MonkRome @ MonkRome @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

289

Joined

2 yr. ago

I've actually worked in politics, the amount of people that find it easier to give up because the system is deeply flawed instead of actually doing the hard work of change is astounding. If you want things to change, you have to make your voice heard on something more than lemmy. Representatives nearly all want to keep their jobs. If you show them your motivated enough to contact them, it shows them it's important enough to you to sway your future vote. I've talked to many representatives in my life, at least on the left they generally see their job as representing constituent interests. If enough pressure is applied, they will often change their vote/introduce legislation, etc.

But they are not on lemmy getting the political temperature from keyboard warriors with more snark than braincells.

You know you can communicate with your current senator and representative right? Representative is literally their name, they represent you, if enough people apply pressure to the point they think their job is at risk, they will often magically have a "change of heart".

If that is real, it is in pain. Overfed chickens typically spend the last ~month of their life in pain. I love chicken, but what we have done to get bigger yields is pretty gross.

Obvious sarcasm getting down votes ...

I'd rather pay for security updates than invite more AI and Microsoft sponsored spyware onto my computer...

More like the third lever is a lever that does absolutely nothing but comfort the person pulling with a dumb sign that says, "your moral purity is still intact", 5 people still die. Spoiler, your moral purity is not intact, you just lie to yourself that it is.

I think you're mis-characterizing what I'm saying. That isn't the only two options, the far left could be a little more honest about how one gets to a majority and start working with the only party with power that somewhat aligns. It's what I've done much of my adult life, I've swam in party politics, there is a lot more room for socialists, democratic socialists, progressives, etc in the party than people seem to realize. You just have to be willing to compromise for incremental progress instead of letting perfect be the enemy of good. Policy shifts move slowly, but they do move.

The left has a clear path forward to move the Overton window back, but it needs the far left to be willing to do something other than constantly masturbate our/their moral self righteousness. But parties don't really shift the Overton window that much alone, society does, activism does, education does. Parties don't give a great speech and everyone changes their mind. That kind of of leadership is a simplistic fantasy we sell ourselves, but really parties and leaders meet the moment, they don't make the moment. Citizens need to get involved, the far left needs to stop standing on the outside looking in. They need to be committed long term to joining, and then shifting, the party for real.

It's not a "strategy", it's literally how democracy works. You need 50% + 1 or all the moral purity in the universe means nothing. If the far left continues to never work as a coalition then the left is forced to move to the middle. Don't get me wrong, most of my views are pretty far left, I just understand how democracy works...

Morally pure ideologues that refuse to work with others enjoy all the benefits of knowing they are right while making none of the decisions. Democracies involve consensus and coalition building.

Yeah I generally agree, but I suspect that every politician that attends national security meetings is constantly being told that Israel is a necessary partner. Combine that with a strong Christian and Jewish Israel lobby and even a good person may recognize that they can't gain power to do all the things they want and also oppose funding Israel at the same time.

It's the paradox of political power, it's why if I went back into politics I would do activism instead of elected office, with activism you have the freedom to put your energy where you want without compromise. In politics compromise is fundamental, even necessary, even when dealing with unquestionably immoral things. Personally I think being afraid to spend your political capital means you have failed, but id also probably lose if I ran for office.

Have you met voters? Pretending like voters are any better would be pretty hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

How they gonna nominate someone that has only ever said they will never run for president. Dumbest take I have ever seen on lemmy. Michelle would never be president, she doesn't want it.

It's impossible to appeal to everyone. 6 in 10 Americans believe Israel has a right to continue it's fight with Hamas. 6 in 10 Americans are also sympathetic to both sides of the conflict. The Dems are attempting to thread that needle. And while I don't agree with the unconditional support of Israel. The US is heavily invested in partnership with Israel and foreign policy has always shifted painfully slow. Despite all the death in the world, the US is involved in the least death it has been involved in since the WWII. We've been constantly at war since WWII. And shifting from the US being constantly at war to only arming our allies is at least some improvement.

One things certain, if Trump wins authoritarians will be emboldened worldwide and the amount of death will increase much much more, including here.

Ahh, I misinterpreted your post as a complaint. I'm not a hypermiler, but I do find the efficient routes are often the lowest stress routes as well.

That's in your trip options "prefer fuel efficient route". You can turn it off.

An alternate view for you, politicians can't possibly be expected to know about everything, care about every cause, meet with every person. One of lobbyists roles is to educate and motivate where otherwise politicians may be complacent. The reason that education is currently problematic is because powerful people control much of the "education". I think a well regulated lobbying system could remove some of the downsides while keeping the upsides. I've also worked in and around politics, that reality doesn't make either one of us more or less correct.

I think you're misattributing my intent. If you want to make corporate lobbying illegal or highly regulated I'm all for it. But lobbying overall is an inherently good and important part of politics. If you merely talk to a politician about a bill you want to pass you are lobbying. But you are likely very bad at it compared to a professional, so you pay an organization to do it on your behalf. Do you expect politicians to live in a black box completely disconnected from constituent issues as long as they are in office? Because that's how you get laws passed that have nothing to do with human need. If I donate to the ACLU, HRC, or an environmental group, I expect that some of my money will be spent on lobbying congress. That is not bad or evil.

I absolutely read the question, accusing me of reading comprehension problems while having serious reading comprehension problems is some reddit level stupidity. Reread what I wrote, you read the first half and ignored the second half. I was merely illustrating that many paid lobbyist do very worthwhile things. From labor rights, to environmental justice, to human rights. The issue isn't lobbyists, the issue is corporate lobbyists...

Let's say you lose your job because a company lays you off without notice amid record profits. With your new found free time, you get so angry you go to your state senators and representatives and try to convince them to make a law limiting layoffs to a 6 month notice period for profitable companies. You are now a lobbyist. You are saying not to lobby the government full time. But for the sake of clarity let's say your coworkers also got laid off and pooled their money to send you to lobby on their behalf, you are now a paid lobbyist.

I feel like most people that complain about lobbyists are really just complaining about corporate lobbyists or lobbying groups paid by corporations. Lobbyists are a good and necessary part of any democracy.

Geopolitics isn't a on/off switch with simple choices, every decision you make has lasting impacts all over the world and is also predicated on whether the political capital exists for change. If any US president tried to strip Israel of funding the house and Senate would react to counter that within a week. I'm skeptical that a president can shift Israel policy as quickly as people want, even though I agree that our Israel policy needs to change. People are also not appreciating the fact that she has to become president first either way. No person can realistically become president of the USA on a defund Israel platform.

Kamala Harris is as left as she can be on every issue that politics allows, that signals to me that she is pragmatic, and but would probably move left once elected if she has the political capital to do so. Politicians represent the interests of the country, if she is a leftish authoritarian pragmatist, that's only because ~51% of people are.