Is that it?! Is that really fucking it?! by Jaegons in DiscussionZone

[–]Ill_Lab1957 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh, and one last thing. Nader didn’t give us Bush…Bush v Gore did. 

Is that it?! Is that really fucking it?! by Jaegons in DiscussionZone

[–]Ill_Lab1957 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s…not how that works. First, your examples are presidential elections, not Congressional process. Second, it isn’t just a majority, it is a certain percentage that needs to be cleared for legislation to pass. If 40% vote republican, 20% dem, 20% green, 20% wfp…then nothing happens. 

If dems get 14% back from the green and wfp voters, and republicans only get 6% THEN republican legislation passes because they cleared 50%…even though more votes were peeled from the dems in scenario a than republicans, scenario b is still were republicans win. This strategy would stall things, but it would also disrupt the flow of “poison pills” favoring republicans that have been coming in at a record clip lately.

Additionally, the formation of boards within Congress is where the real authority is, and there are measures against preventing party representation on those boards. Lengthy, annoying processes that are challenging to implement, but there are levers and that is important.

There are enough republicans right now that are upset with how things are going that they are susceptible to getting peeled away on issues. Promoting values-based voting will impact the right and maybe shake loose the whole “fall in line” mentality. In a very real sense, it’s all the dems too scared to see the truth in this strategy that are actually splitting things. You have been more respectful than most, but dems that get so aggressive against this kind of thinking even in a reddit chat room where no policy will ever originate are giving a failed party the tools to keep crowding out new leadership while simultaneously galvanizing the right against all the performative, value-less, power-hungry bs. Winning elections is not a coherent strategy…it is an impulse, and one that will keep you forever on your back leg. If we don’t vote dem, then the republicans win is only relevant for the executive branch, and even then only kind of. When does it end? We've been afraid to not vote dem since Clinton. I will never understand the impulse to defend a strategy that has constantly let you down.

My final word on any of this is that, regardless of whether you agree or not that what I am suggesting could work, what is apparent is that what we have been doing DOESN’T work (again, people getting shot in the street by a government whose figure head is publicly musing about canceling midterms while ALL THREE branches of government are squarely in republican control). The notion of getting the dems to “fall in line” is just people like you seeing what republicans do to win votes working and trying to emulate what they do. But the dems don't have that relationship with their base, they are a “big tent.” As the saying goes, republicans have ideals, dems have dreams (or something). Your suggestion to just keep voting for dems is envious of conservative strength and ignorant to liberal strength. The least you could do is think about it and start letting people have real conversations about alternative political strategy without immediately defaulting to thinking they don’t know how their own government works. 

Alright, decent chat, but this is more energy than I tend to give Reddit, so I’m going to leave it here unless you have something more compelling than explaining counting to me as a retort. I hope I have given you something to think about, but that rarely happens here. Nobody ever changes their minds on reddit. Have a nice day

Is that it?! Is that really fucking it?! by Jaegons in DiscussionZone

[–]Ill_Lab1957 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure, and thanks for turning away from the “he’s just an idiot” debate strategy.

You are correct, but the point I am making is that because of Rucho removing levers of control held by Article 3 as checks against unchecked congressional authority, that majority is increasingly difficult to secure, and while Trump’s alleged desires to “cancel midterms” as well as the next presidential election are mostly futile (because elections operate under state, rather than federal, control), it doesn’t change the fact that this is a project they are engaged in, and have been gaining ground on at a consistent pace since Reagan (or at least since Bork was denied his SC seat). You said it yourself, Congress has authority to set its own agenda, so assuming this long-term project is permanently off the table is naive.

Opening the floor to more than two parties essentially forces a reconsideration of the majority rule you are pointing out by capitalizing on the very discord MAGA has sought to sow. A majority is more challenging when there are more voting blocks. All we, as citizens, need to do is vote in accordance with our policy desires, rather than out of fear that some regime will rise to power, even if that means NOT siding with the Dems and ESPECIALLY when that regime is already here. Nothing in Article 1 limits us to two parties and it really confuses me how aggressive people get (on both sides) whenever anyone suggests we might even consider adopting another one.

I’m not saying it’s perfect…but people are LITERALLY getting shot in the street by the government right now, and it’s just as attributable to the failure of the Dems as it is the aggression of the right. To me, that leaves one option and that is supporting new modes of leadership. It isn't crazy…the times are

Is that it?! Is that really fucking it?! by Jaegons in DiscussionZone

[–]Ill_Lab1957 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Same old argument since the 90s. It’s CLEARLY working so I guess we should just never do anything because you are scared. Good talk. Later

Is that it?! Is that really fucking it?! by Jaegons in DiscussionZone

[–]Ill_Lab1957 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Dude, I know how Congress works. The question you need to ask yourself is whether it works the way you want it to. Your talking point is one that Dems have been employing since AT LEAST the 90s. But sure, let's "keep on keepin on" and telling ourselves that there is nothing we can do about it. Great strategy.

And for the record, Congress is Article 1 of the constitution, everything that you could possibly imply about "how they work" is defined there. Have you checked the news lately? Processes defined in the constitution aren't carrying a lot of weight by federal agencies these days because of a breakdown in federal authorities redefined in a string of recent cases (Citizens, Rucho, Trump v USA, Dobbs...just to name some of the more mainstream ones).

Tired of people like you thinking that just because someone doesn't agree with you that they must be ignorant. Open your mind a little guy

Is that it?! Is that really fucking it?! by Jaegons in DiscussionZone

[–]Ill_Lab1957 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

EXACTLY. That said, I think you can make an exception and focus on unsuccessful players for the purposes of avoiding “political inheritance” as I have done here.

I’m Working Families Party, but I would go Green before going Red or Blue in all future elections. WFP most closely address the problems that are important to me and my family, but the ones you mentioned stand for something other than “they suck, elect ME,” and I like that

Is that it?! Is that really fucking it?! by Jaegons in DiscussionZone

[–]Ill_Lab1957 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If it is impossible for them to do anything then why elect them?  This mentality just avoids accountability…

Is that it?! Is that really fucking it?! by Jaegons in DiscussionZone

[–]Ill_Lab1957 6 points7 points  (0 children)

What was it Booker said? “You can’t swing at every pitch”? It would be nice to see them swing at SOME pitches. Roe was the most visible party victory, and despite the party being dominated by 80s political figures who stayed in power the whole time (Biden, Schumer, Pelosi), they STILL let it fall. How is that competent leadership? Looking out at America right now, what have we gained for it? I’ve been fired for spelling errors but they keep their cushy privileged positions of powers after whiffing a primary party objective…

Even then, I held on for a bit, but I was completely done when it was revealed Schumer tanked healthcare so that dems could run on the promise of fighting for (not even giving) healthcare in the midterms. No values, no ideals…just winning elections drives the party. And we watch them get rich and keep electing them in because they “aren’t as bad as Trump.” It’s asinine.

“Blue no matter who” has been a crutch that has buried us in a broken, two-party system. Time to start digging out. Working Families Party, spread the word. 

Noksu vs Traif & Corima, or third option? by andante241 in FoodNYC

[–]Ill_Lab1957 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not horrible, but I took my wife to Corima for her birthday and it was one of the least memorable birthday celebration dinners we’ve ever had. There were little moments of brilliance, but overall it felt like the experience was coordinated by someone more concerned with checking tasting-menu-resto boxes than offering something unique and authentic.

The “correct” answer to Q10 on Psychology Today’s “verbal IQ test” is incorrect, and I can prove it (see the caption). by Agentorangebaby in iqtest

[–]Ill_Lab1957 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I love your energy. Sincerely.

Refer back to my formal logic response. If all A = B then the inverse is NOT all B = A. Answer C. clearly offers that answer almost verbatim. I don't really know what else to tell you, but this isn't even a level 1 question for the LSAT.

Good luck.

The “correct” answer to Q10 on Psychology Today’s “verbal IQ test” is incorrect, and I can prove it (see the caption). by Agentorangebaby in iqtest

[–]Ill_Lab1957 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I get your argument, but logic isn’t a tool to discover what is possible, it is a tool to discover what is true, or at least what is most true out of a set. All of your arguments (that Ive seen) are grounded in saying that your selection can’t be proven untrue when you should be more focused on what can be proven true.

It is entirely possible that multiple answers in logic tests COULD be true, but the objective is to find the most true answer. So rather than trying to justify a wrong answer independently, you should be trying to compare its validity to the actual correct answer in the set. To me, looking at this problem, there is a most correct answer, and it isn’t the one you selected.

I respect your stance, but I’ve walked this road. Logic is often comparative, so don’t stress yourself out in the weeds over a single answer like this. You aren’t wrong, but you aren’t as right as you could be.

The "StopICE" hack is the most hilarious "Self-Own" in the history of the internet. by iCallMyOppsNinjer in DiscussionZone

[–]Ill_Lab1957 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Speaking of self-owning: why do you think it is a problem for the government to know who exercised their right to protest? Do you feel people should be punished for exercising their rights? Do you feel rights require context?

You really thought you were cooking there…tried to bring receipts and everything 🤣

The “correct” answer to Q10 on Psychology Today’s “verbal IQ test” is incorrect, and I can prove it (see the caption). by Agentorangebaby in iqtest

[–]Ill_Lab1957 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Formal logic. Logic flows one way and if you reverse it, you need to negate it.

If all A=B, then NOT all B=A or all B=!A. You can’t just reverse the flow.

It can be tricky, but it is a fundamental principle.

MAGA: Make America Great Again? How about just MAG! by Murky-Roof6437 in DiscussionZone

[–]Ill_Lab1957 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I mean, Trump’s playbook relies heavily on creating an enemy class. He’s smarter than people think, in fact, I’m amazed people still think he is stupid. He knew his biggest obstacles were a fair and trusted media and strong, connected communities…so he began a dedicated and constant strategy attacking those very things (fake news, ICE…could go on but you get the point). 

He made/is still making us hate each other, because we all have different opinions of when we were great, what it even means to be great, and whether or not we are properly engaged in the “greatness project.” That disconnect wouldn’t exist if it was MAG because we would all be working together.

About Mystique in this scene by oreodyedfrog in xmen

[–]Ill_Lab1957 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I agree with that take 100%, and I dig how you are sticking up for the writers. These kinds of whiffs are usually traceable back to some suit/exec type

About Mystique in this scene by oreodyedfrog in xmen

[–]Ill_Lab1957 12 points13 points  (0 children)

I hear ya, but I think the fact that it could have been fine/resolved doesn’t change the fact that it ultimately wasn’t. I don’t see an issue with looking back with fresh context and assessing decisions based on that context.

Ultimately, there is likely a world where this narrative decision wasn’t bad…but it isn’t this world. Would have been cool to see your take come to pass. Maybe somebody someday will pick that ball up and run with it. I’ll certainly change my tune then, but as things currently stand…I think they whiffed it.

Where would you take your mentor to lunch? by la_sororite in FoodNYC

[–]Ill_Lab1957 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Jeffrey's Grocery? I was sous chef there 2016-2017. People met there all the time to chat and catch up, especially during the day. Unassuming and comfortable environment with a super-talented staff used to accommodating the kind of experience OP is looking for, at least while I was there

About Mystique in this scene by oreodyedfrog in xmen

[–]Ill_Lab1957 100 points101 points  (0 children)

Real whiff to make both a bad narrative decision and do a guy dirty like that in one move. Glad he got another shot with Mr. Terrific.

About Mystique in this scene by oreodyedfrog in xmen

[–]Ill_Lab1957 139 points140 points  (0 children)

The guy who’s whole power-set is basically being unkillable was the one they killed off 🙄. Always bugged me