Complete bollocks. The report is unequivocal that the problem is very, very present.
"Basic common sense", ok. So if half the Dems vote third party and the rest don't, I'd end up with a worse government (for me) than if I'd voted Dem. But worrying about that is lacking 'basic common sense'?
Except for all that horrible stuff that happened. Just because something doesn't impact you personally doesn't mean it's not terrible for other people.
this doesn't make sense. would you like to rephrase?
under both Presidents.
Not quite seeing the problem. Say I decide to vote third party instead of Dem. In that election, I'm among ~50% of 'traditionally Dem' voters that take that punt. The result would be a Republican victory-- voting for our own best candidates would land those voters with an even worse government than if they'd voted Dem.
Yes, under both presidents, to varying degrees in various areas-- degrees which make quite a significant difference to a lot of people.
No, it's their constant belligerent actions toward South Korea and Japan. Constantly firing missiles over those countries was an act not even the US, and the USSR did to each other. Then acting hurt emotionally when Japan DARES to suggest they shoot one down like a child. Kim Jon Un is a child in a man's body playing checkers while everyone else besides Russia is playing Chess. Wah, I can't shell South Koreans without them getting angry at me, Wah I am a laughing stock of the world who spends more on my military than feeding people.
i literally underlined the problem. "I vote for..." is not the same thing as "half of democrats vote for...".
so bin them both and stop letting the divide and conquer strategy defeat you. as it comes to voting, solidarity means neither expecting people to vote to harm themselves nor voting to harm others.
Obviously, but "i" was always supposed to be understood as representative, not literal. I can't vote in American elections. "I" in that paragraph is a stand-in for "a progressive voter".
Which would require organisation to result in anything except electoral self-harm, which was my point.
I've tried the cats and dogs approach very recently on this very thread. Deaf ears, I'm afraid.
A third party is divide and rule though. It means the anti Republican vote splits and that the Republicans win by default. And by the time one of the anti Republican parties has eaten up the other the Republicans will have already dismantled democracy enough so that they can't be voted out.
The threat of a third party, employed effectively, can move the mainstream party. The Tea Party, for instance, arguably moved Republican policy because the Republican Party could not afford to lose those votes (as it is, they got walloped by Obama anyway).
Not really a hot take, just factual. Like the gender pay gap bullshit too.
I didn't read it because it wasn't pertinent to the discussion. I said that usually means there's very little to no current day racism.
I get it, but the fear of the other side winning is not real.
It's not just what he did do (and that's not the shortest list in the world) but what he tried to do.
Pretty sure that comment was less about the overall thrust and more that the scope changed mid-statement. You went from the impact of "half the Dems" doing something, to the impact if "I" did so, rather than "they" or "we" which would have been more grammatically appropriate. You shifted the scope from large plural to a singular within the same thought. While the general meaning is still not especially difficult to infer, the shift is in the same ballpark as "I'll give you three reasons: Reason One, Reason Two, and Reason C" and causes a similar degree of confusion.
...but the only reason you think it wasn't pertinent is a misconception.
Worse and better aren't objective terms. It would be a government i want less.
We can start with stacking the Supreme Court with regressive ideologues.
Tell that to the tens of millions of people motivated by it.
That'd explain why it's fresh in my mind. Think that's the 3rd time I have heard it this month. Guess it is an election year.
Did a bit of digging and found the original thread. Here's what the OP claims: Wife accidentally left her laptop on at a friend's house during a party. Friend apparently booted up Skyrim and discovered that she'd installed quite a few NSFW mods, which - the OP specifically notes - includes mods including "non-human enemies, such as wolves, attempting to non-consensually mate with the player"
That also isn't half of all usual Democratic voters.
every vote for a third party is one more demonstration that not everyone is on board with the two party status quo. the two party status quo is an unstable equilibrium, as neither party commands a majority of voters, and especially not happily. thus, third party votes make progress at changing the political situation. duopoly votes manifestly do not; swinging the pendulum back and forth between piss and shit is not meaningful change.
because it's stupid and misses the point. like yes, you have identified the mechanism by which Democrats use emotional blackmail to stay in power while murdering on behalf of the wealthy and your conclusion is to capitulate. Fuck all the way off with that.
Confiscated meaning it will be seized for months on end. It's the IT version of SWATing but it doesn't put your life at risk. My question is why the UK police would have such a reactive measure to this when they could just lookup the person's internet footprint.
Because the internet is not the only way of getting illegal materials onto a computer.
