You called me a centrist, but I’m really a progressive with a brain. We have the same goals. I’m the only one who presented a realistic way of reaching them.

All you got from voting blue no matter who was universal healthcare, gay rights, sanctions on settlers, emissions reductions, banking regulations, etc. By continuing to vote blue no matter who, all you would have gotten was the public option (single payer), continued emissions reductions via cap and trade or carbon tax, universal childcare, progress towards the two state solution (via follow through on the Oslo Accords instead of Iraqi shenanigans), trans rights, etc. All you got by burning everything down was faster genocide, removing healthcare subsidies, more oil dependence, removal of black and minority history from national parks, the Iran war, mass removal of legal status followed by deportation, penalties against abortion, etc. Even if you aren’t directly harmed because you’re sitting in a position of privilege, burning everything down has real and immediate consequences for the people you claim you want to help, me among them.

You say you’re not a conservative or a Russian bot, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck… Now if you’d like to debate what actually works instead of throwing innuendo around, be my guest. I’ll watch your reply.

Whoosh. Reread the thread, champ.

Easy. Vote blue no matter who. Then primary the party further left. That’s the only workable solution. If anyone tells you otherwise, ask them on which planet their solution works. You think NYC could have gone straight from Giuliani to Mamdani? Fuhgeddaboudit.

New London School is joke to you?

It’s never “bothsidesing” if you take a position.

Responding to your opponent’s strongest argument is steelmanning, and it’s always good practice if you want to convince people instead of just get clicks.

The person I replied to said that the US vetoed the Resolution. I pointed out that it did not and cannot veto the Resolution. It passed.

No, it’s not. Your confusion probably stems from the fact that the US has veto power over UN Security Council Resolutions. It cannot veto Resolutions passed by the General Assembly. This was a General Assembly Resolution.

No, it’s not. This resolution was adopted with a vote of 186-2-0. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3954949?ln=en&v=pdf

The article would be better if it linked to the reasons for the no votes and critiqued them. Otherwise, it’s just low effort outrage bait. To be clear, I don’t think the no votes were justified. I just don’t like low effort outrage bait.

Edit: Not https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/

https://web.archive.org/web/20211127052643/https://usun.usmission.gov/explanation-of-vote-of-the-third-committee-adoption-of-the-right-to-food-resolution/