Ah yes, the real problem is the person calling you out on your BS. What an honest and productive conversation I’m missing out on!
lol Funny how no one else seems to be voting anywhere else in this thread anymore, except minutes after your comment. It’s embarrassing that you’re doubling down. Sociopathic behavior.
It is pointless arguing with someone so devoted to winning an internet debate. Can’t reason with that.
You got 3 upvotes within minutes after you posted on a 2 day old post? And I got 3 downvotes at the same time? You're pathetic.
You're changing the subject. My claim was about 2020, not 2024. This year, yes, Biden's candidacy is inevitable. It is almost unheard of to challenge an incumbent president, and Democrats want to avoid an intra-party fight. When Ted Kennedy challenged Jimmy Carter in 1980, it was a disaster that damaged the party for a long time.
I agree with you that Biden is a weak candidate and there are better candidates. But you made the extreme claim that elections don't matter, that we have no choice, that shadowy elites choose all the candidates, and other silly conspiracy theories.
Conspiracy theories don't become justified just because you're apathetic and angry. I'm not sure how you think you're being rebellious. When you don't vote, that's not rebellion. No one cares. You don't matter, politically.
I also think most people haven’t tried and would be pleasantly surprised if they did. Even in the US, almost half of all trips are bikable or walkable distances. It doesn’t have to replace your main commute, just some of your trips.
We’ve all met those people who get in their car to drive two blocks instead of walking, even in good weather. Cars are so dominant that there’s a lack of imagination around using anything except cars.
That’s definitely a big part, but it’s both. Like white flight out of cities and insisting on a detached suburban home, the other part of the story is that cars represent “social worth” for many in North America.
It’s why car people become so angrily defensive, and fight even modest changes. Cars aren’t just functional. They represent a cherished value system. Their worth as a person is tied up with their car.
That said, just like diamond rings and smoking, even this weird cultural norm was bought by industry advertising. We’re social apes, who do things to feel important and valued, even when it otherwise makes no sense.
That's not what you said in the comment I responded to. You claimed that Nader could have won if progressives had voted for him instead of Gore, but there aren't enough progressive votes.
Voting in a FPTP two party system is a coordination game, one where it is mathematically impossible for third parties to win. Pretending otherwise is sadly delusional.
It's like you're trying to decide which building to buy as a group to start co-op housing. Almost everyone prefers building A, but you prefer building B. If you all don't compromise, then there is not enough money and you're all homeless. In a democracy, it is obviously more fair if you compromise than everyone else compromises. You either don't believe in democracy, or you're happy with things never getting better.
If you think Biden's candidacy was inevitable, you were asleep during the primaries. Here's the simple obvious explanation: Biden never lost his nationwide polling lead, not once, during the whole race. Are the polls part of the conspiracy too?
The craziest thing about your conspiracy theory is that it's flatly contradicted by Trump, who was clearly NOT the establishment choice in 2016. Establishment politicians and media pushed Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, John Kasich, anyone but Trump. They all criticized or downplayed Trump non-stop (for good reason)... and yet he won.
Well, how’s the fight coming?
I'm living through one of the biggest shifts left in politics in a generation. The left/center-left coalition has been surprisingly dominant. Mid-terms, special elections, etc. We keep winning. It's not perfect, but it's the right direction. But we need to keep winning elections for a long time for durable change.
At what point do you consider the fight won?
Never. Politics is a continual process, not a destination. If we get complacent, progress dies.
Do you envision some point in the future where Republicans no longer hold office and the country is some utopia of pure Democratic leadership?
No. That's not even the point. Republicans used to be the progressive party (that's why they use the color red). Parties don't matter as much as ideas. The point isn't for "my team" to win. If Republicans continue losing for a decade, then they will be forced to shift left, just as Dems shifted right after Reagan with Clinton.
I’ve read your comment a few times but I’m having a genuinely hard time parsing your point.
The person I’m responding to was saying that Nader could have won if progressives voted for him instead of Gore. I pointed out that presidential candidates need a broad coalition of voters to get enough votes, not just far left progressives.
You seem to be making a totally different argument. You claim that if Nader was the only choice, then Democratic leaning moderates would have voted for him.
I don’t mean to be rude, but what is the point of this thought experiment? Nader wasn’t the only choice. Moreover, US politics in 2000 was significantly less polarized: MANY Gore voters would have definitely voted for Bush, who campaigned under “compassionate conservatism” and was seen as a moderate, over the farthest left candidate, Nader.
If Sanders had won the nomination, I think he would have kicked ass against Trump, but Sanders sadly lost. I’m trying to understand your last line: are you asking if I would blame HRC supporters for refusing to vote for Sanders in the general and allowing a fascist corrupt dictator in? Uh, yes. Obviously I would blame them. That precisely aligns with everything I’ve said.
What are you even talking about with your first paragraph? The result of elections aren’t predictable. In fact, they’re less predictable than ever. And what’s with “choice” in quotes: are you an election truther? That’s more of a right wing conspiracy.
That’s a pathetic cowardly take on the Overton window. What even is your point? “Let’s give up because nothing matters”? Fuck that. I’m fighting.
It’s also empirically untrue: I don’t know how you haven’t noticed that the US is going through the biggest labor movement in a generation. In the last 3 years, Dems have passed one of the most progressive agendas in a generation.
It really doesn’t go both ways. The winning presidential candidate needs to get the most votes, and most US voters are not progressive. They’re moderate, or indifferent.
I don’t know how you could say that about HRC and Sanders. That’s not even a hypothetical: they literally had a head to head match where, to my huge disappointment, HRC won. Protesting HRC helped elect Trump, and obviously that hasn’t been good for progressive interests or democracy.
Yes, progressives who stay at home for the general election do not understand US democracy. The US has a 2 party FPTP system, not proportional representation. Unlike multi-party parliamentary systems, we usually have to vote for a compromise, not our top choice. If you don't vote, you don't "send a message", you simply forfeit your political power. If Republicans win, and keep winning, then that's a signal for Democrats to shift right, to try to win back the median voter.
I hate the argumentative strategy of criticizing candidates for being political "losers". Rightwingers do that all the time. By that logic, progressives also had "loser candidates", since many fail in the primaries. I personally don't think Sanders, for example, was a "loser", even if he lost in the primary.
I’m not sure what you mean.
Also, many progressives stayed home or voted for the Green Party. Not that it is more the fault of progressives than SCOTUS, but blame aside, it’s a cautionary tale.
There is a theory that Democrats now have the majority of high propensity voters, such as high education voters. A decade ago it was the reverse, and Republicans would win most special elections and midterms.
If anyone wants an actual answer: iPhone has an option to “Save to Files” that lets you select a folder to save to just like on a desktop OS. I’ve personally never lost a file when I do this.
It doesn’t show how well a country is doing, because GDP is not a direct measure of aggregate utility. For example: GDP can go up, but if it causes the Gini coefficient to rise, a country could be doing much worse than before.
But that’s not what you wrote. You claimed that it doesn’t show new information because you can see the favicon and title. It does show new information.
When I shop online, I have many tabs from the same site open. The tab title is the store name + the item name, so the item name never fits. A bunch of identical ebay icons is way worse than this.
Even some one-car households ditched vehicles in favor of cargo bike-sharing.
New Zealand passed the most ambitious upzoning reforms in the world. Now comes the backlash.
This is a really great long form article about the efforts to upzone New Zealand, one of the only countries going through an even worse housing crisis than Canada. There's a lot to learn here about the political challenges of implementing good urban planning strategy.
Cycling to work has been linked to a higher risk of injury among UK commuters, but the health benefits of getting on your bike still vastly outweigh the risks
> The new study, which looked at outcomes over 10 years, shows those fears aren’t unreasonable – commuting by bike is associated with an increased risk of admission to hospital for injury, with 7 per cent of cyclists experiencing such an injury compared to 4.3 per cent of non-cyclists. Squint a bit, and you can turn that into the “50 per cent more likely” figure mentioned above. > > But Paul Welsh at the University of Glasgow in the UK, who led the study and who cycles himself, says the risk of death from cycling injury is vanishingly small. In fact, it is far outweighed by the decreased risk of death that comes from the increased physical activity and lower BMI of cyclists. “The data are still very much in favour of cycling for those who are capable of doing so,” says Welsh. > > Cyclists have a far lower risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer and death compared with people who drive, take public transport or walk to work – a finding supported by this and previous studies. If an extra 1000 people took up cycling for 10 years, we would expect to see 15 fewer cancers, four fewer heart attacks or strokes and three fewer deaths in that group.
Sometimes, people online and in real life ask why I complain about unsafe or lacking bicycle infrastructure but continue to put myself at risk by cycling. Is it worth it? Yes it is. Even from the perspective of self-preservation, cycling is safer than driving. I'd just like it to be even safer, and make it so that more people can benefit.
Of course, it's better to emit less carbon, and support systems and policies that emit less carbon. That said, carbon emission is unavoidable, and I'd like to minimize that portion of my impact as much as possible.
I am definitely willing to pay to offset my carbon usage, but I'm under the impression that this is mostly a scam. Does anyone use these services? If so, can you tell me what reasoning or sources you used that satisfied you that the service your chose isn't a scam?
Can anyone help me identify what’s going on? As I’m riding, the mid drive motor on my E bike sometimes starts making a whirring noise and then loses power. The console and lights remains on but the motor doesn’t give any more assist. When I turn the power off and back on, it works again. Does anyone know if this is more likely to be a battery issue or a motor issue?
I’ve taken it into a mechanic that specializes in E bikes already, but the business was brand new and, based on my discussions with them, I didn’t trust that they knew what they were talking about. I feel like, when it comes to E bike repair, it’s the wild west out there.
That's the benchmark price in Vancouver. Let's say one has $300k for a downpayment. What does the household income, pre-tax, have to be to afford that home?
I know there are online calculators, but I'm not sure how accurate they are, and I figure this group will be more knowledgeable.