• MindTraveller@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    You’re factually correct, and I support your long term goal, but it’s not something we can achieve by November.

    • chaonaut@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      I swear I hear this regardless of how close we are to the next presidential election. Can we maybe focus on some of the other races on the ballot? I would love if we could get a Congress that was actually able to make good things happen, instead of trying very hard to do nothing so bad things don’t happen.

      • barsquid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        Congress might also have been able to get more done if there was a filibuster-proof majority for more than several months in the last several decades.

        I do vote for the most progressive person available in the primaries tho.

        • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          The fact that we even need a filibuster proof majority to get anything done is yet another glaring example of how fucked we are.

        • chaonaut@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Yeah, the focus on winning the presidency ignores the down ballot, small market and “off-cycle” races, and, to get to fillibuster-proof majorities, those races are the ones that need to be won. Berating progressives in urban areas to vote for moderate liberal candidates for president is not exactly harm reduction.

      • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Sorry, media is now handled at the national level so covering local and state races outside of ones that get clicks isn’t profitable

        • chaonaut@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          Oh, good! Is it also owned by large corporations who have interests that cause them to favor certain stories because it impacts their bottom line and the editorial desk does not have strong independence from the business side of things because of a monoculture of publishers? Surely, this will bring us a wide variety of political candidates and not an endless parade of arch-capitalists and fascists who give kickbacks to corporations!