Why is the word “trade” in the headline?

new term, “TACO trade,” an acronym

And what is it doing here?

I’m gonna be extra nasty to him.

Tenth Amendment, might apply here.

Agreed on all points. But rational thinking is necessary for a functioning democracy.

As you observe, that’s one reason we don’t have one.

I think you missed the entire point of my statement, which, amusingly, proves my point.

The older generations get pissy about being called the “Democrat party” rather than “Democratic party,” which, to be fair, is the proper name. But it’s really a stupid thing to get worked up over.

The fact that you didn’t even realize that I we talking about such a silly little thing is reasonably good evidence that it is, in fact, irrelevant to modern democrats.

The DNC can do far better, yes. But the voters can also do better. Thinking critically is an important part of participating in democracy.

As I said before the election, there was no option that did not include US funded murder of children. If Trump had been an outspoken opponent of the war in Gaza, (and we had any reason to believe him) then I could see the argument. But that was not the case, was it?

When your choice is keeping the status quo, or everything getting a lot worse, that doesn’t seem to be a difficult choice.

Democrat Party

This “red flag” is meaningless to people broke the age of 50 or so. I am a Democrat. I vote for the candidate who is a Democrat. Obama was a Democrat.

I don’t have time to get pissy over the difference between the noun and the adjective. If that’s all the points they can score on us, they are welcome to them.

The review by 538 is a much more important judgement.

Best we keep reminding them of it.

I’m not a huge fan of intrinsically connecting medication for sexual function with medication for gender-affirming care.

If that were the case, then bottom-surgery wouldn’t be gender affirming care either.

Or maybe I’m just misunderstanding the entire concept. To date, I’ve never seen a single concrete statement on the topic that doesn’t upset someone (discounting bloody right-wingers for whom the entire concept is upsetting, bless their hearts) because it somehow invalidates someone else.

However, we seem to be in agreement that these people are raging assholes, and that’s the important takeaway.

ED meds are gender affirming care, aren’t they? If they are gonna cut it out of military spending, cut all of it out.

They can just have Congress give the nod, and it would all be legal and correct. But for some reason, they don’t seem to want to do that.

If you sit down and think about it, this is the easiest way for the federal government to increase revenue without directly increasing taxes.

Except that when tariffs are this high, they discourage imports and purchasing. It’s self-defeating.

If I was her, I’d publish the threat and result in the place I hosted the mod, then nuke my own mod.

But I’m a spiteful little shit.

Huh. Never realized chromebooks were priced that low.

Thanks for the correction.

when you’re exiled alone on an island…

50,000 corpses at Waterloo would debate this one with you.

Desks are cheaper, and the hole only slightly impairs functionality.

It is always easier to destroy than to build, or to protect.

Again, this is not immediate self-defence, this is something else entirely: this type of situation demands systemic change.

I’m aware it’s not immediate self defence, that’s kind of the point of the question. How many people die while you work on that change? Why are ok killing to defend yourself now, but not to defend a hundred people tomorrow?

You remove them from authority then send them on their merry way to live out their standards alone, far from the rest of us.

And you hope they don’t come back with more people and a plan for revenge. Napoleon was sent off on his merry way. His return cost over 50,000 lives.

Friggin’ children know this already, if someone doesn’t play nice, you stop playing with them.

And what if they won’t let you stop playing with then? Children know bullies, too, and know that you can’t just ignore them.

Why the hell are we still debating the ““virtues”” of murder?!

Because you are unwilling to admit that some people need killing. Not very many, in my opinion. There are usually better options. But killing someone is the only way to be 100% sure that they stop hurting people.

There is no acceptable context for killing someone other than immediate self-defence

But you know he’s gonna kill a hundred people next week. Starve ten thousands people to death over the next six months. Start world war 3, and cause the death of millions of people. Those people people have no recourse to self defence, but you could defend them, right now.