Haha yeah he’s not too memorable otherwise but it’s a funny mistake since Romney and Trump hate each other.

Romney? Did you mean Perry?

Why do you think he was selected for AG?

Since no one seems to be taking OP’s question seriously, I’ll take a stab at this. There are a variety of reasons.

Some people feel that voting is offering material support to a specific candidate or system, and they simply cannot bring themselves to do so given the horrors that that person or system is either supporting or failing to condemn.

Others may feel that strategically withholding their vote as a punishment may motivate democrats to take these types of issues more seriously in the future.

Or they may feel that their vote is more impactful in magnifying the voice and power of third parties who offer more meaningful solutions to end the killing, even if they won’t win.

Others still may believe that Trump’s incompetence will accelerate the end of America imperialism and lead to a better global political situation sometime in the future.

Finally, some people feel that voting won’t matter at all and is a distraction from efforts to directly slow or stop the war machine.

I don’t personally endorse any of these viewpoints, but some are relatively serious positions and others are not, in my opinion.

Previously yes, though it’s less clear with Trump.

Don’t worry, appeasement always works out against these guys.

Early voting is not an accurate prediction of the results of the whole electorate. Very different demographics.

If you need some hairy male nipples to show off then let me know, I’ll contribute to the cause 😂

Maybe a cultural or regional thing? Or is it related to a hobby or something? I can’t think of a single time I’ve heard this phrase in normal conversation.

I think it’s a bit different. Female at least refers to a real biological trait (or at least collection of traits). As a scientist I use the word female in my work all of the time, and frankly I’m not sure what alternatives to it even exist.

Bloodline is like… weird racist antiquated European ideas about ancestry that are more or less completely unscientific and wrong. I don’t think I’ve ever once heard it used in a scientific context.

Maybe it’s used in animal breeding but that’s because animal breeding has uncomfortable connections with outdated race “science”. It doesn’t come from the real scientific community.

Who is actually using this term? I’ve only heard it in like medieval period fiction.

If I heard anyone start rambling about their bloodline I would immediately start to wonder if they were a fascist.

I was wondering but I guess I don’t understand why say it that way instead of the other way around.

Why ban male nipples? Fuck that all nipples should be allowed.

Well, I generally agree that party leaders have way too much power, but that seems to be an issue across many different systems. Your example is from a FPTP system. Is there some reason to think it would be worse if we had proportional voting? I mean I can see how party leaders might have more power in some ways. But on the other hand it’s much easier to abandon them for another ideologically similar party if they abuse it. Yes it means abandoning AOC or whoever your favorite is but they can also jump ship if need be. I think we need a different solution to overly powerful party leaders.

But the thing is, there are so many things I would want to change about the Democratic Party, but I can’t abandon them because my only alternative is far worse. If we had a diversity of somewhat similar parties then it would be much much easier to pressure them into doing what voters want.

Ranked choice would do this to some extent as well, so I broadly support both. However, I have concerns about election security with ranked choice. Unless the election authorities share their ballot data, it’s very very difficult to determine who the true winner should be from exit polling or similar. There was a major fiasco in Alameda co California where the wrong candidate was seated by accident and no one even noticed until a later audit was done by a non-profit group.

Well, as AOC famously said, she’d be in a different party from Joe Manchin if we had a multiparty democracy.

If you feel the party doesn’t represent your views then either vote for or found another one, or advocate for a split. To me this seems much smaller than the problems with the current US system. But maybe someone with direct experience in multiparty democracy can share their experience.

Also, I think it’s possible to create a direct candidate election system that is also proportional. One idea would be to grant each candidate voting power relative to their vote share. So if there’s three parties, you send three members to represent your district, but maybe one gets 50% of the voting power, one gets 40%, and another gets 10%. But I haven’t heard many people discuss such systems.

This is the purpose of federalism—to manage governance by and for smaller, like-minded groups of people. However, people seem to have a hard time staying out of each other’s business. Furthermore, it’s hard to justify a hands-off approach when a state or lower level of government is using 55% majority to oppress the other 45% (see the American South). And maybe most importantly, it’s always in the interest of national leaders to increase their power, so we tend to see a steady creep of stronger national governments at the expense of states or smaller units.

I suspect there are ways to counteract these forces but we’ve yet to trial most of them. Ideally you want your basic level of government to be as small and like-minded as possible. But I think to avoid tyranny of the majority, you need to let people opt out. Most people don’t seem to be too aware of these issues in the constant struggle for ultimate power but I think it would solve a lot of our issues if we just let more people live how they want to live.

So I agree that smaller democracies work better, but I hope you’re not saying the solution for larger democracies is to make them not democracies. The solution to me is clearly that we need to make them smaller again.

The New York Times Company is majority-owned by the Ochs-Sulzberger family through elevated shares in the company’s dual-class stock structure held largely in a trust, in effect since the 1950s;[118] as of 2022, the family holds ninety-five percent of The New York Times Company’s Class B shares, allowing it to elect seventy percent of the company’s board of directors.[119] Class A shareholders have restrictive voting rights.[120]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times#Organization

What you’ve written here is very misleading, bordering on incorrect, but does this distinction even matter? Both a singular billionaire and a collective of rich owners will manage the business to enhance their personal wealth, not for the common good of ordinary people. If Trump creates an incentive structure where businesses are penalized for going against his will, I think both types of management are rationally going to choose to obey him.

There needs to be a completely different type of management structure if we want leaders in the press to weigh things like the health of our democracy in their decisions.

I think perhaps you are misunderstanding what is being stated here. Billionaires everywhere are the same—they will maximum their wealth whether it helps or hurts others. The difference is that the US, with its stronger democratic elements, is much more likely to reign that power in than Mexico is. And that’s exactly what happened. In Mexico there never would have been an anti-trust case against Microsoft, or it would have been killed in the early stages.

Most likely they are, actually. But of course, their inheritance was a lot different than these senators…

Is the behavior of one of the biggest tech companies in the world not relevant to technology? That seems a strange view to me.