What does it mean that the DNC is sticking with Genocide Joe?
Either they're happy to support Israel's genocide or they're deluded that there's no option.
Do they know that Trump is just one of many mouthpieces for GOP-oligarch fascism?
Do they see that -- if they really value democracy -- they'll need a candidate willing & able to fight not just Trump, but the whole stinking brigade?
Just as myriad others have done across the globe, people power could install a fighting candidate.
#
USPol
🇳🇱
Honestly I think they are just playing their best hand. I dont like Biden, he is a racist asshat.But even i have to admit that going with a different choice for the DNC is likely to make them look weak and ultimately cost them the election.
Understand that point, but, from an outsider's point of view, they lost the plot entirely when they sold themselves to oligarchs decades ago.
That's why I think people power is the only way left to defeat fascism.
Well look the GOP and DNC were morally corrupt since before either of us came into this world, thats for sure.
It's been super bad since the 1970s when Rockefeller installed the Trilateral Commission into cabinet.
@DrALJONES There are a few points that accelerated things towards decline on both sides... I think the biggest event in more recent history was 911, things went really south after that and has gotten worse every year.
Yes, agree, but Cheney was already running things
Corrupt politicians are the symptom, not the problem. Its the people, the citizens whoa re the real problem.
Some things are black and white... the people have the power, and they bare the responsibility as a result.
I mean unless you beleive some conspiracy theory nonsense about the elections being rigged, all of it.
@Hyolobrika @DrALJONES @freemo In a "first past the post" system it is legitimately one or the other.
No it isnt, in first pas tthe post you will get a **tendency** towards 2 choices getting the bulk of the votes. But such a system does **not** maintain the same two choices as dominante in each election.
In fact quite the opposite in FPTP systems minor parties or choices tend to go from <5% suppport to a majority choice in a single election cycle.
In the USA for example we have had a primary party be replaced with a third party in a signle election cycle, after which the old primary party never becomes primary again, 8 times in the history of the USA.
So we have plenty of examples that FPTP voting actually does allow for more than 2 parties, it just gives the illusion that it does.
@freemo @Hyolobrika @DrALJONES What are these 8 times in US history where a third party replaced the primary party?
1796 - Switch from non- partisan to having two seperate parties take majority, the democratic-republic and federalist
Switches so far: 2
1828 - Another double switch with two new parties coming into replace the old two majorities, the National Republican, and the Democratic
Switches so far: 4
1836 - The Whig party replaces the National Republic party
Switches so far: 5
1856 - The Republican party replaces the whig party
Switches so far: 6
1912 - The BullMoose party replaces the Republican party as a majority
Switches so far: 7
1920 - The Republican party replaces the Bull Moose party again.
Total switches: 8
@freemo @Hyolobrika @DrALJONES I don't deny new parties can replace old ones. But besides the very early days in the USA has there been more there 2 dominant political parties?
Int he very early days we had FPTP just as we do now. So the fact that america has had primary parties switch 8 times, and other FPTP elections outside of the usa see switches all the time too, it disproves the fallacy that FPTP prevents third party from winning, we know for a fact it doesnt.
So that means the reason we dont see third parties win in recent history is clearly for a reason OTHER than FPTP voting, namely, the fantasy that it is a 2 party system when it isnt, or the fantasy that FPTP will guarantee a 2 party system when it doesn't. The only thing that keeps a 2 party system alive is the conspiracy theory that FPTP forces a 2 party system.
That wasnt what I claimed, in fact the opposite. I said FPTP **does** cause 2 of the choices to generally get the vast majority of votes. What it doesnt cause is the same 2 choices to be picked every time you have a vote... In other words the only thing FPTP causes is the top two choices for any year will get 95%+ of the vote, but it does not in anyway ensure the same 2 top choices from 4 years ago will be the top 2 choices this year.
Thuis GPTP does **not** cause the same two parties to stay in power, it does cause quick jumps in party favoritism without a gradual transition... In other words A: 48% B: 48% C: 4% may switch the next year to A:48% B: 4% C: 48% in the next year without seeing an incremental shift. But there is nothing about FPTP that would prevent parties from changing.
Thus yes, the idea that FPTP means the same 2 parties will remain in power is completely a conspiracy theory. The idea that it creates skewed voting results is not.
@freemo @Hyolobrika @DrALJONES Again, party switch ups doesn't disprove that FPTP pushes towards two parties. Its not a conspiracy.