Sorry, you’ve proven otherwise.
If you feel that way, then I’m sorry for giving the wrong impression. But I assure you it’s not the case.
Otherwise, my reaction from now on will just be to repeatedly tell you to go away and stop harassing me.
The better way to get me to stop responding to you is to simply not respond to me; I’m not going to respond to the same post over and over again until you respond. If we are having a back-and-forth, I would hardly call that “harassment.”
I have lots of reasons that I am critical about how you use your intelligence, but I assure you I hold no ill will towards you.
Where did you get your psychology degree from?
Nowhere, which is why I linked to a Harvard website.
I’m not attacking you, I’m offering you up a respite for your mental health. We all need it sometimes.
If you are constantly pessimistic, spending so much time on places like Lemmy is probably at least part of the problem.
Unwittingly you’re proving their methods worked, because you’re still talking about them.
Well it is.
Even in the outside chance that the third party wins, we still immediately revert to a two party system. It solves nothing as the nature of our voting system is to turn into a two-party system. It’s a vanity vote, that’s it.
This pattern cannot continue.
And voting third party in the presidential election does not stop it from continuing. At best it just switches what “two parties” we are voting for. If you want to stop this from continuing, you work locally to get how we get local candidates elected (like STAR or ranked) and then you work up from there. But you don’t want to. You want to just do the simple thing of casting a vote and believing you’ve “done your part” which is why it’s a vanity vote.
The presidential vote is a strategic one that you use understanding the rules of the game you are actually playing, not the one you (and I) wish you were playing.
I don’t know what Obama could have done, but i absolutely agree that rbg should have stepped down in the middle of her term.
I said nothing about entitlement, only pointed out the facts. You can both sides it all you want, but the last 10 days has exposed how absolutely ridiculous that position is. Although it’s long since been obvious.
And they are all thanks to the fact that trump, not Clinton, got to appoint 3 to justices.
And there are still people who think voting for a third party is a good idea.
And some how when they grow up all you can do is wish you had your adorable scrunchietato back
Speak for yourself, fam. Parenting has only gotten better as they age for me. Every year has been better than the last. Granted, they are 8 and 11 so things might change at some point soon. Lol
I miss very little about them being babies. It was a miserable time, a study even showed that the year after the birth of a first child is worse for happiness than the death of your spouse.
This is why it has to come from the bottom up. All of the people saying “im sitting out of this election” or “i’m voting third party” are just acting in vain. It’s all vanity as they want to pretend they are doing something while not actually doing anything. If you want this system to change, you have to go out in local elections and push for people who will change it to ranked/star voting, and then have that move up. Then you have people who have won under those conditions voting for it, which makes it a ton more likely.
If they push Biden out and DONT pick Harris they’re literally telling the public that this presidency is not legitimate.
The rest of your post makes sense, but if they choose a new person to run they aren’t admitting that this presidency is not legitimate. How the fuck do you even get yourself to this point? And how does this nonsense even have any upvotes?
The court affirmed that the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz held a palpable bias in favor Hillary Clinton.
Wow, what a garbage site that grossly misrepresents what the judge said (and then went on to contradict this in the article). The judge didn’t ‘affirm’ their claims of bias, but just assumed they were true because whether or not they are true makes no difference to the ruling, as they basically claimed it was the wrong place for the suit. They even explain later on that assuming the plaintiffs claims are true is a common practice when dismissing a case.
Can I get a citation on this? Because it doesn’t pass the sniff test for me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approximation
deleted by creator
I think the … here is meant to represent repeating digits.
According to hexbear you would have to have some deranged lib mind to believe any would want to.
There are people all over the globe who want to ban books, I’m sure there is plenty of trying. The fact that they haven’t been successful across the country, but won in this one podunk district in a very conservative state, kind of reflects well on the US as a whole, no?
I’m sure there is some effort in every corner of the globe to have some books banned. You’re minimizing it either through ignorance or malice.
I was an engineer is school. I’ve always been good at fluffing up my writing, but it always annoyed me that I had to make things longer when I felt like I was already done.
When one of my first engineering reports said “this has to be no more than 2 pages long” as opposed to “at least” I knew I had chosen the right school. Lol