It wouldn’t be a Trump administration without reality TV drama. That harms millions of people.

The party The people that vote in the primaries for the party that claims to be “for the people” keeps putting centrists in charge.

Most people don’t vote in the Democratic primaries. Did you?

They weren’t, but they were a hell of a lot stronger than Trump. And Biden for that matter.

The reality is there’s clearly a double standard in how Americans - both male and female - view women as candidates. Look at how they attacked Kamala for having a monogamous relationship with Willie Brown while Trump cheated on 3 spouses and sexually assaulted somewhere between 1 and 25 people.

Does anyone think there’s a chance that a woman who was caught cheating on her spouse could get elected? And it’s not just sex stuff, the way opinions and mannerisms are scrutinized is different too. There’s 100x as many ways for a woman to be cringe as a man.

Strictly speaking that’s not true. For example, business elites almost certainly favored Romney over Obama’s second term. But when it’s someone as wooden as Romney, it doesn’t matter how much money they pour into the race.

This time around Republicans are probably going to run some Trump stooge who’s planning on the third term end-around to put Trump back in office, assuming Trump lasts that long. I think they’re going to have a similar problem this time.

There’s definitely giant inadequacies in American democracy, but still I fail to see how voting isn’t good enough. If people voted for Gore instead of Nader, American history would be very different. We’d have avoided a giant tax cut for the rich l, withdrawing from Kyoto, and a trillion dollar unnecessary war. Wealth inequality wouldn’t be as bad, there would definitely be earlier progress against global warming, and we could probably afford real universal health care by now.

Ideally after voting in the right people, we’d fix all the democracy problems. But still I’d say voting alone would make a huge difference. Anything else meanwhile - protests (BLM, Gaza), violence (Matthew crooks, Luigi) has at best accomplished zero, and in reality seems to have done serious damage to the causes they were seeking. The one exception I’d give is boycotts - like the Tesla boycotts that have destroyed their sales numbers.

Well yeah, but part of the voter propaganda is telling people both sides are the same. I get that there’s pro capitalist media bias which at its root is caused by extreme financial inequality. But fixing that financial inequality requires government action, and that requires voting. For the people who will do the inadequate version over the people who want to make it worse. Incremental change through pressure + time, just like everything else on earth.

Voting caused the problem, it can solve it too. But here’s the thing: for voting to solve the problem, you have to actually do it and play the game.

Every 20-25 years some rightwing psycho wins and inflicts some horror on us because new voters don’t remember what happened the last time people said “both sides are the same”. You kids know that whole Iraq war and torture thing was avoidable, right? So was Reagan’s annihilation of the middle class.

I mean obviously, they tried in 2020. But they’re also very, very dumb. That being said, with the four years in-between, they may have figured out how to book a hotel room by now.

I can’t help but read this while replacing “rock” with “large language model”

Heuristics that almost always work. Hmm.

AI Project Manager: Create a button on a webpage that, when clicked, displays an alert saying “Hello World!”
AI Programmer: “What a sensible requirement! Here you go.”
AI Billing Department: “Project completed, that’ll be 10 million dollars.”
Client AI Payments Department: “Sounds right, paid!”

I agree with 0% but disagree there’s any paradox - every choice is just plain old wrong. Each choice cannot be correct because no percentage reflects the chance of picking that number.

Ordinarily we’d assume the chance is 25% because in most tests there’s only one right choice. But this one evidently could have more than one right choice, if the choice stated twice was correct - which it isn’t. So there’s no basis for supposing that 25% is correct here, which causes the whole paradox to unravel.

Now replace 60% with 0%. Maybe that would count as a proper paradox. But I’d still say not really, the answer is 0% - it’s just wrong in the hypothetical situation posed by the question rather than the actual question.

deleted by creator

And the other half have a negative view of EVs

Your position would be more sensible and coherent if you were looking to achieve it through a mechanism outside of voting, but to insist on trying to use the tool you recognize as broken to repair itself is an absurdity, it’s completely irrational.

Your position would be much more sensible if RCV had never been achieved through voting. But it has. And notice the states where it does exist - these are the same places where lots of people vote for Democrats. And the places where it’s banned statewide? Those are the places where lots of people vote for Republicans. We need more of the former, and less of the latter.

I know I’d be a lot cooler, especially around here, if I just put on the Che Guevara shirt and say revolution is the only answer. But it just isn’t. Because every example of that sort of thing just leads to more fascism under a different name. Voting works, it’s the best choice, and I have yet to see any evidence other than wanting to be cool to convince me otherwise.

But as for making it a red line for supporting democrats, sure. I mean honestly, credit to you for proposing something that might actually work. I think if there’s a big enough movement to do that, every Democrat would get behind it.

Shut the fuck up with your disgusting justification.

I’m confused as to why you are getting so many upvotes because either though misreading or misplaced focus, you only replied to one half of one sentence of my reply, constructing an alternate reality in which my point was the opposite of what it actually was. And to be blunt, both the reply and the upvotes reflects so much of the knee-jerk hyperemotionalism in online debates.

As for the rest, I think we can all acknowledge that people in general will take more offense to a paper insulting a powerless minority than the powerful majority. But in this case they didn’t, hence my point that violence is counterproductive to a cause, which you seem to think was the opposite point.

Also Musk: “This is the woke mind virus in action. Now, it is time for the mind virus to die.”

The two party system is bullshit, and the solution is electoral reform like ranked choice voting.

One party, the Democratic party, usually (but not always) approves of such reform efforts.
The other party, the Republican party, universally opposes such efforts with extreme fervor.

So it makes sense to hate the two party system, but that system is one party’s fault in particular.

Because it’s just going to make them more popular. One can argue that the failed assassination of Trump was actually key to his victory. Or if that’s not clear enough, look at what happened with Charlie Hebdo - it just made muslims look petty and violent to the point where most people would rather side with the paper that was bullying a religious minority than recognize their concerns.

Losing a lawsuit, meanwhile, makes them unpopular and poor at the same time.

I’ve played civilization and I’m pretty sure there’s other forms of government besides Communism and Monarchy that have low corruption, albeit lacking the ability to force the citizens into war on the leader’s whim.

It’s not just Republicans, it’s businessmen. Hoover, George W. Bush, and of course Trump were all businessmen. Reagan technically not but he kind of was an adopted businessman with all the corporate friends he had.

What happens is, people think a businessman would be great for the economy. But what makes someone a great businessman? Not strong knowledge of economics, that’s what makes you a good economics professor. A great businessman is one who is good at fundraising, which basically comes down to having lots of rich friends who you can convince that giving you money will pay off for them down the road. This is why guys like Adam Neumann still raise gobs of money after failing - if people see you as a guy who can raise money, they’re less worried you’ll go bankrupt.

So anyway, when these Adam Neumanns end up entering the white house, they find that they’ve made many promises to their wealthy friends but don’t know how to keep them. So they try their best, conducting sweeping changes to financial and regulatory systems, but lacking the economic knowledge to understand the often complex effects these decisions have. Inevitably, there’s major economic problems down the road.