Probably a background character since everyone took the good characters already 😔
Mostly OC, with the occasional shitpost
The Drake Equation is a probabilistic formula meant to derive the number of civilizations which humans could potentially communicate with.
The fermi paradox does challenge the formula though, as it implies fi and/or fc are very small or zero.
I get where you’re coming from, but I don’t think it’s all-or-nothing thinking to question the effectiveness of just doing the opposite of what conservatives propose. If we don’t base these decisions on real data or thorough analysis, we might end up with a policy that feels good politically but doesn’t actually deliver the best results for people. I’m not suggesting endless studies or using that as an excuse to delay action, but rather that we should be intentional and evidence based in making these decisions. Especially given our elected officials have cabinets full of paid staff who can already read the studies that have been published. No new studies and waiting is necessary.
Can you prove that’s the antithesis, and not -18%?
Would 82% be the best for regular people? If not, who would it be best for?
That delta (+3%) would still concede ground to conservatives when pre-Trump corporate taxes were at 30%. Even Biden told Congress it should be at 28%.
It’s just too reactive to want the opposite of what the new conservative playbook is. The best corporate tax rate for the average person has nothing to do with what Trump or P2025 think, so formulating our economic systems around the opposite of them won’t work either. We need a materialist analysis of our economy by experts and academics to determine what any particular tax should be in able to develop economic situations that best benefit regular people the most.
Rhetorically: What’s the antithesis of an 18% (base) corporate tax rate?
Project 2025 is fucking awful, but just doing the opposite of them doesn’t make sense when the working conditions of regular people can only be improved through a materialist view of the world, as the opposite of their goals isn’t what our goals are.
Is there a name for the subject you’re speaking of, or do you just mean as a general part of political science? Like I’ve seen memes referring to the subject, but I don’t take it as fact. I do know a bit about the multi-party Parliament and local governance of Sweden, but admittedly nothing deep. What would you suggest I further read up on in their system? And what study of Germany do you suggest I read in relation to this?
My own experiences in studying Vietnam have actually led me to the opposite position, where despite a voter turnout of 99%+, the country is still quite socially conservative.
That seems like a bit of an oversimplification based on the frequency of Dem wins to the voting percentage.
If true though, wouldn’t the US have been the more right wing under 2012 Obama than Trump since he had a lower voter turnout?
You can’t use evidence of a trend as evidence of political motivations is kinda what I’m getting at.
If that’s the case then there should be no argument from Dems about leftists voting third party in swing states.
We cannot continue to rely on fear to propel turnout. Fear and anxiety lead to paralysis and electoral withdrawal. Arguing “We’re not going to hurt you like they are” is no longer sufficient.
This has been such a massive failure on the Dems part, especially after seeing the excitement that Tim Waltz was able to generate after joining the race. I can’t stand to watch a Kamala rally or speech nowadays because it’s nothing but Trump fearmongering, and I don’t even know which parts are real worries considering the guy couldn’t even build a fucking wall.
It even backfires a bit too, because now I think more about how her office is going to come after our civil liberties. Obama created mass surveillance programs and went after whistleblowers, so what is her office inevitably going to do?
Nguyen Hoa Binh translates roughly to “Nguyen Flower Troops”, lol. It should be Nguyễn Hòa Bình. It’s kinda like mixing up “Steve” and “steed” in English.
Likely because it wouldn’t be reported to the government as thoroughly as hunting tags are. Politicians tend to be against policies that don’t directly give them clout when policies exist that could.
Tbh, I don’t expect any culture that considers tattoos to be taboo to be cool with weed.
I’m pretty sure this is how
There IS a full scale war going on. 31,000 confirmed dead Ukranian soldiers, and up to 120,000 dead Russian soldiers. We don’t even have a good idea how many civilian deaths, but the total death toll could be as high as 500,000.
And no, before you start - Mutually Assured Destruction isn’t “a full scale war”. Its Annihilation of both sides, and has no precedent in the history of war.
The situation is rather complicated and it’s probably best to read for yourself, as I didn’t even know they had announced the band getting back together, possibly.
Jack Black Says Tenacious D Will ‘Be Back’
All this is coming from the guy who just that night sang:
People inside me are asking me to blow up City Hall
He killed Tenacious D mid-tour in an act of dick-riding for Donald Trump, while campaigning for Biden.
Also Borderlands is shit, and his role as the voice of Claptrap took the spot of two talented voice actors who have already played the character across multiple games.
Huh. Must be one of your mom’s belts
As an official anonymous house democrat, I’d like to say that I’m very scared of hearing words come from my constituents’ mouths. It’s a very violent act I’d like to see the police peacefully resolve with batons, tasers, and pepper spray. #IStandWithIsrael
I think “modern game” is really a semantics thing tbh. Like, is Age of Empires 2 a modern game, old game, or ancient game? I think it really comes down to how you’re playing the game, rather than the year of original release.
Worms: Armageddon is another example. Is it an ancient game because of its release date, or is it a modern game because people are developing new rules and scripts to play the game by every year?
I have zero idea why Jack Smith waited so fucking long to bring this to trial. Maybe I’m missing something, but it feels like election interference to postpone court proceedings to give a candidate criminal deniability until after the election is over. If Trump really is guilty, the public deserves to know now, not after we all vote.