docAvid

Cut to Mrs Claus baking a spice cake:

She's all alone, all alone, in her time of spice

Are you claiming that wanting to make antidemocratic rules more democratic is authoritarian? Who wanted to ignore the popular vote? And how, exactly, does the comment you replied to suggest that Bernie was entitled to the nomination? The voters are entitled to get the candidate they want.

How do you conclude that I'm not considering that? Escalation doesn't reduce that risk.

Bernie might have the right idea in a ideal world, but in reality it's not a great take and it makes other Democrats look bad that are having to make the difficult decisions which again spreads apathy.

It's hard for me to read this as "not advocating for one way or another", given that what Bernie is doing is saying to step back from the unquestioning full-throttle support of the Netanyahu government. If you think that's a bad take, the only conclusion I can draw is that you are advocating for that full support of what they're doing.

To be fair, a lot of the other things you've said indicate otherwise, so I guess I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

Because the Democrats are conservatives.

AOC has made mistakes, but tearing down the left-most Members of Congress for not being left-enough will only push Congress right.

I highly recommend this episode of Unfucking the Republic: https://www.unftr.com/episodes/topical13

The Bush government response after 9/11 increased radicalization, strengthened Al Qaeda, and decreased support for the US. It put us in more danger, in order to destabilize the Middle East, advance US imperialism, and line the pockets of international arms profiteers.

The Netanyahu government response after 10/7 increased radicalization, strengthened Hamas, and decreased support for Israel. It put them in more danger, in order to destabilize the Middle East, advance US imperialism, and line the pockets of international arms profiteers.

Maybe you're correct that some action, other than strict defense, would be best, but that's not on the table, here. In this context, the choice is between further funding the worst choice, or not doing that. What makes Democrats look bad is how many of them support further funding the worst case.

And that right there is why thugs with badges always get acquitted. A cop isn't a judge, jury, or executioner. I don't care what she thought she knew already, there is no excuse for this kind of violent assault against someone who still holds the legal presumption of innocence. She is a criminal and belongs behind bars.

Their decisions are logical based on their map, which is grossly inconsistent with the territory. Better?

If murder was legal, and somebody who was known to have committed murder was running, and you were confident that person would make murder illegal, and you were convinced that their opponent (who may have never committed murder themselves) would actively encourage more murder, maybe even pay poor people to commit murder, which candidate would you vote for?

Technically, I'd say "increasingly inevitable" is a meaningless phrase. "Inevitable" is an absolute - an outcome either is, or is not, inevitable. Like they say, "you can't be a little bit pregnant", outcomes cannot be a little bit inevitable, or somewhat inevitable, or mostly inevitable, so the degree of inevitability cannot be increasing.

However, I think most native English speakers would not think twice about it, and would read it as something like: "a Trump dictatorship is approaching inevitability." That's how I read it, at least.

If one party ignores the rules, while the other party follows them, the party with no regard for the rules will take all the power, and we definitely won't have a democracy anymore.

Marriage predates any modern religion, and likely predates organized religion entirely. Marriage is a civil institution. Marriage belongs to all of us, not just churches, not just the religious. Don't let them take it.