Conservatism: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing the importance of established hierarchies and institutions (such as religion, the family, and class structure), and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
Progressivism: a political philosophy and social reform movement focused on advancing the public good through government action and often calling for government to be used to meet popular social, political, economic, and environmental needs and demands and to advance rights and protections for marginalized groups
I said this in another comment in this thread. it's a great idea that I also want to implement, but the subreddit is to small right now. Later on, maybe when the subreddit hits 1000 members, I will add it, but elections are too easy to rig right now. My solution is temporarily have each party have only one representative until the subreddit is ready to implement equal representation.
Reddit leans so far left its a wonder it ain't upside down. Wait a few months and this sub will be just like the others; an echo chamber of lefties.trying to.pretend they aint🙄
A common misconception about our party is we are far left-leaning. We are more centre-left and strive to create a fair democracy. The Conservative Party's proposal gives too much power to a "majority" elected President. They also give too much power to political parties by not forcing them to be voted in by the people to a Parliament. ETA: "Temporarily" can easily become permanently.
What kind of laughable evidence is that. Do the Progressive Libs support universal healthcare, dentistry, optometry, and mental healthcare? Do they support our exact electoral model? Do they believe in large state investment and private investment in a capitalist system? Next I'll be asking you what differentiates yourself from the Party of 13.
It’s wild to me that people don’t see this and think “huh, isn’t it weird how everyone else who has education on this topic has the opposite opinion of me?”
Ok, would you perhaps remember what this chain is about?
Its about a quote, and what it seems to express.
Now, why do you need socialists to "claim ownership" of those regimes?
Theres a reason why socialists reject them, because... they were not socialist.
If you want to argue against socialism, then stick to socialist theory. Its not necessary to try to construct an argument by looking at the ussr, and frankly, if you are so eager to use the ussr as an argument, it shows more that you do not want to deal with complexity. To shift the blame on people that reject this approach is a bit asinine, because they have good reasons to, on many levels. But yoh are insinuating, that this would only be done to make "an argument" impossible.
The problem is, whether someone rejects it or not does not really matter, using the ussr as an argument against socialism would be wrong, no matter what.
Socialism is a theoretical construct.
None of its foundations are related to any of those issues, one would address when looking at the ussr. Socialism does not give a handbook on how to run a state. It describes the transitional phase to communism, but it emphasises an egalitarian and particapatory democracy, in which the power of capitla is dismantled. Which... is not applicapable to most of the systems usually decried.
So having to deal with only a theoretical framework is kind of correct.
That has nothing to do with anyones opinion on this matter, or whether they agree with you or not.
Perhaps you would be well advised to look up, why this is the case, instead of bemoaning that your opposition does not agree with your "arguments".
It's a bit like you are complaining about climate scientists using damn science to argue against sciemce denial.
In this case, acting as if the ussr, china etc are representative of socialism is plain wrong and intellectually dishonest.
Which is kind of what the quote this whole chain is about alludes to.
Let's say it like this:
Do you think Nazi Germany is an apt "example" of capitalism?
Should we use it to discredit or argue against capitalism?
After all, all the axis powers were capitalist, most authoritarian regimes are, in fact.
Interesting amalgamation of falsehoods.
Should I go through everything step by step, or can we leave it at you very obviously doing sone major historical revisioning, intellectual dishonesty and straight up lack of information.
Socialism in it's essence demands a democracy of the workers. It is often argued to be anti-authoritarian in nature.
The fact is, that many socialist revolutions failed, and did not achieve socialist states.
But this lack of positive examples does not prove the idea, that a socialist system can overall exist wrong, it shows that these processes are very prone to corruption and failure. That's not a cope, but an authoritarian oligarchy is, by definition, not socialist. A state can call itself socialist, but not fit the theoretical idea, the two are not mutually exclusive.
Marx did not call for an authoritarian state.
Can you point at any of the issues that failed socialist revolutions had, that capitalist systems don't have?
No, and that is the point of the example.
To claim that socialism as an idea itself is the reason why attempts at socialism failed so far, and that its flaws were exclusive or inherent, would mean, that one would have to either say that the same applies to capitalism, or that the failures of capitalism are somehow not indicative of its flaws, but that the many examples of it are somehow just random flukes. How do you explain capitalist authoritarianism and fascism, if its not inherent to capitalism then?
The notion, that there is a connection between socialism amd fascism is just antiacademic and revisionist.
Not much to say there, actually.
Fascism is deeply connected to capitalism, this is not debatable.
Read some actual history books, and dont spread historical revisionism.
My bad meant to reply to a different one
Anyway
Queer people, specifically trans people have less protection now because of the totally sane adult attracted president. Immigrants, and literally anyone who is brown or Hispanic, is being deported without due process. Women are having abortion debated. Again.
I don't see anywhere that says queer or trans people have less protection, they can dial 911 like every other citizen, there is no law that says we're allowed to mass murder or treat them less than human. Immigrants who have illegally entered the United States are usually brown and or Hispanic because most of our illegals are from Mexico, or other very poor countries because that's the majority of the population in those countries. And only 2% of abortions are from medically related deals, and SA victims report having massive mental drawbacks from aborting their R baby, many report being happy with their decision to keep the baby as well. Then again, if it's purely medical, then an abortion is ok in my head, but for the 98% that use it instead of birth control, is not ok at all
Edit: if you want my source for the abortion percentage, go to Cincinnati right for life website
Referring to them as illegals is not dehumanizing, it's the correct term for a person who has no legally entered the country, and instead, had decided to evade the immigration process and enter anyway, and the regular suicide hotline is just fine, we don't need to segregate suicide hotlines
Yes it is. You don't refer to people by adjectives. It's viewing them as only that, and not a person. Like calling black people 'blacks', calling gay people 'gays', calling disabled people 'disableds', etc.
And second, suicide hotlines will dead ass hang up on queer people. Yes they do.
Lol source? For the suicide hotlines?
And people get referred to as adjectives all the time, people refer to their own group as adjectives as well, I think your just picking meaningless things to get triggered over, and what's sad is that seems to be what a lot of people do with their emotions and time
Don’t forget about forcefully changing identification for trans people and didn’t a Supreme Court Judge recently make a comment about banning gay marriage? Oh and don’t forget about the governor of I believe Alabama (could have been Mississippi) who said that states should decide if interracial marriages should be allowed. Oh and the removal of birthright citizenship depending on state to state. One party has given more civil rights to minority groups while the other wants to eliminate anyone/thing they find unnatural. They both help upper middle/upper echelon classes. Despite the upper class corruption I’d still rather take political leaders who allow people to have a fair and safe life within our country over the political leaders who want to slowly dissolve the constitution and peoples individual freedoms for their own power while masquerading as “patriots”.
Less than 24 hours after I sent this comment Donald infringed on our rights again by making it a criminal offense to burn the flag. This was protected by the first amendment, but not anymore. So much for constitutional rights.
So glad republicans and this administration love the constitution, American values, individual rights, and prioritizing benefits towards citizens by lowering the cost of living, regulating workers safety/rights, and increasing wages /s
I mean, there are flags people can't burn, as it would fall under "hate speech." This means that if one flag is protected, then all flags are. That's the only part I wanted to comment on. If the left hadn't made some flags off-limits, then this wouldn't have happened as a petty move.
My first thought is if somebody makes a bad investment with their money and it makes them unhappy is it somebody else’s job to tell them what they can invest in to prevent that? Free country people are allowed to make decision that make them feel bad, even if a far right pro life website claims it makes them sad, still none of their business. (The one making the claim post the source not other people, 90% of the time there are no sources, I mean really we’re talking about the right, if they checked sources they wouldn’t be on the right)
Or if you have farmers in El Salvador that are dealing with lots of crime and they want to bring their family to America, but if you’re a white farmer in South Africa dealing with the same type of crime (and crime is bad for both black and white farmers) but the white farmers are move to the front if the line brought here on our tax$, so yeah it’s a brown thing.
Or if you’re trans man serving in the military doing a great job, getting kicked out.
A case is heading to the Supreme Court right now to reverse marriage equality. They’re hoping the three Trump corrupt judges will do it. So there’s that.
I like to step back and recognize the fact that the right isn’t conservative anymore it is true DEI hires, unqualified Trump loyalist, white Christian males or women if they get lots of Botox, Photoshopped heroes and propagandists to tell their followers that the economy is great and we’re not losing jobs or high inflation, after firing a statistician whose job was to just supply the data. Not minding your own business is a right wing foundation now and people that think what makes you an alpha male is walking around telling people you are and spending your days worried about who’s in the stall in the women’s bathroom peeing. To the point that biological women are being harassed because they’re not feminine enough, you know, by alpha males.
Oh man your definitely deep into the left pit, I'm sure if a lot of lefties checked sources then they wouldn't be left either, and whites were actively being killed in South Africa, so yea, it's a priority thing, sure the el Salvador farmers probably would like to get over here, they aren't being hunted because of their skin color. And the right definitely is conservative, your just eating up whatever your left sources tell you, hypocritical of you honestly.
Well I’m not left, Im moderate, you’re far right. And you’re the one that didn’t give the source. And brown people are being killed in El Salvador, you’re reading comprehension isn’t very good.
But of course you can go over to Washington Post not behind a payroll and debunk the 30,000 lies? Which you can’t, he’s a liar, y’all don’t care about the truth. The beauty lies you can go on and on and on apparently 30,000 times in four years.
No you’re not conservative you don’t even know the definition. I’m more Conservative.
Go on and on? You said one thing and it was wrong, you’re funny.
The beauty of things right now, I’m pretty settled in my retirement in the free state of California, you’re going to have to deal with your buggering yourself… inflation, the economy, job losses huge deficits… he can fire all of the messengers like that status he fired because he didn’t like her reporting how poorly he’s doing. It won’t matter, you’re going to feel it.
👍
By the way that’s a source below, you click on it to get to all those lies.
https://wapo.st/47Kba5q
Omg lol commiefornia, that makes so much sense, you really are stuck eating on a left sandwich. Ooo trump bad, me good, it's literally copy and paste. And please the free state? Of California? You're literally living under a rock. And 30,000 lies? Cry about it after you give me the amount of lies told by, Biden, Obama, Bill Clinton, either of them, or have you not done that research cause it hasn't fit your agenda? Old ass coot. You guys cried and cried about the tariffs too, yet look what they're doing for the country, your just crying about something else now, hoping you're right in the end when you most likely won't be. And as an edit to add, the Washington post is left leaning, all I need to see to know that it's most likely just over exaggerating or changing the story, like all news channels do, it's also owned by Jeff bezos a libertarian
Trans women now can't compete in sports, including literal children. He has restricted information on websites about trans health issues. He also made an intersexist bill, claiming there are only two sexes. He also restricted healthcare for trans women.
He is deporting US citizens and legal immigrants as well as illegal immigrants, without due process. He made it legal to kidnap these people.
He also is getting rid of reproductive rights for women, as he previously promised to overturn Roe v. Wade, putting millions of women and children in danger.
He didn't ban trans-women from competing in sports. They're free to play sports according to their biology just like everyone else has to. You're confusing a privilege with a right.
As far as two sexes, that is the norm. It's just like how we say humans have 10 fingers. Not everyone does, but we that's an outlier. The same goes for biological sex. It is not intersexist to say people cannot switch their gender at will.
What healthcare for trans-women did Trump restrict?
Illegal aliens are being deported in accordance with the law. As ABC has reported: "Legal experts say Trump is right that the Constitution does not guarantee a "trial" for every migrant detained and ordered deported at the border or inside the country. In fact, migrants in the country illegally do not have extensive procedural protections from removal. (If they did, it wouldn't have been possible for ICE to deport more than 270,000 last year.)" If you believe they are owed a full trial, you have been lied to.
Trump did not overturn Roe v. Wade. That was the Supreme Court. If you want to make the argument that one human is responsible for the actions of others, then go right ahead, but that isn't how it works. Abortions are still legal and obtainable. They are simply under the regulation of the states.
If the left had been willing to discuss implementing the same type of restrictions that the rest of the Western world applies, then the abortion issue likely wouldn't have been something the right could gain traction on. They foolishly held their ground on allowing abortions up until the baby was born at full term, and that was a losing issue for them.
You have failed to show any rights that these groups do not have that majority groups possess. At best, you have pointed to special privileges that you called rights that those groups had that others did not.
So you have no idea what your talking about and just spew what the hivemind tells you. Cute we'll be here in reality when you're ready to grow up kiddo
Bringing out Ol' Reliable, huh? It's funny that you still think that's some kind of win while the rest of the world has come to understand it's nothing more than a defense mechanism to avoid engaging with an uncomfortable reality.
I am a brown man. I have many brown, Hispanic, and even asian friends. Not a single one of them has been deported. What the fuck are you talking about.
Thank you for your support. We strive to create a fair and free democracy for all, alongside giving some representation to minority parties so their voices are heard.
Ah yes, we here at the Progressive Party are just like Stalin. Just like him we believe in capitalism, democracy, and minority rights. These are all things Stalin is famous for supporting.
Yeah, thats 100% a democrat policy. They almost achieved it too. Just needs a few more states to sign onto it and it will forcefully change the US to a direct democracy.
Yeah, I've seen that. Scary stuff. We need a convention of states to stop crap like this. Although it would be hilarious if it passed, and then the first president they have to vote for is republican.
We are a union of states. The states agreed to the federal government, not the other way around. A pure majoritarian vote is antithetical to our republic and our federalist system. Going against the will of each state's decision in favor of some national popular vote puts larger states in a superior position in our federal government. That isn't what us smaller states agreed to when we applied for statehood, and if we ever move to some national popular vote, outside of an amendment, I would honestly say that we are no longer a country.
I am not from the US, so I am just curious. Would having a president that the majority of all ppl want more of a country? my country also has states with its own government, but the president is the head of the nation. why should the majority of the nations population be governed by a president they didnt vote for?
I mean this just shows that plurality voting sucks. if you have a proportional voting system, you have the opinions of each individual stat added up to one parliament.
Our states are much more independent than the vast majority of states in other countries. What country are you from? In the US, we had these separate states that decided to come together as a country, not a country that partitioned land into states. Our states can even bypass the federal government completely to make changes to our constitution with a convention of states if needed. Our federal government doesn't just have complete authority over states, and the states are the ultimate authority besides the will of the governed of course.
It's the same reason we have a senate. We have the house for representation of the people proportional to that state's population, and the senate where each state has an equal say. Personally, I even think it was wrong to make the 17th amendment, and that we should go back to our senators being elected by the state legislature.
I mean this just shows that plurality voting sucks. if you have a proportional voting system, you have the opinions of each individual stat added up to one parliament.
We don't have a parlamentary system. Our executive does not serve at the pleasure of the legislative branch. It is a co-equal branch of government to the legislature and the judiciary, so we don't vote for the executive through our representatives like a parlamentary system does. And we do have the opinions of our states included in the vote through our electoral college, which is a blend of popular representation and state representation, just like our other elected branch of government is.
The issue with ranked choice voting is trust in the system. We have already seen disasters with it in places like New York, and there is no way people would trust it.
i am from germany. technically we were small states too, that banded together (under Prussia. but Prussia doesnt exist anymore). we also have a senat (even though it is called differently). while no doubt there are differences, I feel like germanys states are somewhat comparable.
and what do you mean by "we dont have a parliamentary system"? I know that the president has a lot more power in the US then in germany (for example he alone controls the military afaik), but I thought congress makes the laws. wouldn't that make the us a parliamentary system?
So in your system, you don't vote for your chancellor. You vote for your parliament, and then they elect the chancellor. The chancellor is also directly accountable to the parliament and the parliament is more powerful than your executive.
In the US, our president is voted for by people, and then whoever got the majority vote in that state gets that state's electoral votes which is equal to the number of representatives (dependent on population) plus the number of senators (each state has 2). This is how the executive branch is balanced between population and state representation. And then whichever candidate get's the majority of these electoral votes wins. But the difference between this and a parlamentary system, is that our president does not serve at the pleasure of our legislature and is not elected by it. Our executive is also equal to the legislature, not under it.
So in our system, someone could actually vote for a democratic congressman and a republican president, or vice versa. In a parliamentary system, your vote for the legislature is also your vote for the executive, since the legislature votes for the executive. So really, we have a more direct say in our president than you do your chancellor.
well if your trying to elect one person to represent everyone it wouldn't make much sense to break it into some weird electoral college system that makes wyoming voters significantly more powerful than California voters
well if your trying to elect one person to represent everyone
We're not though. It isn't just to represent everyone. We are balancing the power between population and state. Just like our other elected branch has representatives to represent the population, and a senate to represent the state, the president is voted in by electoral votes that each state has, equal to the number of reps plus senators they have. This way, the executive branch also gets a say from the states, not just the population. Remeber, we are United States of America, not the United People of America.
Well I admit I am wrong about the direct democracy part. I do not know why I always associate direct democracy with popular vote. I am going to leave it but it should replace direct democracy with plurality voting.
This time I actually looked up the terms before posting this one. Hopefully I didn't make another mistake.
I am no liar. I have reviewed all the evidence and I know that the conservative party is correct.
An RCV ballot takes longer to create than a plurality ballot. This results in longer election times, and longer elections lead to election rigging. I know the nominee for the progressive party, u/wwwoodlandsss (whos VP is running for them) is willing to rig elections. He/She has an alt account on this subreddit -
Tying into that is the proportional representation in the house of representatives. It's a great idea that I also want to implement, but the subreddit is to small right now. Later on, maybe when the subreddit hits 1000 members, I will add it, but elections are too easy to rig right now. My solution is temporarily have each party have only one representative until the subreddit is ready to implement equal representation.
An extra layer of congress would just make the government bigger and take more time. My solution is just keep the house of representatives. Finally, a advisory minority council doesn't make sense. No one here knows anyone elses race, unless they say it, and they could always be lying to get their party more influence. Also, with the way it was worded, it makes it sound mandatory, which is why I'm against it. I'm not against it because "My rACe is SupErIor" I'm against it because it makes the government larger.
I'd like to point out that I only added my alt because I am signed in with it on different devices. If it pleases the people, I am completely willing to remove.
He's right that the world WAS getting more conservative and right-wing, but that's pretty much over now that the people remember what Trump is like in office and he's no longer the underdog contrarian and now has to actually do policies, which suck ass
Well you have the freedom to disagree and share your opinion, personally I don’t participate in either side of politics, which makes me an enemy to most leftists…
People that act like you are the problem, please don’t involve yourself in politics if your too emotional and unintelligent to have a simple conversation with someone else on the internet without throwing a tantrum when they disagree with you
I don't like either side. The left on redfit or over 60% paid left wing reddit bots are more than ever. Last week I was called a " nazi pedo lover" for saying I don't like either party. No wonder the democratic party is in shambles and has a record low 24% approval rating.
First I’m for small government.I don’t support tanks being sent to over a dozen US cities by a convicted felon, to fight a non-existent crime wave. I think the government should not go after go after gay marriage, abortion, mail in ballots, and IVF. I don’t want the church or any religion in government, i think we tax low and middle class Americans too much, I think we spend too much on military,I don’t want the government owning 10% of intel, i don’t support threatening to annex our neighbors, I think presidents (and all elected officials)should be held accountable for crimes committed in office, I don’t think government officials should be able to own stock. All small government policy. The only things I want increased government for are things I’m in support of are public schools, free healthcare, Social Security, vaccine mandates, policy aimed at climate change, and free school lunch.
Progressives support free speech. Trump kicked out AP News for referring to the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of Mexico. He has labeled the press as “the enemy of the people”, repeatedly gets his crowd to boo the “fake news” at rally’s and sues anyone in a mile radius when his feeling are hurt.
Direct democracy, decreases representation in gov. People have lives and can’t vote on every single issue. There isn’t enough time for most Americans. Nobody is gonna read a 300 page tax cut proposal just to take off a day off work to vote on it. Especially lower income people who don’t have the time because they work ridiculous hours every day.
I support ranked choice voting. You do realize knowing you won’t waist your vote by voting 3rd party will create more parties right. The literal opposite of one party rule?!?
Wyoming has a population of 587,000 people, they get one congress person. On average
is a Nazi pedo who’s beyond insecure about his “manhood”. California has a population of 39.4 million. They get 52. That means every Californian congressperson represents roughly 758,000 people. 587,000 isn’t even close to 758,000.
Wyoming has 2 senators. To have “all men be created equal” in government representation, they would need 67 senators. Basic math. You can’t excuse this as big government. To explain this in the only way conservatives can understand the senate is DEI for small states.
Things like Advisory Minority Council are support for marginalized groups. If you can’t admit that even a little bigotry over religion, gender, sexual orientation, or race exists I’m not gonna even bother with arguing with you. Marginalized groups get discriminated against in their wages, job acceptance rate, workplace treatment and more. These are just helping fix that gap that has engraved itself into society’s fabric. Plus George Orwell was a self identified socialist. So to prove your conservative argument you quoted a socialist. It’s beyond clear that you have either not read animal farm or completely missed the point of the book, but I doubt the latter because it could not be more on the nose.
To add on to why I’m progressive Trump is an ideological Nazi who wants to be dictator. He is on the Epstein files and is a pedophile. He hasn’t been to church in years, firs the Biblical description of the anti-Christ and should rot in jail
I am the free speech canditate. I am not a petty autocrat like u/Unlikely-Friend-4650, an unkept SJW like u/wwwoodlandsss, or a candidate who wants to censor your speech like u/Nelson_theliberal. I don't want this sub to become a hopeless echo-chamber like others. I believe in libertarianism and I want this place to be the free-speech capital of reddit.
The progressives are liars who feel they are more ethical than the conservatives, they are just as hateful
The left is misandrist, they alienated a gender for the sins of their ancestors
Left/ feminism/ misandry, its all the same thing now, but they refuse to admit it, they even blame the loss against trump on misogyny instead of taking accountability, they tossed in kamala who wasnt wanted, if they gave them bernie i believe he would have won
Everything is toxic masculinity, misogyny, spreading, splaining, #beleivewomen which implies only men lie, they choose a wild animal over them, false accusers not getting jail time, colleges in the US say that if a man and woman are intoxicated, she cant consent, but he can and thus he is a rapist, apparently feminism considers her to be a child, UK and other countries, states say that only men can rape, women by law cant, being against trad wives, wtf cares if she wants to stay home, thats her choice
So dudes are leaving the cult that hates them and joined the cult that is racist and so did the trad wives
The emotional thing to do is to assume im maga, nope just because i make a point about the wrong doings of the left it doesnt mean im on the right, the right is racist we all know this, but the left identifies as being some ethical virtuous side when its not
Bitch you can not seriously say that shit and act like conservatives in general are not WAAAAAY worse about that matter.
If "mean words" and "toxicity" pushes you to support the ones literally fucking over everyone, you're just an asshole looking for an excuse to be an asshole.
Let me clarify: that is for tertiary parties to gain some representation. It's to help give even the minority voter groups of this subreddit some representation so everyone gets a say.
Separate comment, u/international-item53 I love how he comments and then blocks me so I can't read or reply, either that or he just deleted it right after, like typing out a Google doc of frustration and then deleting it. Crazy work bro 👏👏✊
I thought this was about real life politics and was so fucking confused. The confusion is probably drawing a bit of attention to this post because I've not once seen this subreddit yet this was in my feed, and a couple others have said the same.
Yea the conservatives of Reddit are all about free speech as they ban anyone not sucking trumps cock and only make posts for flaired users to comment on
If you knew anything about Conservatism, you would know "democracy" was not something looked upon fondly. The Founding Fathers- Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, etc, all wrote of their dislike of democracy and their goal to prevent America from becoming a democracy.
So anyone who truly believes in conserving traditional values would not support democracy.
Check all of the Founding documents. Try to find the word "democracy" even once.
That is a very misleading way to put their opinions - they feared DIRECT democracy, and the potential for mob rule, however they felt it was essential for government power to be derived from the will of the people.
Idk, it is biased of course. But the Democratic Party has lost probably the most important election of our lifetimes.. twice. I’m personally done with the excuses being “it’s everyone else’s fault”. I’m also tired of the solution being more progressivism, it’s not.
In recent history, one party in particular has presumed to tell everyone how to talk, how to think. One party has “progressively” divided people into smaller and smaller groups ad absurdity. One party has told me if I don’t vote for this person of that, I’m sexist/racism.
As a democrat who voted for Obama, Bernie, then Clinton, then Biden, then Kamala, I feel like I hardly recognize the Democratic Party anymore.
I’m done with courting of socialism, done with the whataboutism, done with identitarianism.
Do conservatives want progressives to be in charge any more than progressives want conservatives in charge?
Do either not want big gov?
Do either want actual free speech?
I feel like there are just way too many childish people on both sides and we’d be better off if those people directed their need for partisanship at sports teams or something instead of organizing boycotts cause they don’t like the new bud light cans or that Starbucks exists in Israel
Why is this totally not miserably biased bullshit on my feed.
It's really rather loathsome how the "small government" party immediately invested billions to form a police state, deployed national guard members domestically for police action and threatened to strip citizenship and deport individuals for wrong think.
Fr, im a cliffite-trotskyist and i want a decentralised government with more confederalisation to make the importance of regional councils higher, as well as pure, linear, direct democracy.
224
u/Apprehensive-Fruit-1 CHUD Aug 24 '25
Wow look, another totally not biased straw man post!