Big Miku

I saw the video about Python from Life Of Boris and thought it looked fun, so I just decided to learn programming.

The part about voting is pretty simple logic.

In a voting system where the one who gets majority of the votes wins, the other votes don’t really have an impact. Of course they are part of the race to win, but outside of that, what do the other votes do? Nothing. In other systems those votes would cause a second round to happen, but in the US system they don’t. Those votes are just… gone.

Sure, you could argue that it’s about “sending a message”, but… why? Why do this now while the Project 2025 looms over the US if the Republicans win? The Democratic Party won’t change before the elections and no amount of threatening to vote for 3rd party will change that.

The part about “if you don’t vote for Biden, you vote for Trump” is not literal. It’s more… abstract if that makes sense. Since if you vote for parties that have no realistic chance of winning, it means that a party that has a chance of winning doesn’t get that vote and the party you least want in power is one vote closer to win the election. This logic goes for both Democrats and Republicans. If a Republican votes for third party that has no chance of winning, their vote metaphorically goes to the Democratic party, since the Republican party will be one vote further away from the Democratic party. Hell, this same logic, to some extent, also applies to other systems, but not as much as the US system.

So unless you are predicting Jill Stein to be making history and winning as a third party, a thing that hasn’t happened, that vote won’t affect the elections and the party you least want in power is just one vote closer to be winning.

In a two round system, your vote would matter more, since your vote would be affecting everyone’s chance of getting an absolute majority of 50% all votes. And since everyone, but your chosen party, is one vote further from the 50% mark, a second round has a higher chance of happening.

No clue about the constitution, since I am not american, but it would be logical to think that the religous can rule as long as they don’t break other human rights.

I mean it kinda does with the whole “freedom of expression” thing it has.

I could be wrong on this, but that’s how I interperted it.

Because of those pesky human rights that mandate “freedom of religion” or whatever.

I would say I lean towards not believing, but I am open to other ideas. And if god did exist it really wouldn’t change anything for me. I would just live as I normaly do

But wouldn’t that invalidate the usage of that word in the circles that use it wrong, and not for those who use it properly.

Like if there was a hypothetical town where the word “good” was used to describe bad things, would that town invalidate the word “good” for every single town? Of course it wouldn’t, it would only invalidate the usage of that word by the ones who use the word in question wrong.

But that wasn’t said in your original message, was it? In your original message you were implying that by the USA spending more money in their military to spread their influence, would make the US government a tankie(?), thus invalidating everyone who uses the word tankie.

Also if your point was that the word tankie lost its meaning by usage in invalid contexts, why did you mention the USA? Wouldn’t it have been more appropriate to explain that it lost its meaning by the usage of it, and not by the actions of the US government, since the US is not the only nation who has people who use the word tankie?

Either you are willingly redefining a word, or you don’t even know what it means

Tankie means a person who supports an authoratian communist state.

The word comes from the Tianamen Square Massacre, where tanks were used to silence and kill protester, which some people think didn’t happen.