Victoria Antoinette

marginalizing an accomplished academic and political activist as a lunatic is gross.

this isn’t science, it is story telling

it’s heuristic, so it doesn’t matter what layout you use.

that is not the correct analysis. the correct analysis is that strategic voting in a fptp system leads to party consolidation. the solution is values voting

it is . you are presenting my argument in a way to make it seem silly.

this is a straw man.

it’s a clear-eyed understanding of what to do about party consolidation under fptp.

first past the post isn’t responsible for that. it’s a tactic called “strategic voting” and it results in the consolidation of parties under fptp. the solution is not to vote for people you don’t want to win.

until he’s gone, every other name is moot.

You counted that as an act of right wing violence.

i didn’t count it at all.

edit: aw fuck. you got me.

there are wikipedia articles about both of these topics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_terrorism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_terrorism

and, of course,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_violence

edit:

this is only one metric, but i think it’s notable that there are about 80 references on the left wing page and approximately 3.5 times that many on the right wing page.

the difference is that CNN gets paid.

wait…

they may have been referring to the Senate intelligence committee investigation

so do it

there is no way you tested a bubblegum and lollipops economy with an infinite lollipop machine, and if you did, the results are not applicable to the economies of Venezuela or Zimbabwe

this is storytelling, it is not evidence of a testable causal relationship

this is posturing and rhetoric. it is not evidence of a natural phenomenon called “inflation”

that’s story-telling. it’s a myth. everyone could have chosen not to accept higher prices, or levy them. then what? did “inflation” still happen?

oh, ok.

“He’s done more for our members than any president in my lifetime.”

that’s not “ever”, and it’s not quantified anyway.

your second quote has no meaningful metric at all about biden, only juxtaposing him against harris

the third says he’s been trying to make good on his campaign promise, but it does not actually show the bar for how to become the most pro-union president, nor how biden has approached (or passed) that measure.

the fourth is some platitudes.

if a claim is to be made, it should be able to be evidenced. otherwise, it’s just rhetoric.