He’s actually been surprisingly effective. Your distaste doesn’t negate his numerous policy accomplishments with tangible benefits.

Even disregarding that, even if he was ineffective, he’s not trying to concentrate power into the hands of Federalists, Fascists, and Fundamentalists, so he is by default the superior choice to those who are. The material results that I care about, that reasonable adults care about, revolve around stopping the Federalists, Fascists, and Fundamentalists. Or are you on their side?

IDGAF who does or doesn’t accept blame for whatever. I care about material results; my future, my family’s future, my neighbors’ futures, the future of the people who live in this country, and this world. IDGAF how ideologically pure a politician is, or who’s wrong or right, or who gets away with whatever. I care about the people who are going to suffer if the Federalists, Fascists, and Fundamentalists keep establishing their foothold judge by judge, bill by bill, ruling by ruling.

This isn’t grade school, this isn’t a game, this isn’t about fair. There are real stakes here. People will die. I’m not heartless enough to play the blame game with lives on the line. I’m voting harm reduction because I’m an adult and I play the hand I’m dealt. Righteously losing doesn’t help anything but ego-centric deontology.

As for a President’s unofficial acts, there is no immunity. Although Presidential immunity is required for official actions to ensure that the President’s decisionmaking is not distorted by the threat of future litigation stemming from those actions, that concern does not support immunity for unofficial conduct. Clinton, 520 U. S., at 694, and n. 19. The separation of powers does not bar a prosecution predicated on the President’s unofficial acts.

Uh huh, and historically violent authoritarian transitional regimes are always so willing to step aside after the transition.

There’s a difference between someone-needs-to-coordinate-and-manage-complex-undertakings “authoritarian” and line-the-dissidents-up-against-the-wall “authoritarian”. Tankies are the latter.

Lots of people say lots of silly things, nonetheless Trump is worse for the proletariat than Biden, and turning your nose up at the lesser evil endangers real people when the greater evil wins. You don’t have to vote for the greater evil to help tip the scales in their favor. Accelerationism is authoritarianism with extra steps and no one in the driver’s seat.

A tankie is, broadly, someone who wants to effect left-wing ideology using authoritarian methods. It originally referred to those who defended the USSR using tanks to suppress the Hungarian Revolution, but it could be aptly used to describe those who defend China’s actions in Tiananmen Square. It’s rightfully used as a perjorative, since authoritarian enforcement is antithetical to leftism, particularly communism.

Tankies are hypocrites who didn’t understand their self-proclaimed ideologies. If someone’s idea of communist praxis is lining up dissenters for the firing squad, you’re dealing with a tankie.

We’re only stuck with Biden because Biden and the people he put in charge of the DNC would rather risk trump than Biden step aside.

We’re stuck with Biden precisely because the DNC doesn’t want to risk Trump, and the incumbent advantage is significant.

Then, this begs the question - What other structures might be similarly equipped?

I also think this theory is plausible, and if it is true I assume it’s stayed under wraps precisely because they didn’t want future terrorists to be able to just trigger the conveniently pre-installed explosives.

Do you? “Thousands” is the word in question here

Keurigs are actually pretty convenient when you’re only making one cup. The trick is to get one of the reusable filters and just use whatever coffee you like.

That’s another big reason to practice for sure, but I think it’s a stretch to call that belief.

This is a pretty broad question, it really depends on what you mean by “believe in religion”:

1. Believe that a particular holy book is literal, historical truth.

2. Believe in the moral teachings of a particular holy book and follow its practices.

3. Believe in the existence of a universal higher consciousness (God)

1 is a vocal minority, and the reasons have been sufficiently explained elsewhere in this thread.

2 is much more common, and can derive from a number of reasons. Cultural identity generally determines which holy book (and interpretation thereof) you follow, but the attraction to moral framework is deeper than cultural identity. Having a set of guidelines to inform moral behavior, and a method of alignment and focus (prayer) is very valuable.

3 is a metaphysical consideration, and pops up even in 2024 because consciousness is still a mysterious phenomenon. Every explanation leads to roughly the same conclusion: if consciousness is an emergent property of complex interconnected systems, then it stands to reason that the most complex interconnected system (the universe) is more likely than not to be conscious; if consciousness is some external force that complex systems can “tune into” like a radio, then it stands to reason that “consciousness” permeates the universe; if consciousness is something else which defies scientific description, then it stands to reason that there exists some agency to dictate the rules.

Those are, broadly, the rational explanations of consciousness of which I’m aware, and they all imply a universal consciousness of one variety or another. If you can think of another I’d love to consider it.

If you meant something else by “believe in religion”, let me know.

They’re good when they’re crumbled as an ingredient or topping. As-is they’re gross.

Without Biden’s unconditional support Israel would have to stop.

How did you come to that conclusion? Israel has their own arms production, and many current and potential allies who would step in.

Once again, I said none of that. Scroll up to verify I didn’t call you out at any point.

This is a public forum, when you make a statement people are free to comment. You made a statement I disagreed with, and all I said was that the statement was questionable. All the rest of this “calling beliefs out” happened purely in your head. Feel how you wish about your choices, but don’t implicate me in your projection.

Uh, you do know it’s possible to focus on fruits, which are freely given, right? You volunteered your perspective in the first place, and you’re the one throwing your hands up instead of finding an ethical diet. You’re the one trying to justify your choices based on subjective distinction. You’re the one calling yourself a hypocrite. All I said was that your absolute claim was questionable.

I eat, primarily, botanical fruits (which includes cucumbers, squash, and a surprising quantity of other vegetables freely given by plants for our consumption) as well as meat which would otherwise be thrown away. Once the animal is dead, it is far more respectful to consume it than let it be wasted. I typically buy meat on clearance, at the end of the night, on the expiration date.

I have no desire to “gotcha” people who sincerely want to make a better world, but hypocrites who call out others while justifying their own ethical blind spots are typically more interested in self-righteousness than actually improving the world.

Consciousness is an open question. A potato does not perceive the same way as a pig, but a pig does not perceive the same way as a human. Plants communicate and make rudimentary decisions. Once you start getting into questions of degree, you subjectively decide where to draw the line. If you can argue that the line is between animals and plants, then someone else can argue the line is between animals and humans.

It’s intellectually dishonest to pretend our understanding of sentience and sapience is simple and unambiguous.

Plants have no concept of pain without a brain, nervous system or even nerve endings.

Ehhh, questionable.