fishos

I think for a third party to even exist viably, we need ranked choice voting. If Elon wants this party to actually exist, he needs RCV himself. Unless he's just planning to try and consume all of the moderate voters, which is a good bet too based on his ego, unfortunately.

I'm hoping the Dems split into a proper labor party as well

Yes, and without it, any third party struggles to take hold. This new party could make ranked choice voting a bipartisan(tripartisan?) issue since they would need it to survive unless they really think they can just yank all of the R votes their way.

The fact that you call Bernie "the fringe" and dismiss him, his recent rallys, the Philadelphia sanitation union strike, and so much more shows you just want to be defeatist and spout strawmen. I guess AOC doesn't exist either. So have fun being miserable I guess.

A new "Republican" party would necessarily have to argue for vote reform in order to make gains. We might be able to spin this into a bipartisan issue. We make it their own self interest to introduce ranked choice voting.

You act as if unions are non-existent and Bernie Sanders has no following.... Unlikely? Sure. But impossible? Nope. Literally half the Dem talk since the election has been about how much Dems feel disenfranchised by their own party. Have you been paying any attention?

Ok, call me crazy, but hear me out: this is good and we should encourage it.

One fascist party gets all the fascists aligned. Multiple fascist parties split them up. Suddenly their 51% majority is 25% and 26%. We should be fostering the infighting and splitting of the party. We should welcome its own destruction from within.

I'll only believe it when I see it, but this could theoretically be the beginning of the end for a two party system. If done right we could end up with 4 or 5 legitimate parties (including splitting Democrats up and getting a true labor party)

Yes, and I'm here criticizing "actually existing science". That's exactly my point. It's not "real science" when it's injected with politics and emotions like that. It's biased in a way science shouldn't be.

Wtf are you going on about? I'm talking about changing the name of a plant because it's discoverer was a racist. Nothing about politicians or pedophiles. Ffs, some of you have brain rot as bad as the MAGA. I'm literally saying that history should remain accurate and not try to whitewash away the negatives.

I think you're confusing "politics injected into science" with science. Science is data and analyzing it. Pretending someone didn't invent something is removing data points and I'm pretty sure science calls that fraud, just like we call the studies that found cigarettes healthy to be frauds, or the oil companies to be frauds. 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Remember, it's only "revisionist history" if it's the history you don't like. Otherwise it's "because totally valid reasons".

"unless you're a part of the community fuck you"

I can see why it got heated....