Completely disagree, a person doesn't have to understand what fascism is to be a fascist or indifferent to fascism, any more than they need to be an expert on dogs to not kick or oppose kicking one.
minnow
joined 1 year ago
Radicals ruin everything.
IIRC two states and several major cities have also successfully implemented rank choice, and in every case it's been because of Democrats.
As more and more local governments make the change, it'll become more popular and gain more support on the national level.
The problem is that any third party that manages to eventually displace a member of the duopoly immediately replaces that party in the new duopoly.
Because the duopoly is a result of First Past the Post (FPTP) voting. As long as we use FPTP the duopoly will persist, just with different parties filling the two roles.
Anything short of switching away from FPTP for some form of Rank Choice is going to be a band-aid, mere temporary relief, and not even a very good one.
I've never had a job where my wage kept up with inflation. My annual raise was always below inflation, and I felt lucky to get annual adjustments at all.
I suspect this is simply an artifact of math. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and as long as the average of the two looks good then the people in charge can nod their heads, say "good good," then go spend a week on their yacht.
Cults are about power, specifically for the leader of the cult. It's reasonable to assume that the mayor of the town and most of his cronies are cult members themselves, willfully working with the cult for mutual gain, or the cult has some kind of leverage over them.
Let the sorcerer get a mob, which while enroute to the cult to rescue their friends will be joined by the sheriff etc.
Meanwhile, the rest of the party will want to fight their way out or die trying, and it won't be fun for them if you railroad their actions in another direction. So, let them! The cultists won't kill them without orders (because maybe it's okay to kill these people, but maybe not, and none of them want to take the initiative and risk upsetting the leader)
The party successfully breaks free just as the sorcerer shows up with the mob lead by the sheriff who's on the cult's side. He then "legally" arrests the party for attacking the towns citizens. The civilian members of the mob are easily quelled and dispersed by the sheriff's men, leaving the party to fight a proper mini-boss battle (the sheriff and his men) OR let themselves be arrested (maybe by the suggestion of the NPC friend?) as a means of getting closer to the truth and whoever is REALLY in charge.
If they fight and win, they'll have a blast and earn their escape.
If they let themselves get arrested, you can advance the plot or have a sympathetic townsperson help them escape stealth fully.
Either way they should have a fun 🙂
Trickle down economics, as a theory, has been around well over 100 years, and it's never been believed in by everybody. Hell, a presidential candidate gave a speech against the idea in 1896
You're correct about misinformation having been around forever, but access to and ease to create misinformation is greater than ever before thanks to the Internet.
The author assumes the Court doesn't understand the consequences of what it's doing, but I really don't think that's a reasonable assumption. It's entirely possible they know exactly what they're doing.
Democrats are not "so called progressives".
Some progressives are Democrats, but not all Democrats are progressives. Most Democrats are not progressives, in fact. Things make a little more sense once you accept that.
But only a little.
IMO you should report the things to the labor board and let them decide. You never know what you might be missing with your own read through of the rules.
Because there couldn't be any legitimate reason to do the things they're banning, like cloud seeding, crop dusting, air dropping seeds for reforesting, I dunno, literally releasing anything as you fly over even like CO2 exhaust as mentioned by the other commentor.
Literally all matter is a chemical, chemical compound, or substance. IMO this law is going to be struck down super fast just for being overly broad. Not that that would stop Republicans from passing it and spending millions of dollars in public money defending it in court.
view more: next ›
The use of "females" here is objectifying, and generally frowned upon. Here's a way to avoid this mistake in the future: replace "females" with the word "people" and if it works grammatically and in the context of what you're saying (eg, you're not talking about animals) then you should be using "women" instead of "females."