explodicle

By tolerating the disease right up until it causes its host to dehumanize other people... and then we act shocked like it's some new, separate disease.

Actually asking, not rhetorical: if poor people are already getting charged based on what they can afford, would this policy exert a downward force on prices?

So way less financing options, slightly more buying outright?

You're failing to grasp the nuance between reluctantly supporting genocide and fully supporting genocide.

Then we never would have heard of them.

Opportunity cost

Or what? What are you doing to do about it if they don't change at all; if they'd rather lose with a lesser fascist than win with a progressive?

Then there's no cost to you making this promise:

I hereby swear to not lecture leftists about voting third party in 2026, because there will be no election in 2026.

It doesn't matter anymore, so it should be easy to agree with.

Sanders already left the party

And now I shall imagine that's what all ftp:// URLs are saying.

The comic shows a smaller govt and says that's bad for the poor.

The person to whom you're responding is saying Republicans actually create a bigger government that's worse for the poor.

They're spending less on social services and frittering it away on government bibles that only Trump sells.

If Libertarians were libertarians, they'd oppose the Taft-Hartley Act.

Probably not, they're terrible at DNA editing.