"Just asking questions" is a dishonest tactic the right has been using for a long time now. You asked "how did they subvert the will of the people if they won the vote?"
That question contains multiple assertions. For one, it's repeating the mandate of the people narrative - the actions of an elected official are not the same as the will of the people. Democracy is a political system meant to serve the will of the people, it's not itself the will of the people.
It also assumes that no subversion took place... And you can't know what you don't know, but it's giving "change my mind"
That sets the starting line for arguing the will of the people wasn't subverted by disputing facts, moving goalposts, or some whataboutisms. It frames the conversation in a way that sneaks things in as default assumptions
If you don't want to be mistaken for doing this, you can word your questions more neutrally/open ended, or be more explicit in requesting information. Adding "am I missing something?" To something that isn't adding up makes it come across far more neutral and good faith. It's also just less confrontational, which is good if you don't have the full picture yet
The Canadian boycotts are not "voting with your wallet", they're collective action.
Canadians, together, decided to boycott American goods. Their leaders cancelled deals. Their local stores and suppliers decided they'd rather source from anywhere else. The Canadian government started working on trade deals with everyone else
The nation of Canada as a whole is boycotting American goods. They're not doing this individually, they have an organized response
Voting with your wallet is a lie, like recycling plastic
You can't do collective action individually. You can make the house hurt a little bit, but you'll never force them to change through what you buy. The house always wins, unless you get together to change the rules
Does anyone else not feel the humiliation of a foreign country trying to gift us a new command center? Corruption aside, this is incredibly humiliating
No, it's because consulting companies like McKinsey tell Microsoft, ea, and Ubisoft that micro transactions will make stock go up, then they go to investment groups and say micro transactions are the sign of a gaming company about to make money
They have all the metrics, they aren't doing what makes them the most sales or revenue. They're doing what makes the stock price dance
It honestly wasn't. Like yes, it was a real problem, there was a lot of bad, often legacy, code that had to be reviewed and maybe patched. Industrial control code tends to be notoriously bad, and so you never know if this traffic light or that power station is going to glitch out until you dive in
But even as a kid who just knew how to take things apart, I knew it was a nothing burger. Real work went into it, but the fact people in the industry were taking it seriously means there was little actual danger
When you collaborate with fascists, it always goes one way. They use you, then they turn on you. Every single time.
They must always be the victims. There must always be new enemies. If you join hands with fascists, you're just empowering them and volunteering yourself as the next enemy
What do you think this would even look like? They like the trappings of Christianity. They're not going to give up religion. They're just going to pick or create a more convenient hate-filled flavor and try to make it the national religion
It's really not. The name Leo is associated with workers rights and human dignity, the guy has been directly calling out Vance and Trump, and the guy has strong ties to south America and was Francis's right hand man
The guy gave his speech in Italian and Spanish, not English. This is not a maga pope
Why do they all layoff workers who actually do the thing? Why do they always leave in layers of management? What's up with return to office, why is zoom of all companies doing it?
It's consulting companies like McKinsey. They go to the board and say "you need a strong CEO to boost stock price". Then they go investment groups and say "look at this strong CEO, you should invest in this company"
The worst part is what McKinsey thinks makes for a "strong" CEO means they're specialized at doing something, usually something evil
How does that help anyone? That would just be performative
The Democratic party is right there, and it stands for nothing. It has all the infrastructure set up already. So let's take it.
Let's tea party the Democratic party and force them left, kicking and screaming. Let's build a large enough faction of actual progressives and leftists that Democrats are forced to come to the table. We flip red seats and take vacant ones. Then we primary incumbent Democrats who don't get with the game plan
That's what the whole fighting oligarchy tour is about
"Just asking questions" is a dishonest tactic the right has been using for a long time now. You asked "how did they subvert the will of the people if they won the vote?"
That question contains multiple assertions. For one, it's repeating the mandate of the people narrative - the actions of an elected official are not the same as the will of the people. Democracy is a political system meant to serve the will of the people, it's not itself the will of the people.
It also assumes that no subversion took place... And you can't know what you don't know, but it's giving "change my mind"
That sets the starting line for arguing the will of the people wasn't subverted by disputing facts, moving goalposts, or some whataboutisms. It frames the conversation in a way that sneaks things in as default assumptions
If you don't want to be mistaken for doing this, you can word your questions more neutrally/open ended, or be more explicit in requesting information. Adding "am I missing something?" To something that isn't adding up makes it come across far more neutral and good faith. It's also just less confrontational, which is good if you don't have the full picture yet