I haven't talked about capitalist politics or trying to change that at all. If you want to change the system that much it's going to be a much longer, harder job.

I talked about this right from my very first response. It's been described and then assumed that it is necessary to end capitalism to address, in this case, the homelessness is intrinsically produces as well as the horrific, dehumanizing treatment of the homeless it produces. The topic of this thread is the SC allowing local authorities to criminalize homelessness. In contrast to what you have been saying and implying, it is Democrats, including the most "progressive" ones, implementing this in large cities. Anyone that spends any significant amount of time actually doing anything on this issue is fully aware that they will fight you tooth and nail, lie about you, lie about your actions, and do so at the behest of the chamber of commerce, their real primary constituents. And you're not going to resolve the core problems while maintaining capitalism itself. None ever have. This is, in fact, one of the striking differences that many have noted when traveling to various countries run by socialists: they have often eliminated homelessness or have otherwise made major strides despite the economy and geopolitical positions they inherited. The sociopathic generation and treatment of homeless people is a social choice, but one inextricable from capitalism.

From a change point of view, what I'm talking about are more immediate issues like the voting model in use or the stance the government should take on minority rights.

The voting model won't change how capitalism works. The stance the government "should" take is immaterial.

What I was initially talking about, way up at the top of the thread, was simply that trump had stuffed the supreme court and that maybe it would be a good idea to avoid giving him another chance to do that and worse.

Which, as has been noted by multiple people, misses the point that this is actually a bipartisan position. Los Angeles' city council, controlled by Democrats, is among the loudest of anti-homeless voices and policies.

Why have you not acknowledged this obvious contradiction of your logic?

I talk about making sure your representative knows who you are, and gathering enough other's together to do the same because I have seen it have a positive effect, in the context of what I was talking about.

What was the "positive effect"? Let's see what can be accomplished, maybe, through this process. I've spoken with city council members, state legislators, and members of Congress several times.

Yes, you're not going to change the fundamentals that way, and a large enough inducement from a 'donor' could turn any candidate, even if they know it'll mean they're out at the next election, but we've seen biden's tone on israel change when he came under pressure, so it does work, even if the changes are initially small.

Who gives a fuck about "tone" when he provides complete support and funding for the genocide of Palestinians? You are letting yourself become desensitized to the gravity of what is at stake because you choose to let them keep lying to you and playing you.

In reality, Biden has leveraged a PR team to "handle" dissent. Congratulations, you were handled. Such a victory. Meanwhile whole families are slaughtered by the limitless supply of JDAMs and the perpetrators are shielded by your country. You are celebrating your own pacification, having achieved nothing on this. Then you advocate for others to do the same. This is actually counterproductive and I hope nobody ever listens to you in this. Please introspect.

Changing the electoral system from FPTP to some form of more representative system would be a start. [...]

You answered half the question.

It's a concept, and idea, not a tangible thing. What is tangible is the implementation of that. Rather than fighting that, changing the system we're implementing would seem like the way to go. I realise though that we are talking about rather different things.

How is directly fighting the system intangible? Presumably if it is direct, it is focused in an actual thing (the system) and doing something to it. I think you are confusing yourself over your own language.

Have you considered that you might not actually know what other people do re: politics?

I agree, but I've not said anything about voting out capitalism.

But this is what is necessary to achieve the necessary changes re: homeless. I said this right off the bat. If you think capitalism can be maintained while addressing this, I suggest you read a little history and actually get involved locally to see how and why attempts fail. You will, eventually be forced to understand through constant and inevitable failure. Or maybe you won't because despite not actually housing the people in your town you'll get a change in "tone" and call it a day. I hope you rid yourself of that self-insulting logic.

I think people have drifted right because right wing candidates told people that they can make it all better and generally done a better job of "hearts and minds" in certain demographics than left wing candidates have so people start believeing that’s the ‘better’ way.

The second thing is tautological. If you get more votes you must have, by necessity, done better in some demographics. It means nothing in itself.

So the summation of your political theory is that right wing politicians said they can make it all better. And so they won. Really?