Ranked choice means it’s easier for voters, but when it’s not available voters are capable of understanding the scenario you describe and voting accordingly.

Many times I haven’t voted for my preferred candidate and instead voted for the candidate most likely to defeat the candidate I couldn’t stomach getting into power. Here in Canada we call it voting strategically and if you look at the polling data it definitely happened last election (and in many others in the past).

I’d like to have ranked choice, but it’s insane to say it’s not a democracy without it. But multiple rounds of voting (like France has) is better than ranked choice as it gives a clear choice to voters in the final round. But having multiple voting rounds is expensive and people might prefer to just vote once and have it done with, so ranked choice may be preferable for many people.

Single issue voter is still committed to being uncommitted.

Yes if you can convince everyone in the world of this simultaneously, we’ll end all wars.

Do you think Vladimir Putin will agree with your sentiment?

Patriotism is loving your country and wanting it to prosper. Nationalism is believing your country is superior to other countries and seeing all others as adversaries.

It’s the difference between working on self-improvement because you care about yourself vs. wanting to take things from others and being paranoid about them taking from you.

Someone tried to wipe out the Jews, so nationalism for a Jewish state must be healthy too, right?

Or maybe nationalism is just a tool to manipulate people and make them ignorant of the problems in a government. Fatah is incredibly corrupt but you don’t seem to care about that because you believe in some nationalistic narrative. There would already be a Palestinian state if there was strong leadership. But using narratives about historical humiliation, misogyny, hatred of other ethnic groups, reclaiming a glorious past (all hallmarks of fascist manipulation) means people are less likely to demand better leadership and corrupt governments can persist.

Cowards bending the knee to the idiot king.

Seems a bit much to label them as terrorist but they’ve done a lot of vandalism on various companies. Seems their MO is to find a target rationalize how it’s somehow tangentially associated with Israel and then break some shit.

They crossed a line when they did this to a military base and vandalized some RAF planes. They had some weirdo rationalization for this, but forgot to rationalize how this kind of thing will help anyone in Gaza. They seem to be just breaking things to get attention for themselves.

I think at this point we’re just buying time to diversify trade. It’s incredibly stupid to to think factories can be built in two weeks or even that businesses can source products from suppliers in other countries in that time frame. This is seemingly what Trump thinks, but yeah, it’s stupid.

So I’m hoping they’re doing everything needed to end dependence on the US in the background while mitigating the impact of Trump’s nonsense in the short term. But as @sbv@sh.itjust.works says, we can’t really know we’re just reading tea leaves.

I don’t know any serious leftist who would assume once we have a socialist system we are just done

It’s what Marxism is about isn’t it? Leftism is heavily influenced by Marxism, you hear leftists often say “late stage capitalism” without thinking how stupid the implications of that phrase are. Constant references to Star Trek abound, without realizing that show is actually agnostic on economics, they use an ideal system, but the writers don’t know what that would be. “Post-scarcity economy” is another phrase that’s used often.

Overall this indicates leftists don’t actually know anything about economics, they’re just unhappy with how things are going and have no idea how to fix it. Not significantly different than the MAGA movement, just putting faith into narratives that feel right to them.

Finance != Economics. Financial dumbassery can impact economics and economics will improve finances, there’s a relationship but they aren’t the same thing.

People learned the long lesson from the energy crisis in the 1970s, choosing “supply side” economics, which is putting the financial sector in charge of economics, and that’s resulted in an upside down economy. People learned the wrong lesson from the energy crisis, should’ve learned to end our dependence on oil, but people got bamboozled into thinking Reagan good and Carter bad. Now we’re in a situation where we can’t make the economy function properly because half the electorate is convinced the anything other than supply side economics is literally communism, and a significant portion of other half of the electorate is becoming convinced that they should support other failed economic policies in opposition to the failed supply side policies.

Many of the economic problems we’re facing have happened before, and instead of considering those policies (trust-busting, Keynesian economics, taxes on the wealthy) you’re presented with a choice between different paths to economic failure.

No she was fleeing the current regime, the one that beats women to death for showing their hair.

No evidence of this.

Only if you ignore the IAEA, how nuclear reactors work, and the fact that none of the uranium enriched in Iran is used in their one nuclear reactor (they use uranium imported from Russia for that) because it’s not suitable for civilian use. You don’t enrich uranium above 5% when it’s for civilian use, LOL.

Belief in at dictatorship of the proletariat and “the state will wither away” and all of the nonsense around how capitalism and imperialism corrupted science, etc.

The biggest famines in history weren’t caused by natural disasters, they were caused by weirdo ideology.

If you had specific questions on how things worked, then you might be able to learn something. You’re not going to learn anything by through snark.

Economics is a whole field of study. You expect me to teach a University class in a web forum thread?

You’re choosing narratives over listening to experts. I’m not an expert on economics, but I’ve learned enough to know that best case leftists are grifters, and worst case they are true believers that might actually try to implement economic policy without consulting with experts.

I guess we’ll need to wait and see on Mamdani.

So the Trump strategy of trying to kill trade is “wise” now?

You can have a universal healthcare system run in a socialist manner because both supply and demand are really warped when there’s patents and people’s lives on the line. But within the same country you could still have private businesses. And you can mix and match, having sectors partially solcialist and partially capitalist (subsidized industries, government procurement from private industry, regulations, etc.).

Capitalism like any tool needs maintenance (so does socialism) but there’s precedent for trust-busting and Keynesian economic policy.

The problem is everyone wants some silver bullet solution so they can vote once and all problems are solved forever. That’s an immature understanding of economics. It’s a whole field of study, economics is a complex area of study, and both the MAGAs and the leftists refuse to to even try to understand it. It’s like watching children argue over CPU architecture just screaming things at each other over something they have no understanding of while the wealthy laugh at both groups.

Back at ya.

Well he’s a corporate socialist (wanting a system for the benefit for corporations) similar to Xi Jinping (who Trump admires). But fascists call themselves whatever will get them power, so I guess Trump calls himself a Republican and Xi calls himself a Communist. So use what they label themselves or choose your own labels.

Communism is when authoritarians impose socialism for weirdo ideological reasons. Libertarianism is when people want capitalism control every sector of the economy, also for ideological reasons.

Both are stupid.