No, I'm trying to point out the stark reality to people who keep saying the DNC needs to give us better candidates and ignore donors. I'm saying we need to wake up and realize that we have to give ourselves better candidates because the donors are not going to. They didn't give us AOC. She decided she was going to run against the establishment incumbent and the people came out to vote for her. That's what we need, everywhere. We need candidates to challenge the crap-ass incumbents whether the DNC likes it or not, and then we as voters need to show and vote for them. That's how elections work. People enter the race, then people vote, and one of the people who had entered the race is going to win no matter how many people don't vote. We need more engagement instead of removing ourselves from the process. Removing ourselves only serves to support the status quo. The new head of the DNC used to chair a progressive minor party in Minnesota, before he ran for and was elected to the chair of the Minnesota Democratic Party. He wasn't appointed to those positions as some good-will to the voters by the DNC. He was elected to those positions. The party won't change itself for us, so we have to change it through the primaries and the internal party leadership elections.
Pineapple's in northern Europe were a symbol of wealth and status. You could actually rent a pineapple for your dinner party to elevate your status. Pineapple theft was a notable crime. One thief was sentenced to 7 years in an Australian penal colony.
Were eligible voters turned away, or did they stay home? Were eligible candidates prevented from running, or did they choose not to? Which candidates won the popular vote in the primary and then were not nominated?
I'm fully aware that the donors exert pressure with campaign funding, just like any PAC can do. And I'm fully against the Citizens United ruling and the corrupting influence of money. But at the end of the day any eligible candidate can still choose to run against the candidate that the donors prefer, and the voters can choose to show up and vote for them. There is always that choice.
The owner/donor class is never going to not use the resources they have just because it's an unfair advantage. The only leverage we have is to show and vote in bigger numbers.
There are no viable third parties beyond local offices without ranked choice voting. Maybe county. In 2024 not one 3rd party was on the ballot in all 50 states. Only 3 managed to get on the ballot in more than 10 states. Vote in the major party primaries and, if your state has it (only 26 do) work on a ballot initiative to get ranked choice. But don't vote 3rd party at the state or federal level unless you already have ranked choice.
Whichever group is not recognized as the Democratic Party of elections past will have zero ballot access without huge signature campaigns in every state. No 3rd party was on all 50 states' ballots in 2024. Only 3 were on more than 10 states' ballots. Take all that energy and enthusiasm for a new party and out into the Democratic Party primaries (unless your state already has some form of ranked choice voting at the state level).
The fact is that the majority of voters chose Trump, period
Except they didn't. Trump received 49.8% of the vote. The actual fact is the majority of voters chose someone else, they just didn't agree enough on who that someone else should be.
Minority Report basically has mesh biometric ID so you get personalized ads everywhere. And while they do rely on psychic precognition, they are essentially thought police.
Well it wasn't a funeral.
Edit: oh sorry that's Taiwan