Probably a background character since everyone took the good characters already 😔
Mostly OC, with the occasional shitpost
The Drake Equation is a probabilistic formula meant to derive the number of civilizations which humans could potentially communicate with.
The fermi paradox does challenge the formula though, as it implies fi and/or fc are very small or zero.
I get where you’re coming from, but I don’t think it’s all-or-nothing thinking to question the effectiveness of just doing the opposite of what conservatives propose. If we don’t base these decisions on real data or thorough analysis, we might end up with a policy that feels good politically but doesn’t actually deliver the best results for people. I’m not suggesting endless studies or using that as an excuse to delay action, but rather that we should be intentional and evidence based in making these decisions. Especially given our elected officials have cabinets full of paid staff who can already read the studies that have been published. No new studies and waiting is necessary.
Can you prove that’s the antithesis, and not -18%?
Would 82% be the best for regular people? If not, who would it be best for?
That delta (+3%) would still concede ground to conservatives when pre-Trump corporate taxes were at 30%. Even Biden told Congress it should be at 28%.
It’s just too reactive to want the opposite of what the new conservative playbook is. The best corporate tax rate for the average person has nothing to do with what Trump or P2025 think, so formulating our economic systems around the opposite of them won’t work either. We need a materialist analysis of our economy by experts and academics to determine what any particular tax should be in able to develop economic situations that best benefit regular people the most.
Rhetorically: What’s the antithesis of an 18% (base) corporate tax rate?
Project 2025 is fucking awful, but just doing the opposite of them doesn’t make sense when the working conditions of regular people can only be improved through a materialist view of the world, as the opposite of their goals isn’t what our goals are.
Is there a name for the subject you’re speaking of, or do you just mean as a general part of political science? Like I’ve seen memes referring to the subject, but I don’t take it as fact. I do know a bit about the multi-party Parliament and local governance of Sweden, but admittedly nothing deep. What would you suggest I further read up on in their system? And what study of Germany do you suggest I read in relation to this?
My own experiences in studying Vietnam have actually led me to the opposite position, where despite a voter turnout of 99%+, the country is still quite socially conservative.
That seems like a bit of an oversimplification based on the frequency of Dem wins to the voting percentage.
If true though, wouldn’t the US have been the more right wing under 2012 Obama than Trump since he had a lower voter turnout?
You can’t use evidence of a trend as evidence of political motivations is kinda what I’m getting at.
If that’s the case then there should be no argument from Dems about leftists voting third party in swing states.
We cannot continue to rely on fear to propel turnout. Fear and anxiety lead to paralysis and electoral withdrawal. Arguing “We’re not going to hurt you like they are” is no longer sufficient.
This has been such a massive failure on the Dems part, especially after seeing the excitement that Tim Waltz was able to generate after joining the race. I can’t stand to watch a Kamala rally or speech nowadays because it’s nothing but Trump fearmongering, and I don’t even know which parts are real worries considering the guy couldn’t even build a fucking wall.
It even backfires a bit too, because now I think more about how her office is going to come after our civil liberties. Obama created mass surveillance programs and went after whistleblowers, so what is her office inevitably going to do?
Nguyen Hoa Binh translates roughly to “Nguyen Flower Troops”, lol. It should be Nguyễn Hòa Bình. It’s kinda like mixing up “Steve” and “steed” in English.
Likely because it wouldn’t be reported to the government as thoroughly as hunting tags are. Politicians tend to be against policies that don’t directly give them clout when policies exist that could.
Exactly what I mean. There is zero organizing going on for PSL in this area, so it doesn’t feel nearly as important to push for a socialist vote compared to other issues, like ranked choice voting and cannabis legalization.
Tbh, I don’t expect any culture that considers tattoos to be taboo to be cool with weed.
Yeah, she’s been on my radar and I’ve heard some pretty good ideas and beliefs espoused by her and her running mate. Building leftist movements in a deep-red state is very much a “step lightly” action though, so I have worries that any overt socialist growth here will mean more attempted attacks on pride festivals by neo-nazis, and such. Hell, even mention of “antifa” brings out the crazies to roam the streets with rifles.
This is the #1 reason I have a hard time considering voting for Kamala in a non-swing state. We’ve got ranked choice voting in the ballot, so I’ll definitely be voting, but idk if I’ll cast a presidential vote or not.
I don’t endorse her, so why should I vote like it?
I’m pretty sure this is how
Nobody can hold the copyright unless it’s deemed to be created by a human. Disney owns the copyright because under US law, corporations are also people, and their employees create the work for Disney.
In the US under federal law only a human being may own copyright over a piece of artwork. Even a monkey that takes its own picture can’t legally own the picture, so neither can an AI. The only thing you can own is the access to the artwork.
While I think it’s important to have some sort of media bias understanding, I dislike the bot being the first (and sometimes only) comment on a post. Maybe it should be reserved only for posts that are garnering attention, and has a definitive media bias answer for (the no results comments are just damn annoying to see).
It also has the knock-on effect of boosting the post higher in whichever sorting algorithm users are using. So it often feels artificially controlled whenever something has 100+ upvotes and less than 10 comments, knowing the first comment is always a bot. Like, would it be fair for me to have 10 bots that comment factual information of posts I personally like, just to boost their visibility?
I have zero idea why Jack Smith waited so fucking long to bring this to trial. Maybe I’m missing something, but it feels like election interference to postpone court proceedings to give a candidate criminal deniability until after the election is over. If Trump really is guilty, the public deserves to know now, not after we all vote.