If he was left-wing, this would be prosecuted (and propagandized by the media) as terrorism.

That could be but I feel like good propaganda does use other stories and narratives to boost its persuasive power. IF it was due to risk assessments then they should put that in the article. I feel like if they had solid proof, they would be willing to actually share that proof with the public rather than just hearsay that these stories have been.

If there was evidence of it being China, I would think they would be a lot less subtle about it then running articles about sus components without mentioning the connection Iberian incident. Something more direct like ‘Iberian outage caused by kill switches in Chinese solar equipment’ rather than running separate stories and leaving it to the reader to connect the stories on their own.

That’s what makes it suspicious too me, too much fearmongering and too little substance and facts in the articles.

Ah yes let’s try to stifle Chinese innovation by … checks notes … expanding our surveillance state. Usually we are the ones calling China a surveillance state, but it’s fine(it’s not) once we do it.

Idk, feels like US propaganda to me. All the articles about it are suspiciously light on details and it just so happens to coincide well with US Oil based energy policy and our(US) susceptibility to China fearmongering.

Edited to add: I know this is the Europe comm but I feel like US media narratives definitely trickles over to Europe.

Because the media uncritically parrots the companies PR talking points and then it’s suddenly the accepted terminology.

checks username …

hmmm

You’ve got to remember that these are just simple voters. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know… morons.

It is literally ~60%-40% as of right now. I would hardly call that a crushing blow.

What is a pubnix?

Edit: Short for Public access UNIX apparently.

Crimes of opportunity are not need based, they are want based. People take something because they want it and are unconcerned with the potential consequences of taking it. Even the cop quoted in your linked article admitted that 'Cars stolen for the purpose of committing another crime are not what’s behind the majority of thefts. ’

I would say my OC at least applies to the people who get caught. Maybe not always to those who actually do the crime.

I call it virtue signaling. It’s the same idea, just a clearer term for it.

Do those mythical organized thieves really exist? I think 80+% of crimes are crimes of opportunity done by vulnerable people like crackheads, mentally ill, or other low income people.

Politicians passing laws based on things they don’t understand?

aka virtue signaling

Of course. The problem is that when someone says one thing is another thing, that is not obviously metaphorical. Maybe you’d be able to tell in person but not through text where the message is monotonized and broadcasted to the entire internet.

I agree with your general point that third party votes don’t matter nationally. This is kinda blunt, but you are making the false assumption that Party politicans are entitled to everyone’s votes. You can’t remove a vote that was never casted for a particular candidate.

“The rhetoric isn’t misleading.”

It is to me. A vote for an independent candidate does not in any way, shape, or form count as a vote for Trump. They are not the same thing.

It is a fact that a vote for an independent candidate is not tallied the same as a vote for trump. It is nonsense to say they are the same. It’s like saying a vote for Hawaiian pizza is a vote for Pepperoni Pizza. It is hokum.

I never advised anyone to vote for an independent candidate. I am simply correcting your misleading rhetoric.

Good advice on focusing locally for third parties.

A vote for an independent candidate is a vote for Trump.

No. It is a vote for an independent candidate.

That is a good humorous example of a first past the post voting system and it flaws. I like the bit where Bobby is a pigeon.

In any democratic zero-sum system, removing votes for one party passively enables another.

No, actually not in any democratic system. In our current first past the post voting system, it is applicable (minus the electoral college). But (ranked choice voting)RCV or (Score then Automatic Runoff)STAR based systems the outcome would likely be different in some cases. That scenario also ignore the most common scenario where people simply don’t vote. In your scenario, everyone is required to vote. In real life, of the 25 bobby votes some would sit out, some would vote third party and some would vote for a ‘major’ candidate like Biden or Trump.

Pasting the two definitions does not clarify what I was asking. You claim that they are two different things. In what way are they different to you?

No one is saying a person not voting is supporting anyone. They are saying that it helps another individual by doing so. And you yourself are saying so, when you admit that those individuals not voting are effecting the outcome of the election, and because they didn’t vote, it helped the individual they didn’t want to be elected to win the election.

Actually the OP explicitly said that. “Every single person who doesn’t vote for Joe Biden and could is supporting Donald Trump”

Once again, I agree with the main idea of the OP. It is their false claims that are embedded within it that I am challenging. I do agree that not voting in some cases is helping Trump. But saying it is a mathematical fact is misleading. There is nothing mathematical about it.

It’s ironic you say this when your entire argument is “they didn’t intend to support anyone so they aren’t helping anyone win.”

Nice strawman. I did not say that.

hmm, kinda seems like a personal attack. I wonder if the rules say anything about that.