It’s such a shame that ben shapiro insists on the whole alt right thing. I really do think he’d make a killing voicing animated squirrels
Are you excited for tommorow?
of course! i have a very important senate meeting <3
Who is helped in this scenario?
More to the point: how will your one issue improve under Trump?
anders dragon age it seems I’ve grown quite fond of you though there are no sexual urges or desires you come to me as a long lost friend whom I once picked apples with in papa’s orchard
It is extremely disturbing how many posts I see claiming that Roe v. Wade was overturned on Biden's watch and blaming him and the Democratic Party for it. It's disturbing on a number of levels.
First, it was Trump and Bush-appointed justices who handed down the Dobbs decision. This is a flagrant example of blaming Democrats for things Republicans did, and not coincidentally is one of the the most widely felt differences between the two parties. As a result, it's usually the first example Democrats and their allies point to; this misappropriation suggests a deliberate attempt to undercut that fact.
Secondly, and related to the first point, it obfuscates who the real enemy is, and I am comfortable using word "enemy" to describe the Republican Party because of the policies they advocate and enact. The truth is that states controlled by the Republican Party were where the effects of Dobbs are most severely felt, while states controlled by the Democratic Party are passing laws to protect abortion. It is important to know which party opposes abortion and which party supports it. If the Republicans gain control of the House, Senate, and White House, they will pass a national abortion ban, as they have done at the state level in several places.
Thirdly, blaming Biden for Dobbs demonstrates a very concerning lack of understanding of how the government functions. The judiciary is its own branch of government; judges are appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate. It doesn't matter who is president when a decision is handed down, it matters who was president when the justices were appointed. People sometimes react to this by moving the goalposts and claiming the real issue was a failure by Democrats to "codify" Roe v. Wade. I am not sure what "codify" means in this context, and I'm not sure they are either. One thing it does not mean is that congress can pass a law saying "abortion is legal forever." Republicans could easily repeal such a law and it the federal government cannot necessarily prevent states from restricting abortion at the state level. Roe v. Wade was a ruling stating that the constitution guaranteed a right to privacy, which included the right to have an abortion. This prevented abortion restrictions in a way federal law cannot. That doesn't mean passing federal law protecting abortion is a bad idea, but it isn't a foolproof protection. It's fair to argue that the Democratic Party and the left of center generally were complacent about abortion. The form of this complacency was not taking the courts seriously, while the right spent fifty years openly filling the courts with anti-abortion judges.
The last thing that worries me is that this is popping up phrased almost the exact same way all over the place. I am afraid that it is not merely incompetence, but intentional misinformation, that is then repeated by the incompetent who believe it.
I know some will probably dismiss this post as being from a "vote harder" liberal Biden supporter, but whatever your feelings about Biden, the Democratic Party, or the democratic process in the U.S., you should care about the truth. The truth is that Roe v. Wade was overturned by Republican-appointed judges and abortion bans are being enacted by Republican elected officials, and Joe Biden opposes these things. You can do with that information whatever you wish, but you denying it is dishonest.
I’m convinced inquisition is a much better game to play when you decide your inquisitor is illiterate
anders is really up there with castiel in terms of characters nobody can be normal about... thank god i am on the fun side of being a freak
Huh. I'm used to getting my breaking news through SPN memes, but it's never been this one before.
There’s something that’s been bothering me in retrospect now that I’ve played all three Dragon Age games. It pertains to the Mage/Templar conflict, but specifically as it’s portrayed in DA 2 and DAI.
It’s not the ‘both sides’ issue. Yes, I do take issue with that aspect, but it’s been discussed at length already. What I haven’t seen discussed much is that in both games, the narratives essentially gloss over the existence of children. I find this a bit dishonest considering it’s been definitively established that Mage Circles invariably have children in them.
We know that Mages are taken away to circles as children. We’ve also seen Mage children at the Circle Tower in Origins. A major part of Wynne’s backstory involved her getting fatally injured while defending the children who were still trapped in the tower when a horde of abominations was running loose. Anders was twelve years old when the Templars took him, which is a pretty standard backstory for Circle Mages and Apostates alike. So if you decide to side against the Mages, the implication is that you’ll be actively fighting and killing children.
Then there’s the rookie Templars. I’m not sure if there’s a canonically agreed upon age when Templars are typically recruited, but Cullen was supposedly thirteen when he was formally recruited. Then by age eighteen he’d been given his first marching orders. People might not generally consider eighteen to be a child anymore, but that’s still incredibly young.
I understand not wanting to go that dark, but for a game that wants you to make tough decisions about morally complicated issues then I wish it didn’t sanitize something this critical. Glossing over the involvement of children in situations that would actively affect them feels kind of cowardly. DA is one of those franchises that’s all about the consequences of your actions. I think it’s fair to want a more honest picture of those consequences.
Did you know?
Democrats have won the popular vote in seven out of the last eight presidential elections going back to 1992? The only time the GOP has won the popular vote in the last 36 years in a presidential election was in 2004, and it was a pretty narrow margin. This was a wartime election and the first election post-9/11. The Democratic candidate was the unfortunately uninspiring John Kerry, who had been lied about. You know how in politics we say someone has been "swiftboated" when a successful lie is told about them? That term originates with the 2004 election because a bunch of people concocted an elaborate lie about John Kerry's military service. He wasn't super inspiring as a candidate, but that was the worst thing he did. He wasn't a bad guy. He was just running in a very gross, jingoistic time after the worst terror attack in American history, and had a bunch of successful lies told about him to the point where a whole word about a specific kind of lie was invented about it. THIS is the only time since 1988 that the Republican party has won the popular vote. George W. Bush did not win the popular vote in 2000. The Supreme Court ordered that votes stop being counted in Florida and handed the victory to Bush.
Donald Trump has never ever won the popular vote. The electoral college handed him the victory in 2016, less than 15,000 votes across three states decided the election. Hillary Clinton in total won about 3.7 million more votes than Donald Trump. Trump HATES hearing this number. He hates even more that Joe Biden got about 7 million more votes. He hates even more that you bring up the fact that he lost his midterm elections for his party in 2018, badly. And that the "Red Wave" in 2022 did not happen because of backlash at his Supreme Court. Or that in 2023 voters continued to reject his Supreme Court at the polls.
He knows, the Republicans know, that if more people vote, they lose. They don't want small d democracy. They want authoritarianism. They want to suppress it.
So when you get cute about not wanting to vote, you're not doing activism. You're surrendering.
"Biden is funding a literal genocide!"
Yeah - and so will Trump. Like, if you don't vote for Biden, Trump will win, and he will continue to send aid to Israel - in fact, he will likely send MORE aid to Israel. That's the reality of the world we live in.
And, to be honest, any US president will support Israel. Because the USA is Israel's ally. That's how foreign policy works.
So who do you prefer?
Biden, who has helped lgbtq rights, reproductive rights, infrastructure, the environment, lowered medication costs, supported unions, and done MANY good, progressive things,
Or Trump, who we already know is awful. Who we already know will destroy any human rights Biden managed to gain. Who will not help the environment. Who will not help trans people, or immigrants, or women.
Because those are your two choices. And if you think they're the same, you are dangerous to all marginalized people.
There has never been a point in any of our lifetimes where the US wasn't contributing to some atrocity or war crime or SOMETHING somewhere in the world. There just hasn't been.
The president isn't a king, and can't unilaterally impose his will on the country. There is not - and will never be - a candidate who can just wave their hand and only make the Good and Morally Pure Things you want to happen happen. That is not the system we have.
But things can get better, and things can get so much worse.
There is no scenario where refusing to vote and letting Trump win causes FEWER marginalized people to die.