SirDerpy @ SirDerpy @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

590

Joined

1 yr. ago

Strike and boycott, 20 hours per week, unpaid. The data analytics would pay $250-300/hr as a sub (because that's what I bill and regularly earn). I also spend a significant amount of time as an educator. My family makes sacrifices, lives a lower standard of living, for the cause of anonymous others that have far less.

How about yourself? How big is your dick, lumpen?

Best of luck. You'll need it.

You decided to go back to assigning me others' opinions instead of the ones I explained to you as mine. You're having a conversation with yourself to beat down your own straw men because it serves your ego.

Old habits die hard. I'll leave you to it.

edit: The SCOTUS ruling, dummy. Wiki even links the appeal. You're better off not trying to be king of the idiots.

The fact that it's illegal is a clear indicator that it's an effective means of change. We risk or we're crushed.

She'll advance the climate progress we've made at home and internationally. She'll raise climate ambition to make sure we confront the climate crisis in a way that makes the country more inclusive, more economically competitive, and more energy secure.

Uh oh, Manish. You said the quiet part out loud. But, you're right. Harris will far better than Biden or Trump monetize the public's want to save their environment.

The groups behind the letter are the American Postal Workers Union (APWU), Association of Flight Attendants (AFA), International Union of Painters and Allied Trades (IUPAT), National Education Association (NEA), Service Employees International Union (SEIU), United Auto Workers (UAW), and United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America (UE).

I hope they threaten to strike over the issue. The federal government won't yield the military industrial complex. And, this is enough people to ignite a general strike for fair working conditions and compensation.

What kind of "more effective means of change" do you spend more time on?

rebellion, riot, strike, boycott, protest

The wheels of justice turn very slowly. There's usually a lot of time between filing, being heard by the court, and ruling. It's definitely not like on TV. The "normal" time between events is measured in months and weeks.

It's very important that the judicial system gets these verdicts correct. The system will grant an appeal based on subjectively lesser legal circumstances.

We all know he's probably guilty. And, by time the system is done with him, he'll have been given such an unreasonably fair trial that we can be nearly certain of it. You want him gone forever? Be patient. Or, pick up a rifle.

Also what penalties are there for his lawyers gunning up the system with these endless, baseless appeals?

You answered your own question:

Engoron sanctioned five Trump lawyers $7,500 each in September 2023 for "repeating these frivolous arguments" after they were rejected by courts multiple times.

Sunday's average air surface temperature soared to 17.09°C... it was nearly 3°C higher than the pre-2023 record, set at 16.8°C on August 13, 2016.

Editing missed a decimal point in the opening paragraph. It's nearly 0.3C above the pre-2023 record.

I'm voting two races. And, I don't spend hardly any time voting relative the time I spend on all the other more effective means of change.

If you want to label two reasoned and explained exceptions bad faith then by all means.

Most importantly, I appreciate that you're asking questions that appear to be in good faith. Neither of those is the status quo. So, I'll give you good answers.

And I'm pointing out the historical and statistical futility of either voting 3rd party or not voting as a means to break away from the current Democratic/Republican stranglehold.

No, I'm saying voting 3rd party or not voting isn't going to unseat the current Democratic/Republican parties and to run those progressive candidates in the Democratic primaries as a more effective means to the desired end.

You've assumed that winning is the only outcome of value. Five percent of the GE in this cycle puts the platform on every ballot in the next. That choice would be outside the influence of party primary and from a party more loyal to the platform than even Sanders.

That exerts a fuck ton of pressure on Democratic Party platform for at least four years. I couldn't care less which party serves the ideological choice We the People deserve. I like Green today because they've been more loyal to the platform than even Sanders and they're already engaged with local ballot access.

But, this reasoning only works well in deep red states. Everywhere else voters need to worry much more about short term harm reduction. I even did the math for what proportion of deep red state Democratic voters would need to reason this out to get 5% of the GE. It's definitely possible.

Literally, neolibs just need to trust other neolibs to not be so stupid as to fuck up something so simple it can be responsibly communicated in three paragraphs.

Which, like, how do you expect to achieve your goals then? What's your concrete plan of action to win by not participating?

I advocate and practice the means that have been historically, statistically, psychologically proven, in order of decreasing importance: rebellion, riot, strike, boycott, protest, and voting.

But he did, in fact, receive fewer votes

Why? What did the DNC do to favor his opponents?

Anyone I've asked to read the ruling that then did so no longer votes in the major party primaries. You seem reasonable. Please, read it for yourself.

So I'm voting in the primaries of the two parties who have a statistical chance of winning to get there.

Succinctly, I want more to think along a longer scale of time than the next five years.

More importantly, individuals may represent the same ideology but be in very different situations making very different choices. For example, I think a wise leftist in a red state probably best represents leftist ideology by voting Green POTUS this cycle. But, the same wise leftist in a purple state probably best represents leftist ideology in shorter term harm reduction with a Democratic POTUS vote. Said simply, our loyalty isn't party, but to each other.

The SCOTUS case brought by the Sanders campaign had a ruling that stated the private parties can do whatever they want in their primaries, without regard for fairness or wants of the participants. SCOTUS recommend that if one doesn't agree with that then they shouldn't participate. I agree with them.

It also doesn't matter whom they nominate. The platform and outcomes aren't changed by the puppet politician, only by the corporate donors writing the legislation. I don't care who figureheads either major party.

I also don't care who figureheads the Green Party. The platform and ballot access is their value. If they scale then pressure is exerted on Democrats. If they scale a lot then a solid candidate will jump ship from Democrats.

My dichotomous vote for President also wouldn't matter. My deep red state will cast all of their electoral votes for Trump. I've decided to vote Green POTUS in the general in small hope others also reason out where such is possible and why 5% of the GE vote is quite powerful for the cause, regardless of party affiliation. There's one other local election where I'll vote because I believe a viewpoint that I don't agree with should be voiced for others' benefit.

There's much more powerful avenues of change than voting. I spend most of my time on what history says will work.

I fully support others spending a half hour learning about what law enforcement are taught. If you've not seen something like this before then it's definitely worth your time.

I want to add that Park Rangers are law enforcement. They've exceptionally high standards for hiring. And, the pay sucks.

I've broken rules in many parks, sometimes with good reason and sometimes without, usually very safely but once or twice definitely not. I've been "busted" about a dozen times by Park Rangers.

Every single time I've been treated with dignity, respect, and honoring the spirit of justice over the letter of the law. I've not been punished when I thought I should be, then been told that's the reason there's no punishment. And, when I've been punished I've agreed with the severity and nature of it wholeheartedly. It's quite literally the opposite of what I've experienced as a colored man in big cities.

I'm out here educating others about choices they could make.

You're voting

No, I'm not.

You're out here making assumptions about me and believing everyone else is too stupid to choose for themselves. It doesn't even register for you that the rules unfairly limit choices because they favor your choice. Fuck everyone else: You got yours.

It's just like the fascists you're running from. Well done.

A TL;DW would likely get more views.

Keep that head in the sand where you feel safe.

Progressives can win on the Democratic ticket

Is that what happened to the Sanders campaign, twice? Are you certain there's not a SCOTUS ruling where the DNC admits their tactics?

In 13 states the deadline for petitions for specific independent candidates has already passed. But, in at least 20 states the rules clearly allow Democrats and Republicans to do whatever, whenever.

If RCV magically appeared then the Green Party would be winning this one with AOC. Most aren't as stupid as we think. They only lack practical alternatives. I believe harm reduction would be a second choice for so, so many.

But, RCV isn't going to magically appear; Even if a politician wanted to, none can save us from the system; And, harm reduction simply isn't good enough anymore. The only way we progress is by doing much, much more than voting.

edit: The comment above shouldn't be downvoted. Yes, many of the items they list are not under control of the state or are only under partial control. But, they asked a good question. To me the question is worth a hundred misunderstandings of fact. This person will certainly clean up their facts if they understand how the system was designed to work and why it's broken. I upvoted them. You should, too.

what makes something a state's rights issue versus a federal one?

The supremecy clause in the federal constitution prevents a state from passing a law contrary to federal law. There's three situations:

1.) The federal law can explicitly allow a behavior. A state cannot pass a law to prevent it.

2.) The federal law can explicitly prevent a behavior. A state cannot pass a law that allows it.

3.) There's no federal law. States can pass laws as they see fit.

Similarly, states have consitutional supremecy clauses to limit their city and county laws. When a state passes a law then what was once for cities and counties to decide is now under control of the state. When the federal passes a law what was once a state decision is now federal. States and federal will almost never repeal a law to allow the smaller subordinate to again decide. Thus, over time, power is consolidated to the state and federal.

Note that while the deconsolidation of power is very much a leftist issue, the semantic "states' rights" has been adopted by the radical right. It was a slogan of the Confederacy. The argument they made was IMO wise and sound. But, they were leveraging reason for the immoral goal of continuation of slavery. You've not been misunderstood. But, it could easily happen if your audience has slightly less reading comprehension than is usually found on Lemmy.