That is exactly how subjective reality works. Everything is interconnected, so whether something is relevant to some subject is purely a matter of choice.
Except some people of questionable intelligence and culture consider their choice on that matter more important than that of others.
Doesn’t add anything to the discussion.
“Objectively” doesn’t mean what you think it does, and calling others childish makes adequate people suspect you are a teen.
You’re not the main character,
You are. You are also responsible for your own choices whether you admit it or not.
That is the most selfish possible way to approach life.
If taking responsibility is selfish, then selfishness is a virtue.
at least you’ll be able to vote again and you might actually get to negotiate for things that make people’s lives better.
They are already threatening you with Trump if you don’t vote for them and don’t want to compromise. So about that “you’ll be able to vote again” - I think that’s true, but since that threat works, that’ll likely be the same kind of choice over and over. When you agree to get owned for protection, you usually don’t get owned just once.
Selfish naive children.
For fuck’s sake, are you 16?
How can a grown person be that arrogant without knowing shit about game theory?
Voting for the party that is consciously using the other one as a boogeyman will enable someone worse with no doubt. They are both worse.
And before the actual ballots are being cast, the public opinion sending right signals to Dems would reduce that risk.
It’s my choice to make whether that is true.
Yeah, I’ve recently talked with my therapist about this choice between very slow, very hard work and sitting on my butt dreaming. And about the idea that it’s better to avoid action than to act, if I’m not sure I’ll act right. And how it apparently came to me in my teens, when I’ve been doing martial arts for some time, girls would smile at me often, and in general I thought I might be too stupid and happy and there should be something smarter. That ‘smarter’ was, of course, just another teenage idea of being wise and not like everyone else. Fucked up my life for a decade.
By the way, people who’d be removed and theoretical and talk about some imagined third movement created via some magic other than voting - would be called ‘idiots’ in ancient Athens. Because they are on the side of an idea, not real politics. Then it became a rude word.
Any such decision to try and find a smart shortcut, or that it’s better to wait and see how it goes instead of sweating, - are all wrong and are exactly what propaganda works for. Being honest is smarter than being dishonest. And voting for the party most fitting your ideals is smarter than for the lesser evil.
They’ll just be afraid.
Ye-es, but nobody in the West said so. Maybe if in that one moment things went differently, Russia would be at least a very flawed democracy today.
Russian Supreme Court in 1993 when ruling that Yeltsin and the parliament should both resign and have new presidential and parliament elections. Yeltsin’s opposition agreed, Yeltsin said he’s the president and it’s democratic and legal that he decides everything and sent tanks.
Since the US was friendly with Yeltsin, this was considered business as usual.
Judges are not supposed to work for the majority. They are supposed to work for justice.
Justice in most cases means opposing political power (formal in this case).
Thus they should be selected in some way radically different from how political power is formed.
Sortition is one way, if you don’t want some entrenched faction reproducing itself. Would be better than US too. But still sortition from the pool of qualified people, that is, judges, and not just every random bloke who applies, of course.
That’s not surprising, but if that doesn’t change, things won’t get better.
You don’t want oligarchy and she’s on oligarchy’s side. Please remember what made Trump win the first time.
I don’t expect her to improve things at all. Only compared to what would happen if Trump would win.
anticommunist propaganda
As if that was needed to show how communists do things.
people feel like they’re getting fucked, and Trump offers a clear, simple narrative of who is fucking them
Correct.
Kamala comes across more as representing the political establishment, and her messaging doesn’t tap into that dissatisfaction or contrarian nature
Not only that’s correct, but she’s still your enemy. It’s just a situation where one has to choose what’s worse. From my point of view far from USA - Trump is immediately worse. But that doesn’t mean Harris is going to radically improve things.
It’s sad you have no third strong grassroots movement, but that seems to be the case in every shitty election.
Russia, when it supposedly had those, first was choosing between Yeltsin and his “kinda democrats, but with that smell” and “red-brown” communists with Stalin pics and swastikas, second between Putin and senile communists, the third one was between thinly masqueraded Putin and rich city kids, and then it kinda lost meaning. Trump is kinda similar to the “red-brown” side in the first example.
One can find many such example.
He says that fear is a bigger motivator than love.
He’s correct in a sense you may not notice.
Those voters fear Harris and what she represents, and love some idea of what GOP could in theory represent.
So the fact that Trump is shit means less for them as it’s on the side they love, while Harris being stronger makes them even more afraid.
That is, the best strategy for Dems to insure victory would be to successfully present Trump as having a potential to win to his own voters. Then they would care about him being a felon and such.
I was banned a few times for saying something like that if some politician of some country consciously does a thing which costs Armenian lives, or, say, “recognizes territorial integrity of Azerbaijan”, they are fair game for Armenians. That technically they make a choice they have right to make, or that their country has some interests, etc are reasons, but not excuses.
I mean, people are responsible for the actions they take. It’s not extremism.
There are both much safer (than Chernobyl or Fukushima or whatever) reactor models and fast-neutron reactors that can reduce the amount of spent fuel to be stored.
About reasonable and cost-effective alternatives - with bigger storage expenses and grid losses.
IMHO a good grid has at the same time a few nuclear stations (no, not those which will be inevitably shut down, but those which are being prolonged or replaced as the time passes), a huge amount of renewable sources, storage to alleviate spikes\falls of said renewable sources and backup coal stations.
And German grid is connected to a few others, so that they themselves have gotten rid of nuclear energy doesn’t matter much, with unified grids.
And we are shutting down — not building — … nuclear plants.
Morons. Managed to almost descend to his level. No, that’s not sportsmanship.
Neither does this, has nobody told you yet you are not sufficiently intelligent to give advice of this kind?