this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2026
283 points (90.5% liked)
Late Stage Capitalism
2901 readers
110 users here now
A place for for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited.
A zero-tolerance policy for bigotry of any kind. Failure to respect this will result in a ban.
RULES:
1 Understand the left starts at anti-capitalism.
2 No Trolling
3 No capitalist apologia, anti-socialism, or liberalism, liberalism is in direct conflict with the left. Support for capitalism or for the parties or ideologies that uphold it are not welcome or tolerated.
4 No imperialism, conservatism, reactionism or Zionism, lessor evil rhetoric. Dismissing 3rd party votes or 'wasted votes on 3rd party' is lessor evil rhetoric.
5 No bigotry, no racism, sexism, antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, or any type of prejudice.
6 Be civil in comments and no accusations of being a bot, 'paid by Putin,' Tankie, etc. This includes instance shaming.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The FDR quote is extremely dubious; I've never seen any actual source showing that he said it. If anything, FDR was very vocal about the importance of elections. You might prefer this great, authentic one for future use, though:
—FDR, Fireside Chat, June 24, 1938
The tweet, of course, is fucking nonsense. Here's the wording used in the survey:
As far as I can tell, this was not commissioned by "they" (the DNC). Who the fuck else were Rasmussen supposed to include? Genuinely, that statistically any of those 499 voters would have picked and are likely to run in 2028? That is a very plausible list of candidates, and the only absence I can think of who has any buzz is Mark Kelly. This isn't manufacturing consent; this is a poll designed to return useful data. "Instead of deciding who you want"? Yeah, no shit; that's because primaries are limited to people who are popular and determined enough to get on the ballot. Would it have actually made a difference if they'd put "Other (please specify)"? Not realistically, no, and you're lying to yourself if you think otherwise.
If anything, not including a list of candidates would likely even further centralize the responses around one or two well-known candidates, because most voters aren't familiar enough with politics to keep track of potential primary candidates.
This complaint is incoherent.
Welcome to “sabby sabs” and Lemmy. Where some random shit from a conservative pollster is of course an indictment of the liberal party. This sort of nonsensical dribble was all over Lemmy last election and will likely pick up more into mid terms.
I've never heard of Sabs before, but I hope I don't have to see more of her if the rest are like this. This post is like ideological vomit with half-digested chunks of sentiments I agree with, and it mimics the beats of an actual point but with none of the substance. It's clearly ragebait, but it seems more difficult to make up bullshit like this than it would be to just discuss real problems.
You’ll begin to notice it’s always vectored inward towards liberals and never anywhere else.
Up is down, left is right, Biden is Hitler and never a peep about anything else. Like this post, the flimsiest of bullshit just to paint liberals as the villains telling YOU what to think… based on Rasmussen?