Most democrats run on not being trump. I consider that running on hate. But I could understand if others don’t. As for the border bill… they only floated that because 1… they were pretty sure the Republicans wouldn’t want to give them a win. And 2… they were trying to woo conservative voters to vote for Biden. It was a win win stunt that they wouldn’t have done if the election wasn’t close.

They talk about it sometimes. But never do anything. And more importantly, it doesn’t even make Americans top ten. I don’t have much faith in politicians doing anything about it until it is in the top 5. https://news.gallup.com/poll/642887/inflation-immigration-rank-among-top-issue-concerns.aspx

I agree they should still be done. I just want some progress on the root of the problem.

We don’t have bipartisan ideas anymore. Both sides run on hate for their opponent. So they can’t be seen as working with them.

While I think all of those laws make good sense. I don’t think they will actually reduce gun violence much. Most of them people will just ignore like they do the advice to store guns better. The law will only punish people after the fact. And everyone else will always think that it will never happen to them.
And the system fails to protect people with straight up restraining orders against others. It won’t be able to do much with all the other things you mention. So focusing on those, and of course never achieving them, is just the carrot on a stick the dems use to get the voters out. If they weren’t a political focus they would actually have a better chance of happening.

This is the real takeaway. The Republicans want to do nothing, and the dems want a quick fix in gun control. Neither addresses the root of the problem. The world as a whole needs to invest more in social services, education, and public health. It should be where the majority of money goes really.

So here is one of the pages I read… https://linux-gaming.kwindu.eu/index.php?title=Should_you_switch_to_Linux_gaming%3F I saw similar sentiment in other places as well. Sounds like you are saying this isn’t the majority opinion?

Overall, I have a strong dislike for apple in general, and I won’t take a job where I have to work with windows ever again unless I am desperate. And I am also getting very tired of Microsoft’s bs. But I don’t want my main home pc to be a project either. I already use Firefox and a vpn. But every time some page doesn’t work right I have to turn off the vpn, and try chrome before I know the problem is on thier end. And it usually isn’t, well other than not supporting firefox and a vpn, but these are banks or doctors offices, I don’t have a lot of choice in most of them. There is only so much of that I am willing to do on my main home pc. But overall, I would like to be part of the solution, as long as I am a target user, which from what I have read, I am not.

Nice. My info was from googling using Linux as a home pc. So it may be a gate keeping attitude or it may be fact. I don’t want to fight with my home pc that just browser the web and plays games. Oh… I guess it runs turbotax in april.

I was reading pages about going linux only. Everyone I read warned people off about how it isn’t easy and such. That was just one example. But for work linux is easier to support, hands down. I have supported both. But for my home pc… which surfs the web, plays games, and not much else… windows is sadly easier according to the pages I read.

Sure, and where the line is drawn now is why more people don’t use Linux. I even use it for work, but still don’t want to deal with the hassle at home. I am getting a new home pc soon, and I thought maybe linux is ready. So I started reading up. No, I do not want to have to reinstall the os several times before I get it right. I don’t want another chore.

Doh, I thought it was Liechtenstein. I rember three small things from my kids geography quizes… Monaco, Vatican city, and Liechtenstein. So in my mind it had to be one of them. Lol.

Sadly, the fairness doctrine doesn’t seem like it was particularly constitutional. I suppose you could argue that a corporation has no right to free speech. Getting into that debate would be complicated. But that seems like the only way to fix this.

This… the media is made up of businesses with shareholders. They do and say what is best for those shareholders. Not what is best for us, or the country, or the planet, or anything else. Expecting them to do otherwise in the system they exist in is delusional.

Buying a company to end censorship, but suppressing stories you don’t like, seems weird.

You’re not wrong. But while you can knock them down, you can’t stop them. The powerful will always find a way.

Yeah that’s the thing, an solution that requires an ammendment is a nonstarter. That is why all these PACs exist. They are not part of the official campaign, so they aren’t under any campaign rules. I just don’t know how we manage that without an ammendment.

1st amendment would be an issue with this.

Fights with a vet to desecrates the graves of fallen soldiers… weird.

What is the real solution to money buying elections. All I can think of is the gov gives you a budget, and that is all that can be spent. People are welcome to voice thier opinions, but not to spend money spreading it. Seems unlikely to work out as planned. Any better ideas?

Financially sure. But strategically I would think the gov would pay for it like they are with chip making fans.