Just_Pizza_Crust

Trump's motion to dismiss based on his claims of presidential immunity is now due Nov. 7, while the government's reply is due on Nov. 21. Whether the case ultimately goes to trial depends on the outcome of the election.

I have zero idea why Jack Smith waited so fucking long to bring this to trial. Maybe I'm missing something, but it feels like election interference to postpone court proceedings to give a candidate criminal deniability until after the election is over. If Trump really is guilty, the public deserves to know now, not after we all vote.

Listen, all I'm saying is that I'm not 100% sure I'd exist if I didn't believe in spider karma. Better safe than sorry, especially when it costs you nothing.

The Drake Equation is a probabilistic formula meant to derive the number of civilizations which humans could potentially communicate with.

The fermi paradox does challenge the formula though, as it implies fi and/or fc are very small or zero.

My stepdad used to tell me about "spider karma" when I was little. Basically, all spiders are a part of a gang, and if you squash one they'll just think he must've stepped out of line or something. However if you squash 3 or more, the spiders will all start talking to each other and plan out attacks on you when you're most vulnerable. Sleep attacks are the most common, but occasionally they'll get so pissed they choose to hide in a jacket or shoe and sacrifice everything just to inflict a little pain and terror for killing their mums or siblings.

I used to actually believe this btw.

Edit: why the downvotes to OP? home maintenance is always the best method for keeping pests out. No need for spiders indoors if ya dont have bugs indoors!

I get where you're coming from, but I don’t think it’s all-or-nothing thinking to question the effectiveness of just doing the opposite of what conservatives propose. If we don’t base these decisions on real data or thorough analysis, we might end up with a policy that feels good politically but doesn’t actually deliver the best results for people. I’m not suggesting endless studies or using that as an excuse to delay action, but rather that we should be intentional and evidence based in making these decisions. Especially given our elected officials have cabinets full of paid staff who can already read the studies that have been published. No new studies and waiting is necessary.

1. Can you prove that's the antithesis, and not -18%?

2. Would 82% be the best for regular people? If not, who would it be best for?

That delta (+3%) would still concede ground to conservatives when pre-Trump corporate taxes were at 30%. Even Biden told Congress it should be at 28%.

It's just too reactive to want the opposite of what the new conservative playbook is. The best corporate tax rate for the average person has nothing to do with what Trump or P2025 think, so formulating our economic systems around the opposite of them won't work either. We need a materialist analysis of our economy by experts and academics to determine what any particular tax should be in able to develop economic situations that best benefit regular people the most.

Rhetorically: What's the antithesis of an 18% (base) corporate tax rate?

Project 2025 is fucking awful, but just doing the opposite of them doesn't make sense when the working conditions of regular people can only be improved through a materialist view of the world, as the opposite of their goals isn't what our goals are.

Is there a name for the subject you're speaking of, or do you just mean as a general part of political science? Like I've seen memes referring to the subject, but I don't take it as fact. I do know a bit about the multi-party Parliament and local governance of Sweden, but admittedly nothing deep. What would you suggest I further read up on in their system? And what study of Germany do you suggest I read in relation to this?

My own experiences in studying Vietnam have actually led me to the opposite position, where despite a voter turnout of 99%+, the country is still quite socially conservative.

If that's the case then there should be no argument from Dems about leftists voting third party in swing states.

We cannot continue to rely on fear to propel turnout. Fear and anxiety lead to paralysis and electoral withdrawal. Arguing “We’re not going to hurt you like they are” is no longer sufficient.

This has been such a massive failure on the Dems part, especially after seeing the excitement that Tim Waltz was able to generate after joining the race. I can't stand to watch a Kamala rally or speech nowadays because it's nothing but Trump fearmongering, and I don't even know which parts are real worries considering the guy couldn't even build a fucking wall.

It even backfires a bit too, because now I think more about how her office is going to come after our civil liberties. Obama created mass surveillance programs and went after whistleblowers, so what is her office inevitably going to do?