Knightfox

And then he'll either walk away glad he dodged a bullet or slip drugs into her drink and probably not face any real consequences. People don't seem to understand how the Rogan/Musk/Tate loving Trump supports think. Just a reminder, a higher percentage of women voted for Trump in this election than last so I don't think the political right is going to be significantly impacted by this.

Eh, I'll concede that she wasn't screaming her ideals as loud as possible, but that goes back to my original point. The political left is a fickle voter base. Kamala had good ideas, she had policies, she had been part of the successes made under Biden, but she put most of her focus into attacking Trump. It sounds like the argument being made is that uninformed voters weren't encouraged enough to vote and more liberal disenfranchised voters didn't turn out because they didn't like her policies. If this is the case which makes more sense:

1.) Making some policy changes so they can get people who don't historically come out to vote to do so or,

2.) Making some policy changes so that people who historically come out to vote will vote for them.

Someone threatening not to vote, when they historically don't anyways, isn't much of a threat or motivation.

I don't know, at this point I'm starting to ask myself if it's the Democrats fault if the majority of the people agree with the opposition? If she had won the popular vote and lost the electoral college I might have believed that it was simply appealing more to the Democratic base or appealing to less enfranchised liberals, but she lost the popular vote by a long shot. Not only did she lose, but she lost after the other guy has had 4 years of public attack, federal crimes, rape convictions, Project 2025, and basically promising that Palestinians and Ukrainians will get fucked. Hell, the percentage of women that voted for Trump went up in this election.

If people didn't turn out because Democrats aren't appealing to leftist ideals enough I fear the message heard by the DNC isn't to appeal to even more progressive or socialist ideals, but to adopt even more moderate policies. Just facing the facts, but the political left is an unreliable voter group and it's extremely entitled. Instead of trying to be a foil to Republican ideals Democrats are more likely to try more moderate options. Think of it as creating an alternative instead of being an opposite, Coke and Pepsi instead of Coke and Sprite. It feels like the needle of America's social equilibrium has permanently moved to be more conservative.

It's kinda hard to call that a threat. It's more accurate to say it's an accusation that the guy is a terrorist.

I once went to a public swimming pool in Austria, half the pool was for nudists and the other half was for clothed persons. The restroom for clothed people was very long, but the restroom for nudists was busy but short. I ended up going to the nudist restroom and a 50+ year old naked guy walked up and started talking to me while using a pissoir. Basically he was asking why I was dressed at the nudist portion of the pool, I told him the line was shorter, he laughed, and went about his pissing.

I don't know about encouraged, but it's definitely not uncommon in some places. Small talk doesn't have to be a lot of communication either, it can be as little as basic platitudes. It's things like sitting at the bar in a pub and the guy beside you points out an amazing play on the television or it could be the person on the bus pointing out something crazy they see out the window.

Personally I think that small talk is also regional. Some places small talk might be discouraged at a store while other places it might be encouraged. The same might be for the subway, a restaurant, the bathroom, etc, depending on the country or culture it may be totally ok or exceptionally discouraged.

I don't have a novel idea, I'm not trying to change the two party system that exists. The fact that the current two party system has been in existence since 1932 and the overall structure has existed since 1854 is what gives it weight and value. It's continued existence is what proves the model. The burden of proof is on those who wish to change the system, not on those participating in the current one.

People have wanted to end the two party system basically from it's inception, yet despite that there has never been significant enough traction to make that happen. At best detractors have replaced one of the two parties, but the overall number of parties and their operation has remained the same.

My view has as much weight as yours

This is literally what conspiracy theorists and nut jobs say as well. You are entitled to have your own opinion and to say what you want, but that doesn't make it equal. What is different between the current system and your view is that the current system has actually been in place and working for more than a hundred years. Until you can come up with a way to get from the inception of your idea to a completed system then your view has no weight. You want to wail against the system, but you want other people to figure out how to make your view work. As I said in my initial comment to you, that's just idealism.

Well I disagree that my view isnt possible.

Your disagreement has about as much weight and value as a flat earther disagreeing that the world is round.

Other than that we would have to convince politicians to give away power, which is very unlikely.

Which is why your disagreement doesn't matter.

And I already voted for Kamala but she wasnt the best choice for me by much, and I’m not saying trump was second. But that has more to do with the state I’m in than anything. If I was a county over I would have voted for a third party.

Hey that's totally fair, I'm not saying she should be everyone's preferred choice, but people are going around in circles saying that they won't vote for Kamala like they don't understand the ramifications of that. We have a two party system, those parties aren't vague ideas but private corporate entities with tax benefits and assets. After Bernie lost in 2016 there was a lawsuit that alleged that the DNC had committed fraud by making certain efforts to ensure Hillary won the primary. The result of the case was that they found the proof and the DNC chair persons admitted it in court. The result was that the case was dismissed, nothing illegal was done, donating to the party or voting in the primaries makes no promise that a candidate you pick will win the primary. The judge basically said that the parties private entities that are allowed to conduct their party business the way they want.

The system that exists is built to keep it two parties and benefits those two parties.

If you're in a county or state where your vote won't matter than do what you want. My state lets you vote in either primary so I voted in the Republican Primary because we will go Republican and I at least wanted to have a say on who would be getting state positions.

Amen, I was so freaking mad in 2016 because I was a big Bernie supporter and I remember reading an article where some college kids had been polled. The kid in question said he wasn't really fond of Hillary and was thinking of not voting for her. The interviewer asked who he liked to which he said he really preferred Bernie Sanders and was upset he didn't win the primary. The interviewer then asked if he had voted in the primary and the kid said he had forgotten to go vote.