LukeZaz

I'm vastly more in favor of Approval Voting, truth be told. Most anything's better than what we have now, but ranked voting systems of any sort tend to have issues similar to FPTP, whereas Approval or Score voting don't. Approval Voting is also dead simple, since the only change is that you can vote for as many candidates as you want.

Is the judicial system different if a convicted felon’s base is energized?

Technically yes, since the convicted felon is the president-elect and has literally changed the power balance of the judicial system already.

Really though, it all comes down to risk. The more frenzied his base becomes, the more they let him get away with, and thus the more he will take advantage of that. Normally, I wouldn't care about this, because if Republicans aren't given this "feral consent" they'll manufacture it themselves. But I pause because the actual benefits of this are so slim as to measure up poorly against even this low-level con. I mean, he's in jail for a couple months — so what? Does that stop him from doing much of anything? Will he even care, when he knows he'll leave it with just as much power as he had when he entered?

Were it that he'd lost the election, I'd feel differently. But we don't live in a sane world. What do we actually get out of this?

Trump is in a position where the rule of law scarcely affects him, regardless of what a judge sentences him to, because of the sheer quantity of political capital backing him. If this happened, he would spend a couple months in a cell and nothing else, at best. So if you think he should be arrested based exclusively on the law itself and no other reasons, sure, that's justified. But I'm talking impact, here.

I think the overall impact would be negative for the reasons given above. He'd face scarcely any truly proportionate punishment, would learn nothing, would lose nothing, and his supporters would become even more rabid. And all that would mean the political calculus for "is it worth it to commit fraud" either doesn't change or goes even further in favor of "yes." What's the point, then, besides to make us feel a bit better until he inevitably gets released?

I suspect that even if this did happen, it would mostly just energize his base. It'd help him make a faux martyr of himself and rile up all of his worst supporters. It's not like he'd stay in that cell, after all.

Maybe learn how to use it correctly in its current state

The slop being talked about in this article was made by OpenAI themselves. You know, the company at the forefront of the genAI/LLM bubble, with billions of dollars of money behind it?

I don't know what kind of mythical standard it is that you believe generative AI is capable of, but when even the organization at the forefront of the tech can't make this shit look good, you can't exactly claim it's a skill issue.

Mainly to identify plants and mushrooms.

Considering modern-day "AI" track records at this, the only thing I'd trust a device like that to do is massively increase poisoning deaths.

All I'm seeing is pro-Palestine content. Or do you define that as anti-Kamala on account of Harris being pro-Israel?

Frankly, if you do, I'd consider this comment very disingenuous. "anti-Kamala" and "pro-Palestine" sound very different to people.

If they're arguing that people should vote, or that they shouldn't vote Green due to spoiler effects, then they're not arguing with me, frankly.

My position throughout this thread is that it's folly to avoid pressuring Democrat tickets to improve their platform, not that anyone should abstain from voting or vote third party. I'm going to vote in November and it won't be for the Greens. The key part is that I also plan to shame the Dem ticket for doing such a poor job in the meantime, too; they need to move left now, not later.

Believe me, I've got no qualms with you, in this thread or elsewhere. I upvoted several of your comments here because insofar as I can tell, you are right. I'm not defending the Greens in this thread and never have. I do not care for them.

But I'm sure you've seen as I have the negative reactions that so frequently occur from so many when Harris' platform or campaign are criticized. Anytime anyone tries to suggest that she is doing a terrible job of appealing to anyone left-of-center, all while playing ads that play up conservative talking points, it feels as though a barrage of comments is immediately launched to decry it. This is and has been extremely frustrating for me to constantly see, hence why I push back so much on it in this thread.

And I can probably guess as to the feelings that motivate this; people quite possibly fear the criticism will undermine the election's odds of not going towards a fascist. But this is still misplaced blame. If the Democrats lose this election, it'll be their fault, not the fault of people like Flash Mob.

The Democrats' own platform doesn't matter?!

I really hope I don't need to explain why this is an obnoxiously awful take.

None of that changes anything about the fact that this is still the entirely wrong way to go about trying to win an election. The Democrats are letting people down and trying to win solely off of Trump being worse. You shouldn't be surprised that this strategy does not resonate with people. If everyone here pressured the Democrats to do better instead of yelling at folks for not being jazzed about milquetoast-at-best non-promises, I can guarantee you voter turnout would be much better.

Nobody's obligated to continue a debate ad nauseam. Bowing out is a healthy skill, and we should not be shaming that.

Besides, if your interlocutor leaves the discussion, that means you got the last word. There's no need to sling mud. Just take the win.