Enkrod

To be fair: I was very much afraid he might get elected sgain.

That’s a top voting recommendation right there. Someone is afraid of her.

Well thank you for telling us what your values are. Makes so many things so much easier to do.

Even if we disagree about restricting eligibility, can we at least agree that improving civic knowledge is essential to a functioning democracy?

I can agree that a good measure of civic knowledge in the populace is absolutely a prerequisite. Now the question is does every voter need that? There my answer would be no. But should every citizen have been taught enough about civics in school to ensure at least a minimum breadth of civics knowledge in the populace? Yes.

I also think that a society needs a metaphorical buy-in from the populace. A populace that doesn’t feel they get to vote, demonizes the system that excludes them. We can see where that leads to in America, a low-trust society, where people do not trust the state, where the bureaucracy is seen as an enemy, oppressor, an occupying force. Removing the vote may guarantee a better result short term, but long term you’re just alienating a not inconsequential amount of the populace, creating a two-class society where the oppressed class will do anything in their power to hurt the system. And the US is already mostly there, because the people do not feel represented. I’d argue that many of the wrongs you’d want to correct with this are directly or indirectly caused by a lack of feeling to belong.

I am very much convinced that your solution is easier to implement in the rapidly autocratizing US. But I’m also convinced that my solution of more democracy would create a better, healthier, happier society. The most democratic countries in the world, are also the best educated and the happiest. https://www.v-dem.net/documents/75/V-Dem_Institute_Democracy_Report_2026_lowres.pdf

The system in the US is broken and you cannot fix it, by breaking it more, it has to be overhauled completely into something that guarantees representation, civic participation and engagement. And those three things would absolutely drop even lower the higher the hurdles for the smallest measure of representation, participation and engagement are.

Quite the Vaushite take.

I think the problems of american politics isn’t because it’s too democratic, rather I think it’s that the US is:

1. not a liberal democracy anymore
2. stuck with a voting system that forces a two-party system and doesn’t allow for proportional representation
3. electing the president directly instead of forming a multi-party coalition government that then elects the president
4. allowing money to influence politics way too much
5. running an education system barely worth its name

In short, the problem is not too much, but too little lived democracy. Allow the uniparty to fracture and the populace would be better able to pick and choose what they support.

+1 to identifying Sabine Hossenfelder as a grifter. She’s the worst.

On war crimes, they are the same.

Soo… even if I would accept that (and I don’t, but let’s say I would) that means in that one regard they are the same, but Republicans are still worse for many other groups.

So voting democrat, only when necessary to prevent a republican in office, is still preventing that more of harm a republican would do.

The only way to redeem the US system is to take it apart and reform it into something that honors basic human rights.

That is the main objective, I agree. And Tom Morello agrees. And I do not see how preventing worse outcomes as secondary objectives, while actively working for that goal is in conflict.

You can work towards dismantling the system while allowing more harm until that goal is reached by not using what little power you have within the system to prevent harm.

Or you can work towards dismantling the system while also using what little power you have in it to reduce harm until your main objective is reached.

There’s no contradiction in it. Because neither voting 3rd party, nor non-voting brings you closer to your main objective.

🤣

What? The vote changed nothing, all of California’s electoral votes went to Harris. Do you not know how the US voting system works?

He votes against fascism every single time.

That all of California’s electoral votes would go against republican fascism was a foregone conclusion. So what he did is use his vote to promote a third solution, one that is not corporate democrat. That’s absolutely fine.

I’m pretty sure Repugnicans are worse for either group?

That’s why I tag instead of block.

So I can identify and push back whenever I see a new shit take.

Yes, too often that inch is getting ignored on principle and to that I can only say: if your principles are so rigid that you sacrifice vulnerable people and minorities, then your principles are a part of the problem.

He explicitly says he’s in favor of voting Democrat, even corporate Democrat in EVERY contested race. If people listen to him, they will vote accordingly. If people don’t actually listen to him, it doesn’t matter what he says.

And if California get’s anywhere close to vote parity, he, like many others, will then start to vote democrat. But right now, there is absolutely no danger of a purple California, so why not vote his conscience?

He’s in California. He could make his voice heard by voting 3rd party, because it was a given that all electoral votes from Cali would go to Harris. Thus, voting 3rd parry sends a signal without endangering vulnerable people by helping Trump.

Dude is my personal hero and he’s showing why again here.

He’s doing exactly the right thing. Voting Democrat when the only alternative is a Repugnican who WILL hurt more people than the Corpocrat, but always, always and with all his power trying to move things to the left of corporate Democrats whenever he can without hurting vulnerable people.

Solving the conflict between a poor and powerless Palestine and the nuclear power of Israel IS one of the most complex political issues. Not only, but also because of the power-imbalance and generational hate on both sides.

The genocide in Gaza is decidedly NOT complex though. Yes it is a part of that entire thing, but the fact that the IDF is committing crimes against humanity is as simple as can be.

“It was a mistake.” In this case translates to “I knew what I was doing, but I don’t want to be held responsible.”

You’ve got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know… morons."

Blazing Saddles