What’s your alternative?

Do you have a ready-built national organization that can be successfully co-opted to supplant the DNC i dont know about?

DNC isnt just a sunk cost, its an established civic investment. Unless you think the whole system is going to collapse overnight, a takeover of an existing party is the quickest way to get real change. And if the DNC is rotten and needs to go, we can best do that from the inside.

Every “third party” either merges into a major party or devolves into a vanity party, because the only positions that matter electorally in a winner-take-all system are “i suooort the current person” or “i want them out of office.”

Do you show uo at your local DNC meetings? Did you endorse, donate, primary, or run for anything?

If not, PLEASE DO. The smart dems are reeling, and the ones who arent deserve to be primaried.

The phrasing I’ve settled on personally is “the only choices were Harris, Trump, or Either.”

In a winner take all election, anything but a vote for the runner up is an endorsement of the winner.

To rephrase this: they take the time to block out labels to ensure there is a reason for the brands to pay.

Nancy Pelosi also said that we have enough votes to take the house.

I’ll consider listening to her again if and only if Hakeem Jeffries is Speaker.

I think you’re underestimating how deep the pay gap goes.

“women’s work” jobs are so consistently paid less that mere career choice is a huge part of the pay gap.

Please understand that “nothing” means the built up surplus runs out and there will be not enough money to pay all benefits.

The smart and easy fix would be to raise the cap on ss taxes while flattening the “you deserve more money because you made more money when you were working” weirdness.

Instead, they’ll likely either do nothing and force the dems to fix it in four years, play with benefits to make the poor suffer, or try and replace it with a phased in 401k style stock market scam.

(that last option, btw, is killing social security.)

You’re not “striving for revolution”, you’re carrying water for regression to a pre-WW2 USA.

Getting pregnant,. transgender, homosexual, foreign-seeming, and left-leaning Americans killed (in that order) will save exactly negative Palestinian lives.

You say that like there’s a world where the cop is not less-bad than the serial rapist.

Honestly, at this point you’re either a pro-trump troll or a trump-like useful idiot. There is little i can say that might change your mind, especially if you’re in the latter group and honestly think the ghosts of gaza will thank you for your performative morality when Trump gives the ok for Israel to go mask-off.

Is it too much to ask for a meme template that doesn’t DIRECTLY contradict your message?

Or did you mean to imply that single-issue anti-gaza-slaughter voters are the equivalent of star wars criticts being properly annoyed by folk who like melodramatic space opera?

Bail is not money you get back. It’s money that a bail bondsman doesn’t have to fork over if you dont show.

Either you are so rich that the opportunity cost of tieing up the whole amount is more than the fee (so you just pay the bond fee) or you don’t have enough and need to ask someone to lend it to yoy (that is, you pay the bond.)

New York tried to largely ban cash bail (becaue its essentially just a way to lock up the poor), but because of Republicans and police unions (i repeat myself) who whined about offenses while out on bail, the state poked a bunch of holes in it instead of making pre-trial detention easier.

Cash bail is ALWAYS indefensible. If someone is so dangerous to civic order they need to be detained pre-trial, then no amount of money should get them out of it.

Did you just intend to endorse organ harvesting and grave robbing?

And, if you want tax reform capital gains aren’t your target, but instead “unrealized gains”. A billionare pledging stock to back a loan should pay tax on their whole net worth’s increass in value first.

In an American-style single-ballot-plurality wins election, anything but a vote for ons of two leading candidates is effectively an endorsement of either.

It sucks, but if you’re not voting and advocating for Harris, you’re not voting or advocatong against Trump.

So, you’re asking if there is a shoplifter whose small-dollar.spree was stopped by target, who was then arrested by the police, who then refused an initial plea offer from the DA, who was then charged by a grand jury, refused a pre-trial plea offer, went to trial, refused the pre-verdict plea offer, and was then found guilty?

Well, what about someone who hit 60k over 120 visits?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/05/07/target-self-checkout-thief-aziza-graves-convicted/73599144007/

(edit: shortened url.)

Is there a particilar part of a lecture about chimpanzee mating habits that you think especially buttress sexism? If not, just referring to a whole video as a reference is just a gish galllp through citation.

Except that it ISNT self-evident. There are plenty of mammals with no apparent bias as to which sex is more prone to violence, more if you exclude the minority of mammals where only one sex has a natural weapon.

You might have a slightly better case if we were just talking primates. But not by a lot.

As a seperate top-level answer: no, would not pursue a romantic relationship with a woman who repeats sexist assertions about men. Because i am both a man and a feminist, and my several decades of happy married life have taught me that compatability of strongly held beliefs is a key to romantic happiness.

I would also not encourage the young men and women i know to either espouse sexist positoons or pursue potential partners who hold such beliefs. And i would probably also ramble for a bit about how all labels are imperfect and you should not necessarily dismiss someone just becsuse of a label.

If you want to date someone who describes themselves as a “radical feminist”, a date might be a good way to discern if they are an “all men are evil” feminist or a “men are awesome and also victims of the patriarchy” feminist.

Feminists dont say things like “all men are potential rapists”, save for those who also say “all women are potential rapists.”.

An actual (traditional) feminist would say something like “society encourages rapy behavior from men”, which is functionally the same but rhetorically a far different animal. Women and men who say that men are categoryly dangerous are also implicitly telling boys that they are bad just because they are boys.

Sexist statements about how women are good and men are bad isnt feminism, it’s just sexism in disguise.

It’s not really “established” becaue there isnt any formal body declaring what names different voting systems have.

Are you unclear about what recognition other demcracies give to parties, how there is no prize for 2nd place in America, or why that lack of such a prize gives rise to a two-party system?

The elecrelically semi-literate side, obviously.