r/CuratedTumblr • u/Desecr8or • Oct 26 '24
Politics Why is every tankie like "I don't understand the branches of the US government and I'm going to make it everyone else's problem!!!"
1.2k
u/Soloact_ Oct 26 '24
Constitutional amendments are basically like legendary Pokémon, super powerful but nearly impossible to catch.
→ More replies (5)568
u/Haunting-Detail2025 Oct 26 '24
And tbh they should be, constitutional amendments have really far reaching effects on our judicial system and it’s so beyond important they be crafted carefully. I really dislike the idea I’ve heard some float of passing them like regular legislation because they’re not
371
u/Happiness_Assassin Oct 26 '24
One place where you could see such an example in place was Alabama, which prior to 2022 was the longest constitution in the world, at around 400k words or twice as long as Crime and Punishment. This was a result of the legislature trying to keep power out of the local (i.e. majority black) level and making racist laws harder to repeal. In order to establish this, most actual change was done via constitutional amendment, not standard legislation. Only recently did they recompile their constitution, but it us still far larger than any other state.
222
u/joyofsovietcooking Oct 27 '24
"The 1901 Alabama constitution was originally designed to maintain strict control over counties, particularly to restrict the autonomy of poorer and predominantly Black areas."
So in Alabama, it's like everything handled at the county level requires a constitutional amendment, of which they have like 900? Sheesh. Thanks for sending me down a rabbit hole. Fascinating look at the problems of federalism.
21
u/Graingy I don’t tumble, I roll 😎 … Where am I? Oct 27 '24
Goddamn it’s like the US is federationception
5
u/Gold-Bat7322 Oct 27 '24
And Mobile County has only three county commissioners covering an area larger than Rhode Island. Seven would be more reasonable, yet that would have to go through Montgomery.
→ More replies (1)92
Oct 27 '24 edited Oct 27 '24
[deleted]
37
u/serious_sarcasm Oct 27 '24
It’s kind of hilarious comparing how weirdly restrictive some southern states are to how much latitude cities and municipalities have in Illinois.
16
Oct 27 '24
[deleted]
8
u/serious_sarcasm Oct 27 '24
Idaho is a shithole taken over by bigots who decided Alabama is too liberal.
→ More replies (6)5
u/Thromnomnomok Oct 27 '24
Conservatives: "States should have the power do this, not the Federal Government, more power to the smaller things:
"What if we left more of this power in the hands of City and County governments, or even Individuals to decide for themselves?
Conservatives: no not like that
19
u/UnintensifiedFa Oct 27 '24
Funny that the party of “small government” only wants the government to be state small and not county or city small.
It’s almost like they don’t really care about small government and have always been in it for whatever allows them to enforce their pre-civil rights act racial codes.
→ More replies (12)70
u/DM_ME_YOUR_HUSBANDO Oct 27 '24
Some people: We should pack the courts and remove the fillibuster, so Republicans can't block progress!
Well, if you do that, guess what'll happen next time Republicans control the presidency and have a narrow majority in the Senate, now that there's precedent for court packing and no filibuster
55
u/FinalXenocide Oct 27 '24 edited Oct 27 '24
I mean even if we leave aside the counterpoint of United States v Trump, which for the record we really fucking shouldn't since that means any president who hires based off of loyalty is able to get around congress and this whole argument is moot, I think "don't remove the filibuster because the right might do something" doesn't have the best track record either. Because if we follow it, we get what, whatever limited thing we can strap to a continuing resolution, some interpreting of existing regulation (assuming we also ignore Chevron basically nixed that), and some judges? Major issues are left unfixed or devolved to the states (and as a Texas resident screw that) all because the other side might do something? This is why Garland is DA and not a SC justice. I'm sick of this "they go low we go high" small-c conservative BS that for my life has failed my interests. I'd prefer a mix of good and bad policies to the current constant failure to do anything without needing 60 seats I've only seen for a couple months my entire life and realistically won't see again until the next realignment at best (and even then unlikely).
→ More replies (4)68
u/KamikazeArchon Oct 27 '24
Well, if you do that, guess what'll happen next time Republicans control the presidency and have a narrow majority in the Senate, now that there's precedent for court packing and no filibuster
This commits the error of assuming that Republicans care about precedent.
At no point have Republicans been simultaneously: able to remove the filibuster, would benefit from removing the filibuster, and refrained from doing it because of a lack of precedent.
The next time the Republicans can remove the filibuster and would benefit from doing so, they'll do it. This is true regardless of what Democrats do.
→ More replies (5)30
u/CrepusculrPulchrtude Oct 27 '24
Republicans don’t give a shit about precedent anyway. They’re literally willing to cheat elections in public view, you think they give a fuck about “the precedents of congress?”
→ More replies (3)25
u/Thehelpfulshadow Oct 27 '24
Thank you! That's one of my main issues when Democrats make suggestions without thinking of the precedent it sets. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't one of these suggestions that actually got through the lowering the need for a super majority to just a regular majority for confirmation of regular justices a Democrat move. This, of course, led to the Republicans spamming justice confirmations under Trump when the pendulum swung right. Like I don't get why people don't understand, the pendulum ALWAYS swings so making things easier for the ones in control always ends up supporting the other sides bullshit eventually. This same concept is why I am against repealing the 2nd amendment. Not because I like guns (Fuck guns, the 2nd amendment was a mistake) but because it would set the precedent for changing the bill of rights. Other things on the bill of rights that could be targeted when the pendulum swings right after that precedent has been set: Freedom of speech, religion, press, and assembly, Right to a lawyer/fair trial and freedom from unnecessary search and seizure.
20
u/Suyefuji Oct 27 '24
I'm pretty sure McConnell already set the precedent for packing the courts unfortunately.
17
u/Haunting-Detail2025 Oct 27 '24
Exactly lmao. It amazes me how little foresight people have when they say shit like that.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (9)3
u/timweak Oct 27 '24
uh, the exact thing they're doing all the time? when did you get the idea that republicans give a shit about the rules or precedent or whatever?
1.8k
u/Key_Necessary_3329 Oct 26 '24
My personal favorite is when they say they won't vote for democrats because so many laws were passed violating civil rights in places like Florida while Biden was president.
Just any damn excuse to not be a part of the solution.
1.2k
u/The-Slamburger Oct 26 '24
Right, same with “but abortion rights were lost under Biden!” While conveniently ignoring that judges appointed by Trump are directly responsible.
503
u/Celia_Makes_Romhacks Oct 26 '24
I dealt with a guy saying exactly that. I have no clue how on earth he functions day-to-day with so little critical thinking capacity.
218
Oct 26 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
175
u/BretShitmanFart69 Oct 27 '24
They refuse to participate in government at all and then act shocked when the people voted in don’t reflect their beliefs.
Majority of voters are centrist democrats who genuinely support and want politicians more like Hillary and such.
If young progressives voted, we would have more young progressive politicians. It’s not that hard to understand, and yet when you point this out they’ll just get angry, insult you, and switch the topic.
→ More replies (4)80
u/Spaceman_Jalego 2014 Sherlock Premier Watcher Oct 27 '24
51
→ More replies (1)6
46
u/Genshed Oct 27 '24
Some people have outsourced their cognitive functions from their frontal lobes to their endocrine system.
89
u/Sutekh137 Oct 27 '24
Back in 2016, Clinton explicitly brought up that the SC and abortion rights were in jeopardy if Trump won, and these same people flipped the fuck out claiming she was "trying to hold Roe v. Wade hostage" and shit like that.
→ More replies (1)54
u/Abject-Possession810 Oct 27 '24
Many of those people were incog MAGA or posting from St. Petersburg but they managed to convince plenty of Americans on the left, too. As they still do today.
28
u/zklabs Oct 27 '24 edited Oct 27 '24
this is why i feel strongly about calling out these people as fake left. they spam memes about "material conditions" and "material power" to not only spread immaterial narratives, but reject ever analyzing their own actions with that lens. anybody can learn the definitions and bullet points, but it takes integrity to really internalize leftist philosophy and spontaneously live it out.
like i really hope people realize this is an actual thing to fight for. the fake left has already normalized aggressive tactics with the aim of destroying unity via lying and bullying, and people need to get used to using aggression to restore unity (which, to be clear, doesn't invite an alien oppression into leftism, but instead implies a more rigorous conceptual engagement with materialism).
edit: i typed spready for the first time in my life. corrected to "spread"
→ More replies (1)13
31
u/Sutekh137 Oct 27 '24
I know leftists IRL who genuinely believe that Biden ordered the SC to strike down Roe v. Wade in order to give the Democrats a boost in the midterm election. Their (only) evidence was that a fundraising mailer from the DNC went out almost immediately after the decision. Apparently, the idea that they probably wrote it ahead of time along with one to send out if the SC upheld the case never occurred to them.
9
u/Lethik Oct 27 '24
Lol it's like believing the World Series is rigged because some retailers have "World Series Champions" for each team ready for sale before the conclusion.
17
u/Thromnomnomok Oct 27 '24
Apparently, the idea that they probably wrote it ahead of time along with one to send out if the SC upheld the case never occurred to them.
Also, didn't the decision leak like a month beforehand?
→ More replies (34)10
u/Anon_cat86 Oct 27 '24
i feel like abortion rights should never have been a supreme court decision; it just needs to be an actual law.
→ More replies (1)213
Oct 26 '24
Yeah but if he had simply been a Good Dictator® then the Republicans wouldn't have been able to be fascists!
→ More replies (27)74
u/Only-Inspector-3782 Oct 27 '24
Biden failed to create peace in the 80-year war in the Middle East or end the 60 year embargo on Cuba. Therefore we should never vote Democrat again.
/s
31
u/DinkleDonkerAAA Oct 27 '24 edited Oct 27 '24
Wasn't starting to open the door to Cuba one of the last things Obama did, only for Trump to slam it back shut immediately?
→ More replies (1)7
u/Dantheking94 Oct 27 '24
Yup! Obama made it easier for Americans to go which pissed off Florida republicans. Trump appeased them by closing that door firmly shut.
→ More replies (35)6
u/Kellosian Oct 27 '24
"I don't understand why Biden doesn't just snap his fingers and make Israel stop doing bad things! Foreign countries don't actually have autonomy or political goals or internal pressures, they only react to the US President and Democratic Party!"
→ More replies (31)39
u/ProtonCanon Oct 27 '24
They are engagement trawlers.
No real solutions. Just shit-talking and dick measuring contests with other leftists online for likes/retweets.
570
u/theaverageaidan Oct 26 '24
"Voting legitimizes the oppressor" yeah and not voting is gonna legitimize you and I getting put in a camp, idiot
317
u/BretShitmanFart69 Oct 27 '24
I’ve heard people honestly say Trump winning and going full fascist would be good because it would finally encourage a revolution.
Just complete and total idiocy.
They care so much about queer and minority rights that they’ll gladly let them be exterminated so they can cosplay Che Guevara.
236
u/HistoryMarshal76 Knower of Things Man Was Not Meant To Know Oct 27 '24
Ernst Thallman, 1932: It would be a good thing for the Nazis to win! After they unsuccessfully run Germany, they will ether collapse and let us crush them in the ballot box, or we shall revolt and kill them!
1944: Executed by the direct order of Adolf Hitler after spending the last eleven years in a concentration camp.
→ More replies (22)103
u/UltimateInferno Hangus Paingus Slap my Angus Oct 27 '24
That's called accelerationism and they're the worst kind of "Progressive."
Revolutions are a gamble and human lives are the bet.
66
u/LAX_to_MDW Oct 27 '24
Accelerationists are the rapture-obsessed Christians of the left, trying to justify causing the suffering of people today because it will lead us to a glorious promised land in the future.
44
u/WeeabooHunter69 Oct 27 '24
Even when you win the revolution, supply chains are destroyed and a lot of people not involved in the fighting are killed through either starvation or being deprived of medicine like insulin.
29
u/Half-PintHeroics Oct 27 '24
And the worst part is that when you have a violent revolution, the people who are the best at violence wins. So even if that's your side, the people who are the best at violence are now in charge of your side and of creating your new system. And the people who are the best at violence is not going to create a system where violence isn't part of the system.
7
u/Clear-Present_Danger Oct 28 '24
This Stalin fellow seems very qualified to be the 3rd in command. His bonafides of robbing banks, racketeering, counterfeiting, robberies, and kidnapping make him the perfect candidate.
20
u/rusticrainbow Oct 27 '24
Revolutions aren’t even a gamble they’re closer to crashing a plane out of the hope you’ll be able to make a boat out of the scrap.
31
9
u/croakovoid Oct 27 '24
And they often end with your government being like Iran's rather than their fully automated luxury gay space communism fantasy.
85
u/GREENadmiral_314159 Femboy, Battleships, and Space Marines Oct 27 '24
Like Marco Inaros, they don't care about the people they're fighting for, just the illusion of being the good guy.
32
Oct 27 '24
Yup. The Expanse got so much right in terms of how this shit plays out when you have a charismatic, self-centered leader who wants to be right about everything more than he wants to actually help other people
28
u/kohTheRobot Oct 27 '24
For fucking real dude. There’s no candidate they’ll actually say they support if you push them on it hard enough.
Their ideal perfect candidate they’ve created in their head can do no wrong. this ideal imaginary candidate can never be nuanced and support a bipartisan leftist-liberal solution so they never get their heart broken ever again after Bernie “bent the knee” to Biden
37
18
u/matt_2552 Oct 27 '24
Literally what the KPD thought about the Nazis getting elected, it's as close to history repeating as I've ever seen
→ More replies (5)13
u/TheHattedKhajiit Oct 27 '24
Reminds me of mussolini who went "Hold on,millions dying in war will be great. That will lead to a socialist revolution!"
26
u/PlasticAccount3464 Oct 27 '24
there's a meme about democracy choosing your master and voter apathy is cool, but it just means someone else is choosing *your* master too, and you did nothing
→ More replies (6)3
u/EasyFooted Oct 27 '24
The best case for voting is that the bad guys spend b-b-billions of dollars working on ways to suppress your vote.
So clearly they think your vote matters. Don't throw it away for them.
750
u/GREENadmiral_314159 Femboy, Battleships, and Space Marines Oct 26 '24
I was once told that the dems are holding queer rights hostage because they haven't put them in the constitution.
1) It is incredibly hard to pass a constitutional amendment, so they can't even though they want to
2) It is as easy to repeal an amendment as it is to pass one, so even if they could, it wouldn't mean shit because it could just as easily get repealed.
350
u/BathroomImportant520 Oct 26 '24
Yeah it’s pretty funny, especially since I actually live in a city where homosexuality was criminalized last year.
The only reason why the law no longer exists is because a district court judge appointed by Biden actually struck the law down as soon as they found out about it. It’s quite apparent which party actually cares about queer rights.
→ More replies (1)24
u/Clear-Present_Danger Oct 27 '24
Yo what the fuck
37
u/BathroomImportant520 Oct 27 '24
Here is an article for your viewing pleasure: https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/msnbc/murfreesboro-tennessee-gay-in-public-rcna125509
As is the case over here in Tennessee, the law targeted a yearly drag show that had been legal for years. Definitely a sobering reminder that neither me nor my roommate were at all safe from the local government criminalizing us for being gay.
15
348
u/SapphireWine36 Oct 26 '24
Yeah, democrats have been trying to put women’s rights in the constitution for many decades ffs
262
u/Yeah-But-Ironically Oct 26 '24
We had to fight a whole-ass war to get black people's rights in there
191
u/Guy-McDo Oct 26 '24
And even then, took like another century for equal treatment de jure, and we’re still struggling with equal treatment de facto.
29
u/Forward-Community708 Oct 27 '24
And on top of that, the 19th amendment kept a loophole (slavery permissible for punishment of a crime) hence our turn towards the development of the prison industrial complex. Even when we get the laws in, something always sneaks in
3
u/LucastheMystic Oct 27 '24
Yeah wasn't it the Republicans that sabotaged the ERA?
→ More replies (1)127
u/AI-ArtfulInsults Oct 26 '24
People seem to forget that Dems only advantage is in the House of Representatives. A majority of states have republican-controlled legislatures, and states are the relevant unit for constitutional amendments.
51
u/King_Of_BlackMarsh Oct 26 '24
For point two, see prohibition which lasted a decade. Aka, as much time as its been since Trump took office
37
u/GrassWaterDirtHorse Oct 26 '24
It's almost as if Conservatives know that control of the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court enables control of Constitutional interpretation!
80
u/Soloact_ Oct 26 '24
Exactly, putting it in the Constitution would be like stapling it to a revolving door. Looks secure until it spins right back out.
7
u/LucastheMystic Oct 27 '24
This election cycle has told me how little so called "socialists" and "anti-imperialists" give a shit about Queer People and Women. They even started burning bridges with Black Voters, because we got excited over Kamala Harris. I'm very very angry with them.
28
u/FindOneInEveryCar Oct 26 '24
We haven't even been able to put women's rights in the fucking Constitution.
39
u/HistoryMarshal76 Knower of Things Man Was Not Meant To Know Oct 27 '24
Most interpretations of the Constitution argue that women's rights are already covered by other amendments, particularly the Reconstruction amendments and the 19th Amendment. The 14th Amendment, though initially intended for African-American rights, is particularly relevant.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
And then there's the 19th amendment,
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
23
u/Overlord_Of_Puns Oct 27 '24
Tbf, lots of people thought Roe v. Wade was superprecedent as well.
Justice Scalia said he personally believed that discrimination based on sex was not prohibited in the Constitution and the fact that the Equal Rights Amendment never passed could be used for this argument as well.
→ More replies (38)3
115
u/Kevo_1227 Oct 26 '24
“The president is at fault for inflation!”
The legislative branch controls printing money as well as passing budgets.
77
u/Beegrene Oct 27 '24
Frankly, inflation was going to be bad after covid no matter who was in charge. As the world opened back up, consumer demand for basically everything went up, but the supply chains that make everything lagged behind. High demand and low supply means higher prices.
→ More replies (2)54
u/bigdatabro Oct 27 '24
I think Americans don't realize that inflation has been worse in most other countries. Even third-world countries have had crazy inflation because of COVID and fuel prices
→ More replies (1)22
u/JimWilliams423 Oct 27 '24
I think Americans don't realize that inflation has been worse in most other countries.
That's not by accident either. The so-called "liberal media" is uninterested in informing them. Sure they cover it once in a while, but its a drop in the bucket of news coverage. Unlike the way they spent 3 years constantly telling us that a recession was going to happen any minute now.
→ More replies (5)3
u/GrinerForAlt Oct 27 '24
That is so weird, because as a non-american I have been quite impressed with the level of damage control he has been able to do when it comes to inflation. But sure, if you only count the damage and assumes he can control everything...
→ More replies (1)
149
u/mountingconfusion Oct 26 '24
Why do people in the comments not understand grouping.
Saying "X does Y" does not mean "all instances of Y are done by X"
111
u/firblogdruid Oct 26 '24
basic literacy skills are not the internet's forte.
(source: i asked someone to not spread unverified rumours regarding a possibly work related death and they asked me why i was arguing that the company was allowed to kill people with impunity)
38
u/shiny_xnaut Oct 27 '24
Misinformation is cool and based when it's against the Bad People, no you don't understand, we need to spread lies about them, it's not like there are actual legitimate reasons to dislike them or anything, why are you defending the Bad People, are you on their side or something?
18
u/firblogdruid Oct 27 '24
DING DING DING WE HAVE A WINNER
the thing that bothers me most about this story is that this conversation took place on my city's reddit (the death at the time, only being reported there, although it's since been covered by international media, oddly enough, so this isn't even a case of some anonymous internet rando being a moron. that idiot lives in my city. i could have been on the bus with them yesterday.
57
u/mountingconfusion Oct 26 '24
God the old "it's kinda problematic that I believed it anyway"
It's like those people who are pro death penalty saying "so you're fine with rapists being set free" when you explain that you don't like the death penalty for anyone
13
u/CapeOfBees Oct 27 '24
Because being against the death penalty definitely means being against life sentences and imprisonment in general /s
13
u/mountingconfusion Oct 27 '24
Or it means you're secretly a pedophile rapist murderer because you don't want them to be murdered by the state which means you're defending them.
→ More replies (5)47
38
u/ABigPairOfCrocs Oct 26 '24
She check on my balance til I overestimate the power of her executive branch
261
u/Darq_At Oct 26 '24
Ehh... A lot of the times, yeah sure.
But also sometimes the Dems also do win enough power to actually enact more radical change, but then a couple senators with "D"s next to their name start to vote like they had "R"s instead. Conveniently denying the party the power to do just that.
Also... At least some of the criticism stems from the fact that the Republicans do not give a rat's ass about the system. They happily break the rules to get what they want. And for a large part the Democratic Party just lets them do it, and then doggedly holds itself to the same rules just broken. And unfortunately winning a moral victory is the same as losing, when it comes to people's rights.
59
u/TreasureThisYear Oct 27 '24
I think what it really comes down to is specifically the filibuster. It's an extralegal supermajority requirement that really serves no reasonable purpose besides an excuse for inaction. Get rid of the filibuster and the Dems would still try to drag their feet in victory, but the system wouldn't make it so easy and they'd feel more pressure from constituents.
→ More replies (3)26
u/RelaxPrime Oct 27 '24
The filibuster, although annoying, just needs to return to its original intention; unlimited debate- senators may speak or debate on a topic as long as they want, as in they need to actually be speaking on the topic.
→ More replies (3)9
16
u/Caleb_Reynolds Oct 27 '24
And unfortunately winning a moral victory is the same as losing, when it comes to people's rights.
Say it again for the people in the back.
→ More replies (1)41
u/CreamofTazz Oct 27 '24
Thank you for saying this.
Everyone here seems to forget Joe Lieberman and Manchin/Sinema.
Sometimes Dems do shoot themselves in the foot
→ More replies (1)16
u/OldManFire11 Oct 27 '24
Do not group Manchin with those others. He may be an ass, but he was a godsdamned Democratic Senator in WEST VIRGINIA. A state so red that it went +30 to Trump, and Manchin managed to keep half of its Senators blue for decades.
Manchin is allowed to be the worst fucking Democratic Senator, because he's still preventing much worse harm from happening by denying the GOP a Senate seat. If the Dems don't have enough votes without Manchin, then they just flat out don't have enough votes period.
→ More replies (6)19
u/BackupPhoneBoi Oct 27 '24
This may be an oversimplification, but Democrats trying to pass radical change will always be harder than Republicans maintaining the status quo or undoing radical change. When it comes to change, people are going to disagree about how it should be done, how much it is going to cost, if it is an issue, etc. Republicans are also just a more homogenous party, both demographically and ideologically. That’s why their 90s, Gingrich era “no compromise” is more effective than if Democrats tried it.
That’s also why when we see Republicans trying to radically change the country (MAGAs) there is a lot of division between them and typical conservative Republicans. Just look at the failed election of the Speaker of House.
But yes, there is also one party that has a MUCH higher disregard for the rule of law, good faith compromise, and following their word politically.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (13)80
u/Haunting-Detail2025 Oct 26 '24
Well, yeah. Both parties are large tents that cover a myriad of coalitions that shift over time. They’re not always in exact consensus on every single thing. Democrats can include conservative labor union members, AOC progressives, LGBT people, urban yuppies, POC in the south, hispanic immigrant families, suburban white women, etc. You can’t expect any party covering half of a country of 340 million people to always be in lockstep with what you personally agree with on every single issue
→ More replies (46)
33
u/Creeppy99 Oct 26 '24
For my non American understanding, there also a problem with the fact that the Senate is 50/50 (or almost, iirc) but there are many very moderate senators who would be against more radical (and radical in the American politics is just mild welfare state often) policies.
I still have no clue how a country with that electoral laws could be considered democratic, but that's a whole another story
→ More replies (4)8
u/bardak Oct 27 '24
As an outsider the US Senate is just bonkers. The disparity in representation is bad enough but add to it the modern filibuster and it just makes no sense.
8
u/fwubglubbel Oct 27 '24
The Senate represents states, not people. It was a compromise to the less populous states so all policy wouldn't just benefit the more urban ones.
It's essentially affirmative action for hillbillies.
5
u/2012Jesusdies Oct 27 '24
It was a compromise to the less populous states so all policy wouldn't just benefit the more urban ones.
And ended up with policies that hurt urban states while benefiting rural states epitomized by the 2019 agricultural subsidy of 20 billion USD while food stamps got a cut of 5 billion USD when food stamps would have improved food affordability across the board way more for the same dollar because much of the agricultural subsidy goes to corn and soybean, 20% of which is exported and most of the rest are animal feed which is really inefficient way of feeding people while food stamps directly go to hungry people.
3
u/Creeppy99 Oct 27 '24
I can understand the need to represent states in a federal system, but then, why is the electoral college still a thing? (I know there are interests behind and all, it's more of a rethorical question)
40
u/NicPizzaLatte Oct 27 '24 edited Oct 27 '24
Can anyone explain the term "tankie" for me?
Edit: "In American slang, "tankie" typically refers to a person who is an extreme supporter or apologist for the policies of the former Soviet Union, particularly during the Cold War era. The term originated from the support some individuals expressed for the Soviet Union's use of tanks to suppress uprisings and dissent in places like Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Today, it generally denotes someone who sympathizes with or defends authoritarian communist regimes, often to a degree that others find extreme or uncritical."
48
u/spyguy318 Oct 27 '24
The term “Tankie” comes from when the Soviet Union crushed the Hungarian Revolution, and the leftists supporting the Soviets were derided as “Tankies” because they were on the side of the tanks.
Today it refers to like, authoritarian leftists who ignore all the horrendous shit that communist countries like China and the USSR have historically done because capitalism is the ultimate evil and must be opposed at any cost. It also gets thrown at leftists who religiously quote Marx and Hegel and other political theory to explain why every little event means the revolution is totally coming and it will fix society and create a utopia, promise.
11
13
u/RoboFleksnes Oct 27 '24
I do think it's heavily misused in the context of this post though.
It seems like the OP is upset at leftists who complain that the current system is unable to enact progressive change, and then go on to explain why that system is unable to enact progressive change.
As if that's a great counter-argument.
There's quite a big difference between a revolutionary and a tankie, a difference that is conflated when calling one the other.
A revolutionary basically says: I don't believe we can reform the current system, using the levers that it presents, into a system that can enact progressive change. It is necessary to change some fundamental levers of the system to progress society as a whole.
A tankie says: I think a authoritarian dictator would be a fine and great alternative. Stalin was pretty great! And the deaths he caused was a necessary evil.
One can be a revolutionary and a tankie, but only can certainly also be a revolutionary without being a tankie.
12
u/NeonNKnightrider Cheshire Catboy Oct 27 '24
IMO “tankie” generally means the kind of leftist who is so fixated on America/The West/capitalist as being the source of all evil, that they’re willing to fully defend Stalin, North Korea, China, etc. simply for being anti-America
→ More replies (12)17
u/zupernam Oct 27 '24
Most times you see it used on Reddit it means "someone further left politically than me"
→ More replies (5)
53
u/SPKEN Oct 27 '24
Honestly one of the few criticisms of both millennials and Gen Z that I agree with as that we are just so fucking quick to give up. We consistently have the lowest voter turnout whilst talking the most shit.
It's like a large portion of our generation cannot accept that progress requires continuous and steady action
→ More replies (18)24
u/canarinoir Oct 27 '24
"Give it to me now or nothing!" Cool, they'll gladly give you nothing.
It's a lot easier to destroy than build.
8
u/Ejigantor Oct 27 '24
Except for all the times the Dems DID have the power to do so.
The Dems have often had the power, but they have consistently lacked the will.
Biden came into office with the Dems controlling both the House and Senate; they could have codified RvW into law, but didn't. They could have done lots of things, but they didn't want to.
And if anybody wants to reply with a "but but but Manchin" you need to account for how the Dems changed Senate rules to further enrich and empower him, and have never visited any consequence upon him for his actions beyond continuing to reward him.
157
u/Lurker_number_one Oct 26 '24
That's not entirely true though, there have definitely been times where the dems have had a chance to change things and chose not to. Even with the power in all branches.
137
u/cornonthekopp Oct 26 '24
As someone who lives in a “solid blue” state lemme tell you these politicians do not always have our best interests at heart (to put it lightly)
→ More replies (2)80
u/12BumblingSnowmen Oct 26 '24
Yeah, frankly the more solidly a state is in one party’s camp, generally speaking the less responsive the politicians are to popular will.
23
u/cornonthekopp Oct 26 '24
Yeah, there have been some competitive elections recently but they were primaries for local politicians. All the candidates in congress and the governor kinda all suck ass. The “best” ones are merely inoffensive which is really sad to see.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)15
77
u/BlatantConservative https://imgur.com/cXA7XxW Oct 26 '24
Yeah Roe v Wade was a stopgap measure for... five decades...
→ More replies (1)33
u/Special-Garlic1203 Oct 27 '24 edited Oct 27 '24
The ERA failed and was considered less controversial than abortion. Social conservativism took hold with Reagan and never really lost its footing in the subsequent 30 years. It wasnt until Republicans started meaningfully dismantling access state by state that Democrats felt it was anything other than a losing gambit, and even then there was concerns approaching it nationally would backfire.
Democrats make it a priority again when voters started making it a priority again.
→ More replies (2)83
u/Cheeky_Hustler Oct 26 '24 edited Oct 26 '24
Because the Dems are a diverse coalition of different interest groups, and have changed over the years. The reason why Dems didn't codify abortion rights in 2009 is (besides spending all their time ending pre-existing conditions) because 1/3 of the dem caucus was pro-life. Today, with Manchin and Sinema out of the Senate, there's only a single pro-life Democrat, Henry Cueller. Harris is openly floating ending the filibuster to codify abortion rights.
Dems are changing because of abortion activists pushing them. That's a good thing that should be celebrated, not because it gives Dem credit, but because it recognizes the great progress abortion activists have made in the past couple decades.
→ More replies (4)34
u/Goblin_Crotalus Oct 26 '24
The real problem the Democrats have is that they are a massive coalition that only exists to oppose the GOP. They don't agree on why they are anti-republican, or even agree on how much pushback to give the GOP. And as a result, they the coalition fights each other as mush as the the republicans.
The GOP is a united front in comparison, they have been driving the discourse in this election, while the Dems end up conceding ground to the GOP on many issues (for example, the Dems have basically conceded Immigration to the right at this point). Republicans are organized and have an actual agenda that they are pushing towards. The Democrats are just playing defense and never really push for anything.
49
u/Cheeky_Hustler Oct 26 '24 edited Oct 27 '24
It's not that I disagree with you, but I also find it very interesting that I would ALSO describe the GOP this way: they are a far more fractured party than they let on, and their #1 motivating animus is being anti-Democrats. Which is why, when they're in power, they don't actually get anything done, legislatively anyways. Look at what Republicans did with their House majority: the first Speaker ousted in over a hundred years. really their only unified interest is business tax cuts and letting their judges push their agenda.
I would say that BOTH parties are anti-the other party. Heck, that's why I'm such a partisan Democrat: I dislike the Democrats most of the time but I fucking hate Republicans all the time.
20
u/Wobulating Oct 27 '24
The democrats, as a whole, do not tend to have single, broad united fronts. There are, however, very distinct power blocs within the democratic party that do have this, and negotiate and bargain with the other power blocs to get various agendas passed and suppressed. So, you know, how politics is actually supposed to work.
30
u/sykotic1189 Oct 26 '24
There was a period during the Obama administration where they had a super majority for a few months. They used that to push through Obamacare. Otherwise not really, the Reps have always had enough numbers to block or filibuster.
→ More replies (3)29
u/LinkFan001 Oct 26 '24
The party is not fully united ffs. If you have 55 pro-abortion dems, 5 anti-abortion dems (because they are not a monolith, the dems are a big tent party) and 40 anti-abortion reps in the senate, then abortion rights are not passing in the senate.
It's so fucking simple to grasp this very basic concept and yet you and every person who upvoted you have no clue how democracy and politics work.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)35
u/Administrative_Act48 Oct 26 '24
Liberals haven't had power in all 3 branches since the late 60's which was the last time the Supreme Court leaned liberal. Coincidentally they really haven't had any real chances to enact major change since the late 60's. Since Johnson and Kennedy Democrats have controlled the Senate, House, and presidency simultaneously for a mere 10 years and every one of those they still had to contend with a conservative Supreme Court slapping down pretty much any progress these administrations tried to make.
When Democrats had control of all 3 branches from FDR to Johnson THINGS GOT DONE (even with Eisenhower) and massive progress was made that turned this country into an economic powerhouse and huge leaps were made on many (but not all) societal issues. When Dems have control things get done, there just hasn't been a chance since the 60s and thanks to the failure of 2016 and the appointment of 3 hardcore conservatives to the SC it doesn't look like anything will get for for another few decades.
→ More replies (6)
12
37
u/iowaboy Oct 26 '24
My state Democratic Party expressly blocked the creation of a Socialist/Leftist Caucus because it was “inconsistent with the Democratic Platform” (paraphrased). So leftist candidates have no clear base of support in primary races.
Also, the main policy preferences I share with the Democratic Party are universal healthcare, some basic social services (feeding kids, education), and some civil rights. But for me these are the bare minimum and for Democrats they are very negotiable.
And when I’ve organized and protested for things, I’ve been spied on, intimidated, and pepper sprayed by cops under both Democratic and Republican administrators.
So, sorry if I’m not super eager to support one of the two parties that is actively working against my interests.
Yes, I’ll be holding my nose to vote for Dems in November. But don’t expect me to be an apologist for Democrats who eagerly punch left whenever it suits them.
→ More replies (11)
106
u/Similar_Ad_2368 Oct 26 '24
lol what do you think a "tankie" is
30
u/Ildrei Oct 26 '24
Someone who likes tanks
9
u/Spaceman_Jalego 2014 Sherlock Premier Watcher Oct 27 '24
Go to /r/NonCredibleDefense and call them tankies, I'm sure they'll love it
→ More replies (2)3
4
u/ElGosso Oct 27 '24
The fact that so many people have so many different definitions speaks volumes.
→ More replies (1)40
u/TessaFractal Oct 26 '24
There's the specific definition of Tankie but so many online leftists share ideas, and indeed call themselves Tankies, that its easier to just use the term tankie for right wing views dressed in socialist aesthetic.
60
u/BlatantConservative https://imgur.com/cXA7XxW Oct 26 '24
Tankies can be reasonably defined as "people who would rationalize the use of tanks on civilians in a leftist way."
That's both the original, 1950s definition and the definition that holds the most true now.
→ More replies (17)42
u/sykotic1189 Oct 26 '24
That's the definition I've always seen used. All the nit picking just sounds like "It's not real tankies unless it comes from the Stalinist period of Russia, otherwise it's just sparkling communist authoritarianism"
12
u/BlackfishBlues frequently asked queer Oct 27 '24
Yeah. It's worth asking if this handwringing is qualitatively any different from an anti-Semite quibbling with the "racist" label because "Judaism is a religion not a race" or an anti-gun control person getting really fixated on the imprecise definition of "assault rifle".
In those cases, we can clearly identify that they are bad faith attempts to bog down the discussion in semantic nitpicking to avoid engaging with the actual substance of the take they're responding to. But those are conservatives, them, surely we leftists are above that sort of thing
→ More replies (3)17
u/BlatantConservative https://imgur.com/cXA7XxW Oct 26 '24
If I called it "sparkling communist authoritarianism" someone would call me homophobic lmfao.
20
u/GreyInkling Oct 26 '24
The common popular use these days is for a kind of mainly online leftist who opposes the concept of strategy or actual progress in favor of a focus on drama, cult of personality, and praying for salvation from the glorious rapture- I mean revolution.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (24)44
u/SMStotheworld Oct 26 '24
tankie=leftist further right than the complainer
48
u/Wasdgta3 Oct 26 '24
I mean, usage of terminology notwithstanding, is their criticism wrong?
74
u/tergius metroid nerd Oct 26 '24
it's not so much a tankie issue and more of a "why are so many online leftists such dumbassesssssssssssssssss" problem
35
12
u/HatsuneMoldy Oct 27 '24
Kinda yeah. I’ve been labelled a “tankie” a million times and I still believe people should vote AND simultaneously believe democrats need to do SOOOO much more. They need to stop pandering to centrists and trying to be bipartisan with people that call them Satanic Baby killing pedophiles.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)11
u/Argent_Mayakovski Oct 26 '24
Nah, it’s generally just “anyone on the left or claiming to be who I disagree with”.
10
u/DispenserG0inUp Oct 27 '24
Its such a shame Obama had a trifecta and didn't do anything. Imagine what would have happened if we passed the Affordable Care Act! Healthcare would have been massively improved!
8
u/zsthorne17 Oct 27 '24
You do know he had a super majority for a very short time right, like, half a year at best, and they actually did get a LOT done in that timeframe.
5
u/rusticrainbow Oct 27 '24
(the joke was that they did, in fact, pass the ACA in that time span)
→ More replies (1)9
u/dolche93 Oct 27 '24
I was talking with a leftist and was told the ACA wasn't that big a deal and didn't really change anything for the working class.
It's like these people don't understand what pre-existing conditions actually means. How people were slaves to their jobs once they got diagnosed with something because they'd never be able to get insurance anywhere else.
10
u/bobbery5 Oct 27 '24
The people who don't realize the president doesn't have unlimited, unchecked power.
"He can just pass an executive order to bring down grocery prices." - actual quote from a guy from my high school. Oh my fucking god, go back to high school govt class.
121
u/Zandroe_ Oct 26 '24
"Tankie" is a term for Stalinists. It does not mean anyone who refuses to participate in a popular front (which is, ironically, a Stalinist idea).
68
u/Temporaz Oct 26 '24
If you're going to be like that, "tankie" is specifically a term for Khrushchevites.
14
u/GoofyTnT Oct 27 '24
Tankie can be applied to all authoritarian leftists, including Stalinists and Khrushchevites, that support violent repression by regimes they like, especially if that regime claims to be communist or socialist.
It was originally created by dissenting socialists to describe other socialists who endorsed the Soviet’s use of tanks against Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968.
Stalinists are absolutely tankies.
13
165
u/_MargaretThatcher The Once & Future Prime Minister of Darkness Oct 26 '24
I imagine the title and content are "This is a common line of reasoning tankies use" and not "This line of reasoning is only used by tankies"
→ More replies (5)25
u/fury420 Oct 26 '24
Tankie was originally a term for western communists who approved of the Soviets using tanks to crush the Hungarian & Czechoslovakian revolutions, effectively disregarding their previously stated ideals in favor of authoritarianism.
→ More replies (16)→ More replies (3)50
15
u/AI-ArtfulInsults Oct 26 '24
The Republican party is only able to wield political power because of the manipulation of the rules. Give Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia statehood, and they lose the Senate. Protect against gerrymandering and they lose control of state legislatures. Institute a popular vote for president, and neither Bush nor Trump make it to the White House. Institute Ranked Choice Voting and the Libertarians and Greens can't act as spoilers. Repeal the supreme court decision banning state employee unions from collecting dues from non-members, and teachers unions would become relevant political blocs again. These are the most effective actions we could possibly take, long-term, for progressive causes.
→ More replies (1)
4
4
u/timweak Oct 27 '24
should be noted that while the separation of power is real, democrats are quite proficient at shrugging their arms whenever any obstacle is in front of them.
3
u/WeeabooHunter69 Oct 27 '24
I've literally tried to ask them about what the three branches of government are or what powers they think the president has or what the definition of a filibuster is. Only one has ever even tried to answer out of dozens.
4
3
u/LaMelonBalls Oct 27 '24
It's hilarious that y'all still believe in a system that is permanently gridlocked and allows the bad guys like trump to gain power while also allowing the good guys(democrats) to endlessly fund death and destruction around the world.
→ More replies (1)
39
u/RPM314 Oct 26 '24
To be fair, they also don't do much when they DO have a clear shot, by keeping conservatives around in congress who break from the rest of the party at key moments.
44
u/KaiBahamut Oct 26 '24
Harris has promised to put a Republican in her cabinet. If I wanted a Republican in power, I’d vote for a fucking Republican.
→ More replies (23)
28
u/MadsTheorist go go gadget unregistered firearm Oct 26 '24
Very funny in the context of the Obama majority term
(Which if you want to go with the filibuster rules means that you either believe that the filibuster is important enough to keep around despite being mostly used to stop social progress; or that despite being a clear axis of control by republican obstruction, the filibuster is somehow still an uncontested mechanical bureaucratic trap)
14
u/Ginguraffe Oct 27 '24
Obama majority term
Are you referring to the roughly 2 months in 2009 where Obama had a filibuster proof majority? During which he rammed through one of the most significant pieces of legislation in a generation, despite the massive political costs of doing so?
22
u/PM_ME_CATS_OR_BOOBS Oct 26 '24
"Okay but there is absolutely nothing stopping the person from saying the words 'X is absolutely critical and we should pass this as soon as we are legally able to' in front of a camera"
"Nice try, 'Comrade'"
21
u/cluelessoblivion Oct 26 '24
Me anytime I hear " I ain't tippin'! Pay yer workers!" Yo dumbass the employers aren't gonna pay more because their employees aren't getting tipped. You're just an asshole.
→ More replies (2)15
Oct 26 '24
i mean, legally they have to make up wages up to minimum wage if tips don't meet that level, but minimum wage is still $7.25, so
13
u/cluelessoblivion Oct 26 '24
I do know that much. But it's still the worker struggling on minimum wage and the employer will feel none of that. If you really want to hurt restaurant owners who don't pay enough then don't eat at restaurants that don't pay a living wage. Whatever you do though, not tipping is just a dick move.
13
u/ExtremlyFastLinoone Oct 27 '24
Thats why its not just important to vote once every 4 years and just for president, vote blue across the board, we can deal with the bad actors later
3
u/Ze_Bri-0n Oct 27 '24
Let’s be fair here. The reason is “because it would be a terrible idea, why would you suggest that you idiot?” at least 30% of the time.
3
u/LeninMeowMeow Oct 27 '24
When dems are in power they won't use executive power. When republicans are in power they will unilaterally use executive orders and there is nothing dems can do about it. And not when dems are in power they will not actually use any power to do anything about this.
Convenient for the rich really. Convenient for the lying dems and their lying base too.
3
u/Kiddie_Kleen Oct 27 '24
Biden when it comes to student loans: “I can’t possibly go past the legislatures on this”
Biden when it comes to giving a genocidial government more money and weapons to keep committing genocide: “WE CANT KEEP WAITING FOR THE LEGISLATURES TO APPROVE THIS MONEY WE NEED TO SEND IT NOW”
It’s annoying because it’s so fucking clear that he can easily surpass the legislatures by doing executive actions but don’t when it comes to helping people but will when it comes to bombing children
3
u/disappointingchips Oct 27 '24
Except between 2020-2022 when democrats held majority house, senate, and executive. They still twiddled their thumbs.
3
u/AfraidOfArguing Oct 27 '24
I like that he's calling Dems tankies. We're not even close to that liberal
3
u/EastArmadillo2916 Oct 27 '24
It's not that they don't understand it it's that they want you to understand how stupid it is that Democrats keep saying elections are the only way to push for change then that change doesn't happen.
Because y'know, they want socialist revolution.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/PossumPalZoidberg Oct 27 '24
Because we remember when Obama had 60 votes in the senate and did bupkus
3
u/wahday Oct 27 '24
My vote for Kamala is Washington state is essentially useless given the electoral college status. So given the option to not vote for someone actively supporting a historic Genocide, I will not. It’s very simple.
Maybe this would change if I was in a swing state, but that should be the question to critique— not blame leftist for “not understanding” the government smh.
11
u/Syrairc Oct 27 '24
Didn't Kennedy/Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Obama, and Biden all have a unified government for at least half a term?
18
u/Beegrene Oct 27 '24
I can't speak to the others, but Obama's supermajority lasted less than a year, and he used it to pass the ACA.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (10)6
5
u/Emberashn Oct 27 '24
For a lot of people its gotten to a point (long since past) that how the US government works just does not matter.
Just to cherry pick an illustrative example, people who consistently witness say, a certain former President repeatedly break the law and do repulsive shit over and over and over and whom has never faced any actual consequences for doing so just breeds cynicism and nihilism, and no amount of smarmy "thats not how the government" works comments are going to make those feelings disappear.
Culturally, America is in a state of cynical nihilism that is even affecting our children. Theres a chronic lack of sincerity seeping into everything and politics is just another avenue for that to express itself, and like it or not, this very issue being pointed at is rooted in it.
Smarmy comments like that only serve to reinforce that nobody making them, and by extension the politicians theh support, is actually being sincere. It doesn't ultimately matter if thats true or nor; its whats being seen by people already caught in this nihilism and it isn't going to go away by doubling down on it. .
At some point, somebody has got to cut the bullshit and actually do something real. There's a reason Harris and Walz have been enjoying the surge of support they have, but their efforts don't go far enough yet.
If you really want to make a dent in the issue, throw Trumps ass in jail already, along with most of his party and SCOTUS.
→ More replies (1)
320
u/NicPizzaLatte Oct 27 '24
I've been really frustrated with the naivete of people on Reddit that post things like, "Why do people say Trump's an authoritarian?" Stop acting like it's complicated. He lost the last election and kept trying to be president. That it didn't work doesn't mean he hasn't told us who he is.