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.
Yeah I definitely misspoke and should’ve said “convicted” rather than “locked up”, but she still had far more nonviolent cannabis convictions than the previous DA, as the article also points out. And every single one of those people convicted by her will still be affected when they have to check “yes” on a felony conviction at work and elsewhere.
Do you see the problem that I’m getting at though? She’s refusing to seriously lean into an issue that would only help her campaign, due to a long standing history against cannabis legalization. This race is close after all, so her doing so just seems like a huge mistake.
This Forbes article from 4 years ago covers the general feel of the issue, and has been updated recently.
To quote more directly from the Mercury article, This SF Gate article briefly covers the relevant actions taken by Harris over her career:
Harris oversaw at least 1,956 marijuana convictions in San Francisco during her 8-year tenure as the district attorney, and a Mercury News analysis of those figures found that marijuana arrests under Harris led to a higher rate of conviction than did arrests made under her predecessor. Very few of those convictions actually resulted in jail time, but convictions can still impact a person’s life even if they aren’t incarcerated. It wasn’t until she was a member of the United States Senate and widely considered a 2020 presidential contender that Harris came out publicly for legalizing marijuana, but that announcement probably seemed disingenuous to those who had followed her career in California politics up to that point. She actively fought a 2010 ballot measure that would have legalized recreational cannabis in the state, going so far as to author an opposing argument in the California voter guide. Then, when she was running for a second term as the state’s attorney general in 2014, she replied to a question about her opponent’s support for legalizing recreational marijuana use by saying, “He’s entitled to his opinion,” and then laughing.
Also I can’t read that article bc of a paywall, sorry for not being able to respond to any relevant info, but feel free to give me the important parts if you’d like.
She is directly responsible for locking up thousands of nonviolent drug offenders when she had the ability to reduce, expunge, or never take to trial many trivial cases, yet she chose to.
Also that was a jab about cops being liars. Cops lie on the job all the time, otherwise we wouldn’t need to ever record them.
Police=bad
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.
I bet she learned that move from her time in the police force.
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.
Ahh I see. You’re the type of person to pull out their phone in the theater. 👍
Who do you think is buying the movie tickets? Is your little cousin gonna smash his piggy bank and pay the $35 ticket with his leftover pennies and nickels?
It’s adults. Adults pay to watch the movies. I’d happily pay to watch Shrek again in theaters.
Remember when JB said, “I blacked out. Did something important happen?” in borderlands.
Me either, but he did, and we’re gonna get that joke again too.
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.
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.