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.

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 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

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.

electoral reform and more funding to education and science it’s the only way to fix this

I swear my wife waits till she gets headaches and needs to eat, I always offer to cook but for some reason the migraines are the real decider of when we eat

now this is what I call a Dom

put that limit at 100 million please

I think they mean the $100 million to billionaire class. Or at least I’ve always taken it to mean that, no one in any fabricated middle class will be harmed.