assassin_aragorn @ assassin_aragorn @lemmy.world

Posts

21

Comments

3,115

Joined

2 yr. ago

This isn't a bad 4D chess move. Trick Republicans in Congress to heavily limit the power of the president to neuter this decision.

She dined with Russian oligarchs at an RT party, so I don't think she'd really balk at it.

She should focus solely on the environment and climate change then instead of "WiFi causes cancer" and promoting vaccine hesitancy. She should also develop a facts based viewpoint on nuclear energy instead of fear mongering.

We have modern reaction designs that can consume existing nuclear waste. We literally have more nuclear waste around than we would if we were doing more nuclear projects.

Some third parties have a thesis that their message is inherently superior to the other parties and would win simply by the virtue of being morally right. Gerrymandered districts are the perfect opportunity for them to prove that.

Not to mention, a third party did get 5%+ with Perot and the Reform Party. But I don't think Reform even exists anymore, and if they do, they've done a terrible job of making themselves known.

They've been trying their strategy of "get our name out during presidential elections and hit 5%" for a long time now, and it's clearly a losing strategy.

Oh I think about them a lot more often, especially when I look at my midterm ballots and see the occasional third party candidate for a local race, and there's been absolutely no campaigning nor advertising effort. Or, when I see a race that a Republican is running unopposed, and third parties have wasted a perfectly good opportunity in running a candidate there.

If third parties want to win, they cannot rely on people doing personal research beforehand. I like to do so, but I'm certainly in the minority.

You're spot on. There's far more I'd like to say about third parties (and have been in the comments). Memes don't lend themselves well to longform opinions, and most discussions need to be longform.

They're better as a starting point for conversation instead of actual conversation.

Just like the two main parties are not owed votes, neither are third parties owed votes. If a Democrat has to earn my vote, then so too do third party candidates. And they've done an incredibly poor job of doing so.

Don't get me wrong, you have a good point. I just find the third parties to be completely unserious and not at all focused on actually making a difference. I would prefer for them to be more effective and to actually try to earn my vote instead of just running on "I'm not the other two!".

It's my opinion that the FPTP system not only disadvantages third parties with game theory, but it also leads to batshit insane third parties that really aren't serious.

I saw a great comment the other day that someone didn't believe in human souls until they saw what AI "art". The difference between human art and AI garbage made them conclude there was a distinctly human touch necessary.

Third parties should be running House candidates and putting ads on airtime for them. You aren't going to win an election if it's based on people doing research instead of you doing heavy advertisement.

Third parties should try doing anything noteworthy to get attention. The parties and their candidates don't deserve anything intrinsically.

There was just an article I saw today about Republicans helping Cornel West's campaign in Arizona

Those are perfect races for third parties to get into

You've inadvertently highlighted the problem. There's a third party, Party for Socialism and Liberation, that certainly isn't liberal. But you've never even heard of them from the sounds of it. They'd do much better if instead of running an expensive presidential campaign, they put up candidates in your districts and ran ads for them.

Thanks!

Did it? My understanding is that the draft and footage of their children dying in war is what reshaped the public opinion.

Genuinely asking though, it was before my time.

How does de la Cruz intend to stop arms shipments without any congressional representation to push legislation to do so?

If Congress says money must be spent on sending Israel weapons, then the president has to follow that in some capacity. The president could try to stop shipments, but that would result in a swift court case, and the president would be compelled to continue sending weapons. The executive branch has discretion in how to do so, but it unfortunately does not have the authority to end it.

You need Congress if you're going to stop all shipments. Alternatively I suppose you could try to have the judiciary in your favor, but that means de la Cruz now needs the Supreme Court on her side.

It's a complete misconception in American society and politics that the president can do anything. They're certainly the most powerful single individual, but Congress is still much stronger.

The Party for Socialism and Liberation would be much better served trying to win Congressional races so they can push for bills to end weapon shipments. If they could take a number of strong Republican districts with their message, it would give them a lot more influence.

If voting third-party were purely symbolic, there wouldn’t be this many people on Lemmy trying to persuade us to not do it

This is a logical fallacy. If lighting myself on fire as protest were purely symbolic, then why are all of my friends persuading me to not do it?

Sometimes people trying to convince/persuade you against something isn't because you actually have a point -- but because your ideas will lead to harm.

Yeah the Nazis would've never come to power if everyone just abstained from voting instead of coalescing under one lesser evil /s

I've seen two interesting spins on the trolley problem recently.

1. "Just blow up the trolley." This is actually a very apt description of accelerationism. Blowing up the trolley doesn't stop the forward momentum -- it just turns the trolley barrelling towards the trapped people into a fiery wreckage barreling towards the trapped people. Plus if there's people on the trolley... Yeah.
2. "Untie the trapped people while other people push back and stop the trolley". This is once again rather emblematic, this time of blind idealism. The idea that if we get enough people, then we can stop the trolley, sounds good on paper and makes you feel nice. But it ignores the reality that people cannot hold back a trolley like that. It just isn't possible for the necessary number of people to simultaneously push back against it.

Not to mention, the whole point of the trolley problem is that the trolley is a metaphor for an unstoppable event that is impossible to avoid. It's nice to think we could dismantle it, but we can't.

Ah my favorite self flagellating liberal! What's keeping you around this community, then? Is this easier than finally facing the mirror?