brygphilomena @ brygphilomena @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

979

Joined

2 yr. ago

That. Doesn't. Work.

Full stop.

Let's say for a moment that progressives and Democrats did that for whatever issue they personally felt strongly about.

First, we have to acknowledge that the Republicans ARE NOT doing that. So they're vote count doesn't change and they win

Second, people will disagree on the same issue. You can't capture everyone on every issue. Refer to the first point, Republicans win.

Third, there will be huge factions each with their own issue. A candidate cannot sway all these single issues groups. See the first point, Republicans win.

What first past the post representative democracy means is to vote for the viable politician that MOST ALIGNS with your political position. Not the one that EXACTLY aligns. If you build the third parties at the local and representative and Senate level. Maybe you can get there, but for now, this is the political system we have to work in.

Oh man. That with a nice, cold drink. Often a beer or cocktail. The dichotomy is glorious.

Sweet, sweet, naked, hot bliss.

File an injunction. Put up every legal barrier to prevent this asshat from having an audience.

There is a big population of women who are past childbearing age that are voting for Trump. It's fucked up, but just getting women to vote may not work. They need to get young women to vote.

So many elderly women are going to be voting who no longer have skin in the abortion game.

One article I read said that the representative race was much closer. It might not affect the president, but could affect other positions.

Gotta love the compilation releases. By their very nature, they will always have the next largest with even the smallest breach being added.

Voting doesn't mean you support them.

You aren't giving them money, you aren't campaigning for them. You are saying that between these two, admittedly fucked up, parties this is the one you think that will be better.

So for the presidential election, vote to reduce harm - not to increase it.

If you want to do better, support, fund, campaign for third parties down line. Local elections and build the momentum until they become a viable presidential candidate. Work to reform the electoral system that can dismantle the two party system.

But don't think voting for Harris is de facto supporting the Democratic party.

Which means that I have three options

I do not have three options, myself.

It is said that Americans have three options, the best of which only might improve the situation where one country is terrorising another country by killing innocent people, every day.

So are you American? It sounds like you aren't and, if not, why are you advocating for people not to vote or vote third party?

The problem, as I see it, is that there is literally no chance for a third party to win the presidency.

Which means that I have three options:

• Vote Trump. Someone who has called for more violence.
• Vote Harris. Whether I'm happy with her or the Democratic party or not. Try and mitigate as much killing and harm as I am able to. Actively try to prevent things from getting worse.
• Vote third party/Don't vote. Either Trump or Harris will win, and I can claim my conscious is clear. If Trump wins, I will have not done what little I could have to lessen the evil. I have to be okay with someone who is far worse getting into power

We can't solve the genocide by voting third party. All we can do, all that the little power granted to us can do, is try and prevent it from getting worse. So if you want to prevent as much killing as you actually can, if you want to give the most people the opportunity to live, then morally as I see it, you need to vote Harris.

Is she perfect? No. Hell no, man. But she is the candidate that with this genocide happening, and it is happening regardless of who is getting in, who will give the most Palestinians a chance to live. A third party candidate isn't making it to the White house so a third party candidate can NOT lessen the harm.

Failing to save someone's life, implies they made decisions in an attempt to save the life. That they tried, and were unsuccessful.

But in this case, they made decisions which directly prevented Micah from receiving the tests that would have given them the opportunity to save his life.

The decision, and action, to dissuade Micah's mother from seeking further medical care directly lead to his death. The decision, and action, to discharge him without adequate testing directly lead to his death.

The ER team on the third visit sounds to have tried and failed to save his life, even the decision to wait for blood thinners until more thorough testing was likely correct since they were most likely unaware of the risk of the formation of blood clots in the child.

The primary care doctor and the first ER team negligently made a series of decisions and actions that allowed a child to have an illness go undetected until it became fatal. They had the training and knowledge to know how serious the symptoms reported were and that the child's recovery was not in line with the illness they had initially diagnosed him. They may have had procedures they didn't follow which if they had would have prevented Micah death. If those are identified, then yes, I would say they caused his death through inaction.

Does it rise to criminality? No. But it's likely malpractice.

Tons of communities. I don't think any users though. Some I know are trolls but if I don't challenge them, then they may influence people who aren't as aware of their agenda.

Mostly on this account I've blocked tons of porn and anime and sports.

My NSFW account I block anything not porn and all the porn I'm not interested in.

If posting on Lemmy was a job...

And weirdly, it drives engagement anyway. People up vote where otherwise nothing would happen. Posters get reinforcement for posting something on Lemmy. And posts can be "hot" if your instance has that as an ordering filter causing more people to see it.

Oh yea. It's ridiculous that governments have let financial transactions be a private company thing.

Yea. I could go on and on about why I prefer cash a lot of times. Not always, but I always carry a couple hundred bucks on me. I also usually hide $20 or so somewhere in my car. Just in case I need gas and I forgot my wallet or the payment system was down or anything like that. It won't get me a full tank. But it will get me home.

The odds of getting robbed are slimmer than getting my credit card skimmed. I've had credit cards skimmed multiple times in the last few years. Last time I was robbed was over a decade ago, and that's cause I passed out at a party and someone told my wallet.

One could spend thousands of bucks before getting shut down (and thankfully I have good fraud protection so I didn't pay) while the other got 50 bucks.

Bartering is also a good one. It's easier to barter with people at stands or who make their own goods. Most handymen or trades workers will charge you less if you pay in cash. They probably aren't reporting the income, but they also aren't having to pay the payment processor 5% of the total. When you make a $5000 repair to your house, that's $250 just in fees the contractor/handyman has to pay. Cash avoids that.

One: Using a card means all transactions are tied to my financial history. For better or worse, I don't want all my personal habits in a ledger somewhere.

Two: Fees. Merchants have to pay fees on credit transactions.

Three: Consolidating financial institutions between a handful of company's. (Visa, MasterCard, Amex, etc)

Four: Complexity. At least one side of the transaction must setup a system to interact with banks or credit cards. Cash is as simple as counting and handing it over.

Five: Budgets. It's been shown that people spend less when they use cash. When someone can see the money actually leave and what they have dwindles they are more responsible with their spending.

Six: Tax evasion. Sometimes, if the waiter/waitress is struggling tipping in cash means it's easier for them not to report that income.

Seven: It makes it much harder to make financial transactions that aren't "approved." Whether or not you like it, some people want to be able to buy drugs or something else that isn't legal. Or even worse, the whims of whatever payment processor they use. A private company shouldn't get to say who can be a merchant and what they are allowed to sell.

Eight: Gifts. Cash is just a simple, nice gift that Zelle or Venmo can't replace.

Nine: No chance of overdrafting and getting hit with bullshit fees.

Strand him in an airport. Never to be released into either country. Always waiting for a flight to Cancun that keeps getting delayed forever.

Being able to build something with off the shelf parts is an art.

Considering LEDs are so good at producing a very tight wavelength, I wonder if this could be replicated with more energy efficient lamps.

Or if non visible spectrum lights can be used to make similar alpha channel masks that don't affect lighting the scene.

Mac and cheese with whatever random protein is like... A norm. Bacon? Hot dog? Chicken?

Yes.