SHOULD HAVE BEEN BERNIE. YOU STOLE OUR FUTURE TO PRESERVE YOUR PRESENT PROFITS.

I’m not sure we should be so pessimistic yet. They blocked a candidate but did nothing to kill it’s popularity. As long as we don’t succumb to Fascism within the next four years, there’s still a massive base of voters that would vote for a socialist in the '28 primary, and the left democrats will have had 12 years since Bernie’s first campaign to build up the infrastructure for it by that point.

Why “trying to decide”? One may have some kind of subscription etc. Also finding one quickly, like with taxi and food delivery services, is a demand to be filled. Markets and such.

So you want every person to have to pay for a fire subscription? And if they don’t have one their house burns down or they get extorted?

You’ll pay less, that’s for sure, ask anyone who’ve worked with state services and big organizations. At their job, I mean. I have.

You certainly may have interacted with government during your career, but hearing this is all I needed to hear. There’s nothing objectively different between Government and Private products, sure the private product may be cheaper sometimes, but there’s also plenty of ways the private service could be more expensive, that’s why every business, including the one I used to run, has conversations about cost vs. benefit of private vs. public for certain services.

It seems you haven’t read the paragraph about separation. Which is one (1) paragraph, not several. Also no, it doesn’t show anything, because you haven’t read it and can’t make such claims.

I have read it, I just didn’t mention it because not only was it irrelevant, it was also wildly incorrect, government services can compete with eachother, and private companies can have a monopoly even without government intervention.

Yes. You need to have at least twice as many firestations to have a choice, if you want to choose between fire services, though.

You’re gonna sit there on your phone trying to decide which fire service to use while your house is literally burning down?

What about people who rent? It’s not their own private property, are they supposed to pay for the whole building being saved? Does it get put on the landlord? He never consented to having his building saved, his tenants just called the fire station when a fire started. Are the tenants supposed to contact their landlord first so that he can properly consent to having a fire station save his property?

I don’t see a problem with having twice as many firestations, as in two parallel services. They don’t have only one landline at the firestation after all. They have HA in any mass service system.

Well other than now having to pay for double the amount of infrastructure, you now also probably have people who own and profit off the stations, which introduces every normal market pressure, positive and corrupting.

Notice how it requires no coercion

“Pay our massive fee or your house burns down” certainly sounds coercive. You’ve also not established anything to guarantee that a fire station doesn’t develop a monopoly.

See my solution.

If your solution to serious and urgent emergencies like “Oh my god, my house is on fire” or “Oh my god, I’m having a heart attack” is several paragraphs long, you’ve not actually developed a solution, just a hypothetical which shows painfully obviously why we stopped running society like this millenia ago.

Did you really choose which firestation was gonna send a truck?? That’s the problem with using a “free market” argument for emergencies, yeah sure it’s great to choose between different emergency providers when there’s nothing happening.

But when a fire starts or you have a heart attack? The nearest Ambulance or Fire Truck that can get you is coming to get you, and you don’t (and can’t) have a choice in which Hospital they’re gonna rush you to, or which fire station that truck came from, all that matters is that it came

Nothing in that article mentions an Israeli veto, just that peace talks should happen between the two groups, and not just unilateral recognition that fixes nothing on the ground.

The two state solution is a fucking joke anyway.

Tell that to the Palestinian people.

If this was South Africa, would the solution be a two state solution?

South Africa didn’t and doesn’t have an equal amount of White and Black people like Israel-Palestine has Jews and Palestinians that each want their own state. The two state solution is literally the only credible solution and has been for 30 years.

He’s just lying so people in the US stop calling him Genocide Joe and vote for him.

That was a handful of people online and a few protestors at his rallies. Those don’t change longstanding U.S. foreign policy of support for two states, and Lemmy isn’t representative of the U.S. voting population.

Odd that a president who calls for an independent Palestinian state is somehow pro-Palestinian genocide.

Which progressives have endorsed which genocide?

Zionists are not following Judaism. If you ask jewish people living in occupied Palestine

That’s a tiny minority sect of Jews in Israel, a majority of Jews in Israel support the existence of Israel, that’s why they’re there.

A majority of Jews in the U.S. and globally also support the existence of Israel.

Candidates have to get a certain amount of signatures before getting ballot access on the primary in a state.

Williamson and Phillips weren’t able to do that everywhere, and Biden was, that’s on them not having as many campaign resources as a literal incumbent U.S. President, not the DNC somehow keeping them off the ballot.

Biden and Dem leadership were saying it up to a few months ago, so it shouldn’t be hard to admit.

It was longer than a few months ago and they clearly said why they stopped even considering packing the Supreme Court.

Not only did they not have a congress to pass it, because they’ve never held anywhere close to enough of a super majority to get past fillibuster. But it’s also effectively handing a loaded gun to a second Trump presidency or any Republican presidency to do the same.

During a Fox & Friends interview on March 6, 2024, Gabbard was directly asked about serving as Trump’s vice-president. She responded, “I would be honored to serve our country in that way and be in a position to help President Trump…” In March 2024, Gabbard was cited by Trump as one of his potential choices for his vice presidential running mate.

Seems like you’re the one who isn’t paying attention

Not only did she not even apply for the Democratic Nomination, she seems more inclined to being Trump’s VP than a possible democratic nominee.

That’s simply not true, Tulsi Gabbard had the opportunity to submit her name to the primary election after getting enough signatures just like Dean Phillips and Marriane Williamson did.

She didn’t even do that, the most basic step of trying to become president, I wouldn’t blame the DNC for her not bothering with the basics.

About 25 to 50 percent, depending on which Polling Aggregate source you’re using for Biden currently. Which would presumably improve with another candidate.

25% From the economist

40% From The Hill

50% From 538

Meanwhile, RFK Jr., the highest polling of the third party candidates, has less than 1% chance of winning enough electoral votes.

However, my original point wasn’t that a Biden replacement would do better than RFK or a third party in the general (though they certainly would), but that if you dislike Biden, him being replaced is more likely than a third party candidate ever winning.

I’ve never met a single person who thinks any of them could actually get the popular or electoral vote, at this point replacing Biden with another Democrat would be far more likely.

Dude has been a joke for a very long time. Like his illegal campaign for the Dem nomination that was only ever meant to be attention seeking, that subsequently got zero attention for the most recent example.

You think Bernie Sanders doesn’t want all of that, too? You should read his latest book.

He was just being pragmatic when he mostly only talked about the most easily achievable and popular of his possible reforms.

Bernie fucking Sanders was a centrist according to the rest of the world.

Just utterly and completely wrong, Bernie would be firmly within the populist/socialist left of Europe, and probably the rest of the world too.

Oh I completely agree, just wanted to point out that AIPAC is homegrown interventionism, not foreign like people tend to think.

How is this not foreign interference?

Because AIPAC doesn’t take any foreign money, it’s funded entirely from within the U.S.