I know you’re getting downvoted, but I appreciate this analysis. I have autism and don’t pick up on body language

22 people is hardly a survey for a national election, and is a total nonanswer. I’m asking you what you think Vance did better.

What specifically do you feel Walz didn’t do as well as Vance?

The same way you organize anything. Start by talking to a couple trusted coworkers to form an organizing committee. All the members of the OC need to talk to coworkers, handle workplace drama, agitate for better conditions, educate people about unions, maintain systematic campaign tracking, and fight against the boss during their union busting campaign. When I worked remotely, it was as simple as sending a dm like this:

Hey, would you be able to talk over break? Some coworkers and I were discussing some issues and I wanted to hear your thoughts.

Unions are legal in the US. The labor movement is currently seeing a huge swell in new bargaining units across most unions

Unions generally don’t write or repeal laws, but a union contract can negotiate overtime pay where there isn’t any.

The meme doesn’t make sense to me either, but I can tell you that the person in the second panel is Michael Parenti, a highly regarded communist historian known for analyzing history through class struggle. The quote in the 3rd panel is a famous one from his lecture about the US War against Yugoslavia:

• Cited quote
• Full lecture

Africa is rich! Only it’s people are poor. There are still problems in Africa today, there are still outrageous things happening today. ‘“Building your own pharmaceutical factories in Sudan” where do you think you can get off where you think you can do that, when you should be buying from the multinational pharmaceutical.’

Take the case of India. India was a rich, advanced, developed country. Until the British went in 1800. Between 1800 and 1830 the Indian textile industry, which was outperforming the British textile industry, was dismantled and the great industrial centers were de-industrialized. The people were sent back out onto the land to grow cotton for the factories in Manchester and London. Between 1850 and 1900, the per capita income fell by 65%. So that poverty in the third world, that so called ‘underdevelopment’ … These countries are not underdeveloped, they were overexploited- they’re maldeveloped.

I became a socialist because I was an “essential employee” during the height of the pandemic. I was treated like shit by my company, the customers, and the government while they sung my praise. I watched my grandpa get good cancer treatment with the VA (shocker, I know, but it happens) while my sister and grandma had to fight insurance for cancer treatment.

We can’t make a perfect world, but we can make a better one. And it starts with a socialist economy.

Both the democratic party and the republican party are liberal parties. One of them got scratched.

Tbh the idea of exploiting 100s of people for my personal gain makes me want to set the gun down and put on a trigger lock.

Khan is a good one, I’m personally invested in hoping that Jennifer Abruzzo stays in the NLRB

how does approval voting allow for spoilers? The experts that study election systems consider it eliminated under approval voting. It’s literally impossible to be a spoiler, because there’s nothing to spoil. There could be 4 real candidates and 16 no-name candidates, and nothing would prevent people from voting for 18 candidates. All of the eliminations you’re concerned about happen all at once, because it’s about having the most total votes. Votes for “spoilers” does literally nothing to affect the chances of other candidates.

As for “genuine voting”, how does one determine whether a vote was strategic vs genuine? Why does everyone have to conform to a ranked system that is highly susceptible to runoff upsets? I don’t care if people vote strategically, because if the options are check boxes or not, strategy is very limited. STAR is based on instant runoffs with a bit of range voting mixed in. Both are highly susceptible to strategy, as well as several undesirable traits that don’t exist with approval. Please explain to me how it prevents strategic voting.

Approval voting is where you mark any number of candidates that you want, and the person with the most marks is the elected person.

The most important issues with a fair voting system are eliminated by this method. Strategic voting will always happen under our performative democracy, which means that all parties are pathways for getting close to the actual goal. It’s only a problem if people are overly worried about genuinely “voting your truth”.

Approval voting is the only method that meets all the requirements for a fair election without elevating an unpopular candidate.

For all intents and purposes, white phosphorus is a chemical weapon that causes chemical burns which means it’s use is highly susceptible to facilitating war crimes, even unintentionally. It’s use should be banned from war.

Whatever it is, it isn’t worth it

I’m not talking about what could be. I’m talking about the political reality that surrounds us.

Maybe not the government or citizens, but war helps the congress members, the CEOs of the military industrial complex, and their families get fabulously wealthy.

I keep telling people that union leaders are way more clever than they realize, but people keep assuming that O’Brien is working on the surface level.

The West Bank would turn into a “cash economy” that could benefit terrorist organizations that largely use cash to operate, the G7 official said.

This is exactly what they want. It’s part why Hamas exists, because Israel intentionally created it and molded it into an extreme militant group. Who knows how long they will wait, but Israel is going to invade the West Bank with this excuse.