Because the electoral college was established with the explicit purpose of giving less populated states an advantage, and that would defeat the point. A lot of my fellow Americans don’t know or don’t want to admit that the electoral college was intentionally undemocratic from the start.

Kentucky’s state constitution has uniquely strong protections for public school funding, and amendment 2 nullifies all of them in one go.

Here’s the wording:

To give parents choices in educational opportunities for their children, are you in favor of enabling the General Assembly to provide financial support for the education costs of students in kindergarten through 12th grade who are outside the system of common (public) schools by amending the Constitution of Kentucky as stated below?

IT IS PROPOSED THAT A NEW SECTION BE ADDED TO THE CONSTITUTION OF KENTUCKY TO READ AS FOLLOWS:

The General Assembly may provide financial support for the education of students outside the system of common schools. The General Assembly may exercise this authority by law, Sections 59, 60, 171, 183, 184, 186, and 189​ of this Constitution notwithstanding.

I genuinely think most KY voters don’t know what notwithstanding means, if they even bother to read that far.

I think it’s important to note that although there is definitely a trend of young men being radicalized through the “manosphere,” young women are so overwhelmingly progressive/liberal that gen z is still significantly more progressive/liberal overall than previous generations.

Right, we only do forced labour for people who smoke weed, which is morally superior.

Pantheon.

Really thoughtful and smart sci-fi animation. Don’t want to spoil it so I’ll be vague, it has the most realistic depiction of modern tech and how people interact with it than any other show I’ve seen. Really great commentary on big tech corporations and even a bit of geopolitics. Super ambitious yet it somehow pulls it off.

There is also a scene that still gives me nightmares (not even joking, I still dream about that shit) which is more than any horror movies or shows have done for me. Anyone who has watched it knows exactly what scene I’m talking about.

I believe a large portion of the electorate that vote Democrat are liberals who weren’t fans of Biden but hated Trump, and intended to vote for Biden only to prevent Trump from winning. Kamala would not lose this contingency of voters even if they think Kamala is too progressive, but she would gain new voters who previously felt unrepresented. Only anti-Trump conservatives (a tiny but admittedly growing voting bloc) might jump ship.

Kamala chose to appeal to conservatives to steal votes from Trump and because it gets her more wealthy donors. It’s possibly a winning strategy, but it is not the only one, and this one abandons the progressive voting bloc in favor of conservatives in a time where younger people are trending leftwards. This is a move that will have long-term consequences.

I disagree, I think if she had campaigned as the most progressive Democrat in history that would have sparked a massive wave of new support, but it would have put her campaign up against a lot of wealthy and powerful people. She chose the easy path by cozying up to capital interests, and this strategy gets us nowhere. At best it staves off the worst of the growing fascist movement for a time, but at the same time moves the needle further to the right. I think it’s shortsighted.

Having seen her progressive voting record I wouldn’t have expected her to campaign as a “moderate” and go back on every progressive stance she ever held either. In short, I don’t trust her to be consistent.

Or, hear me out, discard the left-right metaphor for the nonsense that it is and refer to ideologies by their names. There is no left, there are communists/socialists and anarchists. There is no center, there are liberals and conservatives. There is no right, there are fascists and “libertarians.”

The left-right metaphor is a set of training wheels, and by continuing to use them you sabotage your own political understanding.

A rising tide lifts all boats has always struck me as a strange metaphor for them to use. To me that conjures up thoughts of welfare, UBI, irreducible minimums, safety nets, etc. It seems like a great metaphor for the opposite of what they’re using it for.

They’re too out of touch to realize this hurts Kamala Harris’ campaign more than it helps.

Narrative-driven games give players the illusion of choice. To me this seems like it would lend itself to being even more effective than traditional propaganda because it’s capable of tricking the player into thinking they came to a conclusion on their own.

Don’t get me wrong, I love Disco Elysium, but it is very effective communist propaganda. Propaganda has a negative connotation but is not inherently bad or dishonest, though it certainly can be.

Even worse, the liberal candidate who previously ran against him for the presidency and won is the one who appointed him chancellor in an attempt at appeasement. It was shortly after that the enabling act was passed that gave the chancellor supreme power.

Hitler was handed power by a liberal “reaching across the aisle,” with the thinking that he would just prove himself incompetent and lose support.

I don’t even necessarily disagree that it’s counterproductive, I just don’t think it’s fair to attack someone for using esoteric or unconventional language. Yes, it inconveniences the listener - or in this case the reader - but in this context no one is being forced to engage with OP. By using some Old English letters OP is just having some innocent fun at no one’s expense, which doesn’t warrant the harsh response they’re receiving.

If you were talking to someone and they casually used xe/xey pronouns (or any neopronouns for that matter) to refer to a friend who isn’t there, would you go out of your way to lecture them about what an inconvenience it is to you to have to learn something new?

That didn’t really answer my question.

You’re right, it is. But language shifts in populations in ways that enhance communication. One person using letters pronouns that nobody else uses makes communication of ideas more difficult.

Not only that, but they’re only choosing to use some Middle English letters english pronouns, and not any other rules of Middle English grammar or spelling different types of english pronouns.

They can use whatever language pronouns they want, but if it’s too much effort for people to understand, they’re more likely to be ignored.

Doesn’t sound so reasonable now, does it? If language that mildly inconveniences others is an acceptable way to express your gender identity, then why not also to express yourself creatively?

Thank you for explaining, I’m sorry for being insensitive. I already explained that I meant no disrespect towards AME. I disagree that the point I made has nothing to do with it. AME was at one time esoteric among the general US population, and that is the only way I’m saying that AME and OP’s use of Old English letters are alike.

I vaguely recall you saying you were Jewish in an earlier comment, if you’re actually black then I apologize. If not then perhaps you can try asking someone who is African American if they find what I said “highly offensive.”

You see OP’s use of Old English as worthy of derision, so you interpreted my comparison as belittling towards AME. I don’t share your aversion to esoteric forms of expression, so my comparison is entirely without malice.

You don’t get it, I find it annoying so you should cater to me. STOP HAVING FUN BECAUSE I FEEL EXCLUDED!!!1!1!1

/s

No. Not same deal. One is dialect with slang, which is readable, and which you can just easily look up if you don’t know.

I couldn’t read OP’s post so I looked it up and now I can. All it takes is a little effort, which if you’re not willing to expend you can simply move on.

The other is using letters that even most native English speakers can’t parse.

Sure African American English (which is not just slang, but an entire dialect with a different set of grammatical rules) is common and recognizable to most native English speakers now, but there was a time when it was just as inscrutable to them as OP’s post.

Also, comparing this person’s nonsense to an ethnic group’s way of speaking is highly offensive. I hope you realize that.

I get that you think you’re being progressive by getting offended on others’ behalf, but all you’re really doing is using that ethnic group’s struggle as a rhetorical device to shame me for having a dissenting opinion. I am comparing them because they are alike in a way that is relevant to my point, not because I think they are identical.