drewofdoom

Nobody is going to make you vote one way or another, but please recognize the following:

The United States is currently a two party system. It sucks. We need to push for more ranked choice voting, as well as direct popular vote.

However, until we're able to achieve something that makes this parties viable, we will continue to have issues with the right wing getting undue influence in our politics.

Vote with your heart, but make sure that you're okay with another Trump presidency of you decide not to vote for Biden.

Keep in mind as you do so that more than one state had enough votes for Jill Stein that if they had gone to Hillary, Trump never would have become president.

We should have viable parties outside of the two not great to horrible parties we have now. But that's simply not the way our government works as it stands now.

Last thing: you've become a single issue voter. This is the lefty equivalent of only caring about abortion and ignoring literally everything else. Politics is complicated, and I personally find single issue voters incredibly shortsighted and lazy.

LOL, "I'm willing to listen to reasoning, but only if you format it in a way that I'm willing to read."

For real, though, fewer guns means fewer gun crimes. The whole 'then only outlaws will have guns' is really a myth. Statistics have shown over and over again that the vast majority of criminals who purchase guns do so legally. If they can't purchase one locally, they just go a state over where the laws are lax. The whole 'black market' gun stores thing is just a false argument.

The idea that a 'good guy with a gun' will make everyone safer is also pretty well debunked. Just look at John Hurley - the 'good guy with a gun' who was posthumously branded a hero after he was shot by the police.

Guns are inherently unsafe. We're never getting rid of them in military applications, but any reasonable restrictions for private ownership should be a no-brainer.

All the arguments for 'private gun ownership makes us safer' fall apart under any scrutiny. So does the constitutional argument. The only real, provable argument you have is that your personal freedom to own a killing machine is more important to you than public safety.

Foreign policy has nothing to do with fascism. Like literally nothing. Any form of government could do that.

Besides that, Republicans have done just as bad. Oliver North comes to mind...

I mean, I'm not really interested in reigning in spending on things like social programs. I do think the military could get slashed by a very large amount, however. Especially considering how much military contractors over-inflate the cost of absolutely everything they sell the US government. Instead, I'd rather we just pay for the stuff we want to do by decreasing the wage gap by a VERY large margin and fixing the business tax code.

How about we do both? Continue to fund Ukraine in order to provide a stopgap against Russian encroachment and destabilization of Eastern Europe, as well as take care of people in America? It wouldn't even be that hard.

Tax the rich so they pay their fair share. Use that money to fund social programs and boost the economy for the middle class and lower. Tax businesses to the point where it's more lucrative to reinvest in their own companies than it is to make massive profits - this promotes raising wages. Cap executive pay to a fixed rate above the lowest-paid employee. Just like that, the 'richest country in the world' can act like it and not relegate their poorest to third-world conditions.

But you weren't interested in a real answer, were you? Just shilling for the alt-right and Russia.

There are a lot of reasons to not judge it yet. First and foremost, the director/show runner has zero input on the trailer. That's all the marketing department, and the trailer is designed to get as many eyeballs as possible on the final product. Numerous examples exist of trailers which bared little resemblance to the movie/show/game/whatever.

Secondly, they buried the lead on the director. Jonathan Nolan did direct much of Westworld. But he also wrote a bunch of award winning films for his brother, Christopher Nolan. Movies like Memento, Interstellar, The Prestige, and Dark Knight. He's no slouch, and I'll reserve judgement until I see it.

I take your point, but Madoff and Bankman-Fried are the quickest to come to mind. It's rare, but it does happen, and usually because of financial crimes that affect other billionaires.

I mean, yes. Corporations owning towns is problematic. But the way in which this was handled is significantly worse.

While having their own government generated huge potential for abuse, all signs point toward Disney actually being a pretty good steward. So it's not like this was some emergency. The takeover of the government could have happened slowly, deliberately, and in a way that did not destroy the district in the process. But that was not the point here. The point was to cause damage to Disney because they dared to disagree with DeSantis.

Notice that none of the other privately-owned towns in Florida are being stripped out. It's just Disney, and it's just because of revenge.

Due to the way this was done, an awful lot of people are going to needlessly suffer. Not just Disney employees, either. Disney attracts massive tourism to Florida, and that tourism money ends up all over the state. This is a self-own of absolutely epic proportions on DeSantis' part, and all of Florida is going to pay for it.

Is it brainwashing and indifference, though? Could also be fear of a hostile government. Russia isn't exactly known for its fair treatment of protesters, dissidents, and activists.

I think this is a cultural difference. In the US it's not uncommon for common sense health regulation to get ignored - such as the amount of sugar in soda - because people cause an uproar about freedoms being taken away.

But if you say it's about the health of sweet, innocent children... well then suddenly it's a lot more palatable for the public.

So here in the US, you can want everyone to stop smoking, but make the case that it is for the benefit of children in order to help achieve that goal.

Keep in mind that she won her district by a super narrow margin. After this, I'd say she loses easily next time round. To the point that I wouldn't be surprised if she gets primaried.