Ok. Why don’t we just stop sending you more tax money than we receive? We’ll just pay for shit ourselves and not pay federal taxes anymore.

We’re cool with that.

Your federal tax brackets are reaming us while our cost of living is way higher than the national median anyway.

Problem is that RCV will only have a chance in deep blue states, and all it would accomplish is reducing the blue representation in congress.

To put it bluntly, all it would accomplish is more in fighting and contributing to the reputation that Dems are ineffective. Except, it would be the “blue aligned coalition” instead of “Dems”

The only real path to making this change is to give Dems a super majority so they can amend the constitution.

And, well, the minority of Red voters have a majority of power thanks to the electoral college, so a super majority is absolutely impossible for the foreseeable future.

Edit - it’d also cause disruptions in States that don’t adopt RCV, as “progressives” protest vote 3rd party and sandbag the Dems

I think they were surprised at how unhinged he got, and looked impotent with rage.

He’s usually surrounded by sycophants that he can bully around and they get linched by his mob if they don’t fall in line. Or he just gets up and leaves any interview that challenges his bullshit, and can leave with the last word. His childish tantrums can get reduced to soundbites that make him look like the winner to his followers who are also petty adult children.

But here, Harris was in frame laughing at his meltdowns and clearly easily pushing his buttons where it hurt, and he could do nothing but stomp over the so called moderation to steal airtime, just to look like a petulant child who needed a nap.

And the Genocide Joe canvassers on lemmy

Rofl. That’s rich coming from someone making wild claims, whose only citation was one sentence from a Churchill hit piece that contained zero justification for their assertion that Churchill was somehow responsible for India’s famines. You then deflect with “read this persons work you ignorant simpleton” without any relevant citations.

Sure buddy. You can keep raging against this machine of yours, I’ve wasted enough of my Friday trying to reason with a dramatic husky.

Who is defending Britain’s colonialism? I’m pushing back at some pretty extreme historical recharacterizations.

This is all some pretty ridiculous Captain Hindsight retconning. There have been tons of agricultural blunders in humanities history. Depletion of soils, monocultures extremely susceptible to disaster, etc.

We learn and adapt. That’s humanity.

Resource mismanagement is certainly a factor, and colonies were obviously rife with it. And just as obviously, the conquerors historically didn’t exactly care much about the damage they did.

In nature, species boom when there’s abundance, and rubber band back hard when scarcity hits directly after a big boom.

At a glance, India’s population was almost 10% of the world population during WW2.

Literally laying all the blame at the feet of British mismanagement is a pretty extreme take.

I read the article in your other post.

Ok, so Churchill was an imperialistic prick, debatable even for his time (though the wellknown history of centuries of atrocities commited by imperialistic Britain seems to contradict that…). Sure. I don’t think many would defend those actions through today’s lens.

But even that article just throws dozens of famine in Indias colonial history squarely at Britain’s feet with zero evidence that they were avoidable.

Droughts, disease, infestations happen, and have happened throughout history. We are now better than we ever have been at addressing those crisis at a global scale, and there is still plenty of famine and food insecurity in the world.

This reads more, as I said before, a strawman argument that doesnt do anything to establish that Churchill is responsible for millions of deaths - genocide to be compared with concentration camps.

Well, they’re Republicans. Those Pollacks were just dressing too slutty. Hitler had to invade. And France? Come on now.

And for scale

According to a 1941 census, the population of India was 388,997,955. This was an increase of over 50 million from the previous census.

In 1943, India was also experiencing the Bengal famine, which killed an estimated 2.1–3 million people.

70,000 tons, distributed over 389m people, is 0.0003598972 pounds of food were taken away from each Indian person, over a 6-7 month period.

Riiiiight.

Policy lapses such as prioritizing distribution of vital supplies to the military, stopping rice imports and not declaring that it was actually a famine were among the factors that led to the magnitude of the tragedy, he added.

So we’re comparing some possible logistics mistakes, in a distant colony, during a defensive war where the ruling country was being bombed on their own soil. Comparing those “incendental” deaths to those of an aggressive conquering army literally rounding up their own citizens and those of the lands they conquered, to be killed.

Right.

She wrote that famine was caused in part by large-scale exports of food from India. India exported more than 70,000 tons of rice between January and July 1943 as the famine set in, she said.

That quantity seems pretty low. In comparison, I found an old post that indicated 300,000 tons of food aid had been supplied to Gaza over 190 days, so similar time spans, to a much smaller population.

Of course, exporting food while the residents are starving is terrible. But this is one study and one interpretation of results.

This certainly sounds like yet another bad faith strawman talking point by Nazi sympathizers.

I don’t see anything different about his rambling, tbh. I think the only notable difference is him working out nicknames while in front of an audience instead of ahead of time.

His talking points aren’t landing, so he’s fishing around for something that gets the reaction he’s looking for.

I think he would have done the same if “build a wall and make Mexico pay for it” was met with confusion.

He was always this incoherent, but he had “better” slogans to fall back on.

I’d say it’s probably more due to him alienating most of his former team, and then surrounding himself with more incompetent yes men, than cognitive decline. His baseline of cognitive capacity wasn’t high in the first place.

It’s ironic to me that you people can acknowledge that Jill Stein is just virtue signaling from the side lines because it costs her nothing. She’s not actually spending political capital on something that has any chance of happening. She’s just paying it lip service.

You understand this. That’s good.

But then in the same breath, you applaud AOC for saber rattling to pack the supreme court and other ideas that are impossible without a super majority. Which only served to make Biden look weak and disenfranchise progressive voters.

This is a ridiculous narrative.

Trump is sexist and racist. His base is sexist and racists. This isn’t even debatable, it’s about undeniable as you can get without them literally explicitly stating that’s their motivation under oath.

It’s also extremely likely that Trump idolized Hitler and is trying to use his playbook. And a bunch of “conservative” groups doing the same. There is plenty of evidence to support this.

Just fucking call it what it is instead of trying to draw parallels to ancient history.

“Trump is trying to campaign on sexism, racism, and xenophobia to rally the racists and misogynists, in an attempt to catch lightning in a bottle the same way Hitler did, in order to establish himself as a dictator”

Is that so fucking hard to say directly?

I think it’s more likely that she’s prepared to put someone like Adam Kinzinger on her cabinet. One that (eventually) fell on their sword, and represent a faction that would take the party away from fascism if they could.

Yep. This is the user that 8 degrees of separation’ed every thread into a “Genocide Joe Bad” rant.

And now they’re starting to do it with Harris too, now that talking points are coming out.

Surprise surprise.

She’s definitely not Obama. Her weakness is policy. She has intentionally avoided the topic because she would undoubtedly alienate some of that “joy” that they’re doing so well courting.

Thing is, the GOP in general is extremely weak on policy. And Trump is the worst of the bunch.

So she’s probably good, unless the GOP can somehow make her define her stance in certain terms. Which she has always avoided like the plague in the past.

That’s optimistic. It’s a constant battle.

It takes time to get all your paperwork and argument sorted, and then more time to get an appeal scheduled.

We don’t want this falling through because a procedural mistake.

Gerrymandering has made it impossible to “blow out” the House too.

That would only work if she actually answers the questions she’s asked, too. My big gripe with Harris in her VP debates and interviews was that she dodged every question that wasn’t in her talking points.

Maybe she can answer directly now that she’s not deferring to the president. Maybe not.

However, she can still do the “disappointed mom if a petulant child” shtick without calling or for question evasion anyway. They are not linked.