partial_accumen

No idea.

US mentality is weird. Most countries we understand that a “party” stands for certain principles, and so if you don’t like the party, you vote for a different one.

You're apply logic and rules from completely different nation's systems and calling the US's version "weird" because it doesn't match how other countries do it?

It makes no sense to demand that the party change to accommodate the voter, that’s not the role of a party.

Perhaps in your country it isn't, but in the US, it is. During the convention of the party, the party chooses its "planks" for its platform. These are chosen within the party itself, and they absolutely change. You can see the 2024 Democratic party platform here if you want to. Here's the 2020 version.. As you can see there are some large differences. The GOP used to do this same process before it was consumed by the cult of trump.

The role of a party is to try and change the minds of the population to support the principles of the party. A party exists to convince the masses to accommodate them, not for the masses to accommodate the party.

In your system perhaps. Not in the US system. It doesn't make the US system "wrong". Does it have shortcomings? Absolutely, all systems do. Are these various shortcomings equal to each other? That's subjective. I personally would like more aspects of European-style politcal parties, but not everything that I see with parties there. We, as humanity, have yet to find the objectively "best" system.

What’s even weirder is the Americans who delude themselves into believing the Democrats hold principles they literally do not. They are very open about being a neoliberal nationalist party, but I have encountered weird Americans who tell me things like Democrats all support universal healthcare / “Medicare for All”

I'm losing faith in your arguments because you're painting a picture that all members of a party share the same beliefs. Again, maybe that's an ideal from your own country's party system, but it isn't in the USA. I would be surprised even in your own party if you have universal agreement on all policy positions.

There are individual Democrats that support Medicare for All. Here's one example:

collapsed inline media

Hilary Clinton, as First Lady at the time, lead the creation of the Clinton Healthcare plan of 1993. This was absolutely a universal national healthcare plan:

"The task force was created in January 1993, but its own processes were somewhat controversial and drew litigation. Its goal was to come up with a comprehensive plan to provide universal health care for all Americans, which was to be a cornerstone of the administration's first-term agenda."

Does this mean that every Democrat believes in universal healthcare? Of course not. But to claim that none do, as you are, is equally untrue.

Even here on Lemmy, criticizing Democrats by pointing out how they are right-wing can get you downvotes from weirdo Americans who are convinced they are a truly left-wing party.

You're going to have to be more specific with an example post, because most of the downvoted posts I see close to this are "both sides are the same!" garbage. Also, I don't believe many believe the US Democratic Party is "truly left-wing" as would be defined in, lets say, Europe.

The article says the owner isn't getting the car until 2028 which may not be the current spec by then.

I thought it was pretty clear what the advantage was. If you need it here's a super simple explanation:

• higher engine compression better than lower engine compression
• FIA rule says all engines must be the same fixed compression size
• FIA also says engine size measured when engines cold
• Certain materials change size with temperature
• Some engine teams figured out that they can make their engine produce slightly higher compression at high race temperatures
• Result: some engines have higher compression than others yet all engines legally pass the fixed compression size rule.

Does that come with the power unit or is it just the car?

On X, Mr Engel has popularised the idea of “heritage Americans”

Heritage Americans. So like the 6 Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy? Or possibly others in the region such as the Wendat or Lenape? No? Then the Algonquin tribes certainly, like the Ojibwe, Shawnee or the Miami. Not them either? My mistake, you must mean the Cherokee. Huh? The Navajo, Hopi, or Apache then? The Inuit?

Them: "No. You know..."

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. I appreciate it.

Have a happy new year!

You too!

If you want to vote by mail please do so as soon as you can and consider dropping it off at the counter where they will postmark it right away.

Even then you have to request it. The term you need to ask for is "hand canceling". The USPS worker will take a handheld ink stamp and mark over the postage stamp with the received date. That letter is now "processed" as received by the post office.

I think we’ll have to agree to disagree. Often times if I see an interesting question in the comments, I am glad for it, because that was the insight I needed to want to read the article and answer it.

Just reading comments without the article? I have no issue with that at all, and do that myself.

For me that isn’t annoying unless the commenter is getting something wrong that is talked about in the article, and doubles down on it.

How do you, as the commenter yourself, know you aren't getting something wrong without reading the article?

I feel like each post is an invitation to discuss the general topic

How do you know what the general topic is without reading the article?

If you feel like that is disrespectful, I get where you’re coming from, but I don’t think it is that disrespectful.

Maybe disrespectful is too strong a term. Let me amend that; I lose respect for the poster when they're asking a question that is answered in the article. I sometimes write off engaging with them further in that thread because they're clearly not even doing the most basic of tasks to be a part of the conversation.

But plenty of interesting conversations can happen in the comments (like this one) that have almost nothing whatever to do with the article!

I'll do this too on occasionally, if I can clearly tell we're not discussion the article topic, but its a gamble on my part and if someone smacks me down because it is article topical, I fully own that and apologize knowing its my fault.

I get where you're going here and I do the same as far as reading, but before I post I make it a point to actually read the article. Otherwise I may be forming and asking questions clearly already addressed or are completely divorced from the actual topic because I lack the articles context.

I feel it is part of the mutual respect with other posters to not waste their time asking questions already answered (in the article) or derailing the conversation because I don't know what conversation I'm in.

Nowadays, iOS sees just as many vulnerabilities as every other popular OS.

I'm no Apple fanboy but Apple security is more than the OS. Since they also produce all of the hardware, it means they can do things at the hardware level and either make available or restrict things to the OS that Windows cannot do because Microsoft doesn't control all the hardware makers.

I'm posting this in Asahi Linux on an M2 powered Macbook. Its been an interesting experience learning not only the benefits of this as a hardware platform, but also its limitations from the FOSS point of view.

please learn to comprehend - i did not ask for examples i asked for why they are allowed.

I didn't give you a single example to answer all of your questions. You don't even know enough to form the right questions yet. That's why I told you to pick up a history book.

yes you have lots of heroes and good guys and volunteering when needed is indeed important.

Thats not the takeaway from the example I gave. Its that war is murky. Geopolitics is a constant moving narrative. Its that principle can be more important than civil statute. Its that a nation of immigrants doesn't immediately divorce itself from its prior ethnic affiliations.

i do not trust the US to not pull the rug out from these guys.

That is indeed a possible risk. You're going to be shocked to learn about American citizens that fought for Germany in WWI, and were welcomed back to American with no hard feelings.

so … how is this legal and allowed

"allowed"? Which unit of the US government do you see chasing US citizens into a warzone to stop them?

and what happens when the US turns its back on ukraine?

Again, history book. There is no one answer. History has examples of it going both ways and no consistent answer as to what the future holds.

So again, pick up a history book and look at how prior examples of this play out for not only US citizens, but also other citizens in other nations that we in the USA drew our legal inspiration from.

Along with the reading of history, if you could check your arrogance at the door, that would be appreciated too. Starting from a place Ignorance is no crime as long as you're looking to learn. It is possible to engage in conversations without being an asshole.