SvennoJ said:
SanAndreasX said:
Revolutions are a lot messier than they look like on paper.
Will they do better? On most issues, yes. Kamala would not have done crap like threaten to annex Canada/Greenland/Venezuela/Panama/Gaza. She also wouldn't have masked stormtroopers picking up brown people at random. There would still be deportations, and that system would still be very imperfect, but it would be somewhat more humane.
As for "fixing" things - what does that look like, exactly?
Unfortunately, things like gerrymandering and the Electoral College aren't going away because they are baked into the Constitution. The South and the sparsely populated upper plains/mountain states like Wyoming and the Dakotas aren't going to give that stuff up without massive bloodshed. For my part, I would prefer proportional representation in the House, which would solve gerrymandering, and curtailing the powers of the Senate and making the House the primary focus of the government. Having an upper legislative house that has as much power as the U.S. Senate is definitely an anomaly. In most countries, senates are largely advisory bodies that only really step in in times of crisis. I'd also like to see snap elections and confidence votes (again, House only) implemented, but again, the South and Plains will not give that up without a war.
|
Kamala would simply have continued Biden's policy towards the ME. Trump did get Israel to reduce the pace of the genocide in Gaza. Dunno if Kamala would have followed Netanyahu into attacking Iran though, but remember Israel started the 12 day war without the US before. The one refreshing thing about Trump is that he blabs many of the real intentions out loud. The democrats with Biden did as much damage with sanctions as Trump with tarifs, Democrats are waging an economic war on the world just as much, yet cover it up better. Same for immigration. Difference is Trump does it more openly to gather support from his fascist base.
Is there no 3rd party in the US that can promote change and get votes. Labor in the UK is getting rightfully slaughtered, yet there it's not a pendulum for the other side of the coin to continue. Not that the green party has a track record, but maybe some change can come from it.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/may/08/greens-unseat-labour-to-win-mayoral-election-in-hackney-zoe-garbett
Two party politics are the core of the problems in the USA, both parties are in servitude of the same oligarch masters. So yeah, proportional representation according to popular vote is needed in the USA, abandon the winner takes all nonsense. That solves gerrymandering as well, obsolete. Plus removal of the president/PM on a no confidence vote like in better working democracies.
|
Third parties are not viable in the U.S. system. Furthermore, the third parties that do exist, suck more than the Democrats do, and are not worth throwing my vote away on. I also live in a swing state, and there is no fucking way in hell that I want Andy Biggs as my governor, Gina Swoboda as my Secretary of State, or Warren Peterson as my AG. Katie Hobbs, Adrian Fontes, and Kris Mayes have done a solid enough job at sheltering Arizona from some of the worst excesses of the Trump administration, as much as can be expected. Biggs will throw the door wide open for Trump and his bullshit.
As I said, I am in accord with proportional representation and confidence votes. However, these things would require Constitutional amendments to change. It only takes 12 states out of 50 to block a Constitutional amendment, and the South + the Upper Plains exceeds that threshold by a large measure.
Last edited by SanAndreasX - 1 day ago
