this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2023
99 points (90.2% liked)

Showerthoughts

30679 readers
671 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted, clever little truths, hidden in daily life.

Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts: 1

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. No politics
    • If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
    • A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
    • If you feel strongly that you want politics back, please volunteer as a mod.
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct

If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.

Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report the message goes away and you never worry about it.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
99
What if the length of a term was proportional to the amount you won by in the election? (lemmy.fbxl.net)
submitted 2 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
24 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Seems odd that if you win by 0.001% that's treated the same as if you win by 50%. "You barely won, here's the same mandate as someone who won soundly"

Probably a bad idea, but there's an idea in there that isn't dumb.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

The fundamental flaw in your reasoning is assuming that Democrats are a unified bloc. The Democrat party is a coalition of various ideologies, and their representatives are therefore representative of a wide array of ideologies. You'll note that those individual representatives absolutely vote how their constituents want them to.

Obama both tried to end Guantanamo and both of the wars. He was stopped by Congress. He tried to close Gitmo on literally his second day in office. He ended the war in Iraq and began the pullout of Afghanistan - but the country frankly was not ready for a pullout by the time of the Biden Admin, as history shows. Worth noting Biden was compelled by precedent and Afghani leaders to follow Trump's abortive pullout strategy.

Gitmo: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/show/obama-failed-close-guantanamo

Trump did try to put Clinton in jail : https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/22/us/politics/fbi-clinton-foundation.html

I'm failing to see how you are showing any realistic examples of widespread lying.

Edit: for the record, and by way of demonstration of the "loose coalition," I would not support my Dem representative pushing a wealth tax. Wealth taxes don't work and are inefficient at best. I am a lifelong democrat, union activist, and climate lobbyist. We don't all agree on the same things. We aren't Republicans.

Also I think you're mixing up Republicans being dumb enough to think that cutting taxes reduces deficits with them being smart enough to lie about that.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Disenfranchisement with the system increases the less people actually pay attention to the system, both in how it functions and what it actually does.

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

The problem there is with the people not paying attention. Democracy requires participation or it spirals into tyranny.