1221
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez lays out battle plan against 'shockingly dim' Trump White House
(www.rawstory.com)
this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2025
1221 points (99.0% liked)
politics
19650 readers
3611 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Chomsky's manufactured consent in action (or someone who benefits from growing wealth inequality).
do the math, it's not particularly difficult
Like I said, organise and start at local and state level and then work way up. Third parties are successful in state and local levels. And it's not like third parties also never got seats at the federal level either. Third parties had been more successful 100 years ago. You're being brainwashed to believe that it's hopeless. Americans forgot how to organise and mobilise. They simply have to remember it.
The math shows it's hopeless in FPTP.
A third party will make it easier for the party it is least aligned with to take power.
A very successful third party (to a degree that is very unlikely to happen quickly) will simply supplant the party it's most aligned with. The supplanted party will then either have to give up, or will take on the role of helping the party it's least aligned with to win.
A third party on a local level that is consistently and efficiently backing the same FPTP candidate as one of the two big parties can mathematically be fine I guess. In practice I haven't seen a lot of people both enthusiastically back whatever D chooses for a presidential candidate, and argue for voting third party only at the levels where it is mathematially rational
That's why it's crucial to also promote ranked choice voting alongside third parties. Even Alaska and Minnesota have ranked choice voting, and the latter technically has a third party running the state for decades in spite of caucusing with Democrats. Alaska is actually pretty progressive with its universal basic income in spite of being Republican, with its Republicans being forced to compromise thanks to ranked choice voting.
Going on and on about FPTP and doing maths will get you nowhere and that is precisely what the establishment from both traditional parties wants you to do. It's to discourage mobilisation by making you think in cold raw logic without thinking outside the box, looking for inspiration from outside, and acting. Socrates said theory is nothing without action. Action is more important at the end of the day.
If your strategy only works if we first fix FPTP, and you apply it before fixing FPTP, your strategy doesn't work.
There's really nothing more to it. Feel free to disagree, but you will be incorrect in the purest sense of the word
Why not advocate for both if not either? And look, even countries with FPTP still has other parties gaining seats. Look at Minessota and Alaska. Just look at Canada and UK. You know why? Because they organise. They have solidarity.
Again, repeating the FPTP excuse and saying nothing will ever work is what the establishments want you to think to give up and be complacent. To stick with the status quo who wants you to be comfortable with breadcrumbs. Or condition you not to form solidarity with those whose jobs have been oursourced and provided with nothing, and becoming easily manipulated voters who will support the far-right.
you can't argue away math, sorry