Ginny [they/she]

The fact that you think both of these people and their viewpoints deserve equal defense and respect says a lot more about you than it does me.

Yes, that’s exactly the point I was making. Bless your heart, my twelve-year-old buddy.

Would you also consider Martin Luther King Jr. to be a whiny limp-dick centrist for believing in nonviolence?

Considering he let Commodus succeed him, presumably not much.

That’s the deal, my dear.

I believe the original source for this joke is Frankie Boyle: https://youtu.be/yZOLq82m2Ks

That’s an otterly different name!

Are you the current administration? Yes: Blame the previous administration. No: Blame the current administration.

Apologies for raining on your parade, I was just engaging in a bit of transatlantic ribbing.

(We also don’t use the word doody/doodie, so I don’t know what it looks like written.)

Imagine not being able to distinguish between the words duty and doody.

• The English Gang

Pot of Greed? What does it do?

The UK government doesn’t need Russia’s help to destroy faith in democratic institutions.

The quotes from Marx about guns were from 1850, before even the widespread adoption of the metallic cartridge.

I personally don’t believe a non-anprim stateless society is feasible so I wouldn’t know.

I don’t think being anti-gun makes one not an actual leftist.

Sure, Marx wrote that stuff in Resplendent606’s comment, but:

• I think it’s worth bearing in mind that when Marx wrote that, guns were still using powder and percussion caps.
• Not everything Marx said was gospel.

Anyone not in favour of recreational nukes is in agreement that there should be a limit on the amount of lethal force a person should be allowed to own, and I think reasonable people can disagree on whether or not guns are within that limit.

German? Believe it or not, Mexican.

Irish? Also Mexican.

Let he who is without sin melanin cast the first stone.

In summary

Vote blue no matter who:

Pro - Democrats more likely to win. Things won’t immediately get worse.

Con - Democrats have no incentive to do anything other than what their wealthy donors want.

Result - Things don’t get worse now, but eventual rightward drift is guaranteed because the democrats will do nothing good and the republicans will win eventually.

Vote blue only if X:

Pro - Democrats have an incentive to do something other than what their wealthy donors what, in theory.

Con - Democrats less likely to win.

Result - Democrats might do something good if they win. Rightward lurch is possible if they lose.

Can we please stop litigating this now?

Edit: The “best” approach would ultimately depend on the relative effectiveness of influencing democrat policy via primaries or whatever, and I don’t think the answer is immediately obvious. I am not advocating one approach over the other, I just want people to stop pretending the answer is obvious.

If you’re inclined to be charitable, I believe the capitalist-brained reasoning goes something like:

These grocery stores will inevitably run at a loss and/or need to be subsidised - costing the taxpayers money - because the state couldn’t possibly run them as efficiently as a private enterprise competing in the free market.

(Not saying I agree.)

Yew-ess-ay-ian doesn’t flow like yew-ess-ian.

Without exception, all my gith characters are called Apo’stroph’e.