you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 157 points 3 months ago* (70 children)

Sociopath. Even if you hate the guy, if you’re a public figure like trump, the least you can do is muster a bit of empathy.

But he can’t, because he can’t even fathom the concept of empathy. It’s completely foreign to him.

Electing sociopaths is how you get war and genocide, as we’ve known for millennia. And we’ve given a total sociopath the levers of genocide, both abroad and at home.

  • source
  • hideshow 70 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 3 months ago (19 children)

    Not that I think he had much in the way of empathy prior to this, but he lacks a filter of any kind which is a symptom I had to repeatedly apologize for when my grandfather's dementia got worse.

    The dude has full on dementia, no one is doing anything and he will continue to degrade both himself and the reputation of anything associated with him as this keeps going.

    Funnily enough, dipshit donny might be the best publically perceivable evidence of the need for reform we will ever get.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 3 months ago (14 children)

    Reforms that are needed:

    1. Compulsory voting for all citizens
    2. Ranked choice voting system
    3. Age limits for politicians

    I'm sure there are more, but this is just off the top of my head.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago* (9 children)

    What if A gets 26% of the vote, B gets 25%, C gets 24%, D gets 15%, and E gets 10%?

    The standard method of ranked choice voting: E gets eliminated as they have the least, everyone who voted for them goes to their next ranked choice. Repeat until one person has over 50%.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    Please forgive any ignorance on my part, but would it be required that we'd know what the 2nd (and 3rd and 4th and so on) preferences of those who voted for E in the first choice?

    Yes. Please look up "How ranked choice voting works" instead of asking randos on social media to explain it to you. The information is readily available.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (3 children)

    wp:Ranked voting

    (my bold)

    Ranked voting is any voting system that uses voters' rankings of candidates to choose a single winner or multiple winners. More formally, a ranked vote system depends only on voters' order of preference of the candidates.

    Ranked voting systems vary dramatically in how preferences are tabulated and counted. This gives them different properties with respect to satisfying various voting groups and adherence to mathematical rules.

    ...

    Some ranked vote systems do not use ranking to transfer votes but instead use ranks as weights. These systems are called positional voting. In the Borda method, the least-favored candidates on each ballot receive fewer points; the most-favored receive more points. The points on each ballot for each candidate are added together, and the candidate with the most points is elected.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)

    Glad you were able to find the answers on your own for the potential options.

    Seeing as Lemmy is not in charge of implementing it I didn't see the point of having Randos argue over which specific version of ranked choice voting to use, as I'm sure we can all agree that any version is better than what is currently being used.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    Please be more specific in the type ranked choice voting system you’d favor.

    any version is better than what is currently being used

    also

    I didn’t see the point of having Randos argue over which specific version of ranked choice voting to use

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)

    Here's a brief explanation of how preferential voting works in Australia: https://www.chickennation.com/voting/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Thank you. 🙂

    ​

    1st count

    Bamboot got 39.

    Floundra got 35.

    Aggy-Waggy got 20.

    Gort got 6.

    But why did Bamboot get 4 of Gort's votes while Aggy-Waggy got only 1, even though the latter got over half the number of the former?

    Shouldn't it be 3+2+1 instead of 4+1+1?

    ​

    and why in the 3rd count did Floundra get 16 of Aggy-Waggy votes, while Bamboot got only 5 or less than 1/3rd?

    ​

    Presumably in a run-off, it would be Bamboot versus Floundra;

    while in proportional representation, the Complete Scumbag Party, Discreet Scumbag Party, the [Gort Butterson Party], and the Nice Party, in a parliament of 100 might get 39, 35, 6, and 20 seats respectively, with probably the Nice Party being in a coalition.

    Even if it was 1/2 PR and 1/2 FPP, each system electing 100 candidates (hence a parliament of 200), and in the FPP vote, the Complete Scumbag Party won 51 of the FFP seats, the Discreet Scumbad Party won 38 seats (i.e. less than 75% of the former's number of seats, or conversely the former got over less than 35% the latter's number of seats), the Nice Party won only 8 (2/5ths of what they won in the PR count) seats, and Gort won 3 seats it would still be:

    name PR FPP %
    Complete Scumbag Party 39 51 45
    Discreet Scumbag Party 35 38 36.5
    [Gort Butterson Party] 6 3 4.5
    Nice Party 20 8 14

    We could have 3 possible coalitions:

    Complete Scumbag Party & Discreet Scumbag Party most powerful but least probable
    Complete Scumbag Party & Nice Party most probable
    Discreet Scumbag Party & Gort Butterson Party & Nice Party possible, but probably most unstable
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago*

    But why did Bamboot get 4 of Gort's votes while Aggy-Waggy got only 1, even though the latter got over half the number of the former?

    Because Bamboot isn't getting Gort's votes. Now that Gort is eliminated, all of the voters that voted Gort #1 now have their #2 vote counted as if it's their #1 vote.

    • 4 people that voted Gort #1 voted Bamboot #2.
    • 1 person that voted Gort #1 voted Floundra #2.
    • 1 person that voted Gort #1 voted Aggy-Waggy #2.

    This keeps happening down the choices until someone has a majority. People that voted Floundra #1 don't end up having their #2 vote counted because their candidate wasn't eliminated in the end. This is why it's not possible to throw your vote away have your vote taken away - if your favourite candidate is eliminated, your vote goes to your second favourite, then your third favourite, etc until someone has the majority.

    Not sure what it looks like in the US, but Australian ballot slips have all the candidates and you number them 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Plenty of countries have laws that fine or otherwise punish people that do not vote, afaik this doesn't tend to lead to better functioning democracies. I think this is a thing where the carrot works better than the stick.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago*

    Automatic voter registration based on citizenship. Boom, solves a big percentage of the problem.

    You’d be shocked how much a bit of minor paperwork stops a large percentage of people from doing the bare minimum.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    I'd like to believe but do you really see a future where old (white) dudes in power will vote in favor of a reform where old dudes arent allowed to be in power because they are "supposedly" unfit for it?

    Yeah that wont be happening any time soon in my opinion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    They could vote for the legislation, maybe push for an amendment, that doesn't kick in for about 10 years.

    e.g. starting 1 January 2036, no person can be a member of Congress who has been in office for 10 or more years, consecutively or non-consecutively. This does not apply to any person who was a Congressperson at the time that this amendment was ratified; and years served before 1 January 2030 will not count.

    and/or,

    e.g. notwithstanding the aforementioned, starting 1 January 2060, no person can be a member of Congress who has been a member of Congress for 10 or more years, consecutively or non-consecutively.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    "they'll only vote for policies that benefit the country if it doesn't affect them" tells you everything about the people currently in power.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    Respect and derision are not the only choices.

    e: for example, failure to even acknowledge is a deeper social slight, and one that stays through time, not something cheap and transient. But that requires a bit of sophistication.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago* (15 children)

    No. Basic respect for the life of your fellow human is intrinsic. Nobody should have to earn the right to live, jackass.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago* (11 children)

    People that are able to say stuff like this are exactly why we have the situation we're having. If you can turn off your empathy for the "bad guys", all it takes is just misidentifying the "bad guys" once, either by mistake or on purpose or by being manipulated.

    Even serial killers or mass murders deserve some basic respect. You got to deal with them appropriately so they can't be a threat anymore, but once that's done, the respect should be the same as for anyone else.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (9 children)

    Did you grieve when Charles Manson or Jeffery Epstein died?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (8 children)

    No, why? I do not grieve for most of people's deaths.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (7 children)

    So your basic respect for them doesn't necessitate your grieving their deaths?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    You think the black men that got sent to prison because of his crime bill have any empathy about his cancer?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 19 points 3 months ago (19 children)

    Despite his many crimes, I am nearly sure Joe Biden has done more to deserve respect than you ever will.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 3 months ago (6 children)

    "If Biden deserves so much respect, then why am I still an asshole?"
    - Assholes

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Being a Democrat in name only, does not make you a decent person whatsoever.

    Mr hair sniffer, stall on Ukraine, drill in the arcticson, is not a good person.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (7 children)

    Genocide is the mother of all crimes. Financing it nullify all the good thing you did. He also supported balkanizing Iraq.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago* (4 children)

    You didn't brought trump raping kids in the comment I reply to. You don't seem like a good faith user. Israel rape children with usa diplomatic cover. Trump is also complicit with genocide so yeah i hope both trump and biden suffer

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Anyone that has an ounce of respect for him based on what he has done throughout his life and the harm he has caused on untold millions of people deserves no respect either.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago* (2 children)

    It's not about respect for his actions, of course they're terrible, it's about respect for a human being suffering. There is no real point to wish suffering on anyone, other's suffering never helped anything except satisfy one's vengeful fantasies/sadism. If someone is hurting others, you make them stop hurting others, but you still give them basic human respect, i.e. don't make them suffer needlessly etc

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • load more comments (5 replies)