I appreciate the pragmatism, and for what it’s worth, I agree with your logic but voters aren’t pragmatists. They engage emotionally, which is why reactionary movements thrive.

Republicans offered an identity rooted in tribalism, fueled by fear, anger, and even hatred. Yet even a hateful tribe is still a tribe. In an era of loneliness and division, the group that accepts you flaws and all holds a powerful advantage. The side effect? Politics becomes emotional, not intellectual.

And let’s be honest: It’s hard to blame voters for disengaging. First-past-the-post, ‘lesser of two evils’ voting is demotivational at its core.

When every election feels like damage control, idealism withers.

No it’s their job to accurately communicate the effects to their readers, which they did.

if they aren’t safe no one in this industry is. Marvel Rivals is insanely successful.

i mean I’m glad they fact checked but… no fucking shit

I mean yeah, Dems have complacent leadership but they are definitely the much better of two bad options.

My point is even if you had ideal leadership, inevitably discontent of uncontrollable externalities would cause a tick-tock cycle between the two parties as reactionaries are just part of the human condition and the party willing to play dirty will always come out on top in a two party system.

well that’s kind of the point isn’t it? every time the Republicans get in they do so much damage that it can’t possibly be done in the inevitable swing back to the left that they create and then by the time they get back in because of all the reactionaries they just do more damage

kind of the end result of a two-party system if you think about it

You’re just dealing with literal definition versus an inferred result, however you know this, you literally chose to deconstruct it in your original comment.

Laymans use imperfect allegories, that doesn’t make them incorrect. If the message’s intent is clear to imply that the only correct interpretation is the literal one is just bad faith.

It might be semantically incorrect but it is still a decrease in tax for the rich which given the current disparity in wealth frankly is barely a distinction at all.

i think the number itself is fairly arbitrary. what we need to evaluate the cost of living and aggressively taxed above the point at which only exorbitantly lavish wants come into consideration.

i think this would be wildly different depending on externalities and extremely difficult to ensure fairness, while avoiding excessive means testing which can cause a lot of overhead.

it’d be interesting to hear other’s ideas. that being said it’s a lot easier to say fuck the rich than to determine an enforceable definition of excessive.

put that limit at 100 million please

I think they mean the $100 million to billionaire class. Or at least I’ve always taken it to mean that, no one in any fabricated middle class will be harmed.

I can’t wait for all of the republicans at work to be told what to think. I’ll enjoy hearing how they try to sell me on PBS being biased.

Unfortunately that does seem to be the way it’s going, I give Bluesky 8 years before it’s as bad as current day X.

here is a list of compatible banking apps, however the list is crowd sourced so trust but verify.

the way I’ve always put it is you have an idea of who you want to be and you have to work to be that person every day and it’s okay to fall it’s okay to fail but it’s important that you keep trying.

I really would like to see some of those checks and balances I’ve heard so much about. Must have gotten confused—it’s cheques for the rich, on our dime, to make their balance keeps going up.

dear God, please let League of Legends get banned, it would be so funny

not your fault English is a mess of stolen arbitrary rules.

excellent point and not trying to be pedantic, just pointing this out because i used to make the same mistake, the past tense of cost is cost.