What we’re talking about is a game between two players: democrats and their potential voters. It is totally a valid strategy in game theory to punish the other player when they’re not cooperating. If you’re always cooperating even when your opponent (i.e. your preferred political party) isn’t, you’re just encouraging them to continue to not cooperate.
Try out this interactive page.
That’s not how it works. Using that logic voting for Himmler would be the right thing to do because at least they’re one step less awful than Hitler. Fucking demand that Himmler change his ways or a better candidate is allowed to run.
A lot of countries have political theater instead of actual politics, but the US is really deep into it.
There are multiple reasons. Raw materials or chemicals feature lower profit margins than end-stage weapons. They also leave massive environmental footprints, particularly of nitric and sulphuric acid, which are key to making everything from nitrocellulose to RDX.
That is just right-wing disinformation:
The right-wing opposition has questioned the Socialist-led coalition government’s phase-out of nuclear energy and reliance on renewables, saying they made Spain more vulnerable to blackouts.
But the government says there is no evidence to suggest “an excess of renewables or the lack of nuclear power plants” caused the crisis.
Two percent of the population is actually pretty huge. Historically, 3.5% has been the threshold after which change has almost always happened.
No, wait! Please do explain why you are going to bed.
But Putin’s white queen is on a white field? Am I missing something?
Yes. Doesn’t mean it’s a bad strategy.
This is not a one-round game. Elections happen repeatedly. If you show someone you will punish them for bad behavior even at cost to yourself, it might teach them to change their ways. On the other hand, always minimizing your losses in the current round (i.e. having no memory or vision) makes you a perfectly predictable and exploitable player.