u/Noname_acc

This is just universally true.  I'm of the opinion that if you managed to motivate every voter inclined towards voting dem to actually go out and vote while Republicans stayed the same, Dems would hold the Senate like 95-5-0 dem-ind-rep.

Absolutely the truth.  Idependents are very partisan in their individual voting behaviors, they just don't affiliate themselves due to a few issues that never lead to them voting for the other guys but do sometimes stop them from voting at all.

You'll never need a freezer that big, you're way overestimating how much food you need.  A shelf can hold 30 meals per tile.  A single pawn eats 2 meals per day.  That means a 20 tile freezer can hold enough food for 20 pawns for a quadrum.

If you keep all your food raw it's less efficient than that but by the looks of it your freezer is 3-5x bigger than you'll ever reasonably need.

The most consistent behavior Trump has is sympathizing with rapists.

I think it was over before that.  The Emma Vigeland interview wasn't exactly a coup de grace or anything but it's definitely a good demonstration of why she failed to capture the left flank of the Dems like el sayed did.

That's the hope.  It's like the public execution thing.  Everybody except for a specific cohort of conservatives (male, self described maga) hated it.  It probably wouldn't convince them to vote dem, but I hope to God it convinces them to just stay home.

You've really gotta get the actual quote for Trump on this one.  

No puppet, no puppet, you're the puppet.

Dudes always been an idiot, even before his brain turned to mush.

Property taxes and capital gain taxes are treated differently for one thing so, It’s not really a great comparison in that regard.

This is neither a meaningful nor satisfying answer and I have no idea why you thought it would be.  Obviously I know that they are treated differently, that's why I pointed out property taxes.  If they weren't treated differently it wouldn't be much of an example of anything, would it?

The point being made is that liquidity is not an excuse for not taxing someone for something.  Property is illiquid.  We tax property.  This statement:

Problem is, that wealth isn’t liquid. It’s honestly as simple as that.

Does not follow.

The reason why we don't tax unrealized capital gains is not due to principle or because the wealth is illiquid or whatever other reason.  It's because the wealthy oppose it because that's where their money is really made.  That's it, no more, no less.

The assumption is not infinite opportunity, it's that companies have generally not fully saturated the market and also command a 100% market share.  If we are at the point where a firm has expanded so significantly that there is no longer any reasonable opportunity for them to continue expanding I think it becomes a trust busting question that far outweighs the question of whether a repurchase offer should or should not be legal.

Can you elaborate on why that's a problem?  My house isn't liquid, I still pay property taxes.

Failing to return that cash to investors, and with no option for profitable investment

Aren't you just assuming your conclusion here?  I don't think it's reasonable to assert that a healthy business with high cash flows and high asset liquidity will lack opportunities for expansion and reinvestment.  Conventional wisdom would predict the opposite, a thriving business will want to expand its operations.

Banning stockbuy backs would mean the firms squander the extra cash. 

Can you elaborate on this?  Why do you think this and in what way would it happen?

I wouldn't.  They've never needed to, why would they start now?

The uproar about election security is not actually about election security.

pretty rare one.

No kidding. The fight itself is even rarer than the event. One of the event options avoids the fight and the other only has a chance of the fight happening. With a two hundred day cooldown, its only proccing 1 time for the average player, if at all.

I disagree, this shit is red meat to the base and I like to know that the people I'm voting for have a plan to do the stuff I want them to do.

I am not a theologian

Its an awkward subject because many of the explanations for the idea of the trinity hint at a historical reality that modern Abrahamic religions are very much at odds with: that Judaism and Christianity are religions that have changed drastically over the course of their history. These explanations of the trinity all make a lot of sense when you consider that they were being made in an era where it was basically a given that loads of different divine beings exist. When some guy came to town and to try to convince a village thats worshiped Juno since back when she was Hera, you were going to need to have a way to explain that there was actually only one God, the Christian God, even if Christian mythology requires both a God in heaven and two distinct earthly avatars. Without that explanation you run the risk of new converts just continuing to worship their old gods with Yahweh as a new member of the old cast. So what they came up with was, yes, God did exist as three distinct beings but all of those beings shared the same Divinity so its really only the one God and not multiple gods.

It sounds like timecube shit to us today so its a bit baffling why you would explain it that way, but I imagine it sounded quite reasonable to people who believed they needed to kill a sheep once a year to honor some guy who came down from the mountain and turned into animals to get his freak on or he might get mad and have his brother sink the town fishing boats.

Theyre fundamentally mad about the same things the progressives are.

This is true, but there is a total lack of incredulity amongst the sort of person who is mad about those things and voted for Trump the third time. The type of person that gets taken in by "All your problems are caused by dog eating Haitian Migrants and the 5 trans NCAA athletes" is not going to be a reliable democratic voter. I don't think its possible to appeal to these people without flagrantly lying and fostering a sense of tribal allegiance and they've already got that in spades.

We're talking about a comment someone made.  You read it and seem to have interpreted in a way that doesn't really make sense to me.

Briefly detaining people to be identified at a police station for being someplace the government told them not be and identifying them is rape?

Is that really what you think they were trying to say?  Like, you read this and thought "if I assume a rational personal of average intelligence said this, they would mean..."?

If you could describe what the point they were trying to make was in your own words, what would it be?

How would a progressive be a repeat of the past few cycles?

We got a bunch of dumbass maga in america yet they dont speak for everyone

Tbh, I'll never understand why people think this is a good Zionism apologia line.  People fucking hate America for MAGA and they're right to do so.

What Democrats and others still don't understand is that it's not a case of MAGA not knowing, it's a case of them not caring.

Say it again. As much as it is a problem that the conservative propaganda network is a tightly controlled echo chamber that ensures no daylight is ever given to contrary opinions in a way that might make them seem appealing, the consumers of that propaganda are not being clockwork oranged. A moment of introspection. 5 minutes of incredulity. The slightest willingness to listen to someone on the left describe what they believe. It almost never takes much more than that to realize you're being deceived. The barriers keeping right wingers in their bubble are virtually non-existent. They are not sheep being led around with no agency. They choose.

Ok, but the situation that resulted from having it was that corporations were able to leverage their wealth to sow doubt against scientific consensus positions like "global warming is real" to advance their financial interests at the cost of our ability to respond to a slow moving crisis.

I don't know if its better or worse to have the fairness doctrine or something like it. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I suppose I'd be hard pressed to say that "No rules, do whatever you want" is better, but I do know two things for sure. Whatever mechanism you put in place to try to tamp down on bad behavior will be abused by people with the means and inclination to abuse it. And the rich and powerful will always have the means and inclination to abuse it.

I do agree that we ought to put a bandaid on this problem. But ultimately the real problem is that Wealth = Power and a very small group of us have more of it than all of the rest of us put together. Whatever bandaid solution gets implemented needs to be understood to be a bandaid.

Not sure what you're getting at, the article clearly states his license is suspended.