Removed by mod
Voting for genocide is not socialist, even in a plutocracy like the US where it’s elections are pure theatre.
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.
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
Removed by mod
Realistically, genocide should be opposed.
Realistically, an elephant cannot be eaten in one bite.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Now’s the time to pressure ending the actual genocide and not indulge in weird persecution fantasies.
What’s your endgame then? What practical benefit does increasing the chances of a Trump presidency, or more accurately a Vance dictatorship, provide?
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.
Support ranked choice voting, and strategic voting becomes a thing of the past, allowing for greater variety of political representation.
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.
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
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.
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
Thank you! I really appreciate it
Hope you have a good day today :)
Agreed. First-past-the-post voting system has to go.
So vote green or PSL. Got it.
Removed by mod
I love Claudia De la Cruz!
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.
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.
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.
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.
It’s the coolest part of her platform.
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 😅
