What you’re talking about is idealism. In a perfect world you would be correct. In a perfect world the US could have affordable and efficient mass transit within a few years. In a perfect world we could end climate change in just a few years. When your argument is based on a state of the world that doesn’t exist the point of the argument is immediately useless.
This is the problem with the anti-work movement, the anti-car movement, and people who are anti-single family homes. The arguments they make are theoretically possible, but getting enough people to move in tandem to that is just never going to happen so belaboring the point over and over is just not helpful.
We live in a world where the US has 2 political parties, if one wins we get a beige moderate government, if the other wins we get Project 2025. If your idealism makes it so hard for you to determine which outcome you want then literally nothing can be done for you. If you have the idea that letting the republicans win so that then a true progressive party can exist then you need to look at history because right wing dictators historically kill the idealistic liberals and progressives right behind the Jews, POC, and homosexuals.
Well I disagree that my view isnt possible. It very much is, and is likely the only way to break the two party system to begin with.
Other than that we would have to convince politicians to give away power, which is very unlikely.
And I already voted for Kamala but she wasnt the best choice for me by much, and I’m not saying trump was second. But that has more to do with the state I’m in than anything. If I was a county over I would have voted for a third party.
Your disagreement has about as much weight and value as a flat earther disagreeing that the world is round.
Other than that we would have to convince politicians to give away power, which is very unlikely.
Which is why your disagreement doesn’t matter.
And I already voted for Kamala but she wasnt the best choice for me by much, and I’m not saying trump was second. But that has more to do with the state I’m in than anything. If I was a county over I would have voted for a third party.
Hey that’s totally fair, I’m not saying she should be everyone’s preferred choice, but people are going around in circles saying that they won’t vote for Kamala like they don’t understand the ramifications of that. We have a two party system, those parties aren’t vague ideas but private corporate entities with tax benefits and assets. After Bernie lost in 2016 there was a lawsuit that alleged that the DNC had committed fraud by making certain efforts to ensure Hillary won the primary. The result of the case was that they found the proof and the DNC chair persons admitted it in court. The result was that the case was dismissed, nothing illegal was done, donating to the party or voting in the primaries makes no promise that a candidate you pick will win the primary. The judge basically said that the parties private entities that are allowed to conduct their party business the way they want.
The system that exists is built to keep it two parties and benefits those two parties.
If you’re in a county or state where your vote won’t matter than do what you want. My state lets you vote in either primary so I voted in the Republican Primary because we will go Republican and I at least wanted to have a say on who would be getting state positions.
My view has as much weight as yours, neither of our positions has been proven to lead to long term change, but at least mine hasnt been tried over and over like yours has been.
I guess we will just have to keep waiting for the magical election where its not the end of the country if the republicans win.
This is literally what conspiracy theorists and nut jobs say as well. You are entitled to have your own opinion and to say what you want, but that doesn’t make it equal. What is different between the current system and your view is that the current system has actually been in place and working for more than a hundred years. Until you can come up with a way to get from the inception of your idea to a completed system then your view has no weight. You want to wail against the system, but you want other people to figure out how to make your view work. As I said in my initial comment to you, that’s just idealism.
What exactly gives your idea weight? What is your idea to change from the current system to a better one again? I’m sure you have a proven model for this right? Or do you know just as little as I do about how to reform the two party system into something better?
I don’t have a novel idea, I’m not trying to change the two party system that exists. The fact that the current two party system has been in existence since 1932 and the overall structure has existed since 1854 is what gives it weight and value. It’s continued existence is what proves the model. The burden of proof is on those who wish to change the system, not on those participating in the current one.
People have wanted to end the two party system basically from it’s inception, yet despite that there has never been significant enough traction to make that happen. At best detractors have replaced one of the two parties, but the overall number of parties and their operation has remained the same.
So you see the problem here right? You think its impossible to change the system, and I think its very possible. Maybe with more years I’ll slide closer to your position though.
Why are we so preoccupied with ensuring the party we hate most loses, rather than focusing on the party you want most winning.
I’d rather everyone vote closest to their actual morals and values, and give no consideration to who loses.
If we keep fighting over who’s the biggest loser, how can we possibly expect things to improve?
What you’re talking about is idealism. In a perfect world you would be correct. In a perfect world the US could have affordable and efficient mass transit within a few years. In a perfect world we could end climate change in just a few years. When your argument is based on a state of the world that doesn’t exist the point of the argument is immediately useless.
This is the problem with the anti-work movement, the anti-car movement, and people who are anti-single family homes. The arguments they make are theoretically possible, but getting enough people to move in tandem to that is just never going to happen so belaboring the point over and over is just not helpful.
We live in a world where the US has 2 political parties, if one wins we get a beige moderate government, if the other wins we get Project 2025. If your idealism makes it so hard for you to determine which outcome you want then literally nothing can be done for you. If you have the idea that letting the republicans win so that then a true progressive party can exist then you need to look at history because right wing dictators historically kill the idealistic liberals and progressives right behind the Jews, POC, and homosexuals.
Well I disagree that my view isnt possible. It very much is, and is likely the only way to break the two party system to begin with.
Other than that we would have to convince politicians to give away power, which is very unlikely.
And I already voted for Kamala but she wasnt the best choice for me by much, and I’m not saying trump was second. But that has more to do with the state I’m in than anything. If I was a county over I would have voted for a third party.
Your disagreement has about as much weight and value as a flat earther disagreeing that the world is round.
Which is why your disagreement doesn’t matter.
Hey that’s totally fair, I’m not saying she should be everyone’s preferred choice, but people are going around in circles saying that they won’t vote for Kamala like they don’t understand the ramifications of that. We have a two party system, those parties aren’t vague ideas but private corporate entities with tax benefits and assets. After Bernie lost in 2016 there was a lawsuit that alleged that the DNC had committed fraud by making certain efforts to ensure Hillary won the primary. The result of the case was that they found the proof and the DNC chair persons admitted it in court. The result was that the case was dismissed, nothing illegal was done, donating to the party or voting in the primaries makes no promise that a candidate you pick will win the primary. The judge basically said that the parties private entities that are allowed to conduct their party business the way they want.
The system that exists is built to keep it two parties and benefits those two parties.
If you’re in a county or state where your vote won’t matter than do what you want. My state lets you vote in either primary so I voted in the Republican Primary because we will go Republican and I at least wanted to have a say on who would be getting state positions.
My view has as much weight as yours, neither of our positions has been proven to lead to long term change, but at least mine hasnt been tried over and over like yours has been.
I guess we will just have to keep waiting for the magical election where its not the end of the country if the republicans win.
This is literally what conspiracy theorists and nut jobs say as well. You are entitled to have your own opinion and to say what you want, but that doesn’t make it equal. What is different between the current system and your view is that the current system has actually been in place and working for more than a hundred years. Until you can come up with a way to get from the inception of your idea to a completed system then your view has no weight. You want to wail against the system, but you want other people to figure out how to make your view work. As I said in my initial comment to you, that’s just idealism.
What exactly gives your idea weight? What is your idea to change from the current system to a better one again? I’m sure you have a proven model for this right? Or do you know just as little as I do about how to reform the two party system into something better?
I don’t have a novel idea, I’m not trying to change the two party system that exists. The fact that the current two party system has been in existence since 1932 and the overall structure has existed since 1854 is what gives it weight and value. It’s continued existence is what proves the model. The burden of proof is on those who wish to change the system, not on those participating in the current one.
People have wanted to end the two party system basically from it’s inception, yet despite that there has never been significant enough traction to make that happen. At best detractors have replaced one of the two parties, but the overall number of parties and their operation has remained the same.
So you see the problem here right? You think its impossible to change the system, and I think its very possible. Maybe with more years I’ll slide closer to your position though.