Politicians will always disappoint you. There will always be things left undone, done poorly, or done in a way you disagree with. Everybody needs to get used to this and learn we vote for the least bad, not the most good.
Politicians will always disappoint you. There will always be things left undone, done poorly, or done in a way you disagree with. Everybody needs to get used to this
Why?
Why does everyone have to get used to and just blindly accept that the system is shit and doesn’t serve them or make their lives any better?
Why are you so comfortable settling for so little?
Why don’t you want better for yourself, and worse, think you get to demand the same of others?
(I don’t need your answers, these are all for you and those who agree with you to ask yourselves)
Democracy is necessarily the function of creating coalitions of compromise between literal millions of people, all with different interests and concerns.
Politicians, as a career, self-select for ambition and ego, and that comes with certain implications in even the best of them.
Jesus fucking Christ, is it really so little to not want to die or see my friends and family horribly oppressed?
Look, I will tick the Kamala box. I do indeed believe that Trump is a bad candidate and will oppress many people. But I don’t want people to feel like this shit is normal. Back in the late 1970’s to the 1990’s, nobody would have thought that both parties would end up supporting the same genocide, with one being a little less pumped. Or maybe even the 2000’s, when the War on Terror was thought to be conducted humanely. We have lived in an imperfect world before, along with millions of people, and politicians self-selecting for ambition and ego, and there was nobody calling to wipe an ethnicity off the face of the Earth. I’m not surprised at the Dem party, I’m surprised that there are fascists in the White House and I’m supposed to just accept it as a normal part of democracy. Well, I won’t! Both parties in the United States supporting a genocide requires voting to solve, but it’s purely abnormal! I’m not wanting a world any better than a world we used to have, one where the United States did not conduct ethnic cleansing!
We live in a nation with the Internet, fast food wherever you go, products that arrive at your door when ordered, touchscreens, full 3D videogames, V-Tubers, the Moon Landing, nuclear reactors, and the White House lighting up in rainbow colors to support LGBT+ rights–yet when asked to stop a genocide, it’s suddenly too much to ask. I would give up so much of these fleeting pleasures to protect human lives. Should I just become a lotus-eater, and neglect the outside world to “act humane”?
Back in the late 1970’s to the 1990’s, nobody would have thought that both parties would end up supporting the same genocide, with one being a little less pumped.
Man, I can absolutely cite examples of both parties supporting genocides in that time period.
Well, I won’t! Both parties in the United States supporting a genocide requires voting to solve, but it’s purely abnormal! I’m not wanting a world any better than a world we used to have, one where the United States did not conduct ethnic cleansing!
I… would count myself as an American patriot, but I’m pretty sure the US not committing ethnic cleansing is an extremely recent phenomenon.
We live in a nation with the Internet, fast food wherever you go, products that arrive at your door when ordered, touchscreens, full 3D videogames, V-Tubers, the Moon Landing, nuclear reactors, and the White House lighting up in rainbow colors to support LGBT+ rights–yet when asked to stop a genocide, it’s suddenly too much to ask. I would give up so much of these fleeting pleasures to protect human lives. Should I just become a lotus-eater, and neglect the outside world to “act humane”?
Man, if you want to pour all your time and energy into this cause, unironically, go for it. But part of understanding just how vast and fucked the world is also requires one to accept and understand that we can’t fight every battle simultaneously. Hell, most battles aren’t even our’s to fight. And no amount of martyrdom from an individual can change either of those things. I’ve been calling the Israeli genocide for what it is for years now. I’m not exactly sitting here telling you to shut up about it. But we have to be realistic both about what we can achieve and about what we will sacrifice to achieve it.
You could sacrifice every waking moment of your life, every meal above the level of gruel, every social connection and personal property unrelated to the cause, all for the sake of a .0001% contribution to ending another country’s genocide, but the onus shouldn’t be on you to kill yourself to correct every sin in the world. At some point, it’s not on you or me as individuals.
In what world will a politician never disappoint you?
I’m generally in full control of myself and even I disappoint myself - fringe third party candidates are not the political messiah some people think they are.
The question was why do we need to accept that politicians will disappoint you, implying that they had something they believed would not disappoint them.
In a world where “politician” isn’t a career, or even a thing that exists, and instead people make decisions communally and horizontally. It’s called anarchism.
You not knowing or being able to imagine alternatives, doesn’t mean none exist.
Yes exactly. The only politician who will believe as you do 100% is yourself. You must run for office if this is your goal. Anything else is actually kinda fascist/controlling. In a better world, we’d have a direct democracy and everyone would get a voice.
Cuz it’s democracy. If you wanted someone to be in office who would get everything done with no obstacles no roadblocks and no delays then you wouldn’t be looking at democracy you’d want a dictator. You can want that if you want but just be honest about it.
Lmfao, except you don’t have democracy. You have oligarchy and kleptocracy and plutocracy. You also don’t have a government that is “getting everything done without obstacles”, but pretty much the literal fucking opposite. The fact that the only alternative you can imagine to the current (non democratic, slipping in to fascism) state of affairs is a dictatorship is a problem with your lack of imagination and narrow view of the world (though granted, you were heavily indoctrinated that way), not a reflection of reality, nor the array of other ways that society can not only exist, but thrive.
There was good reason I told you people to ask yourselves these questions - you are the ones standing in your own way with your insistence of living according to a full blown fallacy because you’re just comfortable enough with the way things are, and are too scared of change, specifically no longer holding the privileges the current system grants you in exchange for your compliance, and the idea that you might not have anyone to feel superior to.
Until you’re willing and able to face that within yourself, I can’t help you, nor am Interested in hearing the mental gymnastics you do to justify your actively maintaining the status quo. ¯\(ツ)/¯
Because people in office are individuals and morality is relatively subjective. The only politician who will do everything you want and believe everything you believe is yourself. Run for office.
Right, as if the system isn’t very deliberately designed to withstand reform and will not hesitate to weaponize every tool it has at its disposal (from the courts to the media to the police and the other alphabet agencies) to assure no leftist ever actually makes it in to a position of real power (not that we would want to, since we believe the state should be abolished, not joined, for precisely the reason stated above).
For the however many’th time, you die hard liberals can tell yourselves as many fairy tales you want to make yourself feel better, it won’t change the reality - the system is not designed to serve you, but to keep you placated with nothing but an illusion of choice. Those with power and money wrote the rules, what on earth, and at this point in time with history unfolding right in front of our eyes as it is, again, makes you think that following those rules will ever work in your favour?
First, I’m not a liberal by any definition. A democratic socialist isn’t a liberal and if you think so, you’re uneducated or just ad hominem attacking. Either way, null.
There are options, it’s just difficult to implement them. The Black Panthers were doing it. The first step is having community as its base.
I live in a place with a lot of “undesirable” folks. I don’t want to see my community here get hurt because I didn’t do anything. And ofc I don’t want to be hurt either.
Voting does grant power. If it did nothing, then they’d allow felons to vote. They wouldn’t engage in voter suppression. If leftist organizing didn’t work, they wouldn’t have imprisoned people like The Black Panthers. We actually know it indeed does and will work BECAUSE the state responds violently. Even in Russia, where the votes don’t matter, someone like Navalny is a threat.
Don’t be a coward. Vote. You can still organize for other stuff too while voting.
One really good example is the stroad that’s preventing good bike infrastructure. The roads that are managed by the township have bike lanes - even if they’re not separated - but the stroad is a state route, so we have no bike lanes on the main connection between these lanes, and limited pedestrian infrastructure.
This is why we have kids getting bussed to the school that’s across the road from their house.
So how is that situation an argument against people running for office? Like jobs are meant to be challenging and work, it’s not like being elected then grants you a magic wand to seamlessly solve issues.
Voters will always disappoint you. There will always be things left undone, done poorly, or done in a way you disagree with. Everybody needs to get used to this and learn we vote for the least bad, not the most good.
Haha. That’s pretty good. The point I was trying to make is that it doesn’t make sense to me to hold voters to a higher standard of conduct than the politicians that they vote for.
The difference is campaigns spend over a billion dollars these days and don’t even try to convince voters.
They do anything for donations to spend on fundraisers for more donations, and they just go round and round. Every revolution everyone involved skims a little.
If it costs over a billion dollars to beat trump in an election, maybe we should worry less about donations and more about votes.
We don’t live in a perfect world. Someone is going to be president for the next 4 years, and at this stage of the game we have 2 distinct choices.
Also, what you called half-assed someone else might call the democracy process. Just because YOU want something doesn’t mean I want the same thing. Your vision for how to solve Palestine or Ukraine or improve wealth equality might be vastly different from mine. Just because you don’t get exactly what you want doesn’t mean the system is useless or not worth participating in. If you were to get exactly what you want, then I’d be getting walked over. If I get exactly what I want, then you’d say you are not being heard.
The only fair system is to elect a big-tent party and then work through dialog on trying to reach either consensus or fair compromise on the various topics. But we won’t have that option if we let the fascists get control and do their Project 2025 thing while ignoring us.
It boils down to good politics is boring and full of compromise.
Lot’s of talking and compromise doesn’t make for good headlines or scare motivate voters to the polls. There is room to add the large media companies to the blame of ‘perfection’ since they are always looking for the imperfect to talk about. And then they bash that imperfect-ness into the ground.
Politicians will always disappoint you. There will always be things left undone, done poorly, or done in a way you disagree with. Everybody needs to get used to this and learn we vote for the least bad, not the most good.
Why?
Why does everyone have to get used to and just blindly accept that the system is shit and doesn’t serve them or make their lives any better?
Why are you so comfortable settling for so little?
Why don’t you want better for yourself, and worse, think you get to demand the same of others?
(I don’t need your answers, these are all for you and those who agree with you to ask yourselves)
This is an imperfect world.
Democracy is necessarily the function of creating coalitions of compromise between literal millions of people, all with different interests and concerns.
Politicians, as a career, self-select for ambition and ego, and that comes with certain implications in even the best of them.
Jesus fucking Christ, is it really so little to not want to die or see my friends and family horribly oppressed?
Plus getting upset about this shit is fucking exhausting.
Look, I will tick the Kamala box. I do indeed believe that Trump is a bad candidate and will oppress many people. But I don’t want people to feel like this shit is normal. Back in the late 1970’s to the 1990’s, nobody would have thought that both parties would end up supporting the same genocide, with one being a little less pumped. Or maybe even the 2000’s, when the War on Terror was thought to be conducted humanely. We have lived in an imperfect world before, along with millions of people, and politicians self-selecting for ambition and ego, and there was nobody calling to wipe an ethnicity off the face of the Earth. I’m not surprised at the Dem party, I’m surprised that there are fascists in the White House and I’m supposed to just accept it as a normal part of democracy. Well, I won’t! Both parties in the United States supporting a genocide requires voting to solve, but it’s purely abnormal! I’m not wanting a world any better than a world we used to have, one where the United States did not conduct ethnic cleansing!
We live in a nation with the Internet, fast food wherever you go, products that arrive at your door when ordered, touchscreens, full 3D videogames, V-Tubers, the Moon Landing, nuclear reactors, and the White House lighting up in rainbow colors to support LGBT+ rights–yet when asked to stop a genocide, it’s suddenly too much to ask. I would give up so much of these fleeting pleasures to protect human lives. Should I just become a lotus-eater, and neglect the outside world to “act humane”?
Man, I can absolutely cite examples of both parties supporting genocides in that time period.
I… would count myself as an American patriot, but I’m pretty sure the US not committing ethnic cleansing is an extremely recent phenomenon.
Man, if you want to pour all your time and energy into this cause, unironically, go for it. But part of understanding just how vast and fucked the world is also requires one to accept and understand that we can’t fight every battle simultaneously. Hell, most battles aren’t even our’s to fight. And no amount of martyrdom from an individual can change either of those things. I’ve been calling the Israeli genocide for what it is for years now. I’m not exactly sitting here telling you to shut up about it. But we have to be realistic both about what we can achieve and about what we will sacrifice to achieve it.
You could sacrifice every waking moment of your life, every meal above the level of gruel, every social connection and personal property unrelated to the cause, all for the sake of a .0001% contribution to ending another country’s genocide, but the onus shouldn’t be on you to kill yourself to correct every sin in the world. At some point, it’s not on you or me as individuals.
In what world will a politician never disappoint you?
I’m generally in full control of myself and even I disappoint myself - fringe third party candidates are not the political messiah some people think they are.
I don’t understand how this is the argument against third party. Why does the candidate need to be the Messiah to be better than Kamala?
The question was why do we need to accept that politicians will disappoint you, implying that they had something they believed would not disappoint them.
I thought it was a third party candidate.
Apparently it was anarchism.
Rookie Lemmy mistake.
In a world where “politician” isn’t a career, or even a thing that exists, and instead people make decisions communally and horizontally. It’s called anarchism.
You not knowing or being able to imagine alternatives, doesn’t mean none exist.
Being able to imagine alternatives doesn’t mean they’re realistic.
How realistic do you think this is?
Yes exactly. The only politician who will believe as you do 100% is yourself. You must run for office if this is your goal. Anything else is actually kinda fascist/controlling. In a better world, we’d have a direct democracy and everyone would get a voice.
Amen
Cuz it’s democracy. If you wanted someone to be in office who would get everything done with no obstacles no roadblocks and no delays then you wouldn’t be looking at democracy you’d want a dictator. You can want that if you want but just be honest about it.
Lmfao, except you don’t have democracy. You have oligarchy and kleptocracy and plutocracy. You also don’t have a government that is “getting everything done without obstacles”, but pretty much the literal fucking opposite. The fact that the only alternative you can imagine to the current (non democratic, slipping in to fascism) state of affairs is a dictatorship is a problem with your lack of imagination and narrow view of the world (though granted, you were heavily indoctrinated that way), not a reflection of reality, nor the array of other ways that society can not only exist, but thrive.
There was good reason I told you people to ask yourselves these questions - you are the ones standing in your own way with your insistence of living according to a full blown fallacy because you’re just comfortable enough with the way things are, and are too scared of change, specifically no longer holding the privileges the current system grants you in exchange for your compliance, and the idea that you might not have anyone to feel superior to.
Until you’re willing and able to face that within yourself, I can’t help you, nor am Interested in hearing the mental gymnastics you do to justify your actively maintaining the status quo. ¯\(ツ)/¯
Because people in office are individuals and morality is relatively subjective. The only politician who will do everything you want and believe everything you believe is yourself. Run for office.
Right, as if the system isn’t very deliberately designed to withstand reform and will not hesitate to weaponize every tool it has at its disposal (from the courts to the media to the police and the other alphabet agencies) to assure no leftist ever actually makes it in to a position of real power (not that we would want to, since we believe the state should be abolished, not joined, for precisely the reason stated above).
For the however many’th time, you die hard liberals can tell yourselves as many fairy tales you want to make yourself feel better, it won’t change the reality - the system is not designed to serve you, but to keep you placated with nothing but an illusion of choice. Those with power and money wrote the rules, what on earth, and at this point in time with history unfolding right in front of our eyes as it is, again, makes you think that following those rules will ever work in your favour?
First, I’m not a liberal by any definition. A democratic socialist isn’t a liberal and if you think so, you’re uneducated or just ad hominem attacking. Either way, null.
There are options, it’s just difficult to implement them. The Black Panthers were doing it. The first step is having community as its base.
I live in a place with a lot of “undesirable” folks. I don’t want to see my community here get hurt because I didn’t do anything. And ofc I don’t want to be hurt either.
Voting does grant power. If it did nothing, then they’d allow felons to vote. They wouldn’t engage in voter suppression. If leftist organizing didn’t work, they wouldn’t have imprisoned people like The Black Panthers. We actually know it indeed does and will work BECAUSE the state responds violently. Even in Russia, where the votes don’t matter, someone like Navalny is a threat.
Don’t be a coward. Vote. You can still organize for other stuff too while voting.
The only politician who won’t disappoint you on every issue is yourself. Run for office. No joke. Use your rights. Vote. Speak. Run for office.
Not using those rights is functionally the same as not having them.
I doubt that. My dad got elected to a town council and was pretty disappointed about what the system let him accomplish.
Can you explain more?
One really good example is the stroad that’s preventing good bike infrastructure. The roads that are managed by the township have bike lanes - even if they’re not separated - but the stroad is a state route, so we have no bike lanes on the main connection between these lanes, and limited pedestrian infrastructure.
This is why we have kids getting bussed to the school that’s across the road from their house.
So how is that situation an argument against people running for office? Like jobs are meant to be challenging and work, it’s not like being elected then grants you a magic wand to seamlessly solve issues.
Because it sounds even more frustrating than just voting for someone.
It’s not about frustrating or trolling people though. It’s about seizing power granted to you by law
Yes, and that amount of power is frustratingly small, even if you’re an elected official.
If I listened to you I’d be out painting guerilla bike lanes on that stroad. That would be exercising power in an non-frustrating way.
Voters will always disappoint you. There will always be things left undone, done poorly, or done in a way you disagree with. Everybody needs to get used to this and learn we vote for the least bad, not the most good.
Yeah, that too.
“To summarize the summary of the summary: People are a problem.”
Haha. That’s pretty good. The point I was trying to make is that it doesn’t make sense to me to hold voters to a higher standard of conduct than the politicians that they vote for.
No, politicians should also vote.
I c wut u did there
The difference is campaigns spend over a billion dollars these days and don’t even try to convince voters.
They do anything for donations to spend on fundraisers for more donations, and they just go round and round. Every revolution everyone involved skims a little.
If it costs over a billion dollars to beat trump in an election, maybe we should worry less about donations and more about votes.
In a perfect world, we should be voting for the person with the most solutions that would improve the world as well as country.
We shouldn’t be voting on those who’s likely going to be half-assed.
We don’t live in a perfect world. Someone is going to be president for the next 4 years, and at this stage of the game we have 2 distinct choices.
Also, what you called half-assed someone else might call the democracy process. Just because YOU want something doesn’t mean I want the same thing. Your vision for how to solve Palestine or Ukraine or improve wealth equality might be vastly different from mine. Just because you don’t get exactly what you want doesn’t mean the system is useless or not worth participating in. If you were to get exactly what you want, then I’d be getting walked over. If I get exactly what I want, then you’d say you are not being heard.
The only fair system is to elect a big-tent party and then work through dialog on trying to reach either consensus or fair compromise on the various topics. But we won’t have that option if we let the fascists get control and do their Project 2025 thing while ignoring us.
It boils down to good politics is boring and full of compromise.
Lot’s of talking and compromise doesn’t make for good headlines or
scaremotivate voters to the polls. There is room to add the large media companies to the blame of ‘perfection’ since they are always looking for the imperfect to talk about. And then they bash that imperfect-ness into the ground.This has been kind of a half ass last four years hasn’t it?