• Spendrill@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    3 days ago

    The Democrats have constantly misread the situation very badly. For the typical voter, not the bourgeois liberals, not the MAGA brain-rotted dummies but the average poor working class voter the choice was:

    • Vote Liberal Bourgeois and maybe things might tick along for another couple of years with the rich bourgeois liberals profiting off you and telling you how good you’ve got it

    • Vote Trump, you’ll definitely be fucked but all the bourgeois liberals will be fucked as well.

    I mean sanity suggests that the first offer meets the self-preservation criteria better but it’s not what you call an attractive offer, is it?

    • Optional@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      3 days ago

      The “offer” was sane, competent, if not luxury-gay-space-communism government vs. chaos, insanity, and death.

      That was the “offer”.

      • Spendrill@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        3 days ago

        If sane and competent gets you a decline in living standards year on year then it ain’t all that attractive.

          • Spendrill@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            I kind of think that we don’t have an argument here. Trump is obviously the worse of two choices. It’s just that the Democrat offering is not actually a good choice, just a less bad one. Unless you’re a member of the bourgeoisie.

            I am going to have a moderate decline in living standards because I live in the UK. Where our supposedly centre-left government have just decided to cut benefit payments to the disabled rather than raise taxes.

            • Optional@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              2 days ago

              Unless you’re a member of the bourgeoisie.

              Mmm.

              Well here in America, the incremental progress made by Democratic Presidents indicates we can have much more if we could get more that 50% representation in Congress. But we very rarely do, for a number of reasons, some of which were pioneered in the UK.

              Still we got a budget surplus, some sort of universal health care, and a huge investment in environmental rebuilding. Because a lot of self-described leftists were targeted to be outraged by the outrageous war crimes of Likud, we now have rolled back 100 years of structure and process in roughly three months. Like Brexit-on-steroids.

              And that’s just fuckin stupid.

      • astutemural@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        3 days ago

        If your definition of a ‘sane, competent’ government is one that continues to rabidly support an ongoing genocide, I want none of it.

      • eldavi@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        luxury space capitalism for the rich; the global south (especially the gazans) were never intended to be with us in the future and the democrats proved it.

          • Spendrill@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            I can’t pretend that I know for a 100% sure that they will be. But the signs are not great. Also Tax Cuts for the Rich didn’t go all that well when Liz Truss tried it here in the UK.

            • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              The bourgeoisie will get yet another economic crash to scoop up assets on the cheap, further consolidating wealth and power in the hands of a few. I really don’t see how this hurts anyone but the working class.

              • Spendrill@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                11 hours ago

                Hurts the petit bourgeoisie, which is the only ones the working class see. Also, because Trump is a vengeful narcissist, you can bet that certain sections of the liberal elite are going to get a coating.

                Edit: just finished writing this and happened across this meme which probably puts the case to you better than I could:

                • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 hours ago

                  Hurts the petit bourgeoisie, which is the only ones the working class see

                  So billionaires will be way better off, politicians will be fine, the working class is doomed, rights will be stripped away from vulnerable minorities, but that’s fine because small business owners will also be hurt? I just question the rationale of that strategy. It is literally a 4chan NEET’s “screw everyone” plot.

                  Also, because Trump is a vengeful narcissist, you can bet that certain sections of the liberal elite are going to get a coating.

                  This seems like burning down your whole neighborhood to get back at the guy down the street.

                  • Spendrill@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    2 hours ago

                    This seems like burning down your whole neighborhood to get back at the guy down the street.

                    Yeah. That’s what it is. That’s exactly why you’ve got Trump and I’m being entirely serious here.