Yes, I understand that. Perhaps I was not empathetic enough, I am sorry to hear that about your family being deceived, along with the rest of mainland China.
The fact that the oppressive CCP won does not mean they were right. The world is not a Disney movie, the good guys don’t always win.
“Vindicated” just means that the good guys were good. Whether or not they won.
Context here is that the red one actually voted for the billionaires.
The blue one voted against the billionaires, and the billionaires won because the yellow one didn’t vote.
It’s possible English isn’t your first language? No worries.
The word “vindicated” doesn’t mean “won in the end,” it means “they were right.” As in, justified in their demands, on the right side of history. Even of the protests I listed in my first comment, half of them didn’t actually win in the end (Vietnam, Occupy, Gaza, and arguably more).
From Wikipedia:
…(the Seven Demands) for the government:
- Affirm Hu Yaobang’s views on democracy and freedom as correct.
- Admit that the campaigns against spiritual pollution and bourgeois liberalisation had been wrong.
- Publish information on the income of state leaders and their family members.
- Allow privately run newspapers and stop press censorship.
- Increase funding for education and raise intellectuals’ pay.
- End restrictions on demonstrations in Beijing.
- Provide objective coverage of students in official media.[84][83]
I hope that you’d agree that the students were in the right, and that the oppressive CCP was in the wrong?
Thank you for bringing those up. However, unless I’m misunderstanding them, the only one of those where the protesters were in the wrong were the pro-segregation protests, correct? But weren’t those protests by-and-large made up of parents? (Perhaps along with some of their children doing what they were told?) Not exactly the “rebellious youth sticking it to the man” we generally mean by the words student protest.
Let’s see…
I am curious. Has there ever been a wide-scale student protest movement that WASN’T unequivocally vindicated by history?
Yes, I agree, any kind of ranked choice voting system would help to end the two-party duopoly. If you are lucky enough to have your state consider a ballot measure to introduce such a system, do everything in your power to help it pass.
Unfortunately, it will not be easy; for obvious reasons, there are many powerful political forces opposing such reform. Here is a page showing how well such measures have done in recent elections: https://ballotpedia.org/History_of_ranked-choice_voting_(RCV)_ballot_measures
By the way, if you liked the CGP Grey Animal Kingdom video, it continues as a short series: https://www.cgpgrey.com/politics-in-the-animal-kingdom/
You’re not arguing against Democrats, you are arguing against basic math. Here is a primer for why going third party is a complete non-starter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
The way forward is to transform the Democratic party from the inside out. It’s not impossible, Trump did it to the entire Republican party in the span of less than a decade. Vote in PRIMARY elections.
Trump. Who won specifically because of people who decided to ineffectively vote for letters other than D.
Primary Schumer, of course, but his term is up in 2028. AOC herself might be more focused on a separate race that particular year.
The framing isn’t false. A two-party duopoly is a simple, straightforward, and inevitable consequence of a first-past-the-post plurality voting system.
The other letters are not an option. Voting for any other letter just helps the party you hate the most to win. Yes, it fucking sucks.
Ah, yes.
Red party: tax cuts for billionaires, dismantle government agencies and sell the scraps to billionaires for pennies on the dollar, allow billionaires destroy the environment for profit
Blue party: tax billionaires their fair share, use that money to create a better society that is nicer for everyone to live in, address pollution and climate change
Mouth breathers: “they’re the same picture”