Not the seat. The rim. The seat doesn’t create a seal.

It’s the structure of our “first past the post” system. Basically, each party gets one representative on the presidential ticket. The two major parties have primaries where the top candidates compete in a vote within themselves, and the winner gets put on the presidential ticket for that party.

The obvious problem with that is that the party convention picks the candidate, not the voters. So it’s possible to buy a party’s candidate or for the conventions to snub popular choice in favor of not shaking things up too much in the status quo.

The latter point, the democratic party picking lukewarm candidates that are moderate at best because the establishment doesn’t want to disturb the status quo, has been a problem for a long time and is a major reason democrat voters don’t go to the polls.

Not for the corporations that make money off of extorting a basic necessity from poor people! Won’t someone think of the corporations?

Or Woefully ignorant. I know some of those

As a fellow Louisianian, I’m here for it too. But I have strong doubts about it going anywhere.

Infrastructure expansion like trains

We’ll see. Congress doesn’t like the president spending money without their explicit approval. At this stage of planning, it’s little more than grandstanding by the president.

investing in education

See above. Congress undid Biden’s first attempt at debt relief. It’s still unclear if the second attempt will pan out. Cool if it does though. Still an if.

healthcare plans

The ACA really only pays out for people far enough below the poverty line that they basically don’t have income. My wife and I make $50k/year. Not even enough to own a house here. I still shell out $600/month for basic healthcare for two, with a $1000 deductible we each have to pay before the insurance even starts covering costs. And that’s considered a good plan. Deductibles can legally be as high as $10,000 per person before insurance starts paying anything.

The ACA isn’t exactly a shining achievement for democrats.

environmental programs

I’ll give you that one. My state is building and opening the largest carbon capture facility in the world so far, because of democratic policy.

etc

Etcetera is what people say when they run out of examples. By my count you’ve got 1 (one) example of good that democrats have done that has actually materialized and isn’t in jeopardy of failing as soon as someone actually has to approve the funding. Most democratic policies die in congress.

But of course you already know of all these so why do you need to ask the question?

No need to be an asshole, I’m just here demonstrating for you that the broad strokes you’re painting are not even close to the actual situation.

(I’m not even from USA myself, but your Republicans have such deranged policies that it spills over to us in impacts on trade, etc)

I’m with you on this one. Republicans are deranged in general. But it’s abundantly clear that you do not live here. Democrats had 3 years to do something constructive, and they mostly haven’t even managed to undo the damage Trump has done, let alone enact policies that benefit the majority of Americans.

In fact, democrats lost a major civil rights battle during their tenure (Roe v Wade) without even putting up a fight. I absolutely cannot blame democrat voters for being disappointed.

Bro, you dodged his question. He answered yours.

So how about instead of brushing him off with an insult, you actually pony up some good things you think democrats are doing that doesn’t just boil down to “well republicans would have done it worse”

Frankly, I’m on the side of voting democrats with the exact reasoning that Republicans will steer us into fascism. But I wouldn’t go so far as to say that they’re doing good, they just aren’t doing as much bad.

I can’t blame people who are disappointed with democrats as a whole, and I think it’s a reach to unironically take your position of voting for them because you think they have good policies.

My argument was that you can’t claim the moral high ground based on legality alone. I understand that nuance exists in the context, but moral high ground does not come from whether or not it’s legal.

I see what you’re getting at, but I think ‘moral high ground’ might not be the phrase you’re looking for.

Laws and morals are explicitly different. That’s why juries exist, so that a law may be put against the morals of a situation and the morals may prevail if need be.

Breaking the law isn’t necessarily immoral. It’s just illegal. So it isn’t like someone breaking the law is seeking to take the moral high ground in the first place, nor does that mean that someone who only ever follows the law always has the moral high ground. Lawful-evil does exist.

You are a god among men

This is the natural progression of the games-as-a-service model. Any game that relies on online support of some kind just to function will eventually cease like this.

Is it stupid that a vr game about a pet relies on online support to function? Absolutely. But it is what it is. Buy more offline games.

Maybe that’s the point. Unity caves immediately to the big lawyers and says “Sorry guys, we tried. Looks like all you little studios will have to pay up after all. Blame Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft”

I bought my oneplus 10 pro for sub $500 during a sale, and it has usb3.1. It’s last year’s model. You can get a pixel 6 with usb3.1 for less than $400. A Galaxy S21 has usb3.2, less than $500.

That’s almost every major android brand for $500 or less with 3.1 or better. The cheapest you can buy an iPhone 15, the one with usb2.0, is $800. What are you on about?

And soon, the carrier pigeon breeders will start tagging them with tracking chips…

Easy to say if you have several thousand burning a hole in your pocket.

Modus operandi for apple, too. “Get one because everybody has one” is one of the biggest marketing tools they push to sell their tech.

I’m not disagreeing with you. But the trade off is price. When you pay $2.5k more for a phone/tablet/laptop/desktop/watch/tv/speaker setup than you would for all of those things individually with industry standard features, they freakin better work together seamlessly.

Well designed and beautiful are two very subjective words for a discussion about objective differences.

I think that iphones are bland and kind of ugly for their caliber of technology. My last phone was the sage-back pixel 5 and I absolutely loved the design of that thing. The thing is, looks alone don’t constitute superiority.

I’m on the same page as you. It should be noted, however, that the kind of exclusivity you find repulsive actually works as a selling point for apple. It’s like, “Buy an iPhone! All your friends have them and you want to be able to talk to them right?” Peer pressure is a hell of a drug

I’m personally so tired of defending android to iPhone users. At the end of the day, it’s personal preference. IPhone is a walled-garden, curated and closed system that has features that are more uniform and well developed across the whole brand. Android has custom options for a huge variety of things that iPhone can’t match simply due to the nature of android’s open system. Android also tends to have significantly cheaper modern options, but iPhone tends to get OS and security updates much longer.

They both have huge market shares and neither can fill the other’s niche well enough to bump the other out. It’s not a competition, it’s just preference. Is it really such a big deal to point out that teens prefer one over the other? Once the next generation comes to an age of owning phones, we might just find that they find iphones lame and old and swap back to android. That’s kind of how generations tend to work.