Huh. So you're saying there's value in having strong, distinctive perspectives from unique individuals, rather than finding the statistical average across a large body of samples or regarding people as interchangeable commodities? Nope, sorry, can't capture that on a spreadsheet.

1. Trump is not my anything. 2. I am upset with the Democratic Party. I also recognize that they've got AIPAC looming over them, and PAC money is better positioned to throw the election to Trump than y'all are. 3. Still not seeing how sacrificing my country will help Gazans.

As someone said, "Your average Congressperson is the second smartest car dealership owner in their district." So that might have some effect on national politics, too.

Word would get out to whom? "Oh, you know, them." What would end immediately? "Oh, you know, that stuff."

I tried one and didn't get much of a distinctive pecan flavor, but it was nice. Snickers Almond is still my fave.

Okay, but what if it FEELS true? "People who disagree with me are tyrants; freedom is protection from the tyrants."

Wondering if the state lawsuits against the oil and gas industry will end up like the state lawsuits against the tobacco industry.

"We're all used to Israel making war on civilians" is not a reasonable thing to say. I wonder if anyone has examined Middle Eastern politics through the framework of trauma response, because it feels like a lot of hurt people causing hurt. (Not Netanyahu, though; that feels like opportunism.)

If not voting would put a stop to the genocide, then you'd have an argument. As it stands, your pitch is: Sacrifice your country to MAGA grifters and white Christian nationalists, and in exchange, Netanyahu keeps attacking Gazan civilians. And you wonder why that's a hard sell.

How's that gonna work? These guys are squicked out by the mere existence of tampons.