The name “pro-life” is absurd. Too far from reality

I think you all need a new name for yourselves. It sounds absurd at this point

I’ve noted that you are a superior human who doesn’t waste your time with celebrity nonsense. I assume that’s what you were going for with this comment.

It is genuinely amazing. I have watched it multiple times since I first saw it! It feels like something that would be funny but should get old after a few minutes, and yet it never does.

The whole talk appears to be done in one continuous take!

When the 270 mark is passed, it has the effect of making every vote equal everywhere.

Right, and this is bad for the Republican Party, so they will do everything in their power to stop it.

Bill Clinton never debated George W Bush

What kind of Dem candidate is pro fracking?

One who exists in a fucked up electoral system where the entire fate of our country rests upon a few thousand votes in western PA.

https://theonion.com/fuck-everything-were-doing-five-blades-1819584036/

I wonder if a big part of the reason is just the whole phone call about Biden and subsequent impeachment, and how Zelenskyy wouldn’t play ball and the whole thing damaged Trump’s ego in a big way. So even if it’s politically advantageous in every way to say you want Ukraine to win, Trump is incapable of doing so.

I love the concept of it, but the thing about the NPVIC is that it’s 0% of the way there until it’s 100% of the way there. So while 77% seems like we’re close, and there is legislation pending that could get us to 95%, the only reason it seems to be going forward steadily is that it does nothing unless you go all the way.

The moment there is the prospect of legislation in a state that would get that last 5%, not only will that legislation be fought tooth and nail, but every state that has already entered the compact will have to fight like hell to keep it in place, not once but constantly forever. Because if you’re just over the threshold then almost any state backing out of the compact will nullify the whole thing again.

It seems too fragile to be a workable solution. But I guess I don’t see anything wrong with trying!

thoughtful people

There’s your problem right there

When I have it integrated into my development environment a la Copilot, predicting the next block of code I’m going to write (which I can use if it is relevant and ignore if not), I find it to be a huge timesaver.

If they are non-assholes then they should be glad you made them aware

I think you replied to the wrong post

I think the very important point you’re missing is that schools did not exist in fear of school shootings before Columbine. There were no lockdown drills and crazy security measures for entering and leaving the building. So making a big loud noise would not make people instantly think someone was shooting up the school like it very well might today.

“You” and “thou” come from different roots. They are not simply different orthographies like “ye” and “the”.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/thou

https://www.etymonline.com/word/you

https://english.stackexchange.com/a/18629

If “literally” means “figuratively,” then we literally have no word for “literally.”

It’s worth pointing out that you just used the word for “literally” and we knew which sense of the word you meant through context. Just like the verb “dust” can mean to put a layer of small particles on something but can also mean to remove the small particles from something. Humans are able to sort these things out.

However, one of the best things about language is that if a need actually arises for more clarity about “literalness”, a solution will naturally emerge to address it.

Even the word “literal” started out as a word that pertained specifically to the written word, and scholarly things, and its sense evolved to refer to things not necessarily written down, to the present meaning of “the most straightforward interpretation of what I’m saying”. A need arose and a word filled the need.

I’ve always wondered why so many people have this reaction, rather than seeing it as a cool thing that languages can do. Namely, taking bits from other languages and making them into something new.

It’s because the two-party system is a systemic problem. Our winner-take-all voting system always punishes similar candidates, so if similar groups don’t form a coalition and choose a single candidate to run for them, they will cannibalize each other and surely lose. So, you inevitably end up with two parties each representing all the factions on one side of the spectrum.

As a result, anybody on the national level who decides to run as a third party candidate (a) doesn’t understand our voting system, (b) is just doing it for the publicity, or © is out of their mind.

If we had a different voting system that did not punish similar candidates (like ranked choice), not only would quality third parties be possible, they would be inevitable.