It would absolutely be Dr. Spaceman!

It’s looking more and more like this term will be “Celebrity Apprentice: Washington”.

Which, as sad as that is, is still preferable to the alternative where he has a small inner circle of actually smart far right strategists, who he trusts completely and follows their recommendations to the last detail.

I don’t know that it holds true across the board, but for Trump at least, it appears that in the right wing you get smarts or charisma/a following…but not both.

Trump is a flashy moron who appeals to the GOP base, which is comprised largely of morons. They need a moron at the top of the ticket to speak the language of their base, but in the process they’re stuck with a moron at the top when they win.

They’ll still do damage, no doubt, but I feel like the biggest check on Trump’s power is that he’s too stupid to wield it to maximum effect.

I mean, it’s all very subjective, so “too much” for you seems to be what is a good amount for everyone else…but realistically, I don’t think this is a legitimate complaint since you still need to be able to make all these adjustments anyway… it’s just a matter of the way the adjustments are being made.

All a touch screen changes is that it can play host to multiple functions depending on context…but it loses much of the visual recognition and almost all the tactile feedback of a physical control.

And while vehicles keep getting more and more complex for sure, I feel like when I’m riding in a more touchscreen heavy vehicle, that screen is displaying the same static set of controls 99% of the time…and at that point, the flexibility it offers is largely irrelevant, and the tradeoffs mean giving up a lot to get very little in exchange.

They get really spicy!

Disagree.

Personally, I feel the problem is absolutely touchscreens.

I’ve only got five senses, and taste and smell aren’t helpful in a driving situation.

Of the 3 left, sight is the most important for the most important task: driving.

For other tasks, sound is best used to alert or remind about something, and is frequently diminished as a driving aid by music.

That leaves touch and sight for all remaining tasks.

Touchscreens are, despite the name, effectively 100% reliant on sight, since there’s no real tactile feedback to enable the user to make eyes-free adjustments. To use a touchscreen, you have to take your eyes off the road to see what the screen says and make your selections.

While some are better than others, I also feel like touchscreens are still embarrassingly and frustratingly prone to errors, missed touches, and generally not doing the things the user intended, requiring even more eyes off the road to undo whatever actually happened, get the interface back to the place you want it, and try again, hoping that this time it’ll work.

My mid-teens vehicle has a mix of a medium sized touch screen for the entertainment unit but physical controls for climate, driving, and a few of the entertainment adjustments, and while I was all about the advanced new touchscreen when I bought it, I find it’s my least favorite part of the controls this far along in ownership.

Agreed 100%.

If they did this, they would easily carry states with high populations of blue collar and union laborers. Stop paying lip service and actually do it.

States that have had major manufacturing centers in the late 20th century like the Rust Belt.

Like…Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

The Democratic party is just paying the price for ignoring blue collar middle class voters since the late 80s. They took those votes for granted, and they lost them over time. Just like after blue collar folks they then took the votes of minorities for granted…and now they’re losing those.

All they need to do is ask what they’ve done for these people lately…like in the past few decades. And when they came really answer that in any terms other than what they prevented the other guys from doing, they shouldn’t have to wonder why enthusiasm for their party’s candidates is at an all time low.

Literally ZERO people I know personally have actually liked and actively, enthusiastically supported any democratic presidential nominee since Obama. That’s twelve fucking years and zero candidates that got people excited and inspired. Most of my friends voted for these candidates, but nobody liked them.

Honestly, if it weren’t for the opposition being so unbearably awful, I’d almost be happy to see the Democratic party handed loss after loss until and unless they learn their lesson and stop taking their base for granted.

Telling a person wandering through the desert “I also get thirsty” maybe deflects from the issue at hand.

Or… That may be a show of support, in sharing of a common burden, a message of, “You are not alone in this struggle.”

Rather than always seeing it as a negative, maybe allow for the possibility that it’s coming from a different place.

Honestly, I feel like this whole sentiment of, “Don’t attempt to bring any context into a conversation. Only stick strictly to what one person has decided to talk about.” is not only counterproductive in that moment, but also in the medium and long term has a marked effect in shutting down future conversations about difficult and uncomfortable topics.

I mean, how many times does a person get into a conversation that starts with, “Can we talk about X?” or “Let’s have an open, honest discussion about Y?”…only to add something to that conversation and be told, “No, you’re wrong for bringing that up. We’re only talking about X and why it’s the worst thing ever.”… before they get to the point where the next time someone says, “Can we talk about Z?” they just say, “No, sorry. Not interested.”?

Fair point

A lot has shifted over time, but the default state of American politics has always been two dominant parties.

That said, I could absolutely see a scenario where an American centrist party forms, still solidly to the right of most Western democracy, but centrist by current local standards, which not only pulls in the non-MAGA Republicans but also moderate Democrats, blue collar Dems from purple states, and once it gains traction and wins a few races, massive support from corporations and lobbies.

They’d win landslide victories over both older parties, especially as progressives and leftists gained greater control of the Democratic party through the flight of the moderates to the new centrist party, which would in turn drive even more establishment Dems to the new party.

They could run on nothing more than “common sense compromise, unity, and moving beyond the partisan squabbling that has plagued the country for decades”, and be successful for at least 3 cycles before they even had to really take up any issues in earnest.

The deep South would stay red, the West cost, new York, and Illinois would stay blue, but I could see all of the mid Atlantic, Midwest, plains states, new England, and Southwest going for a viable centrist party.

For a long few years, national level politics would be absolute fucking chaos.

Since he owns the Post, it is very strictly speaking “his business”.

On one hand, I’d love to see the Post endorse Harris, but on the other hand, I do feel that the owner of a company absolutely should have this level of control over their own company.

It might be different if he were compelling the paper to compromise on it’s integrity or something, but simply preventing his own paper from endorsing a political candidate is absolutely something that he should be able to do.

Please note that this isn’t a commentary on his immense wealth, or the role of the ultra wealthy in America…simply an observation on what a business owner should be able to do with their own company.

He’s been alive longer than Hawaii and Alaska have been US states.

I mean…so is my dad…and he’s not even to retirement yet.

I wouldn’t have a problem with a (healthy, sane, responsible, democracy-minded) president in their 60s.

Hell, given those conditions, while I wouldn’t love the idea, I’d be okay with a president in their 80s too.

But my main problem is that Trump ticks exactly zero of those boxes.

Indiana?!

Whoever suggested that she go spend time in a solid red state where the opposing VP was from needs to be tarred and feathered.

You sure they’re feigning?

It’s like you’re mentally incapable of reading a comment and responding to the words in it.

And that’s how you permanently destabilize a market economy!

I know Lemmy isn’t the place to speak badly of anyone far to the left, but honestly?

If they aren’t going to be persuaded to vote Harris by the other side of the ticket, I’m not optimistic they’ll be persuaded by people on the Internet being sweet and polite to them.

So imo, who gives a shit about insulting them? It’s pretty clear OP wasn’t intending a post like this to win hearts and minds.

Exactly.

My thought when opening the post was basically, “Can you imagine the depths that American corporations would sink to in a market where they can totally conceal the flavor, size, quality, etc. of their products until after the sale, and not have anyone from the company present, making them totally immune to any negative feedback?”

Presumably the companies behind these things in Japan are at least delivering a somewhat acceptable food item. I wouldn’t be surprised in any way to find an American version of this thing dispensing literal dead rats.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Marjorie Taylor Greene looks like the second or third pic from an Animorphs cover.

Share your art, not your fart!

It’s really impossible to keep this brief, but I’ll try to keep it understandable:

The EC is a body of “electors”, who serve as an intermediary body between the direct democracy of a popular national vote and the actual selection of a president. Their purpose is literally and intentionally to serve as a middleman, both to give a safety net to the ruling classes to make sure that whoever wins an election is someone they approve of, as well as to install a system that takes a national popular vote and basically applies an overlay to it…an overlay that leaves the process open to manipulation, stacking the odds, etc.

I’m not just saying this as a criticism of the system (though it is), this is the explicit purpose of the existence of the system.

Now to the nuts and bolts:

The US has a federal government with three branches: the executive (headed up by the president and including all of the various “Departments” like the departments of State (handling all diplomatic affairs), Defense (the military), Justice Department (FBI), Interior (National Park Service), Education, Agriculture, Homeland Security, etc.

Then there’s the Judicial Branch, which is the federal court system, spearheaded by the Supreme Court. In addition to criminal trials involving federal crimes, they also have the responsibility of deciding on whether laws or actions of other government bodies are constitutional. If not, they have the authority to strike them down.

Last there’s the legislative branch, which is responsible for creating laws and deciding how to spend money. Within the legislative branch, there are two bodies: the Senate, and the House of Representatives. This is because when the government was being created, states were much more independent than they are now, and there was a serious disagreement over how not only the people, but also the states would be represented in federal government.

So for the House, the number of Representatives each state sends is (roughly) proportional to that state’s population; ie. a state with more people living in it will have more representatives than a state with fewer people living in it. The specifics have changed over time, and the way this system works is another issue, but that discussion is for another time.

However, smaller states, and (especially) states with slaves were concerned that even though they had a serious impact on the nation, they had a small voice in government. They wanted a system where their state was on equal footing with more populous states. Where just because they had less people (and by “people”, in that time, they of course meant “land owning white male people”), they wouldn’t have less power.

Thus there were two concessions given to these states to get them to join the union:

First, the three-fifths compromise: when determining population (to see how many representatives each state could send to the House), states were allowed to count each slave living in that state as three-fifths (0.6) of a person. Yes, these slaves, who their states regarded as property any other time, and who sure as hell weren’t allowed to vote…were nonetheless to be allowed to count toward how much voting power their owners would have.

And second…the Senate. The Senate is the other house of Congress, where instead of determining members by population, it’s much simpler: every state gets two. Regardless of population. This puts the smallest state on equal footing with the largest in the Senate.

And since both chambers of Congress (the Senate and the House) must pass a bill in order for it to become law, this is why it’s so hard to get anything done for Congress.

SO!

Now that we know about the house and Senate and why and how they are the way they are… what’s that have to do with the electoral college?

Well…the number of electors from each state are determined by adding up the number of Representatives and Senators that the state sends to Congress. So a small population state like say, Wyoming has one representative because very few people live there…and they get two senators because they are a state and all states get two. 2 + 1 = 3. So in a presidential election, Wyoming gets 3 electoral votes. For a more populous state, like my home state of Pennsylvania, we’ve got 17 representatives. Adding our two senators to that means that Pennsylvania gets 19 electoral votes for president.

Adding up all these electoral votes, it works out such that whichever candidate gets 270 electoral votes wins the presidency.

So you might be thinking, “Hmm… sounds like proportional voting and democracy with extra steps… what’s the big deal?”

Well… there’s two issues going on:

First: It’s only proportional in allocation, but not so much in casting those votes. Of all 50 states, all but two (Maine and Nebraska) are set up such that whoever wins the state wins all of that state’s electoral votes. So take my Pennsylvania for example: we’ve got about 13 million people living here. Obviously not everyone can vote, and not everyone that can vote will vote, but if next month, let’s say all 13 million of us vote…if 12,999,999 people vote for Trump and 1 person votes for Harris, Trump wins all 19 votes. That makes sense. However, if Trump gets 6,500,001 votes and Harris gets 5,999,999 votes, that two vote difference means that Trump still gets all 19 votes. We don’t split them so that he gets 10 and she gets 9. Winner take all.

Not only does this distort the popular vote, but it also has the effect of making a narrow victory in one area the same as a landslide in another.

Second: With the way votes are allocated, the fewest that any state can have is three (one representative and two senators). Even if ten people lived in that state, they still get three votes in the electoral college. Meanwhile, with the way congressional laws work, states with bigger populations do get more representatives…but as a state’s population gets bigger and bigger, even though they get more electoral votes, each of those votes encompasses more and more people.

So looking (approximately) at Wyoming and California: Wyoming has a population of 582,000 and gets 3 votes, California has a population of 39,000,000 and gets 54 votes. That means that every vote in Wyoming represents about 194,000 residents, while every vote in California represents about 723,000 residents.

Doing the math, this means that every vote in Wyoming carries about 3.73x more power than a vote in California.

So in summary: the biggest criticisms of the electoral college are:

1. The lopsided way votes are allocated in the first place.

2. The winner-take-all system awarding the same number of votes for a landslide and a narrow victory distorting the actual voting numbers.

3. The lopsided allocation resulting in a situation where some Americans living in low population states having dramatically more power than others, based simply on where they live.

Of course these issues lead to lots of other weirdness and wrongness…for example: with the winner take all system, candidates don’t even try to win states that are projected to safely go to one candidate or the other…they focus all attention on “battleground” states where the election is set to be close, ignoring millions of people nationwide because they happen to live in a state that’s not competitive. A national popular vote would eliminate state political boundaries and make everyone’s vote matter equally.

Likewise, this is how you end up with a case like 2016: more people voted for Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump…but those people lived in the wrong states, so basically she won by bigger margins but the margins meant nothing because he won narrow victories in more areas…so even though more people wanted her to be president, because of the electoral college, he got enough votes in the right geographical areas to win the presidency with fewer votes.