Yeah, lowering taxes for the rich and increasing taxes for the rich are really just two sides of the same coin! Privatisation? Nationalization? Potato potahto! Dumbest shit I’ve heard all night, and I listen to myself when I talk.

We’re talking about democrats here. They’re a firmly right wing party.

You misunderstand their incentives. They’re beholden to the billionaires, not to you.

They’re called the apartheid defense league for a reason

A community of adherents of a political ideology which is fringe and marginal, and at the same time responsible for Trump’s victory. Very dangerous individuals.

Infighting would imply harris is a part of the left. She’s comfortably right wing by any measure. And there’s nothing wrong with that, it’s a valid political stance to take (not mine, but again, this is fine). Calling leftists disagreeing with harris leftist infighting is like calling the cold war leftist infighting.

No, the democrats will embrace transphobia the next election cycle so as to unsuccessfully court the right and alienate the left (a strategy which netted them a solid 1 out of the past three elections, which is 1 more than Jill Stein). This cycle they went after undocumented immigrants.

In general, I think making the right to vote conditional on some sort of intellectual test (which raising the voting age is, in some sense) suffers from at least three problems:

Firstly, my preference for democracy does not just stem from efficacy, but also from a moral angle. People should have a say in how their lives are run, even if they don’t satisfy someone’s criterion for intellectual eligibility.

Secondly, even from an efficacy angle there’s problems with it, and we have historical examples of this. Literacy tests have been used around the globe to effectively bar minorities from voting. E.g. black people in the United States, and indigenous peoples in Latin America. As a result, the needs of those populations were ignored, which I would consider a failure in efficacy.

And finally, literacy is highly subjective. Maybe today the government comes up with a test that you agree with (age 26 and up), but maybe a future government adjusts the test to a point where you disagree (only after retirement, after you’ve lived to see most aspects of life, and are therefore most fit to intelligently cast your vote).

Does this mean I believe in extending suffrage to five year olds? No. I believe there’s a balance to strike, and it’s not a black and white issue. But as the history of literacy tests shows, this is an area to tread incredibly carefully, and I get why people were so quick to downvote you.

Regarding the first one, it really helps to read the case South Africa filed with the ICJ. It’s only about 80 pages, but it’s filled to the brim with evidence of “super evil battle plans” as you call them. You should really inform yourself on this conflict, it’s pretty significant.

What’s agile?

“I’m gonna stop using GNU/Linux because I don’t like Richard Stallman”

It’s valid to dislike the devs (I disagree, I’ve found them nothing but courteous, and have read their posts with interest), but it’s ridiculous to exclude their software from this list.