Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)E
Posts
0
Comments
247
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • Luckily it would be really hard for them to actually get rid of it. I wouldn't put it past them to try to start doing summary executions or just illegally trying to detain people without trial or whatever but there's 0 chance they get the support to actually remove that amendment.

  • Because it's the only legal thing he can tell them to do.

  • You can argue with the math all you like. It won't change.

  • Missed the entire point huh? If people not voting lowers the required counts to achieve a plurality, then mathematically speaking it is functionally equivalent to voting for the candidate furthest away from that non-voter's preference.

    The only way a non-voter does not work in the favor of in this case Trump would be if there was some absolute share of eligible voters he had to reach. But since only a plurality is needed every non-vote and every third-party vote lowers the amount of votes he needs to achieve that plurality.

    This is literally a studied and documented mathematical phenomenon related to first past the post systems.

  • There's enough blame to go around my love

  • See the thing is that a candidate only needs a plurality of cast votes. So every vote that doesn't get cast makes that plurality easier to achieve. If there are 100 people that can vote and all of them do you need 51 for a majority. If 10 of them don't vote at all and there's only 90 left you now only need 46 for that same majority. If another 10 of them vote for some third party that person now only needs 41 votes to have the largest plurality. Every person that doesn't vote lowers the threshold for victory.

    It's tempting to think that this benefits both remaining candidates equally since both can benefit from that lowered margin. But in reality it gets skewed based on who stayed home/voted third party and who didn't. This is the spoiler effect.

  • Yes, we already covered Democrats Bad. I agree. I hate them with a passion. Doesn't change that in a national electoral sense they are the only viable party at this moment to enact any kind of positive change. They are not and should never be the only option. But all people who talk like you do ever seem to offer as a solution is the "Glorious Revolution™" that hundreds of thousands if not millions of vulnerable people WILL die in because they never think about how those people are going to survive when food or medicine supply lines get disputed by fighting for the most fucking basic of examples.

    They engage in this rhetoric because it's Magical Thinking that absolves them of having to do something they feel is icky and stains their ideological purity. It'll all be fixed when the Oppressed finally throw off their chains and eat the rich or whatever.

  • The first past the post argument is anti-3rd-party-voting rhetoric? The long studied mathematical tendency of first past the post systems to consolidate towards two party rule through among other factors strategic voting and the spoiler effect? Yeah okay Buddy. You're definitely the best leftist here. You win.

  • Both MAGA and these so-called "allies" want me dead at the end of the day. We're just expected to starve to death when Amerikkka collapses or the people finally rise up.

    I know full well how horrific what Israel is doing is. But there was no anti-genocide option on the ballot in 2024. There was no way that Jill Stein or whoever was going to get enough votes to win. Hell, most of Stein's supporters I talked to their best case scenario was getting to 5% for debate access and federal funds next go round. Any that I confronted about Gaza not having 4 years just shrugged and said some variation of "better than voting for a genocide" How exactly? Because they didn't have to sacrifice their ideological purity?

  • the yougov polls shows that your fellow democrats didn't vote because they didn't want to be complicit in a genocide that the democrats openly enabled; not because they wanted to punish the democrats and this is going to happen again and again because even the likes of bernie sanders are a zionists.

    Yeah, but what lesson did leadership take from this whole thing? That they were too far left on trans issues. But yeah Bernie is the Zionist when he was pushing for blocking weapons to Israel.

    that poverty you're living through comes as the hands of democrats and republicans alike. sure, it's slower with the democrats, but you're still going to live with it nonethless.

    I know exactly who is responsible for the merciless regime of means testing that makes escaping poverty such a Sisyphean task because they'd rather 100 deserving people get nothing if it prevents a single undeserving person from benefiting. I have no love for the Democrats. I simply understand that First Past the Post has my well being held hostage and a win outside the duopoly on a national scale is mathematically impossible.

    and there will be no glorious revolution; just a natural decay of the system we're in and a natural response from the people like us once things get bad enough, while we watch people in other places have it much better.

    There it is. Pray tell, what is this "natural response" you speak of? Cuz I might be wrong, but it sounds to me like myself and millions like me are still expected to be sacrificed upon the altar of ideological purity so they don't have to do something icky like vote for a Democrat.

  • Yes, Democrats bad. We get it. What's your solution for that other than the Glorious Revolution™ that most of us disabled and/or living in poverty won't survive.

    Not voting for the Democrats really showed them for supporting the genocide. Bet they reversed course on tha- Oh... You mean they decided that Gaza wasn't the problem and instead it was their support of trans people like me? Damn...

  • If that’s his intention then whoever came up with the plan is stupid beyond all imagining

    Ding ding ding!

    Their plan literally involves devaluing the dollar. They don't want the dollar as the global reserve currency. They have no idea how it'll all actually shake out but they're confident that they'll end up proportionately richer than everyone else. Sure the absolute amount of their wealth might decrease, but the real amount relative to the "serfs" will skyrocket.

    They basically want their own little technofeudalist fiefdoms where everyone unfortunate enough to live in them is basically their property.

  • No, that's the point. They're literally trying to devalue the dollar so their billionaire buddies can consolidate wealth at fire sale prices.

  • I doubt Musk's salute was that deep. He's not some slick political operative. He's a 4chan dipshit who thought he'd be edgy and cool and tiptoe up to the line. He thought it would be much more ambiguous what he did and he'd "own the libs" by making them look like fools to the normies who genuinely wouldn't see it for what it actually was. He clearly was not expecting basically no one but the cultists on his side to not see what he did.

  • Seems like they're basically counting on many of them having no choice but to come back. Just like they're counting on them being willing to accept having basically no rights.

    Because slavery is better than getting killed by gangs/cartels of course /s

  • It's not a failure in the usual sense we think about it, no. You were still "technically wrong" in whatever hypothesis you had that was disproven. But the end result is different because theoretically everyone involved cares more about the answer being found, not necessarily that they are the one to do it.

    Hell, in cases where whatever you did was later proven incorrect it's usually that whatever you did was the most correct answer for the information we had at the time. Then new information is discovered and often someone else builds off what you did to get this new answer.

  • For me it was just a general feeling of "wrongness" mostly. Like cramming yourself into shoes that are just a little too small. You're acutely aware that it's uncomfortable and that it doesn't feel right, but it's your whole body.

    In my case I think those feelings were aggravated by my ADHD. There's this sense called proprioception that is knowing where your body is and how it's moving without looking that many people with ADHD or autism often struggle with. It's one of the things that contributes to that stereotype of the "ADHD Walk" where we're constantly running into, getting caught on, or tripping over things more typical people seem top just instinctively avoid.

    So not only did just the state of being a boy feel wrong, and I hated the things that came with this box everyone had put me in. But my whole body felt clumsy and like it was a few inches too big in every dimension. Which only reinforced that this person I saw in the mirror every day just wasn't Me.

  • Jokes like this aren't to imply that there are only two options. It also implies the existence of pescatarian shoes for example. The joke is that you apply other related terms to the situation, usually the most absurd of them. In this case carnivorous was probably chosen for the implication that the shoes themselves are carnivorous and would eat you if you wore them.

  • They also refuse to grapple with the reality that if their "Glorious Revolution" does happen then a significant amount of people are going to die in the disruption. As someone living below the poverty line caring for multiple disabled family members I don't appreciate being told that my family and I should literally risk starving to death because they can't be bothered to do the bare minimum.