1224
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez lays out battle plan against 'shockingly dim' Trump White House
(www.rawstory.com)
this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2025
1224 points (99.0% liked)
politics
19722 readers
4628 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
That would be a great plan if the Dems were not spineless at best and complicit at worse
People see comments like this and get discouraged to vote or do anything meaningful. Life is choosing the lesser of two evils. By not choosing you have chosen the greater evil thus making you complicit.
Bullshit. Electoral reform in the blue states must happen. Red states as well but we all know republicans stance on more democracy.
Democrats have lost their "we are the only people resisting the republicans" privilege. They should have lost it long ago but we sure gave em every chance we could. No more chances, no more safe states/seats.
This shouldn't be hard to pass. Alaska already has a Ranked choice voting system. Plus Democrats are huge democracy supporters... right?
Videos on Electoral Reform
First Past The Post voting (What most states use now)
Videos on alternative electoral systems we can try out.
STAR voting
Alternative vote
Ranked Choice voting
Range Voting
Single Transferable Vote
Mixed Member Proportional representation
If you do electoral reform in just the blue states, you strengthen the republicans who will then take all of the red states, and get a bit of some blue states
Who says electoral reform only happens in blue states? Alaska has always been Republican since the beginning of its statehood but they have better electoral system with its ranked choice voting.
Fact of the matter is that most Americans are somewhere in the middle, and have more in common than you would be led to believe. Social media being controlled by powers that be divide and conquer the hearts and minds of ordinary Americans. If Alaska managed to even have a progressive system despite being a red state, then so are others. Get like-minded people in red states to also organise. Contrary to stereotype, there are many conservatives who are sane and also agree that money in politics is the major problem. You just haven't found them.
The comment I replied to
Judging from the downvotes, there are plenty of liberals who benefit from the status quo and choosing to be tone deaf.
Yes, that's more or less central to liberalism.
Always.
That lesser evil still don't want Medicare for all, raise the federal minimum wage, and building more affordable housing-- all of which are actually what suffocate many Americans in the ever worsening wealth inequality. That's why people took the chance to vote Trump who promised tax cut, even though most Americans know they it doesn't actually benefit them but the 1%.
Look outside of the American mainstream news bubble and discourse that want you to pick the two lesser evils, instead of thinking outside the box. The only way for ordinary Americans to win basic rights is to organise and mobilise by advocating both ranked choice voting and promoting third parties. It won't happen in federal level so start on the local and state levels, and the changes will go up the chain to federal level. It's not like Americans haven't gone and out mobilised before for a better change. The people simply need to rediscover that they have the power.
Bad Change - Republicans
"Fundamentally nothing will change" - Democrats
Change Americans need - ?
You will be happy with the breadcrumbs we give you or you are getting a bad change from Republicans. - Democrats
Americans want Medicare for all, raising minimum wage and affordable housing, which Democrats are voting down. If you don't recognise that then you benefit from the status quo and refuse to admit it.
You will be happy with the bad change we give you because the bad change from republicans will be worse - democrats.
Hang on. You're saying that Democrats want bad change. But the other guy says nothing will change. Do liberals want change or no change? I'm so confused. No wonder the Democrats would rather lose.
Two people can speculate differently concerning the same set of circumstances. I hope this clears things up for you.
Let the greater of two evils win until there's a perfect option to vote for. Got it.
Eight hour working day, even the basic implementation of minimum wage, forbidding child labour, abolishing slavery, women being allowed to work outside their home and even 14-day paid leave were once considered "not perfect".
Do you know how these aforementioned basic rights and privileges we take for granted were actually achieved? Organising. But of course liberals won't get it. They benefit from the status quo. Either that or many Americans have been conditioned to think within an allowed frame of discourse by corporations and its media.
Hey, if you organise but vote D in the cases where it's the best chance to keep R out, I'm happy
If you don't vote D in the cases where it's the best chance to keep R out, you're effectively supporting R regardless what you're telling yourself. If you're also organising, nice, but if your organising is to convince more people to effectively support R like you, we'd all be better off if you quit.
Who says vote D or R? Organise to have other third parties. They may not have a chance to win in federal elections, but they do well in local and state elections. Then work your way up to influence the federal government (and it's not like there has never been a third party gaining seats in Congress and Senate).
Read the quote from Noam Chomsky. You're being bamboozled to think tribally. You probably just don't hear about third parties in local and state level because the media wants you think within a spectrum of thoughts they allow people to have. Think outside the box. There are many other options.
Go for it, but also vote D where they're the only realistic option to R.
Otherwise, support for a third party becomes support for R, as previously with the greens
Lol. You're still missing the point. Democrats are still the same people who don't want any third parties to be elected. Why would they allow that to happen if the current system is what also puts them in power like the Republicans?
Think outside the box.
well, have fun keeping R in power then
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
So shut up and be happy.
*Life in MURICA...