KoboldCoterie

There's no real difference between $213 billion and $270 billion when it comes to buying power. Both are effectively unlimited. Both could buy small countries if they wanted to. But there sure is a difference when it comes to ego, because when we talk about it, we're always treating it like a great thing to be the richest person in the world, instead of sociopathy.

There really needs to be a global fund that every country pays into, that's dispersed to countries with significant forestation in proportion to their contribution. If money is the barrier to climate action, we need to make it the best option economically to maintain forests and other similar areas.

As long as we keep treating wealth like a scoreboard, this will continue. If we collectively demonized people with unreasonable wealth, ostracized them from society, and stopped glorifying it and treating them like celebrities because of it, we might be in a better spot.

This statement pretty much summed up my feelings on this issue exactly. This is an excellent, succinct summary of the only sane viewpoint to have.

Same reason as why Bethesda slapped Prey on Arcane’s spooky space station imsim

This was the weirdest choice. I actually dismissed the new Prey entirely for a very long time because I didn't enjoy the old one, when the new one was actually a very different, very good game.

If the 'If' isn't true, then the 'you' doesn't apply to you, that's how conditionals work.

I know our electoral process is bullshit, and I believe our government is corrupt as hell.

I'm also a pragmatist. I can either work within the confines of the system we have to try and effect the least harm possible, or I can register a protest vote now in hopes that some time in the future it'll help fix things. I'm taking the first option.

If we manage to change the voting system to allow for third party votes without sabotaging our own self interests in the meantime, I'm all for it. If third party candidates want to run for lesser offices where they have a chance of being elected and have a chance of making a difference, I'm all for it. But voting for a third party candidate for president, or declining to vote as a protest maneuver, is simply the worst option. It's looking for a long-term solution to a very short-term problem, and I simply can't see any good argument for taking that approach.

Electing Trump right now is 'tearing it all down', but not in the way I want.

Which begs the question, why use the IP in the first place?

It's especially weird because they just recently gave the green light for the Aleph One developers to release the originals on Steam, so it's probably more well-known now than ever before. Even though it's still relatively obscure, why do that now? It just doesn't make sense.

That depends entirely on what the rest of their platform looks like. If the republican's platform resembles Trump, and we're still operating within a 2-party system, you can bet your ass I will, because there's more at stake than one issue.

Look, we have two options: Vote against Trump, or don't. That's it. And if you aren't voting for a viable candidate, which right now is Harris, and only Harris, you're not voting against Trump. Simple as that.

If you'd be just as happy with Donald "Do what you have to do" Trump as with Harris, you can't feel too strongly about innocent lives.

Fireproof boxes wouldn't help; an incendiary device was placed inside the box.

Given that, I expect you'll be voting for the 'less bad' candidate, rather than wasting your vote on a protest candidate which only assists the 'more bad' candidate in winning, then?