I’ll admit I’m not that well-informed on those elections, but would’ve they really been capable of being more than a spoiler candidate, had they not been “listened to”?
Looking at the data, every election in the past 200 years has been won with more than 50% of the electoral college. Latest one where a state has been won by a third party is ‘68. If those phenomena have been studied I’m interested, because it really doesn’t seem like they did anything looking at the results at a surface level.
That’s not feasible in a FPTP system. Best you can do is keep voting for the least bad between the two “real” candidates and shift the Overton window overtime.
Or have a violent revolution, but that’s a bit more difficult to coordinate.
Would she? I’m not that informed on her politics but I think Bernie supported her, and Bernie is definitely a progressive even by rest-of-the-world standards.
I don’t know how viable would that be on a large scale, but they could just ban all China-based companies from operating outside like the US did with Tiktok.
I think that would deal a decent blow on their economy, but I’m far from an expert in those fields so someone who knows better will probably come and debunk me.
Just a correction, it isn’t entirely certain whether he killed himself or not. The apple wasn’t tested for cyanide and the chances he just inhaled too much while working are considerable.
Well, not that it changes anything about the horrible treatment he received because of his orientation though.
He’s a whistleblower. Corrupt corpos/countries hate whistleblowers. Reddit/Lemmy users hate corrupt corpos/countries. There.
It’s as easy as that, no need to bring out conspiracies.
I personally already know the connotation of “female/s” in English and avoid using it, so that’s not an issue for me.
It was more of a reminder (to some native speakers, yeah, I shouldn’t have generalized) not to assume the worst of people saying it, because they might not know. In the whole thread there was just this one comment reminding people that ESL people exist, and it was pretty downvoted so I wanted to add on that.
Plus, as you said, most of those Tate-types have a dozen other red flags attached to them, so imo there’s not really any point in attacking people just for misusing a word (especially online where you can’t rely on vocal inflection or accent). It just drives non-native speakers away from conversations.
(Also, ironically, as far as I know “cunt” is pretty much a greeting in Australia so even from that alone you can’t really assume anything. Context is always important, unless you know 100% you’re speaking with someone who grew up in the same country)
This, so much. In my language, even as little kids, they called us “males and females”, very rarely “boys and girls”.
Native speakers need to understand that not everyone knows all the connotations that come from every english word. Especially considering some of them are vastly different based on whether it’s used in USA, UK or Australia.
Oh, I trust them to do everything I wouldn’t like them to do.
For example, so far they’ve been following through with removing LGBTQ rights and lowering taxes for the rich, just as they promised.
Here in Italy, the only parties that seem to be favorable to nuclear are right-wing.
And of course, they got elected and didn’t actually do anything towards it.
For me it’s nostalgia and being a sucker for statistics, mostly.
“May God strike them dead. We will on November 5th”
…is a “win” missing or are they openly saying they’ll kill them on election day?
I use a Logitech keyboard + trackpad and it works great.
But yeah, laptop ones I’ve tried always sucked.
Can Italy join the club? We fit the description pretty well too!
Is it this one? I’m far from an expert but it seems like they used a different part of DNA from each woman, I doubt it’s possible to go beyond 3 parents with the same method.
Oh, that makes sense.
I think “open source money” is a great idea and I’m sure many here do too, but as others pointed out in the replies, cryptocurrency has a lot of issues at the moment for that to be viable.
Also, a lot of the hate probably comes from all the people shilling for it and the whole “get rich with this!!!” narrative around it.
The minute a billionaire bought the company they previously used, because in open source software, they finally see that no billionaire can buy it and control it like they can a closed source system.
I’m genuinely struggling to understand what this sentence means. Is it badly worded or am I just brainfarting?
What I’m saying is, how did those studies reach the conclusion that said third parties were actually a factor in those changes, and didn’t just happen at the same time?
Because again, considering the statistics for recent years’ elections, third parties haven’t been a threat to the major two for over 50 years. I’m interested in why would they care about the relatively small voter base of those parties when they wouldn’t have changed any recent American election.