"We need to talk seriously about general strikes, about breaking quorum, about exploiting parliamentary procedure to ensure that Republican legislation doesn't get through." (Kat Abughazaleh) : progressivepolitics

[–] tiredofsametab@fedia.io 4 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

This autoplays for anyone else who doesn't want to be jumpscared :/

[–] CubitOom@infosec.pub 2 points 2 hours ago

I think that depends on you client, but yes it does autoplay for me, lol.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 17 points 4 hours ago

For the record, this is exactly how Democrats win leftist and (otherwise) abstaining votes. The ones who can't be satisfied and will never vote D are the lying embarrassed centrists.

[–] Fourth@mander.xyz 14 points 4 hours ago

Massively, incredibly based

[–] Alfredolin@sopuli.xyz 6 points 6 hours ago

Content might be very good and interesting, but the subtitle format is a huge PITA (can't have sound right now).

[–] CreamyJalapenoSauce@piefed.social 21 points 9 hours ago (7 children)

I loathe the term influencer. I hate that the word implies 1) that's their sole purpose, 2) they're actually capable of it, and 3) it paints people who take in their content as sheep looking for influence.

That, and it sounds like none of those apply to her.

[–] glimse@lemmy.world 12 points 7 hours ago

Kat is the real deal. And she's married to the owner of The Onion so she's definitely cool too

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 4 points 7 hours ago

they’re looking to be comped stuff because they’re “influencers”

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 6 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Apologies for the snark. Misread your reply.

[–] CreamyJalapenoSauce@piefed.social 3 points 6 hours ago

I wasn't fast enough to read the snark, regardless I appreciate the re-evaluation.

load more comments (4 replies)

[+] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works -8 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

https://chicago.suntimes.com/elections/2026/candidate-questionnaires/kat-abughazaleh-illinois-primary-9th-congressional-district

She's pretty pro-war with China which is an unfortunate inconsistency.

Everytime a candidate expressing support for progressive policy comes forward it's like our system injects a dose of Kissinger's blood directly into their brain.

[–] Soggy@lemmy.world 12 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Pretty big leap from "Taiwan deserves self-determination and we should assist them how we can" to "pro war-with-China" you made there.

[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

I envision a two-part credible deterrence plan that turns Taiwan into a “porcupine” too costly for the PRC to invade, by providing them with weapons to defend themselves and committing to actually defending the island if they do invade.

It's more the military armament implementation as a pre-emptive and deterrant policy. So perhaps 'pro-MIC including war with China' might've been more technically correct? Or a less globalized M.A.D. policy? Localized?

Nonetheless she's probably going to be no worse and probably better than the retiring incumbent at any rate, so I can even just chalk it up as an electoral strategy.

[–] Soggy@lemmy.world 5 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

If a defense strategy doesn't include "we will use weapons to stop you from doing this" it isn't actually a defense plan, it's a strongly worded letter.

[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Sure, but:

without touching the political One China Policy outlined in the Shanghai Communiqué

Coupling that with increasing armaments is what spurred the Kissinger reference. It kinda constrains the trajectory to escalating towards war.

Which, well, as we are seeing unfold with Iran now and have with the American boondoggles of the 21st century, may not serve Taiwan or the US in the long run.

[–] Soggy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Lip service must be given to the OCP lest Mainland China decide playing the long game isn't worth it. Speaking against the policy is a signal that the only legitimate claim to Taiwan is through force, while also jeopardizing trade with the entire West Pacific.

[–] CubitOom@infosec.pub 5 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Is providing Ukraine aid and arms pro-war?

[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Ukraine is an active warzone, so that switch is already flipped.

As a policy of deterrent though, arming a proxy nation to the teeth I do find to be pro-war.

[–] CubitOom@infosec.pub 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

But, if they are in an active war. Wouldn't sending them aid and arms prolong the war? Wouldn't that be pro-war according to how I understand your argument? Perhaps it might even lead to more deaths then if Russia would just conquer it without the ability for Ukraine to resist invasion.

Pro-war doesn't mean just preparing for war right? It means a desire for war.

(For the record, I think we should be sending aid and arms to Ukraine. I'm just trying to follow your logic.)

[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 1 points 54 minutes ago (1 children)

But, if they are in an active war. Wouldn't sending them aid and arms prolong the war? Wouldn't that be pro-war according to how I understand your argument?

Sending an active war aid and arms is pro-war by using that logic, yes. But that's not the point I was making, which was to armaments as a deterrent strategy. I simply don't think it prevents war, like a deterrent would or should.

To me the pro-war aspect is not the scale of destruction or costs as it is whether pathways to peace or diplomacy are being closed off, or otherwise escalating military tensions and provocations. The destructive costs are double edged, which is the basis of my view, and why I don't support the more death and destruction rationale to deterrence.

(For the record, I think we should be sending aid and arms to Ukraine. I'm just trying to follow your logic.)

And I don't fault that, really. There are different goals in play than preventing war once war starts.

So like Kat's saying do with Taiwan what wasn't done with Ukraine by committing to a defense of Taiwan maximizing armament and commiting direct intervention. To me that's a pro-war position, albeit one agnostic to whether it pays off or not. (I generally think it doesn't work out long-term.) But not touching the One China Policy, however is where the Kissinger red flags started flying for me.

(And for the record I think she's going to win and I don't have a problem with that. She'll likely/hopefully be better than who she is replacing. My current rep is a Zionist so if anything I'd take a China hawk like Kat if I could hotswap.)

[–] CubitOom@infosec.pub 2 points 29 minutes ago* (last edited 21 minutes ago) (1 children)

Ukraine giving up it's nukes was one of the reasons it was invaded. Also, the US promised to defend Ukraine incase it was attacked as part of the negotiations for them giving up their nukes, but that promise was broken.

For more info in the topic, see Ukraine and weapons of mass destruction

Ukraine inherited about 130 UR-100N intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) with six warheads each, 46 RT-23 Molodets ICBMs with ten warheads apiece, as well as 33 heavy bombers, totaling approximately 1,700 nuclear warheads that remained on Ukrainian territory.[2] Thus Ukraine became the third largest nuclear power in the world (possessing 300 more nuclear warheads than Kazakhstan, 6.5 times less than the United States, and ten times less than Russia)[3] and held about one third of the former Soviet nuclear weapons, delivery system, and significant knowledge of its design and production.[4]

...

In 1994, Ukraine agreed to transfer these weapons to Russia for dismantlement and became a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, in exchange for economic compensation and assurances from Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom to respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within its existing borders.[6][7] Almost twenty years later, Russia, one of the parties to the agreement, invaded Ukraine in 2014 and subsequently also from 2022 onwards.

[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 1 points 15 minutes ago

but that promise was broken.

That is ultimately where my criticism falls to. I believe the US and NATO powers cynically never had any intention to back up Ukraine to ths extent being promised. Both then and now.

Overpromising and underdelivering is a pattern I want broken.

Like, I want my country to be subject to international law and the ICC. I would love to see many of my elected leaders arrested for war crimes. (And the whole other thing with the pedophilia.)

Honestly I think dragging Bibi and Trump to the Hague would be one of the strongest actual deterrents of more war around the globe.

[–] BigMacHole@sopuli.xyz 49 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

But THAT would be Political! INSTEAD we should WAG our Fingers!

-Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries!

[–] AmbitiousProcess@piefed.social 14 points 10 hours ago

AND write a strongly worded letter! They'll back down after THAT!

[–] chaogomu@lemmy.world 5 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Both of those people will be out come November. They might be reelected to office, but they're done as congressional leaders.

The chair of the DNC has shifted to someone who likes Mamdani, and is backing similar candidates.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Both of those people will be out come November

They might be reelected to office

but they're done as congressional leaders.

[–] chaogomu@lemmy.world 3 points 6 hours ago

There's this;

https://democrats.org/news/dnc-and-asdc-announces-organize-everywhere-win-anywhere-strategy-largest-ever-monthly-dnc-investment-into-democratic-state-and-territory-parties/

[–] rainbowbunny@slrpnk.net 19 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

We need to gut the Dem party from within and make it leftist in order to get RCV.

[–] chaogomu@lemmy.world 7 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Well, the DNC chair has passed to someone who is willing to actually back the left.

Sadly RCV is just a bad system.

It's better than Plurality, but when you dig into the mathematic details of RCV, it's just as broken as Plurality, just in new an horrible ways.

Arrow's Impossibility Theorium says that all Ordinal voting systems are shit. They all have a spoiler effect. It's just a question of when does it kick in.

All that said, there is a much better system. A Cardinal system called STAR.

A breakdown can be found at www.starvoting.org

The short of it is that instead of a meaningless ranking, you rate.each candidate on a scale of 0-5, and candidates may share ratings.

Those ratings are then counted independently of each other. The two highest rated candidates then go onto an automatic second step that incentivises the use.if the lower end of the scale for candidates you don't like. You see which of the final two candidates are rated higher on each ballot.

If your bottom two candidates make it to the final step, and you rated one as a 2, and the other a 0, the 2 gets your final vote.

No thrown out ballots because of ballot exhaustion. They all get counted and even the losing side has a slight say in who is elected. Which would prevent another Trump completely.

[–] nialv7@lemmy.world 4 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

this comparison table here actually shows STAR is a pretty terrible system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_electoral_systems

[–] chaogomu@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Some of those criterion are odd, and yeah, most don't even apply to STAR, because it's Cardinal and not Ordinal.

Bit it's also important to know why and how the criterion are applied.

Like being cloneproof,

This wiki, (which is better for election specific stuff) says this;

STAR voting

STAR voting consists of an automatic runoff between the two candidates with the highest rated scores. Suppose we use the rated definition of cloning, where a candidate's clones have scores nearly identical to the candidate who was cloned. If the winner in STAR voting differs from the Range voting winner, then cloning the latter will make him or her win. Therefore, STAR voting has a teaming incentive.

A bit later is says this;

Notes

Clone-negative methods can be argued to be better than clone-positive methods, because in a clone-negative methods, the clones may be more likely to drop out of the election, giving voters more of a say on the remaining candidates, whereas with clone-positive methods, the election result can come down primarily to which candidates run more clones of themselves. Such behavior has been observed with the Borda count.[6]

It's a weakness, and it's important to know about, but it's not election breaking, it just renders the automatic runoff meaningless. Except it doesn't because people still care about the who, even if the platforms are identical.

An election breaking criterion to fail would be Monotonicity. STAR satisfies it.

[–] adhd_traco@piefed.social 27 points 11 hours ago (3 children)

What she says about organising to help poor folx...

Here in this country in the middle east, where things are in full-swing Ramadan, people gather to prepare tables and bring food to feed EVERYONE, every single day. This is not organised by the government, but by every day people. The only thing that brings them together is a belief that it's important. Some do it with no regard for others, but simply because they think that's what god wants them to do, and so on. And I don't subscribe any religion, or wanna fan Islam. But I think it shows what power we have.

[–] deacon@lemmy.world 10 points 9 hours ago

This is really encouraging to read.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 13 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

Here in America there are some people doing something like that. Food Not Bombs is the classic example for good reason, but we really need more people to know that groups exist to join, and frameworks exist to create groups if none do exist.

If you're hungry or want to feed the hungry, and you're in the US look into fnb. They don't ask questions, they don't care if you can afford food (though they ask that those who can comfortably afford food aim for the back of the line to ensure that if there isn't enough the needier are prioritized), they don't care if you think the beliefs the organization is founded on are stupid. It's just food for the community.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 31 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

Polling looks not bad but not great. Biss is a solid handful of points in the lead, but with Fine in the mix, they are clearly splitting the NPR liberal demographic.

The polling was also a telephone poll and Abugazala does best with the 18-35 and 35-45 groups. She does have a commanding lead in the 18-35:s at 90%+.

If she wins the primary it's going to look like an upset, but it will be for the work theyve done on the ground building a basis of suport

[–] crank0271@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I'm most surprised that they found more than ten 18 - 35 year olds to pick up the phone (from an unknown number, at that).

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

If Kat has been focusing on growing voters into the coalition, they'll do great.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 9 points 9 hours ago

"Campaign office doubling as a mutual aid hub" is pretty neat.

[–] Paragone@lemmy.world 7 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Ah: somebody who actually understands that the country is in the process of being highjacked..

Too little, too late, I'm afraid, but glad somebody got it!

_ /\ _

[–] Soulg@ani.social 10 points 10 hours ago

The majority of the country gets it actually

Progressive Politics