partial_accumen

Lets say both countries are successful with automation. I think you’re missing the bigger point of the working population collapse. Robots don’t pay taxes.

They have all of the manufacturing infrastructure and investing heavily into robotics and low maintenance systems. So I really dont understand such a stupid political move.

If you want to see what the future holds for a nation in that position, look no further than Japan. Its already facing the same demographic crisis, already trying to lean heavily into robots and automation. Japan also holds the same strong xenophobic stance to immigration, which would be the other way to address a falling birth rate. It’s not looking good for Japan on this front. South Korea is not too far behind Japan. With the USA going to war with its immigrants, we’ll be experiencing the same problem ourselves in another 20 to 40 years.

All the problems will be laid at the feet of Barrack Hussein Obama, the fake cheater DEI President who stole both elections and destroyed the economy with Socialism.

Thats going to be hard, and unnecessary, sell as its not Obama’s name now plastered on the Kennedy Center. Obama was already out of office for 8 years when half the White House was demolished. A chunk of MAGA is already upset with trump. Trying to turn that ship would be time consuming and expensive when its much easier to simply blame the dead trump for all the problems. The GOP wouldn’t be able to claim they’ve “cleaned house” without pinning all the problems on the last one in charge, that being trump.

Oh hell no, as soon as trump dies, all republicans with “suddenly realize” that trump was as horrible as he actually is. They’ll blame every trump created problem, as well as every other GOP created problem on the, then, dead trump. The GOP will then take their victory lap for “coming out of the darkness and cleaning up Washington”. Meanwhile any living GOP person that had a hand in crafting or enabling trump and all his sins will walk away scot free.

I like this approach. It is adding legitimacy back to the government. At no point in the future will anyone question the legitimacy executive orders that Mamdani resubmits because of Adam’s past criminal indictments.

i said i felt bad for the women who the anti abortion people affect, but my friend corrected me and said i meant “people who get pregnant”,

I think you could make a sound argument that anti-abortion people also negatively affect people that can’t get pregnant in a number of ways. One of the prime targets of anti-abortion people is the organization Planned Parenthood. While Planned Parenthood does offer abortion services, they also offer many healthcare related services around other health concerns.

• Planned Parenthood offers services for Menopausal women, who obviously can’t get pregnant
• Planned Parenthood also offers gender affirming hormone therapy for people that need it

So both of these groups are clearly people that can’t get pregnant, but are also negatively affected when anti-abortion people’s actions lead to a shut down of a local clinic serving these populations.

Its also possible we’ve reached the limits of the training data.

This is my thinking too. I don’t know how to solve the problem either because datasets created after about 2022 likely are polluted with LLM results baked in. With even a 95% precision that means 5% hallucination baked into the dataset. I can’t imagine enough grounding is possible to mitigate that. As the years go forward the problem only gets worse because more LLM results will be fed back in as training data.

If you run for the Racism Party™ as a person who has an anti-racist position, do you think you will be nominated? Maybe in an incredibly fringe case, but most of the time you will not be.

Well, I’m not sure why I’d even be running for a nomination to your “Racism Party™”, but I would be pretty unsurprised when I didn’t win.

And then what do you do when you’re not nominated?

I don’t understand why you’d have me running in that party in the first place so I don’t know what answer you’re fishing for here.

It’s literally a dogma by definition. Saying that you would do something as a matter of principle under all possible conditions without ever considering a different strategy is a dogma.

Why did you skip over the part where I showed consideration of how weak and bad the third party candidates are and the other strategy of not voting at all before arriving at the blue candidate?

It’s “you should vote for Democrats no matter what.” Even if they’re a genocidal fascist far-right freak who is going to do everything in their power to block an edge case like Mamdani from every making any positive change, we should apparently still support that.

Now you’re just straight up strawmanning.

Would you actually vote for them if they did or just shame people for not voting blue no matter who?

I actually have voted third party, and it got us the 2nd Iraq war. You’re welcome. So you can see when I advocate against weak third party votes, its because I don’t want a repeat of arguably the USAs first 21st century geopolitical catastrophe and millions of lives lost needlessly in Iraq.

Third parties in the USA have historically fielded pretty weak candidates.

Okay then field strong candidates.

Oh shit! So easy! Why didn’t I think of that?!

When I read your first post here, I saw your line of thought was pretty thin, but there might be something of substance there. I can see what I thought was substance in your post was a mirage. It was a mistake to waste my time engaging with you.

Have a nice day.

Because y’all demand people support the entire party. “Vote blue no matter who.”

You’re conveniently ignoring the entire primary voting process. During the primary you vote for the specific candidate among all running for the position in the party. Policy positions, experience, temperament do vary between the candidates. This is the chance to vote for, among many, that closest resembles your own choices. After the primary however, nearly any Democratic candidate would be preferable to a GOP one to most Democratic voters. So if your own preferred primary candidate doesn’t win the ticket to the general election, it is highly probable that the one that did win would be a closer fit than the GOP candidate. The “vote blue no matter who” isn’t dogma, its usually pragmatic advice. I doubt many left leaning voters that voted trump or withheld their vote feel their assistance in getting trump into office is helping their own policy positions.

A perfect example of the primary system working pretty well is the recent New York Mayor’s race. A legacy previously elected Democratic governor ran and lost to the proudly open farthest left-leaning Democratic Socialist. That Democratic Socialist when on to win the general election for mayor of New York City.

If you do like a very specific Democrat, that doesn’t negate voting for a third party in places where the Democrat is awful. There is nothing built-in the USA’s system that would prevent it from getting seats to a third-party, and Canada is proof of that.

Third parties in the USA have historically fielded pretty weak candidates. For the 2024 Presidential election, the next most leftist candidate on the general election ballot was Jill Stein. Prior the run for President of the United States Steins highest held elected office was in 2005 she successfully won the election for one of the 7 Lexington Town Meeting seats (a small municipal office). If third party candidates want to be seriously considered, then I would recommend they start with smaller office positions to actually build a party that demonstrates is can govern.

US mentality is weird. Most countries we understand that a “party” stands for certain principles, and so if you don’t like the party, you vote for a different one.

You’re apply logic and rules from completely different nation’s systems and calling the US’s version “weird” because it doesn’t match how other countries do it?

It makes no sense to demand that the party change to accommodate the voter, that’s not the role of a party.

Perhaps in your country it isn’t, but in the US, it is. During the convention of the party, the party chooses its “planks” for its platform. These are chosen within the party itself, and they absolutely change. You can see the 2024 Democratic party platform here if you want to. Here’s the 2020 version.. As you can see there are some large differences. The GOP used to do this same process before it was consumed by the cult of trump.

The role of a party is to try and change the minds of the population to support the principles of the party. A party exists to convince the masses to accommodate them, not for the masses to accommodate the party.

In your system perhaps. Not in the US system. It doesn’t make the US system “wrong”. Does it have shortcomings? Absolutely, all systems do. Are these various shortcomings equal to each other? That’s subjective. I personally would like more aspects of European-style politcal parties, but not everything that I see with parties there. We, as humanity, have yet to find the objectively “best” system.

What’s even weirder is the Americans who delude themselves into believing the Democrats hold principles they literally do not. They are very open about being a neoliberal nationalist party, but I have encountered weird Americans who tell me things like Democrats all support universal healthcare / “Medicare for All”

I’m losing faith in your arguments because you’re painting a picture that all members of a party share the same beliefs. Again, maybe that’s an ideal from your own country’s party system, but it isn’t in the USA. I would be surprised even in your own party if you have universal agreement on all policy positions.

There are individual Democrats that support Medicare for All. Here’s one example:

Hilary Clinton, as First Lady at the time, lead the creation of the Clinton Healthcare plan of 1993. This was absolutely a universal national healthcare plan:

“The task force was created in January 1993, but its own processes were somewhat controversial and drew litigation. Its goal was to come up with a comprehensive plan to provide universal health care for all Americans, which was to be a cornerstone of the administration’s first-term agenda.”

Does this mean that every Democrat believes in universal healthcare? Of course not. But to claim that none do, as you are, is equally untrue.

Even here on Lemmy, criticizing Democrats by pointing out how they are right-wing can get you downvotes from weirdo Americans who are convinced they are a truly left-wing party.

You’re going to have to be more specific with an example post, because most of the downvoted posts I see close to this are “both sides are the same!” garbage. Also, I don’t believe many believe the US Democratic Party is “truly left-wing” as would be defined in, lets say, Europe.

please learn to comprehend - i did not ask for examples i asked for why they are allowed.

I didn’t give you a single example to answer all of your questions. You don’t even know enough to form the right questions yet. That’s why I told you to pick up a history book.

yes you have lots of heroes and good guys and volunteering when needed is indeed important.

Thats not the takeaway from the example I gave. Its that war is murky. Geopolitics is a constant moving narrative. Its that principle can be more important than civil statute. Its that a nation of immigrants doesn’t immediately divorce itself from its prior ethnic affiliations.

i do not trust the US to not pull the rug out from these guys.

That is indeed a possible risk. You’re going to be shocked to learn about American citizens that fought for Germany in WWI, and were welcomed back to American with no hard feelings.

so … how is this legal and allowed

“allowed”? Which unit of the US government do you see chasing US citizens into a warzone to stop them?

and what happens when the US turns its back on ukraine?

Again, history book. There is no one answer. History has examples of it going both ways and no consistent answer as to what the future holds.

So again, pick up a history book and look at how prior examples of this play out for not only US citizens, but also other citizens in other nations that we in the USA drew our legal inspiration from.

Along with the reading of history, if you could check your arrogance at the door, that would be appreciated too. Starting from a place Ignorance is no crime as long as you’re looking to learn. It is possible to engage in conversations without being an asshole.

why the fuck is a us citizen allowed to join a foreign military?

Please, pick up a history book.

“Forgotten Veterans: The Americans who died fighting for Canada in WWII”

“Alfred Parkyn was one of nearly 9,000 Americans who volunteered to fight for Canada before the U.S. had officially entered the Second World War.”

My company made significant investments in doing business with our brothers and sisters to the north in Canada. That segment is entirely dead now. Our clients are apologetic to us personally but its pretty clear they don’t want to do business with a US company. I don’t blame them one bit. trump is killing us all.

USCIS spokesman Matthew J. Tragesser told NPR that the goal is to prioritize the denaturalization of people who have been found lying or misrepresenting themselves in the naturalization process

…and from this source:

“When they did fund us,” Kimbal Musk recalled, “they realized that we were illegal immigrants.”

“Well…” Elon Musk interjected.

“Yes, we were,” Kimbal Musk pushed back.

Video of the remarks shows Elon Musk laughing as he jumped in with a different interpretation: “I’d say it was a gray area.”

Here are the two most important sentences from the entire article:

Weiss has said she was concerned about the episode airing without a sufficient response from the Trump administration.

“If the administration’s refusal to participate becomes a valid reason to spike a story, we have effectively handed them a ‘kill switch’ for any reporting they find inconvenient,” Alfonsi wrote.

I’ll go one further:

• Assumes the bulb is in reach. When I read the problem I assumed the bulb was in a ceiling fixture out of reach. Nowhere in the text description did it specify the physical location, except “in the other room”.

The tune from South Parks “Blame Canada” Just doesn’t work well with blame trump but some the lyrics are spot on.

For the chorus, instead of the 4 syllable line of of “Blame Can-a-da” substitute"Blame don-ald-trump".

While those are cool, none of them help an average person, except maybe the trains, and definitely not in the US lol.

mRNA vaccines largely ended the most widespread global pandemic in human history just 5 years ago.

Cars were perfect in 05

Climate change would disagree.

Electric cars existed before gasoline cars… And you know what still doesn’t exist? A repairable, mostly analog electric car thats affordable. Doesn’t exist.

What’s stopping you from buying a used 2012 Nissan Leaf for about $6k? Or how about a 2014 BMW i3 for about the same price? Neither of those are Cell network connected or touchscreen heavy cars.

After you finish the last of the 3 novels, make sure you seek out the additional short stories. They fill in some nice gaps in the before, during, and after.

For rich people, it’s not about using it or making a practical purchase. Its a way to show others how much you care about them (none).

I was thinking about this topic just a few days ago. I have another theory. Yes, yacht ownership is a method of communication, but they’re not trying to communicate with the common people, but instead indicating to each other of their level of wealth so they can find equal peers or greater peers to associate with, or greater to avoid.

A rich person with $10M net worth has almost nothing in common with a rich person with a $1B net worth.