How do you figure? I have explained why creating your own party cannot possibly work, so how would that be anything other than ignoring the system to chase an impossible goal?

Is ignoring the abandonment of the actual mechanisms of reform not ignoring the system? I think I am pretty justified in interpreting it that way, but you didn’t really expand and just game me a “Not with that attitude.” with your last comment.

Not with any attitude.

These are the realities of the american political system.

To ignore those realities is to support many many people being discriminated against and potential dying.

You can’t fix a system by ignoring it.

It is impossible, as in unlikely to the point that discussing it is counter productive, to start a new party, and win in the USA with its current system.

The presidency position is too powerful, gerrymandering, billionaire controlled media and voter suppression would make it too difficult to actually secure even one ounce of useful power in the house or congress, and you’d need to hit a critical mass quickly enough that fascism hadn’t already taken over (you’re already past this point).

Your only play, and I mean only, is somehow keeping democracy limping into 2026, campaigning your asses off for the democrats even though we all think they are mid, and somehow getting enough seats in the senate to impeach and remove trump.

There aren’t really any other viable win conditions.

We can’t just gleefully stick our heads in the sand and hope that wishful thinking cloud 9 dream idealistic goals will happen.

This is not realistic and only results in the fascist coming to power.

A system that is all or nothing or first past the post mathematically results in a 2 party system as any time one side fractures, the other side wins disincentivising people from fracturing and creating only 2 groups. You can’t escape this reality, so truly, the only option forward is long slow and unfun as described, because what you’ve described is essentially what Russian backed Jill Stein is, and exactly why Russia want her to steal votes from democrats.

The system you want can only come about after years of the boring, long, unfun stuff I described resulting in proportional representation. Anything other than proportional representation pushes any political system back down to 2 major sides and any other parties being largely irrelevant. Parliamentary systems make them slightly more relevant with coalitions and such, but still, you just can’t win the way you’ve described.

Thats in an ideal world, but its not practical for the US in particular because their system only allows for 2 parties.

In fact, many systems boil down to that due to first past the post forcing people to vote strategically instead of for the party that best represents them.

In reality, people have to vote strategically and then use internal party politics such as primaries to shift the party to a more progressive place.

Threatening to make them lose only means the worse party comes into power and rachets everything backwards far more than leaving them in place.

I mean, funny meme but people don’t care about me. They care about the society they live in. The comment on the left is about personal connection. On the right-hand side its abstracted out more, at a higher level.

I like framerates over 100 even for “cinematic” games because it just feels better.

Like Cyberpunk is single player, but near 100FPS just feels so much better than 60fps and you get a lot less eye strain.

I always feel like the lower the framerate in game, the more processing my brain is doing to tell me that the game is fluid motion.

Of course its a complicated topic that has to do with animation consistency etc but higher is generally a lot better.

Something people often miss, is that a violent revolution is extremely painful, and has no guarantees of ever actually fixing the problem.

You need to have a very progressive government come in to fix all of the problems caused by fascism, as fascism almost always relies on an ignorant, angry population, that should be angry at wealth disparity and societal problems, but have had that anger redirected at marginalized people.

The thing is, how do you go from violence, to a progressive, reasonable government.

Even in Germany, their nazi party continues to gain steam over time.

It seems that the core problem is that money people would prefer anything except making the world fairer/making them make less money through taxes, or having them have to follow the same laws as everyone else, or losing their corrupt socialism for the rich and rugged boot strapped individualism for the poor.

It seems universal that the rich would rather redirect anger at the marginalized groups than that any hits to their wealth.

The thing is, the wealth problem is inevitably going to go out of control, so the question really is, how can we stop people from having their warranted anger, redirected in an unwarranted fashion, and I have no idea how to do that.

I feel like 30% of the population is naturally filled with hate, 50% go whichever way they think the public opinion is going, and 20% who generally try to do good by others.

The rich owning media and social media means that they effectively can control what the public opinion appears to be, and therefore can with significant effectiveness control that middle 50%.

Its happened with the Nazis and while not the same style of thing, happens with China and is happening in the US.

We badly need people to get out of the billionaire controlled bubbles they’re in but places like where we are right now struggle to hit critical mass.

This kinda got rambly but I really don’t have a positive outlook, because it looks like people will be passive until people are dying en masse.

I mean, just look at the recent protests. Its nice so many people cared, but 7 million, lets say 10 to be generous is not even 1% of the population, and they can effectively ignore them.

Anything else, any suggestions of civil disobedience or anything that could be considered violent rhetoric cant even be discussed on most platforms.

People also no longer have third spaces and cant really assemble for this like they used to be able to.

Basically, I’m not sure its possible to have a modern day super pair like Malcom X and MLK where one is the stick, and the other is the notes.

I think this type of thinking ends up being quite self defeating.

We should evaluate all politicians as vessels to carry out the will of the people.

When you consider them as such, not as people or entities to assign blame, as your goal is to be pragmatic, you look at their incentives and track records instead.

I think leftists often have this self defeating problem of being unable to stomach the fact that they will not get their ideal politician, and there will be no sudden uprising.

As a result, they often will criticize the politicians closest too them too loudly, ending up supporting “both sides” notions that cause voter apathy and let quite literally fascists win instead.

What I am saying is that we have to be pragmatic.

Particularly for the US, people have to realize that yes, while the DNC sucks, the democrats are the only practical, realistic way for people to actually end up winning.

Its long, slow, and no fun at all, but people have to support them publicly, and acknowledge their faults in ways that don’t dissuade voters from voting for them. They then must also vote in increasingly progressive candidates in primaries and local politics.

Anything else is simply grabbing a foot gun, because this imperfect system is very slow, and won’t change over night.

They cannot.

The republican party is complicit, and supports the evil he does, and more than that, he commands their supporters, so it would be political suicide for them.

Why can’t the democrats? The republicans control all 4 parts of government and even if they had control over the senate, they would need 60% of the votes, a number that is unprecedented in recent times.