vnarek @vnarek@qoto.org

@freemo I meant this. "On May 2, the Department of Health and Human Services announced a final rule to allow health workers to cite religious or moral objections to deny care to patients"

CTRL+F type religion to filter important changes.

@freemo Yeah list is longer and a lot of really bad stuff is buried between rollbacks that are less concerning. But refusing to provide health care because of your beliefs.. It's just sickening

https://civilrights.org/trump-rollbacks How can this be in any way justified?

@freemo Yeah I don't have a problem with that, but he reacted to this incident, which could result in him forbidding this behaviour too.

Let's see how it goes, hopefully he does not fuck up.

@freemo I don't feel this incident is censorship in any shape or form. His tweet was not deleted just notice about him lying was added. It is not supressing of free speech, they are using it to combat stupidity. I would love for twitter do that more instead of deleting tweets.

@freemo @penny all the time last time 150 years ago.. before the shifts were more frequent a system was not stable.

@freemo
Yeah you are right, it must be a radical change. Otherwise there is no need to vote for them against the establishment.
@penny

@penny
I think it is possible, but it is never going to be a radical change.
@freemo

@freemo
Really? I did not know about that interesting. How long its that way?
@penny

@freemo
Problem is that even if you don't think this way others do. And one of the candidates is just better. Should I try to change people misconceptions about two-party system, get like 15% to third party and let somebody like Trump be blatantly racist and deny climate change for an additional 4 years? I think that the majority just forces you to don't do that.
@penny

@freemo
I am not a fan of ranked choice voting, which is still better than what you have now. I think that systems without proportional representation are going to have these problems.
@penny

@penny I think @freemo ment that it would not be 50% 50%, but more like 30% 20% 10% 40% for example. Not all republicans wants fascism and not all left-leaning people have the same idea for leftist ideology, but we are grouped together into two wide parties that we lean more towards.

@freemo I understood what you meant. So your argument is that it tends to favour two-party system because people think that it favours two party system right?

So shouldn't the system change to break this understanding?

@freemo This argument is not about whether you should vote for one of two parties, but that the actual system implemented in U.S favours two parties.

@freemo We can empirically see that it does. Most of the time this happens so we should adjust to the fact that it happens right?

@freemo Yea it says "tend to favour two-party system". I am just saying that it is hard to go against the system which makes two parties stronger and vote for third party. It is the same as systematic oppression of some race/ethnicity. You can escape poverty, but it is highly unlikely if the system does not want you to.

@freemo This is the consensus in the political sciences actually. Look up Duverger's Law.

Yes, it can happen, but the winner takes all situation is going against that. Making additional parties does not make sense, because you can't meaningfully affect the country and people would not vote for third party because it is a waste of votes. Even if somehow a third party wins after some iteration, we are going to end up in two party system again.

@freemo https://youtu.be/km4uCOAzrbM just yesterday watched this. I think he did a good job in describing the problems in the system.

@freemo @design_RG Its a problem with system in use not the people. It is not a lie when winner takes all, scenario is applied. Even if some third party wins somehow it would still remain only two party system. Third party would just kick out one of those already in place.