Adderbox76

That allows the people to get their hate out, and resets the playing field for the next election cycle when people realize the Conservatives haven’t done shit all to make life more affordable.

Traditionally this hasn’t been how Canadian politics has played out. We tend to have long running federal governments over single term governments except in cases of extremely disastrous political results (ie. forcing an early election by a vote of non-confidence, etc…)

Canadian voters seem to be very very patient. It won’t matter how shitty PP and the Cons are as a government, voters will keep on electing them in for a decade or more before finally having enough. Same as we did with the Liberals, and same as we did with Harper before that.

You don’t get to that level of “rich” by having the capacity to self-reflect.

I’m not even kidding when I say it’s getting to be pretty close to the time that we need to break out the guillotines and remind these people what happens if they get too sure of themselves.

Yeah, not a high-end business.

You are incredibly naive.

Technomancer next please.

Spider is, despite the janky play, really really good at making original narratives.

Say what you want about the movement and combat smoothness, but I’ve never seen a Mars set game quite like Technomancer. And I’ve never seen a high fantasy RPG that leans quite as bluntly into saying something important about the role of colinizers in our own 18th century.

Big ideas and good games with juuuuust barely too little budget to be amazing.

They quite literally tried to claim that they invented the rectangle with rounded corners…

https://www.engine.is/news/category/in-apple-v-samsung-scotus-sided-with-reason-over-rounded-corners

borderline illiterateness

I’m sorry. But I have to. I’m sure you’re a very smart person, and you speak well, and that this is likely just a tiny little oversight in an otherwise fine and literate mind.

But the irony of not knowing that it’s actually “illiteracy” and not “illiterateness” is just a little too funny not to at least poke a bit of fun at.

Ummmm…I’m going to have to go with “Because he’s an idiot.”

It’s probably easier to list the things that aren’t more popular than Ron DeSantis:

• Aids
• Nope…that’s about it.

The basic idea of the moderated debate comes from Roberts Rules (I believe). Person 1 has 2 minutes to make his point. Person two has a minute to rebut. Person one than has another minute to respond to the rebuttal. Etc… Etc… That comes straight from parliamentary procedure, which follows Roberts Rules.

In parliamentary procedure, its moderated by the speaker of the house, but in one on one debates its just a moderator.

Debates are, at their core, very very structured. Something Trump and co. don’t handle well.

Thanks to trump, they think “debate” is just a fancy word for “argument”. They’re too dumb to even know what Robert’s Rules of Order are, let alone ever actually read them or understand how they apply in an actual debate. They just think that mockery and aggressiveness count as “debate strategies” thinking that winning an argument is about making the other person piss down their leg.

They literally can’t handle it when the other person doesn’t actually cower before their insanity.

Jinkies!..I wonder what it could be…What a mystery, Scoob!

I get that. And, playing the devil’s advocate here…what happens in a couple of years when the time comes to purchase a new Laptop/desktop that comes pre-installed with Windows? Will your current ire and consternation hold up until then, meaning you’ll take the effort…long after this current “trust crisis” is over…to install Linux once again. Or, with this current scandal a faint memory from a few years back, will you just kind of shrug and say “Hey…it’s there, I might as well just go with it.”

I mean no offense, and I by know means want to presume your answer here. But I’d be willing to bet 90% of the people who, in a pique of ire, replace their current windows with a linux distro, won’t bother to do the same when they purchase a new laptop down the road.

I always learned that it was the other way around, for precisely the same reason; Ukraine while it was a part of the Soviet Union. THE Ukraine after 1991.

But I’m happy to be corrected. Thanks.

This is implying that they have regional power? They can barely hold onto Crimea now The Ukraine is off the leash and allowed to be more proactive in its defensive strategies.

What ships are they going to send? The one’s that haven’t already been sunk by cheap off the shelf drones?

Farisov who? We, the chinese government, have never heard of, not has there every been a user by the name of Farisov… Please go on about your day.

If conservatives think the Republican Party doesn’t represent them, then why has that party continued to exist?

Because money is power. The hard-liners running the show keep it that way while ma and pa everyman in the midwest really don’t have any kind of say in it.

I would assert that any party based on conservative ideals will, at some point, become akin to what the Republican Party has become. And the sole reason — critical thinking is not a part of the ideology.

I firmly do actually believe that, yes. Eventually. But even when it devolves, it’s not going to be all of them. It’ll be a minority or people who have the money, which gives them the power, while ma and pa everyman in the midwest (again) has little control over who uses their ideals for what purpose.

Like the original person that replied to me, you’re doing the indefensible of automatically painting every single conservative with the same brush, and that’s just flat out inaccurate.

There’s a difference between believing in some backwards ideals like conservativism, and acting on them. I live surrounded by Conservative thinkers. And yeah, they’ll admit that they don’t believe in gay marraige, lgbtq, immigtation, etc… all of that stuff. Is it backwards? Yes…absolutely. Will they take up arms against a government and think advocate violence? No, that’s stupid. Despite their individual beliefs in their own home, they generally have the opinion of let everyone live their life.

Yeah, there’s people who are insane like that, and want to push that belief onto everyone. And yeah, their unfortunately in charge of the narrative of the GOP and the Republican Party.

But painting every single person on one side of the line as the same is not only wrong, it’s harmful to any sort of debate because if you pretend all conservatives are violent racists than you’ll just alienate the ones who aren’t.

Fair enough. You’re more than welcome to your opinion. But to my mind, what’s indefensible (and ridiculous, frankly) is painting absolutely everyone on one side with the same brush, no matter how much you may hate that side’s ideals (or lack thereof).

I’m going to concede defeat here because obviously I’m not doing a good enough job in explaining my position. But everything you just listed is exactly my point. When did all of those things start occuring? Was it before or after MAGA took over the Republican Party?

Essentially all I’m saying is that Correlation does not equal causation. All of those things you’ve just listed aren’t because they’re conservatives, it’s because they’re assholes. They just happened to find a party (Republicans) that told them that it’s okay to let your asshole flag fly. Conservatism and Republicanism are two different things. Always have been. Conservatism is economic theory (low taxes, high privatization, lower goverment oversight, etc…) Republicanism is political theory (immigration, law and order, militarization, etc…)

MAGA took over Republicanism, convinced everyone that it was Conservatism in order to appeal to the “common folk” in order to take over the GOP.

You’re list isn’t a list of Conservative ideals, it’s a list of Republican ideals. Those aren’t the same thing.

I guess what I’m saying is, again, Correlation is not causation. All republicans are are conservatives, yes. But not all Conservatives are Republicans (or at least they wouldn’t be if the country wasn’t in the grip of some two-party system bullshit. They’re two very different things.

But again, I’m not doing a good job of explaining that, obviously, so I’m going to back out with grace and take the “L”.

Have a good day.

Hard disagree here.

I agree with you that Conservatism is an outdated concept that it’s done far more harm than good in the world. It’s a relic that needs to be relegated to the dust-bin of history, yes.

But Conservatism is nothing more than a series of economic and political ideals. Nothing more. There are a thousand different reasons for people to identify with one side or the other. Neither Conservatism nor the left equivalent are monolithic static things. They’re protean and change depending on the motivations of the people who currently hold their reins in the public sphere.

Does Conservatism (ie. The Right) generally attract more people with intolerant beliefs and hateful dogmatic behaviours? You’ll get no argument from me there. But the number of them that are willing to pick up arms and commit treason because of it. The number of the right that is wiling to use their intolerance as an excuse for violence, is still the minority no matter how many ways you slice it.

Conservatism might be old and outdated. It might be a haven for the uneducated and the intolerant. But here’s the thing…

It always has been.

And if it always has been, than why were the 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000s, all violence free? Why was there heated debate between the two sides, but not violence? What’s changed now?

And you know the answer to that.