The alternative being…? What, third party candidates? Are you kidding? The only alternative to “blue no matter who” is more “red” and as you can see, there is literally zero support from “red” whereas there’s at least a substantial fraction from “blue.”

I don’t think many people who said “blue no matter who” are actually very surprised by this, because the phrase is not coming from die hard supporters, it’s coming from anyone with basic logic skills.

Nothing is black and white. Bernie may be a geezer, but he has consistently good policy positions for his entire career, and has more integrity than the rest of the senate combined.

It should be called The Endarkenment, just saying

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. Or, at least, you’ve touched on something that is often overlooked and underemphasized, despite being a (if not the) root cause of this stuff. I think it’s hard for people to understand if they were not young men once, and it’s easy to forget as you age, even if you were.

Yep.

It’s confusingly worded, but I think they were saying “they” as in “America” were having a civil rights movement (60s), and that the Nazi successors started the war on drugs to undermine and destroy it.

There are not more than two choices in a FPTP voting system.

Where is the thread this image is from? Edit: found it https://archive.is/52nbF

The motives matter because I am telling you that they would call it DEIA if it were considered better practice to do so, because the people in the company who take on these initiatives are the people who care enough to do it, and they try to get it right. Do you know people involved in such initiatives? Because I do. And they called it DEI when we used to talk about it. And they changed quite a bit about the initiative based on feedback from members of marginalized groups in the company, so they would have changed the way they referred to it (DEI => DEIA) as well. This is a common experience. The fact that it is called DEI by politicians is simply not a purposeful slight in this instance.

The people who run these initiatives tend to be people who care, actually, in my experience. It’s DEI because DEI is the standard industry-wide term. Have you worked at a company that uses the DEIA initialism instead?

That may be true, but at actual companies the term DEI is almost always used, not DEIA, for internal initiatives.

With this Supreme Court and federal judge stack? Who decides constitutional issues? Who’s going to challenge the Supreme Court legally? The majority GOP senate? Or the majority GOP house of representatives? He has all three branches of government. Who can challenge all three legally? Anyone with a chance (vast wealth) were sitting behind him at the inauguration. In the sense of “checks and balances,” he literally has unchecked power.

This is actually very great

Do you have a specific rebuke for something I said where you can logically point out where I’m wrong or are you just hand-waving?

How would I know if it is or isn’t different today based on your comment? How am I supposed to answer that question? By asking that, you are asserting that it is different today. Yet you have given no numbers for what it is today for the same countries on that image.

You know that, and you are trying to sidestep me now while accusing me of sidestepping. Why is that? You said in the beginning of your comment:

Americans couldn’t find Iraq and Afghanistan on maps during those wars despite the latter lasting 20 Years and Americans being involved in them.

You are saying here that those wars lasted a long time, and one lasted 20 years, and despite that, Americans couldn’t find those countries on maps during those wars. But the data is from the beginning of that time period. So after 20 years yes obviously the numbers would change. But that data doesn’t say that. That data is the starting point. A lazy reader might very easily think that data supported your point. Same as your previous comment I took issue with.

Like I said: “I’d suspect the numbers would still be worse than they should be”

But also, you’re doing it again. You’re saying “despite the latter [Afghanistan] lasting 20 years,” but dude you linked images from 2006. It hadn’t been 20 years yet. In fact, that data is from nearly 20 years ago!

That is, again, extremely misleading data to support the argument you’re making.

Do you really think Ukraine being featured prominently in American news, pop culture, political discourse, and zeitgeist in general for the past two and a half years hasn’t affected those numbers? You would not have used Ukraine in this example had it not been for the current conflict. To use numbers from ten years ago is a deliberate misrepresentation of reality.

That article is from ten years ago. I’d suspect the numbers would still be worse than they should be, but Ukraine has become a much bigger situation since then which is why you’re using it in this example, so this is not an accurate picture you’re painting.

Right, yeah, they’re evil and they’ve had unfettered power to enact popular policy that would work in their favor for decades but haven’t done any of it yet because we’re dumb sheeple who actually understand how the U.S. political system works

And when your analytics shows that adopting those policies will lose you more voters than you’d gain from the likely third party vote, what then?