Signtist

I dunno, I grew up with the “there are kids starving in Africa” spiel and other such lectures. For my family, it was more like the idea that “lesser” parts of the world had problems because they were “lesser,” and if anyone is suffering in America it’s because they brought that “lesser” mindset with them from elsewhere.

I mean, they’re trying to say that the terrible colonialism practiced by the European-based American people against the native Americans is happening again in Israel, which is definitely a good point to be made. We’re well past the ability to stop the atrocities committed by America in the past, but we’re able to stop Israel today. The same idea applies to the terrible treatment of non-while populations in America today by ICE and other agencies, while we’re on the topic of preventable atrocities.

When I was a kid trying to play flash games on dial-up internet, I found they took almost exactly the same amount of time to load as it took for me to make and eat a sandwich. I ate a lot of sandwiches.

Better in a vacuum, yes, but as /u/disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world pointed out, a huge amount of voters pay absolutely no attention, and just vote for whatever color they’ve always voted for. Hell, a bunch of people searched “Did Joe Biden drop out?” on election day, because they paid so little attention that they didn’t even know about Harris. That’s an extreme example, sure, but it’s just not a realistic expectation to think people will really think hard about a 3rd party, especially when it won’t get a proportionate amount of attention even if it got a huge amount of support, thanks to the billionaire-backed media.

If we don’t get someone into one of the 2 established parties, we’re crippling ourselves, likely to the point of immediate failure. It would be significantly more viable to change one of the parties by flooding it with new socialist politicians than it would be to build up a new platform based on socialism from the start.

It’s no accident, I’m sure. They are better, as they’re not helping the killers, but they’re nowhere near as good as is necessary to stop them. Pretty much the perfect definition of the average democratic politician these days: you vote for them to stop the killing, but you know that - whether by choice or not - they won’t do anything to prevent more deaths when the killers come back into power.

I’m happy we’re electing people like Zohran Mamdani, but we’re going to need a lot more of them before our leftmost viable party can be considered even a little left. We need politicians that make change, and when the system doesn’t let them, they band together with the rest of the population to force it, instead of just complaining about how they wish they could make change but can’t. The leaders need to be leading the charge, to battle if necessary.

That’s the thing; most democrat politicians hate him nearly as much as the republican ones do, as they’re more similar to one another than either is to him. There are a few exceptions, but we’re going to need people aligned with Mamdani to be the norm rather than the exception if we want the democratic party to become a real force for good.