a Democrat that isn’t ideal but that is at least saying they want to undo the damage he’s caused and try to remove him, or will at least work with the more progressive Democrats that will,
or a pie-in-the-sky candidate that, while perfect for you, has essentially zero net-appeal to most people, and doesn’t actually have a chance in hell to win?
Because I’ll tell you, in the end there are really only two options there, and only one of them is actually against Trump
This line of questioning is like asking a person if they would rather have the old octogenarian system 9 Mac OS or whatever fresh new shit Microsoft is pumping out. I’ve made my peace with being in the 3% or less in terms of my OSes and in my votes. I’m not willingly eating shit anymore.
You had a pundit on CNN last night lambasting Alaska for having RCV. People in power are doing anything to keep it and it’s why some of us see these contests with no real choice as having a uniparty system.
I’ve made my peace with being in the 3% or less in terms of my OSes and in my votes. I’m not willingly eating shit anymore.
Your OS is a personal choice, you get to choose it for yourself and it neither affects nor is affected by the choices of others. Elections are a collective choice, you get to voice your opinion but the result is decided by consensus, and the result is forced upon you. They are not comparable choices.
You’re going to be forced to eat shit no matter which way you vote, at least choose the smaller portion.
Are you implying that my vote isn’t my own or that my choice of OS doesn’t have real world consequences for other people? OS’es are also a collective choice that dictate software development on the macro level and revenue flows of other people. Will me personally not buying a windows license or a PC preloaded with a license cause layoffs at Microsoft? No, but if enough of us do it will and force Microsoft to change.
Do you think the GOP will change from the Trump/Epstein/Shapiro faction now that they’ve been resoundly trounced? To early to tell, but it wouldn’t have the opportunity to happen at all without them losing. Same thing with the Democrats moving away from the Pelosi style wouldn’t have happened without the losses in 2010.
You also missed my qualifier about eating shit. I’m not willingly eating it. If a candidate wants my vote, they have to earn it. I’m not endorsing a giant turd for office
Your vote does nothing individually. You don’t get to personally choose your representatives. You vote for who you want, and whichever candidate gets the most votes is the one who represents you, regardless of whether they were your choice.
Your choice in OS is completely individual. You can choose Linux, your neighbor can choose Windows, your other neighbor can choose MacOS, and you all get what you want. It’s a different dynamic entirely. Large scale consequences of millions of people choosing one way or another in regards to OS are a completely unrelated phenomenon.
I didn’t miss your qualifier, it just isn’t a useful qualifier. You can vote your conscience and get force-fed a huge pile of shit, or hold your nose and vote for the smaller pile of shit and maybe get it. You can endorse whoever you want, but you’ll be eating shit regardless. And ballots are anonymous, so “endorsement” isn’t the right word in the first place.
and instead shift my focus to reducing the power that the pile of shit elected would have.
No you wouldn’t, because this isn’t even a thing you can fucking do.
I think you’ll find that nearly everyone here agrees with you about ranked choice voting. I’m really not sure why you seem to think we are afraid of, or against it.
Limiting the power of the branches by returning the power to the people directly is what I’m talking about. If that seems vague, it’s because it is. That idea isn’t limited to any particular topic. Ideally the power would be so limited that it wouldn’t matter who’s elected to the position.
Are you in party leadership? The people in leadership are the ones afraid of it because it means giving up the duopoly.
That’s why I always write in the name of the person I think would do it best, even if they aren’t running 😤
Absolute clown
Won’t vote for that shit burger either. Besides, he’s currently in the white house
Ok, but if you had to choose between:
Trump again, or someone from his inner circle,
a Democrat that isn’t ideal but that is at least saying they want to undo the damage he’s caused and try to remove him, or will at least work with the more progressive Democrats that will,
or a pie-in-the-sky candidate that, while perfect for you, has essentially zero net-appeal to most people, and doesn’t actually have a chance in hell to win?
Because I’ll tell you, in the end there are really only two options there, and only one of them is actually against Trump
I wouldn’t vote and instead shift my focus to reducing the power that the pile of shit elected would have.
I think that’s why all the tribalists are so afraid of ranked choice voting
Ahhh, the secret fourth option that’s also really a vote for Trump 😂
But I’m with you on ranked choice voting, that would absolutely be a lot better. But until we have that, not choosing IS choosing
This line of questioning is like asking a person if they would rather have the old octogenarian system 9 Mac OS or whatever fresh new shit Microsoft is pumping out. I’ve made my peace with being in the 3% or less in terms of my OSes and in my votes. I’m not willingly eating shit anymore.
You had a pundit on CNN last night lambasting Alaska for having RCV. People in power are doing anything to keep it and it’s why some of us see these contests with no real choice as having a uniparty system.
Your OS is a personal choice, you get to choose it for yourself and it neither affects nor is affected by the choices of others. Elections are a collective choice, you get to voice your opinion but the result is decided by consensus, and the result is forced upon you. They are not comparable choices.
You’re going to be forced to eat shit no matter which way you vote, at least choose the smaller portion.
Are you implying that my vote isn’t my own or that my choice of OS doesn’t have real world consequences for other people? OS’es are also a collective choice that dictate software development on the macro level and revenue flows of other people. Will me personally not buying a windows license or a PC preloaded with a license cause layoffs at Microsoft? No, but if enough of us do it will and force Microsoft to change.
Do you think the GOP will change from the Trump/Epstein/Shapiro faction now that they’ve been resoundly trounced? To early to tell, but it wouldn’t have the opportunity to happen at all without them losing. Same thing with the Democrats moving away from the Pelosi style wouldn’t have happened without the losses in 2010.
You also missed my qualifier about eating shit. I’m not willingly eating it. If a candidate wants my vote, they have to earn it. I’m not endorsing a giant turd for office
Your vote does nothing individually. You don’t get to personally choose your representatives. You vote for who you want, and whichever candidate gets the most votes is the one who represents you, regardless of whether they were your choice.
Your choice in OS is completely individual. You can choose Linux, your neighbor can choose Windows, your other neighbor can choose MacOS, and you all get what you want. It’s a different dynamic entirely. Large scale consequences of millions of people choosing one way or another in regards to OS are a completely unrelated phenomenon.
I didn’t miss your qualifier, it just isn’t a useful qualifier. You can vote your conscience and get force-fed a huge pile of shit, or hold your nose and vote for the smaller pile of shit and maybe get it. You can endorse whoever you want, but you’ll be eating shit regardless. And ballots are anonymous, so “endorsement” isn’t the right word in the first place.
No you wouldn’t, because this isn’t even a thing you can fucking do.
I think you’ll find that nearly everyone here agrees with you about ranked choice voting. I’m really not sure why you seem to think we are afraid of, or against it.
Limiting the power of the branches by returning the power to the people directly is what I’m talking about. If that seems vague, it’s because it is. That idea isn’t limited to any particular topic. Ideally the power would be so limited that it wouldn’t matter who’s elected to the position.
Are you in party leadership? The people in leadership are the ones afraid of it because it means giving up the duopoly.