minnow

The modern concepts of conservative and liberal are born out of the French Revolution. Conservatives were the monarchists, and they still are.

So there's this phenomenon where a person can change their mind because of learning new information.

For example, a person can reasonably say "Our elections are safe and secure" and then, after learning new information, say "Our elections are so insecure."

The last four years don't undermine the current claims because there was no credible evidence that the election was compromised then. But new information contains evidence that this time the election may have been compromised. This new information can and should encourage people to change their minds about how secure our elections are. Changing your mind in the face of new information isn't hypocrisy, it's rational thinking.

As for your last paragraph, confirming the number of people who voted and the number of ballots recorded does nothing to verify that the ballots were recorded correctly. To do that they need to audit the paper ballots against the computerized count, which is a massive undertaking that will require a lot of time and money. There's nothing simple about that.

Look, I don't completely disagree with you. IMO the only thing that's going to stop the fascists (without taking us into full blown war) is a general strike. And it's frustrating to see nothing but planned demonstrations, schedule to a specific day, and only for that day. A protest with a scheduled end time is a protest that's planned its own failure.

But that's not what's happening in LA, and that's why the fascists are trying to put it down so hard. This thing is finally, organically, taking on a life of its own. Will it last? Does it have staying power? Who knows, but why discourage it? Why be cynical and reduce the chance that this time is different even further? You're literally the problem you just complained about.

All of that said, I genuinely understand why you're cynical. All I can really say is that you gotta be the change you want to see in the world. I hate using a canned phrase like that but in this case it's deeply true.

Ya hear that everyone? Cancel the protests! We just gotta buy some bumper stickers and t-shirts, and Trump will be done for! Thank goodness Melvin figured it out, we'd be in real trouble otherwise!

again

Interestingly, Mexico is celebrating a change in their constitution that let's them elect judges.

I don't think the problem in America is the fact these people are elected. I think the problem in America is Americans.

Well, that's the federal government and these are state governments. Of course not THIS federal government, they mean the other federal government, the shadow government. You know the one that disobeys laws, kills millions of people for financial gain, covers up the pedofilia and drug problems of their membership, ignores the Constitution, and is trying to change the world for their own benefit? Well not that one, the other one that tries to keeps everything functioning, root out corruption, and write rules to try and protect people. THAT shadow government. It's evil dontchaknow and these new laws will definitely show them that the states won't stand for it any more!

But that's not the point of insurance, which is a cost-sharing practice (presumably, ideally) designed so that the person who DOES get the ambulance ride doesn't have to pay for the whole thing themselves and go into financial ruin because of it.

Your argument is profoundly selfish and it's logical conclusion is the abolishment of insurance altogether.

They do it because it creates a premise, a justification, for policy changes and to bully private entities into following new policy. It doesn't matter that the documents they're using for justification are incorrect and mostly fiction because they'll never admit to that. Any attempt at rebuttal will be completely ignored and they just keep repeating "we have to do X because of Y justification and if you don't do X also then you hate America."

Is your reading comprehension ok?

It takes more than 15 hours a week to raise a child properly

That's MY point

So you agree that what you wrote in your original comment is a bullshit defense of a bullshit article?

Your apologetics is unbecoming. The article is intentionally written to promote the notion that a 40-hour work week is unbiblical, and the line you've cited is included to give plausible deniability to anyone who says otherwise.

If you take into account any "activity [that] is demanding, consistent and productive" most people are already "working" way more than 55 hours a week, especially if they're a parent. To suggest otherwise is profoundly ignorant or disingenuous. This suggests an ulterior motive: begin manufacturing consent to get rid of weekly work hour limits.

Yeah, this is a very real phenomenon and it's difficult to do anything about it sometimes. People develope an internal profile of you based on their perceptions, and anything they say about you is based on THAT, not reality. It's even more difficult when it's somebody close to you who's internalized that profile so much it's become part of who they identify as. You'll see this with the parents of trans kids where the parent has internalized some aspect of their child and it's become part of their identity. "I'm the father of three sons" kind of thing. Then one of the kids comes out as female and the parent has a really difficult time with it because they identified themselves as the parent of three male children and that's turned out to be incorrect, they're the parent of two boys and one girl and they need to change how they identify themselves in addition to how they identify their daughter. Some parents have a really REALLY hard time of it (they still gotta do it though if they don't want to be a shitty person)