Now watch as nearly half the voting population accepts this behavior.

properly documenting the people who enter our country is vital for providing public services …

Not really. We can track that the same way we track non-immigrants: census, job reports, bank accounts, change of address forms, buying private data hoards.

Frankly I’d be in favor of just letting people in and letting them legally work. Our current system allows people in but then they are just expected to lie around waiting for permission to stay. Meanwhile they aren’t contributing to the broader economy. Let them work while they’re here and more of them will get off the streets, there will be more money going towards taxes, and there will be a broadening pool of people that can actually afford to buy things.

Cause Trump is incapable of admitting fault. He wanted his supporters to kill his last VP because Pence recognized that America didn’t want Trump.

Cool! Yet another way to have Google loop the same 20 songs tangentially related to the artist I searched for without actually playing the artist I searched for.

Ya want the truth? Lax gun laws led to public shootings as an easy way to gain notoriety. So many people took the school shooting route that they are now old hat. Want to get famous? Take out a prominent politician. What doesn’t help is Republicans blocking every effort to control access to guns (even those the majority of Republicans want) and Trump’s rhetoric stoking fear and normalizing violence.

They flagged me for report abuse for reporting a spammer using their option to report spammers.

What a weird, insecure man.

I bet they actually don’t.

He started forgiving student loan debt in August of 2022. The Republican Supreme Court keeps blocking him.

Meanwhile basically all of Palestine needs help to rebuild.

Of the two people who actually have a chance at winning, both will continue to kill kids abroad. Only one of them actually wants me killed though so I won’t vote for him–in fact, I think I’ll vote against him.

Hmm, they got 1 out before they killed him this time. I suppose that’s an improvement.

It was a lot easier to pretend to be a good person when every moral failure you make wasn’t broadcast around the world the moment it was discovered. Case and point, look into Bill Gates more. He wasn’t always a respectful guy, got caught up in the whole “filthy communists” schtick when the government was investigating his company, advocates for more restrictive control of aid distribution favoring manufacturers more than those he’s trying to help, conflicts of interest in his charity, opposing twitters ban of Trump after the insurrection, etc.

I love mine. I bought one as soon as they went on sale and it has completely replaced my gaming laptop when I travel. What I like most of all is that it makes it easy for me to play games in my backlog that I would not otherwise have plaid. I have almost 900 games in my library and it’s opened up my playtime in platformers, casual story games, puzzle games, racing, space sims, and more. The fact that I can do that on a plane or wherever on holiday is awesome. I have no doubt that there are games in my library it can’t play, but I’ve not actually tried to play a game on it that just didn’t work.

If you aren’t a gamer I don’t know how much value there is for you. If you want to become a gamer it’s a well balanced device with a solid store behind it and your library will be accessible by any PC you buy in the future. If you are considering it as a gift for a gamer, just keep in mind if they aren’t primarily a PC gamer (that is to say they play on a console) they will have to rebuy some games if they want to play on the deck.

As far as being a full laptop replacement, I wouldn’t bother.

That seems like an easy way to ignore your constituency’s thoughts on reproductive health and weed.

Way to rule instead of represent.

Almost literally nothing.

There’s no conflict of interest here. His interest is self enrichment and power by any means necessary. This aligns perfectly!

There’s a lot more to my post that you neglected to address, so I’ll just stick to your reply. I am writing this followup not in an attempt to convince you, but to seek clarity and understanding; unfortunately my rhetoric is often not perceived that way, though I do mean it earnestly.

Trump or Harris will win.

I have no doubt.

Do you have a preference of the two? Are you okay with either of them winning?

The notion that a 3rd party vote dilutes is based in strategic voting

Which I don’t practice nor believe in.

What do you mean by that? I practice voting strategically, it’s certainly a thing that exists. Are you saying you believe people in general shouldn’t or do you really mean you believe there is no such thing? Are you also positing that you still believe it is based in fear?

According to YOU. I mean, just accept that some people don’t believe the same way you do. And if there are more of them that vote for their candidate, than yours, then that’s how the American voting system goes.

What are you talking about? I listed a diverse selection of thoughts then stated truthfully that they were diverse. Is your fault found in my understanding that those thoughts are not causing democracy to thrive? People living under dictatorships, authoritarian regimes, and week democracies do not necessarily think in unison. People the world over have different thoughts and opinions even within their own communities and ruling structures. That doesn’t cause democracy to spontaneously arise or even thrive. The distinction between democracy and other ruling structures is the ability of the people to vote. If you want democracy to thrive then the people need to actually be able to vote, not just think differently.

I fully understand that not everyone believes the same things I do, that has nothing to do with the ability for a 3rd party candidate to win.

If democrats are that scared of Trump winning, then they should pic a candidate strong enough to over come his and any third party votes. Also maybe they shouldn’t have waited till last minute to make Biden step down.

I fully 100% agree. I just also expect that people will vote in their best interests, but recognize they don’t necessarily, and I don’t understand why that is. Voting for a 3rd party candidate does nothing for you, while voting for a major party candidate possibly can do something for you. I am a gay leftist atheist. One of the major candidates doesn’t want me to be able to vote (or potentially live) the other one isn’t immediately dismissive of who I am and can be reasoned with. If I vote for the former I am contributing to active oppression against me. If I vote for the latter I am not. If I vote for someone (or no one) else I am complicit in whatever happens to me. I don’t know you. I’m sure there is some category that means a lot to you and that you see Dr. Stein recognizing, but she will not be able to act on that, whereas a major candidate will.

The notion that a vote for a 3rd party “dilutes” the vote is rooted in a fear-driven mentality rather than in Democratic principles.

Its neither. Trump or Harris will win. They both have flaws, but one of them has significantly more including wanting to be a dictator and removing the right to vote going forward. The notion that a 3rd party vote dilutes is based in strategic voting. We have a system that benefits only 2 teams, refusal to work within that 2 team system without first erecting groundwork to actually have a chance at winning is either: 1) removing votes from the main candidate of those 2 teams you’d rather see prevail over the other or 2) not voting against the candidate you’d most like to see fail. It didn’t matter which of those is the case, they are both diluting.

It assumes that votes are owned by the two major parties which they are not.

They are. The system is erected such that only a member of one of the 2 major parties will actually win the presidency. Therefore only votes for them actually matter.

Our electoral system is supposed to represent the diverse views of the electorate, not just those of the dominant parties.

It’s not. First past the post only helps the dominate parties. They are the only ones that stand a chance at winning and they are the only ones who actually win. This results in a majority of the electorate compromising somewhere to settle on a less ideal candidate. Ranked choice voting and proportional representation with a parliamentary system of government is significantly better at representing the diverse views of the electorate.

In the end, I personally refuse to be intimidated into voting against my conscience.

That’s fine. Your preferred candidate won’t win and you will not be contributing to choosing a candidate that more closely aligns with your views than the other.

Democracy thrives on diversity of thought.

No it doesn’t. Democracy thrives on having access to the polls. Outcomes of democracy thrive on them being educated, voting critically, and for their best interests, and having proportional representation.

Some people believing women shouldn’t have control of their bodies, that they belong naked, standing in the kitchen without the right to vote, some people believing women should have autonomy and suffrage, some people believing women should have autonomy, but not the right to vote, and some people believing that a man should have 1 vote for him and all his dependents are a diverse selection of thoughts. But those thoughts and the people that hold them are not causing democracy to thrive.

All told there are tons of problems with our electoral system from the EC to paid ballot access for minor parties, first past the post, unlimited money, 2 year campaign cycle, the people that actually get nominated, strategic drawing of maps, culling voters from registrations, states leaving ERIC, and more, but those problems benefit a 2 party system and refusing to participate in that does not benefit your cause. What voting a 3rd party does do is get them closer to the 5% cutoff for access to federal Presidential Election Campaign Funds in their next election and signal a vehement opposition to some policy. However, that signal is easily ignored with such a low turnout.

So how do you get a third party presidential candidate to win? By actually building a 3rd party first. Run candidates in local elections, get them on school boards and mayorships. Start locally, build a following and work up to state. Start winning an appreciable percent of state legislature seats and move on to congressional seats. Once the American people are familiar with you as a “party” who actually is involved politically and demands a significant amount of real-estate on the hill and in their states and not simply as a “fringe party” taking a crap shot at power they will start to view your party as actually having a chance to win the presidency, they might actually vote for you in no small part, and you eventually can work your way to an actual victory.

Vote for who you want. If it’s not one of the main candidates that may be ideological and even admirable, but right now it’s ineffective. I’ll be voting to reduce the chances of Trump winning office, because I actually want my vote to matter in future elections.

Well, I try to understand why something is included. I’ve run arch for years (BTW), though my current computers are running Fedora and Debian. I won’t say I know everything about Linux or even installing it or booting it, but I do know more than I would if I just followed step by step.