362
Michigan Republican congressman suggests nuking Gaza, ending humanitarian aid
(www.detroitnews.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 30 Mar 2024
362 points (95.7% liked)
politics
18883 readers
3913 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.
- 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.
- 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Those voting third party are ushering these guys in.
Wait a second. You could have been blaming the Republican voters, because they actually voted for the guy. You could have been blaming the Democrats for not fielding better candidates. Instead you're blaming that small minority of people who thinks that both parties suck and neither of them is going to fix the major problems facing the United States. And all the while, Democrat candidates know exactly how to get more progressive votes: push progressive policies.
In this particular forum there aren't too many Republicans but plenty of people that think voting third party will accomplish something. It won't because that's not how the system works. You want to change the system, you say? You aren't going to succeed in changing a system you don't know anything about.
This is exactly what's happening. But too many people have been sucked into TikTok rabbit holes to know that's happening. The small amount of progressive changes that they've had to claw and scratch to get could be drowned in the bathtub because some people would rather be self-righteous over Joe Biden not screaming "GENOCIDE" a thousand times at Netanyahu as an opening statement before trying to hammer out a ceasefire agreement with him that will save lives.
Voting third party is doing nothing. Evil prevails when good people do nothing.
Did I say I want to change the system? ... Oh, yeah, I didn't. That's awkward, isn't it. Please be careful when going into attack mode.
Also, voting third party is clearly doing something. Staying home is doing something. Trying to help people on the Internet understand various political stances is doing something.
There are a million approaches to politics. Why are you so convinced that yours is the one correct option?
What positive change will come from these "actions"?
Nothing. You're doing nothing.
Maybe "nothing" doesn't mean what you think it means.
If I vote Democrat in a clear-cut red state, my vote changes nothing. Same as if I vote third party. Same as if I don't vote at all. So ... I'm doing nothing no matter what. Is that your standard?
Are you in a clear cut red state? Also is your congressional district definitely going red as well? You understand that the President isn't a dictator, and there is a need for changes in legislation which is what congress does?
Even the GOP isn't immune to voter margins. If the see that margin in their safe red states are starting to narrow, they may have decide whether they want to continue being fascist and face losing everything or maybe make some compromises to continue getting elected.
I minority of eligible voters wanted abortion to be illegal. They got what they wanted despite being the minority because they voted every time for decades. By not voting you're conceding all power to those that do. Are you happy with how things are being run by the people that are put into power by this minority of eligible voters that show up and vote every time? Is so, continue to blow off voting. But you can't complain about the results if you concede your rights to whims of people that will make the effort to vote.
Yes my state is red and has been for decades, for Congress and the White House.
Yes, I can complain with results even if I don't vote. The First Amendment makes that crystal clear. Who told you otherwise?
In fact I often vote, and it affects nothing. Not once has my vote affected state or national government. A few times it mattered in local elections. So is it worth my time? I don't suppose it matters much, but it's a quick enough process.
Evan McMullin's vote total in Minnesota in the 2016 Presidential election was larger than Hillary Clinton's margin of victory. Gary Johnson's vote total was almost 3 times McMullin's total. Johnson's vote total was larger than Clinton's margin in Colorado, too. If it weren't for third-party voters, Clinton would've had an even worse electoral college drubbing. (Perhaps this is the case in other states, too. Those are the two that I know off-hand.) Much has been made about how Jill Stein's vote total in Wisconsin in 2016 was higher than Clinton's margin of defeat, but without any 3rd party candidates, she would've lost by even more.
In 2020, Jo Jorgensen's vote total in Wisconsin was larger than Biden's margin of victory, as well as in Minnesota, Arizona, and Georgia. Her vote total in Pennsylvania was very close to Biden's margin of victory there. Without 3rd party candidates, Biden would've lost in 2020.
This article is about Rep. Tim Walberg, who blew out Democratic Party challenger Bart Goldberg in 2022. The 3rd party candidates in that race were from the Libertarian and U.S. Taxpayers parties. Without them, Walberg's margin of victory would've been greater.
It's absolutely true that voting third party is a really dumb strategy that will never achieve anything good and could conceivably allow for worse outcomes. It's also true that this potentiality is way overblown because of ineffective Democratic politicians using third parties as an excuse for their pathetic underperformance.
People freaking out about third parties having a spoiler effect are basically making the case for an alternative voting system like Ranked Choice. Oh a spoiler effect exists? Good point, let's fix it. Thanks for bringing it up! Very helpful of you to point that out for me.
I get why Republicans hate more democracy, but what is the excuse for the blue states? Maine and Alaska have done away with first past the post voting, why hasn't yours yet? The Republicans don't control every single one of the states still using FPTP.
Back in the mid -1990s, an outfit called the New Party tried to remedy the issue by a different angle, called fusion voting. That's a practice which lets more than one party nominate a candidate, and the candidate's name appears more than once on the ballot. That way, different parties can team up, eliminating the spoiler effect, and the winning candidate knows from whence their support comes.
You'd think that the Democrats would be all about that? Think again. Minnesota's state law bans fusion, and the Supreme Court held that the ban does not violate the 1st Amendment right of freedom of association, on the ground that the state has a compelling interest in preventing electoral chaos. That's patently ridiculous, as New York allows it without issue. The DFL could change the law in Minnesota, but they still have not. The New Party subsequently disbanded, and only one former affiliate (Progressive Dane) is still active.
The two major parties work along the same lines to hinder voters to protect their own power, and this is only one example. But I still think of that case when people insist that 3rd parties should build their base in state and local races. That's when I learned that, at the bottom line, the Democratic Party cares more about its power and prerogatives than what's good for the country. Just like the GOP.
He’s been in politics for a long time
Upset people dare to insist on being represented in government? Well I have good news for you my blue conservative friend!
Electoral reform is possible one state at a time. We don't need federal reform to do away with first past the post voting. This means instead of laughing at the disenfranchised, you could be outside touching grass right now campaigning to make third parties viable in your state!
If you're so upset with people bitching from the sidelines... put them in the game. Make them show us how it's done.
Republicans are moving to make alternative electoral systems illegal in their states. Republicans LOVE first past the post voting. Just sbsolutely adore it. Why the hell do you want to use the same voting system republicans want? Highly suspect, perhaps we should all take what you comment with a huge grain of salt.
You're ushering in MAGA by denying people the right to be involved in the electoral process! More people voting means more democratic votes. This is on YOU if the Republicans defeat your shitty candidates. You didn't fight hard enough for the USA.
Capitalists hate competition...
no, they're not. the people voting for these guys are the ones ushering them in. people voting for a so-called third party are voting against these guys
No, sadly with the way US voting works at the moment the chances of a third party winning is microscopic, so voting for a third party is only taking votes away from the only party that stands a chance of beating the republicans. Statistically third party voters would be more likely to vote democratic than republican if they didn't have a third party option, so in reality the more people voting third party the more they're helping republicans win. It sucks but that's the reality.
no. the votes belong to the voter, not a party, and its up to politicians to earn those votes.
i haven't voted for a democrat for president in over a decade and i'm not starting again this year.
You know politics isn't like sports, right? You don't identify with a team but instead you vote to get rid of cruel fatcat racists and replace them with people who will actually benefit the country.
Like who?
Like the majority of representatives and senators? Not to mention stopping the return of Mango Mussolini? Jeez, do we really have to spell this out for you?
I was wondering who would actually benefit the country.
(I dont see how that can ever happen until lobbyist bribery is utterly abolished and criminalized)
Oh. Yeah in the US, the electoral system doesn't really allow for that. All you can vote for is less evil, embodied by the Democratic party. I've been fortunate enough to experience different political systems, and I'm glad I can live elsewhere.
I'd have voted for Bernie in 2016, and he ran as a democrat
biden helped get us a country that elected Trump.
You know Trump was first elected BEFORE Biden was president, right?
I think they are referring to Biden being a career politician.
Among a hoard of other career politicians, he is not solely responsible for Trump being elected in any way shape or form.
No argument from me. It's just a sentiment I've heard from other people. It's not completely empty of reason, but I'd say it's way down on the list, with the outdated electoral college, and the Republican undermining of education, far right vitriolic propaganda and dog-whisling for racists, nazis and christian nationalists being towards the top.
only votes for republicans help republicans win
As much as it would be nice if the world worked that way, that's not how the world works unfortunately.
Can you explain why the voting system is this way in states democrats fully control?
I'm happy to inform you that there are Democrat-controlled states and localities that have successfully passed ranked-choice voting.
And there are states that have BANNED ranked-choice voting as well. I'll let you guess which party was behind those.
So does this change your stance on whether Democrats are doing anything to change first-past-the-post voting systems?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States
it is. a vote for Cornel West must be counted for Cornel West, not any other candidate
Your votes don't exist in a vacuum. There absolutely needs to be election reform to make third party voting a more viable option instead of a liability, but it hasn't happened yet so for now you live in a reality where you're voting in an imperfect system and trying to will the fantasy of a perfect system into existence instead of acknowledging that isn't helping anyone, least of all people who want to be able to actually vote third party.
Not in an effective way.
the ethics are in the act itself, not in the consequences.
The ethics don't matter if you don't get the outcome you want... The ends do not justify the means here.
deontological ethics are unconcerned with ends. the act itself is either ethical or unethical.
That's not how the US electoral system works. If the vote turns out 49%/48%/3%, then the guy with 49% wins. Unless your 3rd party is polling in the mid forties (and is therefore not a 3rd party) all you are doing is vote splitting
there is no reason to believe someone voting for a so-called third party would vote for another politician. it's not as though we don't know they exist, and haven't been browbeaten repeatedly about this.
Wow. What a mathematically flawed electoral system!
So now that we all understand how first past the post voting will always result in a two party system... what is the ETA on Ranked choice voting being implemented in all blue states?
You keep assuming that third party voters will vote for your guy. They very well may vote against him, if at all.
I dont think you understand anything about third party voters.
Do the work for third parties between elections. That's when the hard-fought progress is made toward rising platforms and ideas. Vote third party in primaries. Attend third party meetings and help organize. But don't make the work to spread new ideas and build other options even harder by allowing democracy to creep further backward and affect up to 35+ years of judicial decisions.
i have more important work to do than building a party
i will, but how will that have any bearing on the democrats or republicans? it won't. i'll be nominating jill stein for the green party, and then i'm going to vote for her for president.
One of these guys is already in the white house.