We are in a decisive moment in history : usa

[+] [email protected] 23 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago

Voting for genocide is not socialist, even in a plutocracy like the US where it's elections are pure theatre.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 2 weeks ago

I don't get the decision matrix of these folks. if we're after effective action, we know for 100% certainty that a 3rd party will not get elected in this nation right now. so, the decision should be who is going to be easier, better or more effective to work with, and I see zero choice when faced with this reality.

I wholeheartedly, 100% would LOVE to have a socialist candidate elected (not even because I'm a socialist, I just want all the ideas to be weighed, and that's why we have checks and balances). I just am tired of folks who let perfect be the enemy of good.

[+] [email protected] -6 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

I can tell you're not a socialist

EDIT: because a socialist would understand class enough to know the democrats will never allow a socialist to gain power through their ranks

[+] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Realistically, genocide should be opposed.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Realistically, an elephant cannot be eaten in one bite.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

This proverb only works under the assumption that Democrats are moving things in a positive direction. They are not. They are shifting rightwards, courting republicans, and fully endorsing a genocide. We are not eating the same elephant.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The proverb works when you realize that the Republicans will never allow the first bite to be taken. Not only are they fully endorsing a genocide, they are taking notes and pondering the best way to implement their own here at home. The elephant is the same, but instead of eating you're flirting with being trampled by it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

So what's the elephant in your metaphor here? Is it ending genocide? Because the democrats are currently preventing us from eating that elephant. Is it communism? The democrats also won't help us eat that elephant. Is it ending American Empire? Well, the democrats seem pretty against eating that elephant. Is is global liberation? Can't possibly see the democrats joining us in eating that elephant, given the previous points.

I'm sure you'll come back and tell me the elephant is "democracy" as if saying "you must vote for this candidate or democracy is over" isn't already the end of democracy.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

You set the goalposts at "opposing genocide," so that's still the elephant in the metaphor. I can understand why you think someone might shift the meaning mid-discussion in order to "win," but that's not happening here.

There are two candidates in this presidential election who have a realistic chance of success. One has voiced support for a ceasefire as a step to a two-state solution and concern for Palestinian suffering. The other has expressed the belief that a ceasefire is an unreasonable constraint on Israel, and that a swift, decisive victory is the only solution. One has acknowledged the need for Palestinian self-determination, the other has bragged about figuratively burying Palestine. One has openly stated that they "respect the voice" of pro-Palestinian protestors, the other has signaled that political dissent by "enemies within" will be persecuted.

However, if we've reached the point where you've determined that you are sure you know what I'll say, then this discussion has run its course. Language like that implies that you're preparing for an argument that would very likely either start off circular or quickly regress to that state.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

The first one has also been saying that they support Israel, that Oct 7th is the biggest tragedy despite most likely over 100x that amount has died on the other side by now, that Iran is our number one enemy despite them just defending themselves, and has continued to give a genocidal racist regime money and weapons whole they clear out all of northern Gaza. And the biggest thing of all, is that they're the ones helping perpetrated the genocide now. Pay attention to people's actions, instead of words (although in this case, as I said initially, her words haven't been great either lol).

[–] [email protected] -3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

But that's not up for a vote. What is up for a vote is whether we can continue to protest the genocide or be executed for voicing any opposition. Yes, it's the equivalent of being robbed at gunpoint, but I'm not going to choose to be shot for a sense of moral superiority.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Now's the time to pressure ending the actual genocide and not indulge in weird persecution fantasies.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

What's your endgame then? What practical benefit does increasing the chances of a Trump presidency, or more accurately a Vance dictatorship, provide?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I'm not increasing the chances of a Trump presidency, the Harris campaign is. I'm not a democrat, why do you think my vote belongs to them?

In fact, if I have to "vote for democrats" every election to prevent "not being able to vote" again, I don't really have the ability to vote in the first place. It's not as though the democrats give a shit about election reform in any serious capacity. Their game is for you to be stuck in this game.

[+] [email protected] 14 points 3 weeks ago

[removed by mod]

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Support ranked choice voting, and strategic voting becomes a thing of the past, allowing for greater variety of political representation.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago

Agreed. First-past-the-post voting system has to go.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Except Ranked Choice doesn't actually fix anything, and in fact can make things worse.

RCV is the only voting system designed that fails the monotonicity criterion.

What that means is that ranking a candidate higher on your ballot can cause them to lose.

Which is insane, and a deal breaker, and not the only massive flaw with the system.

A lot of it stems from the fact that RCV is, at its core, a series of First Past the Post elections on a single ballot.

You cannot fix the problems with First Past the Post by just iterating First Past the Post.

No, the only way to actually fix things is to ditch Ordinal voting in favor of Cardinal voting.

www.equal.vote is a good source for more in depth analysis of actual fixes.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I don't know that I'd heard that issue with ranked choice voting before, I have some reading to do.

Thanks for sharing your perspective, I appreciate it

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yup, there's a reason why RCV initiatives are being repealed faster than they're being adopted.

RCV produces worse results than First Past the Post.

Which is a massive problem for voting reform, because people will say "we tried that, and it made things worse" while thinking about RCV. It poisons the well, and makes real voting reform much harder.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Do you have any links to coverage of RCV being repealed faster than they're being adopted? If not that's fine :) at some point I'm gonna sit down and read/research, I just don't have the emotional bandwidth today

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

https://news.ballotpedia.org/2024/04/02/rcv-bans-and-repeals-advancing-at-higher-rate-than-new-authorizations/

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

Thank you! I really appreciate it

Hope you have a good day today :)

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago

So vote green or PSL. Got it.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 weeks ago

I love Claudia De la Cruz!

[+] [email protected] -2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

If you'll take time to read things for the first time in your incredibly short 'life' you might notice this post has nothing to do with greens nor Republicans nor democrats.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Same third party "let's get Republicans elected" vibe, two weeks before an election that decides if a Fascist gets elected.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Sure would be cool if the party supposedly "opposing fascism" could oppose genocide "two weeks before an election that decides if a fascist gets elected".

Oh bother, I'm starting to have a real bad feeling about whether or not the fascism is already here.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Ah, the old, "Democrats aren't doing enough to stop this, so let's help elect the Republicans who will make things so much worse"

Because you just don't believe in the Spoiler Effect.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

"Aren't doing enough to stop this"? Dude, they're causing the bad things right now. They're the ones giving bombs to Israel, a missile defense system and sending boots on the ground, attacking Yemen, meeting up with Israel to help them organize attacks against Iran and Lebanon with our intelligence. It's not even like they're not doing enough to stop bad things from happening, they're actively encouraging it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

I know, it's maddening. But thanks to how elections work, you have exactly two options. And they are not the same.

If you think that Biden's policy is bad, just look at what Trump has planned.

He's likely to order the US military to help in the genocide. And since Arabs have not had the best public image in the US in the last 20 some years...

There's a chance the military would do it.

With that as the other option, the current diplomatic talks are far better.

Now, here's why promoting some also-ran jack off is a bad idea. Your also-ran cannot win. It's literally impossible. They can only siphon off votes from the left, and that means that Trump wins and everyone learns again that when a madman tells you what he'll do, you should believe him.

[+] [email protected] -6 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (3 children)

I like everything about their platform except this;

cut the U.S. military budget by 90%, seize the 100 largest corporations

I just cannot get behind that. I could see breaking up monopolies, taxing medium and large corporations way more, but seizing, nah.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

All corporations should be eliminated or owned by the government, with only owner operator businesses being unowned by the government.

Quite frankly profit motive is the most destructive force in human history, eliminating it should be the number one priority for any human wanting to continue humanity.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I can even agree with corporations being eliminated but not owned by the government. The government can also be corrupted by profits. And has over and over again in recent history.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

At least its democratically controlled if it's controlled by the government (well, once we establish an actual democracy first) and the profits are given to all of us.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago

It's the coolest part of her platform.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Seizing the 100 biggest companies seems like a good way for the government to end up running a lot of things it doesn't actually want to be responsible for running, and by extension end up just running those things directly into the ground or selling them off to be privatized again

There are things I think make a compelling argument for seizing, but not based on size, that seems like an awful idea. I live in NC, where there's one company that provides power giving them a local monopoly. Also they love fracking. Duke Energy can go suck a dick. THAT kind of situation makes a strong case for seizing private entities and making them publicly funded infrastructure. Also taxpayers have funded so much internet infrastructure that we never actually got, that should probably also be national infrastructure 😅

United States | News & Politics