And the other half have a negative view of EVs

Your position would be more sensible and coherent if you were looking to achieve it through a mechanism outside of voting, but to insist on trying to use the tool you recognize as broken to repair itself is an absurdity, it’s completely irrational.

Your position would be much more sensible if RCV had never been achieved through voting. But it has. And notice the states where it does exist - these are the same places where lots of people vote for Democrats. And the places where it’s banned statewide? Those are the places where lots of people vote for Republicans. We need more of the former, and less of the latter.

I know I’d be a lot cooler, especially around here, if I just put on the Che Guevara shirt and say revolution is the only answer. But it just isn’t. Because every example of that sort of thing just leads to more fascism under a different name. Voting works, it’s the best choice, and I have yet to see any evidence other than wanting to be cool to convince me otherwise.

But as for making it a red line for supporting democrats, sure. I mean honestly, credit to you for proposing something that might actually work. I think if there’s a big enough movement to do that, every Democrat would get behind it.

Shut the fuck up with your disgusting justification.

I’m confused as to why you are getting so many upvotes because either though misreading or misplaced focus, you only replied to one half of one sentence of my reply, constructing an alternate reality in which my point was the opposite of what it actually was. And to be blunt, both the reply and the upvotes reflects so much of the knee-jerk hyperemotionalism in online debates.

As for the rest, I think we can all acknowledge that people in general will take more offense to a paper insulting a powerless minority than the powerful majority. But in this case they didn’t, hence my point that violence is counterproductive to a cause, which you seem to think was the opposite point.

Also Musk: “This is the woke mind virus in action. Now, it is time for the mind virus to die.”

The two party system is bullshit, and the solution is electoral reform like ranked choice voting.

One party, the Democratic party, usually (but not always) approves of such reform efforts.
The other party, the Republican party, universally opposes such efforts with extreme fervor.

So it makes sense to hate the two party system, but that system is one party’s fault in particular.

Because it’s just going to make them more popular. One can argue that the failed assassination of Trump was actually key to his victory. Or if that’s not clear enough, look at what happened with Charlie Hebdo - it just made muslims look petty and violent to the point where most people would rather side with the paper that was bullying a religious minority than recognize their concerns.

Losing a lawsuit, meanwhile, makes them unpopular and poor at the same time.

Later this year: “I was right, but I actually meant to say ‘into’ instead of ‘to’ and ‘someone’s’ instead of ‘your’”

I’ve played civilization and I’m pretty sure there’s other forms of government besides Communism and Monarchy that have low corruption, albeit lacking the ability to force the citizens into war on the leader’s whim.

Promise them a little wagon

My main criteria is can we fix it.

If a Democrat wins in 2028, we can hypothetically fix immigration policy, tariffs, and all the rest with enough popular support. In fact now that the far right has shown themselves to be a clown show, maybe that phase of America’s maturation may finally be ending. We might even bring Abrego Garcia himself back.

But if we deport citizens - who can vote and participate in democracy - that puts the thumb on the scale. It makes permanent fascism like in Russia more likely. And it’s worth dying to avoid that permanent fate. But if it’s temporary, it just doesn’t rise to that level.

I’m gonna guess this sort of thing is more the rule than the exception. The goal isn’t to deport actual gang members, it’s to signal a tough-on-illegal-immigration policy without the challenge that comes with actually deporting people who aren’t trying to be found. So they just deport law abiding people who are easier to find because the reality doesn’t matter.

This is because of red state Democrats like Manchin. Because every state gets two senators, there are more senators from red states than blue states. So Democrats have to capture more of the center to hey the majority in the Senate.

I think the confusion is that it actually implies AOC, who is a Democrat, wants universal healthcare - she does.

I would never ask someone else to risk their lives for me. I think we all need to figure out where our red line is - for me it would be a successful attempt to keep serving in a third term, or actually successfully deporting/imprisoning US citizens without due process. Merely trying or talking about it isn’t enough because if the constitutional process stops him, that means it’s still working.

It’s not just Republicans, it’s businessmen. Hoover, George W. Bush, and of course Trump were all businessmen. Reagan technically not but he kind of was an adopted businessman with all the corporate friends he had.

What happens is, people think a businessman would be great for the economy. But what makes someone a great businessman? Not strong knowledge of economics, that’s what makes you a good economics professor. A great businessman is one who is good at fundraising, which basically comes down to having lots of rich friends who you can convince that giving you money will pay off for them down the road. This is why guys like Adam Neumann still raise gobs of money after failing - if people see you as a guy who can raise money, they’re less worried you’ll go bankrupt.

So anyway, when these Adam Neumanns end up entering the white house, they find that they’ve made many promises to their wealthy friends but don’t know how to keep them. So they try their best, conducting sweeping changes to financial and regulatory systems, but lacking the economic knowledge to understand the often complex effects these decisions have. Inevitably, there’s major economic problems down the road.

Maybe you should blame yourselves for failing to convince the American people to vote for candidates who would cut off aid to Israel. Maybe, just maybe, camping in people’s public spaces, spraypainting people’s neighborhoods with “FUCK ISRAEL”, and oh yeah, helping get a fascist dictator elected wasn’t the best way to make those people want to side with you.

I mean I sympathize with actual Palestinians. Nobody should have to suffer what they’ve suffered. But let’s be honest - Israel gets away with it for a reason. And that reason is globally, no one wants to side with Hamas (which by the way, actually films themselves murdering children. Brilliant.), and in the US, no one wants to side with edgelord protesters who just piss everyone off.

Israel may kill kids, but they actually try not to get it on video, and they spend millions on PR that portrays them as the victim rather than the aggressor (as opposed to being as visibly aggressive as possible like Palestine protesters). Maybe that has something to do with why they keep winning and you keep losing.

Maybe it’s unfair for me to paint all Palestine protesters with a broad brush. I remember one had a sign listing all her dozens of family in Gaza who had been killed. That’s moving - you need more of that, less attacking the people you want to support you.

This headline is horseshit so I’ve only read enough to establish that much and am ignoring the rest of the article. Someone post a different one.

Here’s all you need to know from the article:

Republicans, and apparently some Democrats

many have warned that it could even make it harder for married women to vote.

The only conclusion you should draw is this: Marin Scotten of the New Republic is full of shit and shall not be trusted ever. You may conclude as you wish about all other matters based on other sources.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Imagine hating the poor this much