You're viewing a single thread.
Europeans need to understand that winning elections in the US really just means convincing 10,000-20,000 people in about 5 states who decide who to vote for a couple days before the election.
If this news plants a small seed of sympathy for Trump in the minds of those undecided voters it will swing the election.
Our democracy is really pretty terribly implemented.
It's not really a democracy. Public opinion has absolutely no impact on whether something is made law or changed. The overwhelming majority of Americans support legalizing weed and medicare for all but neither goes anywhere.
The US is an oligarchy that pretends to be a democracy to get people fighting culture wars instead of class wars.
Excuse me, that's a representative oligarchy
if its not from the bribery region of france then its just sparkling corruption
slowclap.gif
The overwhelming majority of Americans support legalizing weed and medicare for all but neither goes anywhere.
-
Legalizing weed has made massive strides in the past decade, after some 50 years of drug war.
The only reason the first one is true because it's something the states can actually do. Not sure if any states have been trying to make a healthcare plan but I imagine that's a lot harder to do then just saying weed is legal now. Basically right now stuff only gets done at a state level in America anymore with how divided and unproductive Congress is.
Massachusetts has had a very effective single payer healthcare system for decades.
MA is basically the equivalent of a northern European country hiding in the US. Honestly, it'd pretty much be an oasis, save for the fact nobody can actually afford to live there.
Vermont tried and failed to get one going.
Hawaii has actually succeeded on both fronts. Also, almost no guns.
Good on Hawaii! Not sarcastic or bitter, legit, good for them. The rest of the states would do well to follow Hawaii's example.
Unfortunately, I suspect that's not going to be overnight.
"A majority of Americans continue to say the federal government has a responsibility to make sure all Americans have health care coverage."
Your own source says so
But let's add more:
https://www.citizen.org/article/public-support-for-medicare-for-all/
Recent polls indicate that six in ten Americans support Medicare-for-All. In addition, more than 60 percent believe that government is responsible for ensuring health coverage for all Americans. And nearly 70 percent of all voters, including battleground voters, identify health care as an important issue in upcoming elections.
I think they were responding to the “neither goes anywhere” part, not the support part
Federally, neither has gone anywhere though.
-
Right, it's a Republic with piss poor representation by rich white guys who answer to the billionaire class.
It absolutely is a democracy, just an extremely flawed democracy. If democracy were a scale from direct democracy to North Korea, then the USA would sit somewhere in the top third of countries.
Never seen truer words on the internet.
Duopoly. Where both big businesses collude to maintain the market shares between them. DNC & RNC.
Terribly implemented, terribly run, terribly staffed, terrible users...
USA! USA! USA! 🦅🍔🇺🇸
Oh here we go...
FUUHCKKK YEAH!!!
[shoots up at the sky repeatedly with tactical bear arms]
"Bleach blonde, bad built butch body" I think sums up my country as well as any description.
Ranked. Choice. Voting.
We needs it.
And democrats keep killing grass roots implementation of state wide implementation
There's tons of things we could do to improve it. But it will take a huge amount of political will that Americans just don't have.
Yeah. My option is a baindaid but helps clear the murkiness out a bit. Gotta start somewhere as it’ll take a decade or so to get us back to being anything resembling a great nation. Right now we are a fear mongering hegemony war profiteering oligarchy.
Everyone needs to hear this. But most people don't even know about it.
Didn't Canadians explicitly reject it?
As much as I think a ranked choice system would be an improvement, I don't think it solves the underlying problems of Capital's dominance of all of society's decision-making institutions and it's really just something for politics nerds to fixate on that regular people don't understand or care about.
Got my primary pamphlet recently, I was so disappointed to see the non-partisan rcv supportive candidate wasn't running this year. They nearly won last election, too 😭
Vote of no confidence. If both fish suck throw em back and find some new ones.
Literally does nothing in the US system and is the fastest way for the fascist party to complete their takeover.
Anyone advocating for this I'm assuming is either a troll or a paid shill.
Agree to disagree. Even a two party system could see improvement when there is a possibility of failure behind falling in line with 'least bad choice.'
It's not a silver bullet - to be sure. but we're talking about a patient on life support with multiple systems failing. There is no simple fix. We need to deal with each rot and disease locally as aggressively as possible... and be willing to excise anything that is a lost cause. This is triage.
Edit: It would appear I was too soft in my discourse. I find it interesting that your position is essentially saying:
"I'm correct and anyone who disagrees with my views on (irony here) democracy is a fascist or a troll"
Not once has it worked in modern history.
Care to cite some sources?
To my eye the easiest way to exploit a two party system is to provide both candidates. The act of tossing them aside can give teeth to the vote and demand better quality. I fail to see any obvious drawbacks to this.
If implemented correctly it would not impact good elections and would drastically affect bad ones. Is that not ideal?
Modern history being anything that has happened in the lives of even the oldest person alive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_United_States
https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/presidents/
Where are the third party presidents?
What does that have to do with a vote of no confidence?
Were you reading what I wrote or...?
That hasn't worked with the First Past the Post voting system.
The ability of the populous to reject what is offered is necessary to maintain a balanced system. I'm not exactly certain what you are expressing there but I stand by this belief.
ASAP
Yes OK but the part we don’t understand is how getting shot at is raising sympathy levels. The natural reaction would be even less get the person involved in politics because he attracts or directly causes extremism, chaos, and violence.
You want a steady hand, not a drama queen as your leader, no?
These are people who are making a decision about something very important with less than 72 hours to go. Do not assume they are acting rationally.
You really can't understand how people are "being killed for being right"? Like if someone said the monarchy in Europe is bad and kings shouldn't exist, and then the king does have them killed, that wouldn't raise sympathy for the cause of the guy being killed, that kings shouldn't exist?
This is exactly how resistance spreads. People got killed for their beliefs. Other people saw that and thought "if they're getting killed they are a threat to those in power, and thus likely right". You don't think "oh well this guy got killed for his beliefs, that must mean that his opinions are wrong"
Obviously this is not what's really happening with Trump, but it's going to be spun like that by his propaganda team, and people are going to believe it.
Or if.more media attention and coverage of trump pushes a few people to vote rather than stay home he loses.
These people never really think about politics and vote because it's good.
Yeah. I'm really jealous of them. I can't imagine how nice it must be not to care about this shit.