Pretty much. Someone told me here yesterday that I'd be "voting against democracy" if I didn't vote for Biden. That doesn't sound like a statement from someone who supports democracy.
That's a very silly thing for you to say when the other guy attempted to overthrow the US government in an insurrection. Yeah, fuck Biden and all, but at least he ain't a self proclaimed dictator who actually wants to be rid of democracy you silly lil billy.
Trump is a blustering idiot so I don't know why people believe his word on this statement over any other. He can call himself whatever he wants but that doesn't give him full control over the federal government.
You might want to ask yourself why the Democratic presidential candidates are continually neck and neck with facist dictators every election and also question why they haven't done anything during that time to improve their chances of winning.
It's not democracy if you're continually being forced to vote for someone who doesn't represent the people over and over again with no end in sight.
Trump is a blustering idiot, but he's also a criminal facing bankruptcy and prison time. Even if we were to disregard every terrible thing he did in office, (and we'd be incredibly stupid to do so) we'd surely be fools to ignore his repeatedly stated intentions to wield dictatorial power and imprison his political enemies.
Extrapolating a bit from your comment: I, too, would like to have a national left-wing party to support in this country. It ain't the Democrats, and likely never will be. We'll need to reform the electoral system to make room for such a party. In this year's presidential election, that's not on the ballot, and no amount of self-righteous rhetoric will alter that.
It's a binary choice.
He also RAPED CHILDREN.
Just throwing that out there.
Edit: sorry, sorry. I should clarify, he only visited Jeffrey Epsteins island and openly admitted that he would absolutely have sex with his own daughter.
Even as a bumbling idiot, he came dangerously close to creating a constitution crisis that he could have used to retain political power. Just a few key people had been swapped out with some loyalists and it could have easily become the case. A congress recognized this, which is why they acted so quickly in a bipartisan way after the election to put into law that the VP can't just pick whatever electors they want. Now he knows more and can demand more loyalty, so it is very brave of you to assume that this is some non-real risk. The system held, but it did show that it's not invincible.
It’s not democracy if you’re continually being forced to vote for someone who doesn’t represent the people over and over again with no end in sight.
The problem is, as I said in another post, that the solution to this problem is a ground up approach. Voting for a third party, even if that third party wins, solves nothing as it would just tend right back to a two party system again. It's the nature of the FPTP voting system. This needs to start at the bottom where you get people who will change local elections first, and then work up.
Voting for a third party, even if that third party wins, solves nothing as it would just tend right back to a two party system again.
This is absolutely right. We had third parties in our country's short history, and some were successful. You know what happened to the old party? It's gone now, so electing a "new" third party creates a "new" two-party system...that's it...not some wild explosion of choice. At the end the result is the same and there are still two parties.
Yup. People using their vote strategically in the system available to them, when they want a different system, is not evidence of them being dumb or acting irrationally. Getting a third party elected is such a long shot in this system, and ultimately pointless in the long run, is far more irrational than that.
And don't get me wrong, I think our system is messed up. But I'm working locally to solve that issue. As should everyone else upset about this. But they would rather sit online and whine then go out and actually enact change where they have the most influence.
Pretty much. Someone told me here yesterday that I'd be "voting against democracy" if I didn't vote for Biden. That doesn't sound like a statement from someone who supports democracy.
That's a very silly thing for you to say when the other guy attempted to overthrow the US government in an insurrection. Yeah, fuck Biden and all, but at least he ain't a self proclaimed dictator who actually wants to be rid of democracy you silly lil billy.
Trump is a blustering idiot so I don't know why people believe his word on this statement over any other. He can call himself whatever he wants but that doesn't give him full control over the federal government.
You might want to ask yourself why the Democratic presidential candidates are continually neck and neck with facist dictators every election and also question why they haven't done anything during that time to improve their chances of winning.
It's not democracy if you're continually being forced to vote for someone who doesn't represent the people over and over again with no end in sight.
Trump is a blustering idiot, but he's also a criminal facing bankruptcy and prison time. Even if we were to disregard every terrible thing he did in office, (and we'd be incredibly stupid to do so) we'd surely be fools to ignore his repeatedly stated intentions to wield dictatorial power and imprison his political enemies.
Extrapolating a bit from your comment: I, too, would like to have a national left-wing party to support in this country. It ain't the Democrats, and likely never will be. We'll need to reform the electoral system to make room for such a party. In this year's presidential election, that's not on the ballot, and no amount of self-righteous rhetoric will alter that.
It's a binary choice.
He also RAPED CHILDREN.
Just throwing that out there.
Edit: sorry, sorry. I should clarify, he only visited Jeffrey Epsteins island and openly admitted that he would absolutely have sex with his own daughter.
Even as a bumbling idiot, he came dangerously close to creating a constitution crisis that he could have used to retain political power. Just a few key people had been swapped out with some loyalists and it could have easily become the case. A congress recognized this, which is why they acted so quickly in a bipartisan way after the election to put into law that the VP can't just pick whatever electors they want. Now he knows more and can demand more loyalty, so it is very brave of you to assume that this is some non-real risk. The system held, but it did show that it's not invincible.
The problem is, as I said in another post, that the solution to this problem is a ground up approach. Voting for a third party, even if that third party wins, solves nothing as it would just tend right back to a two party system again. It's the nature of the FPTP voting system. This needs to start at the bottom where you get people who will change local elections first, and then work up.
This is absolutely right. We had third parties in our country's short history, and some were successful. You know what happened to the old party? It's gone now, so electing a "new" third party creates a "new" two-party system...that's it...not some wild explosion of choice. At the end the result is the same and there are still two parties.
Yup. People using their vote strategically in the system available to them, when they want a different system, is not evidence of them being dumb or acting irrationally. Getting a third party elected is such a long shot in this system, and ultimately pointless in the long run, is far more irrational than that.
And don't get me wrong, I think our system is messed up. But I'm working locally to solve that issue. As should everyone else upset about this. But they would rather sit online and whine then go out and actually enact change where they have the most influence.