It’s not particularly radical, just betrays some youth. People aren’t neeeeeaaaaarrrrly that much alike each other, except at the most fundamental levels. Beyond basic needs though, we branch way the fuck out, in a completely, terrifyingly free world where nobody has to agree with you. Your current probably fully authoritarian parental/educational environment is supposed to insulate you from this until you have better tools for handling it, because it’s pretty fucked up sometimes.
You’ll just never be able to change that many minds though.
So, what happens first is the spoiler gets just enough votes to swing it for the other guy, and he goes and attacks Iraq, and then Afghanistan. Or probably Mexico this time. And they remember that we attacked them, which does not make them love us more.
So, nobody really wants that. Turns American politics into a giant game of chicken on the highway, which has been the reality for the past couple decades. But we can’t just “not play”, because the other guys will.
Because you can’t get a message out to all 300million people normally, let alone when there are billions of dollars of propaganda working against you is very difficult. Because even if a US 3rd parties were to gain significant power they don’t have the institutional knowledge to even keep the lights on, whichever opposition would eat them alive. Because if they did somehow manage to get momentum and take over they would immediately develop the exact same problems of previous political parties because these are systemic problems with your political system.
Why not invest in a strategy that doesn’t makes things even worse when you fail. Political reform that would allow 3+ parties to exist are just as big of a long shot as getting a third party elected, but it doesn’t split the vote and actually fixes the problem long term.
But hey I’m not an American, I have 5 viable parties to choose from. so you do you.
How come it is sustainable when executives or even workers are not even interested in their own product. I know a few devs at some mid sized company and they don’t even care about what they are working on
How to make that relevant again: Get a time machine.
The fascists are already on the ballot, in case anybody missed that detail.
I swear, this stuff barely played back when it seemed like an idle concern of the politically inclined. Today it seems entirely detached from reality.
But hey, by all means, absolutely get the kind of reform that would make this make sense again. I want a world in which this thread doesn't feel like either disingenuous trolling, a conservative psyop or entirely delusional. I want a world where Americans can vote for multiple parties and get proper coalitions and stuff.
But seriously, until that point, just vote for whoever the Democrat is.
If someone is in a swing state? Sure, vote for whoever the Democrats put up. But I think it's important to acknowledge that the Democrats are part of the problem here, not the solution. Do the Democrats want multiple parties and proper coalitions? They do not. They actively fight against those things. Anyone who blindly votes Democrat in any of the majority of states that are solidly red or blue is making the situation worse.
Anyone who blindly votes, and doesn't give strong, consistent, repeated feedback to the representative once elected, is making the situation worse. FTFY
This. There is zero chance of creating change by voting for a third party selectively in a FPTP system.
Electoral systems are known to be extremely stable because all the power is in the hands of people who benefit from the current system, again by definition. Crucially, it doesn't matter WHO they are, if they won with this system, they are for this system.
To get electoral reform you need those who benefit to find it either ethically important or politically expedient to enact reform. Right now is actually a good time to start bringing up that issue, because one has to assume there is a growing realization in Democrats and at least a segment of semi-reasonable conservatives that the current system is exposed to very, very bad things in a short timeframe.
So if the US is going to get electoral reform done without going through the process of setting the country, and subsequently the planet, on fire you need a) a Dem in power, and b) a massive consensus and outright downpour of activist pressure for this on every level of government. Probably forever, seeing how the entire rest of the system is a mess, but baby steps.
I just left the employment of an opioid manufacturer. They are tripling down and spending to increase production. Good luck on your second bankruptcy in 5 years Mallinkrodt/SpecGX.
A grilled cheese consists of only these following items. Cheese. Bread with spread (usually butter). This entire subreddit consist of “melts”. Almost every “grilled cheese” sandwich i see on here has other items added to it. The fact that this subreddit is called “grilledcheese” is nothing short of utter blasphemy. Let me start out by saying I have nothing against melts, I just hate their association with sandwiches that are not grilled cheeses. Adding cheese to your tuna sandwich? It’s called a Tuna melt. Totally different. Want to add bacon and some pretentious bread crumbs with spinach? I don’t know what the hell you’d call that but it’s not a grilled cheese. I would be more than willing to wager I’ve eaten more grilled cheeses in my 21 years than any of you had in your entire lives. I have one almost everyday and sometimes more than just one sandwich. Want to personalize your grilled cheese? Use a mix of different cheeses or use sourdough or french bread. But if you want to add some pulled pork and take a picture of it, make your own subreddit entitled “melts” because that is not a fucking grilled cheese. I’m not a religious man nor am I anything close to a culinary expert. But as a bland white mid-western male I am honestly the most passionate person when it comes to grilled cheese and mac & cheese. All of you foodies stay the hell away from our grilled cheeses and stop associating your sandwich melts with them. Yet again, it is utter blasphemy and it rocks me to the core of my pale being. Shit, I stopped lurking after 3 years and made this account for the sole purpose of posting this. I’ve seen post after post of peoples “grilled cheeses” all over reddit and it’s been driving me insane. The moment i saw this subreddit this morning I finally snapped. Hell, I may even start my own subreddit just because I know this one exists now.
You god damn heretics. Respect the grilled cheese and stop changing it into whatever you like and love it for it what it is. Or make your damn melt sandwich and call it for what it is. A melt.
If we’re going to dive straight in to the pedantry then: a panini, in English speaking countries is usually referring to a heated sandwich made from bread that is a roll (long rather than square, with an outer crust and sliced lengthways in half), usually some form of Italian bread in keeping with the Italian namesake. Panini’s as far as I’m aware are filled with anything you want, but specifically are heated, usually (or exclusively?) in a press of some kind. Jaffles are like toasties, I’d personally call them a subset of toastie, heated in a specific type of press called a jaffle machine and made only with sliced, square, toast style bread as you’d likely get in a cheap, pre-sliced and packaged loaf. The type of press is important to qualify as a jaffle, as is the bread type and shape because these machines will only fit certain standardised bread types and needs to seal shut during heating. When you put a filled sandwich (with just about any filling combo but almost always with cheese), built with two, square, toasting slices, in to a jaffle machine the shape of the cavity in this machine forces a diagonal division between two opposing corners of the bread which also squashes the filling in to either of the two bread triangles formed on either side of this diagonal. The section of dividing line between the triangles compresses the two slices of bread together in that section, which gets particularly hot and forms a snappable, dark coloured ridge between the two halves of the jaffle. When your jaffle is done, it comes out as a single object with the two halves stuck together by the dividing line, but to eat, you typically apply pressure to each opposing half causing the brittle, dividing line to snap giving you two triangular halves of a sandwich with filling completely sealed inside.
You could perhaps say ‘who calls a panini a toastie for $500?’, because toasties have a much broader, looser definition like paninis. Even though the classic ‘toastie’ will more likely be similar to a jaffle, (though crucially not heated in a jaffle machine and thus not having the jaffle shape imposed upon it), it could actually be any bread and just about any filling (though almost always including cheese), much like a panini.
I really don’t like jaffles and I have noticed a decline in their popularity as I’ve gotten older. They are a good idea in theory, but in practice, because the machine crimps the perimeter of the bread slices together and also the dividing line between the halves as well, you end up with burning hot filling and steam sealed and squashed inside of two bulged areas, one for each triangle. Those crimped edges and dividing line mean eating one involves a chore of biting through a lot of plain, unfilled, nearly burned toast before getting to all the filling which having been trapped inside is ridiculously hot and inevitably burns you. It also means that, the contents tends to get kind of steamed during cooking, making things quite flabby. Much prefer a toastie made in a sandwich press, which is basically a panini press minus the grill lines.
You’ve just described a toastie and toastie maker. I don’t know what this jaffle nonsense is all about, but it sounds like someone is sneaking toasties through customs in a dodgy trenchcoat!
Jaffles and their associated machine are represented here
Toasties here and here, and here, and here where it doesn’t even have a lid, and this one which should really just be called a Reuben but the Aussies stick “toastie” on as a suffix.
Note the variety of breads and fillings. Toasties are a very flexible concept.Those toasties have been cooked any number of ways, under a grill (broiler to the yanks), in a pan, hell even a toaster followed by a microwave, also very commonly in one of these, a sandwich press, which as you can see is flat and and does not seal. Those also sometimes come with little ridges for grill lines like the American panini presses, but I prefer this style as it’s more versatile.
If you google image search toasties you’ll probably see a few jaffles in the results but if you search jaffles you’re going to pretty much only see… jaffles, which have that characteristic shape imposed by that particular machine.
In conclusion all jaffles are toasties, but not all toasties are jaffles. If it’s been made in a machine that imposes that particular jaffle shape on to it by way of sealing the sandwich in like a waffle iron, then it’s a jaffle.
I’ll accept that your first three images could get away with being called toasties, but making a sandwich with a slice of toast doesn’t count. Open topped sandwiches of any kind should be taken out and shot, however they’re prepared. I’ll give cheese on toast a pass, but only because it’s a separate category.
Just because people mistakenly call toasties ‘Jaffles’, doesn’t mean that’s what they are. It’s wrong. Wrong I tell you! Jaffle’s not even a real word!
Can someone please explain? Does the US only have two political parties? That sounds horrendously undemocratic. I know next to nothing about US politics so I may be wrong.
Edit: Also, why is one party called “Democratic” and the other “Republican”? Does this make the Republican party non-democratic? Is this a non-official naming scheme that people created or does seriously only one of them support democracy? Thank you for the answers :)
Put simply - we have two parties, both are right wing, and while we have an established way for third parties to gain more proper/fair inclusion in the system (like debate participation, ballot access, in some cases funding) anytime a third party comes close to meeting the requirements the 2 parties mutually agree to raise the bar.
For all practical purposes yes. It sucks, but as you can see, speaking about third parties gets most people pissed off as it’s considered voter suicide / throwing away your vote to vote for an extremely minor third party candidate. The financial support within these two power house parties makes it unlikely this system will ever change. As someone pointed out here, a systematic change like ranked choice voting where third parties could aggregate credit without forcing voters to abandon the two parties they are comfortable with would be the only hope of moving away from the bullshit 2 party system. However, that’s not in the interest of the two parties that already run the government, so never going to happen at scale at least.
In a majority rules, representative democracy, the peoples’ voice is heard through electing officials that promise to vote on behalf of the constituents.
This is seen to good effect in the legislative branch, where specific candidates hold office for short terms. But as empirical data suggests, the two party system is still relied upon, especially when it comes to less-than-ideally informed voters.
When it comes to presidential candidates, who wield far greater power over longer terms, voters are averse to the risk of giant, sweeping changes.
There have been numerous popular third-party candidates vying for the presidency, but none that sufficiently capture a voter base. So, therefore it is equated to throwing the vote away
But imo, long live Bernie. I would have voted with my soul
Nope that’s not a refinement, thats just a new comment.
As far as less than ideally informed voters, that’s a self fulfilling prophecy - why become informed when there are two parties and you are programmed to already hate one? You just vote and party lines and move on. Politicians in the US don’t even have platforms anymore, they don’t need to.
Well you’re right, that comment got away from me and I forgot how I started it, so that did sound pretty dumb on re-reading.
Aside from that though, let’s dig in.
Are you suggesting only the very intelligent vote? How do you propose we have an inclusive voting system while not accepting that some people will vote recklessly, mistakenly (as in understanding), or antagonistically? It is a natural trapping and I see no way of extinguishing less than informed votes.
Yes, platforms and pillars are not as finely detailed during campaigns to the greater public. But it is unarguable that the two parties branch at the question of “remain the same as much as possible” vs “progress the government to meet modern times”
Other parties generally stem from the big two. It’s been a long time since anarchy or pure communism had a seat at the table
Are you suggesting only the very intelligent vote?
Not sure where you even got that from. I just said that there is little motive for a candidate to educate themselves or for a politician to attempt to educate voters on their plans in a binary system. When you add shades of grey (other candidates / parties) there’s more motivation to have tangible platforms that people can then make educated decisions on.
Plenty of other democracies have multiple parties and this idea that other parties equal pure communism and anarchy sounds like some GOP fear mongering bullshit.
I fo think that people should vote this way to show the disagreement. Increase in votes to third parties can make more people a bit more confident in voting for them the next time right?
memes
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.