That’s pretty misleading because it depends on what you mean by “the people”. And the more complicated, less-emotionally satisfying reality is that both candidates were essentially chosen by different groups of “the people” in contested primary elections in 2016 and 2020. The system is inefficient and in fact designed to uphold the status quo, but still allows people to change it. And trying to change it by voting is a far more effective strategy than not participating and hoping the extremely status-quo biased corporate media somehow gives you attention and takes your side as a result.
67% of the US public want the government to call for a ceasefire.
That’s it. Neither party will do it, therefore neither represents the people. Talk all you want about primaries or whatever, but the reality is that neither party represents the people on this.
That’s it. Neither party will do it, therefore neither represents the people.
Except that’s not actually true. There’s one party that’s unanimously against a ceasefire, and one party that’s split. If more people voted for the party that’s partly for a ceasefire, maybe the pro-ceasefire side would get a majority in government. Problem is, of the people that want a ceasefire, very few vote or they protest vote instead of picking people who can actually move the needle.
That’s pretty misleading because it depends on what you mean by “the people”. And the more complicated, less-emotionally satisfying reality is that both candidates were essentially chosen by different groups of “the people” in contested primary elections in 2016 and 2020. The system is inefficient and in fact designed to uphold the status quo, but still allows people to change it. And trying to change it by voting is a far more effective strategy than not participating and hoping the extremely status-quo biased corporate media somehow gives you attention and takes your side as a result.
It’s actually quite simple.
67% of the US public want the government to call for a ceasefire.
That’s it. Neither party will do it, therefore neither represents the people. Talk all you want about primaries or whatever, but the reality is that neither party represents the people on this.
It’s not up for debate.
https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2024/2/27/voters-support-the-us-calling-for-permanent-ceasefire-in-gaza-and-conditioning-military-aid-to-israel#:~:text=Voters were then asked the,calling for a permanent ceasefire
deleted by creator
Except that’s not actually true. There’s one party that’s unanimously against a ceasefire, and one party that’s split. If more people voted for the party that’s partly for a ceasefire, maybe the pro-ceasefire side would get a majority in government. Problem is, of the people that want a ceasefire, very few vote or they protest vote instead of picking people who can actually move the needle.