In 1992, Ross Perot got about 20% of the popular vote as a third party candidate. How did that "help get away from a 2 party system"? That's not a rhetorical question, I'm curious.

What "lesson" do you think the DNC learned in 2016?

What's your plan to institute ranked voice voting & national popular vote?

This would be a much better policy than OP's "over 10", since 82% of investment home purchases in Q2 2023 were to those with 9 or fewer houses. Investment purchases made up about 24% of all home purchases.

Democrats consistently support & pass RCV, while Republicans repeal & ban it. If you want RCV, you need to support Dems in the meantime.

Wrong. Democrats consistently support & pass RCV, while Republicans repeal & ban it. If you want RCV, you need to support Dems in the meantime.

Democrats consistently support & pass RCV, while Republicans repeal & ban it. If you want RCV, you need to support Dems in the meantime.

Democrats pushed through RCV in all these states and North Carolina, before Republicans repealed it. If you want RCV, if you want the option of a viable third choice, you need to vote Democrat in the meantime.

Bullshit.

Yeah, you gotta reframe it. "Don't you miss when people used more traditional ways to get around? Give me a horse or a bicycle any day".

They will agree to fucking anything if you preface it as "traditional"

Homosexuality has been observed in species including birds, fish, insects, and over 1500 species of mammals.

Blowjobs don't make babies, and homophobia is only observed in one species. Who's a freak of nature now? Checkmate heteros!

This was a very hyperbolic response, so let’s clarify a few things:

1. Not all investments are equal, and saying some thing should be ineligible to invest in for profit-seeking is not at all the same as saying Death to Capitalism, as you seem to imply. My imaginary friend is starting a landscaping business & is asking for an initial investment in exchange for a return of profits. That is not the same as investing in a fossil fuel company that’s directly contributing to the destruction of the planet. That is not the same as investing in a sanctioned Russian company responsible for war crimes. That is not the same as seeking to maximize profit off of a resource people need to survive.

2. As I said, I’m not advocating for all investments to be abolished. But digging into retirees a little more- you’re right, many retirees can’t work anymore. Also, many retirees don’t have enough resources to simply passively profit off of owning capital. Investing doesn’t help those people, does it? In fact the opposite- capital-owners seeking to maximize profit drive up the price of essential goods that retirees need to live. Like rent! Overall our government should be helping all retirees live to a base standard level of care.

3. Not all methods of profiting from an investment are moral or should be allowed. Price gouging is a thing. A hurricane is approaching the coast, and evacuees need to leave, or they will die. Gas stations jack up the price of fuel to maximize profit regardless of the harm it will do to the people. That should not be allowed. Right now, there is a housing crisis. Investors should not be allowed to maximize profit at the cost of harming entire generations of Americans.

Great, so you understand now that sexual violence is actually a widespread problem & not an irrational fear. Glad to have helped educate.

From NSVRC:

“Nearly 1 in 5 women (18.3%) and 1 in 71 men (1.4%) in the United States have been raped at some time in their lives, including completed forced penetration, attempted forced penetration, or alcohol/drug facilitated completed penetration.

An estimated 13% of women and 6% of men have experienced sexual coercion in their lifetime (i.e., unwanted sexual penetration after being pressured in a nonphysical way); and 27.2% of women and 11.7% of men have experienced unwanted sexual contact.

I'm not saying they should run it as a charity, I'm saying they shouldn't be allowed to own it passively. You say "build a credit score, income, and down payment" as if those things aren't handed to the upper class on a silver platter. If a trust fund baby decides to buy a house for "passive income" they will have done absolutely ZERO work for that money.

Ok doomer. That's entirely false. I provided sources showing, as I said, that Dems support RCV and GOP does not. Tell me: which party instituted RCV in North Carolina? And which party repealed it under the guise of "voter security"?

I don't think that really answers my question. Saying "there is always a recession after an inversion" is incredibly vague. The only scenario that wouldn't happen is if we somehow fixed the economy perfectly & never had a recession every again ever. But if a recession happens 100 years after an inversion, it's farfetched to say the inversion predicted it. Where's the line?

What political movements paint masculinity as evil?

Bullshit. This queer begs to fucking differ.

exercise more

X to doubt

passive income steam

This part is my problem. Some people don't want, or aren't cut out to maintain a property of their own, so renting is theoretically a good deal for them. And the person doing the work of maintaining a property deserves to be compensated for that work.

But wtf is a passive income steam? It sounds like the landlord is hiring someone else to actually do the work, and then charging the renter enough to cover the property manager and profit the landlord. In which case, the landlord is doing exactly nothing to earn that money.

3rd parties in the US are impossible while we still have first past the post voting. One party has consistently been the one to support & pass RCV, while the other has consistently repealed & banned it. Guess which is which?

If you want 3rd parties to be a viable option, you need to vote Democrats. And more on the ground activism, I agree with you there