Humans have honored the dead since before homo sapiens. Laws can be complicated, contradictory, and confusing; respecting the dead is clear and primal.

Yeah, this probably won’t change a lot of minds, but some folks will see there is something wrong about a man who would dishonor the dead to celebrate himself.

For anyone wondering, this doesn’t actually work, because the bananas will realize they are upside-down.

Definite agree with the core of what you’re saying, though for US and EU (and to a lesser degree “High income countries”), the numbers are quite close, as clean grid energy is significantly outpacing electric vehicle adoption (and EVs rely on a clean grid to be clean).

If you return the tax to everyone as a dividend, then it becomes progressive, while still encouraging less polluting options

Effective systemic change requires changing the systems, not individual people or companies. If we want less virgin plastic or gasoline burning, it needs to be less profitable to extract oil, process it, and sell it to people who want it, otherwise somebody is going to do that.

This article is an abuse of the source data. “Working class” here is closer to manual laborer and excludes teachers, farm workers, military, emergency services, nurses, law enforcement, and others. The data is also fairly noisy, with typos and 2% of values being empty affecting the calculation.

To conclude that anyone not “working class” by this definition is “upper-class” is absurd. I guess for some it is hard to imagine the lofty former assistant manager at Burger King (D-AR) understanding the struggles of the common man.

There are certainly interesting discussions to be had about the disruptive influence of wealth on elections and about balancing representation with competence – and folks are having that discussion – but this article contributes less than nothing to those conversations.

I agree that saying gerrymandering affects everyone is sort of off-topic and distracts from discussing the precise impact being discussed, but it’s really not equivalent to “All Lives Matter”.

• “Black Lives Matter” => Stop police murdering black people
• “All Lives Matter” => La la la, I can’t hear you

• “Gerrymandering Denies Incarcerated People Fair Democratic Representation” => We should stop gerrymandering for the sake of prisoners
• “Gerrymandering denies everyone fair democratic representation.” => We should stop gerrymandering for the sake of everyone

The dinner example assumes only one person didn’t get dinner. If instead everyone went without dinner, wouldn’t it make sense to point out they weren’t the only one affected?

NHS to discontinue delivery of babies until double-blind study is done vs just leaving it in there.

According to Times of Israel, the jets are F-15IA (Israeli-variant F-15EX), which are quite capable of carrying over a dozen bombs equipped with the JDAMs also being provided.

I doubt such information would be public, but given that Trump publically invited Russia to interfere in the campaign, I’d certainly consider it plausible he also did so in private. Seems like a heck of stretch to go from that to “liar” and “corrupt”.

Are you talking about the Russia collusion thing where his campaign staff were found guilty of a bunch of felonies and he wasn’t charged because a “president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office”? Where Mueller basically said: I’m not allowed to say he’s guilty, but I can tell you he’s not not guilty. That one?

You have neglected to note that the original comment violates rule 6 against celebrating death.

And through the whole thing she’s using her submissive wife voice https://jesspiper.substack.com/p/the-fundie-baby-voice

What she said was “I think we can certainly do more to be advancing our vision, and I believe we have a strong vision that we can run on.” She specifically calls out:

• Codifying abortion/reproductive rights [House and Senate races matter!]
• Lowering Medicare age
• Student loan forgiveness

Contrary to OP’s title, she actually pushes back on the false narrative that Biden is running as “not Trump”.

She does say that it will be important to demonstrate “what we are willing to do with” governing power between now and November.

Headline is an outright lie. The article literally quotes her saying she supports IVF. The author speculates that a bill she is co-sponsoring (that does not mention IVF) may accidentally ban IVF (if it passes and Biden signs it).

Certainly you could denigrate her intelligence, performative politics, or the logical incoherence between her abortion and IVF positions. But you cannot say she wants to do something contrary to her actual explicitly stated desire.