America has a right wing party, and a party of hyper right wing nutcases.
Unfortunately it’s a flaw in FPTP voting systems. The biggest thing that would help (in any country with FPTP) would be to move to almost any other sort of voting. Ranked choice would be the least disruptive, in the short term, but still allow for long term corrections to function.
Yeah, RCV or STV voting would immediately solve a lot of our social and political problems, by forcing politicians to be cooperative and constructive rather than destructive and adversarial.
There are a few variants. Any are a lot better than FPTP. Approval could get difficult to tally up. As well as educating people in it. It’s also better to ultimately have 1 person, 1 vote. If you could split your vote, the system collapsed back down to effectively FPTP.
Oh is that why Democrats keep promoting social welfare programs, social mobility, and public safety nets? Keeping the poor poor is more of a republican thing.
This is the game Republicans play, block any progress, then get blame shifted to Democrats for not implementing their goals. Prove government doesn’t work by making it not work, because the voters want it all immediately, regardless of procedure.
That’s ridiculous - the group you’re part of should be judged as individuals, the group you’re not part of should be judged as a whole? That’s some double standard.
Republicans as a party, campaign on things like ending social safety nets.
So even if you can cherry pick a single republican that didn’t try to stop something like free school lunches, it doesn’t redeem the whole party because they didn’t all work together towards it.
Democrats as a party, campaign to improve safety nets so even if you can cherry pick an example where individual democrats didn’t then that doesn’t apply to the group because it wasn’t the party working together towards it.
You understand that Bill Clinton decimated welfare, right? Like, I don’t agree that the parties are the same, especially now that a large portion of Republicans are openly promoting facism, but if you think that Democrats are protecting welfare programs and the social safety net you’re kidding yourself.
He also chose to bail out the banks instead of homeowners, and reneged on his pledge to reform bankruptcy laws to allow judges to lower mortgage payments. Instead we got HAMP, a failed attempt to bribe mortgage brokers into modifying loans. And he pushed all this through with a Democratic super majority.
There are things that I have to give him some credit on. For example, the concessions he got the auto-workers to take screwed them longer term, but they were necessary at the time and the bailout did save a lot of jobs. The UAW considered the deal a win. But I don’t think the mortgage crisis would have been any different for home owners if Bush had still been in office.
Neither party wants to usurp capitalism, yet they are still wildly different and have wildly different values. The left is far more likely to tax the wealthy than the right is.
Well most Americans don’t want to usurp capitalism either, most of us on the left just want public health care and a viable social safety net, and a more equitable economy for everyone, not just those at the top. Something like the Nordic model which is still quite capitalist.
I mean the supposed “good guy” president is currently giving tons of weapons to help people kill a bunch of innocent babies, so you can miss me with that shit
Are we supposed to go Yay, the economy is doing great so we will forgive all the fucking innocent, people you’re killing?
I shouldn’t have to say this, but you don’t support anyone at all who wants to commit genocide.
At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter how any fucking thing else goes, if they are supporting, killing, innocent babies
This tired argument again. So what’s your proposal? Throw away your vote on a 3rd party candidate this election cycle? Not vote?
So if Trump wins, do you honestly believe things would be better? Nothing will change in Israel, except we’d have all sorts of new humanitarian problems across the globe.
If Biden loses, it will be because not enough people were convinced to vote for him. So if dems want to prevent a Trump presidency, the smart move probably would be (or would have been, maybe, since y’all think it’s too late) for Biden to step down and endorse a Dem who has not openly supported Israel’s current campaign. That is, if they think that those voters are necessary to win. If they think those voters can be written off and they’ll still win, let 'em try. No politician is owed a vote simply because they are the incumbent, though. Nor are they owed the votes of people who are displeased with their work. They hoping that everyone will just fall in line on election day. What if that doesn’t happen? Do you think the future of our country is something that octogenarians should be gambling with?
Same naive or shill arguments. Look beyond your hatred of Biden and see what is at stake with a Trump presidency.
Unfortunately the support for Israel is common across most of our elected representatives for better or worse. I’m all for trying to get someone more progressive and younger in as the Democrat candidate, but the reality is that it will almost certainly be Biden vs Trump. Given that reality, voting 3rd party or not voting will only help Trump, so unless that’s your plan, that is in effect what will happen.
Thanks for the citation, marginal income tax rates going down for the highest percentage is an interesting data point, but It hardly refutes my point as there is no analysis there regarding which party those changes came from. I think there was a northwestern study that showed that politicians in general care about issues that wealthy people care about that would better illustrate your point, but I think both of these are more examples of regulatory capture and a system that requires donors to elect candidates, than it is evidence that the left and right share values.
My statements that the left is far more likely to tax the wealthy, and that they have wildly different values still stand.
I’m a troll because I asked you for more information to understand your ambiguous claim? Yeah okay pal. 🙄
You’re a troll because you’re still pretending not to know documented history. You know each of those tax rates had years net to them. Guess what you could do if you had an iota of curiosity in you…
The US democratic party is just as happy to cut taxes for the rich as the republican party. They’re also just as happy to cut spending on social welfare programs.
I can’t read your mind, unpleasant one, nor am I aware of all of documented history/historical data despite what you might think of me. Hence, asking for more information.
The US democratic party is just as happy to cut taxes for the rich as the republican party. They’re also just as happy to cut spending on social welfare programs.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Look at what they vote for and you will see a noticeable difference between Democrats and Republicans. Claims that both sides are the same are simply not true.
Both parties stand for the same values? Lol, what?
America has a right wing party, and a party of hyper right wing nutcases.
Unfortunately it’s a flaw in FPTP voting systems. The biggest thing that would help (in any country with FPTP) would be to move to almost any other sort of voting. Ranked choice would be the least disruptive, in the short term, but still allow for long term corrections to function.
Yeah, RCV or STV voting would immediately solve a lot of our social and political problems, by forcing politicians to be cooperative and constructive rather than destructive and adversarial.
It also allows you to vote for who you really want, rather than against the people you really DON’T want.
Why not approval voting? Instead of ranked choice
There are a few variants. Any are a lot better than FPTP. Approval could get difficult to tally up. As well as educating people in it. It’s also better to ultimately have 1 person, 1 vote. If you could split your vote, the system collapsed back down to effectively FPTP.
You know, the values of keeping rich people rich and poor people poor.
Oh is that why Democrats keep promoting social welfare programs, social mobility, and public safety nets? Keeping the poor poor is more of a republican thing.
This is the game Republicans play, block any progress, then get blame shifted to Democrats for not implementing their goals. Prove government doesn’t work by making it not work, because the voters want it all immediately, regardless of procedure.
Democrats make plenty of policies that hurt poor and marginalized communities.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_Crime_Control_and_Law_Enforcement_Act
Are they promoting them or actually implementing them? All they do is talk about what they’re gonna do to get the votes.
Don’t get me wrong, anyone voting for republicans is a moron, but anyone who thinks democrats are good guys, is a moron too.
deleted by creator
That’s ridiculous - the group you’re part of should be judged as individuals, the group you’re not part of should be judged as a whole? That’s some double standard.
Republicans as a party, campaign on things like ending social safety nets.
So even if you can cherry pick a single republican that didn’t try to stop something like free school lunches, it doesn’t redeem the whole party because they didn’t all work together towards it.
Democrats as a party, campaign to improve safety nets so even if you can cherry pick an example where individual democrats didn’t then that doesn’t apply to the group because it wasn’t the party working together towards it.
I hope that helps you understand.
deleted by creator
You understand that Bill Clinton decimated welfare, right? Like, I don’t agree that the parties are the same, especially now that a large portion of Republicans are openly promoting facism, but if you think that Democrats are protecting welfare programs and the social safety net you’re kidding yourself.
Obama also almost cut social security, and only didn’t because gop couldn’t govern then
He also chose to bail out the banks instead of homeowners, and reneged on his pledge to reform bankruptcy laws to allow judges to lower mortgage payments. Instead we got HAMP, a failed attempt to bribe mortgage brokers into modifying loans. And he pushed all this through with a Democratic super majority.
There are things that I have to give him some credit on. For example, the concessions he got the auto-workers to take screwed them longer term, but they were necessary at the time and the bailout did save a lot of jobs. The UAW considered the deal a win. But I don’t think the mortgage crisis would have been any different for home owners if Bush had still been in office.
Both are political liberals (as in: foCus on policies that benefit the wealthy) deal with it.
Neither party wants to usurp capitalism, yet they are still wildly different and have wildly different values. The left is far more likely to tax the wealthy than the right is.
The Dems aren’t left.
You’ve found the crux of their argument
Well most Americans don’t want to usurp capitalism either, most of us on the left just want public health care and a viable social safety net, and a more equitable economy for everyone, not just those at the top. Something like the Nordic model which is still quite capitalist.
And look how the nordic countries also fall victim to far right parties. Just like the rest of Europe.
The largest donors to the dems (and cons) are massively wealthy people.
If they do tax the rich, there will be holes
Historical data from the past 50 years in the US disagrees.
Not sure what you’re referring to. Citation?
I mean the supposed “good guy” president is currently giving tons of weapons to help people kill a bunch of innocent babies, so you can miss me with that shit
Are we supposed to go Yay, the economy is doing great so we will forgive all the fucking innocent, people you’re killing?
I shouldn’t have to say this, but you don’t support anyone at all who wants to commit genocide.
At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter how any fucking thing else goes, if they are supporting, killing, innocent babies
This tired argument again. So what’s your proposal? Throw away your vote on a 3rd party candidate this election cycle? Not vote?
So if Trump wins, do you honestly believe things would be better? Nothing will change in Israel, except we’d have all sorts of new humanitarian problems across the globe.
If Biden loses, it will be because not enough people were convinced to vote for him. So if dems want to prevent a Trump presidency, the smart move probably would be (or would have been, maybe, since y’all think it’s too late) for Biden to step down and endorse a Dem who has not openly supported Israel’s current campaign. That is, if they think that those voters are necessary to win. If they think those voters can be written off and they’ll still win, let 'em try. No politician is owed a vote simply because they are the incumbent, though. Nor are they owed the votes of people who are displeased with their work. They hoping that everyone will just fall in line on election day. What if that doesn’t happen? Do you think the future of our country is something that octogenarians should be gambling with?
Same naive or shill arguments. Look beyond your hatred of Biden and see what is at stake with a Trump presidency.
Unfortunately the support for Israel is common across most of our elected representatives for better or worse. I’m all for trying to get someone more progressive and younger in as the Democrat candidate, but the reality is that it will almost certainly be Biden vs Trump. Given that reality, voting 3rd party or not voting will only help Trump, so unless that’s your plan, that is in effect what will happen.
Oh, ok. So you’re a troll. Got it.
For any ody that happens by in the future…
https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/whole-ball-of-tax-historical-income-tax-rates
Thanks for the citation, marginal income tax rates going down for the highest percentage is an interesting data point, but It hardly refutes my point as there is no analysis there regarding which party those changes came from. I think there was a northwestern study that showed that politicians in general care about issues that wealthy people care about that would better illustrate your point, but I think both of these are more examples of regulatory capture and a system that requires donors to elect candidates, than it is evidence that the left and right share values.
My statements that the left is far more likely to tax the wealthy, and that they have wildly different values still stand.
I’m a troll because I asked you for more information to understand your ambiguous claim? Yeah okay pal. 🙄
You’re a troll because you’re still pretending not to know documented history. You know each of those tax rates had years net to them. Guess what you could do if you had an iota of curiosity in you…
The US democratic party is just as happy to cut taxes for the rich as the republican party. They’re also just as happy to cut spending on social welfare programs.
I can’t read your mind, unpleasant one, nor am I aware of all of documented history/historical data despite what you might think of me. Hence, asking for more information.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Look at what they vote for and you will see a noticeable difference between Democrats and Republicans. Claims that both sides are the same are simply not true.
deleted by creator
Bombing brown children, and pumping record amounts of oil.
Internalized Propaganda
deleted by creator
Well if you don’t like our “trends” like don’t block strikes and don’t support genocide find the votes you need elsewhere.