This is one of the more frustrating things. I’m talking to MAGA SA survivors and they act like Trump would never. As though he is not the exact type of person that would, has actively spoken about doing it, and has been convicted of that.

There is a level of delusion that I truly cannot understand. It is legitimately scary that they have been 1/3 of American society this whole time. Maybe not seamlessly blending in, but not these completely brainwashed fools. They weren’t suggesting the moon was made of cheese or anything. They had families, went to work, did their groceries, and they had this in them the whole time. Horrifying. It sounds stupid, but in earnest it’s frightening. Not to sound alarmist but I feel like I’m living in the rise of Nazi Germany part 2 and we’re watching people get loaded on the trains and they’re not even trying to hide it. I’m screaming at these people like “look! Look at the trains! It’s exactly like what’s in this history book that we all read and agreed on who the bad guy was!” And they’re standing there dumbfounded as if I’m the one who’s unwell and imagining things.

Sorry for the rant, but I feel like nothing has quite captured the horror of living amongst these people. It’s horror/psychological thriller movie type stuff. I really hope some media attempts to depict this era some day, because it really feels unbelievable. I feel like had I not personally lived through it I wouldn’t be able to understand it.

Thank you! Greatly appreciated!

People pay a $100 fee to list their game on steam. For most slop games the will probably cover storing them for the rest of time at the scale valve has. I don’t think that’ll have much impact.

Individually, or is there a blocking feature I’m unaware of?

The full article didn’t load for me, but weird how they can do this now. Not sure why they didn’t do this before people had to take to the streets. It’s like the government will do as little as possible until things finally reach a breaking point and once they found it are willing to give something up. Maybe if they took people’s issues seriously in the first place it wouldn’t have to get this bad.

A lot of those were likely assumed to be fixed costs. Obviously it was not an overwhelmingly successful business if they could not absorb the extra expenses, but according to the article fuel prices, which are likely one of their biggest variable expenses, had more than quadrupled. I’m not sure the margin cruises are making, but there are a lot of businesses closing because of fuel prices, so they’re not alone there.

This is a horrible way to deal with the issue though. I’m not sure what recourse the passengers have because they signed up for 3 years and only got 2, but I hope they are able to be made whole.

As though it’s trivial to uproot your life and potentially leave a family home. No regard for nearby work, school, friends, or family.

How about the company does what it should be doing and obeys the law. I understand if people want to or do end up taking the deal, but acting like that is a viable solution to a business flagrantly violating the law is a clear misunderstanding of the entire point of laws.

Easy to say when it’s not your home that you’re living in and attempting to raise a family in. It’s not your time and mental and emotional energy being absorbed by lawsuits and no doubt threats by these large companies.

I totally agree with you, but unfortunately standing up for rights, even your own rights, can be more costly than it would be worth to you personally. We as a society greatly benefit when people are willing to take up the fight, but it’s not always easy.

I’m generally in agreement with you, but I’m not sure how you see this as you having “to explain this stuff every 2 years”. You’re not providing new information to me or the people that disagree with vote blue no matter who. They understand how elections work. They just disagree with you. Sure, an Iowa representative may be more moderate, but it’s possible these voters are unwilling to concede this particular issue to moderate dems. They may believe that preventing dems from winning with anti trans candidates is worth another republican term. I’m not saying they’re right, but you’re not really arguing with that point as much as reiterating that right now there are only two options.

Also, regarding your suggestion that this is something that should be discussed in the primaries, the article does addresses that:

Up until this ad most of the anti-trans ads from the Democrats this cycle had been mostly focused on trans people in sports and a few about treatment for trans children. This one takes a big step past them in it’s attack on the trans community by stating opposition to “Taxpayer funds for sex changes.”

If a politician conceals the extent of their anti trans rhetoric until the general, there’s not much that could have been done. Additionally, even if they hadn’t, if trans people and their allies supported another dem and they lost the primary, all the sudden they are expected to be willing to accept an anti trans candidate. I can understand them being unwilling to support them and possibly next time it will be the other faction that ends up having to be willing to sacrifice their ideals in the primary they want a dem candidate to win the general.

I am not sure how strategic that is, but mainly because Dems don’t generally withhold their votes so there’s not much precedent to see how the party will react.

I might be incorrect, but I think they are trying to suggest that no election is a standalone choice where the only downstream effect is that one candidate wins over the other. Each election outcome effects the elections that come after it. If a moderate republican won last time they might try to run a more conservative one next time to test the waters. If a progressive dem lost the dems are likely to use that as a reason to not run a progressive next time.

They may be suggesting that voting for an anti trans dem now opens the door for more anti trans or anti-XYZ dems in the future. Do we want to get to a place where the Democratic Party is comfortable running anti choice candidates or anti public school candidates? Basically the idea is to signal to the party that they will not ever win with this message, even against fascists. Along the same line of thinking, but as a rebuttal to what I’m assuming is their conclusion, an R in office might change policies or do harm that a dem may not be able to reverse, regardless of if they win next or not.

I’m not suggesting people not vote for him, and I’m not suggesting vote blue no matter who, I’m just adding some context for how I interpreted the comment. I personally am a vote blue no matter who person so far. Maybe it makes me a coward, maybe it makes me pragmatic, maybe both. I do think I understand trans people withholding their vote if this is their candidate though. I won’t blame them for standing up for themselves, since the rest of us seem willing to throw them under the bus.