1001
Bezos deletes 'LGBTQ+ rights' and 'equity for Black people' from Amazon policies
(www.irishstar.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2025
1001 points (100.0% liked)
politics
22913 readers
3347 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
Voting third party in a two party horse race is a fool’s errand. Especially if you voted for known Putin stooge Jill Stein, who was only running to steal away votes from Kamala Harris. She knew she didn’t stand a chance at winning.
Voting "third" party only fails because the great mass of fucking morons who insist on voting for the genocidal, global empire terrorist pieces of shit currently in charge. You can try as hard as you want to deflect that blame, but it will never wash off.
I like your sentiment, but a two party system inherently uses third party votes as spoilers. It is common for the dominate party to support a third party to peel away votes from their major opposition.
https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo?si=6y_K1yvlvDPNxm70
One solution to this is ranked voting. Of course many of our politicians recognize this and have already passed laws at the state level to bar ranked voting under the pretense that it is too confusing for voters.
Nailed it - I'll consider a 3rd party vote on equal-footing once we have ranked/ranked choice voting in place. Right now, I think there's a higher probability for one of the two parties to consider this so in other words... it's going to be a while...
Whatever party is in power has a lot to lose from ranked voting and nothing to gain. This will make this reform very hard to pass. I live in Alaska and we have ranked voting that narrowly avoided a repeal this last year after passing the previous year.
There is no legal enshrinement of a "two party system". Whoever the public votes for wins. The public's self-defeating mentality is the problem.
Not explicitly. Just effectively. Between first past the post, which naturally evolves into a two party system. And the electoral college which enshrines it. At the national level actual, independent 3rd parties are an impossibility. And they know it.
Theoretically matter could spontaneously coalesce into a Boltzmann brain before a 3rd party could win a national election.
FPTP doesn't naturally evolve into a two-party system. Cultural predispositions cause that. The electoral college does not enshrine it, it - sometimes - hands the elector votes to the majority winner of the state, and some states even have legal pledges to follow other systems. There is no impossibility. I will repeat myself for the fiftieth time in this thread, THE PUBLIC'S SELF-DEFEATING MENTALITY IS THE PROBLEM. The public TELLS ITSELF a third party is an impossibility, the public DOESN'T VOTE FOR A THIRD PARTY. You will resign yourselves to slavery until you figure this out.
Duvegers law and people who actually study poly sci disagree. And I'm more inclined to believe someone with evidence and proof over someone like yourself. Who has nothing, spouting magical thinking BS.
"Duverger's Law" (you misspelled it) is a principle, not some deterministic physical law. I studied polisci at college, thanks. Read your own link. First sentence - "TEND to emerge". Not "always emerge". There's an entire section in the article named "Exceptions". One of those exceptions is IN the U.S. Learn the difference between "tendencies" and "absolutely certain physical laws", this is basic logic/math.
This kind of sloppy thinking is so common in the U.S., I swear to god, this is exactly what I'm talking about with the shitty education system kneecapping the democracy.
duverger's law is no law, at all. it's an undisprovable tautology.
this isn't true.
What’s the point of voting for a 3rd party when they have no members in Congress or the courts? They’d have to coalition with Republicans or Democrats anyways.
Exactly, it's not like the president has all power (at least not yet, we'll see where it is in a couple years). Without supporting members of the other branches, a third party president is nearly useless. That said, I'd take a useless but well meaning president over Trump.
^ This speaks to a lack of civics education. Without an overwhelming majority, Congress can't pass harmful legislation with an executive veto, and the executive can still halt its implementation.
Gridlock is better than streamlined totalitarianism. Vote for them in both. And courts weren't really partisan before ~2010.
With a "First Past The Post, Winner Takes All"-system like you have in the US, there's virtually no chance of a third party winning an election, as the majority of the country haven't even heard of your candidate, and thus won't vote for it.
And then still, once you get your third party elected president, then what? They'll have to make huge compromises on their campaign promises in order to get anything done in Congress.
The public choosing to vote for a different party wins in a FPTP system regardless. The obstacle is the public.
Well, those morons genuinely support those things. A quarter of voters is not winning an FTTP election
Voting third party this election directly lead to a Trump win. “You can try as hard as you want to deflect that blame, but it will never wash off.”
if everyone who voted for a so-called third party had voted for the democrat, trump still would have won.
Only in terms of "but this would have happened if you voted for something else", the logic of which equally applies to the sum of Harris voters voting for somebody who, simultaneously, (a) had substantially less votes in the final outcome, but also (b) was so extremely evil that they're complicit in a genocide. Or is that too hard for you to wrap your head around.