IIRC two states and several major cities have also successfully implemented rank choice, and in every case it’s been because of Democrats.

As more and more local governments make the change, it’ll become more popular and gain more support on the national level.

The problem is that any third party that manages to eventually displace a member of the duopoly immediately replaces that party in the new duopoly.

Because the duopoly is a result of First Past the Post (FPTP) voting. As long as we use FPTP the duopoly will persist, just with different parties filling the two roles.

Anything short of switching away from FPTP for some form of Rank Choice is going to be a band-aid, mere temporary relief, and not even a very good one.

I’ve never had a job where my wage kept up with inflation. My annual raise was always below inflation, and I felt lucky to get annual adjustments at all.

I suspect this is simply an artifact of math. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and as long as the average of the two looks good then the people in charge can nod their heads, say “good good,” then go spend a week on their yacht.

Trickle down economics, as a theory, has been around well over 100 years, and it’s never been believed in by everybody. Hell, a presidential candidate gave a speech against the idea in 1896

You’re correct about misinformation having been around forever, but access to and ease to create misinformation is greater than ever before thanks to the Internet.

The author assumes the Court doesn’t understand the consequences of what it’s doing, but I really don’t think that’s a reasonable assumption. It’s entirely possible they know exactly what they’re doing.

Democrats are not “so called progressives”.

Some progressives are Democrats, but not all Democrats are progressives. Most Democrats are not progressives, in fact. Things make a little more sense once you accept that.

But only a little.

Because there couldn’t be any legitimate reason to do the things they’re banning, like cloud seeding, crop dusting, air dropping seeds for reforesting, I dunno, literally releasing anything as you fly over even like CO2 exhaust as mentioned by the other commentor.

Literally all matter is a chemical, chemical compound, or substance. IMO this law is going to be struck down super fast just for being overly broad. Not that that would stop Republicans from passing it and spending millions of dollars in public money defending it in court.

You mean birth rates + immigration > people leaving the state? I’m shocked! Shocked I tell you.

Seriously though, there does need to be an asterisk after “fleeing” that says “if they can afford it” which, let’s be honest, excludes most people who want to leave the state.

My parents were just telling me about a friend of theirs who moved back to Ohio… fucking Ohio… after discovering that retirement in Florida was terrible.

Yeah it must be pretty bad if Ohio and Kansas are looking better.

Never mind that the whole point of a provisional ballot is “I don’t know if this vote is valid, but here it is just in case it is valid”

I feel like casting a provisional ballot should protect you in cases like hers, not condemn you!

I’m starting to wonder if they’re putting her in the limelight as setup for her being Trump’s VP pick.

I think it’s pretty authoritarian to seek to stifle any speech.

Ohhhhh you’re a free speech absolutist. Gotcha.

There’s a fuckton of philosophy and case law behind why free speech absolutism is a bad idea. Maybe you can spend some time looking into that, you might gain some insight into why everyone is shooting you down.

Also, words mean things and while authoritarianism always shuts down free speech eventually, not all restrictions on free speech is authoritarianism. This would be the nuance that you claimed other people refuse to see, that you yourself have eschewed in this case.

Yup, it’s taxpayer money.

The logic is that shit like this will cause voters to demand change and vote in people who will make sure stuff like this doesn’t happen again. But the reality is that most voters simply don’t care, and there’s a non-zero number of voters who are unhappy because they want the black man to stay in prison whether he’s innocent or not.

I don’t follow that particular but if politics very closely, so I’m genuinely asking: is that still the case post-Brexit?

The thing is that the study with the mice was seriously flawed. There’s been more research since then, which is why we’re getting this announcement now (even though the announcement itself is little more than “oh hey there might be something to this? We definitely need more research before we can know for sure.”)

I feel like this probably explains some things…

Which was always the intent, more or less. It was just kind of a tradition amongst audio engineers to use it once in every film. It had nothing to do with the studios.

I never watched Ghoulies, but I’ll never forget walking through the rental store and the box was eye-level with tiny kid me. Scarred me pretty bad. After that I was terrified of flushing the toilet, so toilet lid always had to be down and as soon as I flushed I would run from the bathroom.

Took me probably twenty years to completely get over it.

We need additional regulation about profit margins and executive compensation, or something along those lines, to prevent cost increases from being passed on to the consumer when it could just as easily come out of the profit margin or executive compensation.

It’s a good joke, right?

The only alternative is to use the tools we have: let the free market work, but not at the expense of the employees. This means, yes, wage increase will be passed into the customer, who will reduce how much they use the service (decrease demand), which will either drive down supply to justify higher prices or drive down prices to increase demand again. Either option creates opportunities for competitors to enter the market which also drives down prices.

All that said, let me be clear: I prefer option A over option B, but I’m not getting my hopes up.

I think you missed the point where I said “it’s not about nuance.”

I’m not claiming my examples don’t have nuances, I’m claiming that many (most) people have things on which they won’t compromise. Standards, if you will. Those standards may have nuance, but they remain uncompromising.

To use your examples, if “not trimming their toenails enough” is a deal breaker for someone, then the nuance of “but they shower ever day” doesn’t matter.

Because it’s not about nuance. It’s about deal breakers.