We don’t have men’s brains. Scans actually show that our brain structures are more similar with our gender identity than our assigned gender at birth, especially after hormonal and social transitioning.

It does do something? It orders how comments and posts appear in the hot sorting algo. That’s good enough imo

Don’t worry, RFK Jr is going to fix it when he’s heading the HHS!

They’re outsourcing development of their platform onto independents who will work for free to advance the project, which then improves the value of their platform. It’s the same design philosophy behind the Android Open Source Project.

Eats insects, apparently.

Long term Trump probably won’t benefit from this, but it does give him a strong boost right at the start of his term while he’s also passing a bunch of controversial executive orders.

So they’re fucking stupid?

So why did Democrats fall for it?

I’ll continue to call the US a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. It’s not like anyone else is allowed to run the country.

Okay, so you’ll admit that the DPRK is a democracy since it has democratic elements.

And I’m saying that, because voting in the US doesn’t actually determine policy, we shouldn’t call it democracy.

I only said to apply the logic of liberal democracy to itself, not to apply it to all countries.

I think your insistence on using a fuzzy spectrum to define concrete terms results in words not meaning anything at all. The “99% monarchy 1% democracy” gets to call itself a democracy by your fuzzy logic because it has democratic elements. That’s clearly not a good heuristic. There must be a point where the antidemocratic elements in a society disqualify it from being a democracy.

Why are you applying this fuzzy logic to democracy when democracy, itself, does not? If one candidate gets 49% of the vote and the other gets 51% of the vote then the candidate with the most votes wins. Nothing fuzzy about it. If we apply liberal democracy’s logic to itself then a country that isn’t at least 50% democratic can not be called a democracy.

Roughly 50.1% but that’s still assuming none of these people would’ve switched to trump

That’s not assuming none switched to Trump, merely that most switched to Harris. I think having such a close runoff race would also be likely to change how people voted more broadly. Turnout would be through the roof if everyone felt like their one vote would be the one that swung the election. It’s really hard to say what the results would have been.

And we’ll never know because this shithole country doesn’t do runoff elections.

and this is how US elections work

Yes, and it’s bad. I’m saying the way US elections work is undemocratic. They are designed from the ground-up to favor the ruling class and suppress the will of the People. They are meant to be undemocratic. This was all intentional.

Imagine an alternative USA where every single state was gerrymandered to hell by whoever won, where electors were routinely bribed by opposition parties to vote against their states results, where people were bullied at the polls or where minorities were entirely disenfranchised. That would be a worse place than our USA, but by your definition both would be the same.

Okay. Now imagine an alternative USA where only a small selection of royal families are allowed to vote and electors are aristocrats chosen by birth and court intrigue. By your definition this hypothetical is also a democracy, even if it’s an awful very very bad one. You have nuanced away the meaning of the word entirely.

He got less than 50% of the vote. If you add all the non Trump votes together you get more than 50% of the vote.

Many countries use variations of runoff voting, where if no candidate gets a majority then the top two candidates move on to a second round and the other candidates are eliminated. This is actually the most popular way to run elections worldwide.

He got a lot of votes, but he didn’t actually get the majority. He got a plurality.

fairly democratic, in the sense that most people can vote, they didn’t pressure or threaten voters much, they didn’t fake lots of votes, and the flaws can only influence and skew the result to some extent, rather than being the deciding factor.

Unless all people can vote it isn’t a democracy. It totally reverses the power dynamic of democracy - rather than the People choosing their leaders, the leaders choose who gets to be of the People. It’s completely backwards! As long as the enduring legacy of settler-colonialism can choose who is allowed to vote there will be no democracy.

The way electoral districts are drawn, the way voters get purged or have to go through hoops to get registered, the way people can have their right to vote taken away, the way noncitizens and disenfranchised citizens in federal prisons are counted by the census for the purpose of allotting representatives, the efforts to keep voter participation as low as possible, it’s all rigged to produce undemocratic results.

It’s useful for us to recognize that this isn’t democracy. Not yet.

He didn’t get a majority of the votes. Less than 50%. That should mean something.

It can always be worse! How come you can acknowledge that it’s shit, but you can’t acknowledge that it’s fundamentally undemocratic? Where’s the disconnect here? The US was not founded as a democracy, it was founded as a white supremacist settler-colony. Today it’s had many democratic reforms, and that’s good! But we have to acknowledge these root problems.

Has it had enough reforms to be called a democracy? Trump got less than 50% of the vote and he’s been elected twice!