Great that Greens pick up seats, but overall a heavy majority of morally defective candidates will be assuming office. That's sad.
Here in the 'land of the free™' it will be incredibly hard to find candidates opposed to genocide because ballot line access is chiefly controlled by Republicans and Democrats. Morally centered candidates are not welcome to run.
I decided to do what I used to loathe and "throw my vote away" on the green party from now on. If we do that, maybe eventually we could make some headway. But as Nate says, if you can't stand up to genocide, what will you stand up for? I'll vote for the candidates I want instead of whoever is against Republicans. Holding my nose and voting for Harris was thrown away too, so at least I can log protest votes against the establishment's evil.
Yes, and the reason we have such a duopoly is because the vast majority of the voters believe that it's better to "vote the other guy out." We don't realize that there are usually more than one third party candidate that has a legitimate platform with intentions of truly correcting our system, which is what the vast majority of voters really want. But the erroneous belief that a third-party vote would be "wasting" a vote, there's not much hope.
If a democracy works best when each voter votes for the candidate whom the voter truly thinks is best for the country, then a third-party vote is obviously the best choice for that voter. And I do believe that's the case. But the erroneous idea that a third-party vote is "wasted" is silly and devastating to this democracy. If that belief is somehow destroyed, it might take only a couple election cycles before people increase the share of votes third parties achieve, so that those parties will receive more funding in succeeding elections. It's not an instant cure, but even the slightest increase of third-party share of votes will alarm the duopoly, so that even though the third-party candidate may not win, it sends a message to the duopoly.
But having said all that, the really most effective, single action we can take to improve our politics is a constitutional amendment that allows campaign contributions only from individual, human voters, with an across-the-board maximum contribution and with a government subsidy to those voters who cannot afford it. There's a similar amendment, called "we the people" amendment languishing in the house for some 10 years now, and it's not being addressed by enough Congress Critters, demonstrating how corrupted this institution really is.
Great work as usual. Personally, I see ones attitude to Israel specifically as the policial litmus test of our time: if you support Israel, you support Imperialist slaughter globally and systematic attacks on the rights and living standards of workers at home. So, one can identify a potential ally by simply asking another: do you support Israel in any way? If the answer is no, their is sufficient common ground to build a political movement.
I believe the question you ask, whether someone supports Israel's genocide and other war crimes, is a good one. I myself use it to judge the moral status of Jews that I know. It's a useful question used in this way because Jews are among the most heavily indoctrinated as children, which explains why Israel is so dear to their hearts. This is true for the vast majority of US/diaspora Jews, who have a natural tendency to support their political leaders here, and to also support Israel. In recent years, because of the Gaza genocide, many Jewish views have become more complex, but I believe there's still the basic belief among them that says Israel is necessary for the survival of Judaism and that Israel itself is a righteous endeavor.
Thank you for this clear and thorough understanding of a large portion of our western world politics, and in particular, that of the UK. With all the spirit I can command, I hope we citizens in all western countries in short time see through the lies and deception that fool us into giving the miscreants the power they need to do so much wrong against those who are the same as us citizens here.
Looking at the results, it appears that disenchanted Tory voters have made a direct switch to R(D?)eform. Ignorant people will have to learn the hard way
I am puzzled. The blog keeps mentioning "Labour" as in "the Labour party in the UK". But there is no Labour party. There is a bunch of zionists that call themselves "Labour" (more correctly LINO - Labour in name only) they love israel, love genocide (support Israelis using dogs to rape Palestinians) and are led by something called "starmer" who shows no recognisable human traits such as "empathy" & thus one questions if indeed, it is human. The Labour Party of the UK? died in the 1990s when B.Liar-the-warmonger took over with his side-kick the peadophile-lover Petey Mandelson.
1. Happy horseshit rhetoric aside, you can see what matters to the uk establishment by what they ban. That said, the point is to be able to play Grima Wormtongue to the Americans, and the Americans care very much about Israel.
2. Moral arguments are wasted on sociopaths such as Starmer.
Great that Greens pick up seats, but overall a heavy majority of morally defective candidates will be assuming office. That's sad.
Here in the 'land of the free™' it will be incredibly hard to find candidates opposed to genocide because ballot line access is chiefly controlled by Republicans and Democrats. Morally centered candidates are not welcome to run.
I decided to do what I used to loathe and "throw my vote away" on the green party from now on. If we do that, maybe eventually we could make some headway. But as Nate says, if you can't stand up to genocide, what will you stand up for? I'll vote for the candidates I want instead of whoever is against Republicans. Holding my nose and voting for Harris was thrown away too, so at least I can log protest votes against the establishment's evil.
Yes, and the reason we have such a duopoly is because the vast majority of the voters believe that it's better to "vote the other guy out." We don't realize that there are usually more than one third party candidate that has a legitimate platform with intentions of truly correcting our system, which is what the vast majority of voters really want. But the erroneous belief that a third-party vote would be "wasting" a vote, there's not much hope.
If a democracy works best when each voter votes for the candidate whom the voter truly thinks is best for the country, then a third-party vote is obviously the best choice for that voter. And I do believe that's the case. But the erroneous idea that a third-party vote is "wasted" is silly and devastating to this democracy. If that belief is somehow destroyed, it might take only a couple election cycles before people increase the share of votes third parties achieve, so that those parties will receive more funding in succeeding elections. It's not an instant cure, but even the slightest increase of third-party share of votes will alarm the duopoly, so that even though the third-party candidate may not win, it sends a message to the duopoly.
But having said all that, the really most effective, single action we can take to improve our politics is a constitutional amendment that allows campaign contributions only from individual, human voters, with an across-the-board maximum contribution and with a government subsidy to those voters who cannot afford it. There's a similar amendment, called "we the people" amendment languishing in the house for some 10 years now, and it's not being addressed by enough Congress Critters, demonstrating how corrupted this institution really is.
Yep. MoveToAmend.org
Totally agree with your concept of only allowing human voters to contribute to campaigns. Have to kill the corporate personhood ideology.
My local Green borough counsellor got in on not many more votes than the Labour counsellor so, for once, my vote actually mattered~
Great work as usual. Personally, I see ones attitude to Israel specifically as the policial litmus test of our time: if you support Israel, you support Imperialist slaughter globally and systematic attacks on the rights and living standards of workers at home. So, one can identify a potential ally by simply asking another: do you support Israel in any way? If the answer is no, their is sufficient common ground to build a political movement.
Thanks
I believe the question you ask, whether someone supports Israel's genocide and other war crimes, is a good one. I myself use it to judge the moral status of Jews that I know. It's a useful question used in this way because Jews are among the most heavily indoctrinated as children, which explains why Israel is so dear to their hearts. This is true for the vast majority of US/diaspora Jews, who have a natural tendency to support their political leaders here, and to also support Israel. In recent years, because of the Gaza genocide, many Jewish views have become more complex, but I believe there's still the basic belief among them that says Israel is necessary for the survival of Judaism and that Israel itself is a righteous endeavor.
Thank you for this clear and thorough understanding of a large portion of our western world politics, and in particular, that of the UK. With all the spirit I can command, I hope we citizens in all western countries in short time see through the lies and deception that fool us into giving the miscreants the power they need to do so much wrong against those who are the same as us citizens here.
Thanks Sam
Looking at the results, it appears that disenchanted Tory voters have made a direct switch to R(D?)eform. Ignorant people will have to learn the hard way
I certainly wish this would be the case in Sweden. With the exception of Malmö, this outcome is highly improbable in Sweden. Sigh . . .
I am puzzled. The blog keeps mentioning "Labour" as in "the Labour party in the UK". But there is no Labour party. There is a bunch of zionists that call themselves "Labour" (more correctly LINO - Labour in name only) they love israel, love genocide (support Israelis using dogs to rape Palestinians) and are led by something called "starmer" who shows no recognisable human traits such as "empathy" & thus one questions if indeed, it is human. The Labour Party of the UK? died in the 1990s when B.Liar-the-warmonger took over with his side-kick the peadophile-lover Petey Mandelson.
1. Happy horseshit rhetoric aside, you can see what matters to the uk establishment by what they ban. That said, the point is to be able to play Grima Wormtongue to the Americans, and the Americans care very much about Israel.
2. Moral arguments are wasted on sociopaths such as Starmer.