Yeah but it also gets used to sweep normal people into all that neo-nazism because they’re poorly educated and will believe whoever they think has authority to speak on the subject. The GOP can’t be defeated by calling them evil. They have to be defeated by stopping away their authority and exposing, in plain and simple terms, how they’re all hypocrites and that they will throw ALL OF US into the fire, not just the people whose identities are confusing.

The hate they are engineering is deliberate, but it isn’t because they all personally hate queer people. It’s because they do not care about any of us, and queer people are the easiest group to misinform the public about, so they can fear-monger and keep us putting out fires.

I’m not saying we should stop putting out the fires, I’m saying we should recognize that the fires aren’t the goal.

Cruelty is happening to whomever is easiest to target for cruelty. Conservativism always leverages that to allow for hate to take deeper roots. Because people who operate solely off of hate are the easiest to control of all

Nothing but the WEFs opposite number, a convenient boogie man.

It is part of what 2A was actually meant for.

Would be interesting to see who comes out on top in a battle. A Gravy SEAL or a yoga instructor. One has gun accuracy, the other has everything else.

But I’m sure by day 30 everyone’s over it after another country swoops in to annex during the instability. It’s not like allies can do anything until that point, and then there’ll be that whole rule of engagement where they can’t involve or engage with any Gravy SEALs or yoga instructors unless fired upon first. Which I imagine would happen a lot since the militias have never been “well regulated” and are in no way ready for combat, let alone identifying what’s friendly or foe.

“Whoah! Stop shooting! We’re England!”

“The hell you boys doin’ 'ere?”

“The annexation.”

“The wha?”

“You’re losing your country to Russia and China for like eight months now.”

“We are?”

“Yeah, most of the west coast is already their’s. We’re trying to hold them off-”

“California too?”

“Yes. That’s where they landed.”

“Buddy, that is great news! I gotta report this to HQ.” crosses street to Taco Bell “Captain Grand Wizard, we fuckin’ did it!”

Upvoted because you have a point. This is literally why we need the 2A and “assault weapons”. At least, for now, but it will be a long time and a lot of work before the US can be the utopia people wanting to ban guns think it would be.

A Donkey Vote isn’t the same thing as an Informal Vote. A Donkey Vote means simply numbering the candidates in the order they appear on the ballot. In other words, a thoughtless vote that any donkey could do.

This is why there’s a benefit to appearing in the first spot and why the impartial and independent Australian Electoral Commission (another invaluable aspect of Australian democracy) randomly determines candidate order.

Most commonly suggested voting systems are better than FPTP, usually by a lot.

Mixed, as it is in every wealthy country that has more people wanting to move here than move away from here. Because we have such a large migrant population though it is difficult for politicians to gain traction by being outright anti-immigrant.

How about Coal?

They serve a purpose. Definitely need a restructuring though.

I find it amusing that you’re being downvoted by people who likely also claim ACAB and want to “defund the police”, since DHS and FBI are federal law enforcement, aka federal police.

Sorry FBI is useful. DHS is tedious, but it would just get rolled into another agency if it shuttered.

Do you honestly think a significant amount of skilled workers will leave America? Do you think other countries would take us?

Like, I get it. I’ve humored moving to Canada, but it ain’t easy to just up and leave everything. Especially when most people can barely achieve $5k in savings.

Only here to add onto the UK thing, a big part of the reason the conservatives lost in the UK is because a new-ish party which leans much further right (the reform party) got decently popular, draining away a large proprtion of the voter base.

While the reform party got the same amount seats in parliament as a left leaning but still small party (green), their share of the vote was much larger. So the UK is not neccesarily sick of the far right, just the tories. Its possible the new government will be effective enough to keep the right at bay, but the current state of the labour party is one of a once centre left party sliding further and further right with their leader’s policy on things like the EU and certain marginalised minorities.

My overview is quite biased as i am a left leaning person, and i have ignored things such as the lib dems who gained massive popularity but could’ve split the left wing vote in turn. Its possible that the lib dems could represent the new left of the UK, or that the combined lib dem and labour vote is what we should consider the left.

Wait, hang on. I didn’t mean I want Trump to win. Trump in charge is a global catastrophe. I’m just saying that Ron DeSantis or something, in charge of the machine that’s now been created for Trump, would be a several times worse catastrophe.

I’m saying that defeating Trump is absolutely vital, and that we’re a little bit lucky that it’s Trump, because he’ll be a lot easier to defeat than a lot of other people that might have been in charge of all this stuff that’s been building ever since Roger Ailes had his bright idea, now that it’s come to its fruition.

That too, yes. But my main point is that Trump is such a disorganized moron that I think it’s possible that having him at the helm will undo a lot of the potential effectiveness of Project 2025. Having almost anyone else in charge of its implementation will amp up the terrifyingness level by quite a bit, and it already wasn’t small.

The Overton window is a measurement of acceptable political discourse. You shift it by vocally expressing unpopular public opinions in the public sphere, not by voting. Voting is supposed to be an expression of popular public opinion, not the other way around.

Sometimes the most effective way to change things is by threatening not to vote and convincing other people to do likewise. The most famous use of this tactic was by the civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr.

In the 1960s black people were much more actively discriminated against on a systemic level, practically prevented from voting in many of the states in the southern United States. The president at the time was the Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson, and was facing the much more racist Republican challenger Barry Goldwater. While the black vote was suppressed in the south, there was a significant voting block in the north of black people and their allies whose main issue was civil rights. Civil rights leaders, including Martin Luther King, met several times with LBJ, who coaxed them to tone down the direct action protests and criticism until after the election, as he claimed to we willing to negotiate with them once the threat to his power was diminished. Instead, civil rights protests increased. The leaders, probably correctly, determined that once the election was over, they would have less leverage. Even though losing the election meant having an enemy in the white house, having a ‘friend’ who continued to delay essential concessions did not further their cause. People were actively being murdered by the ‘Jim Crow’ apartheid regime, and delays and half-measures were not sufficient.

Thanks to the pressure of millions of people engaged in direct action and open criticism of the president, the Civil Rights Act was passed before the 1964 election. LBJ won by a landslide due to the popularity of the legislation, but suffered the severe political consequences Democrats were trying to avoid through their strategy of placation and delay. The 1964 election was the last where Democrats got the majority of the white vote, and electing politicians in the southern states became much more difficult for their party. Palestinian Americans and their allies now face a similar situation. Democrats will continue to ignore the genocide in Gaza unless there are real political consequences to their actions. While Donald Trump would be a significantly worse candidate, the logic of a two-party system requires that they be willing to risk a worse political situation if they are to hold any political power at all.

Civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King are regarded as heroes today, but at the time, they were reviled by both Democrats and Republicans as a force of chaos that acted out of ignorance of the political system. If LBJ had lost the election to Goldwater, perhaps their legacy would be considered differently. But it would not change the fact that the cause they were fighting for was just, and they were able to wield political power in a system that was designed to marginalize them.

If Trump gets elected, you may start getting shot for fighting for a better world via direct action. Or for many other things.

I’m OP; I posted the list. Yeah, I know. We’re already dodging police tear-gas canisters fired at head-level and Zionist vigilantes, I expect bullets next.