I think you are confusing showmanship with the ability to run a country in the state they come to the position and how much they can do from that point on.

Yes, showmanship is ever more relevant in winning elections, if not has been the most relevant thing even before. So it makes sense to put forward a good entertainer to win an election.

What you are wrong about is that most of the time, show people are just goddamn big liars and completely incompetent fools at ruling anything. It is fitting, tho, since all they do in their primary skill is to make people forget about problems by making them pay for a brief period of entertainment, nothing more.

Biden is an old bastard with a foot in the grave. He shouldn’t be out there running a country, but the current alternative is Trump that just plays to the audience and has no experience or aptitude for directing.

Yes, Biden should not have been running for president, and a balanced mix of showman and leader should have been out there instead, but who is that or who was that? A no-name in the political sense can’t be considered a showman, and we saw what other options could the left procure without stooping to Trump levels. They were not enough of a showman at all. So, why not go with the decently-competent decision maker instead of an unfunny showman?

The blame for not producing a balanced showman and a decision maker falls on two groups: One is the political organization of the Democrats, the other is their voter base. The political organization is corrupt to an extent no matter what you do about it. People with power careers form pacts within pacts. A full education reform is needed for quite some generations to get rid of tribalism and corruption. The voter base is irresponsible. They have lots of other responsibilities and pursuits in life, but a core decision about these falls on taking on the political responsibility, maybe more than other decisions directly affecting the daily lives at this period of the world’s history. Voters should not isolate themselves from being a talking part of candidate production of the political organisation, even if they don’t actively take part in the local representation. Even just been keen about which names are being talked about in the political organization would give the voters years ahead of an election, and those years would decide if a candidate candidate is popular or not liked within the political organization. Voter dislike for a candidate months before the election, and when the campaign process has already started, will hardly make an impact on even bringing the topic to a discussion of a change of candidate, let aside producing a better one.

On the contrary to asking for a change in candidate for a better one just months before an election is a complete show disunity, and such a lack of show of unity in voter base is even more damaging than a lack of show of showmanship in a candidate.

Not the per mille. Your symbol was “c / o” or “c / 0”

Preemptive strikes exist. Law does not need to apply after the fact if the law is allowed preventive measures.

And arguing about if one should take such a preventive strike, yes they should since the perp has already declared threatening intentions to cause immediate harm.

Latter, hottest option, full load.

Thanks for the elaboration. It’s always good to know if anyone with any kind of power to do something can explain how they interpret the basic rulesets and what the vague things like common sense or suspicion means to them in a context.

I think I see now. Thanks for the explanation.

Do mean something like ground setting, prior-discussion-terminating stances taken through provable-or-refutable-almost-solely-through-statistics without providing such statistics, or do you also mean a use of particular lingo?

I don’t have any questions for the second part.

I’m not getting what you mean. I’m not a D&D player and know just basic stuff about rolls. Would a confirmation roll here mean an outside manipulation of what would have come to pass?

I generally permaban them if they say anything suss

Please elaborate on this. Everyone has an opinion on what constitutes a suspicious action, and also defining tankies on case-by-case basis.

This would be just the right point since it is especially after publicly claiming use of moderation actions on users.

Nah, one side is just tankies and the other is just capitalist dogs. Mental gymnastics for denying stuff vs mental gymnastics for normalizing stuff. Best we can do with our minds, no place left for critical thinking.

Satan as in disgruntled, restricted without being explained about reasons, Paradise Lost or Melkor in Tolkien’s works kind is pretty much righteous in rebelling. Methods used during the said rebelling is questionable, thom

Busta!

2 fat guy pictures, but with quite the averagely-tended faces and a somewhat digital touch-up. 1 outright regular, maybe overweight person with semitic beard. 1 absolutely fabulous gentleman with furry undertones.

Not even closely ugly. Just some quantifiable stuff imo.

Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent on creating enemies seeking justice against the U.S.

A lot of your past and present politicians should have been sent to prison for this.

SPACE!

Consciousness is a weird thing: It will get stung by a lot of stuff, and rightfully so, but will rarely suggest taking planned action that would have more chance of success, but will rather suggest immediately resigning from taking part in something so as not to take responsibility for it. When all options are bad enough to sting it, it does not help.

Hahah same old Freedom x weed jokes but this one made me chuckle :D

Look, I’m going to criticize you for your well-intended but impractical behaviour, mainly because of the immediacy of the high-risk problem rather than considering your point of view as a futile long-term proposal, but know that taking time to bother with criticizing you by forming new sentences and paragraphs is because there is value in arguing with you for a bit rather than simply forgetting about you like we do with the nutcases supporting Trump. Anyway, here comes my main points:

1. With the time left before the elections, your previously understandable efforts to promote and establish a 3rd party to become a major contender has failed. All I’ve seen on discussion platforms like many politics communities in Lemmy or R*eddit have failed to plant the name of a single 3rd party in people’s memory, and I’m reaching to this conclusion by the lack of specific naming of the 3rd parties in these discussions, which should a good indicator of visibility of those parties.

2. İımproving the adoption of a 3rd party in such a long-standing battle between 2 parties is a long and difficult effort. Toiling against the difficulty for a better alternative is commendable and a good thing, but if your long and hard toil is in risk of being to to the trash bin by the Republicans in the next election, you make sure your other neighbor the Democrats keep the dictatorial Republicans at bay while you keep toiling to get closer to fruition, even if you don’t like the Democrats either in the first place.

3. 3rd parties don’t have time to gain any impactful ground within the time left. Even if all of them increase their votes and chairs and have more than 50% of the votes in the decision making with all 3rd parties combined, your government structure enables firmly-united minority groups to pass or fail decisions when the majority is undecided and disunited, which can easily be said on most matters about competing 3rd parties. A united 30% can beat a disunited and illusioned combination of a 5+5+5+10+15+5+10=55% if 2-3 of these decide to not act together with the rest on a decision.

4. While it can be a risk of authoritarianism to put any party far ahead of another, it is much less with one that mostly acts in the favor of its citizens than it is with one that openly advocates for indefinite hold of power through all-but-unnamed authoritarian actions. You can still think and put forward the evidence of Democrat wrongdoings and most of the leftist people will agree with you, but when you advocate for a divided fight against the threat of Trump or claim a less known party that can even be rivaled by another less known party in terms of current chance winning the elections, you can be considered inexperienced at best and a division instigator at worst, both very understandable because both are very plausible in politics.

5. Similar to 1, I am considering that most of you who keep suggesting 3rd parties don’t even know about what those parties advocate for, did and/or do, who they are funded by, who they are talking with, who they are cooperating with and who they are opposed to, the whole scheme I mean. Again, reaching to this from lack of presenting information in these regards about these parties. All I hear from those advocate 3rd party votes is just that they don’t have Biden or Trump, nothing else. “We are not our competitors” is what the Dems or Republicans supporters also say, but they say it as one point among many other points they make.

I’m not claiming any knowledge to support or debunk your knowledge or internet-fu of the U.S. parties, I am just a citizen of Turkey who has just surface knowledge of some U.S. political parties but also someone who went through the same “vote for a 3rd party, vote for another candidate in the leftist party” in the last few months before the election last year. It is a worse lack of show of governing power than Biden dozing, gazing off and stammering. Do you know what it is? It is an openly declared invitation to the bickering but prey-focused wolf pack by showing you’d rather eat the grass over there instead of here or mate with this uncooperative herd animal instead of that uncooperative herd animal.

Go toil for the Green party, go toil for another party. Take part in local promotion of these parties, help spread knowledge about them. But instead of eyeing for popularity by aiming to double your votes from 1% to 2% this election, do it on one where the wolves are starved and separated after consecutive and heavy shepherd dog victories. That is when you are safe to build lasting support for whatever you stand for.

Basically trivia to make noise, nothing else. Advertisement is advertisement, even if the game is probably like 10 years away at this point.

I’m thinking this comes from the consideration of taking imagery at the root of people’s brains when they hear Linux. Reiterating elements of the Windows or Mac UI over the decades, even if they had small visual changes, enable a significantly large population of the world to imagine the desktop even just while mentioned in a passing. Anyone that doesn’t use either of these OSes at least can have a basic imagery popping up about it due to constant advertising of the desktop via direct ads, support pages, tech websites using generic desktop images, screen shares, etc.

Linux is wild west in this regard. Everyone knows how Windows or MacOS looks like thanks to their abundant copies of descriptive bounty posters, but only other Linux users are familiar with other Linux desktops and that is usually as the names of fellow bounty hunters.