1034
Bezos deletes 'LGBTQ+ rights' and 'equity for Black people' from Amazon policies
(www.irishstar.com)
this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2025
1034 points (98.8% liked)
politics
20426 readers
3269 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I like your sentiment, but a two party system inherently uses third party votes as spoilers. It is common for the dominate party to support a third party to peel away votes from their major opposition.
https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo
One solution to this is ranked voting. Of course many of our politicians recognize this and have already passed laws at the state level to bar ranked voting under the pretense that it is too confusing for voters.
Nailed it - I'll consider a 3rd party vote on equal-footing once we have ranked/ranked choice voting in place. Right now, I think there's a higher probability for one of the two parties to consider this so in other words... it's going to be a while...
Whatever party is in power has a lot to lose from ranked voting and nothing to gain. This will make this reform very hard to pass. I live in Alaska and we have ranked voting that narrowly avoided a repeal this last year after passing the previous year.
There is no legal enshrinement of a "two party system". Whoever the public votes for wins. The public's self-defeating mentality is the problem.
Not explicitly. Just effectively. Between first past the post, which naturally evolves into a two party system. And the electoral college which enshrines it. At the national level actual, independent 3rd parties are an impossibility. And they know it.
Theoretically matter could spontaneously coalesce into a Boltzmann brain before a 3rd party could win a national election.
this isn't true.
FPTP doesn't naturally evolve into a two-party system. Cultural predispositions cause that. The electoral college does not enshrine it, it - sometimes - hands the elector votes to the majority winner of the state, and some states even have legal pledges to follow other systems. There is no impossibility. I will repeat myself for the fiftieth time in this thread, THE PUBLIC'S SELF-DEFEATING MENTALITY IS THE PROBLEM. The public TELLS ITSELF a third party is an impossibility, the public DOESN'T VOTE FOR A THIRD PARTY. You will resign yourselves to slavery until you figure this out.
Duvegers law and people who actually study poly sci disagree. And I'm more inclined to believe someone with evidence and proof over someone like yourself. Who has nothing, spouting magical thinking BS.
"Duverger's Law" (you misspelled it) is a principle, not some deterministic physical law. I studied polisci at college, thanks. Read your own link. First sentence - "TEND to emerge". Not "always emerge". There's an entire section in the article named "Exceptions". One of those exceptions is IN the U.S. Learn the difference between "tendencies" and "absolutely certain physical laws", this is basic logic/math.
This kind of sloppy thinking is so common in the U.S., I swear to god, this is exactly what I'm talking about with the shitty education system kneecapping the democracy.
duverger's law is no law, at all. it's an undisprovable tautology.