![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/6ff69238-f8a9-46ea-bc7e-a31b1fc2a832.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/db7182d9-181a-45e1-b0aa-6768f144911a.jpeg)
A few Lemmy users ain’t gonna cut it. This is one of those things where it won’t go away until the subject of the stories goes away.
Counting down the days, personally… I just don’t know how many days there are to count down.
i like to sample music and make worse music out of that.
A few Lemmy users ain’t gonna cut it. This is one of those things where it won’t go away until the subject of the stories goes away.
Counting down the days, personally… I just don’t know how many days there are to count down.
The long, drawn out metaphorical explanation was unnecessary and frankly kind of condescending.
I'm not over here trying to be some champion of the electoral college and I'd be more interested in seeing a real push for ranked choice or one of its cousins.
The point I was making was that if you sat at home and didn't vote at all, your chosen candidate would never see the inside of the oval office and I went into my understanding of why it is the way it is. Ultimately, voting under the current system is not entirely worthless as you seemed to claim in the original post I responded to.
We've had something like 59 elections in total and 5 of them involved the winning candidate losing the popular vote but winning the election by way of the electoral college. Only one of those elections - the very first - involved anything even remotely close to your example (but still not42.3% vs 31.6%). The other 4 had a difference of like 2% or less between the two leading candidates.
The electoral college was devised as a compromise between direct democracy and congressional voting and I'm sure it was done in good faith to try to make sure everyone was represented, but this system seems to truly show its cracks when we're facing an insanely stark national split like we see today and there's no argument that we should probably shake things up and get rid of it.
I mean, that's not entirely accurate - a vote for a presidential candidate is a vote for the slate of electors tied to said candidate - effectively a vote for your candidate, albeit indirectly. Electors can, however, be required to vote according to popular vote as required by the state they're electors in. Or they could have pledged to vote according to specific party. I don't know for sure, but I assume state elector requirements override party pledges.
My understanding is that when it was devised, it was a compromise between direct democracy (which would honestly be potentially dangerous - how many people do you know where you can't help but go, "Fuck… This guy can vote.") and election via congressional vote. It certainly ain't perfect and I have no bias towards it, but it's a system like anything else that people tend to point at and blame when things don't go their way or just ignore or even defend when things do go their way.
- George Costanza
Won't catch me standing in the way - it's pretty entertaining, anyway.
Sure, but at this point he's in an endless tailspin. Could also just stop talking about him at this point altogether, probably. Whatever supporters there are, he'll never be able to dig himself out to face down Trump now.
The initial video was kind of funny, but we could just focus on how fucking awful he is.
I can't remember what it was specifically, but friend basically ruined a major plot point in Witcher 3 for me fully knowing I was a good ways out from discovering it on my own. As a kneejerk reaction and knowing he was about 20 or 30 hours into Fallout 4, I told him who runs the Institute and what relation that individual has to the protagonist.
He was angrier than I was because I had assumed Witcher 3 turned out the way he revealed, but my spoiler absolutely blindsided him. He never ruined anything for me again.
Who are we kidding anyway? They're still going to go up 80% over the same period of time.
How do they account for a service like privacy.com which allows you to generate multiple dummy card numbers for a single card?
If the cost of subscription is, instead, the barrier to entry then all we'll end up seeing is parties who have the resources for wide spanning scams or propaganda or whatever it is - and if they're paying then they expect to profit or score gains in some way that justify their costs, which likely means they're effective at what they do
They're there… err… the remains are, at least.
Edgy teenager shit, probably.
Like drawing an anarchy symbol on stuff.
For real - who the hell wants to be commando-crawling through a datacenter in slacks and loafers? Total fucking nonsense.
I went full remote in early 2018, so now you'd have to put a gun to my head to be in anything more than shorts and a wifebeater while I work. I'm popping into the office this Thursday and for a minute, I was afraid I didn't have any long jeans left for the occasion lmao
Seriously. I joke that I specifically became a sysadmin because a T-shirt (and occasional polo), jeans, and sneakers or boots is already formal for me.
… it's only partially actually a joke.
Yeah that’s a fair point. I guess the second half of my response was a bit of kneejerk reaction. I was more curious about what kind of effect this could have in the trial. I assume the amount of time they’d need to get started removing her pretty much guarantees nothing happens to the RICO trial
Looks like we’re firmly in the Decade of Weird Legal Precedents, I guess. lol
For one it sounds like an unconstitutional bill of attainder.
Furthest thing from a lawyer over here, but wouldn’t this require them to prosecute her criminally vs. just removing her from her job?
This doesn’t mean that the trial can be shitcanned, does it?
If Fani Willis can’t escape this and it means she burned her career to do the right thing, somebody oughtta crowdfund a bunch of money for her so she has some cushioning.
I’m not sure about the “racist” bit at this point, either. Not making any excuses for the guy, but it’s slightly possible that his boring/tired commentary in the song about poor people (the welfare shit) was even just some misguided/misinformed bullshit that’s been pounded into his head all his life. Who knows, but I’ve been surprised by the guy twice so far.
(The actual clip of the interview is at the bottom of the article) https://www.stereogum.com/2233996/viral-country-singer-oliver-anthony-pisses-off-racists-with-first-interview-since-topping-hot-100/news/
Can you imagine Trump trying to even navigate stuffy legal language? Nevermind writing some.