Don't care what's a dirty word where, I don't self-censor. Yeah outside the US liberal means market-liberal (libertarians). The Liberal party USA is a splinter of libertarians as well. They had a fall-out at a libertarian convention in 2022, where it became clear libertarians were bought by Russia, started calling for appeasement to Russia and some members started being overtly racist. About a fifth of the caucus left the convention in disgust and formed the "Liberal Party", which is actually pretty socially progressive while retaining fiscal conservatism. As for third party math, all it would need to take for third parties to work is for people to vote for it. Have enough people do that and dems might actually re-align. It just can't continue on like this.
PurpleSkull
No. Or not yet.
Do you know about the actual liberal party USA? Not a toothless "wing" of the Democratic party. I mean the ACTUAL liberal party we have in this country? They got less votes than Vermin Supreme last election. I hope they will do better next election, but it still won't amount to even 0.1% of all votes. Because Americans still believe voting third party is "throwing your vote away", while voting for actual traitors (democrats) or just giving up and voting for the king is the way to go. As long as AOC and others cling to the ramshackle ruin that is the DNC, there straight up is no hope. It is a calcified collection of geriatrics and powerless minorities without a clear goal and no leadership except the already retired ones who play the stock market (Obamas, Pelosis, Bidens...). Look at the dead-eyed onion that is Hakeem Jeffries. "Here is your Obama 2.0 but in boring, pls vote for us. Eminem is endorsing us after we gave him some money, SURELY you will vote for us now?". Controlled opposition.
Progressive take-over will happen after the second civil war, or not at all.
Exactly. Social-democracy is the way forward, I just wish there was a party that would focus on restoring the rules based order and general personal liberties, without getting baited into endless culture wars on hyperspecific topics like trans rights by conservatives. I figure saying this is unpopular on very liberal skewing platforms such as here, but I consider this a huge reason why the middle has largely abandoned Democrats. Feels like Democrats lost the plot and now everything else with it.
Say, for example, someone started a "Socialist" party. Running mainly on domestic issues such as worker's rights, proportional taxation, rescinding the idea that corporations are people in the eyes of the law. But WITHOUT a clear stance on culture war baggage such as trans rights, DEI related talking points and "wokeness". Those would be considered state issues and not a domain for the federal government since it distracts from actual geopolitical issues such as wars and climate change catastrophe mitigation.
Would anyone be interested in that? Basically a party that focuses on issues in a similar way AOC does. Socialist, but not communist as I consider the US constitution and the right of elections untouchable. Liberal-socialist, in a way.
If 11 million people strike, then 11 people will be fired immediately after and replaced by a different 11 million. Plus the demands are too broad to get a unified strike going. "General malcontent about the state of things" doesn't roll off the tongue. Don't worry, once things get bad enough strikes, large scale protests, riots and armed insurgencies follow automatically.
There are two reasons why you stop corporate advocacy. You've either ran out of money, or the goal you've sought to accomplish, was accomplished. I didn't see him begging in the streets yet. So I guess whatever the end goal of his advocacy war has been achieved.
We should ban all algorithms on social media, period. Not just Xitter or TikTok, but also Youtube. You should NEVER be presented with information that a corporation has decided to force-feed you. Not just because of the obvious implication of manipulation, but also because it degenerates a person's ability to seek out desired information themselves. There is basically no young person (zoomer) left in the US who still knows how to look up information from sources or find desired media themselves. Everyone relies on their start-page recommendation, curated by the company. And just mindlessly scrolls from there. No one looks up information to answer questions they might have, but instead type their question into Grok or whatever, and take whatever is presented to them as fact.
And if we can't ban algorithms, then we must ban all social media entirely. Everyone gets their news from a newspaper thrown at their door, 2 weeks out of date. You might not believe it, but that unironically would solve almost all issues plaguing the world right now. It's just that we don't want to give up the positives aspects and entertainment, too.
It's heartwarming to see all of Trumps appointees agreeing they REALLY suck ass and have no idea what their agency is actually doing, and thus seek to abolish themselves. From USPS, to Department of Education, to Congress itself.
Yes, unfortunately. Not only is it morally acceptable, but pretty much unavoidable if meaningful change is sought to be enacted. To put it this way, if political violence was inherently "wrong", then the entire United States of America should not exist. The British did not leave our shores because we've asked nicely or protested a lot. We've tried both of these things and the response was military intervention. Nazi Germany was not defeated by strongly worded letters either (that was also tried!).
However I strongly believe violence must be proportional to the offense and follow a plan. Random riots achieve nothing. Let's not dance around the issue. The question here is if violence against the Trump administration is permissible (yet). And right now the answer is no. Because a) elections have not been abolished yet or interference has made free elections impossible or farcical, and b) Trump and his unelected sycophants are still broadly moving within the confines of "the law" as applied during a time when the US actually cared about strong checks and balances.
Grandpa certainly doesn't have a strong mandate, but he has "a" mandate to enact his political will for 4 years. That however will change dramatically if he moved against basic constitutional rights, such as now as he is trying to ban all media critical of him. The proportional and correct violent response then would be to destroy media outlets shilling for the president.
Not by voting, but tomorrow I will hold up a sign near a road for 2 hours. Trump will have no choice but to step down after that.