He seems to have the enthusiasm for current and past communist governments that I thought characterized tankies? From https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/10/hasan-piker-podcast-democrat/688956/

On his Twitch stream he has said: “I love Lenin. I love Fidel Castro. And I love Che Guevara. They are genuinely fucking heroes.” ... He has dismissed Mao’s campaign of mass terror as mere mistakes.

In one especially revealing episode, he attacked a refugee from Vietnam. Piker’s stream typically includes snippets of videos that he and his audience watch together, interspersed with his own commentary. As the video showed the refugee saying “We have endured suffering under the Communist regime,” he threw back his head in disbelief and began to rant: “Okay, fuck you, dude. I mean seriously, fuck you, old lady. Shut the fuck up, you stupid fucking idiotic old lady with your stupid fucking gamer headest. Who has fucked you harder, America or fuckin’ Ho Chi Mi.

Pocketbook issues are not what I see passion around on progressive-leaning lemmy. I see landlord hate (regardless of rent cost, or with magical thinking that if the hated people suffer then poof rent will go down), enthusiasm for trans people playing all sports at all levels (and if anyone has legit questions about related science they are worse than nazis), cop hate (no reform ideas, just burn them down), advocacy for violence against billionaires and CEOs (again, no reform ideas to prevent new people from doing the same evil things, and regardless if any specific act of violence would benefit anyone's quality of life), etc.

If progressive agendas are about pocketbook issues, the majority of lemmy enthusiastics are terrible ambassadors for it.

The listeners should have a right to know whose message they are hearing. It's a civil issue - I think any laws should have fines and required communication fixes, not any criminal charges or jail time - but allowing fake grass roots movements that are actually collaborations between billionaires and grifters is harmful to civil society.

That the highly competent woman is the first to be blamed, and not the highly and prominently incompetent Hegseth, is telling. Also a minor consolation to them having power for so much longer that they will have less skill supporting their agenda.

Wiles is the latest in a series of prominent female administration officials to leave or be fired ‒ including Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, Press Secretary Katie Zacharia, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Attorney General Pam Bondi and Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer.

The fluff sticking out of the wing where presumably it was just preening is a great detail. Kind looks like a foot is picked up to help the twisting to reach, too (I know their head swivels impressively, but guessing the leaning down to preen might be more comfortable with a leg lifted.)

I had heard that a majority of jobs are acquired through networking. Being open about your network seems healthier than hiding it. Especially if it's a case of choosing one qualified candidate from a pool of qualified candidates and not hiring a bad fit just for nepotism's sake, but even then seems better to tell people yourself and not let it be exclusively gossip behind your back.

It has repeated with often horrific results across many cultures. European with hunts, Mao's Cultural Revolution, Khmer Rouge (Cambodian genocide), etc. Seems to be a bug in the human source code.

The low-residue diet (to avoid poop stops) takes a lot of planning. I have zero desire to do that myself, but am kinda glad people I know who did that were open about what was involved. Seemed more like a public service announcement than a flex.

The campaigns get donations. Some donations are money, and other donations are time. Seems fine to me.

Presidents not labeled here, but you can look those up separately to figure out what you want: https://history.house.gov/Institution/Majority-Changes/Majority-Changes/

I have no interest in making third parties viable. I see the governance failures of parliamentary systems that fail to form majority governments and spend all their energy fighting each other instead of improving the lives of their citizens, and I don't want that here.

What I hope for from RCV are 1)making the major parties more representative, by providing high-quality information on what single-issue parties are appealing to voters. Currently parties do polling and focus groups, but these are by nature small samples that can be misleading, and a full-voter sample would be hugely valuable in guiding party strategy in the way voters want. And 2)reduce negativity in campaigns, and hopefully bleeding over into less negativity in governance. The whole campaign ecosystem is intensely negative because it works for winning FPTP. Creating a structural incentive to have some positivity - making second choices count - has the potential to encourage bipartisan work (who wants to co-sponsor a bill with someone who media blitzed horrendous lies about you and your family?) and ultimately make government work better for the people.