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.
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
everything in media is so risk averse that banality is a garentee
technology standardization as well, everything became homogenous but necessity is the mother of invention and all the boutique techniques and solutions to work around their short comings would lead to something difficult to replicate
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.
He was just a sparkling Authoritarian before they invaded Poland
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.
i think they mean sometimes people leave fun on the table because of fomo
I've been really enjoying trilium as an open source alternative but fair warning it's not as polished as Obsidian
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.
bye-bye fast food, hello real estate business
Matrix is great but it's got the same problem as every other communication service, it's only useful when other people are on it.
I use it and encourage my friends to but they just look at me like I'm crazy
I know when I feel this way it's usually because work is burning me out.
i mean I'm glad they fact checked but... no fucking shit
at the rate the Senate's spine is deteriorating i suspect it to slip by their scoliotic corpse within a couple years.
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
everything in media is so risk averse that banality is a garentee
technology standardization as well, everything became homogenous but necessity is the mother of invention and all the boutique techniques and solutions to work around their short comings would lead to something difficult to replicate
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.
Ahh crap, I meant Endeavour lol I got them mixed up.
I mean as long as it's elementary OS that might be okay
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.
surely laying off fire protection agency officials during historic droughts brought by ever worsening climate change won't have any negative impact.
I can't wait to hear how this is good actually and if it isn't it's the Democrats fault.