Abandoning the remaining low-income and disabled Dems that are less likely to have documentation like that would be a strategically bad move. Not to mention, you currently have Fed that will happily to “Lose” your paperwork when you renew if they can correlate your face with their “Age Verification” data that identifies you as a Democrat.

Give them an inch and they’ll take all of it.

Edit: Typo

I think we’re all clear on the assignment. We’ve all taken a hit for the sake of “Buy Canadian” and other movements, to help with re-alignment, and we all know we’re going to have to support each other as shocks continue to hit. An important factor, however, is the pain needs to be distributed in a reasonable way. The TSE index funds are seeing solid and gaining dividends. We need to see some more movement from the top income brackets in putting those dividends back in to domestic industry to help compensate for inevitable job losses.

A little bit of a tempest in a teapot. It doesn’t sound like they’re actually going to stop distributing existing drivers, they’re just not accepting any new drivers or updates (unless they’re critical security updates) for those packages.

Unfortunately, we’re not all the ones that decide if we’re on board or not. Our employers are. We live in a world where profits are privatized and losses are socialized, so when this goes, it’s going to hurt the general public a lot more than it will every hurt the Epstein Class.

The problem is the cost of that correction is going to fall on us. Or did we forget that the flavor of capitalism we live under is the “Privatize the profits, socialize the losses” kind. We’re not the ones in the casino, but we’re the ones who will lose our shirts when they lose.

“You know who doesn’t buy my drugs? Maidenless losers.” Said every drug dealer in history. It’s not even good marketing hype, it’s just sad at this point.

They may not care about Gaza, but there’s a lot of Latino Citizens in Texas that aren’t too happy about getting assaulted in the streets.

Then for all our sakes, let’s hope someone comes to the presidential run with a position we can all accept even if we don’t all love everything about them and let’s hope the midterms go well to at least stanch the bleeding right now.

In your opinion. An opinion you’re no more willing to budge on than the leftist is willing to compromise their position that any further concession to the right is tantamount to endorsing their atrocities. That someone willing to “reach across the aisle” at this point is doing little more than consenting to crimes committed in their name. The leftist and the liberal are standing equally on their beliefs and their principles, and both are just as unwilling to compromise. Can you truly say either one is more responsible for dividing the opposition to the fascists than the other? If you truly believe that voting for anyone but Trump is worth whatever price it takes, then you also believe there’s no harm in endorsing a more left leaning candidate no? Unless you truly believe more Democrats are willing to permit crimes against humanity than there are leftists willing to find an acceptable compromise. If that’s the case, the United States of America has already fallen too far to save.

I hear you, and I understand, but also in that same pragmatic vein, we stand at a crossroads where without a coalition with the left we have no path forward. The right can’t seem to articulate any kind of clear concept of what would bring them on board except hurting more people. The left at least has the advantage of expressing a clear set of demands, none of which are particularly objectionable. Difficult, yes, possibly unachievable in a time frame that would satisfy them, but not objectively evil, which is more than I can say for the voting base of the right at this point. We have a choice to try to win back the left, or to try to make ourselves attractive to those who are at this point actively voting for fascism and potentially for mass genocide. Are we not being just as obstinate with our insistence on political centrism that we too are allowing the right to engage in atrocity after atrocity?

Their capture by US feds and banning people who speak out against US foreign influence operations would lead me to believe otherwise.

Men not being raised to aspire to be good fathers is 95% of why the far right exists in the first place.

Why would Americans care? This happens every other week down there. Here, one is a national tragedy, there it’s just a Wednesday. This is the what happens when people soak their brains in the American social media BS too much.

He’s trying to encourage disbelief in germ theory. He’d like to encourage a return to cornflakes and Graham crackers to rebalance the humors.

Oh, they do. Depending on the context, there’s a whole host of ways to imply sarcasm without depending on intonation. Body language, context, double entendre, formality shifts, etc.

The question may not be inherently stupid, although it does contain a false premise. You really should follow the news before you start claiming the news channels aren’t reporting a story. It’s been front page news on literally every publication for 3 days now. I have to assume then that this question is actually rhetorical. If there’s a statement you’re looking to make you should probably just make it.

medical terms are now no longer medical terms and just purely an insult

Language drifts over time, that’s normal, always has been. Stay on target soldier. FORMAL language however needs very strict definitions or it just stops working. Words mean things is true. That still doesn’t mean you get to say the “R” word.

What I’m hearing is laws are threats made by the dominant socioeconomic-ethnic group in a given nation?

We spent 100 years engineering the world to decrease birth rates and punish people for having children “they cannot afford”, then immiserate the majority of people, eliminate any kind of opportunity to enjoy life, community, family, or recreation without spending ungodly amounts of money to enjoy simple human pleasures that have been part of being human for hundreds of thousands of years, work them relentlessly 24/7/365 (or as close as we permit them) for the sake of business efficiency, destroy the environment so survival itself becomes dependent on the business cycle, and we wonder why no one wants to raise a child in this environment?

Honestly, we have spent a century ruthlessly punishing people for even thinking of making a marginally irrational decision and then wonder why they won’t indulge in an objectively irrational activity for the emotional fulfillment.

Ah, trying to build a legal precedent for thought crimes now. That’s not at all concerning.