I tend to find that the people who believe in participating in the 2 party system also do these same steps. Why would either party do away with FPTP? Neither one has any incentive to do it. At least third parties often have it listed as part of their platform and have incentive to do it because they can't easily get elected within the current system.
We have anti-genocide parties. The problem is not enough Americans are willing to vote for them or organize for them as alternatives to the Democrat and Republican parties. Plus the coffers for the Democrats and Republicans are filled by corporations, so it's grassroots funding vs multi-billion dollar industry donations and super PACs.
Start a social media account for pics of the pothole. Keep tagging city officials in it. Call or email someone every time you're reminded that the pothole exists so they will be too. Make the city rue the day they gave Cave Johnson lem... Potholes.
Idk probably the people being disproportionately bombed and killed right now? Why do zionists always try to make Israel into some sort of state full of victims while they're the more powerful?
I work in the title industry and see houses being bought by LLCs and trusts with cash and then sold weeks later for $100,000 more with only curb appeal modifications or no repairs at all. It's pretty common.
You can absolutely buy a house and sell it for a higher price, and do nothing to it or very minimal modifications. I work in the title industry and see it literally every day. LLC or trust buys house with cash, turns around and sells house a couple weeks later for like $100,000 more, while doing nothing to it or very minimal repairs or aesthetic/curb appeal changes.
It would be very good and cool under a socialist state, but not in the US currently and I'll explain my reasoning. In the US, nationalization represents the transfer of an enterprise from a single capitalist firm to the capitalist class as a whole via the state. Nationalization can bring benefits to both the working and capitalist classes, but ultimately the workers are still being exploited by the state for private profits instead of social ends. When an enterprise is nationalized by a capitalist state, the former owners are usually generously compensated with state bonds bearing a fixed rate of interest; this enables them to continue to exploit the workers involved at a rate of profit now guaranteed by the state. The class struggle continues, but but it is now necessary for the workers to struggle not against a single private management but against the capitalist state in its entirety. This is one of the reasons why Mussolini and Hitler heaped praise on FDR for his New Deal policies. They did a lot of good for people during the depression, but they also were market interventionist in a way that put a lot of corporate control in the hands of the capitalist state.
This argument that Palestinians should be peaceful when confronted with literal genocide and ethnic cleansing is so fucking dumb. Would you say this to the people involved in the Warsaw ghetto uprising?
Israel is literally committing genocide and ethnic cleansing on the daily. Even before October 7th, they have been illegally settling for decades. There are numerous government ministers and Knesset members that have called publicly for said genocide and ethnic cleansing. Some have said there is no such thing as a Palestinian civilian. Some were giving speeches at a rally with an org that was planning how to re-establish settlements in Gaza.
The onus should not be on Egypt to take in refugees. The onus should be on Israel to stop its genocidal actions and ethnic cleansing campaign. You know... The thing that's causing the Palestinians to be in a position where they would need to flee to Egypt in the first place.
There are socialist third party candidates already running. Claudia/Karina from PSL (Party for Socialism and Liberation) and Cornell West. I think it would make more sense to throw support behind one of them.
I mean, some Texans might think so. Maybe even Texan politicians. However, Texas tried it already. It was one of the slave states that seceded and got its ass kicked in the civil war. Generally, that's the legal precedent that people refer to when they argue whether or not a state has the right to secede. The answer is war/no. That doesn't mean it would have to result in that in the future, but I think the only way they could get it to work without violence would be by starting some devolution movement and getting the US constitution amended to allow Texas in particular to secede and that would require a constitutional convention and the consent of the majority of the other states. Otherwise, they'd have to win a war against the US.
I'm not like a US civil war scholar or anything, but there's at least a glimmer of precedence to be found there with what happened to average folk living in the Confederate States when those states seceded. Babies born in the Confederacy were considered US citizens because the US (the Union) never recognized the Confederacy as independent and legally considered it US territory still. As for adults, it was similar... The US treated them as if they had never lost US citizenship and either punished or pardoned people for treason and war related crimes after the war. So I guess the answer would depend on whether Texas wins or loses the inevitable war that the US would fight to keep Texas from seceding/declaring independence in the first place.
Just to piggyback on this comment... If you have a dope library like mine, you don't even have to go in person to get your library card and do all of the above. I signed up for a card online, downloaded Libby, got everything set up and had an ebook checked out that same day.
Joke's on you, I love dick!