Democrats have done nothing to earn our votes, they are not entitled to them
Jill Stein and the Green Party have achieved literally nothing in their 22 years of existence.
They haven't elected anyone significant at any level of government, haven't authored any significant legislation, and have done the bare minimum to shift political discourse. They also have to earn our votes, and so far they have done very little to earn mine.
Even discounting the obvious statistical reality of the spoiler effect, is Jill Stein really the best candidate the Green Party has to offer? How on Earth can a party with so little to lose be so obviously out of fresh ideas already?
Say what you will about the libertarian ideology, but at least I can give the Libertarian Party credit for putting a couple asses in seats at various levels of government. The Green Party, in comparison, has had no such success, and the fact that they're going back to Jill Stein (a weak candidate who's buddies with Putin and didn't perform well) shows that they have very little intention of improving.
‘Splitting the vote’ is liberal myth.
I'm sorry but you are absolutely delusional if you really believe this.
Whether you like it or not, vote splitting and the spoiler effect are well-documented statistical realities based on the flaws of our current first-past-the-post voting systems. This is 100% a math problem, and it's one that's been written about a lot by many different people.
If that bothers you (and it should) then I encourage you to read up on alternative, more democratic voting systems like Ranked-Choice (aka Instant Runoff) and STAR voting systems, which are generally more fair and far less susceptible to problems like spoiling and wasted votes.
Make sure you're following hashtags on Mastodon. I see plenty of people posting stuff like art, food and gaming opinions because I'm following a bunch of topics that interest me.
When it comes to Linux, it's only natural that FOSS people are more interested in the fediverse than the average normie, because that's where all of this stuff came from. I know FOSS people who have been using Mastodon for years and years.
Even if one believes that violence was the only option that the Palestinians had left, how can anyone justify their indiscriminate targeting of civilians instead of going after military and political targets? (I don't mean you btw, I mean in general.)
Nobody ever won a revolution by killing their oppressor's grandma and taking children hostage, so it's clear that Hamas are less freedom fighters and moreso simple terrorists.
he hasn’t done anything to reduce car centric design
In all fairness, this doesn't really fall under the purview of the Secretary of Transportation.
I think most urban design and planning happens at the local level, and the federal DoT is mostly responsible for allocating funds to state and local city governments.
I think it actually requires passing a federal bill, but I'm not honestly sure. Either way I'm with you, it should never have been made illegal and it certainly didn't still be federally illegal today...
Having 2 dominant political parties is a reflection of how our political systems have been designed at almost every level (federal, state, local). American politics is very much based on first-past-the-post, winner-takes-all elections. These kinds of election systems are terrible for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the very real problem of vote splitting and the spoiler effect--leading to "third parties" which are almost all unserious, nonviable, and potentially backed by people with ulterior motives. The vast majority of the time, voting for a third party candidate in America is simply throwing your vote away and is effectively the same as not voting. (Even as a "protest", it's not a very good one, because it's never clear what can be interpreted from why people vote the way they do.)
The solution to this problem is changing how we run elections so that the most popular candidates are more likely to win, and so that people's individual votes are less likely to become nullified in various ways (like by voting for a statistically nonviable candidate, for one). I like Ranked Choice Voting and STAR voting, but just about anything is better than the way that most American elections currently work.
Even in a hypothetical future where we have 10 viable parties (and more democratic voting systems), no political party is going to "give a fuck about you" as an individual. Republicans, Democrats, Greens, Libertarians, Vegetarians, Librarians, and whatever other parties spring up. The truth is, they all only give a fuck about getting your vote, so that they can get in a position of political power to do the things that they and their influential backers want (all the while reaping the benefits of doing so). There is no political party on Earth that is in it for the benefit of all of mankind--they all have some kind of agenda and ideology that they want to put in place.
In that way American politics is like a tug of war, we current have 2 viable parties, one pulling the rope to the left and another pulling the rope to the right. You can spend as much time as you want lamenting where the rope currently is compared to where you would like it to be. But if you want the rope to move left, it makes sense to join the left side. And if you want the rope to move right, it makes sense to join the right side. Sitting out just makes it easier for the "other side" to make "progress". Having more parties doesn't really change that, it just turns a 1-dimensional battle into an n-dimensional battle.
The biggest benefit that comes from having multiple (viable) political parties is increased competition of ideas. But again, America truly require huge systemic changes to how we run elections to make that a reality.
I'm going to be voting for the party that more closely aligns with the direction that I want the country to move in. It's the only smart move in the game of American politics.
Not really. If they're fulfilling their contractual obligations to their employer(s), then who the hell cares?
It's long past time that we stop treating employees like they're chattel of the company that they work for. You hire someone to do a job, which they either do to your satisfaction or not, but you don't own them and you shouldn't get to control the parameters of their life.
If you're calling for a specific reason, like ordering food or whatever, write down what you want (plus any questions you have) ahead of time.
If they ask you something that you're not expecting or don't understand, it's ok to take a bit of time to think or ask them what they mean.
Practice your intro or write it down if you need to. Something as simple as "Hello, I'm calling to make an appointment with Dr. Jones", or "Hi, I'd like to place an order", or whatever.
And as a general anxiety tip, know that it's always worse just before you do something. Most of the things we worry about never end up happening, and sometimes when they happen they aren't that big of a deal.
Take a second to remind yourself that what you're doing is super normal, and so is making mistakes or being a bit awkward. The people who you're talking to are used to dealing with all different kinds of strangers on the phone, including a lot of people with anxiety, hearing/speaking problems, etc.
So God is a supernatural, omniscient, all-seeing entity that can speak directly into your mind, but you still need to pay a company $20/month to snoop on your devices for "accountability" so that you don't look at all that very tempting gay porn on the internet.
American presidential elections are carried out at the state level, and in almost all the states the winner in that state takes all of the state's electors (which are people, but you can think of them as points needed to win the overall election).
What the media and political junkies call a "battleground" or "swing" state are the states which are traditionally very close races or otherwise polling closely going into the election, making them hard to predict the outcome based on statistics.
It's entirely possible for Trump to win in Oregon or for Biden to win in Kentucky, but when you look at past and present statistics it's not very likely to happen either way.
Republicans automatically vote against their own interest because Sean Hannity tells them to, while Democrats must be constantly persuaded to vote for candidates who they perceive as being less than perfect.
donuts @ donuts @kbin.social Posts 4Comments 673Joined 2 yr. ago 
I kind of wonder why Valve are so coy about the number of Decks sold.
You'd think they'd be popping off about it nonstop.