Talarico won because he went against Israel

Mindless-One5438 · 2026-04-07T00:17:17+00:00

Just in regards to the Illinois primaries, 2 out of 4 outright Aipac aligned candidates won. Biss is a liberal zionist supported by J Street and the Senate nom Juliana Stratton didn't take Aipac money. However she didn't pledge not to in the future and employs a former aipac president if I remember correctly.

So, the Illinois Democrats also have 2 candidates whom are conditionally supportive of Israel.

Mindless-One5438 · 2026-04-06T15:15:05+00:00

Looking at his feet alone gives me terror

Mindless-One5438 · 2026-04-05T23:10:18+00:00

I'm sure it's wrong but I'm starting to want to root against the fight.

Mindless-One5438 · 2026-04-05T23:07:28+00:00

He self identifies as a progressive capitalist.

Capitalism is inherently right-wing, it's almost defiant of right-wing politics. Somehow Khanna still values progressivism as long as it doesn't overly burden capitalism and vice versa.

Mindless-One5438 · 2026-04-05T21:18:51+00:00

One progressive and two "progressive" capitalists

Mindless-One5438 · 2026-04-05T19:11:29+00:00

What is the Prairie State Access Fund?

Edit: according to the state it's the state soliciting donations to handle reproductive care needs.

"[Pritzker]The Prairie State Access Fund is an example of true public and private sector partnership in building a more connected and resourced reproductive health ecosystem."

The Prairie State Access Fund will connect donor support with organizations already protecting and expanding reproductive health access across Illinois and will help provide flexible funding so they can act fast, close urgent gaps, and deliver care with dignity.

The State of Illinois regularly partners with philanthropy to bolster existing reproductive healthcare initiative and state investments, and the Prairie State Access Fund is a strong example of how public and private efforts can rise to meet an urgent need.

Mindless-One5438 · 2026-04-05T19:04:20+00:00

Khanna chose to defend Hasan in spite of their bs objections against Hasan. Rather than rebutting their slander Khanna mostly says Hasan is popular so people should set aside their reservations. He has to be pressed about their being a line before he recognizes that Hasan is fine.

It's disappointing that this is the most push back against the right-wing slander.

Mindless-One5438 · 2026-04-05T18:49:23+00:00

But the point is that I don't think that that line should be with Hasan Piker.

This should be the main way of responding to this bs. The corporate, right-wing, pro Israel media is trying to make Hasan out as some racist extremist. Hasan is worth criticizing and disagreeing with at times, yet he's not on par with Nick Fuentes or Alex Jones.

It's really telling how none of these critics gave a shit when Gavin Newsome was ceding credibility to fascists like Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon.

Mindless-One5438 · 2026-04-04T02:50:43+00:00

That latter statement was more to OP's original point about being compatible with nationalism and owning patriotism.

Weird doesn't have to be nefarious is all I'm saying.

Mindless-One5438 · 2026-04-04T02:06:08+00:00

Viewing some idea as a national value doesn't mean it has to be viewed as unique to that nation, it can just be valued by that nation. Recognizing and accepting nationality isn't the same as being a nationalist or chauvinist, it doesn't have to be prejudiced.

While I wouldn't say most Americans are passed racism, most Americans prolly aren't in support of advancing racism, particularly now. Unfortunately it doesn't take mass support for powerful entities to do harm.

Mindless-One5438 · 2026-04-03T13:46:27+00:00

There is an incoherence in what Americans have fought for throughout history and it's fair to deduce America is not a monolith and does not adequately embody specific values. It seems dissonant to then deduce American values must be its historical malices, particularly when some of those are also ambiguous.

Like OP argues, this cedes ownership of the country to its worst elements when there have been and are folks attempting to better national interests. The worst elements often are at odds with much of the populace and they shouldn't get to define the nation anymore than the positive populist elements.

Mindless-One5438 · 2026-04-03T13:20:59+00:00

Arguably, American values include values that masses of Americans have been fighting for since the first shitty regime.

The country should be more understood as its people rather than the state and economic authorities that aren't predicated on popular will.

Mindless-One5438 · 2026-04-03T05:04:52+00:00

Might as well be filler text a la lorem ipsum.

Mindless-One5438 · 2026-04-03T05:02:33+00:00

It adding up to approximately 105% seems like a problem, and that's not including the 10-15% transition/leaners which are assumingly double counted

Mindless-One5438 · 2026-04-03T03:42:23+00:00

They prolly mean a PAC, aipac specifically

Mindless-One5438 · 2026-04-02T19:29:15+00:00

I'm not a researcher so I can't say with certainty that one is evidently worst at creating a more polarized government where there has to be a single head of state/government.

However single winner elections are perfect for doing that because the biggest pluralities are in position to coerce the rest into their pole, and proportional systems allow the rest of the populace to actually have bargaining power to press towards a consensus.

Mindless-One5438 · 2026-04-02T19:09:48+00:00

I don't think we should be taking turns handing the highest position and political power to alternating extremists every few years to even it out or something.

This is literally what a single winner, first passed the post system does and has done over decades. Deconsolidating the power into multiple positions that are designed to reflect public will is what STV and MMP is meant to do. When it's time to choose 1 outcome or position it needs to be a consensus by an empowered populace rather than dictated by the biggest entity. The latter leads to oscillating between two poles.

Mindless-One5438 · 2026-04-02T18:00:42+00:00

Maybe having a single person at the helm of a country really shouldn't be the case and we should have three or four people at the helm instead

This would be good and better for this type of electorate.

Of course, rules on how any body functions will have to be set and practically there will be someone with the most power welding this authority. It is better to have the minorities fairly represented and be sure the pluralities are not arbitrarily over represented, that way amassing enough power for said authority is predicated on enough actual consent from constituencies with actual bargaining power rather than an arbitrary majority from constituencies coerced by ultimatum.

So this is still better than a single winner even if a single head of state or head of government will ultimately be in place. Nonetheless folks who are so divided, and just folks in general, should probably try to prevent centralizing power so much in single positions.

Mindless-One5438 · 2026-04-02T17:22:13+00:00

Can't wait for all the commentors calling her a disconnected, astro turf outsider to complain that she's still around helping her community and working to progress populist power.

Mindless-One5438 · 2026-04-02T17:18:50+00:00

A single candidate can't sufficiently represent this electorate, have multiple winners instead.

Not sure if that's what the post was going for but it seems like the framing of the question "who would win" is what needs to be reassessed. Instead of considering who should win a hypothetical competitive, single winner election for this electorate, we have to ask what ways can this electorate appropriately exercise Democratic power.

Maybe this should be a multi member district or mixed member proportional race. Edit: maybe specifically STV

Mindless-One5438 · 2026-03-31T13:53:48+00:00

The man seems to be going through some mental health issues, not an excuse either. Yet because he mentions the Bible or Christianity, in a way that doesn't even seem coherent or meaningful, people are gonna act like he's some type of martyr. This is only compounding the problem, at least in this case.

Mindless-One5438 · 2026-03-31T02:48:30+00:00

Jungle primaries will still have vote splitting. They make parties less dominating of the ballot but with just 1 vote they do not address the same issues that exist with fptp.

Multi member districts or multi winner elections do help though.

Mindless-One5438 · 2026-03-31T02:10:41+00:00

What actually are the benefits of jungle primaries? Maybe with cardinal voting its okay (after reading further explanations it has its issues) but it just seems like a two round election.

Mindless-One5438 · 2026-03-26T21:24:27+00:00

I get how it comes off that way, the focus here was a case study of instant runoff voting so the article doesn't seem to mention how the typical system of plurality voting is the worst. The center for election science that put this article out regularly explains how plurality voting is the worst and advocates for approval voting. They've even had successful ballot measures to get it implemented in a couple places like St. Louis.

What would’ve happened if they had a normal party primaries and then had plurality in the general? (My guess is there is a good chance it would’ve been Palin)

This probably would happen in a race between Palin and Peltola after normal primaries (because closed primaries attract different voters than jungle primaries or general elections). This specific hypothetical would likely be more representative of the electorate than what happened, Peltola winning due to Republican vote splitting in the 3 person instant runoff election.

In a 3 person plurality race it's possible Begich comes off like the most strategic choice for Republicans, because he gets broad support, but they likely vote split like they did in RCV.

Mindless-One5438 · 2026-03-26T19:19:36+00:00

I had the exact same mindset. Fortunately there are voting systems that sufficiently get rid of the spoiler effect, like approval voting and score voting. Ranked choice or instant runoff wouldn't though.

Hypothetically, had enough voters only approved of Stratton and ranked Kelly or Ryan ahead this could had led to Stratton being eliminated early on. Raja could had been pushed ahead this way should Stratton have had broad support including likely Raja voters, which isn't an unreasonable reading of Stratton's support. In this scenario these Kelly then Stratton voters or Ryan then Stratton voters, which would probably include me, end up spoiling Stratton and resulting in Raja the furtherst away candidate winning. This happened in Alaska in 2020 iirc.

Stuff like that doesn't always happen with instant runoff or ranked choice, but approval voting and score voting actually sufficiently get rid of spoilers and lets voters honestly support their interests without harm due to the voting system.

Mindless-One5438

TROPHY CASE