▲ 690 ▼ What's a scam that's so normalized that we don't even realize it's a scam anymore? (lemm.ee) submitted 2 years ago by mastermind@lemm.ee to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml 960 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] an0nym0us@lemmy.dbzer0.com 101 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (18 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source hideshow 23 child comments replies: [–] Whatsit_Tooya@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago (3 children) Was coming here specifically to say credit scores. Oh what’s that you paid off your student loans? Here have a big credit hit as a treat. Oh you’re using your credit? Here have a credit hit even tho you’ve never missed a payment. How dare you use the credit you have?? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] dingus@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children) Why would paying off your student loans give you a credit hit? Edit: lol who is downvoting this I legitimately didn't know the answer permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] yawn@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago Credit scores are in part based on the oldest line of available credit, which for most people are their student loans. Pay those off, your oldest line of credit becomes something more recent, and your score goes down as a result permalink fedilink source parent [–] Xtallll@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 2 years ago* Length of credit and credit utilization, you get points* for the length that each account has been open, so when you pay off your loan the account is closed and no longer counts. Also as you get to the end of the repayment it shows as a $30k account that you owe les than $10k on, you get points for using less than half or less than a third of the credit available to you. *You don't actually get points, that would be too easy to understand, you get factors that affect a complex equation in your favor. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Randomocity@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) It decreases your overall available credit permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] tko@tkohhh.social 6 points 2 years ago Loans are different from lines of credit... loans don't have an "available credit" associated with them. The reason your score might go down when you pay off student loan is because you're reducing the number of open accounts you have, and also possibly reducing the diversity of accounts (lines of credit vs. installment loans). Disclaimer: I'm not saying this is a good system, just explaining how it works. permalink fedilink source parent [+] balance_sheet@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] neshura@bookwormstory.social 2 points 2 years ago In Germany taking out a small loan even tho you don't need it can help massively boost your credit score. That only works because here no credit history is worse than a bad credit history. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) [–] tourist@community.destinovate.com 2 points 2 years ago Even better if you use Experian: give us access to all your spending data or else you'll never see a score increase again (source: been dealing with this for three years while Equifax continues to go up. I feel like they're doing something illegal, but they probably already were and nobody cares.) permalink fedilink source parent [–] s20@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 years ago (44 children) I agree with everything but voting. Not because we ever have great options, but because sometimes there are terrifyingly bad ones, and while option A might not be at all good, option B is so much worse. That's why it's called "the lesser of two evils." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 46 child comments replies: [+] an0nym0us@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] s20@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 years ago (13 children) You don't seem to know what "lesser of two evils" means. It doesn't mean "that guy's bad, so the less evil guy is good, actually, and totally deserves our support!" It means "no matter which one of these assholes wins, I'm fucked, but if I'm lucky the one guy will use lube." I can't do a damn thing about the two party system. That ship sailed before I was born, and nothing I do as an individual can change it. In fact, I can't see a solution short of possibly violent revolution. If that happens before I'm to old and feeble to help, great. Other wise, I'm fucked no matter who I pick, so I'm sure as shit going to pick the one who just wants to fuck me and not fuck me plus kill my trans neighbor. I'm sick and tired of being called stupid, gullible, or uninformed just because I can actually see how completely fucked we are. Your shit is great for people who still have hope. My shit is just trying to survive without the Gestapo coming for my neighbors. So come get me for the revolution. In the meantime, stop calling me stupid for being depressed and practical. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to copy and paste this in reply to some other lemming that thinks I'm a gullible moron instead. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago The two Party system will only go of you get rid of the "winner takes all" system. permalink fedilink source parent [–] cubedsteaks@lemmy.today 2 points 2 years ago no matter which one of these assholes wins, I’m fucked, but if I’m lucky the one guy will use lube this is some scary logic if you think about it. Imagine you are a person, who doesn't want to get fucked. Two guys are about to fuck you, even though you don't want it, and you get the option to choose which guys fucks you even though you don't want to get fucked? oh but the one guy is gonna use lube. To fuck you. The person who doesn't want to be fucked. that's insane. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (11 replies) [–] BilboBallbins@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child) If we want better options we can vote for third party candidates. I have no faith in the system, and a third party candidate will almost never win. But if enough people vote for them it gets them more recognition, which could eventually shift the narrative. Gary Johnson got over 3% of the vote in 2016, and Ross Perot got as high as 19% in the 90s. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] s20@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Okay. But if the people you vote for can only muster 3% of the vote, how does that help? I get it in local elections, up to and including State legislature, gubernatorial races, and maybe Congress if they can get a good campaign going. That all makes sense because even if they don't win they get enough attention to attract local media and push discussion among others. But Senators? The President? Ross Perot was an extreme outlier. The last time a 3rd party presidential candidate got more than 50 electoral votes was 1912 when Teddy Roosevelt ran as a Progressive. In the last century, the highest total electoral votes for a 3rd part went to George Wallace in 1968 running as an American Independent. He got 46 out of 538. Rounding up, that's 9%. Now, without looking him up, tell me one issue George Wallace ran on in 1968. So I'm asking: how does it help. If it helps, I'll try. But from where I'm sitting, it's all hopeless. I don't want to feel this way. So please, for the love of sanity, convince me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BilboBallbins@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child) But from where I’m sitting, it’s all hopeless. I don’t want to feel this way. I feel this way too. But if we as individuals recognize that the system is going to screw us no matter who is elected, then if we vote it might as well be out of principle. Have you ever shared a fact or opinion or taught someone something, and later noticed that it changed their behavior in some small way? Someone on the internet might see Perot's (or more relevant, Gary Johnson's since it happened only a few years ago) vote count on Wikipedia and it could lead them down a rabbit hole that ultimately gets them motivated to take initiative in the local community. So yeah, I feel you, at the federal level it's hopeless. I think the real change will happen within families, friends, and local communities. Now, without looking him up, tell me one issue George Wallace ran on in 1968. I'll guess ending the Vietnam war... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] s20@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Based on the year, that was a good guess. But nope. It was pro segregation. Which brings me back to my point. If: My vote isn't going to help further discourse, and … Odds are good that even a popular 3rd party option isn't going to be remembered all that well, and… If nobody represents my ideas all that well anyway, then… what's my choice from a moral standpoint? You mentioned Gary Johnson. You couldn't have paid me to vote for him. The Green Party is closer to my value set, but their idiot said anti-vaxxers might have a point (among other takes, not least of which was a seemingly complete misunderstanding of how economics work), so that would have been a no-go too. And nobody was talking about ending the punative justice system, federal bans on cash bail, demilitarization of the police and radical law enforcement reform, legal protection for LGBTQIA+, ending first past the poll elections, massive education reform, or (outside of the Green party) anywhere near the investment we need in green tech and fighting global climate change. So I voted for the one that a.) had a chance of winning, b.) wasn't specifically speaking out against most of that stuff and was at least paying lip service to some, and c.) wasn't a cretinous rapist; she was just married to one. That was voting my conscience. The cretinous rapist won, but that's not on me. So when you say to vote on principal, okay. I'll do that. I will do my best to vote for people I agree with or, at least, against people who spout shit that makes me want to vomit. But that's what I was already doing. Edit: changed out a word for clarity and to reduce repetition. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BilboBallbins@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) If you feel like you vote consistent with your principles that's respectable. Since we can't do anything about the shitshow that is the federal government, other than voting I try not to stress out or think about it otherwise. It's a waste of the energy that we can direct to our local communities, which we can do something to improve. The libertarian party aligns closer to my values, but if the Green party candidate was the only other option I would pick them without hesitation. Regardless of what any politician says, they are self serving and will change their stance when it benefits them. If the green candidate sounded like an idiot with bad policies it wouldn't give her less credibility from the other idiots who wouldn't follow through on their policies anyway. So at least supporting third party candidates changes it from impossible for them to win to incredibly incredibly unlikely, but possible to influence others to open their mind to the idea of something other than the official media narrative. Somewhat unrelated: what are your issues with libertarian policy? Their general sentiment is consistent with many of the issues you listed. Regarding the green party, I am strongly pro conservation and against rampant consumerism and corporate greed, but I'm not confident that the government will solve the problems without making things worse and wasting tons of money in the process. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] s20@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago Somewhat unrelated: what are your issues with libertarian policy? I don't think it's at all unrelated. Their general sentiment is consistent with many of the issues you listed. It is. That's why I used to be a (literally) card carrying member. But at the end of the day, the party has too many places where we differ (gun control, health care, and education are three places where I just can't support the party's platform anymore, for instance). Also, it's got way too many creepy members calling for the abolishment of age of consent laws. I know it's just a vocal few, but it skeeves me. Regarding the green party, I am strongly pro conservation and against rampant consumerism and corporate greed, but I'm not confident that the government will solve the problems without making things worse and wasting tons of money in the process I'm not confident either, but the free market hasn't done a great job, and other countries have had a great deal of success with regulation. Heck, we've had success with regulation. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (42 replies) [–] Xbeam@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago (8 children) How are sports a scam? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] TORFdot0@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago Sports are a scam because it distracts people from discussing politics yet voting and democracy is a scam? Not a very compelling argument. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (7 replies) [–] stingpie@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (4 children) How is the concept of democracy a scam? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [+] an0nym0us@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (3 replies) [–] j891319@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) In the UK university is still wayyyy cheaper than US, but local students pay ~$10,000 a year max due to regulation, but international students have no protection and typically pay ~$30,000 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (13 replies)
[–] Whatsit_Tooya@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago (3 children) Was coming here specifically to say credit scores. Oh what’s that you paid off your student loans? Here have a big credit hit as a treat. Oh you’re using your credit? Here have a credit hit even tho you’ve never missed a payment. How dare you use the credit you have?? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] dingus@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children) Why would paying off your student loans give you a credit hit? Edit: lol who is downvoting this I legitimately didn't know the answer permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] yawn@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago Credit scores are in part based on the oldest line of available credit, which for most people are their student loans. Pay those off, your oldest line of credit becomes something more recent, and your score goes down as a result permalink fedilink source parent [–] Xtallll@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 2 years ago* Length of credit and credit utilization, you get points* for the length that each account has been open, so when you pay off your loan the account is closed and no longer counts. Also as you get to the end of the repayment it shows as a $30k account that you owe les than $10k on, you get points for using less than half or less than a third of the credit available to you. *You don't actually get points, that would be too easy to understand, you get factors that affect a complex equation in your favor. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Randomocity@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) It decreases your overall available credit permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] tko@tkohhh.social 6 points 2 years ago Loans are different from lines of credit... loans don't have an "available credit" associated with them. The reason your score might go down when you pay off student loan is because you're reducing the number of open accounts you have, and also possibly reducing the diversity of accounts (lines of credit vs. installment loans). Disclaimer: I'm not saying this is a good system, just explaining how it works. permalink fedilink source parent [+] balance_sheet@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] neshura@bookwormstory.social 2 points 2 years ago In Germany taking out a small loan even tho you don't need it can help massively boost your credit score. That only works because here no credit history is worse than a bad credit history. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) [–] tourist@community.destinovate.com 2 points 2 years ago Even better if you use Experian: give us access to all your spending data or else you'll never see a score increase again (source: been dealing with this for three years while Equifax continues to go up. I feel like they're doing something illegal, but they probably already were and nobody cares.) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] dingus@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children) Why would paying off your student loans give you a credit hit? Edit: lol who is downvoting this I legitimately didn't know the answer permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] yawn@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago Credit scores are in part based on the oldest line of available credit, which for most people are their student loans. Pay those off, your oldest line of credit becomes something more recent, and your score goes down as a result permalink fedilink source parent [–] Xtallll@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 2 years ago* Length of credit and credit utilization, you get points* for the length that each account has been open, so when you pay off your loan the account is closed and no longer counts. Also as you get to the end of the repayment it shows as a $30k account that you owe les than $10k on, you get points for using less than half or less than a third of the credit available to you. *You don't actually get points, that would be too easy to understand, you get factors that affect a complex equation in your favor. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Randomocity@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) It decreases your overall available credit permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] tko@tkohhh.social 6 points 2 years ago Loans are different from lines of credit... loans don't have an "available credit" associated with them. The reason your score might go down when you pay off student loan is because you're reducing the number of open accounts you have, and also possibly reducing the diversity of accounts (lines of credit vs. installment loans). Disclaimer: I'm not saying this is a good system, just explaining how it works. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] yawn@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago Credit scores are in part based on the oldest line of available credit, which for most people are their student loans. Pay those off, your oldest line of credit becomes something more recent, and your score goes down as a result permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Xtallll@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 2 years ago* Length of credit and credit utilization, you get points* for the length that each account has been open, so when you pay off your loan the account is closed and no longer counts. Also as you get to the end of the repayment it shows as a $30k account that you owe les than $10k on, you get points for using less than half or less than a third of the credit available to you. *You don't actually get points, that would be too easy to understand, you get factors that affect a complex equation in your favor. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Randomocity@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) It decreases your overall available credit permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] tko@tkohhh.social 6 points 2 years ago Loans are different from lines of credit... loans don't have an "available credit" associated with them. The reason your score might go down when you pay off student loan is because you're reducing the number of open accounts you have, and also possibly reducing the diversity of accounts (lines of credit vs. installment loans). Disclaimer: I'm not saying this is a good system, just explaining how it works. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] tko@tkohhh.social 6 points 2 years ago Loans are different from lines of credit... loans don't have an "available credit" associated with them. The reason your score might go down when you pay off student loan is because you're reducing the number of open accounts you have, and also possibly reducing the diversity of accounts (lines of credit vs. installment loans). Disclaimer: I'm not saying this is a good system, just explaining how it works. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] balance_sheet@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] neshura@bookwormstory.social 2 points 2 years ago In Germany taking out a small loan even tho you don't need it can help massively boost your credit score. That only works because here no credit history is worse than a bad credit history. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply)
[–] neshura@bookwormstory.social 2 points 2 years ago In Germany taking out a small loan even tho you don't need it can help massively boost your credit score. That only works because here no credit history is worse than a bad credit history. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] tourist@community.destinovate.com 2 points 2 years ago Even better if you use Experian: give us access to all your spending data or else you'll never see a score increase again (source: been dealing with this for three years while Equifax continues to go up. I feel like they're doing something illegal, but they probably already were and nobody cares.) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] s20@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 years ago (44 children) I agree with everything but voting. Not because we ever have great options, but because sometimes there are terrifyingly bad ones, and while option A might not be at all good, option B is so much worse. That's why it's called "the lesser of two evils." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 46 child comments replies: [+] an0nym0us@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] s20@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 years ago (13 children) You don't seem to know what "lesser of two evils" means. It doesn't mean "that guy's bad, so the less evil guy is good, actually, and totally deserves our support!" It means "no matter which one of these assholes wins, I'm fucked, but if I'm lucky the one guy will use lube." I can't do a damn thing about the two party system. That ship sailed before I was born, and nothing I do as an individual can change it. In fact, I can't see a solution short of possibly violent revolution. If that happens before I'm to old and feeble to help, great. Other wise, I'm fucked no matter who I pick, so I'm sure as shit going to pick the one who just wants to fuck me and not fuck me plus kill my trans neighbor. I'm sick and tired of being called stupid, gullible, or uninformed just because I can actually see how completely fucked we are. Your shit is great for people who still have hope. My shit is just trying to survive without the Gestapo coming for my neighbors. So come get me for the revolution. In the meantime, stop calling me stupid for being depressed and practical. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to copy and paste this in reply to some other lemming that thinks I'm a gullible moron instead. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago The two Party system will only go of you get rid of the "winner takes all" system. permalink fedilink source parent [–] cubedsteaks@lemmy.today 2 points 2 years ago no matter which one of these assholes wins, I’m fucked, but if I’m lucky the one guy will use lube this is some scary logic if you think about it. Imagine you are a person, who doesn't want to get fucked. Two guys are about to fuck you, even though you don't want it, and you get the option to choose which guys fucks you even though you don't want to get fucked? oh but the one guy is gonna use lube. To fuck you. The person who doesn't want to be fucked. that's insane. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (11 replies) [–] BilboBallbins@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child) If we want better options we can vote for third party candidates. I have no faith in the system, and a third party candidate will almost never win. But if enough people vote for them it gets them more recognition, which could eventually shift the narrative. Gary Johnson got over 3% of the vote in 2016, and Ross Perot got as high as 19% in the 90s. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] s20@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Okay. But if the people you vote for can only muster 3% of the vote, how does that help? I get it in local elections, up to and including State legislature, gubernatorial races, and maybe Congress if they can get a good campaign going. That all makes sense because even if they don't win they get enough attention to attract local media and push discussion among others. But Senators? The President? Ross Perot was an extreme outlier. The last time a 3rd party presidential candidate got more than 50 electoral votes was 1912 when Teddy Roosevelt ran as a Progressive. In the last century, the highest total electoral votes for a 3rd part went to George Wallace in 1968 running as an American Independent. He got 46 out of 538. Rounding up, that's 9%. Now, without looking him up, tell me one issue George Wallace ran on in 1968. So I'm asking: how does it help. If it helps, I'll try. But from where I'm sitting, it's all hopeless. I don't want to feel this way. So please, for the love of sanity, convince me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BilboBallbins@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child) But from where I’m sitting, it’s all hopeless. I don’t want to feel this way. I feel this way too. But if we as individuals recognize that the system is going to screw us no matter who is elected, then if we vote it might as well be out of principle. Have you ever shared a fact or opinion or taught someone something, and later noticed that it changed their behavior in some small way? Someone on the internet might see Perot's (or more relevant, Gary Johnson's since it happened only a few years ago) vote count on Wikipedia and it could lead them down a rabbit hole that ultimately gets them motivated to take initiative in the local community. So yeah, I feel you, at the federal level it's hopeless. I think the real change will happen within families, friends, and local communities. Now, without looking him up, tell me one issue George Wallace ran on in 1968. I'll guess ending the Vietnam war... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] s20@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Based on the year, that was a good guess. But nope. It was pro segregation. Which brings me back to my point. If: My vote isn't going to help further discourse, and … Odds are good that even a popular 3rd party option isn't going to be remembered all that well, and… If nobody represents my ideas all that well anyway, then… what's my choice from a moral standpoint? You mentioned Gary Johnson. You couldn't have paid me to vote for him. The Green Party is closer to my value set, but their idiot said anti-vaxxers might have a point (among other takes, not least of which was a seemingly complete misunderstanding of how economics work), so that would have been a no-go too. And nobody was talking about ending the punative justice system, federal bans on cash bail, demilitarization of the police and radical law enforcement reform, legal protection for LGBTQIA+, ending first past the poll elections, massive education reform, or (outside of the Green party) anywhere near the investment we need in green tech and fighting global climate change. So I voted for the one that a.) had a chance of winning, b.) wasn't specifically speaking out against most of that stuff and was at least paying lip service to some, and c.) wasn't a cretinous rapist; she was just married to one. That was voting my conscience. The cretinous rapist won, but that's not on me. So when you say to vote on principal, okay. I'll do that. I will do my best to vote for people I agree with or, at least, against people who spout shit that makes me want to vomit. But that's what I was already doing. Edit: changed out a word for clarity and to reduce repetition. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BilboBallbins@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) If you feel like you vote consistent with your principles that's respectable. Since we can't do anything about the shitshow that is the federal government, other than voting I try not to stress out or think about it otherwise. It's a waste of the energy that we can direct to our local communities, which we can do something to improve. The libertarian party aligns closer to my values, but if the Green party candidate was the only other option I would pick them without hesitation. Regardless of what any politician says, they are self serving and will change their stance when it benefits them. If the green candidate sounded like an idiot with bad policies it wouldn't give her less credibility from the other idiots who wouldn't follow through on their policies anyway. So at least supporting third party candidates changes it from impossible for them to win to incredibly incredibly unlikely, but possible to influence others to open their mind to the idea of something other than the official media narrative. Somewhat unrelated: what are your issues with libertarian policy? Their general sentiment is consistent with many of the issues you listed. Regarding the green party, I am strongly pro conservation and against rampant consumerism and corporate greed, but I'm not confident that the government will solve the problems without making things worse and wasting tons of money in the process. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] s20@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago Somewhat unrelated: what are your issues with libertarian policy? I don't think it's at all unrelated. Their general sentiment is consistent with many of the issues you listed. It is. That's why I used to be a (literally) card carrying member. But at the end of the day, the party has too many places where we differ (gun control, health care, and education are three places where I just can't support the party's platform anymore, for instance). Also, it's got way too many creepy members calling for the abolishment of age of consent laws. I know it's just a vocal few, but it skeeves me. Regarding the green party, I am strongly pro conservation and against rampant consumerism and corporate greed, but I'm not confident that the government will solve the problems without making things worse and wasting tons of money in the process I'm not confident either, but the free market hasn't done a great job, and other countries have had a great deal of success with regulation. Heck, we've had success with regulation. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (42 replies)
[+] an0nym0us@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] s20@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 years ago (13 children) You don't seem to know what "lesser of two evils" means. It doesn't mean "that guy's bad, so the less evil guy is good, actually, and totally deserves our support!" It means "no matter which one of these assholes wins, I'm fucked, but if I'm lucky the one guy will use lube." I can't do a damn thing about the two party system. That ship sailed before I was born, and nothing I do as an individual can change it. In fact, I can't see a solution short of possibly violent revolution. If that happens before I'm to old and feeble to help, great. Other wise, I'm fucked no matter who I pick, so I'm sure as shit going to pick the one who just wants to fuck me and not fuck me plus kill my trans neighbor. I'm sick and tired of being called stupid, gullible, or uninformed just because I can actually see how completely fucked we are. Your shit is great for people who still have hope. My shit is just trying to survive without the Gestapo coming for my neighbors. So come get me for the revolution. In the meantime, stop calling me stupid for being depressed and practical. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to copy and paste this in reply to some other lemming that thinks I'm a gullible moron instead. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago The two Party system will only go of you get rid of the "winner takes all" system. permalink fedilink source parent [–] cubedsteaks@lemmy.today 2 points 2 years ago no matter which one of these assholes wins, I’m fucked, but if I’m lucky the one guy will use lube this is some scary logic if you think about it. Imagine you are a person, who doesn't want to get fucked. Two guys are about to fuck you, even though you don't want it, and you get the option to choose which guys fucks you even though you don't want to get fucked? oh but the one guy is gonna use lube. To fuck you. The person who doesn't want to be fucked. that's insane. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (11 replies)
[–] s20@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 years ago (13 children) You don't seem to know what "lesser of two evils" means. It doesn't mean "that guy's bad, so the less evil guy is good, actually, and totally deserves our support!" It means "no matter which one of these assholes wins, I'm fucked, but if I'm lucky the one guy will use lube." I can't do a damn thing about the two party system. That ship sailed before I was born, and nothing I do as an individual can change it. In fact, I can't see a solution short of possibly violent revolution. If that happens before I'm to old and feeble to help, great. Other wise, I'm fucked no matter who I pick, so I'm sure as shit going to pick the one who just wants to fuck me and not fuck me plus kill my trans neighbor. I'm sick and tired of being called stupid, gullible, or uninformed just because I can actually see how completely fucked we are. Your shit is great for people who still have hope. My shit is just trying to survive without the Gestapo coming for my neighbors. So come get me for the revolution. In the meantime, stop calling me stupid for being depressed and practical. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to copy and paste this in reply to some other lemming that thinks I'm a gullible moron instead. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago The two Party system will only go of you get rid of the "winner takes all" system. permalink fedilink source parent [–] cubedsteaks@lemmy.today 2 points 2 years ago no matter which one of these assholes wins, I’m fucked, but if I’m lucky the one guy will use lube this is some scary logic if you think about it. Imagine you are a person, who doesn't want to get fucked. Two guys are about to fuck you, even though you don't want it, and you get the option to choose which guys fucks you even though you don't want to get fucked? oh but the one guy is gonna use lube. To fuck you. The person who doesn't want to be fucked. that's insane. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (11 replies)
[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago The two Party system will only go of you get rid of the "winner takes all" system. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] cubedsteaks@lemmy.today 2 points 2 years ago no matter which one of these assholes wins, I’m fucked, but if I’m lucky the one guy will use lube this is some scary logic if you think about it. Imagine you are a person, who doesn't want to get fucked. Two guys are about to fuck you, even though you don't want it, and you get the option to choose which guys fucks you even though you don't want to get fucked? oh but the one guy is gonna use lube. To fuck you. The person who doesn't want to be fucked. that's insane. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BilboBallbins@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child) If we want better options we can vote for third party candidates. I have no faith in the system, and a third party candidate will almost never win. But if enough people vote for them it gets them more recognition, which could eventually shift the narrative. Gary Johnson got over 3% of the vote in 2016, and Ross Perot got as high as 19% in the 90s. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] s20@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Okay. But if the people you vote for can only muster 3% of the vote, how does that help? I get it in local elections, up to and including State legislature, gubernatorial races, and maybe Congress if they can get a good campaign going. That all makes sense because even if they don't win they get enough attention to attract local media and push discussion among others. But Senators? The President? Ross Perot was an extreme outlier. The last time a 3rd party presidential candidate got more than 50 electoral votes was 1912 when Teddy Roosevelt ran as a Progressive. In the last century, the highest total electoral votes for a 3rd part went to George Wallace in 1968 running as an American Independent. He got 46 out of 538. Rounding up, that's 9%. Now, without looking him up, tell me one issue George Wallace ran on in 1968. So I'm asking: how does it help. If it helps, I'll try. But from where I'm sitting, it's all hopeless. I don't want to feel this way. So please, for the love of sanity, convince me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BilboBallbins@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child) But from where I’m sitting, it’s all hopeless. I don’t want to feel this way. I feel this way too. But if we as individuals recognize that the system is going to screw us no matter who is elected, then if we vote it might as well be out of principle. Have you ever shared a fact or opinion or taught someone something, and later noticed that it changed their behavior in some small way? Someone on the internet might see Perot's (or more relevant, Gary Johnson's since it happened only a few years ago) vote count on Wikipedia and it could lead them down a rabbit hole that ultimately gets them motivated to take initiative in the local community. So yeah, I feel you, at the federal level it's hopeless. I think the real change will happen within families, friends, and local communities. Now, without looking him up, tell me one issue George Wallace ran on in 1968. I'll guess ending the Vietnam war... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] s20@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Based on the year, that was a good guess. But nope. It was pro segregation. Which brings me back to my point. If: My vote isn't going to help further discourse, and … Odds are good that even a popular 3rd party option isn't going to be remembered all that well, and… If nobody represents my ideas all that well anyway, then… what's my choice from a moral standpoint? You mentioned Gary Johnson. You couldn't have paid me to vote for him. The Green Party is closer to my value set, but their idiot said anti-vaxxers might have a point (among other takes, not least of which was a seemingly complete misunderstanding of how economics work), so that would have been a no-go too. And nobody was talking about ending the punative justice system, federal bans on cash bail, demilitarization of the police and radical law enforcement reform, legal protection for LGBTQIA+, ending first past the poll elections, massive education reform, or (outside of the Green party) anywhere near the investment we need in green tech and fighting global climate change. So I voted for the one that a.) had a chance of winning, b.) wasn't specifically speaking out against most of that stuff and was at least paying lip service to some, and c.) wasn't a cretinous rapist; she was just married to one. That was voting my conscience. The cretinous rapist won, but that's not on me. So when you say to vote on principal, okay. I'll do that. I will do my best to vote for people I agree with or, at least, against people who spout shit that makes me want to vomit. But that's what I was already doing. Edit: changed out a word for clarity and to reduce repetition. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BilboBallbins@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) If you feel like you vote consistent with your principles that's respectable. Since we can't do anything about the shitshow that is the federal government, other than voting I try not to stress out or think about it otherwise. It's a waste of the energy that we can direct to our local communities, which we can do something to improve. The libertarian party aligns closer to my values, but if the Green party candidate was the only other option I would pick them without hesitation. Regardless of what any politician says, they are self serving and will change their stance when it benefits them. If the green candidate sounded like an idiot with bad policies it wouldn't give her less credibility from the other idiots who wouldn't follow through on their policies anyway. So at least supporting third party candidates changes it from impossible for them to win to incredibly incredibly unlikely, but possible to influence others to open their mind to the idea of something other than the official media narrative. Somewhat unrelated: what are your issues with libertarian policy? Their general sentiment is consistent with many of the issues you listed. Regarding the green party, I am strongly pro conservation and against rampant consumerism and corporate greed, but I'm not confident that the government will solve the problems without making things worse and wasting tons of money in the process. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] s20@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago Somewhat unrelated: what are your issues with libertarian policy? I don't think it's at all unrelated. Their general sentiment is consistent with many of the issues you listed. It is. That's why I used to be a (literally) card carrying member. But at the end of the day, the party has too many places where we differ (gun control, health care, and education are three places where I just can't support the party's platform anymore, for instance). Also, it's got way too many creepy members calling for the abolishment of age of consent laws. I know it's just a vocal few, but it skeeves me. Regarding the green party, I am strongly pro conservation and against rampant consumerism and corporate greed, but I'm not confident that the government will solve the problems without making things worse and wasting tons of money in the process I'm not confident either, but the free market hasn't done a great job, and other countries have had a great deal of success with regulation. Heck, we've had success with regulation. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] s20@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Okay. But if the people you vote for can only muster 3% of the vote, how does that help? I get it in local elections, up to and including State legislature, gubernatorial races, and maybe Congress if they can get a good campaign going. That all makes sense because even if they don't win they get enough attention to attract local media and push discussion among others. But Senators? The President? Ross Perot was an extreme outlier. The last time a 3rd party presidential candidate got more than 50 electoral votes was 1912 when Teddy Roosevelt ran as a Progressive. In the last century, the highest total electoral votes for a 3rd part went to George Wallace in 1968 running as an American Independent. He got 46 out of 538. Rounding up, that's 9%. Now, without looking him up, tell me one issue George Wallace ran on in 1968. So I'm asking: how does it help. If it helps, I'll try. But from where I'm sitting, it's all hopeless. I don't want to feel this way. So please, for the love of sanity, convince me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BilboBallbins@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child) But from where I’m sitting, it’s all hopeless. I don’t want to feel this way. I feel this way too. But if we as individuals recognize that the system is going to screw us no matter who is elected, then if we vote it might as well be out of principle. Have you ever shared a fact or opinion or taught someone something, and later noticed that it changed their behavior in some small way? Someone on the internet might see Perot's (or more relevant, Gary Johnson's since it happened only a few years ago) vote count on Wikipedia and it could lead them down a rabbit hole that ultimately gets them motivated to take initiative in the local community. So yeah, I feel you, at the federal level it's hopeless. I think the real change will happen within families, friends, and local communities. Now, without looking him up, tell me one issue George Wallace ran on in 1968. I'll guess ending the Vietnam war... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] s20@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Based on the year, that was a good guess. But nope. It was pro segregation. Which brings me back to my point. If: My vote isn't going to help further discourse, and … Odds are good that even a popular 3rd party option isn't going to be remembered all that well, and… If nobody represents my ideas all that well anyway, then… what's my choice from a moral standpoint? You mentioned Gary Johnson. You couldn't have paid me to vote for him. The Green Party is closer to my value set, but their idiot said anti-vaxxers might have a point (among other takes, not least of which was a seemingly complete misunderstanding of how economics work), so that would have been a no-go too. And nobody was talking about ending the punative justice system, federal bans on cash bail, demilitarization of the police and radical law enforcement reform, legal protection for LGBTQIA+, ending first past the poll elections, massive education reform, or (outside of the Green party) anywhere near the investment we need in green tech and fighting global climate change. So I voted for the one that a.) had a chance of winning, b.) wasn't specifically speaking out against most of that stuff and was at least paying lip service to some, and c.) wasn't a cretinous rapist; she was just married to one. That was voting my conscience. The cretinous rapist won, but that's not on me. So when you say to vote on principal, okay. I'll do that. I will do my best to vote for people I agree with or, at least, against people who spout shit that makes me want to vomit. But that's what I was already doing. Edit: changed out a word for clarity and to reduce repetition. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BilboBallbins@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) If you feel like you vote consistent with your principles that's respectable. Since we can't do anything about the shitshow that is the federal government, other than voting I try not to stress out or think about it otherwise. It's a waste of the energy that we can direct to our local communities, which we can do something to improve. The libertarian party aligns closer to my values, but if the Green party candidate was the only other option I would pick them without hesitation. Regardless of what any politician says, they are self serving and will change their stance when it benefits them. If the green candidate sounded like an idiot with bad policies it wouldn't give her less credibility from the other idiots who wouldn't follow through on their policies anyway. So at least supporting third party candidates changes it from impossible for them to win to incredibly incredibly unlikely, but possible to influence others to open their mind to the idea of something other than the official media narrative. Somewhat unrelated: what are your issues with libertarian policy? Their general sentiment is consistent with many of the issues you listed. Regarding the green party, I am strongly pro conservation and against rampant consumerism and corporate greed, but I'm not confident that the government will solve the problems without making things worse and wasting tons of money in the process. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] s20@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago Somewhat unrelated: what are your issues with libertarian policy? I don't think it's at all unrelated. Their general sentiment is consistent with many of the issues you listed. It is. That's why I used to be a (literally) card carrying member. But at the end of the day, the party has too many places where we differ (gun control, health care, and education are three places where I just can't support the party's platform anymore, for instance). Also, it's got way too many creepy members calling for the abolishment of age of consent laws. I know it's just a vocal few, but it skeeves me. Regarding the green party, I am strongly pro conservation and against rampant consumerism and corporate greed, but I'm not confident that the government will solve the problems without making things worse and wasting tons of money in the process I'm not confident either, but the free market hasn't done a great job, and other countries have had a great deal of success with regulation. Heck, we've had success with regulation. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BilboBallbins@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child) But from where I’m sitting, it’s all hopeless. I don’t want to feel this way. I feel this way too. But if we as individuals recognize that the system is going to screw us no matter who is elected, then if we vote it might as well be out of principle. Have you ever shared a fact or opinion or taught someone something, and later noticed that it changed their behavior in some small way? Someone on the internet might see Perot's (or more relevant, Gary Johnson's since it happened only a few years ago) vote count on Wikipedia and it could lead them down a rabbit hole that ultimately gets them motivated to take initiative in the local community. So yeah, I feel you, at the federal level it's hopeless. I think the real change will happen within families, friends, and local communities. Now, without looking him up, tell me one issue George Wallace ran on in 1968. I'll guess ending the Vietnam war... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] s20@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Based on the year, that was a good guess. But nope. It was pro segregation. Which brings me back to my point. If: My vote isn't going to help further discourse, and … Odds are good that even a popular 3rd party option isn't going to be remembered all that well, and… If nobody represents my ideas all that well anyway, then… what's my choice from a moral standpoint? You mentioned Gary Johnson. You couldn't have paid me to vote for him. The Green Party is closer to my value set, but their idiot said anti-vaxxers might have a point (among other takes, not least of which was a seemingly complete misunderstanding of how economics work), so that would have been a no-go too. And nobody was talking about ending the punative justice system, federal bans on cash bail, demilitarization of the police and radical law enforcement reform, legal protection for LGBTQIA+, ending first past the poll elections, massive education reform, or (outside of the Green party) anywhere near the investment we need in green tech and fighting global climate change. So I voted for the one that a.) had a chance of winning, b.) wasn't specifically speaking out against most of that stuff and was at least paying lip service to some, and c.) wasn't a cretinous rapist; she was just married to one. That was voting my conscience. The cretinous rapist won, but that's not on me. So when you say to vote on principal, okay. I'll do that. I will do my best to vote for people I agree with or, at least, against people who spout shit that makes me want to vomit. But that's what I was already doing. Edit: changed out a word for clarity and to reduce repetition. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BilboBallbins@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) If you feel like you vote consistent with your principles that's respectable. Since we can't do anything about the shitshow that is the federal government, other than voting I try not to stress out or think about it otherwise. It's a waste of the energy that we can direct to our local communities, which we can do something to improve. The libertarian party aligns closer to my values, but if the Green party candidate was the only other option I would pick them without hesitation. Regardless of what any politician says, they are self serving and will change their stance when it benefits them. If the green candidate sounded like an idiot with bad policies it wouldn't give her less credibility from the other idiots who wouldn't follow through on their policies anyway. So at least supporting third party candidates changes it from impossible for them to win to incredibly incredibly unlikely, but possible to influence others to open their mind to the idea of something other than the official media narrative. Somewhat unrelated: what are your issues with libertarian policy? Their general sentiment is consistent with many of the issues you listed. Regarding the green party, I am strongly pro conservation and against rampant consumerism and corporate greed, but I'm not confident that the government will solve the problems without making things worse and wasting tons of money in the process. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] s20@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago Somewhat unrelated: what are your issues with libertarian policy? I don't think it's at all unrelated. Their general sentiment is consistent with many of the issues you listed. It is. That's why I used to be a (literally) card carrying member. But at the end of the day, the party has too many places where we differ (gun control, health care, and education are three places where I just can't support the party's platform anymore, for instance). Also, it's got way too many creepy members calling for the abolishment of age of consent laws. I know it's just a vocal few, but it skeeves me. Regarding the green party, I am strongly pro conservation and against rampant consumerism and corporate greed, but I'm not confident that the government will solve the problems without making things worse and wasting tons of money in the process I'm not confident either, but the free market hasn't done a great job, and other countries have had a great deal of success with regulation. Heck, we've had success with regulation. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] s20@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Based on the year, that was a good guess. But nope. It was pro segregation. Which brings me back to my point. If: My vote isn't going to help further discourse, and … Odds are good that even a popular 3rd party option isn't going to be remembered all that well, and… If nobody represents my ideas all that well anyway, then… what's my choice from a moral standpoint? You mentioned Gary Johnson. You couldn't have paid me to vote for him. The Green Party is closer to my value set, but their idiot said anti-vaxxers might have a point (among other takes, not least of which was a seemingly complete misunderstanding of how economics work), so that would have been a no-go too. And nobody was talking about ending the punative justice system, federal bans on cash bail, demilitarization of the police and radical law enforcement reform, legal protection for LGBTQIA+, ending first past the poll elections, massive education reform, or (outside of the Green party) anywhere near the investment we need in green tech and fighting global climate change. So I voted for the one that a.) had a chance of winning, b.) wasn't specifically speaking out against most of that stuff and was at least paying lip service to some, and c.) wasn't a cretinous rapist; she was just married to one. That was voting my conscience. The cretinous rapist won, but that's not on me. So when you say to vote on principal, okay. I'll do that. I will do my best to vote for people I agree with or, at least, against people who spout shit that makes me want to vomit. But that's what I was already doing. Edit: changed out a word for clarity and to reduce repetition. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BilboBallbins@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) If you feel like you vote consistent with your principles that's respectable. Since we can't do anything about the shitshow that is the federal government, other than voting I try not to stress out or think about it otherwise. It's a waste of the energy that we can direct to our local communities, which we can do something to improve. The libertarian party aligns closer to my values, but if the Green party candidate was the only other option I would pick them without hesitation. Regardless of what any politician says, they are self serving and will change their stance when it benefits them. If the green candidate sounded like an idiot with bad policies it wouldn't give her less credibility from the other idiots who wouldn't follow through on their policies anyway. So at least supporting third party candidates changes it from impossible for them to win to incredibly incredibly unlikely, but possible to influence others to open their mind to the idea of something other than the official media narrative. Somewhat unrelated: what are your issues with libertarian policy? Their general sentiment is consistent with many of the issues you listed. Regarding the green party, I am strongly pro conservation and against rampant consumerism and corporate greed, but I'm not confident that the government will solve the problems without making things worse and wasting tons of money in the process. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] s20@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago Somewhat unrelated: what are your issues with libertarian policy? I don't think it's at all unrelated. Their general sentiment is consistent with many of the issues you listed. It is. That's why I used to be a (literally) card carrying member. But at the end of the day, the party has too many places where we differ (gun control, health care, and education are three places where I just can't support the party's platform anymore, for instance). Also, it's got way too many creepy members calling for the abolishment of age of consent laws. I know it's just a vocal few, but it skeeves me. Regarding the green party, I am strongly pro conservation and against rampant consumerism and corporate greed, but I'm not confident that the government will solve the problems without making things worse and wasting tons of money in the process I'm not confident either, but the free market hasn't done a great job, and other countries have had a great deal of success with regulation. Heck, we've had success with regulation. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BilboBallbins@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) If you feel like you vote consistent with your principles that's respectable. Since we can't do anything about the shitshow that is the federal government, other than voting I try not to stress out or think about it otherwise. It's a waste of the energy that we can direct to our local communities, which we can do something to improve. The libertarian party aligns closer to my values, but if the Green party candidate was the only other option I would pick them without hesitation. Regardless of what any politician says, they are self serving and will change their stance when it benefits them. If the green candidate sounded like an idiot with bad policies it wouldn't give her less credibility from the other idiots who wouldn't follow through on their policies anyway. So at least supporting third party candidates changes it from impossible for them to win to incredibly incredibly unlikely, but possible to influence others to open their mind to the idea of something other than the official media narrative. Somewhat unrelated: what are your issues with libertarian policy? Their general sentiment is consistent with many of the issues you listed. Regarding the green party, I am strongly pro conservation and against rampant consumerism and corporate greed, but I'm not confident that the government will solve the problems without making things worse and wasting tons of money in the process. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] s20@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago Somewhat unrelated: what are your issues with libertarian policy? I don't think it's at all unrelated. Their general sentiment is consistent with many of the issues you listed. It is. That's why I used to be a (literally) card carrying member. But at the end of the day, the party has too many places where we differ (gun control, health care, and education are three places where I just can't support the party's platform anymore, for instance). Also, it's got way too many creepy members calling for the abolishment of age of consent laws. I know it's just a vocal few, but it skeeves me. Regarding the green party, I am strongly pro conservation and against rampant consumerism and corporate greed, but I'm not confident that the government will solve the problems without making things worse and wasting tons of money in the process I'm not confident either, but the free market hasn't done a great job, and other countries have had a great deal of success with regulation. Heck, we've had success with regulation. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] s20@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago Somewhat unrelated: what are your issues with libertarian policy? I don't think it's at all unrelated. Their general sentiment is consistent with many of the issues you listed. It is. That's why I used to be a (literally) card carrying member. But at the end of the day, the party has too many places where we differ (gun control, health care, and education are three places where I just can't support the party's platform anymore, for instance). Also, it's got way too many creepy members calling for the abolishment of age of consent laws. I know it's just a vocal few, but it skeeves me. Regarding the green party, I am strongly pro conservation and against rampant consumerism and corporate greed, but I'm not confident that the government will solve the problems without making things worse and wasting tons of money in the process I'm not confident either, but the free market hasn't done a great job, and other countries have had a great deal of success with regulation. Heck, we've had success with regulation. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Xbeam@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago (8 children) How are sports a scam? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] TORFdot0@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago Sports are a scam because it distracts people from discussing politics yet voting and democracy is a scam? Not a very compelling argument. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (7 replies)
[–] TORFdot0@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago Sports are a scam because it distracts people from discussing politics yet voting and democracy is a scam? Not a very compelling argument. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] stingpie@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (4 children) How is the concept of democracy a scam? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [+] an0nym0us@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (3 replies)
[–] j891319@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) In the UK university is still wayyyy cheaper than US, but local students pay ~$10,000 a year max due to regulation, but international students have no protection and typically pay ~$30,000 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)