I'd say the shining city on the hill should have made restoring the rule of law a higher priority, but that's just my opinion.

It seems the GOP can make things plenty worse in a hell of a hurry, but when it comes to righting the wrongs, it's all too hard. The Democrat inclination toward civility politics and the status quo over basics like protecting the rule of law and the democracy will be the death of us.

Oh for sure - but vague gestures at imagined hypocrisy are all part of their shtick.

It's all irrelevant though - there's no evidence that'll sway a conspiracist - your options amount to walking away, appealing to the emotions of a lunatic, or violence. It's not for me to say which is right.

That's easy - it's because these companies have no interest in delivering anything of value - they're solely concerned with shareholder returns. The subsidies they're able to collect along the way don't tend to help things because of the way they're structured, and a lack of consumer protections mean these companies can act with impunity.

🌈Capitalism

While I'm definitely in favour of funding school lunches, and agree it should be trivial to find that in the budget, you need to understand that kids can't eat the aging military equipment that's being sent to help Ukraine defend themselves, crippling a hostile dictatorship with equipment that would otherwise mostly be scrapped.

He rolled back changes to the endangered species protections earlier this year for one.

You're also neglecting to mention that they're FAR less prone than the GOP to implement horrific, anti-democratic, regressive, fascistic policies than the GOP. While the Democrats are bad, the GOP is horrific - and when there's only 2 available options and this much of a spread between them, you need to vote to slow the decline.

Oh - I see how it works.

Are you the kind of weasely, hypocritical liar that fails to understand commonly used words and basic causality while suggesting people are saying the opposite of very clear statements people have made with nothing that could possibly be interpreted as a contradiction, as you insist that obviously leading questions can't be interpreted as accusations?

That was easy - let's see how far this takes us...

Are you some kind of kiddy fiddler? An unrepentant moron? An obvious liar?

I'm just asking honest questions, you see. No implied accusations or anything. Don't get all upset - who would see that as an accusation?

Fuck me, this is asinine - your nonsense is laid bare at this point - I'm out.

This is what having enough money that you're immune to consequences and enough ego to think you don't need the meds to deal with your massive mental health issues gets you... That and the Blitler nonsense.

It was the titans... definitely the titans given this city layout.

Yep - there's no shortage of examples - this is why I point to it as the unfortunate norm.

I agree with the sentiment in the sense that they have shared class interests, but the GOP wants, and will institute massive, sweeping change for the worse as the Dems deliver a mixed bag in broad defence of the status quo that benefits them.

In that case, I'll rephrase my question.

Would it be fair to rephrase that as Should I take that to mean that the people you've said he needs are abandoning him? What does that suggest about the need for people that oppose Trump to vote?

My point the entire time is that what you're saying is nonsense. You're saying he's being abandoned by the people he needs - whether it's his supporters or non-supporters that will line up and support him by voting for him, and in response to me pointing out the election is a toss-up, you're accusing me of suggesting people don't need to turn out to vote and lying.

You see your flagrant hypocrisy and dishonesty here, don't you - or does the same deficiency that undermines your ability to understand the meaning of "support" similarly affect your reading comprehension and/or understanding of basic causality?

It's peak capitalism - a man of sub-normal intelligence was born into wealth, further expanded that wealth by using it to exploit the work and intelligence of others, until it grew large enough to entirely shield him from the consequences of his actions - all as his ego inflated to such fragility that he had to surround himself with nothing but sycophants and yes-men. When he decided to crack out the crayons and design his own Canyonero to prove his intelligence (and ability to meme with his fellow kids at 50-something years old), there was no one left to tell him no... Until he encountered insurers, the EU, a mild hill, a sprinkling of rain, or anyone looking at it without gushing adoration.

Would it be fair to rephrase that as the people you've said he needs are abandoning him? What does that suggest about the need for people that oppose Trump to vote?

I don't know how you think lining up to vote for the head of the Republican party isn't supporting both the party and the head of the party, but that nonsensical position is beside the point.

When the alternative is having those loved ones denied medical care, locked up, or shuffled off to the camps, yes.

You don't have to be happy about it, but you do have to keep the unabashed fascists out of power. There's 1,458 other days in the election cycle to convince, cajole and bully the Democrats into being less bad.

Yes - the Republicans instituted the bad thing, the Democrats perpetuated it. Obama had the White House , House , and Senate and didn't close Gitmo as promised.

I'm in favour of Biden acting like a dictator if it's to do things like restore the rule of law, stop torture, and right wrongs like separating kids from their families for their entire childhood. The kinds of consequences that make dictatorships bad. What's the value of proceduralism if it not just fails to correct, but actively delivers those outcomes?

Standard Democrat fare - they'll perpetuate the worst of the GOP nonsense, fix some of it, and generally be less terrible. Also see: Gitmo.

...but as long as the alternative is the GOP, who will make everything far worse far faster (to the point that they're likely to end the moribund US democracy next term), you need to get out and vote for them up and down the ballot.

And they’re being shaved off bit by bit.

Who is the "they" if not people that would vote for Trump, and what do you mean by "shaved off" if you don't mean they won't be voting for him?

Are you suggesting he's definitely going to win and no one should bother voting for Harris?

Let's see...

You do understand the election is a toss-up, don't you?

Guess not.

I understand you said he can't win with just his supporters - you also said he's losing those supporters. Putting aside the fact that people voting for him are definitionally supporters, you understand that those 2 statements clearly imply that there's no need to vote for Harris, right?

My point is that you're all over the place with your talking points - there doesn't seem to be any way to thread them together.

...because the taxis rely on full self-driving, which has been a couple of years away for the entire span of Tesla's existence.

Capabilities aside, this simply won't happen without legislative change - Tesla won't wear the consequences of their cars killing people.

As an alternative, you could try self-hosting searxng if you're that way inclined.