Either you're misreading or I am misreading, because going by this, Yes on 2 is the campaign in favor of repeal – i.e., the one Leman is in favor of – and the latter paragraph is backing up what he says by saying No on 2 spent more than Yes on 2 by a 100x difference.
I would find this more believable were it not for the fact that a huge amount of your posts are about China. From my perspective, your motive for posting this looks less like "Climate Change is a serious issue, and many countries – including China – are not fixing it" and more "I hate China, so here's another article shitting on them."
Considering that (insofar as I can tell) literally just a petition and nothing more, your joke actually sounds pretty accurate to me.
The only way this'll do good is if a miracle occurs and it becomes ludicrously successful. In any realistic scenario, all it does is make a convenient list of people the new administration won't like. Well, that and create a treasure trove of profitable data.
Fear is bad when it stops us from doing useful, helpful things. I don't think this is one of those things.
I'm vastly more in favor of Approval Voting, truth be told. Most anything's better than what we have now, but ranked voting systems of any sort tend to have issues similar to FPTP, whereas Approval or Score voting don't. Approval Voting is also dead simple, since the only change is that you can vote for as many candidates as you want.
Is the judicial system different if a convicted felon’s base is energized?
Technically yes, since the convicted felon is the president-elect and has literally changed the power balance of the judicial system already.
Really though, it all comes down to risk. The more frenzied his base becomes, the more they let him get away with, and thus the more he will take advantage of that. Normally, I wouldn't care about this, because if Republicans aren't given this "feral consent" they'll manufacture it themselves. But I pause because the actual benefits of this are so slim as to measure up poorly against even this low-level con. I mean, he's in jail for a couple months — so what? Does that stop him from doing much of anything? Will he even care, when he knows he'll leave it with just as much power as he had when he entered?
Were it that he'd lost the election, I'd feel differently. But we don't live in a sane world. What do we actually get out of this?
Trump is in a position where the rule of law scarcely affects him, regardless of what a judge sentences him to, because of the sheer quantity of political capital backing him. If this happened, he would spend a couple months in a cell and nothing else, at best. So if you think he should be arrested based exclusively on the law itself and no other reasons, sure, that's justified. But I'm talking impact, here.
I think the overall impact would be negative for the reasons given above. He'd face scarcely any truly proportionate punishment, would learn nothing, would lose nothing, and his supporters would become even more rabid. And all that would mean the political calculus for "is it worth it to commit fraud" either doesn't change or goes even further in favor of "yes." What's the point, then, besides to make us feel a bit better until he inevitably gets released?
I suspect that even if this did happen, it would mostly just energize his base. It'd help him make a faux martyr of himself and rile up all of his worst supporters. It's not like he'd stay in that cell, after all.
Maybe learn how to use it correctly in its current state
The slop being talked about in this article was made by OpenAI themselves. You know, the company at the forefront of the genAI/LLM bubble, with billions of dollars of money behind it?
I don't know what kind of mythical standard it is that you believe generative AI is capable of, but when even the organization at the forefront of the tech can't make this shit look good, you can't exactly claim it's a skill issue.
If they're arguing that people should vote, or that they shouldn't vote Green due to spoiler effects, then they're not arguing with me, frankly.
My position throughout this thread is that it's folly to avoid pressuring Democrat tickets to improve their platform, not that anyone should abstain from voting or vote third party. I'm going to vote in November and it won't be for the Greens. The key part is that I also plan to shame the Dem ticket for doing such a poor job in the meantime, too; they need to move left now, not later.
Believe me, I've got no qualms with you, in this thread or elsewhere. I upvoted several of your comments here because insofar as I can tell, you are right. I'm not defending the Greens in this thread and never have. I do not care for them.
But I'm sure you've seen as I have the negative reactions that so frequently occur from so many when Harris' platform or campaign are criticized. Anytime anyone tries to suggest that she is doing a terrible job of appealing to anyone left-of-center, all while playing ads that play up conservative talking points, it feels as though a barrage of comments is immediately launched to decry it. This is and has been extremely frustrating for me to constantly see, hence why I push back so much on it in this thread.
And I can probably guess as to the feelings that motivate this; people quite possibly fear the criticism will undermine the election's odds of not going towards a fascist. But this is still misplaced blame. If the Democrats lose this election, it'll be their fault, not the fault of people like Flash Mob.
None of that changes anything about the fact that this is still the entirely wrong way to go about trying to win an election. The Democrats are letting people down and trying to win solely off of Trump being worse. You shouldn't be surprised that this strategy does not resonate with people. If everyone here pressured the Democrats to do better instead of yelling at folks for not being jazzed about milquetoast-at-best non-promises, I can guarantee you voter turnout would be much better.
Given how obvious it is that there are many different groups amongst left-wing politics and a great degree of nuance therein, I cannot possibly see your post as anything other than a deliberately bad-faith interpretation.
If you want to convince people who're upset with the Democrats' poor policy offerings to vote for them, you aren't going to do it by shaming them into settling for less. It does not and will never work.
If the Democrats want to win, it is on them to offer an actually appealing platform. Blame them for failing at that.
Much as I plan to hold my nose and vote for Harris, I can't help but feel simultaneously bemused and saddened how every time you talk about her actually trying to earn your vote, you receive comment after comment tearing you down as though her terrible policy is fine and that only YOU can stop Trump. As though Harris herself were powerless to change her own platform to appeal more.
Party loyalty is so strong these days entirely too many people forget that candidates have agency. They'd rather shame people or call them bots than consider if it might be more effective for the candidate to actually listen to their own constituency.
According to a report from Shanghai’s The Paper, the incident involved the company’s branch in Shenzhen’s Longhua district, where an employee involved in the filming said it was intended as a joke, and that the three employees in the video had volunteered to take part. The employee said the branch did not punish employees for small mistakes like forgetting straws.
On Wednesday afternoon, Good Me issued a public apology through its Weibo account. “We’re sorry,” it said. “We were playing with punchlines, and it went all wrong.”
Whether or not you might trust that statement, I do think it's worthwhile context. This post seems to be making a mountain out of a molehill – even the actual article's title/subtitle makes it clear this was a joke – and I find that in very poor taste given how high tensions are on this topic.
This is tangential, but am I the only one getting sick and tired of all the topics about China? The imperial core's news industry's obsession with the country has never been healthy, and none of the articles being posted have had me thinking any of that is changing. I'm seeing post after post, usually from the same two users, and I'm starting to worry that the line between "documenting the atrocities of an authoritarian country" and "sinophobia" might start to get blurry.
To be clear, I'm not trying to point fingers. I don't want to make assumptions about the users in question. I've just been seeing this for a few months now and it's getting on my nerves, especially given the political climate of the United States.
Either you're misreading or I am misreading, because going by this, Yes on 2 is the campaign in favor of repeal – i.e., the one Leman is in favor of – and the latter paragraph is backing up what he says by saying No on 2 spent more than Yes on 2 by a 100x difference.