I appreciate the sleuthing! Was an interesting listen
aalvare2
joined 2 years ago
Interesting, I’ll look more into that, thanks
Ohhh you just mean “there’ve only been 2 times in history where the popular vote disagreed with the electoral vote.”
When you said “only 2 times the popular vote was greater than the electoral vote” it sounded like you were comparing the size of the popular vote to the size of the electoral vote. Which would be silly, b/c the popular vote is always larger than the electoral vote lol
Margin of error on this poll is 4.4%. Don’t even bother clicking this. Vote.
There has only been two presidential elections where the popular vote was greater than the electoral vote.
What exactly do you mean by this? When you say “the electoral vote”, you’re not referring to the number of electors in the electoral college, are you?
Because if you are then that sounds silly lol, I’m probably misunderstanding you
He literally sidestepped around congress twice
I appreciate the source, I was not aware of this.
That said, has Biden sidestepped Congress since these sales to send additional weapons to Israel? These sales happened just 2 months after the assault on Israel, and just a few weeks apart from one another. It’d be nice to know if any other sidestepping occurred in the following 9 months, the bulk of the conflict.
Edit: added quote
Sure.
When I say “practical role”, I’m referring to how Stein affects the results of this election.
There is a nearly 0% chance that Jill Stein is going to win the election, and a nearly 100% chance the winner will be either the Dem or GOP nominee. Given that she’s left of Kamala, who’s left of Trump, there are far more Stein voters who would’ve otherwise voted for Kamala than Stein voters who otherwise would’ve voted for Trump. So long as one or both of these voter groups are significantly large (which can mean as few as ~81,000 votes in the right states, since that’s the margin of victory Biden had in 2020), Stein would serve as a significant spoiler for Harris.
Consider the effect that Ralph Nader’s 2000 presidential campaign had on the 2000 election.
Source for him being a long time registered republican?
As far as I can tell from here, this guy seems all over the place. He voted for Trump in 2016 but later regretted it. He supported Sanders in 2020, but also Gabbard in 2020 and then Vivek Ramaswamy in 2024. He shows strong support for Ukraine, but he supported Covid conspiracies as late as 2023. Multiple felonies, many of which firearm related, some of which related to theft and traffic violations.
It’s not like I can say I know the guy, but I get the sense that he has severe undiagnosed mental illness, which is perhaps more important than his exact political leaning.
“Don’t believe initial reporting about any dramatic event. The rush to be first often overrides the responsibility to try to be correct. As with any event like this, some of this information is likely to change as more information becomes available.”
https://youtu.be/sgpYzFTtJug?feature=shared
In any case, I heard about the attempt shortly after I started scrolling through lemmy last night, so from my pov the information had gotten to me in a timely manner.
No, she agreed to send bombs for children.
If you earnestly believe that Kamala Harris doesn’t give a damn about children in Gaza, then I can see how you’d make such a charged statement. I disagree, but pulling away from Israel is clearly very complicated and making strong claims to severing Israeli ties could cost her the election.
I don’t think either of us has anything more to say about the subject that would be constructive, so I’d like to leave this at that.
You're missing 9/11, which fundamentally changed America.
That’s a fair point, 9/11 did fundamentally change America. But then, that feels like it makes your point about FDR even less relevant - do you really think America is back to how it was pre-9/11? Do you think kicking a couple extra points to Stein leads to comparable leftward pressure to the Great Depression, in a post-9/11 America? I say, reward the leftward gains the DNC has already made so they’re incentivized to keep pushing.
It's simple, NATO is the most Imperialist offensive coalition on the planet. These countries hyper-exploit the Global South and defend themselves via NATO. Here is an article on it.
I appreciate you sourcing your argument, but this article touches on a ton of historical conflicts with very little context given to each of them. The premise is that NATO is a chief and unjustified aggressor in all of those conflicts, but I’d need to do further reading on them. This article is not a good starting point as it’s biased and doesn’t provide citations of externally collected data, e.g. on its claim that NATO is responsible for >10m deaths in 25 years (Is that just from every joint NATO operation, or from all of the fighting done by constituent countries? Who were the chief aggressors in the individual conflicts? What was the justification? There’s a lot of info to be broken down).
No, NATO is not "just a defensive alliance," go on, have a read. It's a millitary alliance of Imperialist countries.
NATO is still a defensive alliance. When NATO takes action outside its jurisdiction, such as in these operations, member countries choose to do so b/c they see that being in their best individual interests. If NATO were disbanded, formerly member countries could still choose to execute joint military operations. All they no longer NEED to do is retaliate against attacks on a former NATO country’s soil. I don’t see how removing that obligation is “the single greatest act for the majority of Mankind that any US President could do”.
Yes, Russia could have just not invaded, though given the shelling of ethnic-Russians within Ukraine by Kiev it's impossible to say NATO wasn't deliberately provoking it as well.
If you’re talking specifically about the alleged genocide in Donbas, then that’s an unsubstantiated claim by Russia. If you’re only suggesting that Russia had interest in involving itself in the war in Donbas, started by Russia-back separatists in the first place, that still doesn’t even excuse every other region of Ukraine hit by Russia at the start of the war.
Given the shelling of Donetsk and Luhansk, areas with majority ethnic Russians within Ukraine, Russia decided to take advantage of that and cripple Ukraine's military. It isn't "justified," but that's what happened, and the invasion never would have happend if NATO wasn't deliberately encircling Russia. Russia even tried to join NATO, but was denied.
It’s not that it’s not “justified”, it’s simply not justified. No quotes. Putin has not made a single substantiated claim that would justify its assault on Ukraine.
Even if it were justified…why make intervention conditional on NATO operations? If something truly horrifying and unjustifiable were happening in Ukraine, but NATO agreed to stop expanding, then Russia would agree to ignore atrocities in Ukraine…why exactly?
That is fair lol.
That said if we’re talking less about how awful he is, and more about how absurd his awfulness is, then nothing screams “divorced from the reality of normal people” quite like this quote from his own daughter:
He ran down to the beach with a chainsaw, cut off the whale’s head and then bungee-corded it to the roof of the family minivan for the five-hour haul back to Mount Kisco, New York.
Every time we accelerated on the highway, whale juice would pour into the windows of the car, and it was the rankest thing on the planet. We all had plastic bags over our heads with mouth holes cut out, and people on the highway were giving us the finger, but that was just normal day to day stuff for us.
If even a little of this were true….<insert the words I don’t have to describe my feelings here>
Yes, though it’s not a magic bullet.
Here’s a video that compares Plurality/FPTP (our current system), Ranked choice, and approval voting, and is up-front about the limitations of each method.
Here’s a link with a lot more information on different voting methods. STAR voting is the method highlighted here as the best, but Score voting and Approval are also pretty good. IRV/Ranked Choice doesn’t perform quite as well, but is at least still better than FPTP.
A new voting system that’s any better than our current system brings us closer to a political landscape where viable candidates who choose not to drop out early aren’t working against their interests, and voters are less incentivized to vote strategically. And even if IRV is only marginally better than FPTP, its popularity gives exposure to the idea that alternative voting systems are worth looking into.