I can't tell if you are actually this clueless or just disingenuous.

And if and when it gets passed, the conservative scotus, which has constantly ruled in favor of states rights being nearly unlimited and that precedent or other writings about the cotus don't count, will buck both these trends and vote that this violates the cotus based on some obscure writing by some founding father.

What does voting for someone do if not show support for them? In a democracy it's the ultimate form of support.

She is telling the world that she thinks Harris is the best choice to vote for in this election. It's 100% an endorsement. Literally by definition. People seem to be confusing endorsing someone to marrying yourself to all of their views.

Don't be so proud of your ignorance. Just look it up.

Except, by definition, she is endorsing Harris by publicly supporting her candidacy. Endorse doesn't mean you agree with everything they stand for, but if you are publicly saying who you are voting for, that's an endorsement.

I live in a small suburb right outside of a major us city.

To the nearest convenience store: .6 km To the nearest chain supermarket: .9 km To the bus stop: .3km To the nearest park: 1.0km To the nearest big supermarket: .9km To the nearest library: 1.2km To the nearest train station: .6km Straight-line distance to big Ben: 5708 km

You certainly got me on big Ben distance.

But this is why the question is kind of silly. America is a huge, diverse place. When I lived in NYC, I was probably closer to everything than you. Where I grew up in an almost rural area, the closest thing was over 5km away. And this isn't even all that bad because I had a friend who grew up in an unincorporated area where she had to drive 30min just to get her mail.

I don't care about what she says, but effectively telling her to "shut up and dribble" is an incredibly dumb take.

The only issue that really matters to me is climate change. Or maybe plastic.

But this is the same as the picture of the statue of liberty that is used to "debunk" sea level rise by showing the level at the same height, despite being taken 100 years apart. Were they taken at the same tide? Same time of year? Is there any other factor at play here?

This is a "shoe is on the other foot" moment, and we should be as skeptical of that which supports our beliefs as we are of that which contradicts it. Maybe especially so because confirmation bias is a hell of a drug.

What caused you to wake up?

When you've convinced yourself of "muh both sides" everything that happens just further confirms it. Like if Trump were to end up behind bars. . .do you think this poster would all of a sudden realize that both sides are not the same? Nope. They would just convince themselves that Trump was actually an outsider. . .and then probably pretend that they maintained this position the whole time.

Yeah but I sold myself on both sides being the same side and I've been pushing it so hard for so long that I'm absolutely married to the idea and no amount of evidence will convince me otherwise.