No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
Normally in Democracy the majority or popular vote wins, however due to the electoral college America has, it doesnt necessarily mean the majority voted for the winner. This was the case for Bush, and some other moments in the past.
But Trump won the popular vote this time
FYI: it looks like Trump is going to win the popular vote on this one as well.
How in the fuck.
Like what drives a majority of Americans to vote for a demented toddler. It's insane.
As a kid I always wondered how on Earth did Hitler ever make anyone follow himself, how did those people not realise. Turns out a majority of people are just fucking morons.
Yep and the slow gutting of the education system isn't making it any better.
You have an entire generation coming of voting age who are rabid Trump supporters. They don't care about policies or democracy or public institutions. They don't care about healthcare, social securities, or the stability of the economy.
They don't care about any of the things that have been built up through generations. They lack critical thinking ability.
The recipe works. If you make dumb kids they will vote for dumb people. It works so well that part of the future plan for a trump presidency is to get rid of the department of education. Solidifying the Republican party indefinitely.
Without critical thinking and with mass media it's so easy to say every problem that people deal with is because the "other side" made it so. Even if the other side has been doing everything possible to achieve the opposite.
Americans aren't special. They're just as vulnerable to fascism as anybody else.
The MAGATs might as well be wearing brownshirts and saluting like Mussolini.
Blaming young people is up their with blaming immigrants and "gays" ect for [insert topic]. I would be very surprised if this was the case.
I think it's a little more nuanced.
They don't blame young people. They blame lack of education.
You sure about that?
It goes on.
Anecodtally (at this point, this is all these discussions are), I think that Apathy, fear campaigns or outright money and campaigns ect become powerful levers where voting is non-mandatory.
Hate.
Well they're making plenty more of that to go around
I used to think Ukrainian politicians were fucking clowns. I guess we got outclowned.
For all practical purposes, about 30% of people are unfeeling morons - basically psychopaths. That’s the number that consistently opposes abortion, for instance. Add to that all the dumbasses who don’t know any better (the undecideds on any extremely obvious moral issue), et voila. That’s how you get slavery, nationalism, genocide, theocracy, you name it.
Unless people are willing to screen for psychopathy and remove it from the gene pool, the human species will keep fucking around until it finds out. Might be nuclear apocalypse or environmental collapse, but at this rate it’s inevitable.
Can we please not start arguing in favor of eugenics?
“Oh no, we wouldn’t want the psychopaths with the broken brains not to exist. That’s eugenics.”
You’re all fucking idiots.
Americans voted in Reagan twice. They also elected Bush twice. This is not surprising.
There are many leftists and minorities that have "voted strategically" time and time and time again only for things to get worse and worse.
This kind of disenfranchisement leads to apathy and low turnout.
We are told from a young age that our vote matters, and then when we are older we are told you can only vote for red fascist or blue fascist and many choose not to participate.
There are more who did not vote than who voted for Trump. This is not what the majority wants, but with the system as it is, it is not possible for the majority to voice what they actually genuinely want and have a chance to get it.
The votes do not have to be rigged at the ballot box for voting as a whole system to be rigged.
The rise of the NSDAP has been studied quite a bit. Also, the psychological aspects are really interesting. Basically normal people can make all of this possible as long as the conditions are just right.
It's the low turn out. Too many of us are nonparticipants
Non mandatory voting wouldnt help, being that its more susceptible to eroding a merit process from campaigns of fear or otherwise.
American politics isnt about choosing the best candidate its about choosing the one u hate least. The dems spent too much time playing identity politics that they forgot to play actuall politics.
And Harris has done worse than Biden in every county in America.
Not every state. Every county.
Perhaps these two factors contributed to this:
While I'm sure the statement "some Americans just don't want a female president" is true, I think the vast majority of them were going to vote Republican basically no matter what.
To paraphrase the conversation that took place on the left:
"The DNC isn't doing well among young straight white men and it's getting worse. Barack Obama polled at 66% favorable among that demographic in 2008, and that number has fallen every election until now Harris is polling in the low 40s. There's a lot of them, and we're losing them." A hot mic caught Kamala herself saying exactly that. "We're losing men."
Responds the feminists, "Look at the pathetic men throwing a fit because they're not fully in charge. Something something privilege something something patriarchy. Be better." I'll note this didn't come from Kamala's campaign, it came from the faceless rabble. The people who said "Yeah no we should probably also talk about issues that are important to men" got shouted down. So white men see that as "The people who vote for this candidate hate me no matter what, and yet they demand my vote no matter what."
Kamala started this race as Biden's running mate, then Biden showed up in "mummified during the 6th dynasty of the Old Kingdom" condition at that first debate. No time for a primary, Biden's out and Kamala's in. Now she needs a running mate. They put out an APB for a white guy preferably from the south but the midwest will do. There was some brief discussion of North Carolina governor Roy Cooper, well-liked lame duck democrat from a former confederate state, ticks all those boxes. But we landed on Tim Walz. As far as I can tell he was a genuinely solid choice; I'd never heard of him before he was announced as a short runner for Harris' running mate. Every headline I read about the guy was some new and exciting way he was a saint. Almost suspiciously so. He's still the only one on the campaign trail who I'd lend a lawnmower to.
Problem #1: We heard the APB as it went out. Here's my turn to get shouted down: This works on women, muslims, and a significant number of black men, because those demographics have an automatic in-group dynamic. You see posts talking about "My boyfriend was talking to me at the gym and a woman I've never met before comes up to pretend to be my friend. I see u gurl." So both Hilary and Kamala had the white chick vote sewn up just for existing while female. Obama, to a slightly lesser extent, had a similar effect among black men. That doesn't work on white guys, or at least, the white guys that does work on are very reliable Republican voters.
But, credit where credit is due, Walz seems like a solid guy. If they hadn't announced out loud they picked him to identity pander I wouldn't have noticed.
Problem #2: The next time I saw Walz, he was on a commercial cosplaying as a straight white man. "Governor Walz here in a camouflage hat with a dog. Watch me perform a minor repair on an antique SUV." They ran ads that literally said "I bet you're tired of hearing how much white guys suck. I mean, some of them do..." That same ad says "They're really talkin' to guys like us." No they weren't.
They ran ads talking about "I'm a REAL MAN and I'm MAN enough to vote for a WOMAN."
I didn't see Tim Walz talking about "The boys who played on my football team are struggling to afford homes. They're choosing not to get married or have children because for an increasing number of young men it's just not in the cards." No I heard a doughy guy dressed like a cowboy say "I eat carburetors for breakfast."
Among a male loneliness epidemic they ran an ad that said "Women will withhold sex unless you vote for Harris."
Obama polled well among young men because he engaged with them in their spaces. At the time, Facebook and Twitter were where the young people hung out, and he showed up there to talk to us, which was a welcome change from George W. "An internet" Bush. Obama campaigned on messages of hope and progress. I don't recall Kamala herself really doing much actual reach-out, and her campaign messaging was either lazy attempts at pandering or naked feminist grievance airing. "We need you to show up and vote for us for the second decade in a row even though we've done nothing at all to measurably improve your lives in that time, when we had the power to do so we pissed it down your leg, and we're okay saying out loud that we thoroughly hate you" has proven to be a losing campaign message.
Turns out there are more straight white men than feminists and queers in the United States voter pool. Hilary proved it and Kamala proved it, pandering exclusively to the former while demanding the support of the former will lose an election to worn out diaper hitler.
Fair points. Biden won enough men in 2020 though. Maybe Kamala was just seen as too leftist or too focused on women's issues or something... I'm not saying she was those things, but maybe some people saw her that way.
If you look back at her primary in 2020, she was.
Hard to wash that off with some last minute recanting, like with fracking and other such campaign claims.
Her hand was tipped as to her ideal term in office 4 years ago, I'm surprised Trump didn't use that shit in attack ads given how much more stereotypically progressive she was then.
Personally I called it in when a clip of hers saying "we've got to get woke" (not sure about the wording but the word woke was used positively) from some talk show aimed at black people from this year came out.
You need to live in a parallel dimension to think that word is not absolutely fucking nuclear waste in the political discourse rn.
I guess ideally Biden should never have run for a second term, and they could have had proper primaries.
It's actually incredible how they tried to copy Hilary Clinton's campaign tactics of endorsements and warnings about Trump.
That didn't work last time. Why would it work now?
True. Maybe Harris should have focused more on working class endorsements, union endorsements, etc. I dunno.
Or just talk about her policies: https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/50802-harris-vs-trump-on-the-issues-whose-policies-do-voters-prefer
Fair. Maybe voters cared about personalities though. And they thought Kamala was partly responsible for rising prices under Biden's term, so maybe they weren't as bothered by other policy areas.
And I was so loving Lina Khan's FTC, ~~asking~~ among other things...
Edit: autocorrect
Whether it's 48 or 52 % is an immaterial difference. Every other American who voted, voted for Trump. The rest don't seem to care either way. He has very broad popular assent and is as popular as Harris give or take a margin of error.
Everyone is lasered-focused on the EC because it makes all the difference for the practicalities, but if one is to make a broad judgement of whether Trump won fair and square the answer is "yeah, mostly". Further proof is the fact that the House is probably going to be his as well.
Americans now bear the collective responsibility for the horrors of the next 4(+?) years. Do not make the mistake of blaming the popular will of outright fascism on institutional failures, because institutions didn't force half of Americans to vote for the fascist, again.
I'll wait 72 hours before settling with it, in case any shenanigans were involved. I expect it's legitimate, but I want that window open if it's needed.
Trump is winning the popular vote by a pretty decent margin. The electoral college isn't the issue here.
They haven't finished counting that's why. Rural areas are faster to count and skew conservative.
A republican hasn't won the popular vote in 20 years. Trump is projected to win but like last time he'll lose the popular vote and win by virtue of the electoral college.
All the projections I'm seeing him show him almost certainly winning the popular vote. There's a gap of 6 million votes and almost every state is over 90% reported in. That gap is going to likely shrink a bit, but unfortunately it almost certainly won't be enough for him to even lose the popular vote.
Lets face it, we're (assuming you're american) apparently just a country of facists. It looks like GOP is going to have majority in both houses too so here comes project 2025 I guess.
Sorry bud, not a yank. You have my sympathies though.
If it turns out that he does indeed win the popular vote then yeah I'm sorry for your loss. A nest of at least 50% fascists or fascist enablers.
Heart aches for those that did their civic duty and yet have to suffer the repercussions :(
It looks like turnout is way down compared to last election. Trump is pulling about the same amount he did last time ( maybe a few million down, but there are still results to get). Harris is currently down 15M from where Biden was.
Trump's support is no larger than it was last time. Harris' supporters just didn't show up
Anyone who didn't show up is not a Harris supporter.
Wasn’t he ahead in 2016 around this time, but then once all was said and done he was a few mil behind?
I believe the states responsible for those silly outcomes have since passed laws to prevent it happening again.
Could be wrong, but I listened to a podcast last week with an American professor who's pretty much written the book, explaining the history of the Electoral College and how it really works. I'm sure he said those states since fixed those loopholes.
Either way, the damage is done today. Another four years of stupidity in charge.
This is not correct. The electoral college is exactly as susceptible to giving the win to the person with fewer votes as it was in 2000 and 2016. It's also not an issue that's due to any state in particular and is not an issue that can be solved by individual state action. The NPVIC would fix it but requires the cooperation of many states and is not in effect, and has stalled pretty hard in recent years.
Nah - it's at least partly correct.
Faithless electors have never once affected the outcome of a US election.
Seriously - the whole thing is such a befuddling mess to us non-Americans.
How exactly can one win the popular vote but not the actual election? From the outside, the reporting I've seen always talks about the faithless elector problem (not in those words - just in describing the problems). Is it more to do with how many votes (electors) each state gets, based on population size?
That's it, yes - each state gets as many electoral votes as it has congressmen, including senators. Most states award all of their electoral votes to whoever wins the state, with no proportionality to it at all - only two states (Nebraska and Maine, neither one large) do anything proportional with their votes.
With a system like that it's easier to see how things can end up with the less popular candidate winning - they can, for example, sneak by with 50.1% of the vote in just enough states to win, but bomb it out with 20% of the vote in all the other states. That's an extreme example specifically for the purpose of illustration, but less extreme versions of that are usually what happens.
The electoral votes also aren't distributed entirely fairly - the number of electoral votes per person tends to be larger for less populated states. The less populated states also tend to be Republican states. So in a very real sense, each person's vote counts for "more" in those states, and "less" in states with high populations. I don't believe it's really possible to fix this problem without vastly increasing the number of electoral votes, but congress currently has its size capped at 535 members for what I consider not very good reasons.
Yes, the whole system is trash from the ground up. But much of its structure is defined in the constitution itself, which is very difficult to change.
You think laws matter to the privileged?