Sex in heaven is really good, but gets boring after awhile.

They couldn’t, but “radical feminism” isn’t explicitly transphobic. Hence the four letter acronym.

I don’t know if right-wing radical feminism in America is necessarily going to be trans-exclusive. Transmedicalist if it isn’t, for sure, but there are plenty of right wing grifters who also happen to be trans women.

The mainstream facist right already have transphobia cornered as a brand, so being trans-inclusive might be key to turning some discontent into a real political movement.

Can I go on the record here as saying this is sexist bullshit?

Scouts letting girls in does not make them somehow not “boy-friendly”. It just lets dads and moms and brothers bring their daughters and sisters to do “boy-things”

“possibly possible” is either redundant or unclear. Try:

• Plausible
• Conceivable
• Possible

“Not Necessarily necessary” is definitely redundant and unclear. Try:

• Not necessary
• Unnecessary
• May not be necessary

(Unless you’re talking about taking antibiotics for anything but a bacterial infection, in which case “wasteful and dangerous” is better phrasing.)

He had no business being there ANYWAY.

And Congress didn’t “verify” anything. It was a rote formalism with about as much real power regarding the election as the coronation of the king of England.

deleted by creator

AI will likely be similar to Asimov’s robot series, but just a bit grittier.

• Useful almost-human thing we don’t know if it’s a person or not
• Ubiquitous and relatively harmless
• Winds up killing millions if we put it in charge.

That’s a hell of a lot of words that aren’t either “of course we should vote in every election for the best possible candidate” or “no, we should withhold our votes in the general if the Dems don’t nominate someone sufficiently progressive.”

If you mean the latter, say it. If you don’t, then say that, too.

So, you are in favor of “my guy or the Nazi” voting? I didn’t hear a “no”, there.

It isn’t “loser talk” to recognize the rules that elections run by, or to push back against the “both sides” rhetoric that lets the Overton window drift ever rightward.

Either you show up and vote in every election for the least bad candidate, be they good or great or only “not as bad”, or you are doing more harm than good.

What does that fight look like, in your mind? Standing and shouting for Bernie and then sitting out the general when Clinton wins? Or arguing for Bernie in the primary since he’s the best choice and then arguing just as hard for Clinton in the general since she’s the best choice then?

Primary-only voting doesn’t force anyone to do anything but ignore us harder in the primary.

And if that isn’t what you mean by your objection to framing all elections as choices for “least bad”, then why are you echoing the rhetoric of those who do?

I don’t know how you square the circle of asserting that ‘both sided are bad’ is what got us here and still echoing “less bad” to buttress their thesis

Waiting for the left to be “good” instead of “less bad” is what makes “both sides are bad” such an effective demobilization tactic.

Picture the clearest example in human history, where one side was absolute villains and the other a superman-esque obvious good guy.

Then explain to me how the good guy is not the “least bad” choice.

Because too many of us who had selfish political actions, and for decades kept saying “both sides are bad” while the side nearest facism kept acting in bad faith.

Democratic elections have always in the end been about picking the least-bad option. And, like it or not, elections and their consequences shape the rest of the world.

God said no such thing.

The Roman Catholic Popes and cardinals are the ones who said “no divorce.”

When Moses wrote down the law, the rule was was “ok, divorce if you must.”

According to the Gospels, Jesus (God) appropriately said “divorce is bad, and leaving your wife for a younger model is just adultery with extra steps.”

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+19&version=NIV

(Matthew 19, the aforementioned gospel.)

https://www.insight.org/resources/article-library/individual/what-did-jesus-say-about-divorce

(A Texas pastor opining on the topic. A bit too anti-sex for my taste, but a fair sample of Texas conservative Christendom.)

“President barely passes budget despite his party holding both chambers of Congress” isn’t a major anything.

It is a despicable continuation of the November 2024 disaster, but this isn’t anything worse than what anyone with any wisdom at all saw coming seven months ago.

(It is less-bad than it could have been, in the way that food soaked in piss is less-bad than food smeared with feces. Small victories, though…)

Alito doesn’t write defenses or arguments. He writes justifications for the outcomes that his neo-pharisee dominionist buddies would most prefer.

In modern usage, the word “family” does not mean a group of people who share s common ancestor.

Instead, it refers to one or more children and those adults who take full legal responsibility for raising and caring for them.

If all Musk does is chuck money at his “baby mamas” but never actually spends any time caring for or speaking with or being a role model for his descendants, he’s not their father. He’s just a sperm donor with some money.

(I don’t know if “carry them around as assassin deterrent” is enough to qualify. The only real people qualified to judge anyone’s parenting are the adults their children grow up to be.)

Not even.

2+2=(3,4,5) is just recognizing imprecision in the original measurement.

The “budget” not matching appropriations is “I’m only going to spend 100 on lotto tickets this month, and save 50” and then buying 150 in lotto and putting the 10 you ‘won’ in savings.

It’s not the math ending up. It’s just recognizing that budgets are nonsense if the actual spending is a wholly separate act of Congress.

I assure you that anyone who ever put on a town hall debate, including the League of Women voters and definitely the TV networks, screened the questions and reserved the right to exclude anyone they chose to.

No debate or political event since well before Nixon/Kennedy has been “open to everyone”.