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.)

If you can figure out how to have anonymous and secure ANYTHING over the internet you’d win a nobel prize.

For the moment, claims to do all three either lie about one part or are as sci-fi magic as sapient AI or faster than light communication.

Depending on your state that’s probably true… Unless, like Georgia (or maybe Texas soon) you have an even where a Red-controlled state goes Blue by a thin majority and the NPV keeps special attention away from them.

I can honestly see Texas republicans joining the NPV if they go POTUS-blue just once. Especially if there’s any downballot effect.

Politics doesn’t happen in a vacuum.

When the NPVC goes into effect, both major parties will run whole-country campaigns and swaths of the nation that are currently ignored will get actual attention. While some states may have pullback campaigns, its also likely that other states will react by joining the compact to preserve the new status quo of not being ignored.

(the compact itself does allow for states leaving, and even sets a nice 6-month time offset. )

There isnt a debate.

One of the major parties in the USA knows that they are able to get power only because the 1929 Apportionment act artificially buouys the power of less populous states in the House and by extension the electoral college. The other one is just fine with actual proportional representation.

Not t metion that the EC doesn’t encourage presidential candidates to campaign nationwide: most states are ignored, and focus is on the minority of swing states.

(and Lincoln had a clear plurality of the popular vote. He woukd have won a national vote too.)

In order to blame the bad actions of the United States for the “polycrisis”, you really need to excuse all of the bad actions of everyone else.

To pick a timely issue : blaming the USA for the actions of Israel in their* Gaza territory we would need to excuse Israel for the actions of Israel.

If a general strike would have any effect id support it, but the target should be the specific actions of our country rather than the actions of other sovereign nations.

(*: If the govt of israel does not recognize a distinct Palestinian state, and the pseudo-governments of Palestine cannot exert sovereign control to keep Israel out, then Palestine is [unjustly] and [occupied] territory of Israel.)

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.

Has it also led chidren to believe that if you cut down a tree with an axe it will just hang in the sky instead of falling down?

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.

While dramatic things like making the senate votes proportional or abolishing the electoral college might require a constitutional amendment, the text is silent on plurality vs RCW or what have you.

Congress could mandate a switch with a simple law, and point to their power to ensure democracy, same as the post bush v gore laws that mandated electronic voting machines.

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?