grue

First of all, I'll be honest: the reason I bothered to make that comment, in that tone, was because you accusing somebody of being "pro-billionaire" for supporting the only progressive in the race is some disingenuous BS that pissed me off.

Second, Lemmy is not a big place and we're both pretty prolific commenters. It's not "following you around" when interaction is inevitable. Moreover, you don't get to accuse me of stalking you and then also complain that I didn't read some other comment you made -- you can't have it both ways!

Third, you're absolutely right: you are not "obligated" to answer my question. On the other hand, everyone else reading these threads can interpret that refusal to defend your position however they wish, including in ways that damage your credibility. Your call.

Frankly, you're being unusually rude, and paranoid to boot. You need to quit libeling people just because you're in some kind of bad mood.

Or vote for actual progressive running.

Name the candidate you're talking about, then!

Pro-billionaire or pro-progressive? 'Cause by all accounts, he's the only one running.

This is now the second time I'm asking you to tell us which candidate Californians should prefer instead, if this guy sucks so bad. Last time you just downvoted me and didn't respond. Not a good look for you.

What if somebody slaps you with a trout? Did you consider that possibility?!

You misspelled "freedom fighter"

I'm not ignoring Vietnam etc.; I'm just enumerating them separately.

What you wrote has fuck-all to do with Triumph's point that the entire media industry reporting on opinions INSTEAD OF facts means it isn't doing its goddamn job.

If the "bubble" lasts for more than a generation it's a "golden age" instead.

Except, as the Internet example proves, we can have the wartime scientific research boom without the actual "war" part, so that's what we ought to do going forward.

So which non-billionaire is a better alternative?

Sus or not, if everybody else running is a filthy neoliberal who isn't even bothering to make the right noises...

Just in case anybody thinks "it's just a recommendation, that's not so bad," remember that the "recommendations" determine what insurers are willing to cover. No recommendation == pay full price out of pocket. On top of that, paying full price out of pocket leads to way fewer people getting it, which in turn leads to that price going up even more due to lack of economies of scale.

Of the various Constitutional crises being provoked by the MAGA-fascists, I think the one you propose might be my favorite.