notabot

Ah yes, he was “deeply sorry for the offense” caused by his comments, not for actually making those comments of course.

The problem is, it’s not really the dems who lost, it’s everyone who isn’t a fascist. The party as a whole isn’t really affected by this (and that’s a huge problem), and most of the candidates who lost their elections are part of the party and will just carry on. The way that changes is through pushing for, and supporting, candidates at all levels who support a better agenda, not at the ballot box.

The whole system sucks; be mad about it, push to change it, but I don’t think that those who voted third party, or chose not to vote think this, overall, is better than the results of Harris being in the White House, and they, combined, could have changed this outcome.

Ultimately this election is done, the situation is what it is, and, with a bit of luck, there’ll be elections next year and in '28 where some of this can start to be undone. I wish I was more confident in that.

As I said, unfortunately, that was going to happen whichever one got into the White House. You could not affect that outcome with your vote. You could affect a lot of other outcomes though. The question (and it’s a genuine question, although I think you and I probably have different answers to it) is whether, given that you couldn’t change the genocide, you should vote based on those other issues, or whether you should abstain by not voting, or voting third party.

The genocide was going to happen whichever of those two was in the White House, although Harris maybe seemed a little less likely to give them carte-blanche to go as extreme as they have. From that perspective it was a hobson’s choice, but many other things would have been different.

Do you support having the U.S. millitary being sent in to U.S. cities as a show of force? Do you support denying women access to vital healthcare? Do you support reducing or elliminating vaccination programmes? I’m guessing not, so then your have to ask yourself whether it is better to support the candidate who would not do those things, despite their position on Israel, or to abstain so you can say you didn’t support genocide, despite the fact doing so would do nothing to change that outcome, and increased the chance of the other undesireable outcomes?

As I said before, this should not have been the choice put in front of voters, but it was, and each member of the electorate had to make a choice, support a bad candidate or increase the chance of a worse one winning. Be mad about that. Fight to change it. Support candidates who oppose it, from the most local level, up to the highest level. It looks like there are some better candidates trying to push through now, the democrat party will probably fight to keep them down, so everyobe who wants better needs to push for the new candidates. Support those candidates any way you feel is right, but once it comes down to the ballot, make your chouce based on their whole position, not just one strand that is the same as the other guy’s.

You intended to take a principaled stand, and I would commend you on that, but unfortunately it functionally meant that you chose not to support the candidate that would have done less awful stuff. It’s a miserable choice to be faced with, but it is what was in front of the electorate. Be mad about that, work to make sure it doesn’t happen again, but when the decision comes, the responsible option is surely to look at harm reduction.

Yes, lots of people didn’t vote for a whole variety of reasons. Those who voted for third party candidates with no chance of winning effectively also didn’t vote. With a better system that wouldn’t be the case. Agajn, be mad about that, work to change it, and support candidates that want to change it, but when the vote comes take in to account whether they can win and what you can do to reduce reduce harm if they can’t.

How many people decided not to vote? As I mentioned, it wasn’t just third party voters, but also those that chose not to vote. Also, to be clear, voters should not have been put in that position in the first place. However, they were put in that position, and given that there were only two possible outcomes to the presidential election, there really was only one sane choice to make. Unfortunately many chose a different one.

So, they refused to support genocide (a position, to be clear, that I agree with) by taking an action (voting third party) or inaction (not voting) that would clearly, and obviously, give a candidate who supported genocide a higher probability of not just winning, but being supported by others with the same opinion?

Voters were put in an invidious position and there were no good options, but there was one option that was clearly worse in every way, and they either directly or indirectly chose to support him.

He knows he doesn’t even need to try to be subtle anymore. Theoretically he can’t be reelected, so he doesn’t need public support for that, if he just seizes power he doesn’t need public support for that, and if he drops dead he definitely doesn’t need public support for that.

He is now entirely unfettered by the need for approval, and he was only slightly restrained by that before. Probably the best hope is that he pushes too far and one or more of his backers feel threatened enough to curtail him, which isn’t a great position to be in.

Oh, you should absolutely go there again, as should many other people, but only to explain to the manager, in detail, exactly how unacceptable this is, and to demand proof that they have written policies forbidding their staff from engaging in this sort of behaviour. Then contact law enforcement to ush them to prosecute to the maximum extent possible.

I don’t think it’s abuse they love exectly, it’s being told exactly what to think and how to act. It removes a huge amount of cognative load and uncertainty and leaves them feeling more sure of themselves.

I assume it’s been vibe coded, sauce for the goose being good with the gander and all that.

ETA: /s just to be clear.

“They will hunt you, they are like a cross between a lentil and a velociraptor,”

Well, that’s a horrifying image.

University is about a lot more than the piece of paper you get at the end. If it’s of any real quality, and you are actually engaged with it, you’ll be learning from experts in your chosen field, amongst engaged and eager peers, whilst also being exposed to different viewpoints on everything from what to have for lunch through the latest innovations in your field, and adjacent ones, to the geopolitical state of the world. The people you meet, and the connections you form can, and often do, form the bedrock of your working life from then on.

All of that does make the assumption that you actively engage with university life and those around you. Make friends in different subjects, seek out your professors during office hours and talk to them about their interests, join clubs, do stupid, but ultimately harmless things.

It also assumes you are attending a ‘good’ university, rather than a profit driven degree mill, and those might be harder to find in some places than others.