Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said in an interview with NBC News that he will encourage progressive voters to still back Democrats on the ticket in November even if moderates are victorious in the primaries.
Eh… At least some candidates that have recently won their primaries have been progressive enough to disavow Israel. As a whole the party is still shitty, which I guess is just an accurate depiction of the general population. However, it would be hard to say they were worse than the alternative.
Would Kamala have stopped the genocide… Prob not. But she also likely wouldn’t have bombed a bunch of school children in Iran either.
I know, I’m really spitting out some real controversial opinions right now… Somehow that guys utter disregard for things like the invasion of Venezuela and Iran, and trumps attempt to starve cuba into submission, seems to kinda detract from the empathetic basis of his argument.
Eh… At least some candidates that have recently won their primaries have been progressive enough to disavow Israel. As a whole the party is still shitty, which I guess is just an accurate depiction of the general population. However, it would be hard to say they were worse than the alternative.
There’s an ongoing genocide where thousand of kids were murdered already, both the red and blue parties supported and endorsed it. Would you advocate to vote for a “good” candidate running with the republican that claim to not support israel?
Would Kamala have stopped the genocide… Prob not. But she also likely wouldn’t have bombed a bunch of school children in Iran either.
She fueled a genocide where thousand children got killed
You’re like one of those pull toys that say a few differernt phrases when you pull the string, but you’re one of the defect ones that only say one thing. Over and over.
There’s an ongoing genocide where thousand of kids were murdered already
Yes … And do you think that the few politicians who do not support Israeli genocide should also be blamed for it?
you advocate to vote for a “good” candidate running with the republican that claim to not support israel?
That’s not the only criteria that is important to me…? In this hypothetical if the candidate was actually a leftist who for some reason had to run as a Republican, then yes?
She fueled a genocide where thousand children got killed
I’m not detracting from her complicity in a genocide, or trying to say she’s a decent human being. I’m claiming that trump is even more complicit in the genocide and has needlessly killed thousands of people in a war with Iran that does not fit within Kamala’s geopolitical ambitions.
I don’t really know what point you are trying to get across here?
If you are part of a party that support it then the blame is on you too.
Seems like a great way to make sure that the party never improves…
didn’t fit trump “no more wars” policy too, until he did it.
Breaking News…Trump lies!
No one with two braincells in their head to rub together believed that because it did not fit within his geopolitical ambitions.
War has always fit red and blue geopolitical ambitions, always.
That’s a idiotic generalization. Yes, Democrats have historically supported unjust wars. However, they still have geopolitical strategies that differ from conservatives. There is zero chance that Kamala would have broken up the Iran nuclear deal and gone to war with Iran… That deal was their biggest accomplishment in the modern age.
I’m sure you are the type to advocate for voting third party, which I honestly don’t have a problem with. The problem is that we are a two party system. Even if a third party were popularized it would just take the place of one of the two standing parties.
If you honestly want a third party to advance to that place you would first have to create a schism in the democratic party by primarying the old guard with young progressives. Telling people to disregard the politician and only focus on the party does nothing but serve the fascist currently running the government.
Seems like a great way to make sure that the party never improves…
If the party you are trying to improve is evil and corrupted as fuck you have more chances to improve humanity not associating yourself with them. Your argument is like trying to improve nazism within the nazi party.
That’s a idiotic generalization. Yes, Democrats have historically supported unjust wars. However, they still have geopolitical strategies that differ from conservatives. There is zero chance that Kamala would have broken up the Iran nuclear deal and gone to war with Iran…
You are speculating what someone endorsing a genocide where thousand of kids died would have done.
Telling people to disregard the politician and only focus on the party does nothing but serve the fascist currently running the government.
If you actually want to fight fascists you want to promote something better than voting for the lesser evil fascist
If the party you are trying to improve is evil and corrupted as fuck you have more chances to improve humanity not associating yourself with them.
So we can improve humanity by not voting in protest or voting for a non-viable 3rd party, thus allowing a fascist party to take control, which is exactly what happened in 2024?
Your argument is like trying to improve nazism within the nazi party.
Because now you’re comparing the Democrat party to the Nazi party. You are fantastically irrational and at this point I can’t take anything you say with even the remotest sincerity.
You are speculating what someone endorsing a genocide where thousand of kids died would have done.
It’s not speculation. They pointed out that the Iran Deal was one of the Democrat’s biggest accomplishments in the modern era. Why would she, if she was a Democrat president, want to undo that? Come on kiddo, use some common sense at least once today.
If you actually want to fight fascists you want to promote something better than voting for the lesser evil fascist
If the party you are trying to improve is evil and corrupted as fuck you have more chances to improve humanity not associating yourself with them. Your argument is like trying to improve nazism within the nazi party.
The party is a human construct, it’s the people in the party who make it evil. If you change the people it is a different party in all but name.
like trying to improve nazism within the nazi party.
The Nazi party ceased to be subject to the democratic process and thus had to be destroyed and not changed.
what someone endorsing a genocide where thousand of kids died would have done.
Yes…based on all information we know about the party and the person. You know, the only way you can judge people.
you actually want to fight fascists you want to promote something better than voting for the lesser evil fascist
Voting for the lesser evil is better than voting for something that is not possible…which is the same as supporting the fascist.
You’re just ineffectually virtue signaling to make yourself feel better and at the same time making everything worse for the rest of the world.
The party is a human construct, it’s the people in the party who make it evil. If you change the people it is a different party in all but name.
Same goes for the republicans, if it’s just a color why don’t blue canditates run for red to change it and make it good?
Voting for the lesser evil is better than voting for something that is not possible…which is the same as supporting the fascist.
“that is not possible” is your assumption, what it is not an assumption is that voting for lesser evil fascists is a vote for fascists.
You’re just ineffectually virtue signaling to make yourself feel better and at the same time making everything worse for the rest of the world.
To me it sound like that’s something you are projecting on others, supporting and advocating for the lesser evil it’s doing exactly that, it’s the rest of the world that pay the most for what the US government is doing.
Don’t worry about the party, and concentrate on the candidates. There are only two parties, like it or not, so your guy is out there somewhere, even if the logo on his umbrella sucks. Realistically, he doesn’t really have any other choice. There are plenty of Democratic candidates who aren’t taking money from AIPAC, and it’s helping them, especially with younger voters.
Being loudly proudly defiant of Israel is new territory in American politics, and it is the righteous position, but it is unexplored territory, and it’s frightening to be among the first politicians to venture into that jungle. Let’s protect those that are, and show a little grace for those who are trying to get there. There will be a lot of converts, and we have to welcome them at this early stage.
The first rule of politics is get elected. You want changes? Get the right people elected, and stop surrendering at the first label you encounter.
Like it or not those 3rd parties mathematically have no feasible path to overtaking the two parties in control without dissolving one first.
To dissolve a party you need to first start by creating a schism within the party itself. Utilize that schism to create a popularist outcry that allows the reformation of a new party. We do not have a system like proportional representation that allows for 3rd parties to grow and develop influence via coalitions.
Ignoring this is just willfully ignorant and is actually a strategy that the two parties employ to split votes from their main adversary.
a candidate that chose to be part of a party that endorse a genocide is scum.
Running under a certain party does not mean you implicitly endorse them, especially considering that a lot of the progressive candidates that have recently won their primaries lacked the endorsement of the party.
I think you just need to take a class or read a book about civics?
Like it or not those 3rd parties mathematically have no feasible path to overtaking the two parties in control without dissolving one first.
To dissolve a party you need to first start by creating a schism within the party itself.
What twisted logic are you on? Third parties can run on their own and not be affiliated with the red and blue party
Ignoring this is just willfully ignorant and is actually a strategy that the two parties employ to split votes from their main adversary.
This is propaganda the government spreads around to keep all the votes on red and blue and never lose their duopoly in power. If red and blue want to win elections they try to get the votes on themself, why would they want promote third parties that their own supporters could vote for? Trump is the most unpopular president in history, if a third party was more popular it would probably get more votes from previous red supporters than blue
Third parties can run on their own and not be affiliated with the red and blue party
But they can’t win, champ.
At this point, after going through so many of your comments, I have to assume you’re pretty young and definitely dumb. I remember being younger and dumber and idealistic. Then I grew up.
When you’re young and dumb it’s hard to grasp that someone can support a party without explicitly supporting everything they do. Don’t worry, one day when you’re less young and dumb you’ll start dabbling in nuance and this will all start making sense to you.
Until then you’re just going to keep having to help fuck everything up by making awful decisions by employing awful logic.
Like I said… You need to better educate yourself about civics and political science.
This is propaganda the government spreads around to keep all the votes on red and blue and never lose their duopoly in power.
No, it’s just political science and the result of having single member districts and first past the post voting. It has been a known quantity since the 50s.
If red and blue want to win elections they try to get the votes on themself, why would they want promote third parties that their own supporters could vote for?
Because in a close red vs blue election, if the red can create a schism in the blues party that drives some of their voters towards a different party with more progressive views, then they can win without having to gain more voters.
Like I said… You need to better educate yourself about civics and political science.
You are taking this law for granted and building another of your own on top of it. This theory looks mainly based on observation of previous elections, it’s not much different than arguing that fascists will get in power again because they have already done so plenty of times in the past. Each election a new party can show up and change the data, educate yourself on how math works if you want to school others on anything scientific.
Because in a close red vs blue election, if the red can create a schism in the blues party that drives some of their voters towards a different party with more progressive views, then they can win without having to gain more voters.
In a democratic election each party has the same changes of winning, you are assuming the world is divided into two factions that will never vote for anything that isn’t red or blue.
You are taking this law for granted and building another of your own on top of it.
Lol, how so?
This theory looks mainly based on observation of previous elections, it’s
I mean it uses previous elections as evidence to support a theory based on a logical deduction. Your claim is like saying the laws around gravity are only based on previous observations of how gravity functions. That every step you take “changes the data”.
educate yourself on how math works if you want to school others on anything scientific.
Someone has already done the Math… You don’t have to trust my opinion.
“Thomas R. Palfrey argued Duverger’s law can be proven mathematically at the limit when the number of voters approaches infinity for one single-winner district and where the probability distribution of votes is known, rational strategic voting forces a single-winner plurality system to collapse into a two-party competition.”
Meaning in this model as the number of voters approaches infinity, the vote share of any third or minor candidate shrinks toward zero in equilibrium.
In a democratic election each party has the same changes of winning
What does that even mean without context? The chances of winning are determined by the locality of the voters. A Democrat does not have the same chance of winning a seat in California as they do in Oklahoma, what are you talking about?
the world is divided into two factions that will never vote for anything that isn’t red or blue.
We’re talking about America…not the world. And yes, America is a two party system. The chances of a third party loosing isnt an absolute, but it’s as close to a guarantee as you could make in politics.
To dissolve a party you need to first start by creating a schism within the party itself.
It’s like arguing that to walk on the bottom surface of the earth you need magnetic boots, it only works if you assume that earth is flat and magnetic. You are making an argument on top of duverger’s law taking it for granted as a mathematical law, you are not supposed to do that.
I mean it uses previous elections as evidence to support a theory based on a logical deduction. Your claim is like saying the laws around gravity are only based on previous observations of how gravity functions. That every step you take “changes the data”.
Each election is different from another and has different parties running which means that each time the variables are different and unpredictable (you cannot mathematically predict what people will vote for in 5 years and which parties will run)
“Thomas R. Palfrey argued Duverger’s law can be proven mathematically at the limit when the number of voters approaches infinity for one single-winner district and where the probability distribution of votes is known, rational strategic voting forces a single-winner plurality system to collapse into a two-party competition.”
I argue that unless you can read the future you cannot prove mathematically what people are going to vote for.
One day you’re going to move out of your parent’s basement and find out the utopia you think you can achieve doesn’t exist. Then you’ll probably move back into your parent’s basement because it’s such a safe space.
The two party system is entirely corrupt. Two sides of the same coin; two faced.
Nothing is more inherently political than our shared physical environment, and nothing is more ill served by allegiance to a single political party.
They’ve got a set of Republican waiters on one side and a set of Democratic waiters on the other side, but no matter which set of waiters brings you the dish, the legislative grub is all prepared in the same Wall Street kitchen.
Democratic as in the democrat party? The party endorsing a genocide?
Eh… At least some candidates that have recently won their primaries have been progressive enough to disavow Israel. As a whole the party is still shitty, which I guess is just an accurate depiction of the general population. However, it would be hard to say they were worse than the alternative.
Would Kamala have stopped the genocide… Prob not. But she also likely wouldn’t have bombed a bunch of school children in Iran either.
Hot take: Kamala would have done a better job.
A monkey throwing darts at a decision board would have done a better job than this felon rapist.
I know, I’m really spitting out some real controversial opinions right now… Somehow that guys utter disregard for things like the invasion of Venezuela and Iran, and trumps attempt to starve cuba into submission, seems to kinda detract from the empathetic basis of his argument.
There’s an ongoing genocide where thousand of kids were murdered already, both the red and blue parties supported and endorsed it. Would you advocate to vote for a “good” candidate running with the republican that claim to not support israel?
She fueled a genocide where thousand children got killed
https://archivegenocide.com/
You’re like one of those pull toys that say a few differernt phrases when you pull the string, but you’re one of the defect ones that only say one thing. Over and over.
Yes … And do you think that the few politicians who do not support Israeli genocide should also be blamed for it?
That’s not the only criteria that is important to me…? In this hypothetical if the candidate was actually a leftist who for some reason had to run as a Republican, then yes?
I’m not detracting from her complicity in a genocide, or trying to say she’s a decent human being. I’m claiming that trump is even more complicit in the genocide and has needlessly killed thousands of people in a war with Iran that does not fit within Kamala’s geopolitical ambitions.
I don’t really know what point you are trying to get across here?
If you are part of a party that support it then the blame is on you too.
It didn’t fit trump “no more wars” policy too, until he did it.
War has always fit red and blue geopolitical ambitions, always.
Yes, because there aren’t a whole range of other policies to consider and hundreds of Democrat reps, many of whom don’t condone what Israel is doing.
How simple is the inside of your mind? What you got in there? A twin bed and a computer that only goes to Lemmy and archivegenocide.org?
Seems like a great way to make sure that the party never improves…
Breaking News…Trump lies! No one with two braincells in their head to rub together believed that because it did not fit within his geopolitical ambitions.
That’s a idiotic generalization. Yes, Democrats have historically supported unjust wars. However, they still have geopolitical strategies that differ from conservatives. There is zero chance that Kamala would have broken up the Iran nuclear deal and gone to war with Iran… That deal was their biggest accomplishment in the modern age.
I’m sure you are the type to advocate for voting third party, which I honestly don’t have a problem with. The problem is that we are a two party system. Even if a third party were popularized it would just take the place of one of the two standing parties.
If you honestly want a third party to advance to that place you would first have to create a schism in the democratic party by primarying the old guard with young progressives. Telling people to disregard the politician and only focus on the party does nothing but serve the fascist currently running the government.
If the party you are trying to improve is evil and corrupted as fuck you have more chances to improve humanity not associating yourself with them. Your argument is like trying to improve nazism within the nazi party.
You are speculating what someone endorsing a genocide where thousand of kids died would have done.
If you actually want to fight fascists you want to promote something better than voting for the lesser evil fascist
So we can improve humanity by not voting in protest or voting for a non-viable 3rd party, thus allowing a fascist party to take control, which is exactly what happened in 2024?
Because now you’re comparing the Democrat party to the Nazi party. You are fantastically irrational and at this point I can’t take anything you say with even the remotest sincerity.
It’s not speculation. They pointed out that the Iran Deal was one of the Democrat’s biggest accomplishments in the modern era. Why would she, if she was a Democrat president, want to undo that? Come on kiddo, use some common sense at least once today.
Not if the other thing can’t beat the fascists.
The party is a human construct, it’s the people in the party who make it evil. If you change the people it is a different party in all but name.
The Nazi party ceased to be subject to the democratic process and thus had to be destroyed and not changed.
Yes…based on all information we know about the party and the person. You know, the only way you can judge people.
Voting for the lesser evil is better than voting for something that is not possible…which is the same as supporting the fascist.
You’re just ineffectually virtue signaling to make yourself feel better and at the same time making everything worse for the rest of the world.
Same goes for the republicans, if it’s just a color why don’t blue canditates run for red to change it and make it good?
“that is not possible” is your assumption, what it is not an assumption is that voting for lesser evil fascists is a vote for fascists.
To me it sound like that’s something you are projecting on others, supporting and advocating for the lesser evil it’s doing exactly that, it’s the rest of the world that pay the most for what the US government is doing.
Don’t worry about the party, and concentrate on the candidates. There are only two parties, like it or not, so your guy is out there somewhere, even if the logo on his umbrella sucks. Realistically, he doesn’t really have any other choice. There are plenty of Democratic candidates who aren’t taking money from AIPAC, and it’s helping them, especially with younger voters.
Being loudly proudly defiant of Israel is new territory in American politics, and it is the righteous position, but it is unexplored territory, and it’s frightening to be among the first politicians to venture into that jungle. Let’s protect those that are, and show a little grace for those who are trying to get there. There will be a lot of converts, and we have to welcome them at this early stage.
The first rule of politics is get elected. You want changes? Get the right people elected, and stop surrendering at the first label you encounter.
Like it or not there are more than two parties and a candidate that chose to be part of a party that endorse a genocide is scum.
The first rule of humanity is to try to be a good person and you do that by not lying to people to get in power and by not supporting criminals.
Like it or not those 3rd parties mathematically have no feasible path to overtaking the two parties in control without dissolving one first.
To dissolve a party you need to first start by creating a schism within the party itself. Utilize that schism to create a popularist outcry that allows the reformation of a new party. We do not have a system like proportional representation that allows for 3rd parties to grow and develop influence via coalitions.
Ignoring this is just willfully ignorant and is actually a strategy that the two parties employ to split votes from their main adversary.
Running under a certain party does not mean you implicitly endorse them, especially considering that a lot of the progressive candidates that have recently won their primaries lacked the endorsement of the party.
I think you just need to take a class or read a book about civics?
What twisted logic are you on? Third parties can run on their own and not be affiliated with the red and blue party
This is propaganda the government spreads around to keep all the votes on red and blue and never lose their duopoly in power. If red and blue want to win elections they try to get the votes on themself, why would they want promote third parties that their own supporters could vote for? Trump is the most unpopular president in history, if a third party was more popular it would probably get more votes from previous red supporters than blue
Common sense logic. You should try it.
But they can’t win, champ.
At this point, after going through so many of your comments, I have to assume you’re pretty young and definitely dumb. I remember being younger and dumber and idealistic. Then I grew up.
When you’re young and dumb it’s hard to grasp that someone can support a party without explicitly supporting everything they do. Don’t worry, one day when you’re less young and dumb you’ll start dabbling in nuance and this will all start making sense to you.
Until then you’re just going to keep having to help fuck everything up by making awful decisions by employing awful logic.
Duverger’s law
Like I said… You need to better educate yourself about civics and political science.
No, it’s just political science and the result of having single member districts and first past the post voting. It has been a known quantity since the 50s.
Because in a close red vs blue election, if the red can create a schism in the blues party that drives some of their voters towards a different party with more progressive views, then they can win without having to gain more voters.
You are taking this law for granted and building another of your own on top of it. This theory looks mainly based on observation of previous elections, it’s not much different than arguing that fascists will get in power again because they have already done so plenty of times in the past. Each election a new party can show up and change the data, educate yourself on how math works if you want to school others on anything scientific.
In a democratic election each party has the same changes of winning, you are assuming the world is divided into two factions that will never vote for anything that isn’t red or blue.
Definitively false. But if you keep saying it maybe it will come true.
Lol, how so?
I mean it uses previous elections as evidence to support a theory based on a logical deduction. Your claim is like saying the laws around gravity are only based on previous observations of how gravity functions. That every step you take “changes the data”.
Someone has already done the Math… You don’t have to trust my opinion.
“Thomas R. Palfrey argued Duverger’s law can be proven mathematically at the limit when the number of voters approaches infinity for one single-winner district and where the probability distribution of votes is known, rational strategic voting forces a single-winner plurality system to collapse into a two-party competition.”
Meaning in this model as the number of voters approaches infinity, the vote share of any third or minor candidate shrinks toward zero in equilibrium.
What does that even mean without context? The chances of winning are determined by the locality of the voters. A Democrat does not have the same chance of winning a seat in California as they do in Oklahoma, what are you talking about?
We’re talking about America…not the world. And yes, America is a two party system. The chances of a third party loosing isnt an absolute, but it’s as close to a guarantee as you could make in politics.
It’s like arguing that to walk on the bottom surface of the earth you need magnetic boots, it only works if you assume that earth is flat and magnetic. You are making an argument on top of duverger’s law taking it for granted as a mathematical law, you are not supposed to do that.
Each election is different from another and has different parties running which means that each time the variables are different and unpredictable (you cannot mathematically predict what people will vote for in 5 years and which parties will run)
I argue that unless you can read the future you cannot prove mathematically what people are going to vote for.
One day you’re going to move out of your parent’s basement and find out the utopia you think you can achieve doesn’t exist. Then you’ll probably move back into your parent’s basement because it’s such a safe space.
Removed by mod
The two party system is entirely corrupt. Two sides of the same coin; two faced.