Skip Navigation
InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)LE
帖子
0
评论
36
Joined
2 yr. ago
  • It’s not as easy as you make it out to be.

    The Democrats have to try to achieve the impossible: trying to retain left-leaning voters while getting enough centrists/swing votes to overcome the systematic disadvantage the electoral college poses for them.

    In a de facto two party system that puts them between a rock and a hard place.

    But what does that mean for you as a (I assume) left leaning voter?

    It’s actually quite simple: vote for the least bad option.

    By not voting for Harris you may successfully show the democrats your discontent for their policies. But you pay for that by helping a possible fascist into power (remember: we already found out that not voting, helps republican candidates in most cases), who will be far worse on most policies you care about.

  • It’s not rocket science. The person I responded to said they want Harris to win. Thus they are a potential Harris voter. When they don’t vote, Harris loses a potential vote, not Trump.

    Depending on where they live, this gets amplified by the systemic disadvantage of left-leaning states in the electoral college.

  • The opposite of „not voting for Harris is a vote for Trump“ isn’t true because of the electoral college, which heavily skews towards rural states with not many voters, which are often conservative.

    You need roughly 4 Californian votes to match 1 Wyoming vote. That’s why Republicans seldom win the popular vote and still manage to win elections.

    So if left leaning people don’t vote (or vote third party), the negative effect for Harris is amplified in comparison to conservatives.

  • No, they socialize the risk of becoming ill.

    Are privatised health insurances in the USA shit right now?

    Sure.

    But as a European with nationalised healthcare let me tell you: we also have (heavily regulated) health insurances.

    The alternatives is: every health problem is a potential cause of financial ruin.

  • Extreme politicians having more leverage, in situations where the lead of the majoritiy party is very thin, is actually very common in most democracies.

    The specific stupidity of the American democracy is the „winner takes it all“ rule which leads to a two party system.

  • What you don’t get is:

    Given the same conditions, some people have more obstacles put in their way than others.

    Saying „I can look after myself“ from a position of privilege is easy.

    But taking care of yourself AND removing the obstacles for others so they have the same chance to succeed like you is hard.

    And yes: it can make you miserable. Especially when egoistic people keep adding those obstacles again.

  • Leftist: „I‘m miserable, because minorities are treated like shit, we still don’t have universal healthcare and we are at the brink of a fascist takeover.“

    MAGA: „I‘m miserable because queer people exist, black people exist, literally anyone that is different from me exists.“

    You (very intelligent): I can’t see any difference between you two.

  • Another day on the internet where I as a European am horrified what Americans put up with. Here in germany teaching is one of the best paid profession and of course they get paid during holidays.

    In Finland even more so: the social status of teachers there is higher than doctors and lawyers. And they are constantly topping international comparisons of education systems.

    How did you guys not start a revolution yet?!!?

  • It’s a scientific fact, that light inside your car will impair your vision, when it’s dark outside, even if you feel it doesn’t.

    Look outside your window in your room at night and then shut off your lights.

    It’s a stark contrast.