wanderer

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

A not totally incompetent trainer of a dead horse would not be stunned how bad the dead horse does.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Even if he could be replaced, his name would still be on ballots. The deadlines for finalizing ballots varies by state, but, at least in some states, have already passed.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

Can you provide an example? I checked online stores and everything labeled American cheese was processed cheese.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago

Like a maniac shooting flaming arrows of death is one who deceives their neighbor and says, “It was a prank bro” Proverbs 26:18-19

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

OK, if you want to look at it that way, it's still the same basic argument, refusing to participate in the party just effectively increases the representation of the people you disagree with.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

Consider two scenarios: one where you vote, one where you do not, all else is the same. In the scenario where you vote, the candidate that you vote for, that you least disagree with, has a higher percentage of votes than in the other scenario. In the scenario where you don't vote the candidates that you wouldn't have voted for, the ones you most disagree with, have a higher percentage of votes than in the other scenario.

Not voting is effectively voting for the people you most disagree with.

democrats win this upcoming election, does this mean all the people who didn’t vote had actually voted democrats?

That's a different argument than what I was making. "Not voting is effectively approval of whoever wins." related but not the same.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago

Do your own personal Instant Runoff. If you think that the third party candidate might win maybe vote for them. If they are basically guaranteed to lose, maybe vote for your next choice.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 weeks ago

The Phoenicians founded a new city in North Africa and called it 'New City' (Qart Hadasht), we now call it Carthage. The Carthaginians founded a new city in Spain and called it 'New City' (Qart Hadasht). The Romans conquered both of these cities, and found that having cities with the same confusing so called the second one 'New New City' (Carthago Nova).

[–] [email protected] 29 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

It is obviously intentionally done to mimic the ritual sacrifice of the two goats on Yom Kippur, the day of atonement. Two goats were presented to the high priest, one was chosen by casting lots to be sacrificed on the altar and the other was cast into the wilderness, purifying the people of Israel of their sins. In the story, Jesus plays the role of both goats.

view more: next ›