Floon

GOP was setting the bar low for Vance before the debate, and he easily cleared it, so with low expectations, the consensus will be that he was fantastic. Walz was no surprise, he was fine, so I think folks are going to call it a slight Vance win. It won't matter, neither got hit hard enough, it won't move anything.

That's an assholish characterization. And when I lived in Walpole, I had Ed Markey, too. I called his office a couple of times, said, "I vote for Ed Markey, and I want <...>" and they took down what I said, and my info, and I'd a letter reply a little while later.

My current rep is Adam Smith. He has actually been less responsive than other reps I've called, but I've gotten letters from his office after calling with my requests. And in talking to office staff, you can often find out how pressured they are over issues that constituents call about. They definitely care.

Tell them you're withdrawing your support, and they'll apologize, but you're done getting listened to. They know it's a waste of time.

I wonder who represents you. I don't get blown off my my reps. And I don't donate a ton of money, but I do volunteer.

You sound like you've never called or written to your representative or their office, or dealt with a local campaign office. Because what I describe is true, and what you describe is you declaring to the world, "I'm choosing to make myself irrelevant to everyone."

Requires a constitutional amendment, which, in case it isn't obvious, will not happen, as it will require the yea votes of states that currently wield outsized power under the current system.

Not voting for the Democrat gives the Democrats all the reason they need to ignore absolutely everything you say.

Voting for Democrats and donating to them gives you persuasive power within the party to help steer it.

That's privilege talking. 100% turnout should not be a requirement, when we do not have, at the very least, a national holiday for voting. Voting is not as easy for everyone as it might be for you.

That's BS. Extreme leftists are very unreliable voters: no party that actually has a chance at winning anything or running the country can live up to their wishlist agenda. They have a "98% agreement with me means you're still my enemy" mentality, so the only candidates that appeal to them are the ones that know they won't win: those are the only folks that can promise rainbows and unicorns all day long, and pass the unrealistic and fatally flawed morality tests that extreme Progressives demand.

Nope, totally blaming Stein voters. They're idiots, truly stupid, to believe that a protest vote does anything except hurt the major party they're most aligned with. Stein is a useful idiot, funded by fascists to leech votes from Democrats. She got Trump elected in 2016.

Third parties aren't a thing under our system. If we were a parliamentary system, sure, but not under our current system, so take your desires for boosting a third party and boost yourself into a lake.

Yeah, and folks know "scruples" as a noun which some people have and some don't, but "scruple" as a verb is a nice archaic version that I really like, which you don't encounter much outside of, say, a Jane Austen novel.

I would say "meaningful". Billionaires can have a very noticeable effect with their philanthropy, while making essentially no sacrifice on their part. The Gates Foundation does very noticeable good, but Bill Gates isn't giving of himself very much.

"scruple" as a verb, meaning "hesitate due to conscience".