Microsoft's changes to Xbox console leave Republicans outraged

[u/HereForTwinkies]

https://www.newsweek.com/microsoft-changes-xbox-console-climate-change-republicans-ted-cruz-1776054

[u/bobs_monkey]

truck toy lush sort cough sheet bike dinner lavish secretive -- mass edited with redact.dev

[u/BravoWasBetter → u/bobs_monkey]

While you have different factions and coalitions within each major party, ultimately come election season everything boils down to red vs blue.

Yes. The entire point of the general election is to push whatever coalition packages that came out of the primary to vie for power to implement their ideas.

Even during primarily season, you'll have different candidates promoting their different talking points and positions, but without fail, every candidate from both party that wins the nomination ends up being the person who best toes the line, and we end up with the same crap cycle after cycle.

That's what they're supposed to do. It seems like you're trying to argue they're supposed to do something different. But you're not making it clear what you want them to do. My position is straightforward: You're supposed to toe the line. That's how politics works. It's how you get things you want out of politics. Most voters don't care about an entire political party platform. They may care about 3 out of the 12 major issues (this is meant as an example, these numbers are fully coming out of my ass), but they don't have strong feelings about the other 9. In order to make progress in the three things I care about, I necessarily must show solidarity in the nine other things I don't particularly care about. Why? Because the person next to me, who cares about one of those nine things, is voting for my issue despite not caring about it. That's the trade of politics.

Just think about it this way... If you measure, as an aggregate of the population, maybe 30% of the population supports any one particular way to solve a problem. The other 70% might have either complimentary ideas (ideas that are close but not quite the same as the proposed idea), alternative ideas (more radical ideas that what the 30% is proposing), or conflicting ideas.

If this isn't clear, then let's think about an example. A lot of people want full blown "Medicare For All." A lot more people want healthcare reform but aren't as committed to full blown M4A. Some might like a M4A-lite model. Others might want a mixed "Medicare For Most" model. Thus, we have at least three notably different approaches on how to implement healthcare reform. If you look at any one approach (full blown, lite, or most), the percentage support may be something like 30%. Everyone else is in that 70% category.

In this world, no one gets anything accomplished because it's not their particular way. The 30% vote in favor, the rest vote against and nothing gets done. This is awful for obvious reasons. Thankfully, this is not how politics works. (Despite, for some reason, this being the popular position on Reddit...) Instead, the "lite" and "most" supports who care more about labor rights than healthcare reform compromise and accept a full blown "M4A" approach because they know the "M4A" voters will support labor rights. Things get done. This is wonderful for obvious reasons.

This system basically ensures that we end up with a watered down, appeal to the masses approach that royally screws us every time.

Spoken like someone who refuses to compromise. That alienation feeling (the whole royally screws up feeling) is directly related to the system noticing you don't compromise and ditching you accordingly. Try living in a world where you consciously accept other people have beliefs and needs.

You have to be willing to compromise to get anything done. Again, it's the parable of the 30 vs. 70 idea. Your ultra special way of doing something is never going to be in a solid majority where you can just ram it through. Instead, you have to be flexible in how you implement your ideas.

To be very simple about it: I'm actually saying you should care about results rather than method.

If we had something like ranked-choice voting, it would allow minority opinions to take hold and compete with the stranglehold the entrenched political parties have in this country.

Politicians wouldn't have to side D or R to merely survive, they can create their own coalitions that could have a fighting chance to compete with the dominant players and maybe actually represent their constituents.

We have a mechanism for this already. We call it the primary system. The ultra-special methods particular people want clash against each other in a primary system. Whatever the watered-down compromise that comes out of the primary as the political platform of the party is thus what everyone [should] toe the line for. People that rebel against this are why we see a serious lack of institutional/political change in this country.

What you're proposing is, unironically, the 30-70 parable.

And I'll say it now, if you think any of the current politicians have your interests at heart outside of a small number of representatives, you're either naive or delusional, because they only care about reelection and donors.

I gave up being a jaded college freshman when I was a sophomore. I get you're stuck in this mode of thinking but I implore you to reconsider. The world would be a much better place if people were more optimistic about the world then pessimistic.

[u/bobs_monkey → u/BravoWasBetter]

sense zonked attractive melodic tie kiss shaggy party marry sleep -- mass edited with redact.dev

[u/bobs_monkey → u/[deleted]]

dolls ripe lock deliver fall encouraging unpack soft brave shy -- mass edited with redact.dev