I think it could matter in some cases. Like if there was a local election and I didn’t know the candidates very well but one was endorsed by the NAACP, I would be much more likely to vote for them.

I agree however, that for such large elections where everything is very publicized already, these endorsements don’t do much. However, if it gets one person to vote that’s positive.

deleted by creator

I was going to say I agree with her but I realized I can’t.

She is right it is racist but it is certainly not above Republicans nor Trump to be openly racist.

I couldn’t care less about the D-pad. All that matters is how it feels in my hand and access to the primary controls like joysticks, triggers, and face buttons.

Advanced facial necrosis

deleted by creator

X-Box 360. I have an old official one for my PC. I played Dark Souls with it so it is now ingrained into my body. Also all the years of Halo.

I really dislike the X-Box One controller. Feels too big in my hand and just off.

I fear the day my wired one breaks since they stopped making official wired ones for PC.

Not the part they are upset with. This particular example it’s with welfare. Seeing it as people getting money for not working.

A lot of people also don’t understand the benefits taxes provide as you described but not what I am talking about.

I have been thinking about this as well. I am sure there is some probelm with a spending side tax rather than income. Probably subversion of the tax. Undertable deals, street vendors, etc. With income they make the company track and get their cut before you are able to subvert anything.

Also our economy is very credit based with the use of credit cards. If taxes were all collected at point of sale there might be probelms with defaulting and who gets the money if people don’t pay.

I am not an economist. I am sure someone has thought of it already.

It’s a really hard mindset to break because at it’s surface it make sense. Especially when you focus on fringe cases.

Like I am sure there are people who abuse the system, but it’s not a good life, they don’t make that much off of it. No one is living large off welfare. The “welfare queen” stereotype had been by and large disproven, but has left a lasting effect on people’s opinion.

Personally I rather have a few $ slip through and make sure kids arn’t starving.

A big part of it is the view that the left “gives money away”. Union jobs are typically labor with long hous and their view is that “I work hard for the money I eared and my taxes go to the lazy”.

I think that’s bullshit obviously, but that is a pretty common sentiment from my experience.

Grinding at strip club isn’t illegal, hooker is.

It’s clear you don’t have the same desires as people who go to these things. There isn’t really a point of trying to understand why, especially if you question explanations others give.

Take a step back and realize that dispite it not making sense to you, people are doing it and are enjoying it.

I don’t understand the appeal myself, but it’s not some cosmic secret that needs unraveled.

Woman pretty, woman pay attention to me (maybe), activity gives my brain the happy chemical.

He’s so close! Somehow his racism took him down a weird convoluted path and ended up with gun control.

There is a difference between feasibility hype and adoption hype. The hype about it being possible at all has passed. But the true hype relevant to the graph is when it is implemented in the general economy, outside of labs and research facilities.

Cows naturally produce milk, I am sure there is no unethical practices there.

The F-35 is a stealth aircraft with a radar cross section of a large bird. The joke is the F-35 pilot is “selecting” what large bird their cross-section resembles and represents America.

West coast caves are safer apparently. /s

So I get the idea that companies shouldn’t be slaves to shareholders or the whims of a few people, but would the employees owning the company mean they are shouldering financial risk? Like if my company goes bankrupt I just lose my job, I am not responsible for covering their losses.

Political violence cuts both ways. I don’t think anyone thinks what happens to politicians go against the cartels in Mexico is good or healthy system. For democracy to work we can’t have people constantly fear for their lives. Sure Trump is a terrible human being but I don’t want my candidates living with the same fear. So our only choice is to condem it. Also when bad acting becomes the norm bad actors will thrive. If political assassinations becomes the norm do you think morally justified “good guys” assassin going after Hitlers are going to win/out pace organized crime like what we see in Mexico?

At the end of the day ends don’t justify the means. Violence breeds Violence. In this modern age if we want to create a peaceful society we have to do it peacefully. Violence might be an appealing means to an end and while we might have the moral high ground but they use the same logic to justify their violence.

I read it as “Engineering” and think it still works