That’s very nice, but we’ve still got to contend with the reality that an entire political party in the US is using Christianity as an excuse to do horrifically evil shit, and a sizeable contingent of everyday people who also claim the label are in support of that. As an outside observer and not a Christian myself, it seems like a semantic distinction that ultimately misses the forest for the trees.
< nitpick >I could be operating with incomplete information, but I don’t think that was technically Jesus, I’m pretty sure that was in Exodus, which was much earlier.< / nitpick >
Trump became president by winning over enough Republican primary voters and then exploiting the electoral college’s inbuilt favoring of conservatives.
For someone better to get in, they have to go through one of the major parties, and that means winning a primary. As such, by voting in a primary, there is the chance to actually stop a genocidal maniac from being put on the ticket in the first place. In our current system, that is unfortunately our best option. Voting third party in the general election in a first-past-the-post system that filters the popular vote through the electoral college is about as close as you can get to throwing your vote away without putting it in a literal trash can.
For the record, while this is the system that we live with and have to work within as long as we have it, this system is also total shit and we should absolutely abolish the electoral college and adopt a more parliamentary system like stronger democracies have elsewhere in the world.
Voting for a better third party in our current system unfortunately just makes it more likely that the worse of the two genocidal maniacs becomes the president instead.
CAHSR at least is already under construction and has made significant, material progress in the last few years. Brightline West I’m less confident in, but CAHSR is definitely happening.
maybe but they’re less cool than non-oil ones
france has world class high speed rail
ask him if she can complete a captcha
More specifically if a woman they don’t like does it. They like her in theory because she’s white and attractive and straight and Christian and got her start as a country singer, but then she had to go and have opinions about things, so now she’s a commie who’s destroying America, or something.
“Hey! No running psyops while we’re running a psyop! No fair!”
“remove our 2A rights” is a weird way to phrase “regulating gun availability to make it harder for people who intend to use them to kill people to get them.” you know the text of the second amendment includes the phrase “well-regulated,” almost as if they did not intend for gun availability to be the lawless wasteland that it currently effectively is.
I am now inside my desk. I die a slow and painful death.
Why’s it wrong?
I’ve been retreading the same ground because your argumentation strategy has just been to double down on your original points while ignoring my rebuttals. Which makes it fucking rich of you to accuse me of “not being interested in examining this discussion in any meaningful way.” Imagine what I could achieve with that level of absolute brass balls.
What’s the point of discussing if wages have grown without factoring in inflation? If wages increase, but inflation increases by the same amount, then leaving out the latter when arguing the former seems a little fucking dishonest, no? And of course it didn’t occur to you to read past the first sentence to see where she makes that exact same point… or you deliberately ignored it to keep doubling down on the points I’ve already debunked.
And you’ve also admitted that there are still workers making the federal minimum wage, so it doesn’t seem like this wage growth you think is such a trump card has been benefiting them at all. As I pointed out earlier, a third of the workforce is making less than $15, meaning that all of them would get a pay bump from raising the minimum, not just the ones who are already on the minimum wage. I have made this point multiple times and you still refuse to acknowledge it.
Honestly, you’re arguing dishonestly enough that I straight up don’t believe you when you say you’d love to see wages rise more.
Top result on Google. https://www.ppic.org/blog/wage-growth-is-struggling-to-keep-up-with-inflation/ Got another “nuh uh” for me, or are you going to make an actual effort this time?
And they still aren’t, so why should she discuss that?
I appreciate that you want more frequent adjustments to the minimum wage. I am in full agreement. I think it should be assessed on a national level more so than local, because making it piecemeal like that leaves lots of open opportunities for bad actors to exploit it (think gerrymandered congressional maps), but I do appreciate that as far as that goes, we are largely in agreement.
That said, Teter’s essay addresses most of the other claims in your comment, with both argumentation and sources. Maybe you should read more of that and try addressing some of her other rebuttals to your points, rather than just ignoring them and repeating yourself endlessly? Then you might at least look a little bit less disingenuous.
It’s at least a little bit interesting IMO that this is something of a pattern I’ve noticed. I had plenty of stupid arguments on Reddit, but at least those ones would change over time as new information was introduced and responded to. Here, it seems way more common for people to just ignore your rebuttals to their points and just repeat them without adding anything new. Are people here just more stubborn, or what?
that is also how it’s always been explained to me