crowlzor.bsky.social
50 posts
95 followers
221 following
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Basically, yes. Otherwise we'll only ever get the first one.
comment in response to
post
"Democrats would be wise" seems optimistic.
comment in response to
post
I mean again, I wish Kamala hadn't sent Clinton to insult those voters. I wish they had been offered something more than, my opponent will do worse than the administration I refuse to say what I'd do differently than.maybe dems should start offering voters more than scolding, and earn votes?
comment in response to
post
Again, I voted, even in a red state where my vote arguably didn't matter, but it was Biden whose bombs killed 100s of thousands, and Kamala chose to run on not opposing or changing that. I can't criticize those who couldn't vote in favor of those actions. Kamala could have offered them more.
comment in response to
post
A huge difference, but which would you call more moral? Cus Kamal was offering Palestinians the slow starvation death, Trump the bullet. It was lose lose, as Harris chose to present it to those voters. I voted for Harris, I live in Texas, it didn't matter. But I do understand those who couldn't.
comment in response to
post
Support Harris once she refused to say she'd do anything different to stop the killing that was happening. Now it may happen much faster. But Harris didn't have to put that choice. She could have just opposed the killing, and ran on that, and maybe we'd have a better outcome. We won't know i guess
comment in response to
post
I look at it like this: I oppose the death penalty, but if we have it, if you propose two ways to carry it out, one where we just stop feeding the inmate until death, or one where they are shot...I'm not actually sure one is more moral than the other. I can understand emotionally why many couldn't
comment in response to
post
I mean we will never really know. But what we do know is what Biden did not try: turning off all aid and weapons until a deal was reached. Would Osrael have still refused a deal after a sustained reduction or elimination of US support? Maybe, but history suggests not.
comment in response to
post
Cooperatives or state owned entities when I describe myself as a democratic socialist. I would accept social democracy, or "nice capitalism " as better than the status quo, but ultimately my preference is total democratization of the economy.
comment in response to
post
I would also say that actually democratic socialists are not talking about nicer capitalism, but fully worker/state owned means of production, but differentiated from Soviet style that it emphasizes democratic control over those institutions. I certainly mean replacing current corporations with
comment in response to
post
I can't speak for the Midwest, but most would agree Texas is the South,and we absolutely have rising homelessness and a catastrophic housing crisis. And it is a nationwide crisis as I understand it, a combination of lack of building since the 08 crash, and current issues from high interest rates.
comment in response to
post
Not that there aren't good aspects, nor that things aren't likely to be worse under Trump's policies, but there are real areas of the economy, especially in and around cities, where struggles are real, and lead to different perception from broad data alone can show, I think.
comment in response to
post
Housing is in full crisis mode. Homelessness increasing in most major cities. Interest rates exasperating issues for not just housing but many other sectors still. health care costs are still too high. Rent and mortgage taking higher portion of income making households feel squeezed on other costs.
comment in response to
post
I live in Austin, if I google correctly, twice the population, still no light rail system. We approved one 5 years ago, but the state is still trying to make it illegal to actually build.
comment in response to
post
Connolly can be the classic street fighter questionable stereotyping character. Throwing pots of gold and rainbows and tankards of Guinness. His mechanical trick is his damage starts at a fraction of other characters, but increases over time with "seniority" bonuses.
comment in response to
post
DF would get a defensive special where she disappears for a few seconds as she goes to the hospital, replaced by full hp interns while she's away. She can also hug her opponent, healing them. Pelosi has a finisher where she rains money down equal to twice the damage she's received.
comment in response to
post
Even more Gogol Bordello? And excellent songs at that? Stop, I can only love this show so much!
comment in response to
post
By next generation, turns out she meant people in their mid 60s. I suppose they technically would be a generation younger than her in her 80s...
comment in response to
post
I mean, chemical weapons in Iraq, hell, Bush only won the nomination by lying about McCain family, I'd call those catastrophic lies with massive consequences. And like, the core of regaomics was basically a lie that wrecked our nation.
comment in response to
post
Only 15? Id say Republicans have been rewarded for primarily communicating through lies for at least a quarter century, and arguably since the 80s
comment in response to
post
That's why I said the real fight is for what the change should be. But I do think it is easier to get elected running against the status quo than on saving it/repairing it on the margins. We are at the meme. Barbarism or socialism, and as a society, we should democratically make that choice.
comment in response to
post
Be visibly deleting those systems by the midterms. Be obviously and in a showy way building something new. The last president really to do that was Reagan and look at his reelection, would have definitely won a third term if he could have. Before him FDR used the same playbook to win 4 elections...
comment in response to
post
I do think that the candidates that have successfully claimed the change mantle has won the majority of races since the financial crash of 08. Inflation was going down and Trump's policies will likely increase it. People voted for him cus he claimed the change/outsider mantle successfully.
comment in response to
post
Obama won 2012 because he successfully painted Romney as a rich out of touch guy who fired workers. He ran against that vision of the establishment. Hilary largely ran as that very establishment, and lost. Biden painted himself as a change(despite how ludicrous that idea always was) in 2020.
comment in response to
post
I mean, at its worst it is better for far more people than our system currently is, so I'm hearing the worst case scenario is material improvement for potentially millions of Americans. And you can elect better politicians, you can't elect better capitalism/corporations.
comment in response to
post
As the avatar of what is, while Trump ran against it. Then Biden ran against the establishment of Trump, but then Harris ran as the establishment again. The trend follows in midterms too. Run against what is, and win seems pretty undefeated since 2008 at least.
comment in response to
post
Im not citing just this murder(or the overwhelming positive reaction to it, gunna rewatch John q in celebration this weekend myself) I'm pointing at Obama running on change, and narrowly winning reelection by painting Romney as representative of the establishment. Then Clinton running
comment in response to
post
Like, if recent 16+years of election results hasn't convinced you that the electoral majority is there for whoever runs the most against what currently is, I don't know what else to say I guess. All current systems are viewed negatively, run against them, and actually change those fundamentals.
comment in response to
post
Obama didn’t fix the fundamental problem of the existence of for profit insurance. That is what we should do, as a bare minimum beginning. Remove that entire industry, and their ability to bankroll candidates and pacs, and do so quickly.
comment in response to
post
Like, maybe we shouldn't insokate people from political decisions if they are rich enough? If rich and poor get equal outcomes from elections, it might very well adjust many current voting patterns. Especially since there are more poor than rich people currently.
comment in response to
post
Sure, democratic outcomes would still be more ethically justified than insurance companies. And hopefully dems would actually campaign on good things for people if there weren't middlemen paying them not to anymore...
comment in response to
post
And your point that minor fixes were unpopular is not a point against total change, it is in favor of it. People are making it very clear they want the system burned down, the real political fight to be had is what to replace it with, not how to save it anymore imo.
comment in response to
post
Fine, fix things, get shallacked short term, fight for the long term future.
The confederacy lost the short term war, but they proved pretty good at controlling the long term outcomes. The left/liberals should be more willing to burn things and fight for long term solutions.
comment in response to
post
It should be that any legal procedure prescribed by a licensed professional is covered. If we want to change what is legal/licensed qualifications, that should be decided democratically. If conservatives pass bad laws, liberals should campaign to change those. Necessary care should never be denied
comment in response to
post
I fundamentally disagree that we have to make the choices you imply. We can choose that extra burdens fall on those individuals and institutions that can afford it, while spreading cost throughout the population, and removing middlemen profit extraction.
comment in response to
post
It really sounds like a great solution would be to just un-segment the industry, and remove profit extraction from it, focusing on providing needed care, paid collectively and regulated democratically?
comment in response to
post
What if, hear me out, there wasn't anybody in-between patients and the care they need extracting profit through nothing but gatekeeping that care? What if we all collectively paid taxes to a government that regulated and paid providers to give the care to patients that they need?
comment in response to
post
Zoning reform is the most achievable bad idea. It is better than status quo, but massively inferior as a solution to the less politically possible solution of mass government and non-profit housing, given carte blanche exemptions to zoning to favor it over private options.
comment in response to
post
Also highly recommend Arcane on the same platform.
comment in response to
post
On a ballot? I voted for Harris who is part of an administrations supporting war crimes, so yeah, I'd vote for the least bad option. But in a primary id support a candidate who put standing against billionaires front, but absolutely clear still that minorities like trans people deserve protection
comment in response to
post
I certainly think it'd be better, both morally and electorally, than saying trans people are icky and don't deserve equal rights. And so i hope it isn't a part of the party, I hope it becomes the driving ethos of the party, to side with workers against billionaires.
comment in response to
post
Well I'm a communist, so literally anyone who owns the means of production and exploits the workers, but I can compromise and say billionaires. There are very few billionaires, who do disproportionate harm, and there is a proud history of demonizing their equivalent to rally a mass movement.
comment in response to
post
I just think it's easier to get that message through by declaring an economic enemy, both general and specific, than throwing vulnerable people under a bus. Chuck the wealthy under that bus, frequently, and explicitly, both as a group, and individuals. Be loud about identifying that enemy.
comment in response to
post
Is your suggestion basically to actually do the " turn a dial that says racism(transphobia) up while constantly looking over you shoulder for applause" meme as electoral strategy? Obama was on the wrong side of history on Gay Marriage, I disagree we need more oppression to be electable.
comment in response to
post
formalize financial reporting requirements for all elected office, and make impeachment for violations automated, so it is not political.
comment in response to
post
Add language acknowledging the reality of political parties, and place limits on campaigns, campaign finance, and Introduce ranked choice automatic runoff voting to congress and senate racing.
comment in response to
post
I would first add language explicitly disallowing the 1922 apportionment act, unhappiness the number of reps. Remove the EC, as a compromise, the president is elected by the combined house and senate after elections every 4 years.
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
I got introduced to the story of the tragedy through a coworker of my wife singing the Gordon Lightfoot song. Beautiful song, and now I can picture some beautiful surroundings. Thanks for the photos!