Apple Pie Hubbub posted:

3

ZZT the Fifth posted:

Kellies Nomination: Least Concealed Bigotry (Racism)

I don't know how else to interpret "don't move to Florida because there are black people that live there", goddamn.

bunnyofdoom posted:

The NAACP issued a travel advisory warning black people not to go to Florida because of Desantis.

This cartoon is implying it's because the NAACP directors live in Florida and want to keep it for themselves.

Pants Donkey posted:

2
You’ll have to forgive me for not being an expert on slang from a century ago, but “Jay” was deliberately chosen as the word for Jaywalking, as Jay was kinda like “redneck” is now. Basically an uneducated person from the country, and the goal is to display people who know their place under our new car overlords as sophisticated city folk. Those who don’t bend the knee to the Almighty Auto were branded as backward rubes.

"Mark Twain in 'A Tramp Abroad' posted:

"A jay hasn't got any more principle than a Congressman. A jay will lie, a jay will steal, a jay will deceive, a jay will betray; and, four times out of five, a jay will go back on his solemnest promise. The sacredness of an obligation is a thing which you can't cram into no blue-jay's head."

skeleton warrior posted:

Current speculation is that a jay was generally a hated bird as loud, one who stole food, and one whos call was loud enough to scare deer away (making hunting worse). It was used historically to refer to flashy, chatty people, and got picked up by actors as a slang for bad actors and rude audiences, and between all of the uses eventually became a term for loud, obnoxious, attention-dragging people - i.e., exactly the kind of person who will walk the wrong way on the sidewalk and make other people move.

Xiahou Dun posted:

Who’s speculation?

Edit : I'm not being harsh. That's just a more sketched in etymology than I can find off-hand and I didn't want to type more.

idonotlikepeas posted:

Mike Peters

ZZT the Fifth posted:

Kellies Nomination: Least Concealed Bigotry (Racism)

I don't know how else to interpret "don't move to Florida because there are black people that live there", goddamn.

idonotlikepeas posted:

David M. Hitch

idonotlikepeas posted:

Matt Davies

Digamma-F-Wau posted:

Skios posted:

Steve Breen



Tom Stiglich

idonotlikepeas posted:

Ted Rall posted:

Most Democrats wish Biden wasn’t running for reelection. Only a small majority of Republicans are OK with Trump running for election again. Yet the vast majority of them are going to go and cast a ballot in 2024 for a candidate they don’t approve of.

Angepain posted:

ok so apparently Brinks is a US security company, which makes more sense than my initial interpretation that the US economy is a van full of brinks. hello I would like to buy three Brinks please.

Trapezium Dave posted:

Rall: Welcome to the Hate-ocracy

Skios posted:

A.F. Branco

idonotlikepeas posted:

Mike Thompson

JamesBont posted:

I could have lived the rest of my life without seeing Branco reveal his foot fetish.

DalaranJ posted:

Huge slam on our naval service out of nowhere.

Apple Pie Hubbub posted:

Skios posted:

Guavanaut posted:

Yes, it's an inherent problem of FPTP voting. Does Ted have a preferred alternative system?

Ted Rall posted:

Many arguments in favor of RCV defy common sense. “Ranked-choice voting could ensure that a winner has the approval of a majority of voters by taking into account their preferences, apart from first choice. In this way, the problem of winning on a mere plurality is mitigated and public servants are chosen because they more truly reflect the electorate’s desires,” according to Quartz. But you can’t achieve a political mandate by winning a bunch of votes from citizens for whom you were just a second or third choice.

In normal elections the question of whether a particular ideological segment of the Democratic Party carries a race depends upon the number of candidates competing for that segment. Let’s say for argument’s sake that the Democratic Party is half-centrist and half-progressive. In a race in which one progressive runs against ten centrists, several of the centrists will divide the centrist vote enough to hand victory to the progressive candidate, or vice versa. Not ideal to be sure, and RCV claims to solve this problem. Under RCV, however, you have the opposite conundrum: a strong candidate who would otherwise have won can be defeated. If there’s one strong progressive in a field of ten candidates, who would have won 45% of the vote, one of the nine other centrists can win because their voters are willing to accept their second, third, etc. choices. Progressive voters, who only have one candidate they can support, see their votes underweighted.

Pants Donkey posted:

If you want an argument against ranked choice voting, then just point at Australia.

idonotlikepeas posted:

Jeff Danziger



Lee Judge

Microplastics posted:

The Haitian posted:

Not really sure which Kellies category this belongs in, something like "Most pointless non-Prickly City" or "Worst Both-Sides-ism"?