Yep. That is actually correct. We’ve definitely gotten some progress and getting things we want and need in the face of the right-wing opposition. It’s more and more likely as people continue to work together instead of throwing a hissy fit and virtue signaling. Maybe try working together and you’ll get more of what you want.

The road to success is paved in increments, not all at once. However, by demanding you get everything instantly and trying to sabotage the only group that can stand a chance against the worse option. Then you’re only helping a regime that is actively making things worse and undoing any progress that has been made. Go ahead and pat yourself on the back for that.

But, I’m certain that you’re either intentionally spreading propaganda or just doing so in ignorance that you’ve been manipulated, so no reasonable logic I say is going to make any difference while your head is in the ground. You’ve proven that already by spouting outright falsehoods.

You’ve proven your ignorance. Democrats have already been trying to get ranked choice voting.

It’s absolutely pointless to try to talk to someone like you. You just want to be right, even if it means spouting things that are easily proven wrong.

You’re clearly misrepresenting my argument. I’m literally saying that the power we do have is elsewhere. Trying to assert we have immediate power over the current presidential election by throwing a fit is ridiculous.

If you want change, then we need to change our first-past-the-post voting system. Until then, throwing a fit about our limited choices is ignorant.

Doing the right thing is making sure we can stand longer to keep fighting for what’s right, not throwing a fit when you can’t get 100% of what you want. No matter how much you throw a fit, it was not going to help, but you could have done something to make things not worse. All throwing a fit accomplished was virtue signaling.

Now we’re worse off and stand even less of a chance of making progress.

I don’t understand how people thought it was a good idea to throw a fit because the choice was between “the same shit” or “even worse shit”. We needed help avoiding even worse shit. You did not help with your virtue signaling.

The way I saw the last election was like this:

People were demanding the Dems to stop supporting genocide, but Kamala was not going to make any changes on that front.

However, any other option would wind up allowing Trump to happen, which is just objectively a worse scenario.

It’s like we all saw a horrible fire headed our way and we needed to choose which bus to get into. People advocating for the blue bus knew it wasn’t the most ideal bus since they were helping throw gasoline on an external fire in another place. But the red bus wanted the fire and was the cause of the fire and clearly wasn’t going to stop throwing gasoline on that external fire anyway. People were protesting that the blue bus needed to stop helping put gasoline on that or else they won’t help people get on the blue bus. And now we’re stuck with the red bus and we’re all on fire.

Granted, the protesters weren’t necessarily the strict cause of us being stuck with the red bus and us all being on fire, but they sure didn’t help. And them acting morally superior is childish considering they didn’t help us try to get out of our own fire and the external fire is not any better due to the red bus, so their protest effectively did nothing anyway as everyone else already knew was going to be the case.

We need a Trek-style Retroencabulator video

https://youtu.be/RXJKdh1KZ0w

The wiki page specifically says that it’s highly criticized:

Several political scientists, psychologists, and sociologists have criticized the horseshoe theory. […] political scientists do not appear to support this notion, and instances of peer-reviewed research on the subject are scarce. Existing studies and comprehensive reviews often find only limited support and only under certain conditions; they generally contradict the theory’s central premises.

Just because it has a wiki page does not mean it’s a valid theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Theory

That’s kind of true, but it depends. Most states don’t have laws requiring closed primaries and allows the party to choose which voters to include. However, in general the Republican party tends to have closed primaries when possible.

They are closed in Pennsylvania, though.

https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/state-primary-election-types

What kind of news?

12

The copyright symbol and year that isn’t even necessary. It’s already assumed you own copyright.