Why would moderate libs car about “going left.” They want to support the “just world” they grew up in and ensure they are never made uncomfortable.

Oh right, the red party of Capital is surely “Falling Apart.” I wonder what that actually means to the author?

You are assuming that the outcome of American democracy reflects the will of the people and that voters react to politicians not meeting their needs by voting them out. That is absolutely not the case. Universal Healthcare is consistently the most important issue to voters, but no politician, not even the Democrats has ever lost their election for refusing to endorse Universal Healthcare. Additionally no politician has ever lost their job because they gave tax breaks to corporations even though there is no case where giving a tax break to Amazon, et al, improves any of their constituents lives.

Back to Healthcare, Obama Care made the insurance industry hugely rich, reduced the quality of care across all demographics, and caused the absolute healthcare crisis we are in today and yet every single idiot liberal will call it a win even if the outcomes were worse for everyone.

This goes a bit more into detail. https://www.politico.com/story/2009/12/liberals-why-didnt-obama-fight-030648

But the important part is that even though the bill did not do any of things it sought to do, Obama got to declare victory and the voters rewarded him for it. (not that they had a choice.)

The laws only matter in as much as the company wants to make money. Otherwise yea, no company or individual has any moral or legal obligation to abide by any law and that government has no (legal) way to enforce laws on anyone outside of their jurisdiction. Ultimately companies are voluntarily abiding by laws because they do not care about anything except making money.

Universal suffrage was a mistake. Maybe a confederation of workers councils would be better.

There are a lot of 2026 cars that don’t require a phone app. They may have other shitty internet connectivity features, but they dont’ require an app. And the next time I buy a car i will 100% not be getting one that requires a phone app.

Why would you buy anything that requires and app, let alone a car? I haven’t bought a new car in a while, but if it requires and app, I’m not buying it. I bought a pergola, and originally they said I could use an app to turn the lights on. But I made them install a switch instead. Maybe consider unlinking your life for important/expensive purchases?

Nah that influencer is just chasing clout. He sucks. The flavor of the week is Flock, next week he’ll find something else to grift about.

That has been my go to for a long time, but then you get people upset and demanding mods censor words and view points and of course advertisers pumping real money to people in exchange for hosting content. So it makes a mess of things :/

Paying the vendors is how the DNC grift works. The GoP can rely on ideology, but the DNC specifically exists to funnel donations to preferred vendors while maintaining plausible deniability.

Ultimately the paradigm of mass shipping millions of tons of cargo across the ocean needs to stop if the environment is something that anyone wants to pretend to care about. As far as the cargo that is shipped, Cars are certainly the worst.

I’m so glad I quit facebook before any of the other services came out that apparently people “can’t live without”, and I’m perfectly content living in ignorance.

The “otherside” is literally enabling everything you are saying here. You are being played, there aren’t two sides, there are zero for you.

Darn, guess governments can’t do anything, may as well not try.

Safe spaces for queer people existed before social media and before the average politician knew what the internet was.

Glad people like you self-select against having dangerous objects in their possession.

The right of the state to keep slaves as punishment? That’s a weird thing to care about.

Boy that’s a real convenient generalization there. Any time the people are allowed more rights it’s for racist reasons, therefore more rights should be restricted?

But also the state already has carte blanc to be racist, they have a monopoly on force and justice. They don’t need to give the citizens any rights if they just want to be racist.

That’s kind of weird don’t you think? Mass Shootings are already a rare thing, so how much minimization would you want before you are willing to “let” people have their constitutional rights. Would you apply this logic to other things that are not constitutionally protected? For example how many deaths are acceptable before you decide not to “let” people live in car dependent hell-scapes?

Ban cars. You’d have a much more livable society and it would simultaneously reduce homicides and suicides.