Now tell us how many Heritage Foundations recommendations do the Republicans and Trump take on board! Distancing the Heritage Foundations from them rather undersells the position of one of the most influential public policy organizations particularly within conservative politics.

You know who look like whales? Problem spenders who spend far beyond their means, and are preyed upon by predatory business practices that use psychological manipulation to encourage people to spend as much as as they can. Like, I've literally watched video game developer conference talks where a dev explains in great detail and depth on how to hijack human psychology to milk every last dollar they can. Whales stopped being "those who can afford to spend" a long time ago.

Ah, yes, the "laziness and entitlement" of risking becoming a political prisoner for checks notes not wanting to participate in a plausible genocide. Clearly, political prisoners and genocides have nothing to do with Israel.

Ah, yes, the perennial take of "only those I deem socially acceptable should be allowed at pride". Happy Pride Month, everybody! Remember to leave all the parts of you that make people uncomfortable in the closet!

"The left hates us because we're frog furries" is one of the takes of all time.

The Heritage Foundation is wild, and one of the most significant public policy groups with deep ties to American conservatism. Basically, any crazy policy that the Republican party has taken on as a major party plank in the past 50 years has a distressing high chance of having its roots in Heritage's recommendations.

For example, in 1981:

Among the 2,000 Heritage policy recommendations, approximately 60% of them were implemented or initiated by the end of Reagan's first year in office.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation

What an absolutely deranged claim. What is it that "SJWs" are advocating for that you think is invalid? Because if it's something along the lines of "they should stop advocating for an oppressed group of people" you should really consider what it means to try to build political power. Unless you're going for "if we give the billionaires more stuff, maybe they'll let us have medical care, as a treat."

Sounds like a reason for Biden to set a whole bunch of legal precedent while he's still president.

The UAW struck after the railroad strike. And got Biden to personally come down to ask the what he could do to secure their vote. Both happened while Biden was in office. What are you even saying about why the railroad strike failed?

Tell me you don't know queer subcultures without telling me you don't know queer subcultures. Would you like to complain about drag shows while you're at it? I hear it is very in vogue at the moment.

You mean the ones they bombed the following day? They followed evacuation orders. An Israeli airstrike killed them the next day.

"We're in the shit now" - the shit, noun, bad

Yeah, given how much Trump and Republicans lean on Heritage, and Trump has been talking about doing some "light" tyranny on day 1, it's ridiculous to attempt to write off the Heritage Foundations' plan to Christian Fascism.

First-Past-the-Post voting makes this shit suck so hard. Not only does voting third party reduce the threshold for the rest of the field and in particular the party I definitely don't want in power, that party is most incentivised to prop up my third party candidate. They get to count my vote as win, and with the stakes as high as they are even losing an election cycle means people I care about get seriously hurt.

Weird, seems like it's been the repeated denial of progressive issues while courting further and further right that has cost the Democrats the four of the past seven elections, no matter how much we beg for the slightest crumb of civil rights.

I remember how much we had to fight Democrats to get Gay Marriage and LGBT rights in general, and have seen how far they have fled from unions and healthcare. And I say this as someone who has actually done phone banking for the Dems, and has been telling people who are personally invested in what happens to people in Palestine that Harris is the best option on the ballot.

But, yeah, I guess individual voters are the best people to blame, and complaining that people cared enough about an issue to get out and do political action are the problem, and we should smugly congratulate ourselves that they should have just shut up and got with the program, their friends and family members be damned.

If you look back at panel 2, there's a potential third one to research

The prices for fixed costs have gone up, too. People need a place to live, the health to keep living, and ways of ensuring access to both, and the costs of all of those have gone up as well. A not insignificant chuck of people don't have discretionary spending to cut (not to mention how stressful living paycheck-to-paycheck on the bare essentials can be). Yes, it is certainly worth reevaluating budgets and determining where expenses can be lowered, but those margins have been getting thinner for a long while.

"Y'all" like you ain't part of the discourse. Don't just complain, educate. What's obvious to you is novel to someone, and you not getting organized with your narrative is just waiting for someone organized to present theirs instead.

For whatever reason, when I'm hearing about Dems in the swing state I'm in, I'm hardly ever hearing why you should be excited to vote for the Dem candidate, but instead why the Rep candidate is so awful that you simply must vote Dem to stop them. Like, there was about a week(?) that Harris and Walz seemed to be coming out of the gate going "we're gonna be so awesome, don't even worry about the weirdos on the other side", but then it became "please, it is of Vital Importance you do not vote for Trump, we promise Harris will be better than him", and I just don't understand why they changed.

Actually, the recent record turnouts should really be getting you to pay attention to how the elections are structured. It turns out, the way districts and the electoral college are organized means that where you get out the vote matters. Telling people to vote harder doesn't make those systemic obstacles go away.