I mean yeah, Dems have complacent leadership but they are definitely the much better of two bad options.
My point is even if you had ideal leadership, inevitably discontent of uncontrollable externalities would cause a tick-tock cycle between the two parties as reactionaries are just part of the human condition and the party willing to play dirty will always come out on top in a two party system.
well that's kind of the point isn't it? every time the Republicans get in they do so much damage that it can't possibly be done in the inevitable swing back to the left that they create and then by the time they get back in because of all the reactionaries they just do more damage
kind of the end result of a two-party system if you think about it
everything in media is so risk averse that banality is a garentee
technology standardization as well, everything became homogenous but necessity is the mother of invention and all the boutique techniques and solutions to work around their short comings would lead to something difficult to replicate
You're just dealing with literal definition versus an inferred result, however you know this, you literally chose to deconstruct it in your original comment.
Laymans use imperfect allegories, that doesn't make them incorrect. If the message's intent is clear to imply that the only correct interpretation is the literal one is just bad faith.
It might be semantically incorrect but it is still a decrease in tax for the rich which given the current disparity in wealth frankly is barely a distinction at all.
I swear my wife waits till she gets headaches and needs to eat, I always offer to cook but for some reason the migraines are the real decider of when we eat
He was just a sparkling Authoritarian before they invaded Poland