docAvid

Oh, hah, woosh right over my head, thank you for explaining.

Honestly? Pretty well, relative to the "cry about it and do nothing" strategy.

The article describes it as

a visit that is believed to be the first stop by a president or vice president to an abortion clinic.

Can you name a prior instance? I'd really be surprised, to be honest. And hey, I am no Harris fan, but this is still a striking action.

On the one hand, candidates should not, under any circumstances, have a choice. Eligibility for office should be predicated on participation in public debates, structured and moderated under direct democratic control. On the other hand, stopping Trump is essential, and in the system we have, not the system I wish we had, this is a good strategy. Biden is assuming the role of adult in the room, and making Trump come to him, setting vague terms he never actually has to deliver on. He's setting up the conclusion that if there isn't a debate, it's because Trump was an ill-behaved child, but if there is, it will be on Biden's terms. Very well played.

Yeah, definitely not my kink, an absolute turn off, but still.... Very compelling TV.

The article literally tells you that this was done before, to give us the 40 day standard we now have. It worked before, and the article also points out that other countries have recently reduced work weeks under 40 hours. How is it hard to imagine that something that factually has happened could happen?

I mean, they actually can. That's a completely facetious argument. Laws can set standards without defining everything. It's done all the time.

I mean, yes? That's kind of the point. This is how we shift the conversation and put pressure on politicians. Put these bills forward and make people vote them down on the record, so those votes can be used against them.

Yeah, I mean you're technically right, but it's still a trash take because nobody in the running will even plausibly be better, or even just not worse, and ignoring that reality is BS.

My only quibble is that I think the top marginal rate should go back at least to the 94% it was in 1944, not just 70%. In fact, I'm not sure there is any reason the top marginal rate shouldn't just be permanently set to 100%, with the only variable being how high that margin is.

Have you ever heard how religionists talk about atheists? I respect the right of people to believe whatever they believe, but I don't have to respect their actual ridiculous beliefs. Bringing up the FSM, which is specifically aimed at dismantling the absurdism of creationism, is pretty funny. Are you a creationist? My dad was a real Christian minister, and while I don't believe as he did, I would never mock his actual Christian beliefs. But I'll mock the idiotic beliefs of fake-Christian creationists any time I tell like it.

Extremist religionists have been hammering on the anti-atheist propoganda for centuries. Reddit hasn't even had the opportunity, historically, to have a significant impact.