A little over two weeks left, and people are losing their freakin’ minds. And I get it: We have a lot more to lose than they do. If we win, their lives will improve (whether they want to admit it ...
neither candidate supports living wages above $15 an hour, universal healthcare, less fracking/oil, or police reform, or anything meaningful to the citizens just lots of wins for the corporations that are sponsoring this election no matter who wins
Or for corperate money side: Dan Osborn (indepdent, and there’s no dem in the race) is a union leader who led the kellog strikes. He wants to get money out of politics and has taken zero corperate pac money. He’s running for Nebraska’s US senate seat and has a real chance to win. Polls put him neck and neck or even up slightly
I suppose refugees and trans people don’t figure into your equation because erasing them is the only way to make it balance.
It confuses me when people who argue “both sides” claim to support all those left policies when they don’t appear to have empathy or awareness of the marginalized. I’m left to conclude that this brand of leftism must be based on vanity, because the only thing it protects is the ego of those who promote it.
It confuses me when people who argue “both sides” claim to support all those left policies when they don’t appear to have empathy or awareness of the marginalized.
They don’t even really seem to support left policies that go much of anywhere outside the scope of not voting for Democrats.
They’re not advocating for RCV, supporting protest movements or local races with prominent lefty candidates, or harping on critical climate issues or actions that fall outside the scope of electoral politics completely let alone the specific action of who you’re going to vote for in November. They care a lot about politics. But mostly, what they want you to do is not vote for Democrats.
A very cynical person could draw a particular conclusion from that, but I’m not that person, so I won’t.
You mean like the refugees being chased down on horseback? Or the ones at the border being subjected to Trump style immigration policy? Dems use trans as political pawns as much as Republicans
It’s technically true that neither candidate supports the positions you are pushing for, but it’s clear that one of them is much closer to you than the other in terms of distance. The better candidate from this point of view is obvious.
what is there to win?
neither candidate supports living wages above $15 an hour, universal healthcare, less fracking/oil, or police reform, or anything meaningful to the citizens just lots of wins for the corporations that are sponsoring this election no matter who wins
Setting aside the false equivalency here, the presidental race is not the only race on the ballot. We can help with those down ballot races too
There are plenty of viable dem candidates who do support all of what you just mentioned
For instance, Pennsylvania state legislature democrats are supporting a $20/hr minimum wage. There are races this year that could flip the PA state senate and let that start getting through
Or for corperate money side: Dan Osborn (indepdent, and there’s no dem in the race) is a union leader who led the kellog strikes. He wants to get money out of politics and has taken zero corperate pac money. He’s running for Nebraska’s US senate seat and has a real chance to win. Polls put him neck and neck or even up slightly
I suppose refugees and trans people don’t figure into your equation because erasing them is the only way to make it balance.
It confuses me when people who argue “both sides” claim to support all those left policies when they don’t appear to have empathy or awareness of the marginalized. I’m left to conclude that this brand of leftism must be based on vanity, because the only thing it protects is the ego of those who promote it.
They don’t even really seem to support left policies that go much of anywhere outside the scope of not voting for Democrats.
They’re not advocating for RCV, supporting protest movements or local races with prominent lefty candidates, or harping on critical climate issues or actions that fall outside the scope of electoral politics completely let alone the specific action of who you’re going to vote for in November. They care a lot about politics. But mostly, what they want you to do is not vote for Democrats.
A very cynical person could draw a particular conclusion from that, but I’m not that person, so I won’t.
Well, not that cynical.
You mean like the refugees being chased down on horseback? Or the ones at the border being subjected to Trump style immigration policy? Dems use trans as political pawns as much as Republicans
Things maybe getting better vs. things definitely getting way worse.
It’s a pretty obvious choice.
The first bit is misleading, as Harris supports doubling the minimum wage to $15 for now https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/business/company-news/2024/10/23/harris-backs-15-minimum-wage-in-fight-with-trump-over-pay/ while the other guy wants to leave it at $7.25. And I suspect $17 is reachable in the future too, https://www.commondreams.org/news/kamala-harris-minimum-wage - going from $15 to $17 is a much smaller jump than going from $7.25 to $17 after all
Also, Harris did in the past have plans for universal healthcare - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kamala-harris-policy-positions-president-2024/ (without eliminating private healthcare, but this is doable, a good example being the Netherlands - https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/1/17/21046874/netherlands-universal-health-insurance-private ) while the other guy tried to repeal the ACA (getting rid of what little we had).
Harris wanted to ban fracking in the past, https://apnews.com/article/fracking-pennsylvania-president-campaign-donald-trump-kamala-harris-104f3f051df4d28e4645f05051eb6cff , so convincing to go to lower fracking in the future seems like an easier deal.
On police reform, Harris seemed to support this back in 2020, https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/26/politics/kfile-kamala-harris-praised-defund-the-police-movement-in-june-2020/index.html so might be easier to convince to readopt this position in the future.
It’s technically true that neither candidate supports the positions you are pushing for, but it’s clear that one of them is much closer to you than the other in terms of distance. The better candidate from this point of view is obvious.
There’s not even a mention of $15 coming from them anymore, much less healthcare. Fracking is up with cop cities.
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/16/federal-minimum-wage-has-been-7point25-for-15-years-how-that-may-change.html
Still no mention of $15, much less a living wage.