vnarek @vnarek@qoto.org

@daviding I like this way of "censoring" social media. I have met so many people who see removing content as a sign that it was truthful and not the opposite.

@freemo In co-op insurance workers are the customers?

Yeah, but people who "lended" you money are not going to get that money back. They were forced to invest in you and in the community, which could make them prosper more. This is essentially wealth redistribution.

I got your point thought. I have some takes which could be seen as both right and left leaning too. For example, deregulation of labour unions.

@freemo I agree with what you say about education and gun ownership.

I would say that your propositions do fall on the right or left side of the spectrum even when no one did propose them. Co-op health insurance is more right-wing because it mitigates state power and makes it smaller. It's a more individualistic approach to insurance.

Reward based system for welfare would be an example of wealth redistribution by taxes, which is left leaning.

@freemo I get it. I use the left because I tend to agree with those policies more. This has problematic consequences that I am aware of as a possibility that I would be more forgiving to left leaning wrong doings if I label myself such.

I don't know anyone who can't be labeled nor left nor right actually.

@freemo For sure it does. I believe that could be true. This one was bad so there will be others.

If you want some interesting political videos from the left i think this girl is really good. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWwiUIVpmNY She is hard left and does mostly political/social commentary. I like that it is more indie than say Vox or PragerU and she goes to more details. This is my experience with left leaning content creators.

@freemo Shit this hurts. I don't watch Vox for political/social stuff. They are doing some interesting videos about music/culture (this for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62tIvfP9A2w). I would not define them as political. They tackle a lot of genres. Still, this is bad and misleading and more left leaning.

@freemo What about left leaning media? Do you remember some video you saw that was misleading equally?

@freemo Yeah I understood that point and checked the facts. My main issue is the delivery of the message I think. They tried to frame it as an argument against division of the state and religion which falls short I think. But yeah there was some truth in what they said.

@freemo Yeah as I am not that well read in U.S history this would not strike me. I had a problem mostly with the end of the video, because it seemed as reductionism of complicated problems like crime rates.

@freemo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_yS0X5s0lo here it is. It is their last video. I have problem with those graphs at the end. Where they reduce those problems to the absence of religion. It is interesting that the phrase is not in the constitution (i didn't know that). Look yourself I am interested what you think about that.

@freemo I yet to see one with had good takes from PragerU, but maybe it's my social bubble. This is the reason I wanted to look at some right-wing media to see if my beliefs can be hold to a challenge.

I do find left-wing media (not the mainstream) more reasonable. Do you have an example where they are not reasonable or they lie? I think it is possible they do this on issues that I don't care that much about.

@freemo That is fair I have problems believing media too. My sources are mostly entertaining streamers that play games and talk policies, reading articles from peer reviewed sites or fact checking sites that are independent. Debates are good too because it's not a one way conversation. The mainstream media is dead to me. Most of them in my country are for example owned by our prime minister and multiple conflicts of interest were recorded, but people are still voting for him because they get news from those sources.

First time seeing breitbart so I will take a look thanks. I saw some videos from PragerU. Maybe they were the most controversial ones, but it was always a shitshow. I watched the last one about "What Does Separation of Church and State Mean?" and the ending is hilarious. Did you see that?

Do you watch any conservative/republican media that you find reasonable?

@freemo Actually this is effectively what soc dems were doing this whole time and I would say it is effective. They are talking about third party and then going with primary parties to have a chance of winning. They are dismantling the lynch mob from inside. I can talk about racism and lynching not being good and still make an effort in killing the least people possible. Again, I am going with this absurd example for aguing purposes only, in reality these parties are not that extremist and I would lean with democrats more than republicans on the policies and beliefs.

@freemo I will only quickly comment on the "one vote does not make difference" yeah it doesn't, but pushing this kind of idea to vote third party can convince others to do that. Which could then result in more than 1 vote right? But because of electoral voting system of the U.S those votes will still go nowhere.

To your 2) point. It does so only for your current election base on https://www.quora.com/Could-a-third-party-candidate-ever-win-a-U-S-presidential-election?share=1 I am not an expert on U.S elections, do you know if this is true?

Now to your hypothesis.
So there is only those people left in the country? I would try to make that third party stronger if I could and I think that people would join that third party, but if there is no chance that this party is going to get those 51 people somewhere (because empirically this happened and no one gave a shit), then I would join to the lesser of two evil and tried to change the system from within. This hypothesis is more for running politics than for voters I would say. This situation reminds me of that black man who attended KKK rallies a little.

@freemo Yeah that number was just hypothetical I should have written that down. I mean, there is no effective chance of winning election for a third party. If you look at the president as a person, then no, but what if you take policies into account? Don't you lean nearer to one of them?

Yeah, your vote could save 10000 people. This is the reason why you should vote for realistic winners. Additionally, now you theoretically influenced some people who would vote and make third party 1,01%. This is 1,01% votes wich went to parties that are not able to win and could affect the end result of the voting.

Influence the vote yes, but not the influence on the winner if you know what I mean. Isn't this argument against voting in general? I vote to make change and I want to give my vote to someone who can use it. That's the reasoning I am going with.

Because if you want to make a change and you lean more towards one of the parties. So giving that party your vote will increase that parties chance to win and take you closer to the desired world. Voting a third party would not affect the election and if a party that you do not prefer wins in the end then voted against your own interests.