I’m going to need you to remove this comment ASAP as possible.

Ok deal, but that means we need to change the equality operator to 👉👈

cries in PHP

This data does not include digital sales, so it’s essentially useless. Not saying MW3 is likely or deserves to be higher, but this article is misleading.

Taco Bell is far from being ethnically offensive, because it is far from being representative of Mexican food.

You’re right, Taco Bell is way better.

(just kidding pls no hate)

… there is a ton of evidence pointing to this being the truth at this point. I understand being pro-palestine, but continuing to deny this is essentially just pro-Hamas rhetoric at this point.

People like that are shitty. I’m sorry you have to deal with that at all.

I get your point, but I don’t think it applies to this specific situation. My point is that I don’t believe that anyone from the wealthy or ruling class can genuinely advocate for people within the working class. That would have a direct negative impact on their own self interests. I can be straight, and still advocate for LGBTQ rights without that having a negative impact on me.

I am not spewing bullshit propaganda, I was mistaken and already realized and admitted that well before you made this comment.

I’m wary of polling in general (see almost every poll leading up to the 2016 election), but I agree that is likely the case. However, the Democratic base is still not big enough to win elections without drawing from moderates who could swing either way.

I’m really glad you challenged me on my view of her being privileged! I had heard that she attended either Yale or Harvard and had the entirety of her education funded by her family, but after looking into it that’s clearly not true. I either fell for misinformation, or misattributed something I heard about a different politician to her. Either way, I was wrong.

When I say she has zero risk, what I mean is that she knows her progressive views will resonate with the vast majority of her constituents. But if she were to run for Senate or President, that would no longer be the case.

As for who I would rather see run for president, the answer is nobody. I can’t think of a single public figure or politician who I actually trust. I’m pretty cynical about politics at this point, but I truly think everybody involved in politics is self serving and corrupt.

I mean, at that time he wasn’t a criminal (at least publicly, we all know in hindsight he definitely was), but I honestly think the only reason Trump won was because he was running against such a hated person. Democrats made a massive misstep in rallying behind Hillary in that election, just like republicans are making a mistake rallying behind Trump in 2024.

But, that doesn’t mean that the moderate voter base isn’t important. That was the exception to the rule in my opinion.

Honestly, I don’t really like AOC. I agree with her a lot of the time, but I find her extremely disingenuous. How can you truly fight for the working class when you lived a life of extreme privilege? (EDIT: I was wrong about this. I either feel for misinformation, or misattributed something I heard about a different politician to her. Either way I was wrong.) She can get away with saying extreme things, because there’s zero risk for her. She has no actual power to act on what she says, and she knows her voter base will eat it up. That would change if she were to make a serious bid for the presidency, and I think like every politician she would compromise her “values” for more power in an instant.

AOC would not be a serious contender at all. She’s way too extreme. Nobody can win without centrist support at this point, and AOC is not capable of winning that.

Not to mention the hurdle of the first woman president on top of that. Not saying I agree with that being a hurdle of course, but in reality it is.

Sure, and that worked when money was a tangible asset rather than a speculative one. It really doesn’t apply in modern times when most money can’t be physically taken.

But you still haven’t refuted my main point. If killing them just creates new billionaires, what does that actually achieve?

Ok? Then maybe do that without the murder part??? If you have actual ideas of how to change the system, then do it?

Nice red herring. The argument was that demanding a billionaire give up all of their money and live on a relatively small salary is absurd, and nothing you said refutes that.

I’m sorry, but this point of view is so brain-dead to me. What do you think happens when a billionaire dies? The money magically disappears? It’s redistributed to the masses? No, it’s inherited by relatives. Killing billionaires only creates different billionaires. How about we use our brains and come up with actual solutions rather than parroting brain-dead bullshit?

I just threaten to make them into a stew every time they claw my furniture. It doesn’t stop them, but it makes me feel better about it 😂

No

I will downvote every single one of your posts. This is pathetic.