Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) announced Wednesday he plans to introduce articles of impeachment against Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.
Why it matters: The long-shot effort centers on two scandals currently rocking the Pentagon — a new report about Signalgate and allegations of a follow-up strike against an alleged Venezuelan drug boat.
The first step is ranked choice voting for everything from local to federal elections.
First past the post is literally the worst way to operate a voting system of your goal is to get an accurate representation of the populace.
I’m very much in favor of the reforms of ranked choice and proportional representation (fairvote.org).
But these aren’t really a replacement after we destroy the current system. More like incremental fixes for the current system.
I’d still like to understand more about the vision of destroying (what’s the plan?) the system and what would come next (what’s part two of the plan?).
Read some books about successful revolutions and the states that replaced them and get back to me. You’re asking me to explain an incredibly multifaceted and complicated thing with tons of historical context and political theory behind it over Lemmy and I am not willing to do that, these are things you will have to put time and effort into learning on your own lad.
Wow, your tone is really strange for a place like the fediverse. It’s a place of discussion, and usually replies of interest and curiosity to a post or comment are met with enthusiastic responses of ideas and sources.
If you’re willing to say “destroy” it, then it should be easy to a give a simple example of a replacement you prefer. Most systems people write about have a
prettyshort names or at least authors/titles. You could just pick one and name it. I’d love to know one you imagine would be better.I’m not asking what exists. I’m not asking you to explain any system. I can go learn all about it later.
I’m asking you to give an example. Even as broad as: communism / anarchy / technocracy / Star Trek post scarcity utopia. And I am also curious how (protest/strike/voting/sabotage/armed revolution) I can work with you it get there since we may have the same goal.
I just know an incoming bad faith argument when I see one man and I’m just not that interested in engaging on it with you.
Okay.
Edit:
This really stuck in my craw. I’m not sure how it would make you feel if my response to you answering what comes after “destroy” is a bad faith argument. You have every right to avoid it though. But I also really wonder what makes you think this is where I was headed with my question.
Ironically, your comments may not technically be bad faith arguments themselves, but they definitely have the feel of them. You make a bold statement but attack instead of supporting, elaborating, or explaining. As if you entered the discussion with no intention of participating in actual discussion.
Why even share your opinion in a discussion forum then? It’s strange and I could now interpret it as disingenuous. If that’s not the case, if “destroy” isn’t your entire plan, then I still am earnestly curious what the rest of your picture for the future is.
I’ve encountered your comments more than once on various topics on Lemmy for more than a year. I’d like to get to know the thoughts and feelings of others sharing these federated communities—especially if they seem to be active here. Sure, the opinions of writers are great, but I’d be reading a book instead of being here if that’s what I was after. I’m here to find out what internet randos have to say.