I'm not sure the point I'm meant to take from this. That people who live in worse circumstances and feel marginalised and undersupported are more likely to vote for something they see as a change to the status quo?
And that people for whom the status quo is working will continue to support it?
Yeah, but ranked choice isn't in operation, so you've got to make the better choice for right now.
Also, in that case Trump would be the better option. I would hope that in a scenario where the republicans had nominated Hitler that the democrats could do better than Trump but if they couldn't, then yes, voting for Trump in that scenario would be r
the right thing to do as voting for, say, Bernie Sanders I. that scenario would let, you know, Hitler become the President.
Yeah, but then, if, say 20% of voters in swing states voted third party, it would let the greater evil in, this being the very immoral choice.
Surely a more relevant measure is what can I do that will do the most good. Voting for someone who is better than the other realistic option, this keeping extremists out of power feels like a more moral option than making a pointless vote.
I'd go with 5 seconds penalty for Lando overtaking off track and a 5 seconds penalty for max for forcing another driver off track. Lando would have made the corner, max chose not to.
No no no, you also have to make sure that you massively lift off the brakes (giving you no chance of making the corner) in order to get to the magic apex first
I wouldn't keep mentioning it if it wasn't so ridiculous