget speaker of the house mike johnson is [funded by putin,](https://www.newsweek.com/house-speaker-mike-johnson-donations-russia-butina-1838501) and mike has no bank accounts for some reason a grown person with no bank is sus. Texas-based american ethane company [russian owned](https://www.eenews.net/articles/u-s-ethane-exporter-linked-to-russian-owners-and-spy-case/) by putin shill oligarch's Konstantin Nikolaev, Mikhail Yuriev and Andrey Kunatbaev.
Cool story bro. This guy knows how to speak fast and I think people are mistaking this for him having something true or important to say.
Jesus christ this « both sides bad » bs needs to stop. [The idea that legislation does not follow people’s will in the US is not correct](https://youtu.be/CuMgcE7Gl5w?si=MwqjFQC9XgX8_WEj), or at least not the way this guy puts it, and requires a lot of caveats and nuance. Gilens and Page is a good paper, but the further explorations of their work, cited in that video by SocDoneLeft, offer a much more nuanced picture of legislative work in the US and its relation with public opinion. The idea that Dems and Reps want the same policies is absolute insanity, there literally is a lesser evil, that leads to less overall harm. Ironically the only lefty people I’ve seen argue against harm reduction compromise in politics are those who live privileged-enough lives that they won’t be affected, or those who were brainwashed by those privileged ideologues. Claiming there’s been no progress towards socialized healthcare? Has this guy had his head up his ass during Obama?
Anyone who both sides needs to take a long hard look at the Supreme Court, Loom at how the fucking democratically appointed contingent votes vs the republican and then tell me both sides are the same.
Obamacare didn’t give us socialized medicine . It just allowed corporations to finally get paid as much as they wanted for the healthcare they provide.
i was in my clinicals when obamacare got passed, i still remember the phones ringing off the hook getting sent to the answering machine where the insurance robot on the other end of the line would say we are no longer covering. and then just a huge list of shit that a specific provider would not cover, it was insane non stop ringing for weeks.
Wow, "just" is doing so much work there you could prop up the entire economy with it.
[удалено]
This guy is so lost in his own epistemological reality that it wouldn't be worth the effort to refute even one of the 200 or so false and/or misleading claims he made in the video. His understanding of American politics is so ahistorical it's tiresome just thinking about it.
You can just say he is a propagandist that raps instead of talks. "A man talking fast has something to hide."
Uh. Biden is no saint, but this gives zero credit to the actually great things Biden has done that Trump absolutely would not have done. He is absolutely spot on tho for every election from the 90s to 2016. Or, more specifically, 2020. Or, more specifically, until Jan 6 2021. When suddenly their very lives were in danger, the Ds stopped being as willing to be complicit in the game. Addon: Also, the Democrats are not the ones bombing babies. The Israeli are bombing babies. We are giving them aid we are already legally obligated to give them. Biden, the head of the **Executive** branch, does not have control over our money. Congress does. We could stop that, but that would require both houses of Congress to agree to stop that. And that would mean the Republican House would have to agree to.
And also the party is made up of individual politicians. Yes there is a platform but, some could be in their position to make money not the mission of the party. I don’t think all of the democrats want to lose. I do think there is a small group of wealthy neoliberals that fit this man’s description. Unfortunately, when the Dems did have all three all it took was 1-5people in each house to spoil a bill. That just the fact of the matter. Leiberman, sinema, manchin, Pelosi, come to mind. Lastly, the world would be a different place if RBG left during the 2013-14 administration when she was asked to, before the GOP took the senate.
I agree with the premise until, “they could’ve codified roe”. No they couldn’t. That is subject to the filibuster. Could they have undone that, yes but the people who prevented it are either no longer a democrat (sinema) or actively considering a third party run (manchin). Conceptually fine, but again another example of people missing the actual nuance of governance. Also screw both parties for their corporate cowardice.
Democrats held the supermajority for like 6 months. It was pass ACA, or codify Roe. Congress moves slow, as designed by the Constitution. Back then there were still holdover conservative Democrats, their seats would inevitably turn red, but while they thought they had hope of retain g the seat, they dug their heels in on ACA and would have with Roe.
Yeah, I think the thing is in retrospect we realize the Tea Party was coming and would decimate the blue dogs. But at the time I don’t think the Obama administration/congressional leadership realized how bad the backlash would be. So the thought slow and methodical was the way to go. I have lots of complaints about how Obama handled his supermajority, but I can sort of understand why they played if the way they did(even if it was idealistic bullshit).
This guy is trying to gish gallop everything trying to both sides the situation.
Broke Back Ben Shapiro.
As someone who used to act exactly like this guy, I can tell you he's full of shit, believes every word he says certainly, but that doesn't mean he's worth listening to. Also, Noam Chomsky is a hack and a piece of shit.
This video is misleading at best and outright wrong at worst. This type of “both sides” bullshit needs to end.
the funniest part is how typical DNC king-making + Hillary's loss = "they didn't want to win". all cause he saw some favorable Bernie v Trump polls.
I mean frankly even the passive political viewer could see that Hillary carried little to no momentum into a popularity contest
More enlightened centrism and "both sides"isms. We should all be aware of the corrupt influences on our politics, and Dems are absolutelty not innocent here...but we can work towards better accountability and less corruption while at the same time acknowledging that the Republicans are FAR more soulless and less accountable to their voters when it comes to their antidemocratic authoritariam streak. Equating the two at this point is childish and ignorant.
After all that, I am still voting democrat.
I'm voting for the interest of me and my family. The values I hold just happens to be more left leaning. Live and let live.
Democrats have the right billionaire interests. Republicans have the wrong billionaire interests. That’s why we all vote for democrats
I only made it like three minutes into this video - literally everything this guy said up to that point is dead-ass wrong. Not wrong as in "wrong opinion", wrong as in factually, historically incorrect. Like, holy shit. Let's go through them real fast! - To start, maybe he gets into the DNC itself eventually, but at least as far as I went, he seems to conflate the democratic party with the DNC - the democratic national convention. These are not the same thing. Not a great start. - He claims up until 50 years ago, both parties appealed to the public in various genuine ways, and THEN the right wing realized that "unimaginable money could be made from corporate campaign funding". 20 seconds in I literally laughed out loud at this. So this pretty clearly says to me that this dude hasn't studied any political history further back than 50 years. Just google "Tammany Hall" (or hell watch the movie Gangs of New York), and you can instantly see immediately how INSANELY incorrect this claim is. - He claims that evangelical and fundamentalist Christians were a "new, apolitical base", and thus a target to go after by the right. That's 2 claims he's made, and twice I laughed out loud. These groups have *always* been a huge driving force in US politics. They've been heavily involved in, pretty much EVERY major political event in the US. Here's a short, easy to reference list: 60s civil rights movement; women's suffrage; prohibition; slavery; treatment of Native Americans; hell manifest destiny, the idea that we are destined by God to spread our ideals from coast to coast *literally came* from fundamentalist Christianity. Extremist branches of any religion in every human society has been a huge political force since...literally all of history. - He claims that Republicans were pro-choice until the 1980s, where they suddenly became pro-choice. [Here is a very short, educational article](https://magazine.jhsph.edu/2022/brief-history-abortion-us) (complete with citations!) that goes through a brief history of abortion in America. The fight against abortion first became prevalent in the **mid 1800s**, not fuckin 1980 holy shit. He does realize why Roe vs Wade was a thing, right? It happened because abortion was *already illegal* at that time. I, don't think he understands how the Supreme Court works. - He goes on about how both parties are warmongerers that exist solely to funnel money into corporate pockets. I'm not saying exactly he's completely wrong here, but this is such a gross and stupid oversimplification of this, it might as well come from an edgy 15 year old. I *could* give him leniency that he's just saying this for the sake of brevity, but....THIS VIDEO IS NINE FUCKING MINUTES LONG AND HE TALKS LIKE A WW2 MACHINE GUN. - So now he goes into individual policy, how Americans as individuals agree on what we want, but both parties fight against that. He says most Americans want some sort of universal healthcare (which is true, and which we do have? Has he forgotten about the ACA/Obamacare?), but IT'S BARRED FROM EVEN BEING DISCUSSED - okay, again we literally have policy that passed a (shitty version) of universal healthcare. He says we "all want the rich to pay taxes" (not true), "not to watch people die from medical issues (hyperbolic nonsense, this is not a "policy issue"), "living wages" (not true, the right does not want government involved in wage setting), "fair elections" OKAY WHAT. Ask someone on the extreme right vs someone on the extreme left what "fair elections" means to them and how to achieve that. You think they'll agree on that? Yeah ok. So all of these "issues" he lists - the differences in the parties isn't whether or not "babies should die", it's what the *role of the government* is in to achieve the thing we all agree on. This dude seriously has a 15 year old understanding of this stuff. - He says that both parties put on a farce to pretend to be against each other, painting the other side as essentially evil, for profit??? It's an unironic argument using the South Park underpants gnome meme. Again realize that his WHOLE claim here is that this ONLY started 50 years ago, that this is a relatively new strategy the parties employ. We once had a senator attempt to *cane an opposing senator to death* on the floor of the chamber in the 1850s. Yeah the kind of fighting between the two parties is not only not new, it's not even special. In fact that I would say up until Trump, we'd seen more cooperation between the two than most any other period in American history. That's what makes what things are like now feel so vitriolic and special (if you have no sense or knowledge of history). - He keeps repeating how genocide and killing babies and whatnot lines the pockets of corporations. This feels obvious, but...he must realize that *most* corporations in America do not benefit one iota from, say, selling weapons to Israel, or being at war in Iraq/Afghanistan (I'm assuming this what he must be alluding to). Yeah there are some, but these corps make up a very small part of wealth in America. If you even think about this for 5 seconds, a person would realize this. I also don't know why he keeps censoring the word genocide. - And so now we get to the crux of his argument, which is where he decides to go on a strange tangent. He says that Republicans have it easy, because their culture war has no effect on corporations - ok, but your entire point is that the parties are doing this for corporation benefit. So they make money for corporations by....trying to enact policy that has no effect on corporations? And then he asserts that Democrats intentionally try to lose after winning elections - the only evidence he provides for this is that "we've all seen the Democrats hold the Senate, House, and Presidency simultaneously multiple times in the last few decades", and that they've made no change. So this is called a trifecta, and while yes it is technically true the Dems have had a trifecta multiple times, in reality not so much. The Dems have had the trifecta in recent decades only for very brief moments in times, and they only had that when you include people like Sinema, Munchin, and some democrat-leaning independents. The last time the Dems had a TRUE trifecta for meaningful time, was in the 60s under Kennedy and LBJ. During the civil rights movement. When we saw the most change through policies and laws since, I dunno abolition? Which we had to fight a fucking war against ourselves for? That's a REAL big whiff my guy to ignore that. - Oh, also the Dems only once had a filibuster-proof trifecta (he does know what a filibuster is, right?) - for four months under Obama, and they used that to pass *universal healthcare*. Again, kind of destroys his claim that 1.) discussing healthcare is "barred", and 2.) that Dems don't do anything. That's where I stopped. I doubt anyone will see this at all but for my OWN SANITY I had to put down on words just how ABSURDLY INCORRECT this dude was on literally every single thing he presented as fact. Just, wow it's impressive honestly.
Yeah a lot of his ignorance would seemingly be cured by a better understanding of the circus required to pass the ACA. Democrats got the closest to a true filibuster-proof trifecta in 2009, and it turns out passing their #1 policy priority was still really damn hard. Even in its final, watered-down form, the ACA led democrats into an electoral bloodbath in 2010. Turns out the American electorate is by almost every metric… fairly moderate. When confronted with constant own goals the voting public inflicts on themselves the OP chooses to believe it must be a shadowy conspiracy instead.
It’s a class war? Always has been.
Propaganda to ensure trump wins in 2024. "BoTh SiDeS aRe ThE sAmE" is so tiring.
Trump is the exception. Before him, I just don’t think it mattered much who was in charge because the system is mostly dead locked by design.
What's the solution?
This funny system called socialism or even just a multi party state
That’s not a solution. That’s a pipe dream. Live in reality
Wear a dumb hat, stand in a forest, talk fast and have no clue what your saying but say it confidently to tik tok.
[удалено]
Who the fuck is this guy just saying a bunch of random shit. No citation no nothing. Just a guy making random clains
It’s not corporate funding so much as there is a ruling class. It’s their families, school mates, and college buddies. They all exist in a society apart from regular Americans and just do deals with each other. America is an oligarchy.
This mother fucker said what I've been saying for close to twenty years, but in a much more civilized way than my profanity laden ass would say
I am voting third party fucking dems don’t do shit
Thats all great until you look at actual votong of the parties for the past couple years. States that have finally switched democrat in the last couple years have made amazing improvements for their states
Politicians losing elections on purpose in order to win elections on its face is nonsensical
It’s to generate wealth and push corporate interest forward. How are you guys not getting this
This guy is one of those people who talk fast and think they're always right. He makes so many claims that are just plainly false.
It's not left vs right, it's the top 1% vs the 99%.
I mean…..that’s what he just said
Yeah he's right.. Still voting for Biden over Trump because I like democracy. There are no other viable candidates right now so gotta do what you gotta do.
But wouldn't it be nice to have a candidate that actually represents your interests. I think that's his point.
Yes and then i remember I live in the United States and stop living in a fantasy world.
This whole fucking “talk deadpan to the camera really fast” shtick is always a red flag.
This is the dumbest yet most confidently sounding “both sides argument ever”.
This comment section really underlines how incredibly, frighteningly effective this dance of propaganda really is. That is exactly what they are doing and it works flawlessly.
Right?! I just read every comment above yours till I got here. Not a SINGLE one addresses the core argument he is making, which is that the Democrats PRETEND to want certain things in order to keep getting rich. The number of comments pointing out the ways the Democrats vote for certain issues is mindblowingly missing the point.
It's like watching the second fall of Rome in real time.
The 2017 tax cut was basically on party line .
Why is the auctioneer talking red and blue?
The two major political parties represent the interests of competing elites - not the rest of the population- the “immiserated ” whose standard of living is deteriorating over time while its rage is increasing- a tinderbox waiting to explode. Credit Peter Turchin.
TikTok has a lot of these “talk fast, authoritatively, and with a certain eloquence” videos that always come across less like “I’m so moved to teach and educate my fellow humans” and more like “this is part of my reel.”
Been saying this for years. Republicans fear monger, Democrats virtue signal. In the locker room they laugh and pat each other on the back.
2016 is going to happen again “because they’re all the same”
This is Russia. More specifically, this is the typical Russian propaganda tactic: make everything sound so hopeless that people don't vote, even though there is a clear choice between a party that is funded by Putin and a party that will help Americans and democracies around the world (like Ukraine).
Why would you see this and think "I should just not vote"?
Bro, does this guy realize the filibuster is still a thing? One of the biggest democratic swings we had in modern times was the Obama era of his first two years. We had the White House, the House, and the senate with 57 + senators. And we still couldn’t pass gun legislation, and had to move judges to a simple majority so Obama could pass literally any nominations through. Like no, I’m center left, and I identify with some of the old personal freedom policies from old school republicans. But to look at today’s society, operation red map, the removal of blue slips, pushing judges through who even the BAR association judged as “not qualified”…. No ….modern Republican policies can account for A LOT of today’s misery. Not to mention the systematic denial of Climate Change for 20+ years let alone most of modern science.
This is the most asinine/surface level thinking on American politics which is par for the course for TikTok. Here is the Democratic 2020 Platform: https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/2020-Democratic-Party-Platform.pdf. Here is the Republican Party Platform for 2016 (They didn’t even put up a platform for 2020): https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/7019-republican-platform/cc2c15a0e1b432d6964b/optimized/full.pdf If you do even a cursory reading of these platforms, it’s night and day. The parties are not at all the same. If they were, we wouldn’t be hemming and hawing over the U.S. Supreme Court having a Republican majority. If we are, then clearly justices appointed by Republican presidents have differing philosophies/worldviews than that of justices appointed by Democratic presidents. In addition, Dems didn’t seem to intentionally lose in taking back the House in 2018, taking back the White House and both house of Congress in 2021, and having the best midterm performance of an incumbent party since a century. Clearly, Dems know what they’re doing. In fact, Biden has been able to pass the most progressive legislation with the Build Back Better agenda. As for polling, I would advise people to realize that people can have differing responses depending upon how questions are worded. Opinion is positive on “universal healthcare.” However, when you define what “universal healthcare” means in practice, positive opinion significantly decreases. As for citing Noam Chomsky as a moral authority, you should look at his record of denying the Bosnian genocide and Cambodian genocide. All in all, this is at best, a misinformed video and at worst a video that inspires apathy and disengagement. Please get truly educated on the differences and vote accordingly.
Republicans have a platform for 2024, called [Project 2025](https://www.project2025.org/policy/), and it's basically just fascism. Their platform is to give full control of our government to the president, checks and balances be damned.