• 1 Post
  • 172 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 12th, 2023

help-circle



  • Why do you need guns in schools? Even if it’s just to teach about them, it’s not the place to bring guns into, and giving them to kids creates this expectation that they should own one, and it’s normal to own one. It’s kind of fucked up. You can have a class discussing them, but they should be expected to handle one. Nobody in the world does that.

    The government should just mandate that, to own a firearm, you need a license. This license can be obtained like a car license, after attending a number of classes, passing a written test and a practice test, where you show the examiner you know about gun safety. Then you have to renew every two years or how long it is, pass a medical exam and on you go. If you get caught intoxicated while holding or near an unsafe firearm, your license is taken away from you, with all your firearms, for a period of time, or permanently for repeat offenses, like with cars.

    Just make guns act like cars, if it’s fine one way, it’s fine the other too. Putting restrictions instead of giving guns away like you’re Brian from Family Guy trying to buy a carton of milk in Texas will drastically reduce the number of people who even want one. If it’s too much of a hassle to own one, most people will just do without.



  • If perfected means they put it even where probably there wasn’t a need for it, then yes. HSR is fantastic for connecting big cities, but it’s also very expensive and sometimes China has prioritized HSR rather than regular rail, even though there wasn’t a strict need for very fast expensive trains. Sometimes slower, more frequent and cheaper low speed rail can make more sense.

    It’s not bad per se, but it’s money that could be used for better purposes.








  • The original company was never Italian. The founder was Italian, but the company was incorporated in German Alsace, which then became French Alsace after the Great War. There was a brief attempt at a revival in Italy in the late 80s, early 90s, but it didn’t really go anywhere. Today’s company is French and is mostly controlled by the Croat Rimac (and partially by Porsche, which owns VW, which owns Porsche)




  • Rinox@feddit.ittoMemes@lemmy.mlpolitically correct
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Ok, let’s try again. Those who like the left usually don’t vote for the GOP, agree?

    Then, for them, the options are three, either vote Dems, vote third party or don’t vote. Now, if, like in the example of before, these people are that 5%, do you agree that not voting or voting a third party will result in the GOP winning, while voting for the Dems will result in the Dems winning?

    If you think that the Dems and the GOP are one and the same, then fine. If instead you’d rather the Dems win, then do you agree that these people should vote Dems rather than do nothing or vote for a third party, which would lead to a GOP win?

    Btw, this is why there’s no third party in a fptp system and there can never be one. Your votes are better spent on the candidate you dislike less rather than on the one you actually like, because voting for the one you like will inevitably result in the one you really dislike going to power.

    Edit:btw watch that cgp grey video, it’s really good. He’s really good in general tbh, great guy, very good at explaining.


  • Rinox@feddit.ittoMemes@lemmy.mlpolitically correct
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    4 months ago

    You don’t understand the basics of a First Past The Post system.

    Let’s say, for example’s sake, that 52% of the people voting tend left, while 48% tend right, and let’s also remove all the state, gerrymandering and grand elector bullshit for a moment (I know, so much bullshit)

    If everyone were to only vote for either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, come November, the Democratic Party would win with 52% of the votes and secure the presidency. Now let’s assume that there’s a third party, let’s call it “The True Left Party” and let’s say they can have a very successful campaign and secure 5% of the votes, which would come from the left leaning side of the voting pool, aka from those who would have otherwise voted for the Democratic Party. Now come November the results would look like this: Republicans still at 48%, Democrats now at 47% and True Left at 5%, so now the Republican Party wins and Trump becomes president.

    This is how voting for a third party only helps your enemy. If I were the Republicans, I’d be turbo donating to any left party right now. Divide et Impera as the Romans said.


  • Rinox@feddit.ittoMemes@lemmy.mlpolitically correct
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    my point is that disaffected leftists voting for third parties […] does not mean support for Trump

    With the current American Electoral law, it kind of does. Let’s say that 5% of the votes instead of going to the Democrats go to some other third party. In an election this close, where both parties are likely to get between 48 and 52% of the votes, this would mean ensuring the victory of the Republicans.

    This is a huge problem with the FPTP system, but that’s the law for this election. It would be great to change it, but that’s talk for the next one. Voting for a third party ensures that the party you like the least will win in a FPTP system. CGP explains it best: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

    Not quite accurate. Voting third party signals that third party platforms are more popular, and can shift the larger parties.

    Maybe, but you are still conceding these elections.

    Organizing and mass protesting can get meaningful change, same as striking. Forcing concessions is the way true change has occured historically, not simply at the ballot box.

    You can definitely do this as well as voting for the party that best represents you. If you don’t vote, it means you leave the choice of who will rule the country to the others. At least vote for the candidate that you think is more likely to listen to your protests, rather than forfeiting the elections in favor of the candidate that you know for sure will never listen to you.


  • Rinox@feddit.ittoMemes@lemmy.mlpolitically correct
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    4 months ago

    If you don’t vote, it means you are ok with either one and don’t care enough either way to go to the ballot.

    Not voting it’s not a third option, it’s a statement that you don’t care about either of the two options. Voting a third candidate is instead simply useless and in practice amounts to the same thing as not voting or voting with a blank ballot.

    So in practice the options are: voting for the Democrats, voting for the Republicans, doing nothing and being ok with either one winning or leaving the fucking country.