I’m rapidly coming to the conclusion that people who cannot be bothered to vote shouldn’t really count.

Trump has refused to say what he’ll do because threatening Social Security during an election would cost him a lot of votes from seniors. On the other hand, now that he has won, Republicans have started freely admitting that Project 2025 is the plan for this administration. Project 2025 has this to say about Social Security.

Project 2025’s 900-page Mandate for Leadership fails to propose any solutions for Social Security and says, on page 710, that its proposals for the program could not be “covered here in depth.” Notably, that line was co-authored by economist Stephen Moore, who has advocated to slash and privatize Social Security, once calling it a “Ponzi scheme” and encouraging students to burn their Social Security cards. Kevin Roberts, the president of the Heritage Foundation, has also gone on record to say the Mandate for Leadership manifesto is just the basis of their plan and “there are parts of the plan that we will not share with the left.” Last month, his organization called for raising the retirement age, and the author of that analysis, Rachel Greszler, is listed as a Project 2025 contributor.

I would hazard to guess that the incoming administration will, at the very least, try to raise the Full Retirement Age to 69. I will be pleasantly shocked if they don’t try to privatize it as well.

You better watch your mouth or he’ll send Seal Team 6 to delete your ass. It’ll be an official act so it won’t be illegal for him to do so.

Have you considered listening to the pretty extensive explanations they’ve given in this comments section as to why?

I was just entertaining a notion as I lack the skills to do an analysis like you did.

As for reading the other comments here, I have read them now, and they are interesting, but when I first commented, there were no other comments here and the post stood at -3.

The same people who are downvoting you, I guess. I’m not really sure what the objection is but they are very consistent. I’ve actually wondered if someone set up some bots to downvote all the MBFC bot posts for some reason.

deleted by creator

Is Caitlyn Jenner refusing to respect other people’s pronouns/names or used the issue as a political weapon? As far as I know, her only position is that people should relax about cases of accidentally misgendering people.

Nikki Haley, on the other hand, has made numerous public statements attacking the use of people’s chosen pronouns. So yes, I feel fine attacking her on the issue because she has chosen it as a weapon against others.

Sauce for the goose, my friend. Going high while our opponents go low is why this nation is in the state it is right now. If they chose to wrestle in the muck rather than abide by civilized rules, then I’m more than content to get dirty and fight them there if that serves me best. I see no reason to cede them any advantage out of an outmoded sense of fair play.

No, you’re the one supporting the side whose potential VP candidate wrote “Finish them” on a piece of artillery to be used in the genocide that you pretend to be against, because she rightly believes their base will eat it up and doing so will help her get elected.

And work to undermine NATO.

*smacks self in forehead*

Duh, that’s exactly what he’s trying to do here, isn’t it?

Gym has a lot of free time. Are there no rapists to cover up for?

Ah, playground bullies flexing the only way they know how. Yes, I’ve been a victim of such shenanigans over the years.

I’m not entirely sure why you’re being so heavily down-voted. It’s clear that women in the USA do not have a guaranteed right to govern their own bodies. A constitutional amendment guaranteeing such a right to everyone is very much needed, not only due to the abortion issue, but also situations like the one in Colorado where a man died because the cops told an EMT to inject him with ketamine against his will.

Secondly, you are absolutely right about slavery. Slavers IS still legal in the USA under the 13th Amendment which says, in part:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Likely enough, I’m afraid. For good or ill, many on the left have learned their lesson and armed themselves. If the 2024 election isn’t a blow out for the Democrats, and the Red-hats decide on violence again, it could be a bloodbath.

Not to mention the ones that just lie. No one will ever know so they do it just to throw a wrench in the machine. Someone said the other day, “We are all just poltergeists in meat suits.”

Yeah, they really do think it’s great.

Call and write your state legislatures. Try to get friends and family to do the same. If you know anyone in local TV, radio, or print media, you can try to get them to report on it. You could also write a letter to the editor of local papers. Join local social media groups and post about.

Since it’s a modified Bible that includes “copies of the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and the Pledge of Allegiance, as well as a handwritten chorus of the famous Greenwood song,” maybe it’s this one.

“Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.” (Deut. 4:2.)

Yep, that’s right, Dishonest Don is hawking blasphemous Bibles to the rubes.

There are plenty, including myself, that feel the Electoral College is indeed the problem. Proportional allocation would be a step in the right direction, true, but it doesn’t address the larger issue that the number of electoral votes a state gets is not equally proportional to its population. This is a big problem.

In 2016, Wyoming cast 255,849 popular votes and California cast 14,181,595. Wyoming has three electoral votes and California has fifty-five votes, meaning Wyoming cast one electoral vote for every 85,283 voters while California cast one electoral vote for every 257,847 voters. In other words, a voter in Wyoming is over three times more influential than a voter in California. It’s worth noting that this statistic considers actual votes cast in 2016, rather than all registered voters. Many voters in large states such as California are dissuaded from voting, as the Electoral College dilutes their votes.

By the way, not all states are winner take all. Maine and Nebraska use systems of allocation that can split their electoral votes between candidates.

Edit to add: Here is the real solution to the Electoral College issue. The Interstate National Vote Compact Agreement. Once enough states have passed this law to add up to 270 Electoral votes, then all of those states will allocate all their votes to the winner of the national popular vote.

Under the National Popular Vote law, no voter will have their vote cancelled out at the state-level because their choice differed from majority sentiment in their state. Instead, every voter’s vote will be added directly into the national count for the candidate of their choice. This will ensure that every voter, in every state, will be politically relevant in every presidential election—regardless of where they live.

The National Popular Vote law is a constitutionally conservative, state-based approach that retains the power of the states to control how the President is elected and retains the Electoral College. National Popular Vote has been enacted by 16 states and the District of Columbia, including 4 small states (DE, HI, RI, VT), 9 medium-sized states (CO, CT, MD, MA, MN, NJ, NM, OR, WA), and 3 big states (CA, IL, NY). These jurisdictions have 205 of the 270 electoral votes needed to activate the law.

The bill has also passed one legislative chamber in 8 states with 78 electoral votes (AR, AZ, ME, MI, NC, NV, OK, VA), including the Republican-controlled Arizona House and Oklahoma Senate. It has passed both houses of Maine and Nevada at various times, and is endorsed by 3,705 state legislators.