Isn’t that a picture of kamala?

That wasn’t so hard, was it? People tripping over themselves to find a gotcha and forgetting to use a little common sense.

Well it does pledge to the republic and to the values of the republic. Which is appropriate for a republic.

That’s a really good use for bots, since new users haven’t seen the best posts and may actually enjoy discussing them. Older users can simply move on, filter from their stream if they get bored of it.

Lemmy and reddit are closets in one room of one floor of one building, where they kick out anyone who won’t scream “Fire!” along with them. Those are echo chambers. Anyone telling you that half of the country is fascist, is pushing an agenda and using fear to influence you. Or they have been influenced and are simply propagating the propaganda.

Lol are you serious? You gotta step outside the echo chamber every now and then.

It’s for their own party members, same reason Democrats call Republicans fascists.

Do you mean that housing should be provided by the government? By the tax payers? And what about maintenance? Is that also provided by the taxpayers? So they would pay people to come fix up the house you live in for free? I guess I’m just not quite sure how you think it all works.

I literally know hundreds of families with more kids than that and a spouse without any income, and I’m one of them. These are construction workers, small business owners (trades), union electricians and the like, engineers, accountants, etc. They live in modest homes in outer suburbs or rural areas. They/I live pretty frugally of course, but saying it’s impossible or “hilarious” is simply wrong. I don’t know what to tell you, except that its just not true.

They tried that with me once, but I showed them and got a different job.

Government can throw you in jail.

This is not what a matriarchy would look like at all, since men are physically stronger overall. A matriarchal society would have to be based on respect or some other acknowledgement by men that women should lead, since a domineering, physical, might-makes-right society would not end up this way. Not sure why or how (some) women feel the need to physically subjugate men and rule on men’s terms, to use the rules of patriarchy to form a matriarchal society. It simply can’t work.

Interesting idea, because my boxer briefs support my balls in the middle, but my dress pants have one seam down the middle, so when I sit for prolonged periods I get a seam uncomfortably squishing my equipment. If instead the seam was always resting to one side or the other, I wouldn’t have that problem. To fix this, we should either have underwear that better accommodates a middle seam, or my preference would be pants with a built in pouch similar to underwear. It would accentuate the “bulge”, but we could get used to that.

Lol Harris is a terrible candidate. Maybe Michelle Obama or something.

It’s entirely possible that the question has never been considered, and that it is technically legal. In that case we should probably close that gap, and soonish.

Exactly. They really really wanted to get him, and this was the only thing they could get to stick.

I think fascist is an ambiguous enough term to dodge libel lawsuits. How would you ever prove that someone is a fascist or not a fascist? It’s not like you get a membership card.

When you say “one side” what exactly are you referring to? Maybe that will help.

Progressive and conservative are two different approaches for policy. If the truth is known then there is no point discussing it. If the truth is unclear or the implications of that truth are unclear, then there needs to be discussion.

Your example about both sidesism, bringing on an anti vaxxer, is either a deliberate straw man or a minor example that isn’t a good representative of the media trying to discuss both sides.

But your last point I agree with completely. Neither progressives nor conservatives have the complete truth.

There’s almost always a both sides, or even infinite positions on complex topics. With the election it’s pretty straightforward, either you believe in the system or you don’t, but the other examples you mentioned have tons of nuance to discuss when it comes to policy. What exactly do you do about climate change? And what about vaccines? Should you take all of them? Should everybody be forced to take all of them? What happens to you if you refuse? How about people with negative reactions to some vaccines? What about when certain vaccines were found to have severe side effects and were later removed? There’s risk/benefit to be discussed and the question isn’t nearly as simple as right and wrong. This is true for most topics, and assuming that one political party embodies the truth on every topic, that’s it’s the best approach for every person, is naive at best. There must be discussion, at least a progressive voice and a conservative one in order to avoid stagnation in the latter and over reaction in the former.