If they can't afford to maintain it in a changing world, perhaps we should nationalize the infrastructure that we all depend on.
HopeOfTheGunblade
joined 9 months ago
In theory, we know how to build super dense city. In practice, we build gigantic suburban sprawl.
Every nominee must have a full and competitive primary every single cycle, regardless of incumbency.
What happens if a given seat doesn't actually have primary competitors? Do we just assign someone by lottery?
If someone is in prison, IE, in the care of the state, and unable to choose their own paths, the state is therefore responsible for that person's well-being. In other words, the state is morally mandated to give that person food, medical care, etc.
If you don't want inmates "receiving better coverage and health care than a law-abiding citizen", fucking get law-abiding citizens, you dicksneeze!
I wear a P100 because I can't trust my fellow Americans to wear so much as a scarf.
Cue anyone sane: "Well-regulated."
On priors, you're talking about the Cass report, which was in fact massively flawed, and I saw a great deal of discussion on it. Among other issues, they tossed out a lot of studies, and wrote the report from the stance that the only studies worth looking at would have been double blind studies. I'm not sure if you've considered this specifically, but it's pretty damn hard to blind starting to grow boobs or facial hair. Cass, the supposedly neutral party conducting the study, was handing out copies of "Irreversible Damage", a scaremongering antitrans book about how the poor helpless young "women" were being seduced by big trans. It was garbage, and there's plenty of writeups on it.
https://kinesismagazine.com/2025/02/16/methodological-and-ethical-failures-of-the-cass-review-why-it-falls-short-as-a-guideline-for-trans-healthcare/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-u-k-s-cass-review-badly-fails-trans-children/