There is really only one major party against ranked choice voting. Every year, Democratic caucuses vote to add ranked choice voting to their platform. Democrats have managed to get Ranked Choice Voting in several cities.
Republicans do not. Republicans repeal RCV. Every RCV repeal in the US was done by Republicans.
Both parties are not the same, and if you really want a third party candidate, you're better off getting rid of every Republican you can.
I'm gonna call bullshit on "too toxic." There were literal riots over getting civil rights. There were literal murders over getting civil rights. A lot of the reason why MLK looked so good was because there were those who took extreme actions, and his nonviolent protests would sometimes be treated the same as the violent ones. But you think a stall-in would be too far? Should we use the Suffragettes instead, who also vandalized museums (worse than these guys)? Was that too toxic? What a silly argument.
Is blocking traffic invalid then? Because that was also part of the civil disobedience used in the civil rights movement. Oh wait, they DID claim it invalid then, too!
“We do not need allies more devoted to order than to justice,” Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote in the spring of 1964, refusing calls from moderate Black and White leaders to condemn a planned highway “stall-in” to highlight systemic racism in New York City. “I hear a lot of talk these days about our direct action talk alienating former friends,” he added. “I would rather feel they are bringing to the surface latent prejudices that are already there. If our direct action programs alienate our friends … they never were really our friends.”
It's weird that there are people in this thread that think defacing the protective barrier of a painting is too far, but advocating for harming or killing oil industry executives is not because the painting didn't do anything to cause our climate emergency. By that argument, defacing a building with grafitti can't work, blocking traffic would put more pollution in the air, blowing up a pipeline would kill innocent people and animals.
Nothing is good enough for them except the status quo. They'd rather a museum burned down in a riot than plexiglass get covered in soup because riots are okay (but once that happens, the pearls will be clutched again.)
“We do not need allies more devoted to order than to justice,” Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote in the spring of 1964, refusing calls from moderate Black and White leaders to condemn a planned highway “stall-in” to highlight systemic racism in New York City. “I hear a lot of talk these days about our direct action talk alienating former friends,” he added. “I would rather feel they are bringing to the surface latent prejudices that are already there. If our direct action programs alienate our friends … they never were really our friends.”
"What's blocking traffic have to do with racism? All it does is make people mad at black people!"
History rhymes.
Does throwing soup at paintings stop the oil industry? Has it made a single dent in their massive profits?
I'm glad you asked because it's good to be a learned adult! The UK government has stopped the licensing of new oil, gas, and coal projects since Just Stop Oil started their campaign of civil disobedience. New levies have also been placed on oil and gas company profits, that are increasing as of November.
Additionally, membership in Just Stop Oil continues to grow. So, it looks like, yes, throwing soup on paintings (as well as other forms of nonviolent resistance) DOES appear to put a dent in the profits of oil companies.
Think of how much faster it would've been to ask that right off the bat instead of being so insipid :)
Did they or did they not offset the oil industry: yes or no?
See, I can do the same thing you did. It required me to argue in bad faith.
I don't care if we have any monuments if we also have an oil industry that kills the planet. I don't want an oil industry. That is the answer! It has nothing to do with monuments, but monuments don't matter if we have an oil industry.
Not that it matters, because no art was harmed here, as you could plainly read in the article.
Frankly, most people don't want climate change, and most people would get used to having no oil industry really fast. I mean, we got used to Covid.
I'm not evading the question, you just don't like my answer and want one to that you can feel superior about, so you are attempting to lead me to a frankly ridiculous question based on what I can only assume is purposeful malintent.
There is no art on a dead planet. There are no monuments without people. People give those things meaning. If we all die for the oil industry, then what good was the plexiglass covered in soup protecting that painting?
It's great that the carbon output of those art installations is so low. Did it offset the oil industry? If no, then who cares?
Just. Stop. Oil.
You'll have to excuse me, your gotcha question was of low quality, so I assumed you set me up a slam dunk.
My mistake, I expected too much.
Is your question seriously: Would I rather monuments be destroyed and people be alive, or that people be dead and monuments be preserved? Because obviously people are more important. But, if we stop climate change, we are likely to be able to enjoy both people being alive and monuments being preserved.
No, I would prefer we just stop oil.
If we're all dead, the memorials are for all of us anyway.
There is no art on a dead planet.
I’ll just give you an example even if it’s not reated to unlocking phones: A black BMW 335i is filmed hitting a pedestrian and the plate number finishes with a 5. We’re gonna need to have a look at every BMW within these parameters. If you prevent the police from checking your car by hiding it, a guilty guy might have more time to hide his car and a crime is gonna go unpunished, leaving a victim with no one to pay for his injuries.
And if my car was in an unrelated accident but just happened to fit those criteria, you could use that as evidence against me (and not only that, but then stop trying to solve the crime because you've assumed the perpetrator.) It ALWAYS goes both ways. If the only way you can solve a crime is by violating people's privacy without a warrant, maybe don't be a cop.
Cops are seen as bad guys because people like you argue for why rights shouldn't apply to people, and making you get a warrant (aka doing your job) is seen as interfering with a crime.
The worst part is, it is stupidly easy to get warrants here in the US, but the cops WILL make your life miserable if you make them get one.
You could have a goal to destroy and replace the Republican party instead, no? Seems like it'd be an overall better solution to be, shifting all parties further to the left, especially if you consider the Democractic party too far right. I mean, why keep the reactionary party?
If Democrats are that bad, then why can't the international solidarity be built against them? Why must you advocate for the sacrifices of women, minorities, and LGBT people? Because the people of Gaza aren't going to be saved by Republicans, that's for fucking sure.
It's called Accelerationism, and it tends to work out exceptionally poorly for vulnerable groups, and it also has a significant chance to fail.
So, your goal to fight genocide with more genocide seems to have a fatal flaw.
And yet, letting Trump be president is doing that genocide faster and harsher, stripping women, minorities, and LGBT people of rights, AND MORE!
That is only one of the actions. Voting is harm reduction, and done in tandem with other actions.