BilliamBoberts

I talked to some friends after the debate who claim to be independent and they said they still thought they both were terrible. I don't understand how anyone could equate Harris with Trump, especially after Jan 6

What do you mean? Caturday is every week between Friday and Sunday.

Here’s a short list of key policies and initiatives associated with Kamala Harris:

1. Healthcare: Advocates for expanding access to affordable healthcare, including support for the Affordable Care Act and efforts to lower prescription drug prices.

2. Climate Change: Supports aggressive action on climate change, including rejoining the Paris Agreement and investing in clean energy jobs.

3. Criminal Justice Reform: Focuses on reforming the criminal justice system, including ending mass incarceration, addressing racial disparities, and promoting police accountability.

4. Economic Equality: Promotes policies aimed at reducing income inequality, such as raising the minimum wage, supporting small businesses, and investing in education and job training.

5. Immigration Reform: Advocates for comprehensive immigration reform, including a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and protecting DACA recipients.

6. Gun Control: Supports measures to reduce gun violence, including universal background checks and banning assault weapons.

7. Women's Rights: Champions reproductive rights and policies aimed at addressing gender-based violence and discrimination.

Here's trumps policies: https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf

You're right, I was being selfish.

Why dont you want to cure cancer, my guy?

The taco is just an objectively inferior vessel for transporting food to your mouth. It has two whole open sides that are level with it's base and it's open to the air all across the top. It wouldn't matter what you put on top. It will still spill out. You have to turn your head 90 degrees horizontal to eat a damn taco. Burritos are superior.

The crux of my issue with the soviet system is that the highest echelons of the government had no oversight and were in no way beholden to the people at the lowest echelons. You're right that democracy is a sliding scale, and I think a good form of government will allow dissenting opinions to take hold if they reflect the will of the people. I think it is very telling that you can have a communist party in the Kaiser's germany, but not have a liberal/democratic party in Lenin's Russia.

After some more digging, I conscede that you're right on this point. I misremember that. they were not forced to participate.

I think political systems affect development, although geography plays a big role in that as well. How a country uses its available resources is predominantly determined by its economic and political system.

They gave you a ballet with only a party member candidate on it which you'd simply drop in the ballet box in front of everyone, and if you wanted to vote for an independent, you had to go behind a curtain and write it in.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_Soviet_Union

"However, in practice, before 1989, voters could vote against candidates preselected by the Communist Party only by spoiling their ballots, whereas votes for the party candidates could be cast simply by submitting a blank ballot."

I wouldn't call that democratic in nature.

I'm comparing political systems, not nations. If we're talking about the WW1 era, then I'd say the soviets still had it worse as they went through a war, invasion, then a civil war, and famine and consequent brutal dictatorship. But the germans made it out quite well off, given they basically started the war with their unequal treaties and rapid militarization. Despite this, the treaty of Versailles was relatively lenient compared to what happened Austria-hungry.

It was not democratic. It was a single party system in which the party selected a candidate, (after some research I learned this part is false), ~~and the populace was forced to vote for said candidate under threat of imprisonment.~~

If the people wanted to oust a candidate they didn't like, they'd have to coordinate with everyone in secret to cooperatively abstain from voting for the candidate so he would lose his job and the party would select a new candidate.

I think the germans working under codetermination have it a bit better than any soviet ever did under their workers' unions. the missing ingredient being a democratic representative government in place of an authoritarian single party system.

Workers as the owners?

Apparently, not so in the soviet union: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_unions_in_the_Soviet_Union

But there is a similar (but not identical) concept currently being implemented in Germany. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codetermination_in_Germany