Politics is a zero sum game, they saw the money better spent on winning. Your framing of it is dishonest. Again, I don't agree with doing that, but it's pretty easy to understand why they did it, it worked.
That would be convincing if they hadn't spent money buying ads for maga candidates during that same election cycle.
I agree, that was an awful strategy. Even if it helps in the short term, it boosts fascism in the long term. It did mostly gain us seats though... https://www.npr.org/2022/11/11/1135878576/the-democrats-strategy-of-boosting-far-right-candidates-seems-to-have-worked
So your answer is no then? Representatives don't get as much contact as you think. Apply pressure wherever and whenever you can, even if that legislator does nothing in the years to come, every person applying pressure moves the needle. Doing nothing does nothing. Legislators like to keep their jobs and will suddenly have a change of heart if they feel their job is threatened. That takes hundreds of people in each district making their dissatisfaction known. Be the change you wish to see.
Parties pull funding when it's clear there is no path to victory, so they can ensure victory elsewhere. That's not them "rather have a maga chud" that's strategic. You would be just as angry if they wasted money on a loss. I've seen your views all over lemmy, whatever narrative says the party did wrong, that's the narrative you'll take. Volunteer for the next candidate that runs, prove to the party that they have support and maybe funding will actually stick around. You're an open book, no action, all anger.
They rarely have held a clear majority in all 3 branches, and when they do that majority comes with a few DINO's that hold the deciding votes. It's dishonest to pretend people that never have power, have all the power to fix things. They don't carry magic wands, they need 51% of the vote. Or in case of the Senate, 60%. Progressives will never have power if they are punished by the voters for never having power.
Perfectly legal in my state (MN) as long as that "asshat" would have the right of way if they stopped. I also see pretty much everyone doing a rolling stop in a car which IS illegal.
I think you're making a values judgement instead of a logical one. No one was claiming the USA wasn't a democracy when only male white land owners could vote. It was just a flawed society, but still a democracy.
By definition, can you really be a democracy if you are an apartheid regime where two thirds of your "residents" have low to no rights in gotingnor determining their future?
The population of the Palestinian territories is, closer to 1/3 of the whole of Israel/Palestine. But the answer is yes either way. The people of Israel have a fully functioning democracy, and have had for some time. If they use that democracy to create a brutal militarily controlled territory, Israel is still a democracy, even if their territories are not or even if their territories have limited self determination. Democracy is just a form of government, that form of government exists for the people living in Israel proper whether or not it exists for their territories.
Just the first image on a search. But chart aside, saying something is a democracy doesn't make a country good or bad. Israel is fundamentally a democracy by any argument. That doesn't make their current far right government good. I think arguing about whether it's a democracy or not just undercuts your larger argument. Israel let's any citizen, regardless of ethnic origin, vote. Their Islamic citizens largely support the same wars the Jews do. Saying they don't let Palestinians vote is sorta like saying the USA didn't let Iraq vote while we were slaughtering them. Or more close to home if we started a war with Mexico. Even when the USA had slaves we were a democracy. We are still a democracy even when we do bad things. People are shit, and we vote.
Not the person you're responding to but it's close according to this graphic, basically Israel and Cypress.
It looks like this chick shoots porn and is an "influencer". I assume she was just advertising herself. Also she publicly seems to like Andrew Tate, weird. I think she just says what she thinks people want to hear for attention because that's how she makes money.
@MonkRome
@lemmy.world