trafguy
I can't say you're wrong, but is there a person who more than 50% of citizens would actually be happy to vote for? The options we're presented aren't great, and I'm certain a better one could be chosen. But reaching a full 50%+ seems like a tall order in the current political environment.
Well, on the bright side, the housing market will collapse in the next few decades as boomers die off/move to retirement homes, leaving a massive glut of housing (unless it all gets bought up by corporations). That'll cause its own set of issues, but ample housing would certainly go a long way.
I could be mistaken, but many years ago I believe I learned that plywood is generally made by spinning a log while slicing a thin veneer off the surface, then stacking multiple of those veneers into plywood. The grain on the surface would be notably different when cutting wood with this method compared to sawing planks
Perhaps. In theory, you're definitely right. I just feel that this is something where building the momentum during a single election cycle isn't feasible. The most likely result of voting for a third party without laying this groundwork would be splitting the vote and giving a landslide victory to the greater of the two evils.
Formally organising online would make it possible to demonstrate how much support each candidate actually has without giving an official vote to a candidate that the general public isn't confident enough to vote for. Watching participation grow and third parties receive substantial semi-official support could build excitement and lead to a third party being trusted to have the sway to win.
I'd love to be proven wrong though. If we can organize enough support for a third party within a single election cycle that it's reasonable to risk voting for that candidate, I'm open to it. I already have too much on my plate, but if no one has built this service by the time I have energy for it, I'll definitely be thinking about it
I suppose it'll continue until enough people believe that it's possible for a third party to win.
I think ranked choice voting would make it much simpler to foment that change. People need to be able to trust that breaking from the party line has a real chance of success, but that can't happen without demonstrating support.
If we can't have real ranked choice voting, a third party could build a website to let people coordinate votes according to ranked choice, and hopefully carry the result as a unified bloc to the polls. Have an agreement that if a certain threshold of participation is met, vote for the ranked choice result. Otherwise, lesser of 2 evils.
I didn't learn of any rhyme or reason to it in German when I took classes on it. In fact, in a few cases, the gender changes the meaning of the word. Der See und die See, for example. One means lake and the other means sea/ocean.
It's interesting how often that happens. Phrases get simplified and as the nuance is lost, the meaning more or less gets reversed.
Nice, drive up housing supply while correcting an excessive office supply. Sounds good to me.
I never verified, but some years ago I heard someone expand on that as meaning something like "That which makes customers willing to buy is the right thing to do". It makes sense. If a moron will buy gold plated lead, a capitalistic perspective says sell gold-plated lead. Ethically a bit fucked? Sure. But interesting nonetheless
I read it as "violently religious folks are sad that the rest of the country wants to protect everyone else from their hate". Is it about indignation/victim complex of catholics at not being protected like the folks that religious nuts want to harm?
