I use Actual and it’s very barebones, no BS, does one thing and does it well. Great if that’s what you’re looking for.

I’m so fucking sick of this argument. It’s nothing more than centrist cope; a way of willfully misunderstanding the reason for Hillary Clinton’s and Kamala Harris’ campaign failures.

Gen Z is more reactionary than millennials, and that’s because we’re more fucked. Fascism provides an outlet and gives direction and purpose to the general discontent and resentment harbored by young people today, same as it ever was. Gen Z appears more right wing because more Gen Z can see the status quo isn’t working for them, and in the absence / suppression of the populist left people turn to the populist right.

The last image is likely referring to this. Contracting prisoners out to private companies is a common practice all across the US, but particularly in Alabama and other former chattel slave economies. Southern slave plantations continued operating during reconstruction by using prison labor. The reason we have the largest per capita prison population in the world is because slavery never truly ended, it just adapted.

Fuck off Nazi, you carry the same hate. People are people and genocide is genocide.

I would like to know some specifics. For one, where is this charter you mentioned? Another, is there some kind of technology that you’re attempting to pitch to activist groups or are you just describing organizational strategies using computer science jargon? If there is actually something tangible that you’re presenting here then your communication skills need some serious work.

If this is meant to be a call to action it contains way too much technical jargon and not enough straightforward instruction. What is it you expect people to do after reading this? You can’t recruit people to prefigure a new society by just describing how you expect it to work, you need to give clear instructions and concrete steps that can be taken. You’ve asked people to examine your charter but you haven’t told us where that can be found.

The way you’ve written this sounds more like a pitch for a crypto scam than a political project.

I grew up southern baptist and it was an all-white church. I think I remember a time when there was 1 black family in attendance because they had just moved here. They didn’t come back for a second time. The southern baptist church split from the northern baptist church over slavery. Guess which side of that issue the southern baptist church was on?

Would be very funny, but New York is a Democratic stronghold. It’s very unlikely that Sliwa will gain much if any support he doesn’t already have.

In your hypnagogic state you experienced extremely short-term source amnesia.

I won’t stand for this coal miner slander, they used to be militant unionists agitating for workers’ rights. They were thoroughly crushed and defeated, but not before making major material gains. Efforts have since been made by those in power to make the Appalachian people forget their history, and all that remains of that movement are traumatized and chronically ill elderly folk.

forgiving student loan debt is by definition regressive. You cannot have poorer people’s money going to richer people and say it’s not regressive.

By this logic all public services are regressive, since everyone pays into them and there will always be someone poorer who pays in and someone wealthier who benefits. That’s why progressive tax rates exist, so that the amount of tax people pay is proportional to how much they are able to contribute. Our progressive tax system only breaks down at the upper levels with the obscenely wealthy. Despite this - on average - the poor benefit the most from student loan forgiveness and the (relatively) rich contribute the most. This is because even though the rich and poor alike would have their student debt forgiven, the rich would be paying more tax to make up for it. It’s really a very simple concept, and should not be so difficult for you to understand.

Now, as an extra note, if we corrected our progressive tax system to tax the obscenely wealthy at the highest possible rate (as a progressive tax system is supposed to - and used to - do), there would be absolutely no question as to where the wealth is being distributed, because the wealthiest people who currently pay little to no tax hold more wealth than the rest of us combined.

It’s only regressive if the tax that funds the student loan forgiveness is regressive. If we have a progressive tax system - which we do, for the most part (excepting the ultra rich who are able to dodge taxes without consequence) - then it is not a redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich, but at worst a horizontal wealth redistribution and at best a wealth redistribution from the rich to the poor. Whoever gave you this idea lied to you and/or was lied to.

The military isn’t going to step in and save us unless they feel strongly that the public will support them wholeheartedly, and they aren’t going to feel that way if there isn’t massive and unprecedented civil unrest. That means the onus is on us.

I’m no scientist but I think it would take an absurd and unrealistic amount of these to have any sort of noticeable effect on average wind speeds.

We use social media a bit differently, there’s no need to be rude. Replies on a public forum are a one-to-many communication. I replied to your comment to establish the context, but the question was directed to no one in particular. It was intended to foster discussion.

Question wasn’t directed at you, I was just putting it out there.

Why include ‘humiliated’ as something people should be protected from for expressing their political views? Fascists should absolutely be humiliated when they spew their bile in public. The first amendment is supposed to protect you from state censorship, not social pressure or ostracization.

Weed reduces the quality of your sleep by shortening the length of REM sleep. If you regularly use weed to help you sleep you may be getting more sleep but you’ll still be tired.

If the public stance was not Democrats being 100% for Israel, then they believed they would have lost the election because of the political PACs and donors flipping to fund the opposition.

They chased the money and they lost. Trump had less funding and he won. Aren’t you interested in asking why?

Another question. If it is possible to win with less funding, why do you consider it a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation?

In hindsight it should be easy to see that they were only damned for what they did (backed a genocide), and would not have been otherwise. Too many people can’t get past their bitterness towards abstainers to consider how this outcome was an unforced error on the part of the DNC, and are seemingly content to repeat the same mistake.