Trump's tax cuts and climate policy is identical to what he did last time. Why did you vote for him if you were going to be unhappy with those policies?
If you didn't like him doing those things, which he clearly signaled he would do and nobody had any intention of stopping him, what did you vote for him for? How did those reasons outweigh the damage he does with his tax cuts and climate policy?
> Why did you vote for him if you were going to be unhappy with those policies?
I voted for him for his other signalled policies that I did agree with, obviously. I deemed those more important than the climate policy and tax policy.
> what did you vote for him for?
Primarily cultural issues, which he delivered on beyond what I expected. Examples include the EO to change university admission processes away from DEI, which will have a huge positive effect on my Asian children, and a reduction in immigration and H1Bs.
What I've seen for the past several years is that Asian and White applicants to universities, medical schools, and various other high institutions and careers are admitted at disproportionately lower rates when adjusting for qualifications. This is racism. If the left wanted my vote, they should have stopped being constantly, concretely racist against Asian people. Not the kind of harmless racism on the right that says we're bad drivers, but the deep institutional racism that bars us from the life we've merited and gives it to someone else because their skin color matters more.
I'm not going to respond to you anymore, because you insist on commenting in a supercilious manner unbecoming.
It doesn't. The republicans are able to stop things a lot of the time because Democrats don't have a strong majority in either house. They can barely scrape together a 50% plus 1 vote by bringing in people who are "Democrat" but for example refuse to allow public option healthcare or shut down of coal plants.
Republicans have voters that understand your guy has to be in the seat before you want something to happen. They correctly understand that if you just vote for more guys, you get more of what you want to happen, and correctly identify that the solution to not getting what you want is to get more seats in the next election.
I can never understand the shocking lack of civics education from people who get upset at democrats for not having power when the system describes in plain language that you need numbers for the power.
When Mitch McConnell prevented the vote to appoint a new supreme court justice, it was because he had that power as senate majority leader. If Democrats had a senate majority at that time, he could not have prevented the vote.
The F-35 is absolutely synonymous with our entire airforce through 2088.
The F-22 is still a viable Air Superiority Fighter but there's about 100 of them. It cannot hold back a peer air force. The primary point of the F-35 was a cheaper F-22 that we could build 3000 of.
4th gen fighters like the F-18 cannot compete in an air war with a large amount of stealth fighters using modern long range missiles, like China is fielding. They would be defeated before even seeing a blip on their radars.
Without the power of Air Superiority, all the rest of our air force is basically useless. B2s and B21s might still be usable, but they cannot maintain a strategic bombing campaign on their own. The money spent on 4th gen missile trucks is pointless.
Giving up the F-35 is equivalent to total abandonment of our "Best Air Force" doctrine and would require a significant shakeup of how we view the military, and billions poured into other parts of the military to make up for giving up the sky. It also means capitulating to China in advance. Though, if we are willing to do that, we could save like half the military budget every year.
Just have to abandon the entire pacific, Japan, and South Korea, and the Philippines, and Australia, and Vietnam, etc etc etc.
I can still play Quake without Id spending any of their own money running servers.
That's literally all anyone wants
Community run servers were killed because there's a possibility the community run servers would let you play with content you (gasp!) didn't pay for, as happened with TF2, so they can't possibly let you have that option! If they don't get $6 for a texture file, the world will end!
And don't give me bullshit about "But they would have to put extra effort into building that", as if nearly every game server application provided to players has ever been anything other than a random exe file with no documentation and critical flaws that require third party hacks to fix. Pretty much anything built on Unreal or the Source game engine had a ready to go server by default, or with a checkbox.
Hell, even nothing more than a carveout in the DMCA to allow people to legally reimplement servers after shutdown would buy a lot of goodwill. This carveout is only needed because the DMCA dramatically limited your legal rights in respect to software products just a couple decades ago.
That was the express and public reason for nearly driving the bison to extinction. Said so by General Sherman himself.
To starve indians nearly to death, so that they would conform to American imperialism. Then we invented "schools" which were advertised to "Kill the indian, save the man" by erasing any remnants of their culture.
>I don’t have to be Jeff Bezos to wager that, if the people who ran Baltimore City Public Schools ran my broadband service, I wouldn’t have even 1 gig service.
Pay up. Municipal broadband is objectively better than the other options pretty much everywhere it hasn't been banned.
Municipal broadbands were laying 1 gig fiber service while Spectrum and Comcast were still selling 10mb/s as standard.
Municipal broadband has never been banned in Maryland, where I live. Or in New York, Delaware, or Georgia, where I’ve also lived. Where are the great municipal broadband networks in these state?
That's cool that those people who were supposedly opposed to slavery were fine with creating a brand new nation which had, in its constitution, "You can't ban slavery for a few decades" and "Places with more slaves get more power" as primary concerns.
Completely unrelated of course to the growing popularity of abolitionism in Great Britain which banned the atlantic slave trade in 1807 and formally banned slavery in 1833, long before that brand new country which supposedly had so much influence from "anti slavery" folks eventually found cause to ban slavery decades later, and only made black people equal members of the country over a century later.
It was a compromise... After the war the choices were to unite or be taken back over by Britain. Being taken back over would mean everybody who died and suffered from the war would be in vain and slavery would continue on in the colonies just like before.
People like Morris tried to get rid of the 3/5 compromise and get rid of the protection of slavery. He was one of the most vocal against slavery. He called out the hypocrisy and wanted to slow the import of slaves by taxing the import. He and others like him tried their hardest, but were at least able to set things up to allow the eventual ban.
I don't get people like you who can never see that while things weren't perfect, moving in a better direction is good. You let perfect be the enemy of good.
Really do you care that your daughters are being advertised beauty products at the exact moment that they delete a photo because it's likely that they're feeling low self esteem at that moment? Because that's a service that you used to be able to buy from Meta.
They decry colleges for not being good enough compliant worker factories. They attack higher learning institutions. They make no attempts at pushing knowledge.
Trump's tax cuts and climate policy is identical to what he did last time. Why did you vote for him if you were going to be unhappy with those policies?
If you didn't like him doing those things, which he clearly signaled he would do and nobody had any intention of stopping him, what did you vote for him for? How did those reasons outweigh the damage he does with his tax cuts and climate policy?
reply